Talk:Bounding mine

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 articles

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 not met

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

Untitled

"Because they are designed to be buried[...]" This is wrong. The M67 / M72 Area Denial Anti-personnel Mine (ADAM, as well as the ex sovj. POM-2 are good counterexamples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.252.176.132 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bounding?

In my nearly 40 years of military, weapons & historic hobbies (focus on WW2) I never encountered this definition. Is it a mistake as I think or it does really exist? Bounding in the sense that it bounds to what? Note that the German S-Mine ('Schrapnellmine SMi-35 & SMi-44) - the ancestor of the design - is called 'Bouncing Betty' (US WW2 Army lingo, it was also known as 'Bouncing Bitch'; Commonwealth troops named it 'Jumping Jack'; Finnish troops, that also used it, called it 'Hyppy-Heikki' 'Jumping Henry') because of its design: it actually 'bounced' from soil, springing up, and so delivering a wider radius of shrapnel balls and metal splinters at belly level. For naming references: 'Gordon Rottman - FUBAR F**ed Up Beyond All Recognition, Soldier Slang of World War II' and the very well done english wikipedia's voice 'S-mine'

FabioB a.k.a. MC202zipper

Requested move 13 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was proposed in this section that Bouncing mine be renamed and moved to Bounding mine.

Moved per general agreement below. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 03:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links: current log • target log

This is Template:Requested move/end

Bouncing mine → Bounding mine – The correct title for this type of mine is 'bounding mine'. 'Bouncing mine' is incorrect as they do not bounce. 86.130.28.61 (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are bounding mines and are described as such by the Imperial War Museum who ought to know.[1]. This was moved under a claim of a spelling error, but the original article title was correct.

An example of a 'bouncing mine' is the Barnes Wallace dambusting mine which this article does not describe.

This was also an undiscussed move. 86.130.28.61 (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "bouncing bomb" used by the Dambusters does not appear to be classified as a mine, and the terms "bouncing mine" and "bounding mine" appear to be used interchangeably ([2]) so it's not clear which is more "correct". I think this needs more input from other knowledgeable editors. PC78 (talk) 08:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That reference refers to a completely different type of mine which is not the subject of this article. That there seems to be several types of mine described as 'bouncing mine' strongly suggests that the title 'bouncing mine' is too vague as it is likely a superset of the type being discussed.

The 'bouncing bomb' is, by definition, a mine given that it is designed to explode below the surface of land or water. The RAF would seem to agree because its official service designation was 'Mine type 464, Dams, 9,250lb, Hydro-static fuzed". (Google 'Mine type 464' to bring up plenty of hits on the dam buster raids).

Further, the article has been entitled 'Bounding mine' unchallenged since it was first created in 2005, the recent change to 'Bouncing mine' was just last year and the edit summary states that the person changing it believed it to be a spelling error. 86.130.28.61 (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to a search result, not a single source, but it does bring up several mine types listed in this article. PC78 (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the first half dozen or so hits. After that Google will give you a hit for any page that includes two of the search keys and after that one key. Hence you get hits on any type of mine including coal mines, gold mines etc. 86.130.28.61 (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really, are you looking at the actual search I linked to? The first hit literally refers to PROM-1 as a "bouncing mine", that's one of the mines listed in this article. Further down the first page are hits for M16 and the "bouncing betty", also listed as examples in the article. PC78 (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am answering your assertion that the Barnes Wallace bouncing bomb was not a mine. It is - officially. 86.130.28.61 (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't assert that the bouncing bomb isn't a mine, there's just little (if anything) in that article to support that notion. Makes no difference to me either way. PC78 (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The "bouncing bomb" used by the Dambusters does not appear to be classified as a mine … " That would seem to be an assertion that the bouncing bomb was not a mine. 86.130.28.61 (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They may not "bounce", but they don't "bound" either. They shoot up into the air and explode. Hardly "bounding". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the Imperial War Museum designates them as 'bounding' as referenced above. It is just possible that this may be an WP:ENGVAR issue, but if that is the case then per policy the original designation (bounding) should stand unless there is a "strong consensus" to change it. 86.130.28.61 (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

rename "bounding" is the more common name. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: From the evidence available and presented here, it would seem that the term 'bouncing mine' is a broad class of mines that includes bouncing dam busting bombs (mines), which by extension must include the highball predecessor and the German developed and similar anti-ship bouncing mine as well as mines where the weight of some one (or thing) depresses the trigger but the mine does not activate until that weight is removed (bounces off?).

This makes 'bouncing mine' too broad a term for the specific type of mine described in this article which (as stated) is described by an authoritative source as 'bounding mine'.

It is also worth pointing out that the S-mine's name of 'bouncing betty' was the allied servicemen's nickname for the mine and bears no relationship to any official designation.

Further the article name 'bounding mine' stood in this article since 2005, and the change was not justified beyond the changer's erroneous belief that the original title was a "spelling error". 86.130.28.61 (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.