Captured Vehicles & Battlefield Recognition Symbols

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

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

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by helbent4

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]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

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]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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]

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....

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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.