Talk:AT4

message: I know it's nitpicking; but kilograms are a unit of mass, not weight.  Better to write it's weight in newtons, than try to write it as kilograms.  Alternatively one could put its mass in kilograms, and the english slugs, but, since most people don't know what a slug is, it really won't mean anything to them. 68.49.138.170 (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Is the launcher tube legal to possess once the rocket is expelled?
:By civillians? I think not. I know that our tubes are classified as hazmat unless they are designated to be used as training aids (to which stickers must be applied so it can be identified as such). I imagine that it would be safer to not own something like this, especially if it is not readily identifiable as inert (much like how airsoft weapons must have the orange tip). Bahamut0013 19:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Launcher Tube

message: Is this a different weapon than the AT-4 Spigot?  --Interiot 01:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, yes.  The text at AT-4 clarifies.  --Interiot 21:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other weapons

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AT-4_live-fire.jpg has a lot of empty shells flying around? Where are those coming from?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.240.67 (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since the shells are mixed with links, someone to the photographers, and AT-4 gunners, right is, with 99.5% likelyhood, firing some sort of machine gun, probably the M249.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.252.91 (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Morelikely the M240 or M60: if you compare the cases to the soldier's thumb, they're too big to be 5.56mm.--Pattont/c 20:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are 7.62mm casings and their volume suggest an extraordinarily high rate of fire. My guess, an M134. Koalorka (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: All those empty shells

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.mod.gov.lv/upload/nbsfakti.anglu.gala.pdf
** In FN MAG on 2011-03-18 13:21:16, 404 Not Found
** In Glock pistol on 2011-03-22 07:49:08, 404 Not Found
** In Heckler & Koch G36 on 2011-03-24 00:33:59, 404 Not Found
** In Heckler & Koch G36 on 2011-03-26 03:22:14, 404 Not Found
** In AT4 on 2011-06-20 01:06:25, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Hi, note n°12 isn't very clear on the reason of the name "AT4". Is it because of the AntiTank capabilities that Congress didn't understand? On this video  from 3:04 to 3:15 (not the best source, I know, but still...) he claims that the name comes from the caliber (eighty-four - AT4, sounds the same), is that so or is there another reason? I can't find any references on the linked pages. --Amendola90 (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: AT-12 wasn't 130mm, it was 120mm. There's a Bofors promo video of it from 1992 on the web.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d6H2oPSuUg 67.210.186.26 (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  AT-12 

message: The fill was listed as Octogen (more commonly callled homocyclonite or HMX) and TNT. When these are mixed for a shaped charge fill, the composition is called Octol. I think it is best to list the fill by what it is called and designated. If people want to know more, they can follow the link. Msjayhawk (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Octol 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on AT4. 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/20110707174026/http://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/upload/200712031855161.pdf to http://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/upload/200712031855161.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719220342/http://ordatamines.maic.jmu.edu/images/D3646UC1.jpg to http://ordatamines.maic.jmu.edu/images/D3646UC1.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720003411/https://rdl.train.army.mil/soldierPortal/atia/adlsc/view/public/9681-1/fm/3-23.25/toc.htm to https://rdl.train.army.mil/soldierPortal/atia/adlsc/view/public/9681-1/fm/3-23.25/toc.htm#toc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on AT4. 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  tag to http://www.svenskafreds.se/english/vapenexport.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717114810/http://www.wp.mil.pl/en/galeria/1446 to http://www.wp.mil.pl/en/galeria/1446
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208125341/http://www.eluniversal.com/2009/08/30/int_art_presentan-video-del_1545209 to http://www.eluniversal.com/2009/08/30/int_art_presentan-video-del_1545209
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070330115206/http://www.armyrecognition.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=476 to http://www.armyrecognition.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=476
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) 06:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I saw that you changed the name to M136 AT4. It may be the US Army name, but it is not the manufacturer designation, neither the designation used by most of the users. I think it should be replace back to AT4, which is the for instance the name used by Jane's Saab Bofors Dynamics AB AT4 84 mm light anti-armour weapon.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  M136 or AT4 

