Captured Vehicles & Battlefield Recognition Symbols [Archive]

helbent4

12-15-2010, 04:44 AM

The following presumes none of the previously mentioned in-game factors (wear, fuel) and metagame concerns (the GM will automatically screw you as soon as possible merely on principle) are present.

To a large degree, the answer depends on where you're going, what your supply situation is like, what the local threats are and where they are located, and so on. By summer 2000, captured vehicles were common so that's less of an issue, or rather, it's something so common different forces have experience in dealing with this problem.

If you have a short distance to go and are sneaking through enemy lines, then traveling by foot is sufficient. In a couple days you're going to be safe and can hypothetically resupply.

If you have a significant distance to travel, then vehicle travel is probably worth the risk. Assuming the idea is to make a run for Krakow in as few bounds as possible, then pursue some means of future sustenance, a vehicle allows for more flexibility in future operations. A large vehicle like the BTR can serve as a mobile base of operations, provide fire support, is a means to move salvage, etc.

Tony

dragoon500ly

12-15-2010, 06:12 AM

Knowing my luck,

The BTR that I capture will have one of the engines burned out...

It will have markings that indicate that that it was stolen from some Russian general who was using it to run his black market operation from, and the KGB have a "capture at all costs" order out on it...

It will be the only BTR within 200km that requires a key to turn it on...

That I capture a brand new BTR, with low milage, new tires, but no fuel, no lube oil and no coolant...

That its preivous owner used it for driving around nuclear bomb craters because he knew that some stupid American would try to steal it and he wanted to leave something special behind to reward such stupidty...

What can I say...."if it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all!"

:D

Legbreaker

12-15-2010, 06:48 AM

I chose keep it as marked.
Why? Because the situation involves overwhelming numbers of Pact troops equipped with Pact gear. The US troops are by and large on the run and unlikely to be in any position to go on the offensive.

TiggerCCW UK

12-15-2010, 10:17 AM

I went for keep it as marked for much the same reasons as Leg - I reckon you've more chance of running across WP forces than US, but I'd try and keep a US flag handy.

helbent4

12-15-2010, 10:24 AM

I went for keep it as marked for much the same reasons as Leg - I reckon you've more chance of running across WP forces than US, but I'd try and keep a US flag handy.

Oh yeah, heh, I'd mark it with whatever national recognition symbol seemed appropriate. If I wasn't playing American, I wouldn't mark it as such!

I can see the point about leaving the Soviet markings. Even if you wanted to change it you may not have the time or opportunity. Still, with US forces around you do have to be aware of potential fratricide, so maybe once out of the immediate area of Kalisz the Soviet markings could go back on.

Tony

kato13

12-15-2010, 12:37 PM

I'm a little surprised that no one is mentioning the Geneva Convention rules regarding this. I guess no one expects them to be followed by either side.

Slappy

12-15-2010, 01:54 PM

copeab

12-15-2010, 03:37 PM

I'm a little surprised that no one is mentioning the Geneva Convention rules regarding this. I guess no one expects them to be followed by either side.

It's not like soldiers who violate the GC are going to be hauled before an international tribunal to answer for their actions. The only real fear is retaliation from the other side.

(And yes, I think soldiers will routinely violate the GC in 200, primarily because most left are bottom-of-the-barrel conscripts)

dragoon500ly

12-15-2010, 03:52 PM

I'm a little surprised that no one is mentioning the Geneva Convention rules regarding this. I guess no one expects them to be followed by either side.

The GC actually allows "false flag" operations such as concealing just who is inside the vehicle. The trick is that you are not allowed to fight while wearing the enemy uniform and yes, using the BTR weapons while flying Soviet colors would be considered violating the GC. Rolling up to a traffic control point and opening fire on the guards would be another violation. Using the BTR to skirt a Soviet position....this would be allowed.

Raellus

12-15-2010, 04:14 PM

I think that the answer to the poll question also depends on which direction the PCs intend to go. If they are headed generally west towards NATO lines, they'd have to worry about running into a rearguard or blocking position and getting lit up. If they're heading deeper behind enemy lines, say to Krakow, then the BTR might be a better choice.

Legbreaker

12-15-2010, 05:05 PM

With the situation at the end of the 5th ID, ANY direction is going to get you into contact with Pact forces.

As for the Geneva Convention, is there even a Geneva left, let alone the Hague international courts, etc, etc, etc?
In 2000, Might makes Right.

Raellus

12-15-2010, 05:15 PM

With the situation at the end of the 5th ID, ANY direction is going to get you into contact with Pact forces.

Of course, but they are going to thin out somewhat to the west. Not so, to the east. And the PCs aren't likely going to know just how badly the 5th has been overrun and how deep they are behind enemy lines.

Panther Al

12-15-2010, 05:26 PM

I voted to ignore it: if I am on the run I don't want attention, and armoured vehicles, and these days a BTR counts, draws attention. Now if it was a Ural truck or some UAZ's, then I'd snap them up in a heartbeat.

weswood

12-15-2010, 05:54 PM

Main reason I asked is I'm thinking of starting the 2nd chapter of the story I started in the Creative Writing section of the forums. The group consists of 5 US soldiers, 1 embeded reporter. Before they can capture the BTR, the only transport they have is a 1/2 ton pickup that's older than any of the characters.

My timeline is based on v1, but slightly different. I moved the general mayhem of nukes back a couple years, the Thanksgiving Day Massacre didn't happen until 1999. Most of the characters were in troop ships on their way to Europe at that time.

They never actualy made it to Kaliz, the convoy they were part of was ambushed before they made it. They'll start in the town of Milicz, about 75-80 klicks southwest of Kaliz.

Funny thing is I picked Milicz pretty much at random. I set up a Soviet patrol basing itself in som old castle ruins just outside of town. I looked the town on the internet and there really is a castle ruins outside the town. Pure serendipity.

Legbreaker

12-15-2010, 06:23 PM

I believe the situation presented in the Ref's materials indicates the only practical path out of the Kalisz area is towards the south. Every other direction has litterally MASSES of Pact troops.

The BTR in my mind is a great vehicle for a T2K situation. With wheels it's capable of a decent speed without copious consumption of fuel. It's amphibious and has a decent cargo capacity (if somewhat limited by access but I don't thinkg anyone's going to want to load it with a forklift). In it's basic models it has reasonable firepower with 14.5mm KPV and smaller coax - in newer models this can be anything up to a light autocannon and potentially missiles. Protection is limited to small arms and shrapnel, but it's doubtful many PC groups are going to want to try the full frontal assault option very often. It's also able to be driven by almost anyone - you can drive a car, chances are you can drive the BTR (ie don't need TVD skill).

Raellus

12-15-2010, 08:02 PM

I believe the situation presented in the Ref's materials indicates the only practical path out of the Kalisz area is towards the south. Every other direction has litterally MASSES of Pact troops.

Unless the GM is a big ol' softy, the players are probably not privy to this info.

The BTR in my mind is a great vehicle for a T2K situation. With wheels it's capable of a decent speed without copious consumption of fuel. It's amphibious and has a decent cargo capacity (if somewhat limited by access but I don't thinkg anyone's going to want to load it with a forklift). In it's basic models it has reasonable firepower with 14.5mm KPV and smaller coax - in newer models this can be anything up to a light autocannon and potentially missiles. Protection is limited to small arms and shrapnel, but it's doubtful many PC groups are going to want to try the full frontal assault option very often. It's also able to be driven by almost anyone - you can drive a car, chances are you can drive the BTR (ie don't need TVD skill).

Those are the positives. On the negative side, your BTR is vulnerable to RPGs, LAWs, HEDP grenades, and most types of HMG rounds, not to mention tank shells and autocannons.

Legbreaker

12-15-2010, 08:57 PM

Even most tanks are vulnerable to those weapons. A 40mm grenade has the potential to imobilise a tank with a hit to the suspension. A LAW, RPG, tank gun, etc is almost certain to give the crew a VERY bad headache. Even a HMG is potentially able to cause some issues with a lucky shot to the radio antenna, external cargo (god help them if they're stupid enough to have spare fuel and ammo strapped to the outside!)

In my mind a wheeled APC is possibly the best choice for the T2K envroment. This could be the BTR, a LAV-25, Bison, or any one of a number of similar vehicles. Most of the time the enemy are unlikely to want to waste using up their heavier weapons on such a lightly armoured vehicle, and usually the vehicles is able to stand up to small arms and the lighter explosive weapons (greandes, mortars, etc).

Now lets look at a few other vehicles to compare:
The Bradley or BMP class of tracked vehicle: heavy, good armament, chews fuel, might be amphibious, very likely to warrant a AT weapon.
Tanks: very heavy, excellent arament, good protection, demolishes any fuel reserves in short order, stopped cold by most waterways, definite target for AT weapons, next to no cargo capacity.
Trucks and other softskins: relatively mobile, generally no armament, generally decent fuel consumption, non-amphibious, no protection from even thrown rocks, destroyed by spitting on...

