Vehicle Identification and Vehicle Markings in the Twilight War:

[Raellus]

I used to have an Osprey Elite series book called something like Tank War Central Europe (I'll have to look it up later) and I'm pretty sure that I remember some fairly distinctive tactical ID markings on armor from both sides of the hypothetical conflict. Unfortunately, when the Cold War was put to bed, I offloaded the book and it's out of print now.

Anyway, I've seen a few photos of T-34s in Wermacht service back in WWII and the only markings they carried were German crosses painted on the turrets. They were, however, considerably larger than the crosses borne by German-made tanks. I've also seen pics of German tanks with swastika flags draped on the turret to make it less likely that a Stuka would mistake it for a Soviet tank and dive-bomb it.

It's definitely a trade off between easy ID/avoiding blue-on-blue and concealability.

Being that a lot of AFVs by 2000 would have been recycled (i.e. used by multiple units/sides throughout their service lives), I'm not sure folks would trouble themselves too much with updating tactical ID markings. It seems like the proper paints would be pretty hard to come by c.2000. I think they'd probably keep it pretty simple (i.e. what we see in the vehicle guides).

[Panther Al]

Agreed: Simple and easy would be the rule, with a firm poke at making sure that its obvious whose side its on save for special circumstances.

In 1997, when you see a panzer rolling over that hill, sure, shoot first and ask questions later. In 2000? When they are scarce as hens teeth, and quite possible the only thing allowing your unit to survive encounters that you really shouldn't? Unless something is obvious (Such as shooting in your general direction) I can very easily see taking a minute to make sure before pulling the trigger would be common. After all, those ATGM's don't grow on tree's either!

[Raellus]

Here's the book I mentioned earlier.

http://www.amazon.com/Tank-War-Centr...699141&sr=8-16

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Being that a lot of AFVs by 2000 would have been recycled (i.e. used by multiple units/sides throughout their service lives), I'm not sure folks would trouble themselves too much with updating tactical ID markings. It seems like the proper paints would be pretty hard to come by c.2000. I think they'd probably keep it pretty simple (i.e. what we see in the vehicle guides).

I agree. We've got a number of references in the books to the proper paint being rare, and even in the earlier stages of the war, replaced armour panels haven't been "blended" into the rest of the vehicles camo scheme.

[B.T.]

Thank you, so far.

I completely agree, that proper unit ID (Tactical markings) would certainly be very rare. And if you'd see some tactical markings, these might stem from the original unit, in which the vehicle might have started in 1997. I t may be completely obsolete!

The WWII pics of foreign army vehicles are a good example. I can imagine, vehicles with larger surfaces would bear the pact marking on prominent places, even bigger than normal.

What do you think about the "Coalition V" on NATO vehicles? It is easy to paint, known to nearly everybody and has some kind of distinctiveness.

And: Does anybody of you have an idea about the combat identification panels (CIP)?

The reason I'm asking has to do with the diorama, I'm working on: These panels are relative large. As I understand it, they would only be a help in fighting by night (some kind of special infrared signature). But if I'm constructing a vehicle, I should apply those items first and have to "supply" the vehicle afterwards (Like rucks and bags, that would hang over the panels or maybe even strapped to them.). Technically CIPs could have made it to the party, we all know as the Twilight War. But has it been done?

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by B.T.

Thank you, so far.

I completely agree, that proper unit ID (Tactical markings) would certainly be very rare. And if you'd see some tactical markings, these might stem from the original unit, in which the vehicle might have started in 1997. I t may be completely obsolete!

The WWII pics of foreign army vehicles are a good example. I can imagine, vehicles with larger surfaces would bear the pact marking on prominent places, even bigger than normal.

What do you think about the "Coalition V" on NATO vehicles? It is easy to paint, known to nearly everybody and has some kind of distinctiveness.

And: Does anybody of you have an idea about the combat identification panels (CIP)?

The reason I'm asking has to do with the diorama, I'm working on: These panels are relative large. As I understand it, they would only be a help in fighting by night (some kind of special infrared signature). But if I'm constructing a vehicle, I should apply those items first and have to "supply" the vehicle afterwards (Like rucks and bags, that would hang over the panels or maybe even strapped to them.). Technically CIPs could have made it to the party, we all know as the Twilight War. But has it been done?

The CIPs have to be unobstructed to work properly: While some stuff will drape over to be sure, by and large, they have to be clear of obstructions. Bear also in mind that there is certain patterns developed for various vehicles, so while you might see a cheek piece off of an Abrams used elsewhere, it will still be the same shape and size as it should be.

[B.T.]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I agree. We've got a number of references in the books to the proper paint being rare, and even in the earlier stages of the war, replaced armour panels haven't been "blended" into the rest of the vehicles camo scheme.

And that's the fun aspect in building T2k models. You have a lot of real life info and can completey go over the top, espacially when painting the minis/vehicles

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I used to have an Osprey Elite series book called something like Tank War Central Europe (I'll have to look it up later) and I'm pretty sure that I remember some fairly distinctive tactical ID markings on armor from both sides of the hypothetical conflict. Unfortunately, when the Cold War was put to bed, I offloaded the book and it's out of print now.

Anyway, I've seen a few photos of T-34s in Wermacht service back in WWII and the only markings they carried were German crosses painted on the turrets. They were, however, considerably larger than the crosses borne by German-made tanks. I've also seen pics of German tanks with swastika flags draped on the turret to make it less likely that a Stuka would mistake it for a Soviet tank and dive-bomb it.

It's definitely a trade off between easy ID/avoiding blue-on-blue and concealability.

Being that a lot of AFVs by 2000 would have been recycled (i.e. used by multiple units/sides throughout their service lives), I'm not sure folks would trouble themselves too much with updating tactical ID markings. It seems like the proper paints would be pretty hard to come by c.2000. I think they'd probably keep it pretty simple (i.e. what we see in the vehicle guides).

very good post - and the guides are full of examples of how captured vehicles of both sides were marked so their new owners wouldnt get nailed by their fellow soldiers.