[HN Gopher] Classified specs leaked on War Thunder forum for thi...
___________________________________________________________________
Classified specs leaked on War Thunder forum for third time
Author : haunter
Score : 250 points
Date : 2022-06-03 07:37 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| If I were the PLA and wanted to scare western military analysts
| about Chinese hardware, I'd leak some tuned up specs in the War
| Thunder forums....
| bergenty wrote:
| None of this is scary though...
| elevaet wrote:
| Is it a better strategy to have your combat opponent
| underestimate, or overestimate your specs?
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| I'd guess it's always a weakness if you mispredict the other
| side's performance, whatever the circumstance.
| regularfry wrote:
| There's an interesting example of exactly this in missile
| development. Russia over-estimated the capabilities of a
| generation of the Sidewinder missile and built their
| equivalent to match what they thought it must contain, and as
| a result had a more advanced design for a while.
|
| Similar story with the Buran: they over-estimated the Space
| Shuttle's military capabilities on the assumption that the
| true intended mission profiles were being hushed up and ended
| up with a fully automated exoatmospheric nuclear bomber.
|
| So it's a dodgy strategy if it's intentional: you've got to
| bet that your opponent will run out of cash before they can
| field the superweapons you've made them build; or that once
| built they won't be able to afford enough of them to make a
| difference.
| yborg wrote:
| > Russia over-estimated the capabilities of a generation of
| the Sidewinder missile and built their equivalent to match
| what they thought it must contain
|
| No. The K-13/AA-2 Atoll is a literal copy of an AIM-9
| reverse-engineered from an example captured by the Chinese.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-13_(missile)
| wbl wrote:
| He is talking about the Vymple R-73 which was meant to
| counter the capabilities of a project that got cancelled,
| but they thought has become classified.
| regularfry wrote:
| Yep. I can neither remember nor find my copy of Ron
| Westrum's China Lake book to check which feature it was,
| but it was one of helmet-mounted targeting or thrust
| vectoring. I _think_ it was the latter but wouldn 't put
| money on it.
| skhr0680 wrote:
| The F-15 was way ahead of any other fighter jet for years
| because someone managed to convince whoever was paying that
| the MiG-25 was a super plane (it _really_ wasn't)
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| And the MiG-25 itself was designed because the USSR was
| spooked by the XB-70 Valkyrie which was a supersonic
| strategic bomber that flew higher and faster than any
| existing Soviet interceptor.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valk
| yri...
|
| The Valkyrie never was productionized and only 2 aircraft
| were ever built.
| techdragon wrote:
| And sadly only one survives to this day due to an
| absolutely incredible mid air disaster during what was an
| otherwise "routine" photo op flight.
| dtparr wrote:
| In case anyone is wondering, since it was a photo op
| flight, there's a photo of it shortly after the midair
| collision, missing a vert stabilizer. The fireball is the
| F-104 that contacted it.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valk
| yri...
| eternalban wrote:
| Apropos of nothing but F-4 Phantoms still look badass and
| gorgeous.
| hangonhn wrote:
| Y'all seeing a pattern here? I don't think it's
| intentional but our fears drive us to escalate and pour
| money into things to counter things that don't really
| exist in the ways that we fear.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| And, I just want to stress here, the BILLIONS we pour
| into these weapons systems are billions that we _don 't_
| spend on building highways, schools, etc. You know, the
| actually useful stuff that benefits the average citizen.
|
| The US is flanked by two friendly neighbors and separated
| from our nearest peer adversaries by thousands of miles
| of ocean. Neither China or Russia has any ability to
| project significant assets with a blue water navy. Yet
| we're still spending 700B+ / yr on defense? We could
| defend US soil with a tiny fraction of that. Our entire
| military-industrial complex is a pure grift the likes of
| which the world has never seen.
| waffleiron wrote:
| From the Art of War:
|
| All warfare is based on deception.
|
| Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using
| our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must
| make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we
| must make him believe we are near.
| danielheath wrote:
| Depends whether your goal is to get what you want without
| fighting, or to win a fight.
| PedroBatista wrote:
| Both.
|
| You want to make your opponent to vastly overestimate your
| power where you are in fact weak so they don't even try it
| and underestimate your clear advantages so if they get any
| funny ideas they'll get their ass kicked.
| refurb wrote:
| I think the goal is the specs are different enough to assume
| different capabilities.
|
| Whether a gun fires faster or slower isn't good or bad, it
| just drives how it's used.
| zasdffaa wrote:
| I know someone here in the UK who signed the official secrets act
| (terminology wrong but you get me) and it was made intimidatingly
| (I use that word precisely) clear to them that blabbing had bad
| consequences. I'm sure it's the same or worse elsewhere, so this
| all looks odd. Could it possibly be a somewhat plausible way to
| release helpful (mis)information? It just seems so odd otherwise.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Signing the official secrets act is a thing, you don't actually
| sign anything, at least for jobs I'm aware of (in the UK Civil
| Service), but your job is predicated on agreement to be bound
| by it's terms. In the act they call it notification, but you
| can be guilty of someone leaks to you and 'you should have
| known' not to disclose it.
|
| https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/6
| zasdffaa wrote:
| That's very informative, thanks.
| dharmab wrote:
| Milsim flame wars can get pretty brutal, this happens semi-
| regularly and developers have to harshly police their forums
| for it. Public docs are frequently used as reference material
| for these arguments and every once in a while someone forgets
| OPSEC and publishes something that is open within the military
| but not approved for public release
| dirtyid wrote:
| Not really new info, "leak" verifies stats posted on PRC military
| programming on CCTV a couple years ago. Lots of PRC military
| content out there for open source intel to collect, but not many
| foreign analyst with language skills to bother.
|
| https://imgur.com/a/5qNMRYJ
| RektBoy wrote:
| hkt wrote:
| impit wrote:
| rutierut wrote:
| gre wrote:
| st34m wrote:
| impit wrote:
| duxup wrote:
| Amusing, although the previous situations involving manuals and
| etc I think are hardly serious leaks considering how plentiful a
| service manual might be.
