Captured Vehicles & Battlefield Recognition Symbols

[Targan]

Originally Posted by stormlion1

There is a problem with the "C" and "M" argument though. They actually don't call themselves that. They are all claiming to be the natural US Gov't so at best there calling themselves Administrations or Authority or some other buzzword.

Actually despite my having said in an earlier post that both MilGov and CivGov claim to be the legitimate US Government, it's a bit more complicated than that. CivGov is definitely claiming to be the legitimate US Federal Government, and views MilGov forces as being renegades and deserters (the actual legal situation may vary from unit to unit and which lawyer's opinion you hear). I assume that CivGov has rebuilt it's own version of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and all the other higher military command structures it lost when MilGov refused to recognise CivGov's legitimacy. I wonder who CivGov's JCS Chairman is?

MilGov on the other hand isn't claiming to be the US Government, legitimate or otherwise. Its contention is that (as of the start of the game) there is currently NO legitimate US Government and there will not be one until a proper census can be held and the electoral system is re-established. It is operating as the Federal caretaker authority under marshal law provisions and I have to say, it's legal position is pretty strong.

I think that of the two, CivGov would more readily add new recognition markers and the like, and I really like Kato's idea of the Presidential seal. No doubt they would create a simplified motif, easy to paint on with a stencil.

[Rainbow Six]

Perhaps one side might opt for a chevron (as used by allied forces during Desert Storm) as the simplest and most expedient identifying mark? All you would need is paint and a brush, making it simple to apply and avoids any debate about the legitimacy of the side using it (other than perhaps the fact that one side would be using chevrons and the other wouldn't). It could also be applied to civilian vehicles pressed into service, giving a degree of uniformity to those vehicles. Also available in both low viz (black paint) and high viz (white paint) options.

Originally Posted by Raellus

I imagine that both sides would want their respective units to be able to identify friend and foe, and for the civilian population to be able to differentiate between the factions as well.

"That unit that helped your community reestablish running water? That was one of ours."

Conversely:

"That unit that requisitioned all of your methanol without payment? That was clearly one of theirs."
-

IIRC we had a thread about propaganda some time ago and I think examples like those quoted above would be good reason why both sides might have propaganda units (possibly masquerading as "civil affairs" troops) who would be tasked with spreading exactly that sort of information / disinformation.

Originally Posted by kato13

In propaganda you might see President Munson or General Cummings names being a focus. Coincidentally that would reverse the C and M nomenclature.

Isn't it Broward that claims to be President? Didn't Munson die in late 97 / early 98?

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Isn't it Broward that claims to be President? Didn't Munson die in late 97 / early 98?

Yeah that sounds right. I think my mind got stuck on the M/C possibility.

[B.T.]

Europe:

If we take a look at the units in Europe, I tend to believe that the symbols of the pacts (Nato and WarPac) would be in widespread use as markings on vehicles. And I can easily imagine, that units, who did not use those before the war, would begin to use them quite frequently: The NATO flag as NATO symbol and the red star as common symbol in units, still operating as part of one of the WarPac armies. Even nations, that did not use them, like Poland as an example, could mark the combat vehicles with the red star.
US units and other NATO units may use the black star of the US forces as common symbol.
A sign that Rainbow mentioned, could be in use, too: The "coalition-V" in white or black on NATO vehicles. But that depends on the background – in my Twilight-world Desert Storm did happen, therefore this sign would be well-known. Without Desert Storm this kind of marking would not be self-evident!

Some thoughts on uniforms and the "marking" of individuals:

This is one of the more complicated issues, because it is very ambivalent. From all I've ever heard, most soldiers are proud of their own tradition(s). Special uniform items or special badges, scrolls and the like are worn with pride. Especially in a situation like the 3rd WW this will certainly be as true as ever. Soldiers from foreign countries would most likely try to show their own national trades or specialities, even if those individual specials do not mean that much to their new comrades (Think of a former Ranger of the US Army wearing the Ranger scroll, now serving with a Danish unit, or something along these lines!).
On the other hand, most soldiers would have difficulties, if they try to wear proper uniforms. Unit tags of some kind are vital! Therefore I usually describe NPCs with a certain kind of clothing, to let the players think about their actions. Depending on situation and distance, a roll for "Observation" may be requested.
In most cases, soldiers will try to wear their own uniform or at least uniform pieces of allied forces. A Soldier, armed with an M16, wearing British trousers, a (West-) German jacket, and a "Fritz"-style helmet looks like NATO. A soldier, armed with an AK, wearing a rain-drop pattern uniform and a Soviet flak-jacket, looks very much as a WarPac combattant. You get the idea.
In most NATO units, I can imagine, that common symbols would be sewn to the upper arms – the NATO flag, the national flag or even the symbol of a certain NATO subunit – from army group to division, tastes vary (In my campaign, most soldiers of the 5th US Corps and other elements of Northag sport the blue shield with the yellow throwing axe as common symbol.). These symbols could be combined: The red diamond of the 5th Inf.Div. on the left arm, and the Northag-shield on the right.

