lavictoireestlavie

Hello guys, I want to apologize for all the drama my thread has caused. After reading through the responses of the members I have come to the conclusion that some of my contributions will  always directly or indirectly violate the rules of the forum because of the nature of the subject matter. I have realized that  I will not be able to just ignore declassified, classified data, secret, released data when i compile information and do modeling just to suit someones or some groups believe system. In the end I want to present plausible solutions based on facts. To avoid any further complications I have decided to no longer contribute on this platform. I will take the time to remove any traces of my material that are either directly or indirectly linked to information that has been labelled as "secret" (or similar analogs).

On 9.1.2019 at 11:57 AM, Kev2go said:

Actually it is surprising that the very cited tests reports with " secret" with regards to British ones seeing as  some was published by gajin entertainment. In one of their dev blogs ( followed by a historical reference page)  as one of thier sources.

 

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/26-project-news-read-only/

[Datasheet]

 

Guess it's not  really "secret" then if a entertainment company can obtain physical copies  of such documents from another country,. and not show any concern about legal repercussions. ( implying this was by the book)

 

But I get it you all just want to be extra cautious.

Your post no longer violates the forum rules.

26 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

Correct.

 

As I said in the now removed thread - unless it has the appropriate comment (and usually the now obsolete classification is removed) then I at least need to treat the classification on the document as current.

 

If the document carries a classification, I am required to treat it as classified and report its publication as a potential breach.

 

The country that owns the document can then make the assessment (its their document).

 

If the document has classification markings on it and has several country's data on it, I am required to report it to the owner of the document and the other countries involved. I also need to warn out eSim that I do need to report it.

 

e.g. If you post one of the Challenger documents I need to tell the UK MoD via their Defence Attaché here and they will look at it. If the document has M1 or Leopard information then the notification goes to the US and German Defence Attachés as well.

 

If I don't, I am the one in breach and my clearance comes under scrutiny.

 

The owner of the document will then conduct an assessment and depending on their findings act accordingly.

 

You just saying its "no longer classified" does not carry any weight in the matter. If it has a classification it must be treated as a classified document.

 

As pointed out above companies that deal with Governments prefer not to do so with outstanding security assessments under way.

 

Ahh, what happens if i were to stumble on a leaked or declassified Chinese report that contain the word "機密 " (secret) and post it here ? What would you do if a declassified or leaked Russian report with секретно (secret) written on it was partially posted on here or other platforms?   Will you have to inform the Chinese and/or Russian MoD ?

" I think such a thread should have been kept open.  At most editing ( or technically censoring) out   specific documents deemed   "classified" ( should they actually be so)  would have been a heather option instead of shutting down an entire thread. " - Kev2go

Thank you guys for the feedback, I appreciate it.  To be honest, i was pissed off to see my thread deleted just like that after having spent a couple of hours just compiling the yet incomplete information package. My measured initial response to the classified,leaked information, declassified drama  would have just been to "sanitize" the original post by either deleting or at least censoring/modifying the suspect diagrams and then go on from there.

"Certainly not as a singular wall of text type of data dump, but rather broken into vehicle-specific dossiers. " -Ssnake

I totally see the point. Originally one of  the aims of the thread was to have the information on the relevant vehicles all in one thread instead all over the place. As I was creating the thread I realized, after looking at the amount of data available, that it might be better to have individual threads (or reports) on each vehicle type.  As you might have seen and/or read, the original post was not even finished and rather a work in progress.  I might have to create properly cited vehicle specific reports (or dossiers) in form of a pdf file instead of a forum thread that does not seem suited for longer streams of information anyway.

Dealing with protection levels  of vehicles:   The idea has been floated over the years about having a system in place where the user can select (via direct number input and/or a slide button set up menu) the protection values, thickness efficiencies, etc. of the relevant parts of a vehicle to suit the users wishes. This would avoid the entire classified, leaked , declassified info, muh armor- drama all together.  The user can use whatever the user wants including the Steel Beasts Pro (PE) default values. You don't like the values on a turret cheek ? Now you have the chance to change that to whatever you like, more or less. I like this idea the most.  Given the type of damage modelling done in Steel Beasts I am not so sure how time consuming/irritating this would be to implement for certain vehicles or if is  even worth the hassle.

Either way, i am also convinced that the data and models (including my own) should still be thoroughly reviewed and discussed on various relevant platforms (i.e. forums, meetings, presentations, journals, etc.) . I do not want to spread misinformation/fanboy infused bull**** on here or anywhere when it comes to these technical/scientific matters. I have seen misinformation and cringeworthy fanboyism negatively impact discussions on various forums before and i try to avoid it. I want to offer plausible solutions (ideally the solution ^^''').

" Above all I want to stay clear of  security breaches; for us the legal implications could be extremely painful. At the end of the day, Steel Beasts is a computer game and nobody should go to jail over it. " - Ssnake

Better save than sorry.   Reminds me of one of my professors who was adamant about not using diagrams from certain sources in his lectures without having them properly cited due to copyright issues. Although i found his attitude towards the matter a bit "hysterical", i can understand that he is trying to avoid any potential legal drama.

Dealing with the classified/secret/restricted issue again, how do you guys deal with declassified information that has the words "secret" on it?  No, "secret" was not crossed out! There are various British documents that have been made accessible to the public via the archives that deal with the Challenger 1, Burlington, XM1, etc. yet they still carry the labels. Given the updated forum rules, these documents technically-speaking can not be posted here anymore.

Since that thread was deleted I would like to know your guys feedback whether or not you would like my input minus any classified information.  Your honest response would be appreciated.

Your feedback would be appreciated:

4 hours ago, Grenny said:

I know these sources that are floating around.  None of them are verifiable in a way that they count primary sources.

On the few point where I have access to said primary sources, they are wrong. So maybe there is some truth in some of them...esp. of most german gear and ammo, they are just of the mark.

 

So again, the values SB gives/uses are not "true" in a way to satify the crowd fighting over vehicle stat-cards and "balance"(or other rivet counters). But they produce what IMO is sensable results.

Shooting DM33 at a T80 front should be a frustrating experience...and in SB it is ;-)

Official documents from national archives will not get much more primary when it comes to sourcing.  As i said earlier, i am looking at the protection schemes of a couple of vehicles that seem to be a bit off if we follow recently revealed sources. I want to address those.

15 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Can you point me to those sources?

Obviously, we'd rather fix our models than to offload that responsibility to our customers.

I will create a separate thread on this in the tactics forum so I do not clutter or sidetrack this thread.  There are many private SB customers that like to research these kind of topics on their own and do not see a burden in that. I myself am glad to maybe help imrove Steel Beasts.

14 hours ago, Grenny said:

One should not confuse most of the files and graphics floating around the internet a 100% credible sources ;-)

 

Given what I see in the SB "game" values: -are each of them correct? No...

                                                             -do they produce correct (or rather ´...sensable) results? yes

I'm happy with SB's armour/weapon/damage model in 9 out of 10 cases.

If there are multiple independent and verifiable sources that point in a different direction, i will most certainly take a second look at my original data if there is a discrepancy.

14 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

I think they are from War Thunder / World of Tanks forums and other "authoritative" sources.

 

 

I caused a bit of stink when I said if they were authentic, I was reporting them as a security breach (esp. as some of the files had "Secret" happily written on them).

 

The agency I sent the report to didn't get back to me as to whether they were authentic or not (but then again I never expected they would).

 

Just because the information is posted in other forums does not make the information any less valid if the information is properly sourced. I am also trying to be objective with the information i collect,prepare and present without going into the "muh game/tank/style/opinion/preferences/whatever is/are better than yours" arguments. 

Also, the information is over 25 years old, some of which was recently declassified or at least partially declassified. I will not make a big fuss out of any "secret" document unless lives and limbs directly depend on it. It is save to assume that the 'Russians' (or insert any country) are more  or less aware of the range of realistic protection levels of the tanks of other nations.  

1) A crewable Leclerc (Serie 1, Serie 2,etc.)! 

2) A crewable Merkava and/or just another Merkava (e.g: Merkava III, IIID)

3) Adjustment of the KE protection levels of various tanks to realistic KE protection levels. Im looking at Leopard 2A5 type vehicles and Challenger 2 in particular. Given the recent revelations some of the KE values seem to be off by literally 100% For instance, Challenger 2 turret cheeks are around 600-650 mm RHAe  KE if we follow recently declassified British government documents. In Steel Beasts it is around 1250 mm RHAe against KE threats. The Leopard 2A5S turret cheeks were given a KE resistance of 750-850 mm RHAe during the Swedish tank trials vs. 1380 mm KE given in SB.

Now they should mate a Leopard 2A7 turret on a Leclerc Serie XXI hull !!!!!  Do it !

+playable Leclercs !

Neat !

A question concerning the Abrams, am i right in the assumption that the US Abrams follows this special armor developmental cycle:

US Army:

M1 (1980 - Burlington 1) ->  M1IP (1984 - Burlington 2) -> M1A1 (1986 - Burlington 2) -> M1A1 HA (1988 - Burlington2 +  1st gen. Heavy Armor Package) ->  M1A2 early (1992 - Burlington 2 + 1st gen. Heavy Armor Package) ->  M1A1 HA+ (1995 - 2nd gen. Heavy Armor Package) -> M1A2 (1995- 2nd gen. Heavy Armor Package) -> M1A2 SEP (2001 - 3rd gen. Heavy Armor Package).

