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.

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...

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[ish] 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 their take on things.

Phil

USMC vehicles, may display blinking IR lights
 

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.

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.

Other
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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/d..._Hagendorf.pdf

is the report on that case,

Phil

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.

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!

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...

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... :/

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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....