|
| I gotta think once you hand out some classified material to X
| number of people, just as a policy you gotta assume the opposing
| folks know about it, even if just due to mishandling / human
| error.
| i5heu wrote:
| So what is the deal here? Was this information previously not
| available on the net? Is this Information that got leaked for the
| first time?
| unityByFreedom wrote:
| Maybe they're trying to establish themselves as a place to leak
| military secrets.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| The information was previously available on the net and was
| accepted by consensus for most of the PLA watching community,
| but there was no really hard evidence.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Access to that particular material and that particular doc
| might allow the set of possibilities around a suspected spy to
| be reduced until there is only one person in it.
| haunter wrote:
| Basically actual military people play the game too (just like
| how commercial pilots play flight sims as a past time).
|
| The devs go as close to real as possible but of course with
| still in-service vehicles that's not always possible.
|
| So sometimes people leak classified information. I think it
| comes down to:
|
| 1, bragging and forum debates going to heated (I know this
| info!)
|
| 2, actually helping the devs
|
| 3, "being a gamer" = this vehicle is weak but I actually know
| it's more powerful so I prove it
| widjit wrote:
| 4. Controlled leaks/misinformation
| [deleted]
| titaniczero wrote:
| It's literally the military version of https://xkcd.com/386/.
| People can't help it lol
| Sharlin wrote:
| Or Cunningham's law. ("The best way to get the right answer
| on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the
| wrong answer.")
| treme wrote:
| the latter, people really can't stand to lose internet
| arguments :)
| Gravityloss wrote:
| Cool design. I guess it needs the grooves so that the sabot can
| attach to it. After all the acceleration is tremendous.
| causality0 wrote:
| I find it amusing a British publication is going out of its way
| to obscure _Chinese_ military secrets by blurring the image.
| Exactly who do they think they 're helping?
| trhway wrote:
| They aren't helping. They are trying to not anger too much.
| pisspiss wrote:
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| War offense and defense is a giant unending game of rock paper
| scissors dragons mage ...
| dmead wrote:
| maybe these are authorized leaks so that these armies can see how
| well their hardware does in a big simulation?
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| > WarThunder forum moderators quickly removed the post, adding
| "Materials related to the DTC10-125 are classified in China".
|
| Realistically speaking, what's the worst that could happen if
| they let the images stay? Unlike previous leaks which featured
| western military diagrams, I don't believe that there would be
| repercussions for disregarding Chinese law.
| njharman wrote:
| Being banned in China, the largest video game market.
| mimsee wrote:
| Tencent is their publisher in china.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| The game has a chinese publisher. There's no way this would be
| accepted by Tencent.
| tragictrash wrote:
| You incur the wrath of the CCP cyber units. If they wanted,
| they could ddos all the servers into oblivion indefinitely.
| kube-system wrote:
| That's not necessary.
|
| > Tencent's online censorship team is led by the CCP's Deputy
| Party Secretary.
|
| https://www.visiontimes.com/2021/07/30/how-the-chinese-
| gover...
| shitshitshit wrote:
| macinjosh wrote:
| Who cares? Governments classify just about anything and
| everything they legally can by default. It is a CYA move and
| there isn't a lot of thought put into it. If something needs to
| be public they figure they can always declassify it. The chances
| of any of this info actually mattering are miniscule.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| How do we know those are classified specs and not counter intel?
| dobin wrote:
| These leaks are usually just a photo of a page of the booklet all
| the soldiers get with their weapon systems. I had dozens of them,
| and they were not considered particularly sensitive (e.g. dont
| care if you lose them).
|
| Is it classified? Yes. Is it bad? Probably not.
| bombcar wrote:
| Yeah something that's handed out to troops is assumed to be in
| all potential adversaries' possession.
| dobin wrote:
| https://www.marines.mil/News/Publications/MCPEL
| xyzal wrote:
| For those interested in the actual image>
| https://imgur.com/c8P1OOh
| joelthelion wrote:
| Is this particularly sensitive? Are anti-tank rounds that
| cutting-edge?
| lumost wrote:
| Yes, while the basic mechanics aren't particularly sensitive
| in 2022. The exact details with regards to range, penetrating
| power, accuracy, weight are.
|
| Given this information an adversary can adjust tactics to
| engage at a range that's more optimal for _their_ rounds,
| recognize that they should use alternate longer range
| strikes, or devise long term mitigations.
|
| Given that all of the above actions are expensive, it's a lot
| easier to take them when you have the exact specs. The
| problem is even worse with air to air missiles where pilots
| can be trained to counter most missiles if they have the
| exact performance characteristics.
| moonchrome wrote:
| So if you release fake specs understating your stats you
| get enemies coming into range for free ?
| aaron695 wrote:
| skhr0680 wrote:
| Yes, and published specs of weapons are likely to be
| misleading or outright lies for that reason
| fendy3002 wrote:
| Given the actual harddisk size compared with advertised
| and how nutritional value and calories in supermarket
| foods are often misleading, it can be safe to say that
| the specification is hard to be believed.
| sandos wrote:
| I even worked with military simulators, and they
| themselves are segregated. The simpler ones use the
| "marketing" figures for secret stuff (the thing I
| specifically remember was range for air-to-air robots and
| turn capabilities etc), whereas some might use the real
| figures. I don't think even the most high fidelity
| simulators always use 100% accurate info, especially when
| it comes to radar stuff which is very very well guarded.
| Even though a lot of the code can be identical to the
| "flying code" for aircraft, there is still a lot of
| physical stuff that needs to be specifically modelled.
| lumost wrote:
| You may also make an adversary believe they have a much
| larger advantage then they do, inviting a conflict.
