[HN Gopher] Classified Challenger tank specs leaked online for v... ___________________________________________________________________ Classified Challenger tank specs leaked online for videogame Author : notmine1337 Score : 140 points Date : 2021-07-16 15:56 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (ukdefencejournal.org.uk) (TXT) w3m dump (ukdefencejournal.org.uk) | le-mark wrote: | My understanding was the main secret on modern MBTs is the | composition of the "sabot catching" armor. Doesn't sound like | that's what was disclosed here? | ummonk wrote: | It doesn't seem like anything dangerous was posted, but the | individual who posted it shouldn't be making judgement calls | about what they think shouldn't need to be classified. | GekkePrutser wrote: | I would imagine that if a game developer has access to a | classified document, that actual enemies already own that | document and the real harm has been done long ago. | hugh-avherald wrote: | N.B. The document appears to be marked _Restricted_ which is | technically lower than 'classified'. | KineticLensman wrote: | In the UK, 'classified' is a generic term not a formal | classification level. Perhaps you meant 'confidential'? But in | any case, the level 'restricted' was taken out of use a few | years ago in the UK, and its use indicates that the document | concerned is not recent. The current equivalent is 'official | sensitive' | User23 wrote: | Back in the 90s my buddies in the military would say that Tom | Clancy basically got it right. | | Also private intelligence sources like Janes probably will sell | you this info too, although I can't be sure because I'm not | willing to pay to find out. | greedo wrote: | Just because it's classified doesn't mean it's valuable. Lots of | stuff is classified for bureaucratic reasons. Also, there's | little about the Challenger 2 that opposing forces couldn't have | researched. The tank itself has been around for more than 2 | decades, and the Soviets/Russians have been consistently able to | penetrate British security for the last 70 years. | | The gun is nothing special, and it's performance is well known. | Chobbham/Dorcester armor has been around for quite awhile, and | isn't unique. The US has sold M1s to Egypt, Iraq etc with | Chobbham armor. | jandrewrogers wrote: | FWIW, the armor on the export M1 is different than the US | version. | greedo wrote: | Yes, but all M1s have Chobbham/Dorcester armor. Some | additionally have DU (Depleted Uranium) inserts. The DU | inserts are generally limited to US Army M1s. | AmVess wrote: | Export M1's do not have Chobham armor. | greedo wrote: | Do you have a source for this? My understanding was that | DU armor was the only difference in armor on export | versions (Kuwait, SA, Egypt). | beowulfey wrote: | Just because it isn't valuable doesn't mean it is legally | allowed to be released. | pyronik19 wrote: | I think this is understood. The issue is that these | bureaucratic legalese nonsense needs to go. | mywittyname wrote: | Just because its illegal doesn't mean that there was any harm | done. | ozim wrote: | That is a bit more complex issue. | | Well if the guy was a commander he should be smart enough | not to share/discuss such things in gamer forums. | | While yes technology on its own could be mostly understood | by people you still expect commander even if not officer to | keep his mouth shut. | | Person did harm to himself while maybe not to the army. | Just for being silly and not careful while you are being in | the army there should be prosecution. | | Now compare it with how much work goes into telling people | that they should not click links in suspicious emails... | | People still click those links, companies get ransomed. | | At some point it is not "ALL FUN AND GAMES" but "WE ARE | RESPONSIBLE ADULTS" - well no one died but I would not like | to work with that guy on serious things. | | Commanding a tank is a serious thing not "well no harm | done, corporate bs". | weare138 wrote: | Chobham armor is just an informal/generic name for composite | armor. The actual designs vary from tank to tank and are highly | classified. There's no singular style of 'Chobham armor'. | analognoise wrote: | It doesn't matter if a technical person looking at it thinks it | isn't valuable. If it has any marking other than "Approved for | public release", the book will be thrown at someone | intentionally releasing it - and rightly so. | | If the MOD says it is classified, this person likely just ended | their career and might go to jail. For a tank game's accuracy. | | I mean sometimes people make bad choices, but Jesus, what a | mistake. | ManBlanket wrote: | Seems like this is only news for two reasons: 1. tanks are | interesting. 