Civilians in units may wear a distinctive armband. In WW II people working for the Wehrmacht (in civilian clothes or in uniform) had an armband with the inscription: "Im Dienst der Wehrmacht" (= roughly: "In service of the Wehrmacht"). Armbands like these would be common. Maybe a blue amband with the NATO flag, or an armband with the US flag (for civilians in a US unit). Think of people like local translaters or craftsmen, that were pressed into service.

Irregular or local forces:

This is a hard one, because several very different units would fall into this catagory. The forces of Filipowitz, the margrave of Silesia, would use another approach as, for example, the militia of an independant city like Krakow.
In the case of a unit, that does not longer see itself as part of the Pact, the unit might use a (simplified) version of the regional symbol – like the flag of the mediveal duchy of Silesia, or the crest of Krakow. In these cases, I think it would be logical, that these emblems would be worn as symbols on the upper arms of tunics or jackets. Maybe there could be a small variant, which would be worn on garrison caps and similar soft covers.
In the case of the militia of a small town, I think that in Poland at least, an easy recognizable item, like a white and red armband, would be in use. Maybe uniform items of the prewar police could be used, if the militiamen are on duty. Something like wearing a police cap and the armband, while the man is manning a post as guard in the city. I think we discussed this issue a while ago: What is called "ORMO" in the modules of GDW, was not necessarily ORMO in Poland. Different organisations were summarized under this term. Where remnants of these other organisations exist, these might still use the prewar emblems.

Some thoughts from my point of view. I do not have enough insights to try something on the MilGov/CivGov debate, so I'll skip that one.

[CDAT]

One thought for Civ vs Mil is if you have this take place after the military went to Digital camo. I could see the Civilian goverment going back to the BDU as there are still lots of them in storage, and I would guess shortage of the "new uniform".

[Raellus]

I suppose that could work, assuming that one cares to use a more up-to-date timeline, like Twilight 2013 or something homebrewed. In my preferred v1.0 timeline, where the army was still years away from fielding any kind of digicam, perhaps one of the "factions" could transition to old surplus or new manufacture (of the old pattern) OD fatigues. By the later years of the Twilight War, however, I just don't see either side being able to manage a full replacement due to the size of the country and other post TDM logistical hurdles. Therefore, I think a simpler form of battlefield recognition (arm brassards, helmet bands, etc.) would be preferable/necessary.

[James Langham2]

Real world examples:

* The Soviets painted white bands on the turrets of tanks in Czechoslovakia in 1968 - Suvarov in "The Liberators" mentions at least one near red on red after a unit did not do this

* India-Pakistan War, the Indians(?) added extra welded sections on their T55s/T62s to look like a more Western shape (dummy fume extractors and turret extenstions)- Osprey Modern Soviet Tanks

(sorry but can't be exact as away training all week with no access to books)

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by James Langham2

* The Soviets painted white bands on the turrets of tanks in Czechoslovakia in 1968 - Suvarov in "The Liberators" mentions at least one near red on red after a unit did not do this

Huh. I had a Russian unit doing something like this in the 2013 CZ sourcebook, but in their case it was adoption of the Bundeswehr custom of marking kills on the gun tube.

- C.

[Brother in Arms]

at least what I have seen from Serbia, Bosnia,Croatian and Kosovo photos

Colored cloth arm bands where used to identify units. Also head bands particularly with Muslim troops. ( also don't forget colored neck scarves used by ARVN troops in Vietnam and Khymer Rouge in Cambodia)

And of course symbols national and historic

Fluer di lis was common on anything Bosnian especially packs, pouches and carved into rifle stocks by the thousands. Also Half moons, and stars which are Islamic.

Serbian Cross in various iterations, the infamous 4 C's symbol, plain cross, shield with two headed eagle, cross with bulbs on the ends, 4 c's in sheild ect.
was put on eveyrthing and anything especially carved in rifle stocks.

A Checkered shield was common on Croatian items

These are just a few things I could think up at 4 AM.

Brother In Arms

[RN7]

I don't think this would be much of an issue outside of the CONUS, as most US forces outside of America are Milgov and the only large Civgov force is in the Balkans, or maybe Panama but if I don't think the Panama forces are canon.

