Jump to content

Talk:Bombsuit: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}.
 
(18 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WPMILHIST|Weaponry-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=red|B1=n|B2=n|B3=y|B4=y|B5=y|Weaponry-task-force=yes}}
}}
==Untitled==
I'm pretty sure this article should be expanded, merged with [[body armor]] or deleted. Anyone want to expand it? [[User:GutterMonkey|GutterMonkey]] 04:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this article should be expanded, merged with [[body armor]] or deleted. Anyone want to expand it? [[User:GutterMonkey|GutterMonkey]] 04:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
:Bomb suits are a highly specialised subtype of body armor not intended for general usage by a, say, riflemen.--[[Special:Contributions/79.139.166.114|79.139.166.114]] ([[User talk:79.139.166.114|talk]]) 18:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


== Actual Use? ==

We see these things in movies and stuff all the time, but are they actually still used? I can't imagine that they'd actually protect the wearer from a couple of sticks of TNT at a range close enough to defuse the bomb. Is this article here as a part of military history, or is it current? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.3.111.41|86.3.111.41]] ([[User talk:86.3.111.41|talk]]) 11:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:They are actually used: [http://nsrdec.natick.army.mil/media/fact/techprog/EOD_PPE.htm Development of a Bomb Suit Standard] [[User:Hohum|Hohum]] ([[User talk:Hohum|talk]]) 19:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


== Bulletproof? ==
Are these things bulletproof?--[[Special:Contributions/79.139.166.114|79.139.166.114]] ([[User talk:79.139.166.114|talk]]) 18:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

==Spelling==
Almost always ''bomb suit'' with a space: see e.g. Google Books search results. That is probably the main spelling Wikipedia should use. [[Special:Contributions/86.131.98.77|86.131.98.77]] ([[User talk:86.131.98.77|talk]]) 10:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

== Spam tag ==

There's no rationale here for the spam tag; and it doesn't seem promotionally written to me. Therefore I'm removing it. [[Special:Contributions/87.194.8.35|87.194.8.35]] ([[User talk:87.194.8.35|talk]]) 22:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

== No citations. ==

Where are the citations? Seriously, how can anyone take this article for anything more than an anecdote; if there are no citations?[[User:Aryeonos|&#39;&#39;&#39;Aryeonos&#39;&#39;&#39;]] ([[User talk:Aryeonos|talk]]) 21:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

== Merger proposal ==

I was just about to slap a merger tag on this article when I noticed it already had one. [[Advanced Bomb Suit]] is simply a rehashing of this article and should be merged with this one. Also, shouldn't the title of this article be "bomb suit" not "bombsuit"? --<span style="font-family:Verdana;border:1px dotted black">[[User:ErgoSum88|<span style="color:black;">ErgoSum</span>]]•[[User talk:ErgoSum88#top|<span style="color:black;">talk</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/ErgoSum88|<span style="color:black;">trib</span>]]</span> 16:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts, they even share an image. Maybe move the ABS-specific parts of the ABS article to a section of the generic BS one.--[[Special:Contributions/81.86.106.14|81.86.106.14]] ([[User talk:81.86.106.14|talk]]) 00:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

:The advanced bomb suit is not a type of Bomb suit but rather the U.S. Army's name for it's bombsuit. [[User:Marcus Qwertyus|<span style="color:#21421E;font-family:Papyrus;">'''Marcus'''</span>]] [[User talk:Marcus Qwertyus|<span style="color:#CC7722;font-family:Papyrus;">'''Qwertyus'''</span>]] 02:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

== Correct naming? ==

"Bomb suit" seems quite an informal name compared to "EOD suit". The page already refers to EOD technicians via their correct name. Of the page references:
* 3 refer to "bombs" due to discussing historical subject matter.
* 1 notes that "bomb disposal" is now known as "EOD" (but doesn't refer to the suits at all).
* 1 includes manufacturer data where the term "EOD" is used throughout.
* 3 aren't linked, but the names refers to "Explosive Ordnance Disposal Personal Protective Equipment (EOD PPE)", "Explosive Ordnance Disposal", and "Explosives Ordnance Disposal (EOD) suits".
* 2 aren't linked and the names include neither term (these are the same reference btw).
[[Special:Contributions/194.66.32.10|194.66.32.10]] ([[User talk:194.66.32.10|talk]]) 14:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:27, 29 January 2024

Untitled

[edit]

I'm pretty sure this article should be expanded, merged with body armor or deleted. Anyone want to expand it? GutterMonkey 04:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb suits are a highly specialised subtype of body armor not intended for general usage by a, say, riflemen.--79.139.166.114 (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Actual Use?

[edit]

We see these things in movies and stuff all the time, but are they actually still used? I can't imagine that they'd actually protect the wearer from a couple of sticks of TNT at a range close enough to defuse the bomb. Is this article here as a part of military history, or is it current? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.111.41 (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are actually used: Development of a Bomb Suit Standard Hohum (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Bulletproof?

[edit]

Are these things bulletproof?--79.139.166.114 (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

[edit]

Almost always bomb suit with a space: see e.g. Google Books search results. That is probably the main spelling Wikipedia should use. 86.131.98.77 (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spam tag

[edit]

There's no rationale here for the spam tag; and it doesn't seem promotionally written to me. Therefore I'm removing it. 87.194.8.35 (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No citations.

[edit]

Where are the citations? Seriously, how can anyone take this article for anything more than an anecdote; if there are no citations?'''Aryeonos''' (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I was just about to slap a merger tag on this article when I noticed it already had one. Advanced Bomb Suit is simply a rehashing of this article and should be merged with this one. Also, shouldn't the title of this article be "bomb suit" not "bombsuit"? --ErgoSumtalktrib 16:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on both counts, they even share an image. Maybe move the ABS-specific parts of the ABS article to a section of the generic BS one.--81.86.106.14 (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The advanced bomb suit is not a type of Bomb suit but rather the U.S. Army's name for it's bombsuit. Marcus Qwertyus 02:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct naming?

[edit]

"Bomb suit" seems quite an informal name compared to "EOD suit". The page already refers to EOD technicians via their correct name. Of the page references:

  • 3 refer to "bombs" due to discussing historical subject matter.
  • 1 notes that "bomb disposal" is now known as "EOD" (but doesn't refer to the suits at all).
  • 1 includes manufacturer data where the term "EOD" is used throughout.
  • 3 aren't linked, but the names refers to "Explosive Ordnance Disposal Personal Protective Equipment (EOD PPE)", "Explosive Ordnance Disposal", and "Explosives Ordnance Disposal (EOD) suits".
  • 2 aren't linked and the names include neither term (these are the same reference btw).

194.66.32.10 (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]