Talk:Aerial bomb

Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Fuze#Aerial bomb fuze|pistol-type detonating mechanism]] The anchor (#Aerial bomb fuze) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

This refers to the object, as a subset of a bomb, and not the act or event, or general description. This is not a disambiguation.
This is an initial stub of course, so it can be filled with mainly technical details, and answers to questions like "Can a machine gun detonate an aerial bomb", "How to aerial bombs work", and "why they do not explode if you hit it with a hammer". (PS, I though I had right spelling of Aerial when I first created it. OOPS!) --Flightsoffancy (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About: "but Italy argued that this ban did not extend to airplanes."

Hello! I've some doubts about this passage: The dropping of bombs from balloons had been outlawed by the Hague Convention of 1899, but Italy argued that this ban did not extend to airplanes.[1] Yes, this passage has a reference: Grant, R.G. (2004). Flight - 100 Years of Aviation. Dorling-Kindersley Limited. pp. p. 59. ISBN 1-4503-0575-4 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum. But there are some facts that sentence inaccurate. Let me explain:

The First Hague convention had a declaration about prohibit, for a term of five years, the launching of projectiles and explosives from balloons, or by other new methods of a similar nature. See [1] and also this declaration was ratified by all the Great Powers, see [2]. This declaration was about balloons, but used also the words or by other new methods of a similar nature, probably to include airships and other "new methods". However in 1906 this moratorium was expired.
In the Second Hague convention, was tried to "extend" the old decalration, but, in pratically, it remained only a purpose. Only among the great Powers, only by United Kingdom, United States of America and Austria-Hungary [3]. Also Austria-Hungary never ratified it. Only the Article 25, The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited., with the words "whatever means" was a limitation to aerial bombing. For example, when a zeppelin bombed Antwerp for the first time in August 1914, the Belgium's protest was referred about Article 25 "Declares Zeppelin Attack Violated Fourth Convention of The Hague, and not to the declaration XIV, ratified by Belgium, but not by German Empire.
So, it seems strange that in 1911, was made a sentence like: "The dropping of bombs from balloons had been outlawed by the Hague Convention of 1899,
- The prohibition of Hague Convention of 1899 was expired.
- Only UK and USA that signed the extension can made a similar protest
- But it's seemsstrange that "Italy argued that this ban did not extend to airplanes", due the old, expired, declaration referred also to "other new methods of a similar nature"; and the new declaration wasn't almost recongnized in Europe.

I think that is better to clarify the situation of international law in that sentence. For the moment I wait for further suggestions/opinions. In italian books, I not found yet any evidence of this controversy. For someone is possible to check the original sentence in the Grant's book? Bye! --Il palazzo (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHY DO BOMBS WHISTLE WHEN THEY FELL?

I think many people coming to this page would like to know the answer to this question, could somebody please add it to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.176.239.187 (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because they can't sing. - BilCat (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aerial 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]