Talk:Anti-tank warfare

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / Weaponry This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military land vehicles task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Military doctrine#Military doctrine in the former Soviet Union and Russia|theoretically examined]] The anchor (#Military doctrine in the former Soviet Union and Russia) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

This article is in serious need of reformatting. AllStarZ 04:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serious need of editing more like. 82.70.225.97 08:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tank is far too large. Most of the tank#Vulnerability section should be merged here, leaving behind a concise summary. Any objections? —Michael Z. 2006-10-18 16:52 Z

I think that's appropriate - most of the information really belongs here anyway. Carom 17:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Jinxs 22:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this article has no refs and sound likes a non-formal lecturer please rewrite into a clearer, more formal format.

i recently deleted a sentence reading "The only thing that saved the south koreans and the americans from a total rout was a well organized retreat."

basically, the thing is, now matter how you put it, a retreat is a retreat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarzhu (talk • contribs) 00:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the WW2 section says: "...its allies in the West were resigned to its defeat by a numerically superior Wehrmacht...". That is wrong. In fact, the Allies outnumbered the Wehrmacht in both, men and machines (-tanks-), since the very beginning of the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.154.195.115 (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This can/needs to be REALLY expanded!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven J. Zaloga, in US [sic] Anti-tank Artillery 1941-45 (Oxford: Osprey, 2005), p.8, says the combination of rocket motor and shaped charge warhead leading to bazooka put an end to U.S. Army development of light antitank guns. I just can't figure out where to put it in... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silliness of the US Army section is perhaps ill-advised given the readership :) Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

== "Among novelties designed to defeat AT missiles, some tanks (like the M-84, Yugoslav variant of T-72) fitted advanced detection sensors which, when detecting high heat signatures of a missile launch, would automatically aim and fire machine guns at the source of the launch. Facing these tanks in large numbers during the Yugoslav wars, units fighting them adapted by either firing missiles and immediately moving or by firing multiple missiles at once, which overloaded the sensors."

That's just an urban legend. I've read that in quite many places, but haven't seen a single real source for it. I'm removing it. Latre (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever writes this might want to consider: Weapons of wars, terrorism and riots. Anti-tank weapons. (Molotov cocktails) http://www.winterwar.com/Weapons/FinAT/FINantitank2.htm#molotov 220.255.114.213 (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They go under Infantry anti-tank weaponsKoakhtzvigad (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-tank warfare. 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/20110708122806/http://caseyfuller.com/law.htm to http://caseyfuller.com/law.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote this as the material stays solid, as can be read eg. in the actuall article on shaped charges. This common misconception should not be spread.

Welcome to Wikipedia. WP:V and WP:RS will be some useful reading at this point. It's one thing to claim this, but can you source it with a reliable, independent source? If not, your change is likely to be reverted. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/terrorism_and_pyrotechnics/explosives/Shaped_Charges_Penetrators/Some_metalurgical_aspects_of_shaped_charge_liners.pdf

"It is universally agreed that conical liner collapse and target penetration both occur by hydrodynamic flow. However, it has been established by X-ray diffraction that the jet is solid metal and not molten. Additionally, best estimates of jet temperature by incandescence colour suggest a mean value of about 450°C, and copper melts at 1083°C at atmospheric pressure. So the following conundrum is the first confusion: The jet appears to behave like a fluid, and yet it is known to be a solid. One recent theory that would help explain this is that the jet has a molten core but with a solid outer sheath (Cullis, DERA Fort Halstead, UK)."

Edit: One more thought... both statements were just claims, neither one had a source. How is it determend which one stays? Why wouldnt both claims be removed untill there is a source? Simply because "it was there first"? I dont want to be annoying, Im just curious how this works and why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.136.206.153 (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

Stay curious! The answer is: we're doing it here -- talk page discussion to reach WP:CONSENSUS.

In the issue here, per sources in our own Shaped charge article, there's no molten jet. (And it's called the "Monroe effect"! No relation, though.) --A D Monroe III^(talk) 03:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"we're doing it here"

Yes, sure, but what if there is no (quick) way to verify the disputed points? Why would one of the claims stay in the article? And should I edit this article again now or is there still a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.136.206.153 (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP's standard WP:BRD cycle can be just a day or two, but it is not guaranteed by any means to be "quick", and, yes, the "old" info tends to stay in the article during the whole time. (A few things, like WP:COPYVIO and WP:BLP, are exceptions.) But for long disputes, it's usually because it's in a gray area, so the old info is not so obviously wrong that WP is harmed by stating the less-than-up-to-date version. (In theory, at least.) So far, no one's found a better method for WP consensus.

In this case, the only issue raised against changing was sources. I'd say go ahead and edit, copying an appropriate cite from Shape charge to support it, or any better one you may have. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 19:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you for clearing that up. I think I have edited it correctly, but I was unable to make a hyperlink... oh well, its easy to find anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.136.206.153 (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. See Help:Referencing for beginners if you want to spruce it up. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ptrs003.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]