Captured Vehicles & Battlefield Recognition Symbols

[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.

[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.

[Abbott Shaull]

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...

[dragoon500ly]

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.

[waiting4something]

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.

[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

[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.

[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).

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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.

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.

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

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.

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

[Apache6]

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.

[Draq]

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.

[Raellus]

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.