Talk:Blockbuster bomb

The article atm: "The term Blockbuster was originally a name coined by the press and referred to a bomb which had enough explosive power to destroy an entire city block." I'm not sure that's accurate. I believe the term block referred to a tower block or 'block of flats', ie a single building rather than a neighbourhood. Hakluyt bean (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

eg here. When you think about it if the first "block buster" bombs could have destroyed a 'city block' whole cities would have been flattened in short order. The meaning presumably was single large building or block (row) of houses. Hakluyt bean (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

You might be reading too much into a name, especially one purported to be the product of the wartime press. What a blockbuster was actually capable of doing is irrelevant to the creation of a nickname.--172.190.128.79 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I would like to see a citation demonstrating this "city block" meaning. Whilst not implausible, I find it unlikely: Blockbuster bombs were British, and as British cities are not built on a grid system the term "city block" is not a term commonly used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.35.235 (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am an early boomer, and back during the '50s I was told by my mother that blockbuster bombs were capable of blowing up an entire city block. (No, I don't remember why I asked her, but I'd probably heard the term in an old movie on TV.) This anecdote doesn't prove anything, of course, but it does demonstrate that at least some people thought that they were that powerful. JDZeff (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I concur that "block" is common parlance in Britain to refer to a large building (block of flats, factory block, etc. Even the buildings at my school were simply named "Block 1, Block 2 and so on.) The opening paragraph would be more accurate if it referred to "entire buildings" rather than "city blocks" (a phrase unfamiliar to most speakers of British English.) Endeleus (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

A news report in German of a 4000 lb 'Cookie' being detonated in Munich recently because it was too dangerous to move it; [1]

nonsense. Wasn't a cookie, but 250 kg. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

... and one in English about the one discovered in Koblenz: [2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The bit on a Blockbuster found near Koblenz, Germany, is accompanied by a photo purporting to show "a linear shaped charge placed on the casing". The object in question looks nothing like a linear shaped charge; it might be a hydraulic press used to remove the impact fuse (cf. the German figure caption) partly covered by cloth, webbing etc.--Death Bredon (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I find no mention anywhere of a Alfred Cecil Brooks being the inventor of the bomb. There is a Alfred Cecil Brooks OBE mentioned in the 1943 new year honours "Alfred Cecil Brooks, Esq., Works Manager and Engineer, Messrs. M. and W. Grazebrook.". Grazebrook appear to be an engineers and steel fabrication firm that had involvement in producing the casings. So it's plausible he may have contributed to their design although not necessarily the inventor. [3] [4] MagicMoose (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

To some extent, the "invention" here is German - re-using existing LM parachute mines (high capacity, ultra-thin case) for use against land targets as part of mass area bombing against soft civilian targets. The German mine was expensive though, requiring a parachute to allow an intact landing, and with an unreliable fuze that had been developed for use as a mine with a water landing.

The development (which is what Brooks really takes the credit for) was the engineering problem of making a weapon that was cheap to produce and reliable to drop. The RAF's 4,000lb cookie was probably the ultimate of this - more "bang for the buck" than anything else. Twice the size of the LMs and much simpler to manufacture than the later German SB series. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blockbuster 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120917143217/http://www.constable.ca/caah/bombs.htm to http://www.constable.ca/caah/bombs.htm

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

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) 23:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

After many lines from the beginning, the section Operational use at once introduces this term. But it is not explained before, where it came from. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

It looks like a nickname, but I'm not sure it is sourced. I removed several instances and left a couple. The original editor inserted the term about 12 years ago and left WP 8 years ago. MartinezMD (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

"The first type of aircraft to carry bombs operationally was the Wellington" - this is nonsense of course; many aircraft carried bombs operationally, even in WW1. It is clearly ment to mean "these bombs" - but which ones? There are a number of "blockbusters" mentioned, or it could even be referring to incendiaries. Baska436 (talk) 09:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

A simple search would've found a citation. Added. MartinezMD (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Martinez. A simple search for you might not be so simple for everyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baska436 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. You're welcome. MartinezMD (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

The article says the first use was by 15 Squadron on 2 December 1943. However I found in the Operations Record Book of 106 Squadron (Kew document AIR 27/833/12) that as early as 11/12 June 1943 four out of the squadron's fifteen a/c carried "8000lb HC". Now sadly this is "original research", hence not usable in Wikipedia. I therefore call on everyone to find a reliable source which would allow to rectify the mistake. Kauko (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply