8 ms·

This is the sixth (possibly seventh) time according to the game's subreddit https://old.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/v2r744/it_might_have_happened_again/ia

by mgdlbp 4y ago

This is the sixth (possibly seventh) time according to the game's subreddit https://old.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/v2r744/it_might_have_happened_again/iau88px/ 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)

gonzo41 4y ago
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.
- l33t2328 4y ago
  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.
  - eganist 4y ago
    > It’s a lot of e.g. boring specs of things you wouldn’t care about if you saw it. Boring to most, maybe. But understanding the design of a shell or understanding the capabilities of a tank turret can inform armor design and battlefield tactics respectively.
    - gonzo41 4y ago
      If you understand how Explosively formed projectiles are created then modern armor design doesn't matter that much.
      - gpm 4y ago
        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 https://www.tanknology.co.uk/post/statistical-armour
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    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.
- KineticLensman 4y ago
  > 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-security-classifications https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-securi...
- lifeisstillgood 4y ago
  I think it is more that the public is becoming a third observer in military matters (as in all government and commercial matters). The point is not that "omg the US Army knows our internal penetration specs (#)" but more "omg the public knows." But this could be an advantage for militaries - leak enough of this, guide enough games designers in the right way and build a groundswell of support for ... well modelled, arms improvements and upgrades. You should probably also model the value of having the parts of a weapon manufactured in 49 states in 49 factories rather than say one. And see how you can get public support to chnage that in general I am saying that this game provides a well informed public. seems like a good thing. except if you like corruption (#) The CIA already told them. right now there is probably a spy in washington trying to work out how to say "yes, we spent 15 million dollars obtaining the specs on the Chinese shell last month, but how were we supposed to know ..."
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    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."
- the_only_law 4y ago
  > 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.
  - rvba 4y ago
    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..
    - jimmydorry 4y ago
      Not to support Trump here, but taken the other way, look at how much value and effectiveness America is bringing to the NATO table. And the cost of having access to that power was a mere 2% of GDP (something that many EU countries that were incredibly reluctant to meet are now increasing frantically to make up for lost time).
      - pas 4y ago
        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.
        jimmydorry 4y ago
        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.
- papito 4y ago
  Not to turn this into a military strategy thread but.... There is something to be said for highly mobile anti-armor weapons in possession of the defending force, but there is ample evidence that Russia simply does not have enough manpower to use its tanks properly. * There are many cases in which a three-crew tank is manned by two people (there is no commander). * They don't seem to have enough cannon fodder to act as a filtering force - the perimeter around armor to make sure they are not targeted with standoff weapons. The reports of the tank's death are greatly exaggerated.
  - jeffdn 4y ago
    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) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure) - [1]: https://youtu.be/uRJzcM5ETY4 https://youtu.be/uRJzcM5ETY4
- some_random 4y ago
  I don't think leaks need to have strategic implications to be significant. I'm no expert but the information on armor and APFSDS could have meaningful impacts on the survivability of a tank. Or maybe all of this is common knowledge that every relevant actor has aquired through HUMINT, who knows.
  - jimmydorry 4y ago
    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!).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tablespoon 4y ago
  Whilst these are 'classified leaks' they are not exactly strategic leaks. > Right now we're seeing a lot of real truth's play out in Ukraine about just how great armored vehicles and tanks are. We're seeing "a lot of real truth's play out in Ukraine," but a lot of that seems to be about Russian organization and tactics, not necessarily "how great armored vehicles and tanks are." For instance: early in the war I read some (US Marine Corps?) study that was online about the Russian "Battalion Tactical Group" that noted some deficiencies that may have made them far more vulnerable in Ukraine (IIRC too many tanks, too little infantry and support troops, too centralized command and control). My understanding is that it's been essential for a long time that tanks travel with significant infantry support. > Most of the above seem more in the realm of commercial in confidence leaks, and or embarrassing information for a military than anything that's significant. The one about the Chinese projectile seems like it could be pretty bad. Wouldn't that be the exact kind of technical information an opponent would want to design armor or develop the right tactics for it? For instance, if you increase your side's armor to neutralize it, then your tanks can fight more aggressively.
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    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.
_fat_santa 4y ago
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.
- celim307 4y ago
  Don’t underestimate the butthurt of a nerd trying to win an online argument. I think for one of the challenger leaks the dude was trying to win a stupid forum argument
- driscoll42 4y ago
  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-has-problem-leaking-classified.html https://www.techspot.com/news/94803-gaijin-war-thunder-forum...) but generally yes, it's people with clearance who are players of the game and want to get something in game corrected to be more like reality.
  - _fat_santa 4y ago
    > 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.
    - sieabahlpark 4y ago
      They just want to know their OP tank is OP because of this secret
aidenn0 4y ago
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?