message: It says "In a recoilless weapon, the barrel does not need to contend with the extreme pressures found in traditional guns and can thus be made very lightweight." This is wrong. The person who wrote this is thinking of a rocket-launcher, which is different. AS far as I understood, the only difference between a regular gun and a RR, is that with a RR, there is an equally amount of energy expended rearward as foreward to counteract recoil. But it still takes pressure to drive the projectile down the tube. A ROCKET launcher avoids pressure buildup, but a RR relies on building up pressure, either inside of a case with rear-facing vents, or a case with a base that blows up. Both of these types allow pressure to escape out the back - AFTER the spike of pressure forms and drives the projectile down the barrel. That is the only thing that gives the projectile velocity. If you just used an open-ended case, and let the blast go out the open rear, it would just flash all out the back while maybe popping the projectile 10 feet in front of the user. Pressure spikes between the projectile and the frangible weight or vented rear of the tube, and it is desgined so the flash comes from the back at the same time as the projectile, roughly. Then you have an equal forward and rearward force exerted. While a rocket works by simpley projecting a jet of gas from the rear at high speeds, the RR relies on building high pressure to drive the shell, just like any other gun. Indeed, what else could possibly explain how one works? It would need to be magic otherwise. Just burning some powder behind a shell isn't enough to accelerate it to several hundred feet per minute.
THe barrel of the AT4 is indeed lighter than most guns. This is not because there is no high pressure, however. This is because the gun only needs to work once, and then it can be discarded. It only needs to be strong enough to contain the pressure spike one brief time, and then it is all over. The tube might be seriously fatigued, full of micro cracks, burned, melted and strained, so stressed that trying to fire a second shell out of it would certainly cause it to rupture. But as long as it holds for one fraction of a second, that's all that matters. A normal gun or reusable gun needs to be very overbuilt in order to stand the strain repeatedly without failure.
This is the same principle that allows people to make single-shot firearms from plastic tubes, and things like that. As long as the pressure spike isn't TOO high, and you don't expect to use the weapon a second time, a pretty serious firearm can be contstructed from PVC tubing. It will certainly never take a second shot, but it can handle ONE. That is why an !T4 has thinner and lighter walls. Not because a recoilless somehow avoids pressure buildup.
Idumea47b (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rocket launchers avoid high pressure, recoilless rifles don't 

message: So reading the Article it says the weapon is effective against medium and light armored vehicles, but not against todays modern main battle tanks.  Ok, got it.  Read to the end of the Article and then discover that it can penetrate 15 to 19 inches of rolled homogenous armor.  Now, I KNOW that main battle tanks are not 15" thick.  Are they?  Otherwise, are the tanks made of something other than RHA?  Uranium alloy?  Is it the angle?  Note I'm not asking for an answer here like this is a forum, I'm stating what type of information I'd like to see included in the Article.  It's very clear about the weapon not being effective against heavy armor, but the specs appear to contradict this statement, so some clarifying language explaining why the weapon is not effective against heavy armor would improve the Article.2605:6000:6FC0:25:70F7:DBF:A3F2:E86D (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Round Penetration vs. Specifications 

message: The specifications section has the issue of providing WP:Too much detail. Ignoring the fact that it's entirely unsourced, the penetration statistic could be reworked into prose, the rest of it is either repeating things already stated in the infobox, or detail that's completely unnecessary - the operating temperature is a trivial detail, for which reason neither Saab nor Janes bother to mention it. Loafiewa (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally disagree with WP:Too much detail but if you can find ways to improve or rework "Specifications" then go for it.--Blockhaj (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Calling "operating temperature" trivial is subjective and it is actually interesting and practical information if put into perspective. I have several manuals on the AT4 etc so if a source is needed then add Template:Citation needed and i will see if i can confirm the data and add a source.--Blockhaj (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still redundant to the main specs infobox, and is totally unnecessary. If you believe the information is important to the article, then find sources for the information and another place to put it. BilCat (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

text: I've removed everything that's already found in the infobox. There are just 3 parameters remaining: Time of flight, Operating temperature, and Ammunition. Ammunition can probably be added to the Projectiles section, with a source. Time of flight could go in the Operation, and Operating temperature would probably fit there too. BilCat (talk) 04:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: BilCat, if you remove tons of text and just leave 3 remaining parameters, couldn't you at the very least try to integrate those into another segment of the article. What is left now is a mess and looks awful.--Blockhaj (talk) 04:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested places above to move them. BilCat (talk) 05:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So in short, the entire article needs a renovation with sources..--Blockhaj (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As it did before, yes. BilCat (talk) 06:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifications 

message: It seems like that have some error on the operator list. Canadian Forces and JTF-2 was never a user of the AT4.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.185.194 (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operators list