Talk:Anti-personnel mine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Sub headings[edit]

I have converted some of the other style options into sub headings to be more standard. It also makes the Table of Contents (TOC) more useful.

Image (PTAB)[edit]

I have changed the image from the P2AB, because the P2AB is NOT an anti-personnel mine, but an anti-personnel submunition of a Russian cluster bomb. Yes, some cluster bombs release mines (AP and AT) as submunitions, but the PTAB is not one of these, it is designed to injure personnel yes, but not acting as a mine, it simply explodes immediately (possibly with a slight delay). The Valmara 69 is a much better photo, because it shows scale compared to a person as well as the usual placement of mines (in or on ground).

Fuze mechanism[edit]

It would seem to follow from the description given that the cinematic theme of a soldier who hears a click and ends up stuck standing on a mine, lest it explode when he removes his foot, is a myth. Could there be some discussion on this point? 68.165.204.148 (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Gas mine[edit]

these are not mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.94.247 (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no discussion, in the context of the recent news of the US's refusal to sign the Convention, of whether or not the US still manufactures antipersonnel mines, and exactly which companies, belonging to which groups and supported by which investors, in which countries, do manufacture these mines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lestrad (talkcontribs) 16:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

How is the above relevant to this article? Were you to post a similar comment to the article dealing with the treaty proper you might have a response by now. Drieux 04:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drieux (talkcontribs)

What happen to POV and Neutrality on subjects[edit]

Folks, The Ex links especially have but on POV and zero neutrality. That should be discussed on the a separate page dealing with the campagin to ban land mines. Not a page which deals with how land mines work and their history. Yes, a small paragraph should mention the treaty, but this is going in whole hawg for indoctrination and an agenda. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-personnel mine. 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)