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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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...

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

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.

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!

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:

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

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...

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!

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.

Recognition Symbols in T2K
 

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

From the V1 referees guide.

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.

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.

-

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.

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.

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.