Would somebody experienced in military comms take a look at this?

[KB2GOM]

First, let's get something straight: I'm not trying to make a political point here or asking for a political opinion.

What I am asking for is an assessment of the piece from a technical standpoint: Does it stand up as an interception of signals from soldiers on a battle field?

Video: Under Fire, Out of Fuel: What Intercepted Russian Radio Chatter Reveals

The Times’s Visual Investigations team analyzed dozens of battlefield radio transmissions between Russian forces during an initial invasion of the town of Makariv, outside Kyiv. They reveal an army struggling with logistical problems and communication failures.

www.nytimes.com

Again, this is NOT about whether anyone loves this group or that group or thinks they are good guys or bad guys. (If the discussion gets into that, I will ask the moderators to take the thread down.)

 

[trentbob]

Thanks for sharing that, very interesting. My experience here would be in the area of newsgathering, investigative journalism and determining if something is valid or not.

It is inconceivable that communications would not be secure.

Regardless of who is bringing this to light I don't think there's any way to determine the validity of anyting you hear. Even visual evidence can be deceiving.

Communication sounds like it's working well, but then again they can't contact the source of air support.

My opinion is there is no way to determine if this is real or not, irregardless of who is saying it is. Wars are not fought with just guns.

Just my two cents.

 

[KB2GOM]

Thanks for sharing that, very interesting. My experience here would be in the area of newsgathering, investigative journalism and determining if something is valid or not.

It is inconceivable that communications would not be secure.

Regardless of who is bringing this to light I don't think there's any way to determine the validity of anyting you hear. Even visual evidence can be deceiving.

Communication sounds like it's working well, but then again they can't contact the source of air support.

My opinion is there is no way to determine if this is real or not, irregardless of who is saying it is. Wars are not fought with just guns.

Just my two cents.

Trentbob,

Thanks for you insight. "Wars are not fought with just guns." Yup, all sides are spinning their brains out.

There is a very interesting book that addresses this:

Amazon.com: The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero, Propagandist, and Myth-maker from the Crimea to the Gulf War II eBook : Knightley, Phillip: Kindle Store

The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero, Propagandist, and Myth-maker from the Crimea to the Gulf War II - Kindle edition by Knightley, Phillip. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while...

www.amazon.com

For an interesting look at the process of intel and what can happen when the politicians get their hands on it, I suggest watching this, which features an NSA listening post in Japan:

Cheers,

 

[kb5udf]

I'll weigh in. I basically agree with Trentbob, except for the "inconceivable" part, given that, with some regularity, myself and others hear radio comms, even if not military, sent in the clear that are "supposed" to be encrypted. People often make mistakes, and most people have little knowledge of the radios they use.

At the start of this war, I listened in on 5.125 on a remote european receiver, and heard what sounded like military traffic, with the frequency chosen as it was posted here, stemming from that alleged captured printout of HF frequencies. The in the clear comm I heard sounding like someone desperately calling someone else repeatedly (about 3 times) before the other party responded. Though I don't speak the languages involved, the flow of the brief communication sounded like persons under intense pressure.

Pure speculation: makes me wonder if attempt at contact fails, they then make calls in the clear, or if they simply have little or no HF secure voice and people aren't always on the other end monitoring for traffic as they should. Again this is speculation.

Regards

 

[mancow]

It's legit. I'm surprised that for a radio forum there hadn't been more interest.

 

[trentbob]

Trentbob,

Thanks for you insight. "Wars are not fought with just guns." Yup, all sides are spinning their brains out.

There is a very interesting book that addresses this:

Amazon.com: The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero, Propagandist, and Myth-maker from the Crimea to the Gulf War II eBook : Knightley, Phillip: Kindle Store

The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero, Propagandist, and Myth-maker from the Crimea to the Gulf War II - Kindle edition by Knightley, Phillip. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while...

www.amazon.com

For an interesting look at the process of intel and what can happen when the politicians get their hands on it, I suggest watching this, which features an NSA listening post in Japan:

Cheers,

Thanks for that movie, I think I'll watch that tonight... I find lately I have been watching movies like the original Failsafe, not the remake, On the beach, The day after ect.

I'll weigh in. I basically agree with Trentbob, except for the "inconceivable" part, given that, with some regularity, myself and others hear radio comms, even if not military, sent in the clear that are "supposed" to be encrypted. People often make mistakes, and most people have little knowledge of the radios they use.

At the start of this war, I listened in on 5.125 on a remote european receiver, and heard what sounded like military traffic, with the frequency chosen as it was posted here, stemming from that alleged captured printout of HF frequencies. The in the clear comm I heard sounding like someone desperately calling someone else repeatedly (about 3 times) before the other party responded. Though I don't speak the languages involved, the flow of the brief communication sounded like persons under intense pressure.

Pure speculation: makes me wonder if attempt at contact fails, they then make calls in the clear, or if they simply have little or no HF secure voice and people aren't always on the other end monitoring for traffic as they should. Again this is speculation.

Regards

Yep, that's all we have is intelligent speculation. We have no shortage of information, it's just you don't know what you can believe or not.

I will say in this particular situation a lot of information we get just doesn't make sense to me. So much of the information contradicts itself. I've heard a lot of these military recordings on the internet along with all of the videos and stills.

So much of it just doesn't make sense. "Shrug"

Interesting conversation gentleman... Bob.

 

[trentbob]

It's legit. I'm surprised that for a radio forum there hadn't been more interest.