2. people get excited about cancelling strangers | on the internet over whatever loose pretext they can. | | How else can you explain this profoundly mundane story ending | up on the front page of a tech news site? What's next, we | going to start chiming in on soldiers who don't renew their | military IDs in time? Y'all are acting like he leaked plans | for the Army's top-secret death ray, or a bunch of videos of | helicopters killing civilians, not a boring piece of paper | work nobody in the military cared about enough to declassify | after decades of service. | joe-collins wrote: | Many people on this website work with governments. National | security topics intersect with technology often: Snowden, | Reality Winner, the OPM hack, SolarWinds, really anything | involving the NSA. There's hardly a day we _don 't_ read | about some state-backed threat actor. | | Does it not seem reasonable, then, that a violation of | fundamental classification policy catches interest? | | The impact of the leak shouldn't be measured in the | material revelations that might be in those documents, | especially should they be so underwhelming as many seem to | think. Rather, the impact is that _a person of rank_ chose | to execute such a violation for such an overwhelmingly | trivial reason. Imagine, if you can, the impact that act | might have on morale within that military, and on the | capacity for the social pressures within that organization | to maintain adherence in the future. | walshemj wrote: | "Customer" Tanks don't get all the sweet latest tech that the | host country has. | | an Iraqi T72 wasn't the same as the WP ones for example. | adolph wrote: | _Chobham armour is the informal name of a composite armour | developed in the 1960s at the British tank research centre on | Chobham Common, Surrey. The name has since become the common | generic term for composite ceramic vehicle armour. Other names | informally given to Chobham armour include "Burlington" and | "Dorchester." "Special armour" is a broader informal term | referring to any armour arrangement comprising "sandwich" | reactive plates, including Chobham armour._ | | _Although the construction details of the Chobham armour | remain a secret, it has been described as being composed of | ceramic tiles encased within a metal framework and bonded to a | backing plate and several elastic layers. Owing to the extreme | hardness of the ceramics used, they offer superior resistance | against shaped charges such as high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) | rounds and they shatter kinetic energy penetrators._ | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour | josh2600 wrote: | It sounds like it's basically chainmail for tanks. | idiotsecant wrote: | it sounds like it's basically unlike chainmail in all | possible ways! | greedo wrote: | Actually, there are no ceramics in Chobham armor. | | https://below-the-turret- | ring.blogspot.com/2016/03/chobham-a... | Groxx wrote: | While an interesting read: it's fairly clearly stated that | they believe there _were_ no ceramics in _early_ Chobham | armors. And some newer ones _might_ , though probably not | most, and that it's not particularly relevant to the | effectiveness (i.e. it's an armor structural pattern, | ceramic is orthogonal). | | So it mostly supports your claim, since Wikipedia is rather | focused on the ceramic aspect, but it's in a _somewhat_ | different context. | bronzeage wrote: | The U.S has many adversaries, not only nation states but | terrorist organizations like ISIL. Just because the most | advanced adversaries probably have access to something doesn't | mean that you shouldn't protect it from the weaker adversaries. | | If anything, most of the U.S. engagement nowadays are against | inferior enemies, not Russia, and against them, even small | things like these can be useful to the enemy, especially an | enemy with really shallow intelligence gathering. | duxup wrote: | I remember growing up watching the "military vehicle shows" on | the Discovery channel when they just output all the various | specs of every vehicle. | | I think a lot of the general operating specs and such are | pretty well known. | walshemj wrote: | Up to a point I recall some one who worked for RAE and was on | Salisbury plain and their land rover was over taken at speed | by a MBT (well over the listed spec BTW) | bserge wrote: | Tbf, anything can overtake those garage decorations. | ChuckMcM wrote: | I was a huge fan of these sorts of shows as well! Having | talked with folks who had full access to the specs however, | my understanding is that there are specs and there are specs. | Basically the specs that give advantage or could be exploited | as weaknesses on the battlefield were classified whereas the | kind of stuff you could deduce just by watching one operate | in the field was not. So for example, seeing how far a tank | could shoot by watching one compete, not classified. But 'how | many' shootable things and 'what kind' it carries might be | classified. | dylan604 wrote: | There's also things like published max speeds, and then | full military power speeds that are more closely held. | [deleted] | duxup wrote: | I think the bigger issue is that this rando user had the | document, and I think that means it was already out / online? | | Amusing context, but I suspect whatever important thing happened | with this document, it already happened. And that's assuming it | was actually real / classified. | chrisseaton wrote: | > this rando user had the document | | They're a Challenger instructor. Who else do you think the | document is for? | duxup wrote: | Wouldn't the crews have this manual to? | | Or rando IT guy? | adolph wrote: | No, for M1 series the crew manual (back in the day) just | says it is secret stuff and to cover it with a tarp it with | a tarp if the outer armor exposes it. That goes for the | front of the turret, hull and the first track cover. | chrisseaton wrote: | It's not an M1 it's a Challenger 2. | ethanbond wrote: | And the mechanics | | And the archivist | | And the printer | | And so on and so forth | | Even highly sensitive info must be handled by a lot of | people in a modern military. | munificent wrote: | _> this rando user_ | | Lots of people rightly have access to classified information. | This user is likely to be a soldier and tank operator. Many of | these people also play videogames. And apparently some fraction | of those are dumb enough to leak classified info. | duxup wrote: | I wouldn't doubt it. Russia had problems with soldiers | posting photos online... while working in / around Ukraine. | ethbr0 wrote: | You mean while vacationing with their service weapons in | So^H^HRussian Crimea? /s | handrous wrote: | That happened a ton, but I never got the impression it was | a problem for them. Was it? | duxup wrote: | Depends on what you mean by problem. | | It's just PR as it's not like other nations that didn't | like it didn't already know. But Russia did pass some | laws forbidding soldiers from doing that thing ... so it | seems politically they didn't like it contradicting their | stated claims. | | I did find the passing of the law amusing tho. It's not | like the military can't just give a 'don't do that' order | much faster... | some_random wrote: | It's not a rando user, it's a TC of a Challenger 2. | inopinatus wrote: | "The Official Secrets Act is not there to protect Secrets, it is | there to protect Officials." | | -- Sir Humphrey Appleby, _Yes, Minister_ | gerdesj wrote: | A long running documentary, masquerading as an humorous sitcom. | edrxty wrote: | This happens more than you'd imagine. DCS World gets in hot water | for this periodically. It doesn't help that these developers are | all from Russia | doodlebugging wrote: | It also doesn't help that this game has been used in the past | to spread trojans to user's machines. | | As a War Thunder player thru Steam, I quit playing when my | system monitors flagged an update from War Thunder as a | malicious trojan. That was a couple or three years ago. | | Cool game though. | duxup wrote: | I would think that classified or not ... you kinda assume | almost all manuals eventually leak just based on the number of | people with regular access. | lallysingh wrote: | The only ones who can answer that with any knowledge are in | counterintelligence. And while the major powers may have | copies now, the minor powers probably don't. | na85 wrote: | I hold a security clearance. That's not what you assume. The | clearance exists for the purpose of preventing disclosure and | they take breaches very seriously. I know a guy who had the | book thrown at him for causing a (fairly minor) breach. | | Some stuff is "over classified" but the definition of | classified data is that which if disclosed is harmful to the | national interest, and they actively seek to prevent leaks. | skissane wrote: | > Some stuff is "over classified" but the definition of | classified data is that which if disclosed is harmful to | the national interest | | Once a colleague was having some problem calling a product | API. He wanted coding help. I asked to see his code. He | said "Sorry, I can't show you the code, it is classified". | I asked, "Can you boil the code down into a Short, Self | Contained, Correct Example (SSCCE)?" "I can, but that will | be classified too." "How can an SSCCE be classified?" "The | customer is an intelligence agency, every line of code we | write while on-site is classified automatically, trying to | get anything declassified is a bureaucratic nightmare". | Eventually he agreed that he could go home, and try to | write an SSCCE from memory at home, and that wouldn't be | classified. In the process of doing that he worked out the | problem himself, told me he didn't need my help any more. | duxup wrote: | That's not what you assume as an individual because it's | your job. Day to day you do the right thing. | | Tell me how long you think a given tank manual that goes | into the hands of all sorts of people stays secret? That's | where you assume ... yeah probably not long. | na85 wrote: | >Tell me how long you think a given tank manual that goes | into the hands of all sorts of people stays secret? | That's where you assume ... yeah probably not long. | | I understood your point, I just don't agree with your | baseless assumption. | content_sesh wrote: | I've held clearances before and that was very much not the | attitude of the security folks I met. But they were big fans | of reminding you what happens if they catch you doing an | unauthorized disclosure. | | I was very low on the totem pole, so I can't know for certain | what leadership actually expects. But it doesn't jibe with my | experience that there would