Classified Challenger tank specs leaked online for videogame

So it mostly supports your claim, since Wikipedia is rather focused on the ceramic aspect, but it's in a somewhat different context.

If the Germans had some well-fortified position only to see a T-72B3 fitted with explosive reactive armor and an active protection system roll in? Yes, in that case, the Germans are toast. In practical terms they would not be able to damage the tank.

It isn't invincible, though. The tracks on any tank are vulnerable and the engine is (relatively) fragile. A lucky HEAT shot or a well-placed anti-tank mine could disable it, though I don't they could score an outright kill.

You might need to make a bigger one for a modern tank than a WWII tank, but the tools to make big holes have been around for a while.

It started out as someone on AskReddit asking how modern military would fare against ancient Roman military. The full story is on the right side of that sub-reddit under the section FAQ as a PDF, or here's the first section: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/k067x/could_i_de...

A lot of people are still (after 9 years) waiting for the studio who acquired the rights to actually make a movie or a series based on the story (which Prufrock451 sold, good for him/her!). I for one hope Netflix/HBO/Amazon picks it up and makes a series out of it someday.

In direct combat, nothing short of a direct artillery hit (unlikely) could kill it or render it unable to defend itself in the short term. Let's say it got ambushed by 3 AT teams within 50 meters - the AT RPGs / recoil-less rifles of the time could do nothing to the armor, even rear.

In reality, any super-weapon, and its supply chain would be hit with massed artillery, bombing runs, and special forces.

It also has vulnerable optics and tracks as was mentioned earlier.

Furthermore, even if it took out 40 tanks (each round is a kill), it would not be significant in a major WWII engagement.

Btw, this topic has been discussed ad-nauseum elsewhere.

Perhaps one could learn of a manufacturing deficiency / lack of understanding by getting enough details about enough vehicles the UK uses. Etc etc.

Well if the guy was a commander he should be smart enough not to share/discuss such things in gamer forums.

While yes technology on its own could be mostly understood by people you still expect commander even if not officer to keep his mouth shut.

Person did harm to himself while maybe not to the army. Just for being silly and not careful while you are being in the army there should be prosecution.

Now compare it with how much work goes into telling people that they should not click links in suspicious emails...

People still click those links, companies get ransomed.

At some point it is not "ALL FUN AND GAMES" but "WE ARE RESPONSIBLE ADULTS" - well no one died but I would not like to work with that guy on serious things.

Commanding a tank is a serious thing not "well no harm done, corporate bs".

Does it not seem reasonable, then, that a violation of fundamental classification policy catches interest?

The impact of the leak shouldn't be measured in the material revelations that might be in those documents, especially should they be so underwhelming as many seem to think. Rather, the impact is that a person of rank chose to execute such a violation for such an overwhelmingly trivial reason. Imagine, if you can, the impact that act might have on morale within that military, and on the capacity for the social pressures within that organization to maintain adherence in the future.

There is a very human element in it. I can totally imagine what goes on in the leakers head: He really knows that tank. He worked with it since forever. And the game developers are wrong. They got some detail wrong. And not just any detail, but an important… no, not just important but a crucial detail! He can tell them, but they wont believe him. Why would they? He could be anybody. So he puts his credentials in his forum profile. But the developers might still be ignoring him. This might happen for a myriad reasons, but he decides it is because they don’t believe him still. Those fools! How could he show them? Ah, he will just upload this manual, that should prove he is right and the developers will be forced to accept defeat!

Super silly, but you can just see how one can walk themselves into this situation.

One can also imagine it from the developers side. They are probably at least a little bit interested in tanks and weaponry. At least some of them. It is possible that they even have aspirations to make a very realistic tank simulator. Some obnoxious loudmouth user drops a leak on them. Publicly! They can’t use this info now or their game might get banned for “national security” reasons. They can’t even let it be ambigous if they have used it or not. If they get banned in the west their business might as well shut down the next day. They have to distance themselves publicly and dramatically. ( Now of course this might not be how it went down. I can imagine many variants. But it is a sticky situation none-the-less.)

The third interesting bit here is the question of what makes a good game. Is a change which makes the tank simulator more realistic also always makes it more fun? Are there also game ballance considerations? Or maybe some detail would barelly change the player experience but would require a complete rewrite of their simulation engine. Is it worth implementing still?

These are the perspectives and questions which made this article interesting to me. I don’t even know what “canceling strangers” would even mean in this situation.

I think just from a super high level intelligence standpoint ... you know it is going to happen.

You are right. Security folks don't treat leaks lightly. Ever. This is part of how they maintain compliance with the rules.

But I don't think this is what the GP commenter talked about. You definitely design weapons, and doctrine and systems by assuming that it can leak to the enemy eventually. If your whole battle plan folds like wet tissue-paper just because the enemy got their hands on a single CAD file or manual then it wasn't a really good plan to begin with. Exhaust ports of doom are nice plot devices for movies, but in reality you try to avoid designed-in Achilles heels. And you do this because leaks happen.

Some information get leaked by carelessness, some by disgruntled employees, some are stolen by spies, some are picked up from a wreckage, some are stolen in transit, some are deduced from signal intelligence.

You can design mitigations against all of these. The scary security folks you mentioned are mitigation against the first two really. Their existence and behaviour doesn't have any bearing on what the leadership will expect.

Tell me how long you think a given tank manual that goes into the hands of all sorts of people stays secret? That's where you assume ... yeah probably not long.

Once a colleague was having some problem calling a product API. He wanted coding help. I asked to see his code. He said "Sorry, I can't show you the code, it is classified". I asked, "Can you boil the code down into a Short, Self Contained, Correct Example (SSCCE)?" "I can, but that will be classified too." "How can an SSCCE be classified?" "The customer is an intelligence agency, every line of code we write while on-site is classified automatically, trying to get anything declassified is a bureaucratic nightmare". Eventually he agreed that he could go home, and try to write an SSCCE from memory at home, and that wouldn't be classified. In the process of doing that he worked out the problem himself, told me he didn't need my help any more.

Basically they tell you boots to STFU. And then then they base the rest of their decisions on the reasonable assumption that given time some of you will fail at that. Classic "defense in depth".

I'm guessing simply based on the numbers the likelihood of a tank manual leaking in some fashion (even accidentally), for any reason, is much higher than a fire control technician manual.

I would expect individual folks to do their job and not say 'well this will leak anyway'. But more generally I think expecting that 'this manual that we gave to thousands of people won't leak' would be absurd.

That second part is what I was getting at.

I enjoy(ed) the game a lot. Great graphics, reasonable sounds, good tools for choosing and maintaining your tanks, planes, etc. I thought it was one of the best tank battle simulators online. I have to keep a low threshold though for potential spyware, etc since I use my machine for work. It is a one strike and you're out thing with me to use a baseball analogy.

And the archivist

And the printer

And so on and so forth

Even highly sensitive info must be handled by a lot of people in a modern military.