Vehicle Identification and Vehicle Markings in the Twilight War:

[B.T.]

Right at the moment I'm putting together a model kit of a U.S. Humvee in Poland. My interest in military modelling was allways more towards the miniatures of soldiers/characters. The vehicles were - more or less - the stage for the figurines. But building the vehicle raised a question: How are the vehicles of the armed forces marked?

In the Vehicle Guides (U.S., Soviet, and NATO) we see some illustrations, that provide ideas. Graffiti and the famous white star/black star marking of the U.S. Forces are common. Other nations show their national signs (the iron cross on German, the maple leaf on Canadian, the red star on Soviet or WarPac vehicles), respectively.
Some of the vehicles sport the usual camo-painting (MERDC or 3-color-NATO-schemes for the U.S. Forces), others are camourflaged with suitable colors.

The whole affair is ambivalent:
You have to try to camouflage your vehicle as good as possible, to avoid being spotted.
On the other hand you should clearly make sure, on which side you're on.

Because of security reasons, I don't think, bumper-codes would be in widespread use (Or bumper-codes being obscured by tape or smeared over with mud).
In the fluent situation of the Twilight War, each and every unit might use enemy vehicles. Therfore identification/marking would be even more important than before the war! And I don't think, that there would be enough time or enough paint, to repaint a vehicle, that was taken from an enemy unit. A BTR from a Soviet Motorized Rifles Division, now serving with the 5th U.S. Inf. Div. would most certainly still bear its original WarPac camo, but the red star would have been overpainted in white or black. In such cases there might be the necessarity, to put further emphasis on additional markings, which clearly show: This BTR is in U.S. service! Off course, the same is true for, say, a M113 now in Polish service!

I think, that most U.S. vehicles would be painted in plain forestgreen, MERDC-scheme, or NATO-3-color-scheme the last scheme being the most widespread. On occasions natural materials would be used, to blend in with terrain (comouflage netting with brush, plants and twigs, or plain dust or mud.). In the case of a monochrome paint (There might even be U.S. vehicles in desert yellow in Poland!), the vehicles may be overpainted with stripes or irregular shapes. Dots or stripes in brown, khaki or even black an a forrestgreen vehicle, blotches of olive or brown on a desert yellow vehicle. The star (black in most cases, white only in exceptions) would be a prominent feature on most AFVs. Smaller vehicles (I count the Humvee as being smaller here!) might do without.

But what's about CIP (= Combat Identification Panel). Wikipedia says, they were invented after the "First Gulf War" and saw widespread use for the first time during the Iraq War. Do you think, CIP would have been in use during the Twilight War?

And another feature - the "Coalition V" of the "First Gulf War" - could still or again be in use with NATO units. But I'm wondering, if it would be too bright and large, therefore interfering with camouflage?

So, fellow members, what's your opinion? Can you think of other vehicle identification means?

[Legbreaker]

We've talked about this a few times over the years. IMO "enemy" vehicles and equipment are more likely to be used away from the front lines as much as possible to avoid this very problem. Sometimes though, you've just got to throw them into combat. This could be because of combat losses of the "proper" gear, to reinforce defenders in the face of an attack, or even as part of a deception plan or infiltration mission.

A small and (hopefully) discrete symbol of some kind is probably the best way to go as an identifier, but at night it's unlikely any sort of paint will be seen (unless it's luminous which has problems all of it's own).

On the same topic, I was once told by an APC crew (M113) that when they were required to drive the ambulances with red crosses on the side, they were not permitted to either carry weapons or fire them except in self defence (can't remember which). To get around that restriction, they used to smear mud over the red cross turning them black. Apparently the black cross still means it's an ambulance, but does allow the crew to engage in combat, but on the down side, also means the enemy can engage them as well.

[Raellus]

I used to have an Osprey Elite series book called something like Tank War Central Europe (I'll have to look it up later) and I'm pretty sure that I remember some fairly distinctive tactical ID markings on armor from both sides of the hypothetical conflict. Unfortunately, when the Cold War was put to bed, I offloaded the book and it's out of print now.

Anyway, I've seen a few photos of T-34s in Wermacht service back in WWII and the only markings they carried were German crosses painted on the turrets. They were, however, considerably larger than the crosses borne by German-made tanks. I've also seen pics of German tanks with swastika flags draped on the turret to make it less likely that a Stuka would mistake it for a Soviet tank and dive-bomb it.

It's definitely a trade off between easy ID/avoiding blue-on-blue and concealability.

Being that a lot of AFVs by 2000 would have been recycled (i.e. used by multiple units/sides throughout their service lives), I'm not sure folks would trouble themselves too much with updating tactical ID markings. It seems like the proper paints would be pretty hard to come by c.2000. I think they'd probably keep it pretty simple (i.e. what we see in the vehicle guides).

[Panther Al]

Agreed: Simple and easy would be the rule, with a firm poke at making sure that its obvious whose side its on save for special circumstances.