by mgdlbp 4y ago

gonzo41 4y ago

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.

l33t2328 4y ago
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.
- eganist 4y ago
  > It’s a lot of e.g. boring specs of things you wouldn’t care about if you saw it. Boring to most, maybe. But understanding the design of a shell or understanding the capabilities of a tank turret can inform armor design and battlefield tactics respectively.
  - gonzo41 4y ago
    If you understand how Explosively formed projectiles are created then modern armor design doesn't matter that much.
    - gpm 4y ago
      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 https://www.tanknology.co.uk/post/statistical-armour
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  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.
KineticLensman 4y ago
> 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-security-classifications https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-securi...
lifeisstillgood 4y ago
I think it is more that the public is becoming a third observer in military matters (as in all government and commercial matters). The point is not that "omg the US Army knows our internal penetration specs (#)" but more "omg the public knows." But this could be an advantage for militaries - leak enough of this, guide enough games designers in the right way and build a groundswell of support for ... well modelled, arms improvements and upgrades. You should probably also model the value of having the parts of a weapon manufactured in 49 states in 49 factories rather than say one. And see how you can get public support to chnage that in general I am saying that this game provides a well informed public. seems like a good thing. except if you like corruption (#) The CIA already told them. right now there is probably a spy in washington trying to work out how to say "yes, we spent 15 million dollars obtaining the specs on the Chinese shell last month, but how were we supposed to know ..."
- bee_rider 4y ago
  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."
the_only_law 4y ago
> 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.
- rvba 4y ago
  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..
  - jimmydorry 4y ago
    Not to support Trump here, but taken the other way, look at how much value and effectiveness America is bringing to the NATO table. And the cost of having access to that power was a mere 2% of GDP (something that many EU countries that were incredibly reluctant to meet are now increasing frantically to make up for lost time).
    - pas 4y ago
      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.
      - jimmydorry 4y ago
        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.
papito 4y ago
Not to turn this into a military strategy thread but.... There is something to be said for highly mobile anti-armor weapons in possession of the defending force, but there is ample evidence that Russia simply does not have enough manpower to use its tanks properly. * There are many cases in which a three-crew tank is manned by two people (there is no commander). * They don't seem to have enough cannon fodder to act as a filtering force - the perimeter around armor to make sure they are not targeted with standoff weapons. The reports of the tank's death are greatly exaggerated.
- jeffdn 4y ago
  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) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure) - [1]: https://youtu.be/uRJzcM5ETY4 https://youtu.be/uRJzcM5ETY4
some_random 4y ago
I don't think leaks need to have strategic implications to be significant. I'm no expert but the information on armor and APFSDS could have meaningful impacts on the survivability of a tank. Or maybe all of this is common knowledge that every relevant actor has aquired through HUMINT, who knows.
- jimmydorry 4y ago
  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!).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tablespoon 4y ago
Whilst these are 'classified leaks' they are not exactly strategic leaks. > Right now we're seeing a lot of real truth's play out in Ukraine about just how great armored vehicles and tanks are. We're seeing "a lot of real truth's play out in Ukraine," but a lot of that seems to be about Russian organization and tactics, not necessarily "how great armored vehicles and tanks are." For instance: early in the war I read some (US Marine Corps?) study that was online about the Russian "Battalion Tactical Group" that noted some deficiencies that may have made them far more vulnerable in Ukraine (IIRC too many tanks, too little infantry and support troops, too centralized command and control). My understanding is that it's been essential for a long time that tanks travel with significant infantry support. > Most of the above seem more in the realm of commercial in confidence leaks, and or embarrassing information for a military than anything that's significant. The one about the Chinese projectile seems like it could be pretty bad. Wouldn't that be the exact kind of technical information an opponent would want to design armor or develop the right tactics for it? For instance, if you increase your side's armor to neutralize it, then your tanks can fight more aggressively.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  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.

_fat_santa 4y ago

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.

celim307 4y ago
Don’t underestimate the butthurt of a nerd trying to win an online argument. I think for one of the challenger leaks the dude was trying to win a stupid forum argument
driscoll42 4y ago
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-has-problem-leaking-classified.html https://www.techspot.com/news/94803-gaijin-war-thunder-forum...) but generally yes, it's people with clearance who are players of the game and want to get something in game corrected to be more like reality.
- _fat_santa 4y ago
  > 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.
  - sieabahlpark 4y ago
    They just want to know their OP tank is OP because of this secret

aidenn0 4y ago

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?