Jump to content
lavictoireestlavie

About that deleted thread

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly not as a singular wall of text type of data dump, but rather broken into vehicle-specific dossiers. I suppose there's always something to learn, so I'm not fundamentally opposed to this kind of support. At the same time I'd like to caution against expectations that we will rush to immediately implement changes as new info needs to be contrasted with established knowledge and then evaluated. A good acid bath would be to post your ideas on the "Armor Scientific Forum" of TankNet.

Be prepared to defend your findings there. This cross-examination is a vital step in the verification process. This can take a while. For example, RHA performance figures: Depending on source you can get all kinds of different claims which may contradict each other even though they are all true, like

  • different definitions of BHN figure for target plate
  • different criteria for "penetration" (just a crack in the back wall, the projectile sticking through, or a clean perforation?)
  • modifications for "RHA equivalent" if special armor arrays attack the impacting projectile to reduce its effectiveness

Add to that the usual errors, misreporting, and actual disinformation that's floating around.

 

I don't claim that we have superior knowledge and that our work is flawless. We're trying to be consistent however, and at least somewhat plausible. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

 

Oh you mean the thread started about estimating ( and updating) some of the armor values in Steel beasts?  Sorry to see it go lavictoireestlavie , i skimed over it earlier in the day  on my mobile device and was  to tell you how a good job you did as soon as i got to a actual PC, to appreciate your efforts at starting such a thread.

 

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.

 

Although personally my eye  never caught anything i would have suspected as classified information. ( then again I could be wrong and i only did "skim" over the thread)  Most of it was  familiar documentation having seen it from various  armor related sites on the net  ( some was in fact shared and discussed in WAR thunders forums ;) ).   IM certain no one with an actual security clearance would leak information and risk their  job  along with jailtime  just to see more authentic values on their favorite computer game.  sim. The OP in question is not such an individual im sure.

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 IM certain no one with an actual security clearance would leak information and risk their  job  along with jailtime  just to see more authentic values on their favorite computer game.  sim. The OP in question is not such an individual im sure.

Believe me, there are plenty of fools around.(the original leak site must not be a gameforum)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

I think such a thread should have been kept open.

 

IM certain no one with an actual security clearance would leak information and risk their job  along with jailtime  just to see more authentic values on their favorite computer game.  sim. 

Pardon me, but your feet won't be held to the fire.

I on the other hand might have needed to spend considerable expenses and time in a court hall to defend the theory that keeping documents with "Secret" on them in the open actually wasn't a violation of secrecy, possibly in every single one of the dozen countries in which I do business, plus the fifty more through which I'm traveling on a regular basis. This topic is not up for discussion for people who neither know the legal situation in all the countries involved nor have any skin in this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

" 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.

Edited by lavictoireestlavie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, lavictoireestlavie said:

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.

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.

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 ?

Edited by lavictoireestlavie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yes.

 

You are assuming I read it though as that would be in breach of the forum rules and presumably someone would just remove the post (or maybe delete your account if you did it often enough).

 

I don't care about if its been published elsewhere or not - that is the owning country's issue, not mine.

 

My requirement to report such breaches when I see them (or know about them). So in your case, if you post something here and say "this is from XWZ forum" I just include in my report the URL to here and mention that you said it was posted on XWZ forum too.

 

Basically, regardless of the country, you aren't allowed to post that type of document.

 

I thought Ssnake was pretty clear.

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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.

 

"Link edited"

 

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.

 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, lavictoireestlavie said:

Your post technically violates the forum rules because it clearly depicts, although indirectly, information that is labeled "secret".  Technically, Gibsonm will have to report this to the UK military attache in Australia and other relevant authorities. I would just edit out the secret tag and be sensible when sanitizing information such as this.

 

 

 

It was just to prove a point and to show I want just bluffing on my claim.

 

Anyways il remove via edit. And if Gibsomm wants me to re send the link via PM, so he can report it so be it. I cant stop him.

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Speaking of disputed  presentation compiled by former FMV official(file was posted on his  website originally, but later was replaced with reduced version without much juicy details),  it is acknowledged  as legit and unclassified by Krigsarkivet(e.g. swedish military archive). But  source documents utilized for creation of presentation are still restricted and cannot be released.  Just my 2 cents.

Edited by Jartsev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Kev2go said:

It was just to prove a point and to show I want just bluffing on my claim.

 

Anyways il remove via edit. And if Gibsomm wants me to re send the link via PM, so he can report it so be it. I cant stop him.

 

Well I would suggest you remove the URL from you post as you are basically telling other people where to find it.

 

I'll send the paperwork off as I'm not worried about giving Gajin the benefit of the doubt (and apparently its already been in the Swedish press - "Why are Swedish Secrets on Russian web sites?", or words to that effect).

 

6 hours ago, lavictoireestlavie said:

I would just edit out the secret tag and be sensible when sanitizing information such as this.

