Military Commentator Credibility, Bias, and Motivation.

I am starting this thread to discuss the credibility of military commentators in their area of expertise and outside. This thread might get controversial but it is important to assess the reliability, motivation, and bias of a source to know how much it can be trusted. Also, an expert commenting on areas outside of their area of expertise may not be as credible.

It is important to note that no one is infallible, so this thread is not meant to criticise someone making a mistake but rather to show the limits of their knowledge and how much trust you might want to give to what they say. There is no substitute for your own critical thinking.

The first example is this tweet from H.I.Sutton. I am surprised that a defence analysis is not aware of what "blue army" means. It shows that an expert can have a very narrow field of expertises and outside of it they become less reliable.

Volpler11 said:

I am starting this thread to discuss the credibility of military commentators in their area of expertise and outside. This thread might get controversial but it is important to assess the reliability, motivation, and bias of a source to know how much it can be trusted. Also, an expert commenting on areas outside of their area of expertise may not be as credible.

It is important to note that no one is infallible, so this thread is not meant to criticise someone making a mistake but rather to show the limits of their knowledge and how much trust you might want to give to what they say. There is no substitute for your own critical thinking.

Click to expand...

Great thread. I also read on this forum that H I Sutton was retweeting that a Chinese carrier was damaged when really they were just cleaning it. Not sure if anyone can verify he said that, I don't really want to scroll through all his retweets!

The next commentator I would like to discuss is Sub Brief who YouTuber and a retired US Navy submariner.

In a recent video, he states type 003 carrier was launched and type 004 is under construction. While there as some rumour of 004 construction starting and he might be confused by this very recent suggesting 003 might be launched soon.


Another example is in this video, he claimed J-15 do not have air refuel capability, except there are plenty of Chinese media reports of J-15 mastering nighttime air to air refuelling. He might have gotten the information from the , which cites outdated information from a from 2011. Wikipedia states: "However, one of the authors of that same article described the J-15 in another as no game changer; the reliance on ski-jump launches and lack of Chinese carrier based refueling capabilities are believed to greatly reduce its effective range", but if you go to the source, you will find it is talking about lack of carrier-borne tanker and not a limitation on refuel capability of J-15.

Well that is the thing with experts. You always have to consider what is their area of expertise and adjust your expectations on the quality of the information based on that. You can't expect a US submariner to be an expert on Chinese surface ships let alone aircraft.
You should always apply this to all information sources you come up with.

gelgoog said:

Well that is the thing with experts. You always have to consider what is their area of expertise and adjust your expectations on the quality of the information based on that. You can't expect a US submariner to be an expert on Chinese surface ships let alone aircraft.
You should always apply this to all information sources you come up with.

Click to expand...

Not only that, but also the fact that he is ultimately a high skilled underwater grunt. All of this info can be found easily on the internet in English with one Google search. Generally speaking, education and research skills of people akin to him are, frankly speaking, below sub par. There is a reason why this forum is basically a gem and by78 is ruthless towards people who derail the “good” threads, and that Youtuber along with many others are that reason. They are all talk, but no thought, and spew misinformation in areas they don’t understand.

LawLeadsToPeace said:

Not only that, but also the fact that he is ultimately a high skilled underwater grunt. All of this info can be found easily on the internet in English with one Google search. Generally speaking, education and research skills of people akin to him are, frankly speaking, below sub par. There is a reason why this forum is basically a gem and by78 is ruthless towards people who derail the “good” threads, and that Youtuber along with many others are that reason. They are all talk, but no thought, and spew misinformation in areas they don’t understand.

Click to expand...

Yes, Sub Brief (Jive Turkey) is very much a underwater warfare specialist.

Note that he actually started out and finished as a very good enlisted specialist.

There's nothing wrong with that, but it does mean he didn't receive a broader education or experience in areas outside of underwater warfare

Eg. He says the Type-055 is called a destroyer for some "Treaty" reason, which we know is not correct.

He also thinks the Chinese Navy will run the Carriers in to the ground for a few years, then sell them to avoid the maintenance bill. That is directly at odds with the comprehensive Mid-Life Updates that we've seen with the Sovremenny destroyers. It's a healthy dose of copium there.

And his economic analysis can be pretty bad. Also, he assumes that Chinese fighters don't have a SAR surface search mode like the F-15E. That is likely wrong, given the J-16 fighter jet and its AESA radar

From what I understand the PLAN calls the 055 a destroyer because that is its intended role. Nothing more than that.
I agree that there is no sign that China won't be able to maintain their ships. I think they can probably do it better than the US can do. There are plenty of reports of the US Navy both running its ships into the ground with too many cycles between maintenance, and having issues with its ship maintenance facilities.

gelgoog said:

From what I understand the PLAN calls the 055 a destroyer because that is its intended role. Nothing more than that.
I agree that there is no sign that China won't be able to maintain their ships. I think they can probably do it better than the US can do. There are plenty of reports of the US Navy both running its ships into the ground with too many cycles between maintenance, and having issues with its ship maintenance facilities.

Click to expand...

The military guys are really weak on the economics and finance part

China does have a surplus of shipyard capacity.
Plus in 5 years time, you'd expect the Chinese economy (and military spending) to be about 30% larger
That will easily cover maintenance and overhauls

Volpler11 said:

The first example is this tweet from H.I.Sutton. I am surprised that a defence analysis is not aware of what "blue army" means. It shows that an expert can have a very narrow field of expertises and outside of it they become less reliable.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1457637308866379777

Click to expand...

Even in the 19th Century, the US Navy (Blue) were running table top wargames against the Royal Navy (Red)

So my guess is that he is not very strong on contemporary wargaming or military history

Nor how in the 19th Century, the Royal Navy told the British government that a war with the US was unacceptable, due to the USA being an industrial giant that would overwhelm the British Empire in a production race. So we saw the British Empire fold to US demands

Assuming Chinese economic/industrial preponderance in the future, I reckon there's a decent chance that the US Navy will say the same things to the US government