Now, on a conventional battlefield, the wheeled APC is far from ideal, but for a behind the lines T2K type of scenario...

mikeo80

12-15-2010, 09:40 PM

IMHO, keep the BTR. The few T2K games I have played, the player characters where pretty much like most of the D&D charcters I ran into over the years...

We take anything that is not nailed down....We Carry Crowbars!!!!

These hardy souls would strip anything that came their way on the proposition that having something now was much preferable to not having it later. Trade was ALWAYS an option, especially if you could score some ammo, food, adult beverages, female companionship...you get my point.

Having a fairly large verhicle like a BTR would make it easier to get from point A to point B AND caryy all of that STUFF you liberated. If you could get access to fuel....all the better.

Raellus

12-15-2010, 09:59 PM

Even most tanks are vulnerable to those weapons. A 40mm grenade has the potential to imobilise a tank with a hit to the suspension. A LAW, RPG, tank gun, etc is almost certain to give the crew a VERY bad headache. Even a HMG is potentially able to cause some issues with a lucky shot to the radio antenna, external cargo (god help them if they're stupid enough to have spare fuel and ammo strapped to the outside!.

This is a considerable overstatement. Of course there's always the chance of a lucky hit compromising a tank but comparing a BTR to an MBT is apples to oranges. M1A1s and Challenger 2s have been known to take literally dozens of RPG hits and keep on ticking. BTRs have been killed by .50 fire. Advantage MBT.

If all you can expect to go up against is AKs and PKMs, then, by all means, go with the BTR. But even in 2000, RPGs are likely to be fairly common. Just one solid hit and you're toast. I mean, in our PbP, how many BTRs and BTR-type vehicles have the players killed? It's not that hard, and, besides my confusion with the side hit dice rule, I've been playing it by the book when it comes to vehicle damage. If you keep this up, I'm going to send a T-72 at you. ;)

Now, a LAV-25, that's a slightly different story. Slightly better armor protection and a whole lot more punch and versatility from the 25mm autocannon.

Adm.Lee

12-15-2010, 10:13 PM

Keep it, have some kind of US markings (flag would work great) and obscure the Soviet ones. I probably wouldn't raise the flag until I got close to US lines, if that was the way I was heading.

It could be saleable in Krakow.

Legbreaker

12-15-2010, 11:34 PM

I do agree that in a stand up fight the tank is the superior machine, however APCs aren't supposed to be involved in stand up fights. My understanding is that the moment heavy weapons are spotted the lighter armour is supposed to get the hell out of dodge and let the infantry deal with it, while perhaps providing longer range supporting fire. Even tanks aren't likely to hang around when the RPGs, etc start flying.

Armour is not supposed to close to a stones (grenade) throw with the enemy UNLESS there is absoutely no risk of of the enemy hitting it with an effective weapon. If the enemy only has small arms, then they can definitely be the battlefield bully, but otherwise their heavier and longer ranged machineguns, autocannons and the like should be used from a decent range and a preferably hull down position, and make the infantry earn their money.

Armour is in my view a secondary protection to using the terrain, distance and infantry screen. Armour plate in a perfect battlefield should never have to stand up against an AT weapon.

But I think the issue here isn't about what's better in a conventional fight, but what's better in what is essentially a survival situation - a lightly armed and armoured cargo carrier like the BTR which can blend in with the enemy, or walking.

helbent4

12-16-2010, 03:54 AM

But I think the issue here isn't about what's better in a conventional fight, but what's better in what is essentially a survival situation - a lightly armed and armoured cargo carrier like the BTR which can blend in with the enemy, or walking.

Leg,

Rae has a point in that in many ways, foot soldiers are going to be more survivable than an APC and infinitely less conspicuous. The main problem with being on foot is that, well, it's slow, and food is going to be a real concern after a short time. If the plan is to make their way west through enemy lines, then the BTR would have to be abandoned, sooner or later (probably sooner).

All around, I'd still probably go with the BTR. It's big, acceptable off-road/amphibious characteristics, not too fuel inefficient, provides some protection and a heavy weapon. And it's not the kind of vehicle someone would probably use an AT weapon to take out unless it's a direct threat.

weswood,

Great idea for a game! I'm not surprised you lucked into placing a castle where there's one in real life, that whole area was part of a line of late Renaissance fortifications and castles. Hard to shoot a crossbow and not hit some kind of castle.

Tony

weswood

12-16-2010, 07:22 AM

Leg,

weswood,

Great idea for a game! I'm not surprised you lucked into placing a castle where there's one in real life, that whole area was part of a line of late Renaissance fortifications and castles. Hard to shoot a crossbow and not hit some kind of castle.

Tony

Thats how my little story came about. None of my friends are into RPGs and I'm leary of playing with strangers, last time I did was a disaster. So I rolled up a group of NPCs and set them on the trail. The 1st encounter was a minor combat to get players used to my homemade rules system and intro them to combat.

I've also got another smallish castle/keep in my world. The marauder gang Sgt Cutler hangs with in Krakow (can't remember the name right now) has "country caches) of stolen gear. One of these is a bug out stash in the booby trapped ruins of a small keep.

StainlessSteelCynic

12-16-2010, 08:37 AM

Like much of Europe, there are a lot of castles to be found in Poland.
This was my starting list castles in Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_castles_in_Poland)

As for the original question, hell yes I'd take the BTR-80 and I'd keep it marked in Soviet colours until I thought I was clear of WarPac troops. As soon as I thought I was near friendlies I'd mark it as NATO.
The reason's pretty basic - a second class ride beats a first class walk every time.

Abbott Shaull

12-18-2010, 08:17 AM

Keep it Soviet. 90% of the forces in the area are Pact and Americans will likely be looking to break contact. For the few Americans in the area, putting a TOW into a BTR that isn't causing them trouble is wasting assets, attracting attention and likely to create a non-usable BTR. I also don't have time for a lot of paint. I may lash some gear over the marking to make it less obvious before I roll out. Either way, I think the opportunity to put 100km between myself and Kalisz in an afternoon rather than a week is too tempting at that stage of the game. If it breaks down the next day, I'm still way better off. Even better, if I manage to get to the Markgravate or Krakow with the thing still working it's a huge asset.

I would have to agree with this for the points made for keeping marked as Pact forces. Why draw more attention to yourself if you are the bandits. As pointed out your side, even if they had the capabilities have bigger fish to worry about, your lone BTR isn't worth advertising, "WE ARE HERE, COME GET US!" to the rest of the Pact Forces in the area.

It was an interesting problem on the Eastern Front for both sides. Even the Germans fighting in France would tend to take and use anything they have captured to good use against their former owner if they get a chance.

Abbott Shaull

12-18-2010, 08:20 AM

The GC actually allows "false flag" operations such as concealing just who is inside the vehicle. The trick is that you are not allowed to fight while wearing the enemy uniform and yes, using the BTR weapons while flying Soviet colors would be considered violating the GC. Rolling up to a traffic control point and opening fire on the guards would be another violation. Using the BTR to skirt a Soviet position....this would be allowed.

Another good point. I would also point out that if you were capture in Pact mark vehicle by pact force regardless if you hadn't violated the GC, you would more likely be shot as spies on the spot regardless of the uniform you were wearing at any time of the war.

Abbott Shaull

12-18-2010, 08:32 AM

I would take it to get out of the area. As for marking I would keep marked as it until I got close to Allied lines if you were heading that way. Then at the last possible moment would I worry about covering Pact ID markers and making NATO correct... If not abandon it once we got nearby and go back to the lines on foot after making sure the BTR was unusable except for maybe spare parts...

Now with that said, I wouldn't be heading to allied line in said vehicle. I would head either East or South. Either way I am sure I would be more likely able to find someone who we could trade it to for some other form of transport out of the area and possible back to Allied lines that wouldn't require our allies to shoot at us as we got close. Many of the troop to the east and south at the time wouldn't worry about the uniform you had to much, they realize if they retain you, you would be another mouth to feed, and wouldn't waste ammo to kill you because their are bigger fish they have to worry about. They may even allow to join them as the local ORMO and accept you as allied for as long as you willing to protect what they control. IMHO.

Another thing that surprise in the US Vehicle guide that the use of the subdue black star to ID a US military vehicle in sharp contrast to white star used in WWII and other wars...

dragoon500ly

12-18-2010, 09:10 AM

Another thing that surprise in the US Vehicle guide that the use of the subdue black star to ID a US military vehicle in sharp contrast to white star used in WWII and other wars...

Actually, you seldom see any star at all. During my time in the Green Machine, the star was only placed on various commander's jeeps, and even then it was always black and rarely was more than 3-5 inches in size.