|
| There is substantial debate as to whether the open
| development of projects such as the f-35 is beneficial or
| harmful compress to the secret development of things like
| the J-20. The congressional interrogations of Lockheed
| Likely help ensure that the f-35 works as advertised, but
| adversaries gain insight into the development timeline,
| problems, and more specs than they would have otherwise.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > The congressional interrogations of Lockheed Likely
| help ensure that the f-35 works as advertised
|
| I am under the impression the f-35 will never deliver
| what was advertised since it was a sales effort based on
| fantasy physics. It probably is delivering the actual
| intended effect, which is transferring money from
| taxpayers to military contractors and job votes for
| certain senators.
| lumost wrote:
| Which makes you wonder, how badly are the secret fighter
| jet programs intended to compete with the F-35 or similar
| stealth planes actually going?
|
| The MIG-25's capabilities were famously misinterpreted by
| western intelligence, resulting in the creation of the
| F-15 Eagle. Undoubtedly similar confusions resulted in
| the F-22 program through the 1980s.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-
| Gurevich_MiG-25#Wester...
| CSMastermind wrote:
| Can you be more specific? What about the F35 was based on
| "fantasy physics"?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| That it was possible to make an all in one plane for all
| branches of military for all purposes, and have verticals
| take off and landing for the Marines. And have some type
| of 360 degree futuristic digital heads-up display?
|
| I did not bother with reading into all the details, I
| just know there have been article after article about the
| plane failing to reach expectation after expectation for
| basically my whole adult life now.
|
| Not to mention that drones render human piloted jets much
| less necessary or useful.
| tablespoon wrote:
| >> Can you be more specific? What about the F35 was based
| on "fantasy physics"?
|
| > That it was possible to make an all in one plane for
| all branches of military for all purposes, and have
| verticals take off and landing for the Marines.
|
| That's not so much fantasy _physics_ as it is fantasy
| product management.
|
| IIRC, the major result of that was that the program cost
| _way_ more to end up delivering three different planes
| that cost too much to fill the roles they were supposed
| to.
|
| > And have some type of 360 degree futuristic digital
| heads-up display?
|
| That actually seems pretty plausible. IIRC, it's
| basically see-through VR goggles.
| outworlder wrote:
| > That it was possible to make an all in one plane for
| all branches of military for all purpose
|
| It's possible. They ended up achieving less commonality
| than predicted, and costs were higher than predicted. No
| fantasy physics here.
|
| > and have verticals take off and landing for the Marines
|
| Works fine. Although they will probably not take off
| vertically and will instead do a short takeoff. Same
| thing the Harrier did. No fantasy physics.
|
| > And have some type of 360 degree futuristic digital
| heads-up display
|
| They do, and it works.
|
| > failing to reach expectation after expectation for
| basically my whole adult life now
|
| Welcome to cutting edge weapons development. Read some
| history, you'll find plenty of programs that had similar
| issues but are successful today.
|
| > Not to mention that drones render human piloted jets
| much less necessary or useful.
|
| Maybe so. But not today.
| outworlder wrote:
| > I am under the impression the f-35 will never deliver
| what was advertised since it was a sales effort based on
| fantasy physics.
|
| It will deliver, though. Because the physics don't matter
| nearly as much - unless you are talking about radar
| signature physics. Aircraft today are mobile ordnance
| delivery platforms. Those Top Gun air to air stunts?
| Unlikely to happen. Supermaneuvarability stuff doesn't
| matter at all if you are getting hit before you even know
| the enemy is there. Or you might know, because one F35
| has the radar on, only to get hit from a completely
| different aircraft that's getting the data link.
|
| What does matter is getting in undetected (while
| coordinating with your peers), delivering your payload,
| getting back out. Or doing recon, etc.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| They are most likely talking about radar signature
| physics. Stealth to lower frequency radar requires
| physically implausible materials. So does the supposedly
| undetectable radar of the F-35. Plenty of physics-bending
| specs.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > They are most likely talking about radar signature
| physics. Stealth to lower frequency radar requires
| physically implausible materials.
|
| But then the question moves to: what are the weaknesses
| of those lower frequency radars, and can those be
| exploited to restore the advantage of the stealth
| features? The admittedly not-great Wikipedia page about
| low frequency radar seems to indicate it has a lot of
| disadvantages like being difficult to transport, prone to
| noise, and not being precise enough for targeting.
| imtringued wrote:
| You should always overstate your capabilities not
| understate them.
| zasdffaa wrote:
| Rubbish. It depends on what you want to make your
| opponent do.
| kube-system wrote:
| Or do both so that you are not predictable.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| I'm sure the enemy rocket designers will look at whether
| your specs make sense given their own experience.
| michaelt wrote:
| To an extent. But weapon specifications often have pretty
| gigantic error bars on them.
|
| After all, the range of a tank gun isn't just a question
| of how far it can send a shell - it's also a question of
| how well the gun can be aimed, how hard the shells have
| to hit when they arrive, and whether the 'effective' in
| 'effective range' means a 20% chance of a kill or a 90%
| chance.
|
| By messing around with those definitions, the M1 Abrams
| tank has a range of anything from 2,500m to 4000m to
| 8000m. Pretty hard to sanity-check such a wide range of
| figures.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| Not against anyone competent. If your opponents are
| taking a single photo leaked on Reddit at face value,
| then you're going to have an easy time.
| zild3d wrote:
| a huge portion of classified/sensitive material is not all
| that interesting/cutting edge. But if you'd rather an
| adversary not know it, or it could potentially be exploited
| then it'll be marked classified.
| dirtyid wrote:
| Not particularly, CCTV7 documentary on Type 99A tank quoted
| the significant numbers a couple years ago.
| nickpinkston wrote:
| That's a really interesting design, as it looks like it was
| inspired by metal broaching tools where each of those rings
| acts like a cutter to slightly enlarge the hole made by the
| ring before it.
|
| It makes sense that a penetrator would use that technique as
| it's designed to clear the chip debris, as opposed to trying to
| deform the bulk hardened material, allowing far easier
| penetration and perhaps more energy transfer to the inside of
| the target.