How were you able to confirm? That's interesting with so much at stake.

Yeah we haven't heard a whole lot about radio communication in this war on the forum. I'm very curious.

 

[mancow]

The main discord channel was on it from the beginning when it all started being posted on the Twente sdr site chat. It's to large a set of signals over too much time with too many geographic and correlating events to be fake in my opinion. I suppose anything is possible but the failures track with the rest of their logistical and tactical deficiencies.

I monitored many of those audio tracks in that video myself live when they happened.

 

[trentbob]

The main discord channel was on it from the beginning when it all started being posted on the Twente sdr site chat. It's to large a set of signals over too much time with too many geographic and correlating events to be fake in my opinion. I suppose anything is possible but the failures track with the rest of their logistical and tactical deficiencies.

I monitored many of those audio tracks in that video myself live when they happened.

Amazing, so I guess the Ukrainian who interrupted the conversation between the Russians was probably on a captured tank or radio. It makes no sense for the Russians to be so vulnerable in their communication so as to be listened to by the ukrainians and NATO.

 

[mancow]

Don't know but I assume it's a ham or even UA mil guys doing the jamming. They are using simple SSB USB so it wouldn't take much. They might not even be in country.

RU guys have been using some digital voice and audio scrambling as well.

 

[littona]

Have you ever tried to run encryption on HF? Granted, it's been a few years for me, but it was really tough to get it to sync. You needed almost pristine conditions.

 

[spacellamaman]

i think its funny that the jamming whistle is "dixie", a nice touch.

"they knocked over a light pole"

"they drove over a flower bed... bastards"

effin commies, no respect.

 

[RichardKramer]

Here are some USSR radios from the Jane's 92/93 Communications Book:

R-107T, transistor, hf/vhf manpack, fm 20-52MHz, 1watt, 1,281ch/25k spacing, used at Co./Battalion levels.
R-111, hf/vhf vehicle use, 20-52MHz fm, 75watts, 1,281ch/25k spacing, used at Command level.
R-130, hf, 1.5-10.99MHz, 10-40watts, 950ch/10k spacing, used at Command level.
R-405, uhf fm relay, 320-420MHz fm, 2.5watts, used at Command/Admin & above level.
R-1125, hf/vhf fm, consists of R107T/R111/R130 radios, used in all services.
R-419A, fm relay, 160-645MHz, 10watts, voice/data.
R415-3A, fm, 80-120MHz, 800ch/50k spacing, 10watts; 390-430MHz, 200ch/200k spacing, 6watts.
R401/403, fm, 60-70MHz, 54ch, 2.5watts.
R-148, fm, light weight 80's manpack, 37-51.95MHz, 1-2watts, 300ch/50k spacing.

There are many more, mostly of freq groups in the 20-52MHz range, similar to the ones listed above.

 

[ind224]

Folks this is war and history. If you have the capability 25/8 spin the knob and toggle the modes; if they have outside help as is being bantered then current whatever with your 256 could be being deployed so I think sooner the better for ITC especially if heavy hitters were to provide "support".

 

[ladn]

My opinion is there is no way to determine if this is real or not, irregardless of who is saying it is. Wars are not fought with just guns.

I also have a news background like @trentbob and agree with has assessment. Unfortunately, I don't have a way to independently verify the comms, but I do tend to consider the NY Times to be a responsible news outlet.

That said, the reporting is based on intercepts from a variety of sources, not direct intercepts by the Times. I'd feel more confident if I knew the backgrounds of the the producers; ie-do they have any intel, COMSEC or radio engineering experience?

It was still an interesting report.

 

[RussH]

It is inconceivable that communications would not be secure.
Just my two cents.

Without going into specific details and incidents, my 20 years in military tactical air traffic control finds this COMPLETELY plausible.

KB2GOM, thank you for posting this article. Remember, the fog of war is a very real element on the battlefield and modern technology has made (dis)information campaigns a very crucial element of wartime strategy.

 

[AM909]

Here are some USSR radios from the Jane's 92/93 Communications Book:

R-107T, transistor, hf/vhf manpack, fm 20-52MHz, 1watt, 1,281ch/25k spacing, used at Co./Battalion levels. ...

If only these were still "in use". If the spec was that it should talk further than you could throw the 37 lb (17 kg) thing, it probably just barely made it, with its 1 watt with 1.5 µV sensitivity and likely compromise antenna at (mostly) HF . Seems like something out of the 1930s. Here's a neat page (with video) about it.

 

[rescuecomm]

If only these were still "in use". If the spec was that it should talk further than you could throw the 37 lb (17 kg) thing, it probably just barely made it, with its 1 watt with 1.5 µV sensitivity and likely compromise antenna at (mostly) HF . Seems like something out of the 1930s. Here's a neat page (with video) about it.

And the AN/PRC-77 had all of two watts and a 14 lb backpack weight. The Vietnam era field radio used on VHF low band. And people wonder why soldiers carry inexpensive Baofeng radios for intrasquad comms.

 

[jhooten]

Low level forward area troops are commonly not issued COMSEC gear to limit its potential for capture.

 

[rescuecomm]

Low power then is your friend. It's obvious that billion dollar cellular phone systems and multi-million dollar statewide digital radio systems have dulled any appreciation of military combat radio communications. Most of which have to operate with little or no infrastructure. Also, the ability to do over the air rekeying depends on all radios being within range of command. Otherwise you risk denying forward operations net access. Someone had posted that FM is still king for soldier to soldier radio.