Jump to content
lavictoireestlavie

About that deleted thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

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".

 

Actually, every person in this example would have, at a minimum, a Security Clearance of "Secret" in the US Army.

 

Furthermore, you can't just look at a document and determine what information is secret or not by how "juicy" you deem it to be. 

 

I would stop while you are ahead; your knowledge on this subject appears to be based on conjectures and not facts. 

Share this post


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

 

Actually, every person in this example would have, at a minimum, a Security Clearance of "Secret" in the US Army.

 

Furthermore, you can't just look at a document and determine what information is secret or not by how "juicy" you deem it to be. 

 

I would stop while you are ahead; your knowledge on this subject appears to be based on conjectures and not facts. 

 

Please dont put words in my mouth. I never said that, No conjecture here, "restricted" ( there are distribution levels levels A through F  or something to that effect )  is not classification level " secret". 

 

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a369766.pdf.

 

 

Most such documents that are not higher than C have a " Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Director of ....... "  or something of that note implying that it is possible for individuals outside military or their  hired  civilian defense contractors to request and actually get a preview or possession of a physical copy of such a document.

 

Again that would explain how you have simulations of vehicles  that almost certainly had documentation "restricted" classification   as source documentation, being created for the consumer sim market, whos development team aren't making a "civilianized" version of a sim originating from an official government contract.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see it that way.

 

A clarification was necessary as to what can be presented here and what cannot - Done. I wouldn't call that a drama.

 

Now would come the next step, looking at the materials, and evaluating them. That doesn't have to be done on this site, as long as there is a critical review. At the end of that review process we will make a decision whether or not to adjust our current estimations. If you want to cancel that process I'd like to be on the record that it wasn't because we didn't want to listen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First and foremost, before posting some "estimations" or "secret data" for armor protection, be sure these are actual facts and are real.

For example Swedish docs about M1A2 protection.

1. Sweden did not tested US armor in M1A2, heck they didn't done ballistic tests on actual M1A2 at all.

2. Sweden ballistic trails contained only models of hull and turret front with Swedish made armor, not US made armor.

Tough I know there are people that like to make conclusions based on this, that M1A2's armor was weaker than other estimations imply.

@lavictoireestlavie You know what an actual researcher do? Admits that without an actual direct documents from US DoD, GDLS, TACOM, TARDEC etc. he does not know protection levels. Simple as that.

What I can conclude? I seen a video from Iraq where export M1A1M with Export Armor Package was capable to withstand on turret front, hit from Metis-M ATGM, Metis-M is known to penetrate ~900-950mm of RHA, so we can conclude that front turret protection provided by Export Armor Package in Iraqi M1A1M, is greater than ~900-950mm RHA, but we know that Kornet ATGM capable to penetrate ~1100-1200mm RHA is capable to pierce it, so we can conclude also that Export Armor Package provides less protection than that vs CE.

We also know that US M1A1/M1A2 tanks were hit by RPG-29 in the lower front hull armor module, most likely these tanks were protected by 2nd or 3rd generation Heavy Armor Package. We know that RPG-29 can penetrate ~650-750mm RHA, so we can conclude that 2nd/3rd generation Heavy Armor Package can provide protection vs CE greater than that.

Also some people meassured one M1A1 in museum, so we know it's front turret and hull armor thickness. Which means that my estimations were more or less correct.

So turret front armor both left and right is ~700+mm 30. degrees from turret longitudinal axis and ~800-900+mm at 0. degrees from turret longitudinal axis. Front lower hull armor is ~600-700+mm thick from weld to weld.

CiWU2bd.jpg

However these meassures are done by this person (dunno who he was) from weld to weld, and do not include full thickness of the turret and hull front backplates that are ~100mm thick.

Altough I am quiet happy, than once more my estimations were confirmed by real meassurements.

Anyway I would be very carefull with lots of these estimations. Not to mention that outside a few people that know how US armor evolved, nobody would tell how it changed, and it changed a lot compared to a bit inaccurate drawings from CIA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, lavictoireestlavie said:

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).

@lavictoireestlavie  Before moving too far away from this-- Just want to say I don't think anyone faults you for your research, desire to help, or your disappointment on this occasion.  You're a top notch and refreshingly impartial researcher with good company here-- I hope you press on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

First and foremost, before posting some "estimations" or "secret data" for armor protection, be sure these are actual facts and are real.
@lavictoireestlavie

this statement contains both an internal contradiction (ensure estimations are factual), and entails the very thing you would want to avoid per opsec (ensure secret data is factual)

 

in other words, estimations by definition aren't verified facts and secret data is forbidden as such.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Damian90 said:

First and foremost, before posting some "estimations" or "secret data" for armor protection, be sure these are actual facts and are real.

