Talk:Shelling of Newcastle
Appearance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shelling of Newcastle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title
[edit]Would bombardment not be better than shelling ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Bombardment, while maybe technically correct, is somewhat of an overstatement of what actually happened. 5.5" rounds are not to be trifled with, but only 2 actually caused any damage and only one of those actually exploded. A rampaging boy scout troop with a bag of marbles could have "bombarded" Newcastle more effectively. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, 'bombardment' does imply something more than what happened. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Categories:
- B-Class Australia articles
- Low-importance Australia articles
- B-Class New South Wales articles
- Low-importance New South Wales articles
- WikiProject New South Wales articles
- B-Class Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
- Low-importance Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
- Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- B-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- B-Class Japanese military history articles
- Japanese military history task force articles
- B-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- B-Class Japan-related articles
- Low-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles