Comment by bayesian_horse

4 years ago

If I were the PLA and wanted to scare western military analysts about Chinese hardware, I'd leak some tuned up specs in the War Thunder forums....

21 comments

bayesian_horse

Reply
elevaet  4 years ago

Is it a better strategy to have your combat opponent underestimate, or overestimate your specs?

  • regularfry  4 years ago

    There's an interesting example of exactly this in missile development. Russia over-estimated the capabilities of a generation of the Sidewinder missile and built their equivalent to match what they thought it must contain, and as a result had a more advanced design for a while.

    Similar story with the Buran: they over-estimated the Space Shuttle's military capabilities on the assumption that the true intended mission profiles were being hushed up and ended up with a fully automated exoatmospheric nuclear bomber.

    So it's a dodgy strategy if it's intentional: you've got to bet that your opponent will run out of cash before they can field the superweapons you've made them build; or that once built they won't be able to afford enough of them to make a difference.

  • waffleiron  4 years ago

    From the Art of War:

    All warfare is based on deception.

    Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

  • PedroBatista  4 years ago

    Both.

    You want to make your opponent to vastly overestimate your power where you are in fact weak so they don't even try it and underestimate your clear advantages so if they get any funny ideas they'll get their ass kicked.

  • refurb  4 years ago

    I think the goal is the specs are different enough to assume different capabilities.

    Whether a gun fires faster or slower isn’t good or bad, it just drives how it’s used.