USMC:

M1A1 HC (1990 - Burlington 2 + 1st gen. Heavy Armor Package) -> M1A1 HC (1995 - 2nd gen. Heavy Armor Package) -> M1A1 HC/FEP (2001 - 3rd gen. Heavy Armor Package)

1 hour ago, Jartsev said:

Yup, and people are giving their money for this.

I had my doubts about earlier but i did not want to believe that it could be fake.

25 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

Sorry, but this page from "CIA report" is actually not from real declassified "The soviet T-72 tank performance" report, which can be downloaded from CIA's FOIA reading room. Someone decided to fill "sanitized" pages with values from other different sources, and now sells his creation on Amazon.

 

 

P.S. The real report:    https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/0000498195

Just compare page 10- yes, there is a plenty of stuff deleted, but it is still very different

 

So the chart is totally fake ?

3 hours ago, dejawolf said:

for the M1 abrams values in SB, after the cold war ended, USA and russia exchanged information about frontal armour values on their tanks. side armour was not given. 

for the M1 the values were: 

350mm vs KE, 700mm vs HEAT

for the M1A1 HA the values are.

600mm vs KE, 1300 mm vs HEAT. 

the values are available in the Osprey new vanguard books by steven j zaloga. 

note that these values are over the entire frontal arc, so from LOS front, protection will be higher on the left and right front turret faces. 

the values given on the LOS diagrams, are naturally LOS values, so they are higher than frontal arc values. 

 

as for M1A2, well, it's anyones guess. there are several versions of the M1A2 however. 

the original M1A2 released in the mid 90s has a different armour package than the later M1A2 SEP from the early 2000s. 

and the M1A1 received the SEP armour package in the early 2000s as well. 

 

 

Wow! From where did you get the information that they exchanged information and that those were the values that they exchanged? Could it be that these values are actually frontal arc values and that they actual front values are actually higher?  

The Armed Forces Journal treated from 1989, before the end of the cold war,  used practically identical values over the frontal arc:

Figures from a CIA report:

However these values were obtained, it seems the CIA  considered these figures realistic enough to include them in their report.

12 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

Ok,  I`m backing off my statement about diagram  being a fake. Source document was found, and I`d say it is more than weird if such stuff can freely float around.

It was part of a presentation by  R. Lindström, who works/worked for the Swedish FMV, that was maybe supposedly unwittlingy leaked.

21 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

 

Diagram is a fake.

 

In the FMV documents you have clearly shown protection vs KE on the turret ranging depending on place and angle from 400mm to 700mm vs KE and 500mm to 1800mm vs CE, quiet nice for an M1A2 with export armor package.

 

FMV documents have nothing about hull protection vs KE, but vs CE you have protection ranging from 600mm to 1200mm vs CE.

 

It is also important to note that Swedes made only protection estimations based on the US Export Armor Package and Swedish armor package that was meant to be used in any tank design they decided to purchase.

As far as i could see these are the supposed protection values for the "export" M1A2 variant not the US variant. I am getting the impression that the documents are legit.

9 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

These seems to be closer to truth.

 

 

Here is a download link to the presentation: https://cloud.mail.ru/public/FVLe/iUZw87trH

I am getting the strong impression that the M1A2 diagram is indeed not a fake after all.

Guys check this out from the Swedish Tank Trials that MM_SH "below-the-turret-ring" found:

58 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

 

Export Armor Package always is in a single standard.

 

No changes there, only exception was Australia that got modified Heavy Armor Package that had DU replaced with something else, perhaps Tungsten on request of Australian MoD.

 

In general this drawing is indeed fake.

oh yes

19 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

Well... This, actually, is easily verifiable. But nothing can  explain  images of binder holes  on top of the picture

yup

Posted disclaimer: " According to some sources checking FMV archives that drawing above is fake, well made photoshop but still fake. So bother about it even less. Lessons learnt: don't bother about data which sources you can't confirm just because they fit your theory or you will end like GJ. "

9 hours ago, Jartsev said:

Look at classification  markings of "document" and "diagram". Nothing pings?

7 hours ago, Assassin 7 said:

The figure itself is copied from a TM, the text and the figure number is added manually by someone. So yes Jartsev is correct, this diagram is fake.

5 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I'm no friend to diagrams with pretend-accuracy at the millimeter level. Yes, you can make measurements of weld line distances and angles and use formulas, and your calculator will spew out "a" result with 12-digit precision, but the underlying data and the errors associated to them are orders of magnitude larger.

What "our" diagrams show are what our models use but even then the by far bigger source of error is what happens after a penetration occurs. There simply are no reliable and normed data available for this.