|
| https://www.iqsdirectory.com/articles/broaching.html
| [deleted]
| mgdlbp wrote:
| This is the sixth (possibly seventh) time according to the game's
| subreddit
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/v2r744/it_might...
|
| > 1. Something about the eurocopter tiger was leaked
|
| > 2. The Challenger 2 had a leak about the gun or turret rotation
|
| > 3. The more recent Challenger 2 leak about the armor
|
| > 4. A leak about the penetration of the Type 99
|
| > 5. The leak about the Leclerc turret rotation speed
|
| > 6. Now this current leak about a Chinese shell
|
| (with more details scattered in the other comments)
| aidenn0 wrote:
| The question that randomly comes to mind from this is "is it
| proper to refer to a sabot-mounted solid penetrator as a
| "shell"? I always thought a shell was strictly used to refer to
| hollow projectiles?
| _fat_santa wrote:
| As a non-player. I'm confused by how and why they are getting
| leaked? First the how.
|
| Are players just stumbling on this stuff through internet
| sleuthing? I'm sure anyone with clearance to view said
| documents would not be leaking them on an Tank Game Forum.
|
| Now as to the why. Barring some sort of
| intelligence/counterintelligence work (conspiracy theory
| territory but you never know), why would this stuff get leaked?
| I would assume it's players wanting a more accurate experience?
|
| My theory is it's just hardcore players/mod makers that want to
| mimics every real life detail of the real tanks. The info being
| leaked has likely already been "leaked" but somewhere not as
| visible as the WarThunder forums, so we only hear about it when
| it pops up there.
| registeredcorn wrote:
| Milsim nerds can be incredibly particular and either end up
| having access to such documents through their work, or merely
| find and post documents they come across online. The struggle
| to win an online argument can result in a shocking amount of
| research fueled on nothing by pettiness and bitter nerd-rage
| tears.
|
| Example about the availability of publicly available
| classified information: During the time when the Wikileaks
| stuff was first starting, Military personnel were instructed
| not to read articles or even _headlines_ about Wikileaks,
| because they might contain classified information. Given that
| there would then be an issue with "need to know", reading
| the newspaper could inadvertently cause one to violate
| policy, and in turn _require_ the violator to file a report
| on the matter. Rather than deal with however many reports,
| people were simply given a lawful order: Do not read any
| information pertaining to the subject.
|
| Anyway, back to the point about nerds: If a guy is attempting
| to rotate the turret of a tank he spent 1.5 years grinding to
| get, and he knows that in _real life_ his turret should
| rotate at a certain speed, but in game it actually takes
| longer to turn, and he dies as a result, the chance of him
| whining about it online is probable. Rinse and repeat this a
| few hundred times, and cost him potentially 10-20 million
| Silver Lions (free in-game currency) in repair costs, lost
| battles, etc. then you better believe he 's going to get
| _really_ salty about it. He 's either going to say some
| things he shouldn't be saying (unlikely, but not impossible),
| or, he's going to find and link to documents that shouldn't
| be publicly available.
|
| In turn, other nerds will notice this, report it due to the
| policies around classified information. Eventually it becomes
| a big to-do about something that was already accessible, but
| not necessarily well known.
| some_random wrote:
| AFAIK none of these leaks have come from those sorts of
| sources, they're from tank crewmen publishing classified
| docs for their own tanks
| eszaq wrote:
| I wonder if DARPA et al will decide that the leaks are
| just the price they pay for having soldiers spend their
| free time fooling around in simulators with tanks they
| actually operate.
| registeredcorn wrote:
| Fair point. I hadn't really investigated where the leaks
| had come from, was more just trying to give an example of
| how they could come about.
| zaroth wrote:
| It's funny to think that the purported justification for
| the order against reading Wikileaks news was actually
| believed by anyone who heard it.
|
| "Don't read this - it's for your own good! Just reading it
| could cause you to have to report against yourself! No
| really!"
|
| Total rubbish of course.
| millzlane wrote:
| I was on a camp trip one time with a bunch of Spooks, and
| the mental gymnastics they went through to justify spying
| on regular people was nauseating. I can imagine the
| directive to avoid reading any news also gives you a one
| sided view about the subject.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| > I'm sure anyone with clearance to view said documents would
| not be leaking them on an Tank Game Forum.
|
| Out of everyone in the population, who do you think is most
| likely to be a hardcore player/mod maker for WarThunder? Is
| it:
|
| (A) John Teenager, taking a gap year to play video games and
| scour double-digit pages on Bing for details on new tanks,
| stumbling across mailing lists and unsecured Slack channels
| from third-party suppliers
|
| (B) James Bond, foreign counterintelligence operative who
| hacked into the DoD and forgot which specs were public and
| which ones he only knew from his hacking efforts
|
| (C) GI Joe, tank maintenance tech, who just really likes
| tanks, so much so that he got a job working on them and plays
| video games that involve tanks in his spare time.
|
| I'm a controls engineer and programmer, and yeah, some of my
| hobbies involve my experience; I'm pretty skilled with
| Arduinos, 3D printers, and Minecraft redstone. Is an Arduino
| sketch that drives a stepper using the same set of signals as
| a brand-new, NDAed, proprietary Fanuc servodrive a problem in
| the same way classified specs for a military tank a problem?
| Not really, anyone who knows about servos would build the
| same basic API but that's the order of encoder values,
| commanded positions, acceleration/velocity/travel limits, and
| home/limit switches etc. that I'm familiar with, so why not?
| ng12 wrote:
| There's a really great writeup of one incident on Reddit: htt
| ps://www.reddit.com/r/HobbyDrama/comments/owtzl9/video_ga...
| celim307 wrote:
| Don't underestimate the butthurt of a nerd trying to win an
| online argument. I think for one of the challenger leaks the
| dude was trying to win a stupid forum argument
| driscoll42 wrote:
| The Techspot article on this goes into a bit more detail on
| the other leaks (https://www.techspot.com/news/94803-gaijin-
| war-thunder-forum...) but generally yes, it's people with
| clearance who are players of the game and want to get
| something in game corrected to be more like reality.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| > it's people with clearance who are players of the game
| and want to get something in game corrected to be more like
| reality.