As far as tanks went, you were more likely to see small US flags mounted on the antenne, sometimes the Jolly Rodger or a cavalry guideon. Names for the tank (if any) was usually painted on the main gun bore evacuater. You were supposed to use a name that started with your company/troop letter, but you rarely saw this.

waiting4something

12-18-2010, 12:37 PM

I think taking the vehicle would be the way to go in most cases. I think most people would be fatigued or injuried in some form or another, so walking might be a probelm. I would also leave it marked as Warsaw Pact, because it's still behind Warsaw Pact lines. The only way I think walking would be better is if everyone was in good health, good in woods, or had contacts that they knew they could turn to along the way. Special Operations personel and agents that work with partisans would have the advantage with that.

Abbott Shaull

12-18-2010, 05:10 PM

Actually, you seldom see any star at all. During my time in the Green Machine, the star was only placed on various commander's jeeps, and even then it was always black and rarely was more than 3-5 inches in size.

As far as tanks went, you were more likely to see small US flags mounted on the antenne, sometimes the Jolly Rodger or a cavalry guideon. Names for the tank (if any) was usually painted on the main gun bore evacuater. You were supposed to use a name that started with your company/troop letter, but you rarely saw this.

Yeah I know what you mean. I don't think I saw one on any the vehicle I seen at Benning or Bragg. It was one of those ironic things I found briefly mention in one of the vehicle guide for version one, in one of the plates that showed a capture vehicle and wondering why they hadn't painted over the former owner stuff and only small star on capture enemy vehicle.

helbent4

12-18-2010, 05:50 PM

Yeah I know what you mean. I don't think I saw one on any the vehicle I seen at Benning or Bragg. It was one of those ironic things I found briefly mention in one of the vehicle guide for version one, in one of the plates that showed a capture vehicle and wondering why they hadn't painted over the former owner stuff and only small star on capture enemy vehicle.

Abbott,

For some reason, the practice that Lee mentioned changed during the Twilight War. That is, it seems to be far more common to mark vehicles than it was in the past. Probably because at least in part there are so many captured vehicles and a lack of IFF.

Tony

Abbott Shaull

12-18-2010, 11:40 PM

Yes, that would seem to be the case. Now what is ironic is having a black star like that against camoflauge pattern wouldn't lend it self to show exactly whose side you were on. Which while looking at the plate is in stark contrast to the various names/slogans that were painted on the various vehicle along with kill markers, in which they were painted in red or white. Which stands out in contrast with the rest of the paint job. Either way if you seen a captured T-72 or any heavily armed enemy vehicle you not going to take the time to scan it to see if it had black star to represent that it belong to your side.

Yeah I understand why the star was black, going back to lessons learned during another war where the bright color against the olive drab green stood out greatly and dead give away to the enemy on who they were facing. It part of the reason why all shoulder patches went subdue on combat fatigues. I am willing to point out that after 1998 both sides would be more willing to sacrifice some tactical advantage in order to make sure what they have in working order doesn't get mistakenly taken out by their own troops. By this time I do see any vehicle that was capture and if parts could be found to place it back in working order by the unit that capture it or one nearby, then by all means it would be used.

Yeah I do remember a lot of times various flags to help id which side vehicle belong too...

helbent4

12-19-2010, 06:59 AM

Yes, that would seem to be the case. Now what is ironic is having a black star like that against camoflauge pattern wouldn't lend it self to show exactly whose side you were on.

Abbott,

True, being hard to see defeats the point of the exercise! As well, you'd think a white star would be better represented by an outline, and a red star with a black star (reflecting the contrast between white and red).

Tony

dragoon500ly

12-19-2010, 07:00 AM

Abbott Shaull

12-19-2010, 09:18 AM

When I first enlisted in the Army back in 1977, armor vehicle id was taught on a "kill, no-kill" fashion. It always seemed to me to be a bet simple-minded, but I was a green private...

And so things went until the Iranian Hostage Crisis. The Iranians at the time had their army equipped with Western equipment..."no-kills" in other words. Shortly after the start of the crisis, armor id was changed to id the specific vehicle type.

I've always wondered just how much, the "kill, no-kill" training standard influenced the decision not to commit regular military units....;)

A lot, I am sure it did. Then again the US military memory is short.

Even as late 1988, it pretty much the same concept for anti-tank training. We were give outline of various and we had to be close to what it was, and whether we would kill or not kill it. Of course, by this time the Soviets were back on top of the list of possible candidates to fight next.

Abbott Shaull

12-19-2010, 09:30 AM

Abbott,

True, being hard to see defeats the point of the exercise! As well, you'd think a white star would be better represented by an outline, and a red star with a black star (reflecting the contrast between white and red).

Tony

It does make sense to the point with various night vision and sighting devices in which you don't see the vehicle but just an outline. Anything used for vehicle ID is lost. It is one of many reasons I alway found the plate offered by GWD amusing.

Before I went in I wonder why they didn't have white stars and used black stars. After going through Dragon Gunner School I really understand that either way it quite useless if you were using sights and didn't visually id the vehicle first which is why many gunners had assistant gunner who were suppose to help id target.

dragoon500ly

12-28-2010, 04:51 PM

It does make sense to the point with various night vision and sighting devices in which you don't see the vehicle but just an outline. Anything used for vehicle ID is lost. It is one of many reasons I alway found the plate offered by GWD amusing.

Before I went in I wonder why they didn't have white stars and used black stars. After going through Dragon Gunner School I really understand that either way it quite useless if you were using sights and didn't visually id the vehicle first which is why many gunners had assistant gunner who were suppose to help id target.

And thus the main reason for the various attempts at designing a means of IDing friendly vehicles through night sights.

Give it another two hundred years and they may finally field such a system....then again, why bother! Some senator somewhere needs another billion in pork....why spend it on your nation's soldiers!

bobcat

12-28-2010, 04:57 PM

And thus the main reason for the various attempts at designing a means of IDing friendly vehicles through night sights.

Give it another two hundred years and they may finally field such a system....then again, why bother! Some senator somewhere needs another billion in pork....why spend it on your nation's soldiers!

there already is such a system in place. im not gonna go into details online even if all you need to do is a quick google search. but i'll give you a clue the tin roof looking stuf on every vehile down range...
...it ain't armor.

dragoon500ly

12-28-2010, 05:16 PM

there already is such a system in place. im not gonna go into details online even if all you need to do is a quick google search. but i'll give you a clue the tin roof looking stuf on every vehile down range...
...it ain't armor.

Am well aware of that tin roof looking stuff and I may have a better idea of what and how it is made of! But it has the same drawbacks of all IR-IFF gear, if the vehicle is moving towards you or accross your front...you have very little real chance of IDing the vehicle. Because of its fundlemental flaw...if it works in all aspects, then the enemy can confirm your ID too!

Now waving a pirate flag from your antenne! :cool:

Abbott Shaull

12-28-2010, 05:34 PM

Am well aware of that tin roof looking stuff and I may have a better idea of what and how it is made of! But it has the same drawbacks of all IR-IFF gear, if the vehicle is moving towards you or accross your front...you have very little real chance of IDing the vehicle. Because of its fundlemental flaw...if it works in all aspects, then the enemy can confirm your ID too!

Now waving a pirate flag from your antenne! :cool:

Yeah 100 years on modern battlefield and they haven't figure out to keep vehicles from being killed by friendly fire....

Panther Al

12-28-2010, 06:44 PM

dragoon500ly

12-28-2010, 11:26 PM

Shoot! One of my platoon sergeants back in 85 had served eight years in the British Army, then followed his wife stateside and joined the US Army. Nothing like a thick Welch accent on the radio to have the rest of the troop going "whatd'fuck did he say?"

And yes he had a ton of "Jones the Soldier, Jones the Butcher, Jones the Spy" jokes!

As well as several "Jones and the sheep" that had us straights wondering about what was going on back in them there hills at night!

bobcat

12-28-2010, 11:44 PM

Hehheh, speaking of flying flags, when I was over there I, like many, flew a flag from the radio aerial, what made it funny was when we rolled past some west islander crooks standing by their busted ASLAV- the flag was given to me to fly from my SO- A New Zealand one. The double takes they gave when an A2 was flying it was priceless. :)

Almost as good as when the Regimental commander stepped into my training room back in the states. Had a pic of my SO, her daughter, and Her Majesty. I was always being asked what army I thought I was in for some odd reason...

i get asked similar questions from time to time. more specificly the conversation goes like this: "SPC Bobcat why is ther a jolly roger flying from your mount?"
"sir thats not a jolly roger, thats the jolly bobcat."
"whatever, wat do you think this is? the navy?"
"you mean we don't get to loot and pillage every village we go through?"
"..."
oddly enough everyone in my unit that wasn't my FSNCO, or my FSO loved having me around.