In 1997, when you see a panzer rolling over that hill, sure, shoot first and ask questions later. In 2000? When they are scarce as hens teeth, and quite possible the only thing allowing your unit to survive encounters that you really shouldn't? Unless something is obvious (Such as shooting in your general direction) I can very easily see taking a minute to make sure before pulling the trigger would be common. After all, those ATGM's don't grow on tree's either!

[Raellus]

Here's the book I mentioned earlier.

http://www.amazon.com/Tank-War-Central-Front-Elite-Series/dp/0850459044/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&qid=1336699141&sr=8-16

[Legbreaker]

Being that a lot of AFVs by 2000 would have been recycled (i.e. used by multiple units/sides throughout their service lives), I'm not sure folks would trouble themselves too much with updating tactical ID markings. It seems like the proper paints would be pretty hard to come by c.2000. I think they'd probably keep it pretty simple (i.e. what we see in the vehicle guides).

I agree. We've got a number of references in the books to the proper paint being rare, and even in the earlier stages of the war, replaced armour panels haven't been "blended" into the rest of the vehicles camo scheme.

[B.T.]

Thank you, so far.

I completely agree, that proper unit ID (Tactical markings) would certainly be very rare. And if you'd see some tactical markings, these might stem from the original unit, in which the vehicle might have started in 1997. I t may be completely obsolete!

The WWII pics of foreign army vehicles are a good example. I can imagine, vehicles with larger surfaces would bear the pact marking on prominent places, even bigger than normal.

What do you think about the "Coalition V" on NATO vehicles? It is easy to paint, known to nearly everybody and has some kind of distinctiveness.

And: Does anybody of you have an idea about the combat identification panels (CIP)?

The reason I'm asking has to do with the diorama, I'm working on: These panels are relative large. As I understand it, they would only be a help in fighting by night (some kind of special infrared signature). But if I'm constructing a vehicle, I should apply those items first and have to "supply" the vehicle afterwards (Like rucks and bags, that would hang over the panels or maybe even strapped to them.). Technically CIPs could have made it to the party, we all know as the Twilight War. But has it been done?

[B.T.]

I agree. We've got a number of references in the books to the proper paint being rare, and even in the earlier stages of the war, replaced armour panels haven't been "blended" into the rest of the vehicles camo scheme.

And that's the fun aspect in building T2k models. You have a lot of real life info and can completey go over the top, espacially when painting the minis/vehicles :D

[Panther Al]

Thank you, so far.

I completely agree, that proper unit ID (Tactical markings) would certainly be very rare. And if you'd see some tactical markings, these might stem from the original unit, in which the vehicle might have started in 1997. I t may be completely obsolete!

The WWII pics of foreign army vehicles are a good example. I can imagine, vehicles with larger surfaces would bear the pact marking on prominent places, even bigger than normal.

What do you think about the "Coalition V" on NATO vehicles? It is easy to paint, known to nearly everybody and has some kind of distinctiveness.

And: Does anybody of you have an idea about the combat identification panels (CIP)?

The reason I'm asking has to do with the diorama, I'm working on: These panels are relative large. As I understand it, they would only be a help in fighting by night (some kind of special infrared signature). But if I'm constructing a vehicle, I should apply those items first and have to "supply" the vehicle afterwards (Like rucks and bags, that would hang over the panels or maybe even strapped to them.). Technically CIPs could have made it to the party, we all know as the Twilight War. But has it been done?

The CIPs have to be unobstructed to work properly: While some stuff will drape over to be sure, by and large, they have to be clear of obstructions. Bear also in mind that there is certain patterns developed for various vehicles, so while you might see a cheek piece off of an Abrams used elsewhere, it will still be the same shape and size as it should be.

[Olefin]

I used to have an Osprey Elite series book called something like Tank War Central Europe (I'll have to look it up later) and I'm pretty sure that I remember some fairly distinctive tactical ID markings on armor from both sides of the hypothetical conflict. Unfortunately, when the Cold War was put to bed, I offloaded the book and it's out of print now.

Anyway, I've seen a few photos of T-34s in Wermacht service back in WWII and the only markings they carried were German crosses painted on the turrets. They were, however, considerably larger than the crosses borne by German-made tanks. I've also seen pics of German tanks with swastika flags draped on the turret to make it less likely that a Stuka would mistake it for a Soviet tank and dive-bomb it.

It's definitely a trade off between easy ID/avoiding blue-on-blue and concealability.

Being that a lot of AFVs by 2000 would have been recycled (i.e. used by multiple units/sides throughout their service lives), I'm not sure folks would trouble themselves too much with updating tactical ID markings. It seems like the proper paints would be pretty hard to come by c.2000. I think they'd probably keep it pretty simple (i.e. what we see in the vehicle guides).

very good post - and the guides are full of examples of how captured vehicles of both sides were marked so their new owners wouldnt get nailed by their fellow soldiers.