For example Swedish docs about M1A2 protection.

1. Sweden did not tested US armor in M1A2, heck they didn't done ballistic tests on actual M1A2 at all.

2. Sweden ballistic trails contained only models of hull and turret front with Swedish made armor, not US made armor.

Tough I know there are people that like to make conclusions based on this, that M1A2's armor was weaker than other estimations imply.

@lavictoireestlavie You know what an actual researcher do? Admits that without an actual direct documents from US DoD, GDLS, TACOM, TARDEC etc. he does not know protection levels. Simple as that.

What I can conclude? I seen a video from Iraq where export M1A1M with Export Armor Package was capable to withstand on turret front, hit from Metis-M ATGM, Metis-M is known to penetrate ~900-950mm of RHA, so we can conclude that front turret protection provided by Export Armor Package in Iraqi M1A1M, is greater than ~900-950mm RHA, but we know that Kornet ATGM capable to penetrate ~1100-1200mm RHA is capable to pierce it, so we can conclude also that Export Armor Package provides less protection than that vs CE.

We also know that US M1A1/M1A2 tanks were hit by RPG-29 in the lower front hull armor module, most likely these tanks were protected by 2nd or 3rd generation Heavy Armor Package. We know that RPG-29 can penetrate ~650-750mm RHA, so we can conclude that 2nd/3rd generation Heavy Armor Package can provide protection vs CE greater than that.

Also some people meassured one M1A1 in museum, so we know it's front turret and hull armor thickness. Which means that my estimations were more or less correct.

So turret front armor both left and right is ~700+mm 30. degrees from turret longitudinal axis and ~800-900+mm at 0. degrees from turret longitudinal axis. Front lower hull armor is ~600-700+mm thick from weld to weld.

CiWU2bd.jpg

However these meassures are done by this person (dunno who he was) from weld to weld, and do not include full thickness of the turret and hull front backplates that are ~100mm thick.

Altough I am quiet happy, than once more my estimations were confirmed by real meassurements.

Anyway I would be very carefull with lots of these estimations. Not to mention that outside a few people that know how US armor evolved, nobody would tell how it changed, and it changed a lot compared to a bit inaccurate drawings from CIA.

 

I have came to a similar conclusion when it comes to Armour protection for modern Tanks.

I look for combat footage and pics of destroyed and damaged AFV,s

There is a very good history channel documentary about a CR-2 crew who,s tank was disabled entering basra.

 And who endured a night of constant attacks.

The CR-2 withstood multiple RPG and a couple of Milan hits a true testament too its Armour protection.

 

 

Edited by Marko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Captain_Colossus said:

this statement contains both an internal contradiction (ensure estimations are factual), and entails the very thing you would want to avoid per opsec (ensure secret data is factual)

 

in other words, estimations by definition aren't verified facts and secret data is forbidden as such.

 

 

The problem is that the actual data, is also an estimation more or less, because various armor types will interact differently with different types of ammunition, heck if we fire two different APFSDS rounds in to a same armor module, this armor module might interact differently with each round depending on armor and round design and implications this comes with.

Same with shaped charges, there is no single and same shaped charge warhead, more newer shaped charges use wave shapers, have better explosives that propels shaped charge jet faster which have it's own implications on the armor performance.

This is a very complex subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

This is a very complex subject.

 

Which I must admit is why I (and I think Grenny too) wonder why this ongoing pursuit of almost unreachable data?

 

If what we have now is "good enough" for most defence customers training needs (i.e. the effect generated is in line with what is desired) then anything else is pretty much in the realm of white coated "boffins".

 

If we accept that, then surely if its good enough for the Defence customer, its good enough for the Civilian user too?

 

Personally as a user of the platform, I don't really care if a given round is meant to penetrate 100mm of RHA or 101mm of RHA, if the general effect is that say hitting a vehicle X from Y aspect at Z range is a Kill then the maths is not my concern.

 

Let alone the minutiae of round 1 fails to penetrate (due to some variation in propellant, quality of manufacture, target aspect at the time of hit, or one of a bunch of other reasons), but round 2 that hits 10cm to the left on the same plate, does penetrate due to the effect of round 1 on the armour, etc.

 

"Best is the enemy of good enough" - Sergey Gorshkov :)

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

The problem is that the actual data, is also an estimation more or less, because various armor types will interact differently with different types of ammunition, heck if we fire two different APFSDS rounds in to a same armor module, this armor module might interact differently with each round depending on armor and round design and implications this comes with.

Same with shaped charges, there is no single and same shaped charge warhead, more newer shaped charges use wave shapers, have better explosives that propels shaped charge jet faster which have it's own implications on the armor performance.

This is a very complex subject.

 

good point. funny enough even arcade thunder models different armor protection values vs different APFSDS ammo types.

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


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

 

good point. funny enough even arcade thunder models different armor protection values vs different APFSDS ammo types.

Yes, and it caters to the crowd of rivet counters who then can go on having endless discussions about how true these values are and how this or that nation is beeing treated unfairly...while most of the values are nothing but estimates (exept for some of the historical stuff)

 

So again: I don't see the value of it.

 

For esim, if they'd approach customer with these numbers, they may get mildly loughed. If they would find and use(=publish) "real" numbers...they can forget ever getting an MoD contract again = economical suicide.

 

Edited by Grenny

Share this post


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

 

Which I must admit is why I (and I think Grenny too) wonder why this ongoing pursuit of almost unreachable data?

 

If what we have now is "good enough" for most defence customers training needs (i.e. the effect generated is in line with what is desired) then anything else is pretty much in the realm of white coated "boffins".

 

If we accept that, then surely if its good enough for the Defence customer, its good enough for the Civilian user too?

 

Personally as a user of the platform, I don't really care if a given round is meant to penetrate 100mm of RHA or 101mm of RHA, if the general effect is that say hitting a vehicle X from Y aspect at Z range is a Kill then the maths is not my concern.

 

Let alone the minutiae of round 1 fails to penetrate (due to some variation in propellant, quality of manufacture, target aspect at the time of hit, or one of a bunch of other reasons), but round 2 that hits 10cm to the left on the same plate, does penetrate due to the effect of round 1 on the armour, etc.

 

"Best is the enemy of good enough" - Sergey Gorshkov :)

 

And I fully agree.

The problem tough is different, and fueled by some... let's call them "circles" of internet warriors fighting for "their country is the best and rest sucks".

As a researcher and military journalist I decided some time ago to leave these people, I made the same mistake, making discussions about the subject, which is pointless with this kind of people.

It's just waste of time. And if I get to know something through my own research, I tend to mostly not share it with other people, my own curiosity is fullfilled.

Share this post


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

Please dont put words in my mouth. I never said that, No conjecture here, "restricted" ( there are distribution levels levels A through F  or something to that effect )  is not classification level " secret". 

 

You said the following:

 

23 hours ago, Kev2go said:

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".

 

Those are your words; I was pointing out that you are wrong; every person that you mentioned as an example would have a security clearance in real life. 

 

I would also hesitate before assuming that an almost 10 year old document from Oak Ridge National Laboratory is accurate when it comes to classifications and derivative classifications in the current US Army. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there is one more aspect. Disinformation, who says that some documents are not released to public on purpose and are on purpose modified with certain information.

 

I can say one thing, a lot of such people that treat these documents as gospel, would be very, very surprised about the truth, and that's all I have to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Damian90 said:

And there is one more aspect. Disinformation, who says that some documents are not released to public on purpose and are on purpose modified with certain information.

 

I can say one thing, a lot of such people that treat these documents as gospel, would be very, very surprised about the truth, and that's all I have to say.

I agree. When I saw that declassified document from the CIA spec'ing details about the Abrams armor... What's the chance?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mirzayev said:

 

You said the following:

 

 

Those are your words; I was pointing out that you are wrong; every person that you mentioned as an example would have a security clearance in real life. 

 

That's irrelevant to the point made.

 

Stop trying to change goalposts and using fallacies for argument

 

Quote

I would also hesitate before assuming that an almost 10 year old document from Oak Ridge National Laboratory is accurate when it comes to classifications and derivative classifications in the current US 

 

That doesn't make the point any less valid. As its demonstrated  for distinction. Also I wasn't specifically referring to the us army.

 

Burden of proof freindo.  

 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, stormrider_sp said:

I agree. When I saw that declassified document from the CIA spec'ing details about the Abrams armor... What's the chance?

 

The general layout or rather type of armor is true. However these drawings are not technical drawings, just generic information ones, so assume lots of stuff is off the scale, geometry is wrong, and even proportions might be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, stormrider_sp said:

I agree. When I saw that declassified document from the CIA spec'ing details about the Abrams armor... What's the chance?