Raellus

12-24-2013, 12:49 PM

OK, more specifically, does canon specify how MilGov and CivGov units in CONUS recognize blue and op-forces? I don't recall this being mentioned in any of the modules that I'm familiar with. I'm assuming that they're still flying the same [50] Stars and [13] Stripes. Are other flags in use? IIRC, the U.S. Army Vehicle guide shows both factions using the same black star device painted on AFVs and the like. Does canon mention any other recognition devices?

Along the same lines, in Europe, with so much mixing and matching of weapons, uniforms, and vehicles, how do units recognize friend or foe? Brassards, helmet bands, vehicle markings? Given the materials available, seems like there wouldn't be that many distinct variations that could be seen and/or recognized from a distance. Seems to me that IFF would become extremely dicey.

I'm sure this is come up before but I don't think we've ever had a thread dedicated to this topic. I'd like to read your thoughts on this subject.

Targan

12-25-2013, 01:56 PM

It's only my opinion, but I think MilGov and CivGov would both seek to use flags, markings and symbols as close to pre-war standard as possible. Both claim to be the legitimate government, therefore both would tend to use the regulation pre-war symbols and markings to enhance their legitimacy while at the same time avoid introducing new/non-standard symbols and markings for fear that something new might be viewed as illegitimate. There is power in symbols, no small part of which is derived from their history.

Rainbow Six

12-25-2013, 03:52 PM

I agree 100% with Targan. I think one of the cornerstones of both Milgov and Civgov's claim to be the legitimate Government of the United States would be to continue to use all the pre War symbols, especially the US flag, without any modification whatsoever. I'd say any side that did modify the flag in any way, shape, or form would be handing the other side a massive propaganda coup.

pmulcahy11b

12-25-2013, 09:14 PM

And it's rife with opportunities for a GM's exploitation of the mistakes caused by those common symbols.

stormlion1

12-25-2013, 10:42 PM

OK, its nice that both Governments are claiming to be the legitimate and will probably order there symbols to remain as they are, but for the troops in the field I can see little things being added to there equipment to allow for ID on the field. Flags on antennas, Striped Paint on barrels or chassis. Little things like that would be what the troops in the field might add to help recognition.

kato13

12-25-2013, 11:06 PM

I honestly don't think it is a huge issue, due to force on force combat being infrequent.

From the V1 referees guide.
Officially, forces of the two governments refrained from violent confrontation, but there were sporadic local clashes over key installations, occasional bloody coups within military units, and numerous assassinations and "dirty tricks" by rival intelligence agencies.

DigTw0Grav3s

12-25-2013, 11:52 PM

I can see conventional unit recognition symbols causing problems. For example, what about bandits using captured vehicles and uniforms? I think different regions would have different modifications to their IFF, with different patterns and styles rotating out after large operations.

Raellus

12-28-2013, 11:54 AM

I'm not suggesting anything as drastic as adopting variations on the national flag, and I understand that combat between Milgov and Civgov units would be limited and relatively low intensity, but I imagine that both sides would want their respective units to be able to identify friend and foe, and for the civilian population to be able to differentiate between the factions as well.

"That unit that helped your community reestablish running water? That was one of ours."

Conversely:

"That unit that requisitioned all of your methanol without payment? That was clearly one of theirs."

It's a PR/legitimacy issue as well as a tactical/military one. No clear visual distinction of any kind doesn't seem to make much sense. At the beginning of the American Civil War, when both sides were using various blue uniforms, friendly fire incidents were alarmingly common. Grey was adopted by the Confederate forces as much out of practical tactical considerations as it was for any kind of political statement.

For T2K- at least in CONUS- I'm thinking about something like a big block C painted on Civgov vehicles and a big block M for Milgov. White arm brassards for one side, black for the other.

-

kato13

12-28-2013, 12:56 PM

stormlion1

12-28-2013, 01:38 PM

Raellus

12-28-2013, 03:29 PM

The "M" and "C" while logical remind the people that you are only one of two factions. Such a symbol would in some ways declare an equality between the factions.

My thinking is that each side might emphasize certain American symbols (which correspond to their loyalty). Perhaps the eagle looking at the arrows for MILGOV and the Presidential seal for CIVGOV. That way you are identifying yourself without providing legitimacy to the other.

If you are a civilian in a CIVGOV controlled area you are not asking "What does that 'C' mean", but you are reassured by seeing the seal of the president. It is a subtle difference but i think it is an important one.

I understand your point about the equality implied by the M & C. However, if neither side is using any kind of simple field recognition symbol, their identical uniforms and equipment would also imply equality. I agree with your point on the use of different supplemental symbols (C and M were just the first things that popped into my head), but it would be impractical for troops in the field to have to paint a complex seal, for example, on their vehicles. Simplicity and long-range recognition would be important under field conditions.

-

kato13

12-28-2013, 05:47 PM

I understand your point about the equality implied by the M & C. However, if neither side is using any kind of simple field recognition symbol, their identical uniforms and equipment would also imply equality. I agree with your point on the use of different supplemental symbols (C and M were just the first things that popped into my head), but it would be impractical for troops in the field to have to paint a complex seal, for example, on their vehicles. Simplicity and long-range recognition would be important under field conditions.

-

As conflict is rare I was more thinking about things like HQ supplemental flags and propaganda elements (like adding symbols to leaflets).

Taking it another step I could see the respective leaders focusing on themselves. In propaganda you might see President Munson or General Cummings names being a focus. Coincidentally that would reverse the C and M nomenclature.

Targan

12-29-2013, 12:30 AM

There is a problem with the "C" and "M" argument though. They actually don't call themselves that. They are all claiming to be the natural US Gov't so at best there calling themselves Administrations or Authority or some other buzzword.

Actually despite my having said in an earlier post that both MilGov and CivGov claim to be the legitimate US Government, it's a bit more complicated than that. CivGov is definitely claiming to be the legitimate US Federal Government, and views MilGov forces as being renegades and deserters (the actual legal situation may vary from unit to unit and which lawyer's opinion you hear). I assume that CivGov has rebuilt it's own version of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and all the other higher military command structures it lost when MilGov refused to recognise CivGov's legitimacy. I wonder who CivGov's JCS Chairman is?

MilGov on the other hand isn't claiming to be the US Government, legitimate or otherwise. Its contention is that (as of the start of the game) there is currently NO legitimate US Government and there will not be one until a proper census can be held and the electoral system is re-established. It is operating as the Federal caretaker authority under marshal law provisions and I have to say, it's legal position is pretty strong.

I think that of the two, CivGov would more readily add new recognition markers and the like, and I really like Kato's idea of the Presidential seal. No doubt they would create a simplified motif, easy to paint on with a stencil.

Rainbow Six

12-29-2013, 09:26 AM

Perhaps one side might opt for a chevron (as used by allied forces during Desert Storm) as the simplest and most expedient identifying mark? All you would need is paint and a brush, making it simple to apply and avoids any debate about the legitimacy of the side using it (other than perhaps the fact that one side would be using chevrons and the other wouldn't). It could also be applied to civilian vehicles pressed into service, giving a degree of uniformity to those vehicles. Also available in both low viz (black paint) and high viz (white paint) options.

I imagine that both sides would want their respective units to be able to identify friend and foe, and for the civilian population to be able to differentiate between the factions as well.

"That unit that helped your community reestablish running water? That was one of ours."

Conversely:

"That unit that requisitioned all of your methanol without payment? That was clearly one of theirs."
-

IIRC we had a thread about propaganda some time ago and I think examples like those quoted above would be good reason why both sides might have propaganda units (possibly masquerading as "civil affairs" troops) who would be tasked with spreading exactly that sort of information / disinformation.

In propaganda you might see President Munson or General Cummings names being a focus. Coincidentally that would reverse the C and M nomenclature.

Isn't it Broward that claims to be President? Didn't Munson die in late 97 / early 98?

kato13

12-29-2013, 10:19 AM

Isn't it Broward that claims to be President? Didn't Munson die in late 97 / early 98?

Yeah that sounds right. I think my mind got stuck on the M/C possibility.

B.T.

12-29-2013, 04:16 PM

Europe:

If we take a look at the units in Europe, I tend to believe that the symbols of the pacts (Nato and WarPac) would be in widespread use as markings on vehicles. And I can easily imagine, that units, who did not use those before the war, would begin to use them quite frequently: The NATO flag as NATO symbol and the red star as common symbol in units, still operating as part of one of the WarPac armies. Even nations, that did not use them, like Poland as an example, could mark the combat vehicles with the red star.
US units and other NATO units may use the black star of the US forces as common symbol.
A sign that Rainbow mentioned, could be in use, too: The "coalition-V" in white or black on NATO vehicles. But that depends on the background – in my Twilight-world Desert Storm did happen, therefore this sign would be well-known. Without Desert Storm this kind of marking would not be self-evident!

