Classified specs leaked on War Thunder forum for third time(ukdefencejournal.org.uk)
ukdefencejournal.org.uk
Classified specs leaked on War Thunder forum for third time
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/classified-specs-leaked-on-war-thunder-forum-for-third-time/
172 comments
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.
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.
> 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...
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...
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 ..."
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 ..."
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."
"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."
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.
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.
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
- [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure)
- [1]: https://youtu.be/uRJzcM5ETY4
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.
The actual interesting stuff is more rare than Mr. Clean with hair.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
If you understand how Explosively formed projectiles are created then modern armor design doesn't matter that much.
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
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
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.
> 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.
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.
[deleted]
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
They could've drawn on more recent history - the highway of death event in Iraq during the gulf war.
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.
>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.
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.
I wasn't commenting on their performance in the war. But on the viability of the tank in modern warfare.
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.
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]
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.
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?
like is this actually what winning looks like?
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.
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.
Are you going to climb into a tank, after what we've seen?
Would you prefer to climb into a IFV or a pickup-based technical instead?
Even with all the drawbacks and vulnerabilities, tanks have more staying power than other vehicles, and if you need to do an offensive where it's expected that quite a few of you will die no matter if you advance in vehicles or on foot (peer-level war it's not like insurgent control where having casualties implies a mistake or failure on someone's part) then tanks are the vehicles which allow your to continue advancing while taking fire and some vehicles are lost; a APC company or bunch of technicals can only evade and retreat when meeting serious resistance; tanks are needed to be able to punch through.
Even with all the drawbacks and vulnerabilities, tanks have more staying power than other vehicles, and if you need to do an offensive where it's expected that quite a few of you will die no matter if you advance in vehicles or on foot (peer-level war it's not like insurgent control where having casualties implies a mistake or failure on someone's part) then tanks are the vehicles which allow your to continue advancing while taking fire and some vehicles are lost; a APC company or bunch of technicals can only evade and retreat when meeting serious resistance; tanks are needed to be able to punch through.
> 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.
I wouldn't climb into a T-72 in the Russian Army, but not all tanks are T-72s in the Russian army.
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.
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.
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).
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).
> 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?
This seems to ignore the existence of the ATGM?
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 tanks easily maneuver around the battlefield at 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 various 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 (an NLAW is fully outranged and outgunned)
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"). Nor do they have immunity to sniper rifles or machine gun fire.
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.
Now those benefits are negated in urban environments. Close quarters combat, within 500m or 200m is common, as ambushes can be setup anywhere. But still, the tank's role is needed in these urban environments. The 120mm tank gun is the only weapon that can repeatedly blow up squads who are hiding inside of a house for example. (It'd be too expensive to use ATGMs vs a house, but its not that expensive to use tank HE-frag or APFSDS rounds).
Furthermore: Tanks provide 40+ shots upon their call, and tanks easily maneuver around the battlefield at 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 various 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 (an NLAW is fully outranged and outgunned)
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"). Nor do they have immunity to sniper rifles or machine gun fire.
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.
Now those benefits are negated in urban environments. Close quarters combat, within 500m or 200m is common, as ambushes can be setup anywhere. But still, the tank's role is needed in these urban environments. The 120mm tank gun is the only weapon that can repeatedly blow up squads who are hiding inside of a house for example. (It'd be too expensive to use ATGMs vs a house, but its not that expensive to use tank HE-frag or APFSDS rounds).
> ATGMs are single-shot and 50lbs. They're hard to carry around the battlefield, and the people carrying them aren't carrying much else.
This seems to ignore the infantry shield required for armour. Not to mention the logistical chain.
> Furthermore: Tanks provide 40+ shots upon their call, and tanks easily maneuver around the battlefield at 30mph or faster.
This seems to ignore the infantry shield required for armour. Not to mention the logistical chain.
> To carry similar firepower to a tank, you'll need 40 troops, each carrying a 50lb Javelin into the battlefield.
This seems to ignore the infantry shield required for armour. Not to mention the logistical chain.
> 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").
This seems to ignore the infantry shield required for armour.
> No one can deny the shear offensive prowess of the tank on the modern battlefield.
This seems to ignore all those denying the sheer offensive prowess of the tank in the modern world.
> The 120mm tank gun is the only weapon that can repeatedly blow up squads who are hiding inside of a house for example. (It'd be too expensive to use ATGMs vs a house, but its not that expensive to use tank HE-frag or APFSDS rounds).