 

This sort of skepticism would be understood if discussing a current service vehicle. Not so much for something that's retired, and found in scrapyard or  private museums.

 

 

Why would the cia waste time creating a disinformation document  ( public for release in 2014) on a vehicle considering brl1 armor  package is obselete and the tank itself no longer in any form of military service ( foreign or domestic)

 

 

Considering that russia already have implemented nera type armor since cold war and that political foes can and have resort to espionage or hacking, more likely than not this is old news or simply not of interest given it's not around.

 

 That is legit document that was made public via foia.

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Damian90 said:

And I fully agree.

The problem tough is different, and fueled by some... let's call them "circles" of internet warriors fighting for "their country is the best and rest sucks".

 

 

 

If you did read the ip thread before it was closed down I dont know how you could have gotten such an impression  this wasn't the case here.

 

 

17 hours ago, Damian90 said:



As a researcher and military journalist

 

Now whilst there are such people you describe , there certainly are many that arent like that.

 

I would also add that in any discussion  be it internet , article or formal academic papers the proper etiquette is to address the arguments and not attack or dismiss point made simply by character alone.

 

Facts arent any less true just because it originates from a site you may or may not like or if its stated from a person who isn't doing it for a living.

 

 

17 hours ago, Damian90 said:



It's just waste of time. And if I get to know something through my own research, I tend to mostly not share it with other people, my own curiosity is fullfilled.

 

Whilst you might have a different view on this. I personally like to share whatever I can.

 

Humanity has progressed because of the spread of knowledge. Not because everyone keeps to themselves.

 

Factual based Discussion and education is a healthy thing. 

Share this post


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

Why would the cia waste time creating a disinformation document  ( public for release in 2014) on a vehicle considering brl1 armor  package is obselete and the tank itself no longer in any form of military service ( foreign or domestic)

Because intelligence and counter intelligence are their jobs?

Share this post


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

This sort of skepticism would be understood if discussing a current service vehicle. Not so much for something that's retired, and found in scrapyard or  private museums.

 

 

Why would the cia waste time creating a disinformation document  ( public for release in 2014) on a vehicle considering brl1 armor  package is obselete and the tank itself no longer in any form of military service ( foreign or domestic)

 

 

Considering that russia already have implemented nera type armor since cold war and that political foes can and have resort to espionage or hacking, more likely than not this is old news or simply not of interest given it's not around.

 

 That is legit document that was made public via foia.

Perhaps because NERA or NxRA types of armor might differ in efficency due to different polymers used as their reactive layer. Who ever said that M1's NERA uses rubber instead of some more energetic polymer material? And who said it is NERA? Why it can't be NxRA for example? Burlington program in UK and Starflower program in US was much wider in scope than most people realize, it included also such things as ERA builded in vehicles armor, similiar in concept to Soviet Kontakt-5 etc.

 

It's very easy to say, oh it's old, so documents must be true!

 

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

If you did read the ip thread before it was closed down I dont know how you could have gotten such an impression  this wasn't the case here.

I readed it, and I actually know many sources of these revelations, these are as credible as Bible for example.

 

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

Now whilst there are such people you describe , there certainly are many that arent like that.

 

I would also add that in any discussion  be it internet , article or formal academic papers the proper etiquette is to address the arguments and not attack or dismiss point made simply by character alone.

 

Facts arent any less true just because it originates from a site you may or may not like or if its stated from a person who isn't doing it for a living.

Let's say I know exactly what kind of people mostly talk about such subjects, and it ain't pretty.

 

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

Whilst you might have a different view on this. I personally like to share whatever I can.

 

Humanity has progressed because of the spread of knowledge. Not because everyone keeps to themselves.

 

Factual based Discussion and education is a healthy thing. 

Who says entire humanity needs to progress? I definately do not want some humans to progress over our western civilization, especially the ones that are hostile to it.

 

Besides with my background in military, I rather preffer to keep things to myself, and you should also. Did ever sad gentlemen from counterintelligence visited you? I know some people that had such visit due to various reasons, sometimes it's better to keep silent than say too much.

 

But I digrece from topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Damian90 said:

Perhaps because NERA or NxRA types of armor might differ in efficency due to different polymers used as their reactive layer. Who ever said that M1's NERA uses rubber instead of some more energetic polymer material? And who said it is NERA? Why it can't be NxRA for example? Burlington program in UK and Starflower program in US was much wider in scope than most people realize, it included also such things as ERA builded in vehicles armor, similiar in concept to Soviet Kontakt-5 etc.

 

None of which is covered in said document.