Some thoughts on uniforms and the "marking" of individuals:

This is one of the more complicated issues, because it is very ambivalent. From all I've ever heard, most soldiers are proud of their own tradition(s). Special uniform items or special badges, scrolls and the like are worn with pride. Especially in a situation like the 3rd WW this will certainly be as true as ever. Soldiers from foreign countries would most likely try to show their own national trades or specialities, even if those individual specials do not mean that much to their new comrades (Think of a former Ranger of the US Army wearing the Ranger scroll, now serving with a Danish unit, or something along these lines!).
On the other hand, most soldiers would have difficulties, if they try to wear proper uniforms. Unit tags of some kind are vital! Therefore I usually describe NPCs with a certain kind of clothing, to let the players think about their actions. Depending on situation and distance, a roll for "Observation" may be requested.
In most cases, soldiers will try to wear their own uniform or at least uniform pieces of allied forces. A Soldier, armed with an M16, wearing British trousers, a (West-) German jacket, and a "Fritz"-style helmet looks like NATO. A soldier, armed with an AK, wearing a rain-drop pattern uniform and a Soviet flak-jacket, looks very much as a WarPac combattant. You get the idea.
In most NATO units, I can imagine, that common symbols would be sewn to the upper arms – the NATO flag, the national flag or even the symbol of a certain NATO subunit – from army group to division, tastes vary (In my campaign, most soldiers of the 5th US Corps and other elements of Northag sport the blue shield with the yellow throwing axe as common symbol.). These symbols could be combined: The red diamond of the 5th Inf.Div. on the left arm, and the Northag-shield on the right.

Civilians in units may wear a distinctive armband. In WW II people working for the Wehrmacht (in civilian clothes or in uniform) had an armband with the inscription: "Im Dienst der Wehrmacht" (= roughly: "In service of the Wehrmacht"). Armbands like these would be common. Maybe a blue amband with the NATO flag, or an armband with the US flag (for civilians in a US unit). Think of people like local translaters or craftsmen, that were pressed into service.

Irregular or local forces:

This is a hard one, because several very different units would fall into this catagory. The forces of Filipowitz, the margrave of Silesia, would use another approach as, for example, the militia of an independant city like Krakow.
In the case of a unit, that does not longer see itself as part of the Pact, the unit might use a (simplified) version of the regional symbol – like the flag of the mediveal duchy of Silesia, or the crest of Krakow. In these cases, I think it would be logical, that these emblems would be worn as symbols on the upper arms of tunics or jackets. Maybe there could be a small variant, which would be worn on garrison caps and similar soft covers.
In the case of the militia of a small town, I think that in Poland at least, an easy recognizable item, like a white and red armband, would be in use. Maybe uniform items of the prewar police could be used, if the militiamen are on duty. Something like wearing a police cap and the armband, while the man is manning a post as guard in the city. I think we discussed this issue a while ago: What is called "ORMO" in the modules of GDW, was not necessarily ORMO in Poland. Different organisations were summarized under this term. Where remnants of these other organisations exist, these might still use the prewar emblems.

Some thoughts from my point of view. I do not have enough insights to try something on the MilGov/CivGov debate, so I'll skip that one.

CDAT

12-30-2013, 12:28 PM

One thought for Civ vs Mil is if you have this take place after the military went to Digital camo. I could see the Civilian goverment going back to the BDU as there are still lots of them in storage, and I would guess shortage of the "new uniform".

Raellus

01-03-2014, 01:35 PM

I suppose that could work, assuming that one cares to use a more up-to-date timeline, like Twilight 2013 or something homebrewed. In my preferred v1.0 timeline, where the army was still years away from fielding any kind of digicam, perhaps one of the "factions" could transition to old surplus or new manufacture (of the old pattern) OD fatigues. By the later years of the Twilight War, however, I just don't see either side being able to manage a full replacement due to the size of the country and other post TDM logistical hurdles. Therefore, I think a simpler form of battlefield recognition (arm brassards, helmet bands, etc.) would be preferable/necessary.

James Langham2

01-26-2014, 06:57 AM

Real world examples:

* The Soviets painted white bands on the turrets of tanks in Czechoslovakia in 1968 - Suvarov in "The Liberators" mentions at least one near red on red after a unit did not do this

* India-Pakistan War, the Indians(?) added extra welded sections on their T55s/T62s to look like a more Western shape (dummy fume extractors and turret extenstions)- Osprey Modern Soviet Tanks

(sorry but can't be exact as away training all week with no access to books)

Tegyrius

01-26-2014, 07:24 AM

* The Soviets painted white bands on the turrets of tanks in Czechoslovakia in 1968 - Suvarov in "The Liberators" mentions at least one near red on red after a unit did not do this

Huh. I had a Russian unit doing something like this in the 2013 CZ sourcebook, but in their case it was adoption of the Bundeswehr custom of marking kills on the gun tube.

- C.

Brother in Arms

01-27-2014, 03:48 AM

at least what I have seen from Serbia, Bosnia,Croatian and Kosovo photos

Colored cloth arm bands where used to identify units. Also head bands particularly with Muslim troops. ( also don't forget colored neck scarves used by ARVN troops in Vietnam and Khymer Rouge in Cambodia)

And of course symbols national and historic

Fluer di lis was common on anything Bosnian especially packs, pouches and carved into rifle stocks by the thousands. Also Half moons, and stars which are Islamic.

Serbian Cross in various iterations, the infamous 4 C's symbol, plain cross, shield with two headed eagle, cross with bulbs on the ends, 4 c's in sheild ect.
was put on eveyrthing and anything especially carved in rifle stocks.

A Checkered shield was common on Croatian items

These are just a few things I could think up at 4 AM.

Brother In Arms

RN7

01-27-2014, 02:48 PM

Olefin

01-31-2014, 05:17 PM

At this point you may be seeing a lot of issues with the two sides like happened early in the US Civil War where the Confederates were wearing US Army uniforms (taken in many cases from US Govt storehouses) - i.e. as in what happened at First Bull Run where a battery firing at the Confederates assumed the infantry unit coming up to them was supporting them - until they opened fired.

You could see the same thing here - a CivGov unit pulls into a town and sees troops there who welcome them with open arms - and then surround them and take them prisoner when they notice the unit insignia on the CivGov units and realize they are the "enemy" or vice versa - especially in places where both sides are in close proximity

Olefin

01-31-2014, 05:20 PM

I don't think this would be much of an issue outside of the CONUS, as most US forces outside of America are Milgov and the only large Civgov force is in the Balkans, or maybe Panama but if I don't think the Panama forces are canon.

probably depends on if Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Samoa and places like that had any kind of split or went one way or the other - could easily see a mixing of CivGov an MilGov happening in Puerto Rico for instance - especially if one side or the other said they would side with making them independent for their support

pmulcahy11b

09-30-2014, 06:48 PM

On my first assignment with the Army (at Ft Stewart at 24th ID), I was assigned to the battalion mortar platoon. The primary FDC flew the Jolly Roger at NTC, but 1LT Helbing once, before an NTC rotation, made the mistake of calling us in the Secondary FDC "the Romper Room" because we were constantly joking around. (We did our job well, though, despite the lighthearted atmosphere.)

I went up to Savannah and located a Toys-R-Us near HAAF's main gate, and I found a Romper Room flag about the same size as the primary FDCs Jolly Roger. Just in time for NTC.:p

James Langham2

10-01-2014, 11:30 AM

Being Welsh I have been known to have a flag of the mother-in-law visible at HQ...

rcaf_777

10-01-2014, 11:33 AM

In the book Crusade: The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War by Rick Atkinson, the author meations the problem the USAF has which ID of friendly IFV while on the ground and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) solutions into sloving this. I think one of the systems was flashing ID Beacon. I remember hearing about something like this on the TOW ATGM course in 1995. Something like it's in the research stage troops more to follow.

Olefin

10-01-2014, 12:41 PM

Considering the sheer number of captured vehicles that both sides are operating there may be recognition symbols that are agreed on ones that you could paint on the vehicle that aren't as blatant as flying the US Flag or writing "Die Commies" on the side of it but which will still allow you to sneak around without getting taken out by your own guys - or even worse getting attacked by them trying to take the vehicle for themselves when all they need to do is identify and climb aboard

James Langham2

10-01-2014, 03:26 PM

WW2 tended to have extra large national markings applied (there are some very nice shots of a British Panther with VERY large white stars in circles). The vehicle guides imply this was followed in WW3 - although the use of thermal sights might make this less effective.

Worth noting that even on the Eastern Front in WW2 where it was common to use foreign vehicles the Soviets managed a surprise attack to capture the bridge at Kalach(?) using their own tanks pretending that they were captured by the Germans (hope you are following this!) by driving non-tactically at normal speed with the lights on.

Raellus

10-01-2014, 06:06 PM

WW2 tended to have extra large national markings applied (there are some very nice shots of a British Panther with VERY large white stars in circles).

