Captured Vehicles & Battlefield Recognition Symbols

[weswood]

Your squad managed to escape Kaliz on foot. Now, several days later, you've managed to capture a Soviet BTR-80. You know there's both Warsaw Pact forces and the remnants of the 5th ID in the area. Do you:

[copeab]

Abandon the vehicle.

Whichever sides color you display on the vehicle, the other will be the first you run into. If you display no colors, you'll run into both sides, each which assume you are on the other side. Whoever fires on you will have an AT weapon capable of destroying the vehicle.

Better to go on foot.

If I had to keep the vehicle, I'd go with no insignia on the vehicle at all.

[Dog 6]

Keep it marked as Soviet and put a US flag you could yank down quick if needed

[Raellus]

Good question, Wes.

Since both sides would likely be using any vehicle they could get their hands on, including captured enemy vehicles, I think friend vs. foe recognition in the year 2000 would be a painfully complicated process. I'm sure both sides going into the Battle of Kalisz would have a few former enemy vehicles on their books.

Would folks shoot first and ask questions later? Would they be extra cautious in the attempt to avoid a blue on blue incident? I don't know. I just read Kill Bin Laden and the Delta guys called off several airstrikes because they couldn't tell if their targets were friendly Muj or AQ. Not even their Afghan allies could tell themselves apart from the enemy at anything over 100m.

Personally, I think I would be tempted to leave the BTR- or, for that matter, any vehicle, NATO or WTO- and E&E on foot, nice and sneaky like.

[pmulcahy11b]

I took "Take the BTR and keep marked as Soviet," but on second thought, I think it might be better to mark it as American (or whatever nationality the PCs are), simply because death by fratricide is more tragic than death by enemy action. By no means, however, would I simply reject an intact vehicle by that stage of the game (no pun intended), unless it had little or no fuel or is in such horrible Wear condition that it's likely to break down any moment.

[helbent4]

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]

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!"

[Legbreaker]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by TiggerCCW UK

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]

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]

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.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by kato13

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]

Originally Posted by kato13

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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]

Originally Posted by helbent4

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]

Like much of Europe, there are a lot of castles to be found in Poland.
This was my starting list 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]

Originally Posted by Slappy

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.