be some kind of "leak budget" | similar to Google SRE "error budget". | krisoft wrote: | This feels like you guys are talking by each other. | | You are right. Security folks don't treat leaks lightly. | Ever. This is part of how they maintain compliance with the | rules. | | But I don't think this is what the GP commenter talked | about. You definitely design weapons, and doctrine and | systems by assuming that it can leak to the enemy | eventually. If your whole battle plan folds like wet | tissue-paper just because the enemy got their hands on a | single CAD file or manual then it wasn't a really good plan | to begin with. Exhaust ports of doom are nice plot devices | for movies, but in reality you try to avoid designed-in | Achilles heels. And you do this because leaks happen. | | Some information get leaked by carelessness, some by | disgruntled employees, some are stolen by spies, some are | picked up from a wreckage, some are stolen in transit, some | are deduced from signal intelligence. | | You can design mitigations against all of these. The scary | security folks you mentioned are mitigation against the | first two really. Their existence and behaviour doesn't | have any bearing on what the leadership will expect. | duxup wrote: | I'm sure everyone involved certainly had the attitude that | you don't dork up / release it. | | I think just from a super high level intelligence | standpoint ... you know it is going to happen. | rblatz wrote: | I agree, and if they don't that feels like negligence on | their part. | zentiggr wrote: | I served on a submarine 20 years ago. Fire Control | Technician... so fairly high clearance given what I had to | operate, and against potentially whom. | | There are a wealth of things I don't know anymore... and no | one else will ever hear them from me unless I am absolutely | certain that it's been declassified and is in public access. | | While a system that can be abused to protect people from | consequences will never be perfect, in general those of us | who have to work with classified information understand that | adversaries getting hold of it means more danger for our own | people. | | I do not assume this, and if I had met anyone who expressed | that kind of expectation, I would have mentioned it up the | chain - they have self identified as a weak link. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | There are orders of magnitude less submarine fire control | techs than there are tank crew-members. I assure you, | nobody "up the chain" who's deciding what does or doesn't | go in a tank manual expects the material in it to remain | secret more than temporarily. It's just not the kind of | thing you can rely on when you're disseminating the | document to thousands of people across hundreds of | facilities. | | Basically they tell you boots to STFU. And then then they | base the rest of their decisions on the reasonable | assumption that given time some of you will fail at that. | Classic "defense in depth". | duxup wrote: | I wonder how many folks have access to a submarine fire | control tech manual compared to a manual for a tank? | | I'm guessing simply based on the numbers the likelihood of | a tank manual leaking in some fashion (even accidentally), | for any reason, is much higher than a fire control | technician manual. | | I would expect individual folks to do their job and not say | 'well this will leak anyway'. But more generally I think | expecting that 'this manual that we gave to thousands of | people won't leak' would be absurd. | | That second part is what I was getting at. | ummonk wrote: | A few years back some people got charged for trying to export | F-16 manuals to a Russian flight sim company: | https://www.standard.net/police-fire/russian-deported-after-... | renewiltord wrote: | Okay, but the interesting thing is what you can do now that the | data is out there. Can you adjust your in-game specs to align? Or | is that a problem? | zzt123 wrote: | The user identifies as a make (sic) in Tidworth with a history of | "Tanks & AFV's, CR2 Tank Commander, AFV Instr, D&M Instr, Gunnery | Instr, Former ATDU". | | There are less than 250 Challenger 2 tanks. Combined with the | rest of their professional experience, digital footprint, and | copious words written, I imagine this person has sacrificed many | bits of anonymity indeed. | lostlogin wrote: | Making 250 tanks is going to involve a hell of a lot of people. | That said, I'm sure they'll be found pretty quick. | worker767424 wrote: | What if it was leaked by Russian intelligence? | worker767424 wrote: | I'm serious. Or someone from another country's intelligence | group went rogue and leaked it. I doubt Russia would be | looking that hard for the leak, and there's no reason to | assume the leak was from someone British. | space_ghost wrote: | There's a line in the TV show "The Newsroom," after a 4-star | General speaks anonymously on air about alleged chemical | weapons usage, that "Generals don't have dumb friends." Two | minutes of cross-checking military records will be enough to | figure out who this guy is. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-07-16 23:00 UTC)