That reminds me of the disguised Panthers used by Kampfgruppe Peiper during the Ardennes offensive. The Germans used sheet metal, olive drab paint, and big white stars in circles to make their spearhead tanks look like American M10 tank destroyers.

The vehicle guides imply this was followed in WW3 - although the use of thermal sights might make this less effective.

Yeah, large national symbols work OK but only if the symbol doesn't look like the other guys'. In WWII, where German and its European Axis cronies used crosses and the Allies used stars, it worked OK. The T2K vehicle guides have opposing sides both using stars, albeit of different colors, but in low light, they'd look enough alike to cause issues.

If you look at NATO and WP tanks during the late Cold War, you'll notice a number of recognition symbols, usually in white or black paint, that aren't national symbols- things like sideways chevrons, wide vertical stripes (sometimes mutliple parallel stripes), etc. They're usually fairly large. IIRC, the idea for such symbols came from the Israelis, who often used captured enemy equipment and wanted a way to easily identify friend and foe on the battlefield. They wanted big bold markings that didn't compromise camoflage too much but that could not be easily misidentified.

Draq

10-02-2014, 02:15 PM

I'd definitely keep the damn thing, but which markings I'd use would depend on the situation

Olefin

10-02-2014, 04:18 PM

Considering that vehicles are in such short supply anything that is useable I would have our guys grab.

The last campaign we played (short though it was) had us end up with our original Bradley, a German Army vehicle, a Russian truck and a shot up M113

In my original campaign by the time we were at Warsaw we had a bunch of vehicles that we had obtained with US and Soviet and civilian equipment - including an M1A1 tank and a BMP-C

course we did enough destroying of vehicles too as well - my original GM in the game had a habit of putting us in harms way a lot - i.e. he was one of those "I love explosions" kind of GM's

bobcat

10-02-2014, 07:40 PM

now that we're back to the BTR. i'd paint it pink. think about it you a bottom of the barrel conscript on an OP and you see a pink APC drive by are you really gonna report it higher and risk getting chewed out for drinking on the job?:D

also freindly forces would quickly recognise the crazy guys in the pink BTR that keep finding everything that theres only one left in the world of.

James Langham2

10-03-2014, 12:06 AM

Actually pink blends in better than sand colour in a desert - hence the famous SAS "Pink Panther" Land Rovers and the RAF pink scheme in the Gulf War...

aspqrz

03-28-2016, 05:40 AM

Another good point. I would also point out that if you were capture in Pact mark vehicle by pact force regardless if you hadn't violated the GC, you would more likely be shot as spies on the spot regardless of the uniform you were wearing at any time of the war.

Not legally. Of course, as anyone but LWNJ (and maybe RWNJ's too, for all I know), know, the GC is meant only to reduce the amount of nastiness and brutality in war, it makes no pretence at all re preventing it.

And there are all sorts of wrinkles to it and, as well, national interpretations of the same passage(s) vary (often considerably).

Still, there is nothing that would allow you to shoot enemy combatants out of hand if they were merely captured driving/as passengers in one of your vehicles ... if that is all they were doing.

If they were in your uniform, not theirs, then, yes, you might be able to treat them as spies (who also are not to be merely shot out of hand) ... but, and this is where it gets interesting, merely wearing items of your uniform does not automatically mean they are breaking the terms of the GC! The wrinkle (and this applies to militia and reservists who have not had time, or whom the relevant government hasn't had the uniforms on hand at the time they were raised) is that if they wear some 'identifying mark' that is 'visible at a distance' ... an armband or brassard most commonly, but the US manual on the Laws of Land Warfare (available online, and worth a read) indicates that even wearing a helmet and/or carrying a military weapon would probably qualify as an 'identifying mark'.

And note that 'visible at a distance' is really potentially visible, there's no requirement that you make your presence known and point out your 'identifying mark' ...

Unless, of course, you are deliberately running a false flag operation like Skorzeny's commandos in the Battle of the Bulge.

Which is not what is implied.

And, even then, even in one of your vehicles still in your markings, as long as the crew clearly indicates their nationality the instant before opening fire - well, that's a legitimate ruse du guerre going back to at least the C18th, and recognised as such even back then by all major European powers and included in the various Hague Conventions.

But, really, read the GC, the commentaries on it (at the ICRC website, though they have reorganised it recently and they're somewhat harder to find) and the US FM on the Laws of Land Warfare (an item by item explanation of what the US believes the various elements of the GC mean) and the British Army's JSP 383 Manual on the Law of Armed Conflict for [I]their take on things.

Phil

Apache6

03-30-2016, 10:33 AM

During the march to Baghdad, USMC combat vehicles (and some troops) had "blinking IR strobes" mounted at night, in addition to the IR panels and orange air panels.

In this specific instance the Iraqi IR capability was nominal. The stobes were used to prevent fratricide. Also worked VERY well to mark forward line of troops and let support by fire units guage the advance of assault elements.

Against a better equipped/more competent enemy this would not have been done.

In T2K, I'm not sure it would be as usefull since few people are going to have functional IR/thermal sights.

Draq

03-30-2016, 12:55 PM

Presuming the above example take place in the European theatre, a soviet/pact vehicle might be preferable. While your gearheads and blackfingers might have a little difficultly doing the work due to unfamiliarity, parts would be somewhat more available and possibly less worn since most of the pact arsenal spent a lot of time in mothballs, and they like to keep craploads of extras just sitting around. And you know if they came across any Allied vehicles they would either capture or strip them just the same.

Raellus

03-31-2016, 12:06 PM

I wish there was an option for painting the vehicle in an ambiguous camo scheme that neither side routinely uses. The idea here being to create uncertainty on both sides- just long enough to either confirm the operators' true identity (if the challenger is friendly) or shoot/scoot (if the challenger is hostile).

I'd pick that one.

Yeah, there's no guarantee this would work, and both sides might assume that the vehicle belongs to a third party (i.e. partisans/marauders) but I like having more options.

Legbreaker

03-31-2016, 06:35 PM

Unfortunately for that plan, shape usually trumps colour when identifying enemy/friendly vehicles.

Raellus

03-31-2016, 07:26 PM

Unfortunately for that plan, shape usually trumps colour when identifying enemy/friendly vehicles.

I think that pretty much everyone on this board is aware of this, but thanks for pointing it out anyway, I guess.

I was treating it as a given and it doesn't alter the central point of my post. Anything to create hesitation or doubt on the part of a potential enemy would, to my mind, be worth the effort.

As for the danger of mistaken identity/blue-on-blue, both U.S. and Soviet vehicle guides each contain examples of captured enemy weaponry done up in friendly colors. IMHO, due to the dearth of operational AFVs, the practice would be fairly common c.2000. So, one couldn't really exclusively on shape to identify hostile targets.

CDAT

03-31-2016, 08:39 PM

Unfortunately for that plan, shape usually trumps colour when identifying enemy/friendly vehicles.

For combat troops I would 100% agree with you, for support troops I am not so sure about that. Years ago back when I was still in tanks, I was loaned out to the local recruiting office, there was a couple of others who were there from maintenance, transportation and units like that. I was studying my vehicle ID cards, and had one of them quiz me on it. After I was done several of them did it. They all sucked and would have failed hard, the worst got every single one wrong, it has been a long time but I think the best only got like 10% right. So I could see this working with support troops, and even some combat troops if this is something that others were also doing. This would be a case of sucks to be the first.

Legbreaker

03-31-2016, 08:48 PM

Depends the the training received though doesn't it. By 2000 though I'd think almost everyone would be able to tell the difference between a LAV-25 and BTR-80 - their lives have probably depended on it at least once.
One factor in favour of characters in T2K is they're probably carrying several tonnes of supplies, much of it strapped on the outside of their vehicles with the (perhaps unintended) consequence of obscuring the vehicle silhouette.
Also as we've seen in the notes for many of the vehicle colour plates in the books, paint is no longer particularly fresh and usually quite faded. Some vehicles haven't even received more than the base factory coat before issue.

All these factors combined may justify a GM requiring a character to make an Observation/Recon roll to identify the vehicle type, all be it at easy or perhaps very easy difficulty.

Slappy

04-05-2016, 05:44 PM

Side point here. I used to impose penalties to using captured vehicles, particularly for recently captured and for PCs that didn't have the appropriate language skills. Don't expect that you can just jump in a foreign vehicle and operate it at normal effectiveness immediately. We had several "oops! so that's what that lever does!" moments.

Legbreaker

04-05-2016, 06:34 PM

Targan

04-05-2016, 10:23 PM

Sounds a little like the aircraft (specifically helicopters) piloting rules from 1st ed (in Free City of Krakow). Your skill level dictated how many aircraft you were familiar with and you had penalties for trying to fly unfamiliar ones. Machines labelled in foreign languages the character was not familiar with attracted greater penalties.

