Talk:Anti-tank guided missile

message: Note that (according to Google), anti-tank guided missile is more common than anti-tank guided weapon (22,300 hits versus 19,800). Similarly, ATGM is more common than ATGW (6720 v. 2810), so we should standardise on these terms. -- Cabalamat 15:48, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

message: Folks,
In the last decade there has been a dispute -- which has spilled over to Wiki articles -- as to whether an antitank guided missile is a 3rd generation or 4th generation antitank missiles. The answer is they could be either.  Told you it was a clear as mud. <GRIN>
To wit, 1st generation antitank missiles used manual command to line of sight guidance, where the gunner lined up the missile with the target using a joystick. 2nd generation antitank missiles used semi-automatic command to line of sight where all the gunner had to do was keep the target in the cross hairs and the missile was guided by the control unit to that cross hair point of the gunners sight. Now this is where it get's tricky and experts start calling each other's mothers names. Some consider 3rd generation antitank missiles as antitank missiles that are fired from tube containers which use 2nd generation guidance. Some agree and some don't. Those that don't agree, state a 2nd generation antitank missile is any missile -- tube launched or those with fixed fins launched from rail -- that uses semi-automatic command to line of sight. They state that 4th generation antitank missiles use some kind of fire-and-forget homing (eg like the Sidewinder which uses IR) or laser beam riding guidance. No matter if they are tube launched or from rails. And what makes the argument worst is the Hellfire is not considered a 4th generation antitank missile and it is fired from a rail but uses laser-homing! Then you have the Israeli MAPTAS which is a TOW missile with laser-beam riding and it  is considered a 2nd generation or a 3rd generation? Then you have the British Swingfire. It is tube fired and uses 2nd generation semi-automatic command to line of sight guidance for the first 100 yards AND then switches to 1st generation manual command to line of sight guidance till impact.
So folks, have fun figuring out whether a new missile design is 3rd or 4th generation.
Jack E. HammondJackehammond (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd Generation or 4h Generation ATGW - ie it is so clear that mud would be crystal clear water from a spring 

message: The wiki article of the X7 Rotkäppchen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhrstahl_X-4#X-7_anti-tank_missile) states that there was no deployment. The german wiki says the same, but adds that it could be possible that some of them saw active service. However the first sentence here starts with "The earliest guided anti-tank missile to see combat etc"
No what is right?
91.37.219.164 (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent info regarding first deployment 

message: The 2 paragraphs quoted here...
" Two types of this 100 mm rocket were created: the anti-tank HEAT rocket of the Buzogányvető was called ’Buzogány’ (= mace), and the anti live force HE rocket was called ’Zápor’ (= rainfall, shower). The first prototype Buzogány HEAT rocket was finished and tested in the Spring of 1944. The largest diameter of the rocket was 215 mm, and with the cca. 4 kg explosive shaped charge in it, it was able to penetrate more than 300 mm of armour or concrete. This means that this rocket was able to destroy any kind of heavy tank of that time at 500-1200m distance.
With this development, Hungary was the third nation, after Germany and the USA, who used domestically designed rocket launcher systems in the World War II, and the second, after Germany’s X-7 missile, to create heavy anti-tank rockets, which were used in action (even though it is not clear whether the X-7 was used outside test conditions or not)."
... are a word for word copy/paste job from the source listed. I'd like to remove the above text and add a link to a stand alone article that's almost done in my sandbox here. Are there any objections? Samf4u (talk)  21:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Article on Hungarian 44M now complete. Samf4u (talk)  21:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hungarian 44M 

message: A recent change added the following paragraph to the introduction of the article
The word "guided" is technically redundant in the phrase as the definition of missile is a guided rocket-propelled warhead. However, the word guided is often added in so the anacronym is ATGM as opposed to ATM, in order to avoid confusion with automated teller machines, often abbreviated to ATM. 
I have removed it as it seems of only tangential relevance, especially for the article introduction, and it contains an un-sourced fact that is unlikely to be found independently. I looked over Wikipedia:Content_removal before doing this and it seems the proper course of action to do so and leave this note in the talk page. If anyone more familiar with Wikipedia's content policy feels my change was in error feel free to take whatever actions necessary.
FireCrack (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATGM acronym 

message: I've been going over general weaponry types that are in desperate need of overhauls, and ATGMs are definitely one of those categories. There is a lack of connection between this article and the different guidance methods, and this article itself needs far more sources and history. I plan to start work on the individual guidance type articles, however I have limited experience connecting a series of articles, so if someone with more knowledge than me can help, that would be appreciated greatly. Ironarcher13 (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATGM Topic Overhaul 

message: Q: what about a section focused on real world deployment?  right now (APR-2022) lots of video and raw notes from Ukraine; never mind OEM's promises there's actual usage!
Howard from NYC (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATGM Deployment