|
| While i get the good intentions here, this is shockingly
| short sighted for players (with classified access) to be
| doing this.
| sitzkrieg wrote:
| clearance is a prereq only. it doesnt give you the
| ability to freely browse. need to know is still 1 so its
| coming from specific people or other leaks
| omegaham wrote:
| It's less "good intentions" and more butthurt that the
| tank that they work on isn't as powerful in the game as
| they think it should be.
|
| Think of a sports fan complaining that their favorite
| player is rated too low by Madden or FIFA's video game
| representation of the stats. "Whaddya mean that Justin
| Herbert is only rated 91, he should be rated 97!" Except
| instead of pointing to some box scores on
| ProFootballReference to attack the naysayers, you leak
| classified intelligence.
| sieabahlpark wrote:
| They just want to know their OP tank is OP because of
| this secret
| robotnikman wrote:
| As a Warthunder player myself, that is basically the reason.
| Most players like the game to be as realistic as possible,
| and some players really like a specific nation. When they see
| a vehicle under-performing, they try to dig up data and
| documents confirming so, which is then passed to the
| developers.
|
| Problem is, for modern vehicles a lot of this info is
| classified, but some players seem to be persistent enough to
| get that info and try to use it.
| gonzo41 wrote:
| Whilst these are 'classified leaks' they are not exactly
| strategic leaks. Right now we're seeing a lot of real truth's
| play out in Ukraine about just how great armored vehicles and
| tanks are.
|
| Most of the above seem more in the realm of commercial in
| confidence leaks, and or embarrassing information for a
| military than anything that's significant.
| KineticLensman wrote:
| > Whilst these are 'classified leaks' they are not exactly
| strategic leaks.
|
| Just to expand on the multiple levels of classification a
| bit. In the UK we have multiple levels, as per the Govt's own
| open source description [0]: official, secret and top secret.
| Official is sometimes give the caveat 'sensitive' which
| corresponds to the old 'restricted'. The level 'confidential'
| isn't used officially now.
|
| At the risk of massive over-simplification, the lowest levels
| of classification might be used to describe 'how' something
| works (so that it can be easily read by users in training),
| while higher levels might describe how well it works,
| vulnerabilities, etc.
|
| [0] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-
| securi...
| some_random wrote:
| I don't think leaks need to have strategic implications to be
| significant. I'm no expert but the information on armor and
| APFSDS could have meaningful impacts on the survivability of
| a tank. Or maybe all of this is common knowledge that every
| relevant actor has aquired through HUMINT, who knows.
| jimmydorry wrote:
| For all of the things you would find in user manuals (that
| operators are trained against), then yes, one would imagine
| such info is commonly known.
|
| As far as I am aware, all of the information "leaked" has
| been of this kind (the leakers have mostly been
| operators!).
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| I think it is more that the public is becoming a third
| observer in military matters (as in all government and
| commercial matters).
|
| The point is not that "omg the US Army knows our internal
| penetration specs (#)" but more "omg the public knows." But
| this could be an advantage for militaries - leak enough of
| this, guide enough games designers in the right way and build
| a groundswell of support for ... well modelled, arms
| improvements and upgrades.
|
| You should probably also model the value of having the parts
| of a weapon manufactured in 49 states in 49 factories rather
| than say one. And see how you can get public support to
| chnage that
|
| in general I am saying that this game provides a well
| informed public. seems like a good thing. except if you like
| corruption
|
| (#) The CIA already told them. right now there is probably a
| spy in washington trying to work out how to say "yes, we
| spent 15 million dollars obtaining the specs on the Chinese
| shell last month, but how were we supposed to know ..."
| bee_rider wrote:
| I think it won't be too hard.
|
| "We invested 15 million into our network of spies in China,
| we have another bit of evidence that it works. And anyway
| it was only 15 million, pocket change for the MIC."
| [deleted]
| l33t2328 wrote:
| Unfortunately, most classified stuff is like that. It's a lot
| of e.g. boring specs of things you wouldn't care about if you
| saw it.
|
| The actual interesting stuff is more rare than Mr. Clean with
| hair.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| The challenge of classified info is that you don't know
| what knowledge a potential attacker has. This is why so
| many things that seem either obvious or irrelevant can end
| up on the classified list.
|
| Sure, details on the tungsten penetrator by themselves may
| be either semi-obvious or worthless (wow, it's a round that
| penetrates things. Shocking a tank would carry such a
| weapon!). But the Chinese don't know if their potential
| opponents in the field know something about, say, the
| quality of tungsten China industry can access, or if they
| could extrapolate something about the operation of the main
| gun itself from the reported penetration numbers on the
| tungsten round.
|
| This is why classification tends to be a wider net than
| seems necessary.
| eganist wrote:
| > It's a lot of e.g. boring specs of things you wouldn't
| care about if you saw it.
|
| Boring to most, maybe. But understanding the design of a
| shell or understanding the capabilities of a tank turret
| can inform armor design and battlefield tactics
| respectively.
| gonzo41 wrote:
| If you understand how Explosively formed projectiles are
| created then modern armor design doesn't matter that
| much.
| gpm wrote:
| We've seen armour designs designed to stop them (reactive
| armour, and statistical armour [1]). Understanding the
| exact properties and design of the projectiles you're
| trying to stop is important for making these, for
| instance statistical armour is really designed to trick a
| specific fuse system into not firing.
|
| Armour has not entirely lost the war, and even if some
| day it does, there's nothing saying that some new
| innovation won't let it catch back up.
|
| [1] When cages are done right:
| https://www.tanknology.co.uk/post/statistical-armour
| papito wrote:
| Not to turn this into a military strategy thread but....
|
| There is something to be said for highly mobile anti-armor
| weapons in possession of the defending force, but there is
| ample evidence that Russia simply does not have enough
| manpower to use its tanks properly.