 

Quote

It's very easy to say, oh it's old, so documents must be true!

 

 

I never said that all. I expressed many reason why it wouldn't be an assumption merely because of age of document  alone.IE   re read last post IF the documents had any sensitive nature in general they wouldn't be declasiseifed. Again as i stated there is nothing to gain from "disinformation" here given  Burlingon 1 and the Vanilla M1 is no longer "news"  for anyone working in foreign intelligence.  

 

 

 

and at this point i think you are really just grasping at straws here  just saying an opposing view just for the sake of it.  because youd rather disgree because you look at person instead of the agument,  But whatever Yeah ok fine stick to your conspiracy  theory beliefs then. Your naive to think that foreign intelligence wouldn't already know about this .

 

Quote

 

I readed it, and I actually know many sources of these revelations, these are as credible as Bible for example.

 

 

 

You know if your just going to continue to make vague claims that you are unable to actually back up  then you may as well stop. At this point your just arguing for the sake of arguing.  

 

 

Quote

Who says entire humanity needs to progress?

lol m8 you took it way more than it meant.  This is niche enthusiasts/ hobbyists circle. knowledge should be spread through  any  public community. not the discussion of topic that will change humanity.

 

Quote

 

I definitely do not want some humans to progress over our western civilization, especially the ones that are hostile to it.

 

Nice try there at  moral equivalence fallacy on your behalf.

 

 discussion on such forums is not equating to helping adversaries progress and somehow gain a technological edge over the West .  If we were so effective here, there would be no need for  Intelligence Analysts, and foreign nations have far more resources at their disposal besides " Open source Archive" research or searching Open source data on the internet, and certainly more than a "journalist" 

 

 

Seriously how naive are you to think that  if Historical or Military Enthusiasts can find such information from open source research  do you not think this would all be already in foreign hands?, especially as they can resort to methods that would be impossible for a normal law abiding citizen, such  use hacking or actual espionage to obtain the juicy and relevant information? 

 

At the end of the day people dont care about politics  " People are people. So why should it be" ( actually i know the answer but i wont delve into actual poltics)

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

Besides with my background in military, I rather preffer to keep things to myself, and you should also. Did ever sad gentlemen from counterintelligence visited you? I know some people that had such visit due to various reasons, sometimes it's better to keep silent than say too much.

 

NO . in the same way a cop never visited anyone i know for watching a pirated DVD.

 

and did counter intel ever visit anyone home for ever browsing a site like wiki leaks or whatever? Probably not. Did NYT or other  major  national newspaper get shut down   when covering stories on published articles based on leaked information. No.

 

Its Besides for the record  , that would be a double no because none of the information i look at is actually classified.

 

Quote

But I digrece from topic.

 

you dont say?

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, stormrider_sp said:

Because intelligence and counter intelligence are their jobs?

 

 

IF so , it would  be  26 years too late for that effort to actually matter. 

 

But whatever at this point its just nothing but  fallacies being thrown into the fray, in poor attempts to discredit said information. 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2019 at 5:49 PM, Grenny said:

Yes, and it caters to the crowd of rivet counters

 

 

Such obvious AD hominum . It doesn't matter who you think the game "caters" to.  It doesnt make the application of such mechanics any less valid vs not having them.  Its realistic  function vs having simplified single RHA vs KE  values applied to every  KE. ammo type

Quote

 

who then can go on having endless discussions about how true these values are and how this or that nation is beeing treated unfairly...while most of the values are nothing but estimates (exept for some of the historical stuff)

 

In that case why bother having a game at all in fear of who you think  is upset for balance or not.  The Op thread was not about "fairness" for balane. these discussions are very much valid for older vehicles where more solid information is available.

Quote

 

So again: I don't see the value of it.

 

For esim, if they'd approach customer with these numbers, they may get mildly loughed.

 

No ones forced to go into wiki sites for more information.  DOnt make up assumptions based on what you think a customer wants. At the end of the day it would be up to customer whether or not they care to study differences in amm types.

 

Quote

 

If they would find and use(=publish) "real" numbers...they can forget ever getting an MoD contract again = economical suicide.

 

 

 

no one said publishing real numbers. I doubt if  ESIM even knows real numbers  ( even if they may be privy to more than most here) there is a reason such software is made in such a way so the military client can edit values of ARMOR or data if they see fit based on thier own classified information, and not having to worry about trusting a private company with them.

 

Its the same thing with TBS vs DCS. PK missile values or other aspects of more sensitive avionics like EW are adjustable by the military customer to fit the exact tables.

Edited by Kev2go

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...