 

You editing the label in no way "sanitises" the information.

 

The idea is not to cover the label and then post it. The idea is not to post it in the first place.

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, someone's dropped a ball here.

 

Am I right in assuming "restricted" = "secret" ?

I'm going with "yes"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a heads up, all of those documents/diagrams posted on the disappeared thread marked secret have existed (and continue to exist) on the History of US Tanks thread, since March 2018.  Looks like there was a discussion debating the authenticity at the time.

Also, an irrelevant but interesting point, is that a google reverse image search indicates that the documents appeared online as early as November 6th 2002.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Hedgehog said:

Oops, someone's dropped a ball here.

 

Am I right in assuming "restricted" = "secret" ?

I'm going with "yes"

 

In general usage "restricted" means not everyone has access to something (be it parking, a round, seats at a football game, ...)

 

For me "Restricted" is a different classification in a pryamid where the higher you go the less people have access.

 

Bottom - Unofficial

next - Unclassified

next - Restricted

next - Protected

next - Secret

next - Top Secret

etc.

 

Different countries have different names and sometimes you need to deconflict (e.g. US Restricted = what in Australia?)

 

Anyway, the documents posted had classification markings that clearly indicated that they weren't meant to be made public. Not quite on a Snowden scale, but that sort of thing. ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Breakthrough7 said:

Just a heads up, all of those documents/diagrams posted on the disappeared thread marked secret have existed (and continue to exist) on the History of US Tanks thread, since March 2018.  Looks like there was a discussion debating the authenticity at the time.

Ah well I guess they need to be removed then. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to original topic again:

What benefit would a change in the "numbers" actually have gameplay wise??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Kev2go said:

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)

Fortunately I don't have to assume responsibility for other web site owners' mistakes. Neither will I adopt their legal assessment of the situation. Maybe it's not illegal where they are doing it, and they don't travel. I for one value my ability to visit foreign countries, and to return home without year-long interruptions of my travel schedule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Breakthrough7 said:

Just a heads up, all of those documents/diagrams posted on the disappeared thread marked secret have existed (and continue to exist) on the History of US Tanks thread, since March 2018.

Can you help me point out the specific post, and/or alert the original poster to remove the incriminating elements, so I don't have to delete that entire thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Grenny said:

Back to original topic again:

What benefit would a change in the "numbers" actually have gameplay wise??

 

realism, and authenticity.

 

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Hedgehog said:

Oops, someone's dropped a ball here.

 

Am I right in assuming "restricted" = "secret" ?

I'm going with "yes"

 

depends on the country.

 

 

US "restictted" doesnt really count as secret or "classified, as one doesnt need a Security clearance to access documents with "restricted"

 

 

EG Tank Operators or aircraft Flight manual are commonly restricted, so the average rank and file NCO thats driving the tank or servicing that aircraft ,  ( or butter bar Lieutenant  student pilot  reviewing his FM for a decades old aircraft ) isnt going to have a "security clearance". Simply information that is  controlled in distribution, however its not necessarily impossible to be made public, as various  civilian "off the shelf" SIms  without any contract to government have used "restricted" manuals as source material for Aircraft or vehicles . Teams like  ED or thier 43rd parties  , VRS, Milviz,  or modders for falcon BMS wouldnt have been able to create thier "study" level simulations without such source material 

 

Baiscally for people with actual security clearance ( various levels) documents will be marked Confidential, Secret, and then Top Secret.

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

realism, and authenticity.

 

As stated before the delete: what happens in the game at least fullfills the realism expectations of customer "in the know".

Adjusting it to some partial and in some cases shady sources... would improve what exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Grenny said:

As stated before the delete: what happens in the game at least fullfills the realism expectations of customer "in the know".

Adjusting it to some partial and in some cases shady sources... would improve what exactly?

 

k

 

brownnose.jpg

 

 

 

But whatever il bite, Unclassfied Information ( as not to breach forum rules), Ala  nowunclassified CIA report.  400mm RHA turret vs KE , 700mm vs CE, that's already lower than the values provided here for vanilla M1.   tell us what was factored in that in SB lists it 20mm extra vs  ke, and an extra 100-120mm vs CE in SB? for the turret?

 

you know in the same way textures are updated every X amount of updates or other stuff addressed, it wouldn't hurt to have armor values revised based on non classified sources ( when its possible) because i'm sure whenever SB was made, there were documentations that are available in more recent times that may not have been around when these values were initially given.

 

IF authors can go back and revise thier published books based on newly available information, and publish new   " second/ 3rd etc etc edition"  books,  then i don't see why the same can be done for SB. 

 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Can you help me point out the specific post, and/or alert the original poster to remove the incriminating elements, so I don't have to delete that entire thread?

Yes, they're isolated to page 10 of that thread; March 7th to March 8th 2018.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...