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.
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...
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 ..."
"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."
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.
- [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure)
- [1]: https://youtu.be/uRJzcM5ETY4
The actual interesting stuff is more rare than Mr. Clean with hair.
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.
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
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.
> 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.
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.
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..
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.
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
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.
Afraid not, he was really going to do it:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
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 :(
I do think taking trump's words at face value is risky but in this case his behavior and words matched.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
like is this actually what winning looks like?
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
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.
I wouldn't climb into a T-72 in the Russian Army, but not all tanks are T-72s in the Russian army.
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.
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).
This seems to ignore the existence of the ATGM?
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).
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.
But feel free to tell me which recoilless rifle that is comparable.
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?
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.
Sigh.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I hope it is useful and interesting for you know:
Calvary is where Christ died.
Cavalry are the guys on horses.
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.
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.
As far as I am aware, all of the information "leaked" has been of this kind (the leakers have mostly been operators!).