Talk:M69 incendiary

A couple things
First, I'm not sure if the hyphen is needed, thus it should be the M69 (though I do see it rendered both ways). Second, the M69 is not a cluster bomb, but (in more modern parlance) a bomblet; the M19 would constitute the actual cluster. Mention should also be made of the actual functioning of the M69.--172.190.14.150 (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M-69 incendiary. 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/20110614024345/http://www.468thbombgroup.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=I8gpYUK3Bhg%3D&tabid=36&mid=467 to http://www.468thbombgroup.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=I8gpYUK3Bhg%3D&tabid=36&mid=467

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) 14:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Tightening up wording
"... they were called", in the lead, has a plural pronoun, which is entitled to an unambiguous (and BTW plural) antecedant, yet the previous mention of the M69 is singular. Does the plural usage characterize a stockpile of multiple cluster-bombs? Or the multiplicity of bomblets within the cluster-bomb (or -bombs, for that matter)? The format of thecitation our colleague has offered is odd; i 'spose it could be straight-outa-Turabian for "Source A is scholarly, which obviates my also consulting source B as A claims to have done". B to me it smells of our colleague saying "Why would which may mean The ref following the mention has a link to the whole of (but no part within) a multi-hundred-page scholarly work, which turns out to attribute (not the T.c.c. phrase but effect to (and perhaps only to) the editors of the popular magazine the scholar cited at p. 144 (where the scholar BTW up-cased all three words' initial letters),
 * The preceding was entered by me in the preceding 24 hours, using a tool to which I am unaccustomed, and unintentionally saved on my behalf. (Maybe a bot will come along and stamp it in my behalf.) --Jerzy•t 21:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M-69 incendiary. 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/20100509182002/http://www.dugway.army.mil/index.php/index/content/id/208 to http://www.dugway.army.mil/index.php/index/content/id/208

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) 05:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Damage to people as well as buildings
This article should also mention the casualty list of the firebombing raids on Japan: it's not just a question of damaging infrastructure. Omitting this over-sanitizes the use of such weapons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.85.4 (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)