From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Take a look at the picture text. It says "ordinance" - not ordnance, which is the correct word.--JRed July 7, 2005 16:32 (UTC)

Does anyone know who so very rudely put the farting comment in the first sentence? I edited it out. Secos5 17:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Correction: IP address was responsible. Secos5 17:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Bomb Effects[edit]

As explosive events are complex phenomena, it seemed appropriate to include a brief review of the physics with links outward to the relevant science. I took what I think is a good pass at it, working on assembling several additional cites. Cardigan379

Stylized graphic[edit]

What is the origin of the familiar stylized graphic of a black ball with a wick? [1], for example. — Omegatron 01:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what the first hand grenades were. Kafziel 17:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Bomb guidance[edit]

There should be a section (at least) on the guidance of dropped bombs and especially modern methods, e.g. laser-guided or "smart" bombs. There are even better targeting methods available today.

Sorry, missed link to Precision-guided munition... -Wfaxon 08:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone ever tried outfitting artillery shells with advanced bomb-like guidance, with targeting done by spotter planes? Without ordnance the planes can stick around longer and artillery shells are supposedly faster even than missles. -Wfaxon 00:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that artillery shells quite qualify as bombs, but to answer your question there are smart artillary shells. It is called Excaliber and they are used by the United States military. They cost nearly one million dollars a piece but are extremely accurate and useful when air support is not availible. If you wish to learn more here is a link.Whodoesntlovemonkeys (talk)


Can someone please add a history section? -- Added a small cross-ref to the Wall Street bombing incident, working on a more thorough-but-concise listing with no propaganda as noted below =) I have some very good ref material on the subject and should be able to add some good content. Cardigan379

Can someone please add a history section that's not anti-Japanese propaganda? Japanese air attacks against Chongquing are repeatedly condemned as atrocities and mass murder when they caused something like half the number of casualties over -four years- as the RAF inflicted (conservatively) in two days over Dresden. More people in Chongquing probably died from traffic accidents. Kensai Max 15:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The "bombing" section, on reflection, doesn't belong in an encyclopedic page about the explosive devices themselves, especially given that it largely deals with strategic bombardment from the air and not other uses of explosives in warfare for... just about everything. A link to Strategic Bombing would be more appropriate. I'm deleting the section and adding the link under "see also". Kensai Max 18:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • How can this article be a part of the Military History Project??? Where is the history? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 02:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


The pronunciation of the word was added which is harmless and completely intelligible, and was considered vandalism. Is pronunciation considered vandalism?

Hey there. I reverted the post in question for a few different reasons:

1. There was no edit summary, and at a quick glance appears to be jibberish.
2. It was not written in a standard pronunciation form, but in IPA phoenetics (which is less commonly used these days).
3. I did not believe that a phoenetical pronunciation was needed for a simple, common four letter word.
4. The author that added the phoenetics to the article had four previous warnings issued by other editors and bots, therefore by common sense, the user's change appeared to be nonsense also.

Chrisch 03:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


I was wondering why Attentat redirects here but hten is not referred to? An Attentat does not have to involve a bomb, so although it might involve a bomb, the link is a little tenuous. If someone knows the resaon for the original redirection can they explain? Thanks

Andrew Riddles 01:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Concrete bomb[edit]

Perhaps someone could have a look at the following new addition, which I just removed from the article. Spelling and redlinking aside, I'm not sure what the point of the text is. -- Ec5618 14:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A concrete bomb is a bomb without any explosives. They are besicly chunks of concrete weighing 227, 454 or 908 kg (500, 1000 or 2000 pounds). The advantage is that they theoreticly can knock out a target without an explotion, without chrapnel and with less collateral damage.[2]

Watch for Vandalism[edit]

I just changed a section of vandalism, we should be watching this article more often. Alec92 22:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Concrete Bomb Response[edit]

Yeap, what the person was trying to explain is almost correct. The Air Force is using BDU-50 (Mk 82 Intert Bomb, 500#) and BDU-56 (Mk 84 Intert Bomb, 2000#) to take out targets with no coladderal damage. The Bombs are forged steel bombs filled with Concrete instead of explosives. There is no Mk 83 (1000#) version of the inert bomb (concrete bomb). (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the decription of what a bomb is on the page you will see that a concrete bomb dose not fit the decription and should therefore not be placed in the article. Incredibleman007 (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. While the concrete "bomb" may not fit the standard definition of a bomb, they are called bombs in common usage so deserve a mention. They are certainly notable, and one looking for information about them would logically look in this article.Theseeker4 (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Origin of cartoon bombs[edit]

What's the origin of those cartoon bombs. Those black balls with a fuse coming out of them? I heard they were based on old Spanish grenades. (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

They're based on explosive cannonballs (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to see a mention of these explosive cannonballs in this article, perhaps in a "History" section. Their prevalence in Western animation makes their cultural impact more enduring than their actual military use, it seems. --Rogermw (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I SVG-ised the diagram - Can somebody replace the JPG[edit]

Hi I'm having troubles replacing the current diagram of the timebomb with my new SVG version.

If somebody could help that would be grand, thanks.

Will —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillT.Net (talkcontribs) 21:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism removed[edit]

I just corrected some vandalism that seems to have been there for some time.

In the first paragraph I have replaced where it had said "intestinal material" with "explosive material"... text which I verified was in an earlier version of the page.

I'm posting annonymously because I'm at work and really shouldn't be here anyway.

Nogdenut —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

List of bombs[edit]

If anyone is interested, the article List of bombs should either be merged here or re-worked so that it has some value. Pichpich (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

more sources needed[edit]

I put a note up in the article for more sources. There are many questionable claims made in the article and these need sources to back them up. For example, the concept that a bomb must have an exothermic chemical reaction - I've never come across this criterion before for classifying bombs. As far as I was aware, a bomb is basically anything made to cause destruction when it explodes. Grenades etc are types of bomb, as is a nuclear bomb. The article also needs to explain (with sources) how "improvised explosive devices" are different to bombs. It would also be good to talk about saboteurs, modern suicide bombers, the invention of dynamite, ... Owen214 (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


Should bomb dispenser link here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


I found this article on "Bomb" to be well-written and thought out with the proper attention also paid to significant topics that need to be understood simultaneously with the understanding of the bomb. However, I feel that there are too many broad general definitions for a variety of terms and that there are no real intimate information which can help tremendously in further knowledge of this topic. The idea to delve into one specific area of this article could help this become more informative and more interesting and useful to its readers. The sources are complete and credible, but again, there are not that many of them, which shows that there is still a lot of information that can be gained on the bomb. The illustrations go well with this article because it shows a few different types of bombs, an internal diagram of how a bomb functions and the actual deployment of the device. There could definitely be more pictures and diagrams because bombs are very complicated and there are so many different types of bombs that have been made and used in the world. I wish there was a history section on the bomb and the time periods for what bombs were used when and the developing of the technology of the bomb. These are very important components for having anyone trying to understand a term and this could make this article more credible and authoritative. I do notice that it is a serious website, and there are no thoughtless reports that have been made and that everything included has been looked up and confirmed credible. I think that this wikipedia article is comparable to that of an encyclopedia edition because it does a good job on covering the basics of the broad term of a bomb. It also links out and mentions important terms and ideas with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-10scypen (talkcontribs) 01:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Too Many Articles[edit]

As far as I can tell, this article covers two significantly different topics:

Both of which already have an article (3 in the case of aerial bombs!), and it seems to me that the information in this page woud be better moved to the appropirate article and this page turned into a disambiguation page, or split into two parts and the above articles moved into here. Jellyfish dave (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

First sentence[edit]

"A bomb is any of a range (short or long distance) of explosive weapons..." - just what kind of sense does "(short or long distance)" make in this context? The "range" in question refers neither to the distance over which a bomb is deployed nor to the radius of its effect. The term "range" is used here in the sense of "variety, plurality". Is there any reason to uphold this infelicitous phrasing?--Humphrey20020 (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No reason at all. I've removed it. Rojomoke (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

High Level of IP Vandalism - Semi-Protection needed?[edit]

I have noticed extremely high level of IP vandalism on this page. Since there are many people who just type "Bomb" into the search box and press Enter, shouldn't this page be protected? ★ Oliverlyc ★ ✈✈✈ Pop me a message! 01:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


This article really needs a history section, imo (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Inert bombs and concrete bombs[edit]

First thoughts[edit]

Hi all. I'm planning additions to the article, to include these 2 types of bomb that one reads about. I'm aware that concrete bombs have been discussed in at least 2 sections already on this talk page. I feel that both inert and concrete (though they may be one and the same - I know nothing about the subject) should be somewhere on Wikipedia Indeed, I came to WP to find out what inert bombs are, having read about them today on BBC news re Australia.

There's probably insufficient scope for either of them having their own articles - certainly at this stage. So instead, I feel they should go into this article, somehow. Once I've added them, of course other editors may wish to change the format. I would, however, recommend keeping any new subsection names &/or bold text, as these will probably be the targets of redirects which I will soon create.

Further rational for having them on WP is that:

Surely it's best for WP to describe things it refers to - hence my changes. Military experts will doubtless expand the information in the course of time. Happy to discuss further, here, naturally. Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Second thoughts[edit]

I am now better-informed.

It transpires that there _was_ already a concrete bomb article, and inert bombs are effectively described in inert#Munitions. So, I've created inert bomb as a redirect to there.

This means that:

  • My changes to this Bomb#Types section are actually redundant. Please remove them if you feel strongly - although I still feel they serve some use.
  • What I said earlier (about not removing bold text etc. as things point here) no longer applies. All such matters are handled independently of this article.

Trafford09 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Automatic archiving[edit]

Per WP:ARCHIVE, I'm planning on setting up automatic archiving of this page using MiszaBot II.

I'll use the following settings:

| algo           = old(56d)
| archive        = Talk:Bomb/Archive %(counter)d
| counter        = 1
| maxarchivesize = 70K
| archiveheader  = {{talk archive navigation|noredlinks=y}}

Any objections?

me_and 14:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Good on you. Great idea, but maybe 365 days = better?
Good of you to ask, though I'm sure you needn't have. Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
From User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo: "Before setting up automatic archiving on an article's talk page, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there." So that's what I'm doing :)
Entirely happy with 365 days. I'll give things a day or two more to see if anyone else weighs in, and set it up then if nobody does.
me_and 11:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)