This seems to ignore the existence of the recoilless rifle (and an uncountable number of mounted weapons).
Overall, I don't believe you have any first-hand insight or understanding of armour or combined arms operations.
This seems to ignore the infantry shield required for armour. Not to mention the logistical chain.
> Furthermore: Tanks provide 40+ shots upon their call, and tanks easily maneuver around the battlefield at 30mph or faster.
This seems to ignore the infantry shield required for armour. Not to mention the logistical chain.
> To carry similar firepower to a tank, you'll need 40 troops, each carrying a 50lb Javelin into the battlefield.
This seems to ignore the infantry shield required for armour. Not to mention the logistical chain.
> 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").
This seems to ignore the infantry shield required for armour.
> No one can deny the shear offensive prowess of the tank on the modern battlefield.
This seems to ignore all those denying the sheer offensive prowess of the tank in the modern world.
> The 120mm tank gun is the only weapon that can repeatedly blow up squads who are hiding inside of a house for example. (It'd be too expensive to use ATGMs vs a house, but its not that expensive to use tank HE-frag or APFSDS rounds).
This seems to ignore the existence of the recoilless rifle (and an uncountable number of mounted weapons).
Overall, I don't believe you have any first-hand insight or understanding of armour or combined arms operations.
I don't think any recoilless rifle can match the range, speed, flexibility, or penetration of say the M1147 AMP tank round.
But feel free to tell me which recoilless rifle that is comparable.
But feel free to tell me which recoilless rifle that is comparable.
> The 120mm tank gun is the only weapon that can repeatedly blow up squads who are hiding inside of a house for example.
This seems to ignore the existence of the recoiless rifle, for example the Carl Gustav 84mm.
Once again, I think you're a waffler with no insight or experience in the topic at hand.
Your comments are so outlandishly ill-informed that I wonder if you're trolling?
This seems to ignore the existence of the recoiless rifle, for example the Carl Gustav 84mm.
Once again, I think you're a waffler with no insight or experience in the topic at hand.
Your comments are so outlandishly ill-informed that I wonder if you're trolling?
Anyone can plainly see footage of M1147 AMP and compare it against any footage of the Carl Gustav 84mm and see that the firepower is incomparable.
I don't need experience to see the difference between the two weapons. Speed, penetration, range, accuracy. Completely incomparable.
Tanks were shooting 3000m in the 80s and have probably gotten better. Carl Gustav needs laser guidance for 2000m and even then is still outranged by decades old tanks.
I don't need experience to see the difference between the two weapons. Speed, penetration, range, accuracy. Completely incomparable.
Tanks were shooting 3000m in the 80s and have probably gotten better. Carl Gustav needs laser guidance for 2000m and even then is still outranged by decades old tanks.
> There's various 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.
I call bullshit. Yes, a Javelin at maximum range takes 10 seconds to arrive, and that theoretically gives the turret time to traverse to target and return fire… Assuming the commander saw the puff of smoke appear and reacts instantly… with perfect knowledge of the distance of the engagement… and full confidence his countermeasures will be 100% effective…
Naw. Too big a risk to take out 2 dudes who just expended their only means to hurt you, and are already on the move anyway. His attached units can go after the ATGM squad.
I call bullshit. Yes, a Javelin at maximum range takes 10 seconds to arrive, and that theoretically gives the turret time to traverse to target and return fire… Assuming the commander saw the puff of smoke appear and reacts instantly… with perfect knowledge of the distance of the engagement… and full confidence his countermeasures will be 100% effective…
Naw. Too big a risk to take out 2 dudes who just expended their only means to hurt you, and are already on the move anyway. His attached units can go after the ATGM squad.
Javelin? Not quite. But yes for sure with M47 Dragon systems. (Especially back then, if you killed the guy aiming the missile, the missile will almost certainly miss).
In any case, Javelin is thermal imaging and thermal smoke probably works as a countermeasure.
The speed of ATGMs is a major downside in any case, leaving room to react and for smoke countermeasures.
In any case, Javelin is thermal imaging and thermal smoke probably works as a countermeasure.
The speed of ATGMs is a major downside in any case, leaving room to react and for smoke countermeasures.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You had such a chance to say "first started to fall from its saddle..."
"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.
I hope it is useful and interesting for you know:
Calvary is where Christ died.
