Talk:High level bombing

message: ::Junkers Ju 88 was also designed as a dive bomber --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, good point.  I'll fix that.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not much on Google scholar, except for  and . Entry #5 of this search is interesting too, but I can't get to that article, even though my library has access to it: I think it was published online only. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of conformty I think this should be moved to "carpet bomber" because they are syynonyms and the article levle bombing redirects to carpet bombing.--Pattont/c 17:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's addressed on the AfD page.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: JU 88

message: "A level bomber is a bomber aircraft capable of attacking a ground object with bombs." is not very describing since 'any bomber is an aircraft capable of attacking a ground object with bombs.' B-52 survived many of its successors but Tu-95 was not the bulk of Soviet bombers, there were many. France's Mirage IV and Britain's V-bombers is missing in this US vs. USSR Cold War section. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooh he's got a point there! The first sentence could really do with being more specific/less general. Maybe just drop it/merge in 2nd sentence. Ryan4314  (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I dunno about adding the Vulcan etc though, first it would need to be sourced that they were "level bomber" designs, plus I thought the Vulcan was designed for low level "flick bombing"? Ryan4314  (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remaining improvements. 

message: This article was due for deletion February 2009, but was saved because a user claimed he had the source for the term 'level bomber'. This article's introduction states: "The term is used particularly with reference to World War II as a counterpart to dive bomber." and Robin Neillands' "The Bomber War" is the source. But if you look at page 35 (ref.#1): "its attacks on Warsaw, using level-flight aircraft as well as dive-bombers" - Robin Neillands doesn't mention 'level bombers' at all.
Page 23 (ref.#2) has no 'level bombers' either, just 'self-defending bomber' and 'long-range bomber'. Ref.#3 is the whole chapter 2 in Robin Neillands' "The Bomber War", but it has 'fighter-bomber', 'light bomber', 'tactical bomber', 'dive-bomber' but still no 'level bomber'. Actually on page 34 (in chapter 2) he wrote "..of which 897 were bombers or dive-bombers" and "which was bombed and dive-bombed". If Robin Neillands really introduced the term 'level bomber', he would have written "which was level-bombed and dive-bombed". This article is an exercise in improper use of quotations; shame on whoever did this!!
Ref.#4 is Liddell Hart's "History of the Second World War", and he wrote: "Air Fleets 2 and 3 had a total of 875 normal (high-level) bombers, and 316 dive-bombers." and "Luftflotte 5 in Norway and Denmark,.., had 123 high-level bombers.". Later he distinguishes between 'bombers' and 'dive-bombers', and no 'level bombers' are mentioned. 'Level bomber' is only half an appellation, the terms 'high level bomber' and 'low level bomber' however are well-known. 
The rest of the references are either 'high-level bomber', translated from Japanese (Captain Mitsuo Fuchida) or devoid of the word 'level bomber'.   
I understand the logic behind the proposed term "level bomber", but it's original research without a proper source. Similarly people could create the article land lion, as opposed to sea lion. Sea lions live in the sea; consequently lions on dry land must be called land lions, NOT! 
This article is more an essay about level bombing. The content should be in merged to the Bomber article. Google is full of 'level bombers', mostly from wiki-mirrors or forums for discussion for gamers. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've a little more experience of article-writing for Wikipedia now than I had then.  :)  On looking again, I see a good argument that this article needs further research, revision, and a change of title.  But I also see that we have shameful redlinks at high level bomber or high-level bomber, which (by your own research) is attested in the sources.  Wouldn't it be better to move this there and then revise it, rather than lumping it all together at bomber?—S Marshall T/C 02:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, the Bomber article is pretty crowded. Most of this article deals with "high-level bombing", so renaming it would be a good idea. The B-52 was designed as a high-level bomber, but was later intended for low-level attacks. Hence the name "high-level bombing" or "high level bombing" is IMHO better. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, so let's move it to high level bombing with redirects from high-level bombing, high level bomber, high-level bomber etc.—S Marshall T/C 14:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a mistake 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on High level bombing. 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/20100114175715/http://walrusmagazine.com/articles/2006.10-history-bombing-cambodia/ to http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2006.10-history-bombing-cambodia/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified