Talk:AT4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

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)[reply]

The Launcher Tube[edit]

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)[reply]

Yes civilians in the US can own inert,used tubes they sell them at most military surplus stores.

Yeah, its legal. It just has to say empty, inert or dummy on it. Surplus ones generally have it stencilled or embossed on.81.23.50.232 (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it could be considered unsafe after fired because it is basically a empty cylinder of metal that can't be fired again although inert tubes do look cool as decoration ( responding to Bahamut0013 ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.84.212.81 (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other weapons[edit]

Is this a different weapon than the AT-4 Spigot? --Interiot 01:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, yes. The text at AT-4 clarifies. --Interiot 21:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recoilless rifle or rocket[edit]

Is it really a rocket? I was under the impression that is was shot out if the launcher and recieved no other thust after that. When you see it being fired it does not fly like an RPG, it goes so fast it looks like a projectile. The word "pansarskott" means 'armor shot'.

No it's not a rocket. It's basically a one-shot version of the Carl Gustav. Riddley 00:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I think it's capable of firing RPGs too. // Liftarn
It is not capable of firing RPGs. It is possible to reload a used launch tube with a new AT4 projectile, but it is not recomended.
s/not recommended/dangerous/. I'm told they go boom sooner or later. SOP is to kick off the sights and run over the shells (I'm told -- my training was just to kick off the sights, and that reloading was impossible, but I've learned otherwise). --Cuervo, not logged in again, 02:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not capable of firing RPGs, no it is NOT a one-shot Carl Gustav, no it is not reloadable, any more than the M72 is. Basically, it's a one-shot, drop and run weapon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.252.91 (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All those empty shells[edit]

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)[reply]

They shell casings have probably been lying on the ledge in front of them, and the blast and backblast from the weapon has scattered them about in the air. It's just on e of those strange things that happen once in a while. -- David -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.102.17.234 (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The Marine to his left is possibly firing a weapon, although that is definitely alot to be in the air at one time.Gelston (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Definately a M249 saw with 5.56mm casings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.45.68 (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AT4 with the Malaysian Special Forces[edit]

Folks, I remember a few moons ago when a small blurp in a defense publication reported that Saab had sold a small number of the enclosed space version of the AT4 -- ie the AT4 CS -- to Malaysia. Sweden has strict rules about the export of weapons, including the fact it has to be reported to the government who make it public record. I can not find a good source, including that dang publication with that small blurp. The Malaysian special forces are known as the Grup Gerak Khas. Any assistance with a good reference would be appreciated. I am have become it seems obsessed with tracking this down. <GRIN> Best JACK --Jackehammond (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found and added a source that lists numerous countries, and the Malaysian special forces, as users of the AT4. ROG5728 (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can tell I am sort of obsessed about finding a reference on the AT4 for Malaysia. I was tickled pink as they say, "till" I clicked the reference and read the article. That article is basically a plagiarism of the re-write I gave the Wikipedia AT4 (just read the two, and will even see the word "Americanized" which Russians or Europeans don't use and the photos) and a much older article I posted on Army Reconn (it is the fifth external references on the AT4 page "...early photos..."). Iraq is the glaring example. I have read a lot and saw photos, and have not seen any AT4s with Iraqi military forces. Mainly because they have a lot of RPG-7s and no one in the US military wants the Iraqis to have an antiarmour weapon which has such a devastating effect after penetration against non-main battle tanks. One of the saving graces for US forces inside of any armored vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan has been the bad guys rely on the RPG-7. Yes, the RPG-7 good penetration, but it has poor after-penetration effect. The AT4 was designed deliberately to sacrifice penetration against heavy armoured vehicles and exchange that for what they call "beyond-armour effect". As with other references I find questionable on WP, I leave it to you as to what to do. But as bad as I want to see the Malaysian flag on the AT4 article, I am afraid the author was just writing what he copied from the WP article before the Malaysian flag was taken down.
Trivia - if you want have some fun, ask other gun enthusiasts, what country has aircraft .50 caliber guns, that have been converted to water cooled machine guns? The answer -- ie after they say you are crazy <GRIN> -- is Chile. Their air force took some old .50 caliber machine guns mounted on aircraft and made a twin anti-aircraft mount, and put a water-jacket inside air cooled jacket. It works with such a small water jacket because they have an electric pump that pumps in coolant through the jacket at a fast rate. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be copied from this article so I reverted my edit. When I added the source I looked at the revision history, and there were various differences that made it seem genuine. For example, it was never mentioned in the user list that Lebanon purchased 1,000 pieces, but the article said that. Looking at the references more closely now, the number wasn't stated in the list but the source for Lebanon did already say that. ROG5728 (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jeff, It was a dead link as a reference on Latvia as a user. I checked the World Defence Almanac for 2010 and it listed the AT4 as one of the weapons in the Latvia Army. I deleted the dead link (which I had not put in btw) and put another reference. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AT-4 in service with the Taliban?[edit]

I have this video from youtube that contains Taliban footage in which at 2:46 (first video), one of the members is shown brandishing a captured AT-4.

What do you guys think of it?

Doesn't surprise me, i wouldn't class a few captured AT-4's as 'in service'. Though i am surprised that the ISAF forces didn't do a better job as destroying their own equipment, they clearly left enough ordinance behind to destroy it all, or even just a single GBU from a passing aircraft after they left the area...

Name[edit]

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 [1] 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)[reply]

AT-12[edit]

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)[reply]

Octol[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M136 or AT4[edit]

@Oranjelo100: 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)[reply]

I don't think it's particularly impartant what designtion Jane is using. But if the manufacturer isn't using it, then I'm okay with reverting it. Now, I checked it and M136 is a slighly modified American version. AT4 Oranjelo100 (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket launchers avoid high pressure, recoilless rifles don't[edit]

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)[reply]

Round Penetration vs. Specifications[edit]

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)[reply]

Specifications[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I suggested places above to move them. BilCat (talk) 05:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So in short, the entire article needs a renovation with sources..--Blockhaj (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As it did before, yes. BilCat (talk) 06:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Operators list[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AT4&oldid=1205443029"