Cavalry are the guys on horses.
Yep that’s one of those seemingly simple words I always fuck up for some reason.
Possibly-useful technique: think of air cav/armored cav—airborne (helicopter) or armored (tanks etc.) cavalry. No such thing as air calv.
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
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
I don't think so, you will always need what tanks bring to the battlefield, it is just that the ratios may shift.
simplified to absurdity it is a sort of rock paper scissors situation.
The most economical way to project force is with infantry. the best defense from infantry are machine guns. The best offense against machine guns are armored vehicles(tanks). the most economical defense from tanks are man portable anti-tank weapons. and we have come full circle, the most economical offense to portable anti-tank weapons are infantry.
So the trick is to have your combat mix to the correct ratio.
simplified to absurdity it is a sort of rock paper scissors situation.
The most economical way to project force is with infantry. the best defense from infantry are machine guns. The best offense against machine guns are armored vehicles(tanks). the most economical defense from tanks are man portable anti-tank weapons. and we have come full circle, the most economical offense to portable anti-tank weapons are infantry.
So the trick is to have your combat mix to the correct ratio.
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..
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..
>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
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
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).
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.
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.
I don't see how it directly increases US influence over them? America is compelled to defend those NATO members, no matter how rag-tag or inadequate those NATO members' forces are. America doesn't have the option of saying "no", and they also cop all of the public backlash as these countries get to stir up anti-American sentiments and make life hard for American forces that are rotated through these countries for training.
defending someone is not a binary thing. the amount of effort, the degree of severity, the number of troops mobilized, the whole question of use of nukes (tactical or strategic)
and there are real problems around bases (~18-20 year olds on leave are going to do what they are usually do anyway)
and the last few decades of US interventionism is not exactly a success story. it was not hard to stir up "anti-imperialist" sentiment
and there are real problems around bases (~18-20 year olds on leave are going to do what they are usually do anyway)
and the last few decades of US interventionism is not exactly a success story. it was not hard to stir up "anti-imperialist" sentiment
> 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.
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.
> That was a negotiating tactic.
Afraid not, he was really going to do it:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
Afraid not, he was really going to do it:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
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 :(
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 :(
> Fantastic evidence!
I do think taking trump's words at face value is risky but in this case his behavior and words matched.
I do think taking trump's words at face value is risky but in this case his behavior and words matched.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!).
As far as I am aware, all of the information "leaked" has been of this kind (the leakers have mostly been operators!).
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.
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.
> 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?
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?
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
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.
> 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.
While i get the good intentions here, this is shockingly short sighted for players (with classified access) to be doing this.
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.
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.
They just want to know their OP tank is OP because of this secret
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
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.
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.
AFAIK none of these leaks have come from those sorts of sources, they're from tank crewmen publishing classified docs for their own tanks
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
There's a really great writeup of one incident on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/HobbyDrama/comments/owtzl9/video_ga...
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?
For those interested in the actual image> https://imgur.com/c8P1OOh
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
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
In the diagram behind the tungsten penetrator, only the part of the penetrator that contacts the sabot has rings on it, while the rest of the projectile is drawn as smooth. The rings might have something to do with helping the sabot separate from the projectile correctly or preventing the projectile from slipping out of the sabot before it leaves the barrel.
Is this particularly sensitive? Are anti-tank rounds that cutting-edge?
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.
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.
So if you release fake specs understating your stats you get enemies coming into range for free ?
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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...
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...
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Advances in missile technology, specifically Track Via Missile, means that they don't need to be precise enough for targeting anymore, they can be off by 100-200m+, but as long as the velocity measurement is good, the missile can fly in the neighborhood, acquire the target, and cooperate with the radar to confirm that they are locked into the same target and maintain a perfect track. They are definitely difficult to transport compared to others, but they are now small enough to be integrated into a truck, and communication is good enough they can segmented into more modules that can be on different vehicles and still work, greatly increasing transportability and survivability (the antenna is cheap, so it can be almost sacrificial as long as the processing is done elsewhere). Susceptibility to noise is a much lesser concern now due to the generalization of AESA technology.
We can now also do sensor fusion, so a low frequency radar can communicate with other radars and even higher frequency radars that wouldn't be able to detect the target in search mode but could obtain some data in track mode to obtain almost perfect accuracy, make it difficult to evade, provide redundancy, defeat jamming, and discriminate against decoys and chaff, as well as provide bistatic capability and help in noncooperative identification. Also crucial is to defeat stealthy antiradar weapons an F-35 might fire in self protection by tracking them from a direction they might not be stealthy in and provide warning or even targeting information to shoot down.