 

We have reason to believe that our work isn't half bad. But it would be preposterous to claim that they are "the truth". What you can see from these diagrams is that tanks do not present a uniform area of protection, but that there are areas that are better protected than others, and that such weak spots are essentially consequences of functional requirements. A gun, for example, MUST be open on one end. And in order to aim properly, you need to mount it in a gun cradle with a mantlet which inevitably requires material discontinuities that then create certain weaknesses. Much of a tank's protection therefore is based on statistics. You try to minimize the area of vulnerable zones within the target silhouette and then keep your fingers crossed. But given enough test cases the likelihood of your luck running out eventually approximates certainty.

54 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

 

This is a modified hull for CATTB, and I have an extremely strong suspicion there is not a lot of truth here, both upper glacis and hull sides over crew compartment are too thin compared to... khem khem... I seen and touched myself. Also heavy side skirts are often too thin in various estimations.

Thank you all for your input!!!

Also, concerning this diagram:

I got the following response:

"I had a talk yesterday with people on this subject and looks like that drawing is from SwedenMBT 2000 competition. USA offered M1A2 but with EAP (Export Armor Package). EAP differs from client to client like monkey versions for Egypt or Iraq for better setups for closer allies like Sweden or Australia. EAP for Sweden was probably close to M1A1HA but without DU. So it really isn't comparable to any M1 variant in US service - maybe lower front hull will be similar to M1 or M1IP but that just speculation. M1A2 with EAP for Sweden failed competition to Leopard 2I (similar to german 2A5) based version but amount of lower protection for M1A2 EAP for Sweden isn't known. Probably after this export failure US offered better HA version for Australia without DU replaced with titanium. "

Thank you guys for the feedback! Also guys what do you think about this claim from an 19K soldier:

Quote

 

So here we go.

M774 is a good round but it saw limited service life on the Abrams, reality is that the Abrams should be slinging M833. This according to Global Security.

 

Armor values, so in game the lower plate is clocked at 380 kinetic and 650 Chemical, upper plate clocked at 30mm, turret front plate at 380 KE 650 Chem. Real life for the lower plate we're really looking at about 678 vs KE and 1513 vs Chem with the exception of where the driver sits which is at 439 vs KE 643 vs Chem, upper plate 648 vs KE 1280 vs Chem, again exception for center which is 410 vs both KE and Chem. This according to Sergeant First Class Juarez, First Battalion Eighth Cavalry Regiment, Alpha Company Master Gunner and General Dynamics reps who work with us.

 

Side armor, game has is clocked in at 57mm on skirts one and two right side, those actually have a ballistic property to them so realistically we're at 260vs KE and 547vs Chem. Still on the right side, skirts 3,4,5 are sitting 150vs KE and 329vs Chem, skirt 6 has 55vs KE and 248 vs Chem. Left side, skirts 1,2,3 have a ballistic property so the values are 260 KE and 547 Chem, 4 and 5 150 KE 329 Chem, six 55vs KE 248 Chem. We take skirt seven off because it makes PMCS harder to do. Again this is according to Sergeant First Class Juarez, First Battalion Eighth Cavalry Regiment, Alpha Company Master Gunner and General Dynamics reps who work with us.

 

We don't use the hull ammo storage, it's hard to get to and a liability. Every loader is expected to load from the ready rack behind the ammo doors in under seven seconds. If you run low on the ready you transfer from the semi-ready that is behind the commander. This is according to any M1 Armor crewman (19 Kilo or 1812) you talk to.

 

GAS (Auxiliary sight) is missing from model.

 

Now I ain't no expert but I am an M1 Armor crewman and I know the machine I work on. So until next time folks.

Blackjack.

 

hmmm

18 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

Look at classification  markings of "document" and "diagram". Nothing pings?

Because of the "secret" on top ? I am confused.

5 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

Obvious  fake. Warthunder fanboys are making tons of them now.

Are you sure that this is a fake ?

On 6.3.2018 at 11:58 PM, MAJ_Fubar said:

I don't know if the internal composition changed between the M1A1HA and M1A2, but both the front and back plates (along with the turret roof [slightly]) were thickened on the M1A2 with the turret clocking in about 1.4 tonnes heavier. 

Thank you for the feedback. Would you know where this diagram is from? It looks like an early M1A2 with the armor package of an M1A1 HA:

Also, would you know if the composition and thickness of the upper front hull was changed from the original M1 to the M1A1 and so on.

The M1A1 HC seems to have composites in the upper front hull:

This might be from an M1:

Also for the original M1:

...

and for the early M1A1 HA:

Although the early M1A1 HA variant did not seem to have featured DU inserts, i could believe that the shaded area on top the front hull could contain a thickened steel plate composite array.

This makes me believe that the original M1 did not have any composite elements in the upper front hull!