|
| * There are many cases in which a three-crew tank is manned
| by two people (there is no commander).
|
| * They don't seem to have enough cannon fodder to act as a
| filtering force - the perimeter around armor to make sure
| they are not targeted with standoff weapons.
|
| The reports of the tank's death are greatly exaggerated.
| jeffdn wrote:
| Not to mention the ongoing proliferation of active
| protection systems -- the Trophy APS[0] is a truly
| impressive[1] piece of technology.
|
| - [0]:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure)
|
| - [1]: https://youtu.be/uRJzcM5ETY4
| tablespoon wrote:
| Whilst these are 'classified leaks' they are not exactly
| strategic leaks.
|
| > Right now we're seeing a lot of real truth's play out in
| Ukraine about just how great armored vehicles and tanks are.
|
| We're seeing "a lot of real truth's play out in Ukraine," but
| a lot of that seems to be about Russian organization and
| tactics, not necessarily "how great armored vehicles and
| tanks are."
|
| For instance: early in the war I read some (US Marine Corps?)
| study that was online about the Russian "Battalion Tactical
| Group" that noted some deficiencies that may have made them
| far more vulnerable in Ukraine (IIRC too many tanks, too
| little infantry and support troops, too centralized command
| and control). My understanding is that it's been essential
| for a _long time_ that tanks travel with significant infantry
| support.
|
| > Most of the above seem more in the realm of commercial in
| confidence leaks, and or embarrassing information for a
| military than anything that's significant.
|
| The one about the Chinese projectile seems like it could be
| pretty bad. Wouldn't that be the exact kind of technical
| information an opponent would want to design armor or develop
| the right tactics for it? For instance, if you increase your
| side's armor to neutralize it, then your tanks can fight more
| aggressively.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Not quite, because without the exact composition and design
| of the projectile you can't know for sure what is necessary
| unless your armor is made purely of rolled homogenous
| steel.
| the_only_law wrote:
| > Right now we're seeing a lot of real truth's play out in
| Ukraine about just how great armored vehicles and tanks are.
|
| Was watching a video, of a guy basically explaining that
| tanks may be becoming less of a focus in modern armies, as
| new weapons and tactics easily counter them.
|
| I guess it's kinda like when Calvary first started to fall
| from its throne in warfare, due to new advancements in
| infantry tactics.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| There's a ton of minor pundits writing this lazy take. It's
| not a particularly compelling argument.
|
| We've known tanks in open terrain and without infantry
| screening are very vulnerable to ATGMs since the Yom Kippur
| war. We've also seen recent examples of the same in Syria
| and Yemen.
|
| A tank's utility doesn't rely upon it being somehow
| uncountable. We know tons of things counter tanks. But the
| combination of mobility, protection against shrapnel and
| heavy machine gun fire, and a big gun that can cheaply hit
| fortifications, while utterly obliterating any other
| armored vehicle around that's not an MBT, isn't going away
| any time soon.
|
| What we're seeing is instead an increment in a long
| standing race between offense and defense. Reactive armor
| swung things towards the defense for a bit. Tandem charges
| and top attack munitions swung it back. Now Active
| Protection Systems are dragging it back the defense
| direction.
| rsync wrote:
| "I guess it's kinda like when Calvary first started to fall
| from its throne ..."
|
| I hope it is useful and interesting for you know:
|
| Calvary is where Christ died.
|
| _Cavalry_ are the guys on horses.
| the_only_law wrote:
| Yep that's one of those seemingly simple words I always
| fuck up for some reason.
| KineticLensman wrote:
| > a guy basically explaining that tanks may be becoming
| less of a focus in modern armies, as new weapons and
| tactics easily counter them.
|
| Tanks will probably reduce in focus given their massive
| expense vs. the countermeasures but the Russian's tank
| losses have arisen partly because of their massive tactical
| incompetence and can't in themselves be taken to mean that
| tanks are now useless. Tanks work best when used in
| combined arms ops, with supporting infantry, artillery and
| air.
|
| Sending columns of tanks in single file down main roads and
| then getting them blown up is basically the plot of "A
| Bridge Too Far", a.k.a Operation Market Garden in WW2, when
| the Allies tried to quickly cross multiple bridges into
| Germany, and discovered the hard way that only the tanks at
| the front can actually fight, and that if they get stuck,
| so do all of the others. Obviously the Russian commanders
| didn't watch this classic film when it was repeated on
| Sunday afternoon TV.
|
| [Edit] That said, I wouldn't necessarily choose AFV crew if
| I was picking a job in an Army.
| jcranberry wrote:
| They could've drawn on more recent history - the highway
| of death event in Iraq during the gulf war.
| GarvielLoken wrote:
| The Russians have all the history they need about tank
| losses. They suffered 76% tank losses during ww2, 83,500
| tanks. You think they are stupid and don't know any
| better. But they have known all the facts sense ww2, it's
| just the nature of modern war (from ww2 where AFV were
| used) that you are going to suffer high losses, that
| doesn't mean that you don't try to attack.
| CrazyStat wrote:
| Comparing loss rates from a 6-year all-out war to a
| 3-month "special military operation" is, of course,
| incredibly disingenuous.
|
| In just three months Russia has lost at least a quarter
| of their combat ready tanks (~750 documented losses vs
| <3000 combat ready tanks), in a campaign that was
| supposed to be over in 15 days. This is clearly not going
| according to plan. This is clearly not in line with
| whatever "facts" the Russian military leadership "knew"
| going into the war.
| [deleted]
| multjoy wrote:
| >You think they are stupid and don't know any better
|
| The entire invasion demonstrates massive tactical &
| strategic incompetence, which is only possible when
| you're a mafia state.
|
| >it's just the nature of modern war (from ww2 where AFV
| were used) that you are going to suffer high losses
|
| Russia planned to roll in and take Kyiv. They appeared to
| have no contingencies for this not succeeding and that's
| why they're taking heavy losses. On paper, they should
| have cut through Ukraine like a knife through hot butter.
| Teever wrote:
| so if the Russians know what theyre doinn, why doesnt it
| look like they know what theyre doing?
|
| like is this actually what winning looks like?