Yes indeed. Just last night I was watching an episode of Air Crash Investigations in which a crash that killed everyone on board was 100% due to the senior pilot having been trained in Soviet aircraft where the appearance of the artificial horizon instrument is very different to the western configuration.

Blink_Dog

04-06-2016, 11:42 PM

I'd strip the weapons out of the turret and put red cross symbols on it, make people at first think it's a medical vehicle.

rcaf_777

04-07-2016, 09:05 AM

pmulcahy11b

04-07-2016, 11:31 AM

I can see that for tanks and fighting vehicles, but not so much for wheeled vehicles like trucks and Jeeps

I would have a problem with Pact jeeps and suchlike: I never learned how to drive a standard. Some PCs may have this problem as well.

Raellus

04-07-2016, 02:08 PM

I'd strip the weapons out of the turret and put red cross symbols on it, make people at first think it's a medical vehicle.

Legally speaking, could that act be treated like wearing enemy uniforms? Regardless, that sort of dirty trick, should you be caught, would likely result in a summary execution.

.45cultist

04-07-2016, 03:11 PM

I would have a problem with Pact jeeps and suchlike: I never learned how to drive a standard. Some PCs may have this problem as well.

After being in Japan, I can shift with my left! Hated the 1/4T column shift pick ups.

CDAT

04-07-2016, 03:45 PM

I'd strip the weapons out of the turret and put red cross symbols on it, make people at first think it's a medical vehicle.

I think that if you have combat troops in it and/or non medical troops this could be a war crime. Do they care at that point that is a different question.

Legbreaker

04-07-2016, 07:41 PM

Easy fix. Make it a black cross.
The vehicle is still classed as an ambulance, however it is allowed to actually use it's weapons for more than just self defence.

Targan

04-07-2016, 09:27 PM

I would have a problem with Pact jeeps and suchlike: I never learned how to drive a standard. Some PCs may have this problem as well.

Auto cars, manual cars, trucks with split shift gear boxes, motorcycles - bring it on. I can drive them all.

CDAT

04-07-2016, 09:45 PM

Easy fix. Make it a black cross.
The vehicle is still classed as an ambulance, however it is allowed to actually use it's weapons for more than just self defence.

I do not think that would work either, any ambulance can not have a weapon on it. The Black cross is what we used from battalion aid station forward, red battalion aid station rear. The weapon is one of the things That makes a difference between Medivac (Medical Evacuation), and Casevac (Casualty Evacuation).

Legbreaker

04-07-2016, 09:48 PM

Auto cars, manual cars, trucks with split shift gear boxes, motorcycles - bring it on. I can drive them all.
Most non-Americans have no problem with manual gearboxes. Quite common.
I for one refuse to drive an automatic unless I absolutely have to - less control over the vehicle and no good for towing. They also tend to be about 5-10% more expensive.

aspqrz

04-10-2016, 08:52 AM

Legally speaking, could that act be treated like wearing enemy uniforms? Regardless, that sort of dirty trick, should you be caught, would likely result in a summary execution.

Treachery and Perfidy. There's specific rules for abusing Red Cross and Truce signs ... but summary execution is not normally allowed, there has to be some sort of judicial proceeding (there are probably exceptions or legal caveats, but I can't remember any offhand).

There was a case just after the war where a German soldier was tried for firing on US troops from a clearly marked red cross/ambulance, convicted, and sentenced to 6 months gaol time.

http://www.worldcourts.com/imt/eng/decisions/1946.08.09_United_States_v_Hagendorf.pdf

is the report on that case,

Phil

pmulcahy11b

04-10-2016, 02:12 PM

Most non-Americans have no problem with manual gearboxes. Quite common.
I for one refuse to drive an automatic unless I absolutely have to - less control over the vehicle and no good for towing. They also tend to be about 5-10% more expensive.

The family cars were mostly automatic; my stepmonster tried to teach me on a manual, but he gave up in less than an hour after much gear-grinding. He never tried again.

As far as I know, in my family only my ex-brother-in-law knows how to drive a standard. And the stepmonster.

Many have tried to teach me standards over my time in the Army, on various jeeps and old deuce-and-a-halfs. All have failed -- I just can't get the use of the clutch and shifter down. Luckily, the Army started to move to automatic transmission for all its vehicles not long after I enlisted.

ArmySGT.

04-10-2016, 03:46 PM

Most non-Americans have no problem with manual gearboxes. Quite common.
I for one refuse to drive an automatic unless I absolutely have to - less control over the vehicle and no good for towing. They also tend to be about 5-10% more expensive.

I can .......... it depends upon what you do for a living though in the U.S.

I can, and do drive a manual. I can drive a split too, in dump trucks or tractors.

Years ago I bought a manual transmission and taught myself. I like my manual for the fuel savings and no one wants to borrow it!

Silent Hunter UK

04-10-2016, 03:56 PM

Treachery and Perfidy. There's specific rules for abusing Red Cross and Truce signs ... but summary execution is not normally allowed, there has to be some sort of judicial proceeding (there are probably exceptions or legal caveats, but I can't remember any offhand).

In T2K, that judicial proceeding is probably a Soviet Major saying "I find you guilty of perfidy and sentence you to death..." then shooting you dead.

Raellus

04-10-2016, 05:04 PM

In T2K, that judicial proceeding is probably a Soviet Major saying "I find you guilty of perfidy and sentence you to death..." then shooting you dead.

I agree completely. I'm reading a history of WWII from D-Day to the Fall of Berlin and its filled with accounts of summary executions carried out by both sides. It's not like anyone needed much of an excuse when the blood was up...

rcaf_777

04-10-2016, 06:10 PM

Auto cars, manual cars, trucks with split shift gear boxes, motorcycles - bring it on. I can drive them all.

Most military vehicles have manual transmission, if your PC has a wheel vehicle skill than he should know how to drive with a manual transmission

Legbreaker

04-10-2016, 07:13 PM

Most military vehicles have manual transmission, if your PC has a wheel vehicle skill than he should know how to drive with a manual transmission

Except, apparently, in the US military... :/

rcaf_777

04-10-2016, 07:32 PM

Except, apparently, in the US military... :/

I don't think so your forgeting the M939 5 Ton

Legbreaker

04-10-2016, 08:29 PM

One out of how many types of vehicles in the US inventory?

.45cultist

04-10-2016, 09:37 PM

One out of how many types of vehicles in the US inventory?

I think it started in '85 and slowly spread, The final M151's And M35's were being automatic variants before being replaced. An M36 2 1/2T is REO's designation. Same with the 5T trucks. "M" series tractors weren't altered yet, I don't know if it ever started.

rcaf_777

04-10-2016, 11:03 PM

One out of how many types of vehicles in the US inventory?

The US Army had/has? over 20,000 in this inventory, given it's many variants, the number made and its many uses, many soldiers would received training on it.

It's also found in basic rule book of Twilight 2000 V 2.2, probably due to it being produce in huge numbers in the US

CDAT

04-10-2016, 11:15 PM

Except, apparently, in the US military... :/

In the US Military of 2016, yes most are automatic. In the Military of TW2000 I think only the Hummer was automatic.

Legbreaker

04-11-2016, 01:35 AM

Anyway, I'm sure ex/current US military members amongst us can give us a clearer picture of the prevalence of automatic/manual vehicles than either of us. We can look at statistics all day long, but there's nothing like hearing from somebody who's been there, done that.

unkated

04-11-2016, 01:29 PM

Given the number of skills listed in the game vs the number of skills available/used in RL, I'd call this a difference not worth noting for the sake of granualrity, and assume that somewhere before you leap behind the wheel of a vehicle in T2K that if you have wheeled vehicle skill, someone taught you to drive a stick.

Or, in Paul's case, no wheeled vehicle skill :-)

You could mark the skill with an asterisk (for a driver without manual transmission training) and make the maintenance roll for the vehicle one level more difficult after being driven by with only automatic transmission skills...

Personally, I can use a manual transmission; I taught my wife, and my son (who picked most of it up himself, but he's an automotive wunderkind).

To me, a more important division within "Wheeled vehicle" is the difference between driving something car/lt truck sized (up to a 1-ton truck) and something bigger - say a 5-ton....

Uncle Ted

swaghauler

04-11-2016, 06:55 PM

Auto cars, manual cars, trucks with split shift gear boxes, motorcycles - bring it on. I can drive them all.

I'M RIGHT BEHIND (BESIDE?) YOU! Just came back from out West and jumped out of my 18 speed PETE with both a ranger and a splitter. I was going to climb on the bike but we still have goddamned snow on the ground in northern PA! There is no ground vehicle I am not licensed to drive (CDL A with HAZMAT, Passenger, tanker, doubles, and triples, and a motorcycle endorsement too). I'm also licensed to "bare boat" both sailboats and powerboats (US Sailing Academy and the Power Squadrons). I have started the booklet for my ground school for Fixed Wing, but I have to get my physical for actual flight training. That requires seeing a doctor with a 3-month waiting list. I WILL be flying before I'm 50.

swaghauler

04-11-2016, 07:39 PM

I don't think so your forgeting the M939 5 Ton
Except that the M939 is a five-speed automatic with a 240hp CUMMINS diesel. I have driven all three of the US Army's post WW2 5-tons and all of them in a single year.