Integrated air defences are very scary, and it's actually incredibly concerning for the USAF that they never fought against a real IADS. Russia is doing so right now in Ukraine and it's clearly not easy even against 40+ year old systems not even being used as designed, and for the same reason no Ukrainian fixed wing has been able to launch any incursion into Russian territory, only helicopters flying way below the radar horizon.
We can now also do sensor fusion, so a low frequency radar can communicate with other radars and even higher frequency radars that wouldn't be able to detect the target in search mode but could obtain some data in track mode to obtain almost perfect accuracy, make it difficult to evade, provide redundancy, defeat jamming, and discriminate against decoys and chaff, as well as provide bistatic capability and help in noncooperative identification. Also crucial is to defeat stealthy antiradar weapons an F-35 might fire in self protection by tracking them from a direction they might not be stealthy in and provide warning or even targeting information to shoot down.
Integrated air defences are very scary, and it's actually incredibly concerning for the USAF that they never fought against a real IADS. Russia is doing so right now in Ukraine and it's clearly not easy even against 40+ year old systems not even being used as designed, and for the same reason no Ukrainian fixed wing has been able to launch any incursion into Russian territory, only helicopters flying way below the radar horizon.
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. 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
>> 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.
> 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.
Yes, and published specs of weapons are likely to be misleading or outright lies for that reason
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.
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.
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.
You should always overstate your capabilities not understate them.
Rubbish. It depends on what you want to make your opponent do.
Or do both so that you are not predictable.
I'm sure the enemy rocket designers will look at whether your specs make sense given their own experience.
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.
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.
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.
Not particularly, CCTV7 documentary on Type 99A tank quoted the significant numbers a couple years ago.
[deleted]
> 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.
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.
The game has a chinese publisher. There's no way this would be accepted by Tencent.
You incur the wrath of the CCP cyber units. If they wanted, they could ddos all the servers into oblivion indefinitely.
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...
> 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...
Tencent is their publisher in china.
Being banned in China, the largest video game market.
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....
Is it a better strategy to have your combat opponent underestimate, or overestimate your specs?
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.
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.
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)
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_Valkyri...
The Valkyrie never was productionized and only 2 aircraft were ever built.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyri...
The Valkyrie never was productionized and only 2 aircraft were ever built.
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.
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_Valkyri...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyri...
Apropos of nothing but F-4 Phantoms still look badass and gorgeous.
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.
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.
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.
The US Department of Defense is there not to defend US soil, as you state, but rather to defend US interests. And US has plenty of interests (which have a meaningful effect on bulk of US citizens) that require action on the other side of the oceans - USA is getting quite a better deal in terms of international trade and the global flow of wealth than it would if it would be isolationist and just defend its soil.
I remember this old quote:
" Welcome to the world of strategic analysis, where we build weapons that don't work to counter threats that don't exist. "
" Welcome to the world of strategic analysis, where we build weapons that don't work to counter threats that don't exist. "
> 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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Depends whether your goal is to get what you want without fighting, or to win a fight.
Getting what you want without fighting is winning the fight.
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.
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.
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.
Whether a gun fires faster or slower isn’t good or bad, it just drives how it’s used.
I'd guess it's always a weakness if you mispredict the other side's performance, whatever the circumstance.
None of this is scary though…
How do we know those are classified specs and not counter intel?
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.
Is it classified? Yes. Is it bad? Probably not.
Yeah something that’s handed out to troops is assumed to be in all potential adversaries’ possession.
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.
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
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
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/6
That's very informative, thanks.
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
https://imgur.com/a/5qNMRYJ
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?
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
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
It’s literally the military version of https://xkcd.com/386/. People can’t help it lol
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.")
Maybe they're trying to establish themselves as a place to leak military secrets.
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.
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.
the latter, people really can't stand to lose internet arguments :)
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.
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.
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.
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?
They aren't helping. They are trying to not anger too much.
Cool design. I guess it needs the grooves so that the sabot can attach to it. After all the acceleration is tremendous.
War offense and defense is a giant unending game of rock paper scissors dragons mage …
maybe these are authorized leaks so that these armies can see how well their hardware does in a big simulation?
RektBoy(1)
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)