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| They also had the hellish experiences in Grozny. They
| aren't unaware of the vulnerabilities of tanks, but a
| combination of lack of material resources, operational
| incompetence, and apparently political interference in
| military planning is keeping them from really fighting
| according to their own doctrine.
| rvba wrote:
| Nearly all NATO equipment was made to fight against russian
| armor. Now we see its effectivenes.
|
| I think it is quite clear that all strategy and tactics are
| done by US/NATO generals who tell the Ukrainian army what
| to do - since NATO has all its spy satelites/systems that
| track phones/various classified stuff pointed on the area.
|
| And think that Trump wanted USA to leave NATO. Talk about
| russian assets..
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| > Nearly all NATO equipment was made to fight against
| russian armor. Now we see its effectivenes.
|
| To go along with this, when Americans train, we mainly
| practice for peer-combatants, against Russian armor. That
| means a whole bunch of light infantry, mechanized
| infantry, combat engineers, calvary and armor, as well as
| all of our air assets, know how to make it really
| dangerous for armor. Aka a shooting gallery.
|
| > I think it is quite clear that all strategy and tactics
| are done by US/NATO generals who tell the Ukrainian army
| what to do - since NATO has all its spy satelites/systems
| that track phones/various classified stuff pointed on the
| area.
|
| Perhaps at the macro level there is some advice going on,
| info about positions and definitely tooling.
|
| However, when I've seen videos of Russian armor getting
| hit by infantry, in most cases it was merely columns
| driving on a road with no support, and some anti-armor
| missiles hitting them on their flanks. Armor emerging
| from a treeline in an open area perfect for a long range
| missile shot from a TOW, no support anywhere. Basically,
| newb mistakes.
|
| In all the videos I have seen, and have watched lots, I
| have yet to see a full "American style" ambush. I think
| it may be dangerous for this to happen, because if Russia
| was regularly losing large amounts of tanks, it would
| make it that much more likely that they'd go Nuclear.
| Another reason for this may be Russian responses to
| various things can include using artillery or missiles
| against > a grid square.
|
| > And think that Trump wanted USA to leave NATO. Talk
| about russian assets..
|
| That was a negotiating tactic. The only way the euros
| have managed to have such rich social spending is in
| part, not keeping their promises about contribution
| levels. The US cannot afford to pick up the tab for
| everyone's defense in Europe.
| myko wrote:
| > That was a negotiating tactic.
|
| Afraid not, he was really going to do it:
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-
| politic...
| mantas wrote:
| Fantastic evidence!
|
| Meanwhile Trump's tactic pushed some euro countries to
| finally increase military spending at least a tiny bit.
| But most euro militaries are still in a bad shape :(
| saiya-jin wrote:
| All good apart from that euro part at the end - 2%
| required contribution doesnt bite into social spending in
| any meaningful way, not in fully working economy.
|
| We in europe simply value quality of life of whole
| population more than individual income.
|
| Germans (and some other western EU states) fucked up
| this, no point arguing there. Self-trauma from WWII that
| even Putin said should be left in the past.
| jimmydorry wrote:
| Not to support Trump here, but taken the other way, look
| at how much value and effectiveness America is bringing
| to the NATO table. And the cost of having access to that
| power was a mere 2% of GDP (something that many EU
| countries that were incredibly reluctant to meet are now
| increasing frantically to make up for lost time).
| pas wrote:
| it was a perfectly valid argument (and Trump made it into
| an idiotic talking point in his typical dumbfuck
| aggressive tantrum style)
|
| the important aspect to keep in mind with other NATO
| members slacking on their own defense is that it directly
| increases US influence over them. basically the US and
| those other members semi-knowingly traded dependence and
| a to a certain degree subservience for protection.
| TMWNN wrote:
| >And think that Trump wanted USA to leave NATO. Talk
| about russian assets..
|
| Speaking of Russian assets, there are still people that
| say that Merkel was always against German dependence on
| Russian gas but could not do anything about it. For 16
| years!
|
| There is more "evidence" that Merkel is a long-term
| Russian intelligence asset, recruited from her youth in
| East Germany,[1] than that of Trump being the same. One
| guess on which claim is incessantly repeated by the
| _bien-pensants_ of the chattering classes.
|
| Bonus: Trump and Stoltenberg argue on camera
| (<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k>). Who
| turned out to be right? Who turned out to completely,
| totally, 100% wrong?
|
| [1] Something else never talked about is how her parents
| moved from West to East Germany when she was a baby
| archontes wrote:
| You had such a chance to say "first started to fall from
| its saddle..."
| GarvielLoken wrote:
| They won't. Armchair generals think that massive losses of
| tanks would mean that they are going away. In real life it
| does not mean that. In ww2 Soviet lost 76% of all tanks
| they produces during the war, 83,500. And they still choose
| a tank focued strategic doctrine after this fact during the
| cold war, and they knew better than anyone else how many
| tank losses they suffered during ww2. https://en.wikipedia.
| org/wiki/Equipment_losses_in_World_War_...
|
| So this war, the Yom Kippur, the Syria war, they have no
| news regarding tank losses. Tanks were never designed to be
| invulnerable, and their losses have never meant that they
| don't work. The Soviet and the Russians knows this. The
| west think that tank's will survive battle fields, but from
| a historical point of view that is a delusion. Tanks are
| still the least bad choice, they are faster and hit harder
| than infantry, which if you think AFV have it though
| against drone corrected artillery, infantry is a sheit site
| worse.
| the_only_law wrote:
| They utilized other recent events, including the Marine
| cooler opting to drop all their tanks (I'll bet my father
| was thrilled at that)
|
| But you're probably right that this is an armchair
| general making guesstimations. He did have military
| experience, but not in any capacity that would make him
| an expert in tank warfare.
|
| FWIW cavalry (as in my analogy) didn't really die off for
| a very long time and was still useful in armies for some
| time, but they were not the symbol and main power of
| armies that they used to.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| The marines are dumping tanks as part of a re orientation
| to be a true marine island hopping force in the pacific.
| There's debate over whether this is a viable concept in
| total, but little debate whether tanks make sense in that
| environment.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Are _you_ going to climb into a tank, after what we 've
| seen?
| dragontamer wrote:
| Yes.
|
| When there's 152mm 100lb shrapnel artillery bombs
| dropping all around you, the only safe location is inside
| of 200mm+ thick steel plates.
|
| Or what? Are you going to hide inside of a trench all
| day, or get into a thin APC / IFV and get shredded before
| you even reach the front lines?
|
| Armor still matters. The whole MLRS debate has
| demonstrated that the powers-that-be are worried about
| the artillery battle above all else (as is common in war,
| those 20km guns are called "the king of battle" for a
| reason).
|
| Advancing, or retreating, to positions while 100lb
| shrapnel bombs scatter around you is only possible when
| inside of armor. APCs/IFVs have a bit, but Tanks have the
| most.
|
| ------
|
| Walking around, on foot, with only a helmet and some
| kevlar is nothing compared to the amount of shrapnel that
| is in play in any of those warzones. The shear number of
| 152mm artillery rounds being used is insane, and plainly
| obvious from the terrain in any footage I've seen.
|
| -------
|
| Tanks also remain the largest direct-fire gun on the
| battlefield, and have repeatedly proven their usefulness.
| Drones fly at 50mph and can take 10+ minutes to reach
| position. (Air Force/support flies faster, but also has
| 10+ minutes of delay as the pilots prep and launch).
|
| Artillery fires at much higher speeds, but still takes 1
| to 2 minutes for the shell to land.
|
| Tank guns? They fire and land near instantly upon the
| target. If you need immediate fire support, the only
| solution is a tank. All other forms of support have a
| significant delay. All other guns are way smaller (ex:
| Sniper Rifles or Browning Machine Guns can't kill enemy
| tanks, for example).
| closewith wrote:
| > All other guns are way smaller (ex: Sniper Rifles or
| Browning Machine Guns can't kill enemy tanks, for
| example).
|
| This seems to ignore the existence of the ATGM?
| dragontamer wrote:
| ATGMs are single-shot and 50lbs. They're hard to carry
| around the battlefield, and the people carrying them
| aren't carrying much else.
|
| Furthermore: Tanks provide 40+ shots upon their call, and
| easily travel 30mph or faster.
|
| Finally, Tanks have 3000m to 4000m range. Javelin only
| has 3000m range, while NLAW only has 1000m range. The
| tank is faster, the tank is more maneuverable, the tank
| is better armored, the tank has more range, the tank has
| more bullets, the tank has bigger shots (120mm rounds
| blow a bigger hole in the enemy than Javelins do). When
| the tank fires, their shells travel at literally
| hypersonic (Mach5) speeds, there's many stories of how
| tank-commanders saw an enemy's ATGM, fires back with the
| main cannon, and pops their thermal-smoke grenades to
| avoid the missile.
|
| At 2000m or 3000m range, its really hard to actually
| fight a competent tank crew. Even if you are provided
| with the best of the best weapons.
|
| To carry similar firepower to a tank, you'll need 40
| troops, each carrying a 50lb Javelin into the
| battlefield. Sure, the tank can die to one Javelin, but
| your 40 troops can all die to a few 152mm shells... and
| troops don't have the luxury of sitting in a vehicle
| (troops carrying 50lb weapons move slower than the
| armored cars we call "tanks").
|
| And once you have those troops in position, there's still
| the problem of the innate slowness of the ATGMs compared
| to tank APFSDS / HE-frag rounds. Yes, rockets are fast,
| but tank-rounds are far far faster.
|
| -------
|
| No one can deny the shear offensive prowess of the tank
| on the modern battlefield. ATGMs are very good tools as
| well, but even they pale compared to a tank APFSDS round
| or HE-frag round from a tank.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Are you going to climb into a tank, after what we've
| seen?
|
| I wouldn't climb into a T-72 in the Russian Army, but not
| all tanks are T-72s in the Russian army.
| omegaham wrote:
| A Russian tank using Russian "combined-arms" doctrine
| that sends me into a city completely unsupported? That's
| going to be a big "no" from me.
|
| An American tank using American combined-arms doctrine?
| Well, it's not going to be a risk-free experience, but
| I'd rather be in the tank than be one of the bullet
| sponges who are fighting house-to-house to prevent the
| enemy bullet sponges from sticking an AT-4 out of a
| window.
|
| As other people have noted, "survivability" doesn't
| really factor into military thinking so much as
| _capabilities_. Bullets are extremely lethal to
| infantrymen, but we still have infantry because
| infantrymen have capabilities that other equipment
| platforms do not have. The existence of machine guns
| doesn 't remove the need for infantry; it just changes
| how they have to be used (more cover and concealment,
| more need for air, artillery, and tank support). The same
| is true for tanks - they have capabilities that no other
| platform can satisfactorily fulfill, so we will continue
| to have tanks even if anti-armor weapons become even more
| effective than they already are.
| grayfaced wrote:
| Tanks are about safely moving a big gun. Iraq war showed us
| it's more important to safely move people (up-armored
| hmmwv). Modern artillery, drones and missiles accomplish
| the "big gun" role better without having to get close
| enough to be in danger.
| some_random wrote:
| I really don't think that's a good comparison, cavalry
| didn't just fall from grace because they became easily
| slaughtered by infantry, they stopped being used because
| their role became irrelevant and were replaced. The role
| tanks play has not become irrelevant and while they aren't
| as survivable as they used to be they aren't nearly as
| vulnerable as clips from UA seem to imply.
|
| I'd recommend this video by a former Abrams commander and
| tank historian who presents this argument far better than I
| can. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-03 23:01 UTC)