Jump to content

Talk:Boeing B-52 Stratofortress

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:B-52 Stratofortress)

Good articleBoeing B-52 Stratofortress has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 17, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
November 14, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
January 30, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
July 25, 2010Good article nomineeListed
September 3, 2010WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 15, 2010, April 15, 2012, April 15, 2019, and April 15, 2022.
Current status: Good article

Armament

[edit]

The article implies that all B-52 models prior to the B-52H were armed with .50 caliber machine guns and expressly states this was the armament for the B-52A. Through the first half-dozen B-52Bs, the planes were armed with two 20mm guns, which used an entirely different fire control system than was installed for the quad 50s. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it with reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's no mention of the guns under the armament section at all … 93.145.221.210 (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, as the currently-flying models no longer possess them. Maabonnet (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove ARRW references from the Armament section

[edit]

The ARRW program was recently canceled. Maabonnet (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2023

[edit]

The number in inventory says 72, but the contingent numbers after add up to 98. My request is for clarification. 2600:1700:3130:AE10:542C:B6B2:B104:D923 (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: As far as I understand, those are separate categories. Inventory, active service, long term storage are all separate from one another. However, this isn't my topic of expertise. If you have specific research questions, you can always ask at the reference desk (WP:RD). Actualcpscm (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

android app display problems

[edit]

This article seems to be displaying incorrectly for me on the Android app, and I've done the usual cache clear and app updates: Contents list is blank, cannot scroll through entire article, cannot search for text in article.

The problem is *only* with this article (so far), and only on the app - displays fine via web browser. Mr kitehead (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This could be some issue with table(s) or maybe image(s). Your description does not have enough detail to know where to begin looking. Everything seems to be showing on PC and my IPhone. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I installed the Wikipedia app on android to check. I'm also getting an issue. In the app, infoboxes are turned into a "quick facts" dropdown, which doesn't work for this article, and I can't scroll beyond the lead. the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon article is fine though. I can't see an obvious problem in this article's lead though. (Hohum @) 21:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the deprecated? unrecognised "unit cost" parameter, and a couple of empty ones from the infobox. It seems to be working in the android app correctly now. (Hohum @) 22:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hohum THANK YOU yes it's good now! Mr kitehead (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of units extant?

[edit]

Currently the article reads

"There are 72 aircraft in inventory as of 2022; 58 operated by active forces (2nd Bomb Wing and 5th Bomb Wing), 18 by reserve forces (307th Bomb Wing), and about 12 in long-term storage at the Davis-Monthan AFB Boneyard"

58 + 18 is already more than 72 (it's 76). Add 12 in mothballs and that's 88. None of these numbers play well together to create an "interpretation" that is arithmetically useful.

We either need clarification or correction, I think?

Huw Powell (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is this article 1 that states, there are 76 B-52s in service, so i think the 72 is false, i've gone ahead and made the change Synonimany (talk) 11:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that edit. I did read somewhere about a year ago that they have moved several of the 12 in storage to be scrapped. I will have to see if I can find that again. --Picard's Facepalm Made It So Engage! 14:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]