Fresh out of Boot, I was given the oldest truck in the motor pool for RSOP duty. The M39A2 was made in 1967 (a year before I was born). It was a "rust bucket" with a leaky canvas roof and the older ring mount for an AA machine gun. The MACK V8 Diesel was a copy of the older two-stroke Detroit with a turbo and a 5 speed Spicer Hi and Low range manual transmission. It had ALL of the characteristics of a Detroit. It ran best when held against the governor (2K rpms), and leaked oil like a Detroit does. It only had 200 hp and a top speed of 50 mph. It had a load of torq at 600 lbs, so you could push through most terrain when loaded. The Vietnam vets swore by that truck because you could shoot off an entire cylinder bank and it would still run as long as it could get compression to detonate the fuel. It also had air over hydraulic for the brakes. Losing air pressure didn't entirely rob you of your breaks. My truck was actually a 7 cylinder because one of the pistons had blown its rings and the mechanics couldn't get a replacement kit.

Two months later I graduated to an AM General M809 5-Ton and the old M39 went off to the Surplus Market. The M809 was also a 5-speed manual (CUMMINS) with a CUMMINS NHC250 V6. It had a Hi-Lo tranny, Air over Hydraulics for brakes, and WORKING air driven windshield wipers (Yaa!). With 250 hp and 400 ft/lbs of torq it was a bit faster to speed, but maxed out at 55mph.

At the beginning of the next year, I got my AM General M939 5-Ton. CUMMINS V6 Diesel with 240hp and 500 ft/lbs of torq mated to a CUMMINS 5-speed AUTOMATIC with both Hi and Low range. Central Tire Inflation System, mated to Super Duty fully articulated Super Single tires (no more duals). 6X6 wheel drive IN ADDITION to a Split Differential to ensure no more "winching" or "towing" out of mud pits at Ft. Drum. The only thing they screwed up was the air system. It was redundant Air over Air but it was supplied by ONLY ONE compressor located on the driver's side of the engine block. Lose your compressor...Lose your breaks and ranging. The shifter would still work if you muscled it. We would drive these like a "clutchless stick shift." I still remember the shift points in my old M931 Tractor at the 475th Qm Co. 6mph, 17mph, 31mph, 45mph. Top Speed was governed to 65 mph but it would do 80 mph with the governor backed off. Tires were "squirmy" at those speeds though.

swaghauler

04-11-2016, 07:50 PM

In the US Military of 2016, yes most are automatic. In the Military of TW2000 I think only the Hummer was automatic.

The Army went all Automatic in 1983. They finally got it done in the early 90's. The M939, M931 tractor, HEMMETT, and Hummer were all automatic with Central Tire Inflation System and Self Leveling Suspension for the big trucks. The Hummer graduated from the naturally aspirated 6.3L Diesel found in Chevy pickups to the larger 6.5L Diesel to the "High Output" Turbo Diesel (pre- Duramax) that was chipped. These "High Outputs" would NOT have survived the Exchange (EMP). The newer "eco-friendly" 5-Tons and 10-Tons bought after the First Gulf War were "chipped" too. I'm guessing the US would have lost half its logistics support in the Exchange. They would have had a lot of "parts trucks" to cannibalize from though....

swaghauler

04-11-2016, 08:17 PM

I follow the example of Skills in T2k13 for my Skills System. The Wheeled and Tracked Vehicle skills include both automatic and manual transmissions up to 5-Tons in Wheeled and 10-Tons in Tracked. I could teach ANYONE in this forum to drive an M939 5-Ton in about an hour. For vehicles weighing OVER 5 Tons (or 10 Tons for Tracked), the player must buy a Heavy Wheeled (or Tracked) Vehicle Qualification. This is essentially "a skill within a skill." You must buy it to drive the bigger vehicles. It gives you the skill to negotiate terrain with the longer and heavier vehicle as well as the ability to drive more sophisticated transmissions such as 8,9,10,13,15,18 and 20 speed "ranged" and "split" unsynchronized transmissions. I do the same for boating and piloting skills (Multi-engine, Heavy).
A Qualification is bought exactly the same as the driving skill, but THE QUALIFICATION CANNOT BE HIGHER THAN THE DRIVING SKILL IT IS LINKED TO. Whenever a Qualification is used, BOTH the Qualification AND the Driving Skill gain Experience (I use "Skill-Specific" Experience points). If ONLY the Driving Skill is used, The Qualification DOES NOT gain any experience. I allow my players to select a number of vehicles equal to their "Raw (non-asset) Skill" as vehicles they have personal experience with. They must pick HALF of these from their own Army's vehicle list. This also applies to any Vehicle Qualifications as well. I then give the character a small bonus during game play when they driving a vehicle he or she has prior knowledge of.

I give modifications to tasks during game play for driving a "stick" or an "automatic." An automatic will allow an automatic success in an acceleration under enemy fire. A "Stick" will require a roll. A "stick" will give you a bonus driving "off-road" because of the greater control it imparts. My players seem to agree with the way my Skill System works.

CDAT

04-12-2016, 01:50 AM

The Army went all Automatic in 1983. They finally got it done in the early 90's. The M939, M931 tractor, HEMMETT, and Hummer were all automatic with Central Tire Inflation System and Self Leveling Suspension for the big trucks. The Hummer graduated from the naturally aspirated 6.3L Diesel found in Chevy pickups to the larger 6.5L Diesel to the "High Output" Turbo Diesel (pre- Duramax) that was chipped. These "High Outputs" would NOT have survived the Exchange (EMP). The newer "eco-friendly" 5-Tons and 10-Tons bought after the First Gulf War were "chipped" too. I'm guessing the US would have lost half its logistics support in the Exchange. They would have had a lot of "parts trucks" to cannibalize from though....

That may have been the official stance, but it is not true. I joined in 1993 right out of OSUT I got sent to HHC for a tank battalion, all of our 2 1/2 tons, and 5 tons were manual, we still had some jeeps (again manual), I forgot about the HEMMETT but yes they were also automatic. The hummers we had did not have the tire inflation system, I do not know about eh HEMMETT's as did not ever use them. Heck when I deployed in 2003 all of our 5 tons were still manual. The first time I was in a unit with out a manual transmission was when I reclassed to EOD in 2005.

Targan

04-12-2016, 08:30 AM

I'M RIGHT BEHIND (BESIDE?) YOU! Just came back from out West and jumped out of my 18 speed PETE with both a ranger and a splitter. I was going to climb on the bike but we still have goddamned snow on the ground in northern PA! There is no ground vehicle I am not licensed to drive (CDL A with HAZMAT, Passenger, tanker, doubles, and triples, and a motorcycle endorsement too). I'm also licensed to "bare boat" both sailboats and powerboats (US Sailing Academy and the Power Squadrons). I have started the booklet for my ground school for Fixed Wing, but I have to get my physical for actual flight training. That requires seeing a doctor with a 3-month waiting list. I WILL be flying before I'm 50.

Ooh, that's cool! Aircraft isn't something I've attempted. That'll be an exciting new phase in your life I'm sure :) . I can sail, and competently operate small to medium-sized watercraft, dinghys, inflatables, fishing trawlers.

Targan

04-12-2016, 08:34 AM

Raellus

06-09-2023, 12:01 PM

I've been thinking more about this recently, as the PCs in my 1e timeline/4e rules solo campaign are rolling around Poland in a former Polish army OT-64 SKOT seconded to the US Army.

The war in Ukraine is an interesting case study in vehicle recognition practices. Both sides use a lot of Soviet-era AFVs. Very few of the Russian AFVs I've seen bear any sort of national markings. By this point in the war, they seem to have semi-officially adopted the Z symbol (painted in white) for most of their AFVs, even though it was originally used by Russian troops in only one particular area during the initial invasion.

The Ukrainians, on the other hand, do make use of some roundels in national colors. Some vehicle don't use blue and yellow markings, and instead use a simple white cross (often spray-painted on). I've seen some UAF AFVs with both blue and yellow roundels, and the white cross symbol.

We know from canon (Plate G2 in the Soviet Vehicle Guide) that the US used captured Soviet AFVs, as did various marauder groups (Plate H2 in the SVG). It's common sense that, by 2000, with functioning AFVs of all types in extremely short supply, that both combatants would be making use of captured enemy AFVs. IMHO, a white or black star (US), and a red star (USSR) just wouldn't cut it for battlefield recognition. Surely, other symbols were used to ID and differentiate.

-