Talk:Anti-tank guided missile

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)

Agreed. According to Dictionary.com a weapon's first 2 definition(relevant to this) are: 1. any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon. 2. anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire.

Therefor, an Anti-Tank Guided Weapon, would include the M982 Guided Artillery round, a Hellfire missile, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victory in Germany (talk • contribs) 08:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

3rd Generation or 4h Generation ATGW - ie it is so clear that mud would be crystal clear water from a spring
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. 

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)

Inconsistent info regarding first deployment
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)

Hungarian 44M
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)
 * Article on Hungarian 44M now complete. Samf4u (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Renames?
Should this be under anti-tank guided missile or anti-tank missile?

ATGM is by far the more common term in use. I'm struggling to even think of an example for an unguided one. So I would support Anti-tank guided missile as the name. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck come to mind as unguided weapons designed to destroy tanks. However this article makes no mention of unguided therefore I support a change to Anti-tank guided missile. - Samf4u (talk)  12:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well Panzerfaust is a recoilless rifle, as is the Wombat and Carl Gustav, so Panzerschreck and the original Bazooka / Super Bazooka / LAW / SMAW series are the only ones I can think of. I presume the Soviets had something similar that I can't rember offhand - but RPGs are again recoilless, at least for launch. Then we have the issues that if they're unguided they're rockets, rather than missiles (at least by the usual definition since the late 1950s). There's also the distinction (NATO at least) that ATGMs are fired from the ground or launchers, and if it's shoulder-launched it's a "weapon".
 * So there's a clear group beyond this: SS.11, TOW, Vigilant, Snapper, MILAN, etc. which are the ones of interest here - and they're all guided. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's particularly important whether ATGM is redundant – it's by far the most common name, and WP policy calls for titling articles under their common names,. More broadly, even though "missile" has a specific definition as a guided projectile, in common parlance it's often used as a synonym for rocket. There's a good argument that anti-tank guided missile isn't redundant, but rather describes the topic with enough specificity that a common reader would understand the subject.


 * Finally, it's worth noting that ATGM is by far more commonly used than "anti-tank missile", which is basically a weird descriptor used by Wikipedia.
 * The text of the article itself exclusively uses ATGM and has for 10+ years
 * ATGM is by far more common on google searches
 * ATGM is used by definitive reference works like ATGM Guidebook, Defense Intelligence Agency and Jane's Infantry Weapons


 * As there there seems to be a local consensus in favor of ATGM, I'll move the page in a few days absent dissenting opinions. Streamline8988 (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 1 August 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion above [sic]. Dekimasu よ! 00:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Anti-tank missile → Anti-tank guided missile – Consensus established on talk page Streamline8988 (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

ATGM acronym
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 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)

ATGM Topic Overhaul
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)

ATGM Deployment
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)