[Olefin]

At this point you may be seeing a lot of issues with the two sides like happened early in the US Civil War where the Confederates were wearing US Army uniforms (taken in many cases from US Govt storehouses) - i.e. as in what happened at First Bull Run where a battery firing at the Confederates assumed the infantry unit coming up to them was supporting them - until they opened fired.

You could see the same thing here - a CivGov unit pulls into a town and sees troops there who welcome them with open arms - and then surround them and take them prisoner when they notice the unit insignia on the CivGov units and realize they are the "enemy" or vice versa - especially in places where both sides are in close proximity

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by RN7

I don't think this would be much of an issue outside of the CONUS, as most US forces outside of America are Milgov and the only large Civgov force is in the Balkans, or maybe Panama but if I don't think the Panama forces are canon.

probably depends on if Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Samoa and places like that had any kind of split or went one way or the other - could easily see a mixing of CivGov an MilGov happening in Puerto Rico for instance - especially if one side or the other said they would side with making them independent for their support

[pmulcahy11b]

On my first assignment with the Army (at Ft Stewart at 24th ID), I was assigned to the battalion mortar platoon. The primary FDC flew the Jolly Roger at NTC, but 1LT Helbing once, before an NTC rotation, made the mistake of calling us in the Secondary FDC "the Romper Room" because we were constantly joking around. (We did our job well, though, despite the lighthearted atmosphere.)

I went up to Savannah and located a Toys-R-Us near HAAF's main gate, and I found a Romper Room flag about the same size as the primary FDCs Jolly Roger. Just in time for NTC.

[James Langham2]

Being Welsh I have been known to have a flag of the mother-in-law visible at HQ...

[rcaf_777]

In the book Crusade: The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War by Rick Atkinson, the author meations the problem the USAF has which ID of friendly IFV while on the ground and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) solutions into sloving this. I think one of the systems was flashing ID Beacon. I remember hearing about something like this on the TOW ATGM course in 1995. Something like it's in the research stage troops more to follow.

[Olefin]

Considering the sheer number of captured vehicles that both sides are operating there may be recognition symbols that are agreed on ones that you could paint on the vehicle that aren't as blatant as flying the US Flag or writing "Die Commies" on the side of it but which will still allow you to sneak around without getting taken out by your own guys - or even worse getting attacked by them trying to take the vehicle for themselves when all they need to do is identify and climb aboard

[James Langham2]

WW2 tended to have extra large national markings applied (there are some very nice shots of a British Panther with VERY large white stars in circles). The vehicle guides imply this was followed in WW3 - although the use of thermal sights might make this less effective.

Worth noting that even on the Eastern Front in WW2 where it was common to use foreign vehicles the Soviets managed a surprise attack to capture the bridge at Kalach(?) using their own tanks pretending that they were captured by the Germans (hope you are following this!) by driving non-tactically at normal speed with the lights on.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by James Langham2

WW2 tended to have extra large national markings applied (there are some very nice shots of a British Panther with VERY large white stars in circles).

That reminds me of the disguised Panthers used by Kampfgruppe Peiper during the Ardennes offensive. The Germans used sheet metal, olive drab paint, and big white stars in circles to make their spearhead tanks look like American M10 tank destroyers.

Originally Posted by James Langham2

The vehicle guides imply this was followed in WW3 - although the use of thermal sights might make this less effective.

Yeah, large national symbols work OK but only if the symbol doesn't look like the other guys'. In WWII, where German and its European Axis cronies used crosses and the Allies used stars, it worked OK. The T2K vehicle guides have opposing sides both using stars, albeit of different colors, but in low light, they'd look enough alike to cause issues.

If you look at NATO and WP tanks during the late Cold War, you'll notice a number of recognition symbols, usually in white or black paint, that aren't national symbols- things like sideways chevrons, wide vertical stripes (sometimes mutliple parallel stripes), etc. They're usually fairly large. IIRC, the idea for such symbols came from the Israelis, who often used captured enemy equipment and wanted a way to easily identify friend and foe on the battlefield. They wanted big bold markings that didn't compromise camoflage too much but that could not be easily misidentified.

[Draq]

I'd definitely keep the damn thing, but which markings I'd use would depend on the situation

[Olefin]

Considering that vehicles are in such short supply anything that is useable I would have our guys grab.

The last campaign we played (short though it was) had us end up with our original Bradley, a German Army vehicle, a Russian truck and a shot up M113

In my original campaign by the time we were at Warsaw we had a bunch of vehicles that we had obtained with US and Soviet and civilian equipment - including an M1A1 tank and a BMP-C

course we did enough destroying of vehicles too as well - my original GM in the game had a habit of putting us in harms way a lot - i.e. he was one of those "I love explosions" kind of GM's

[bobcat]

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?

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.

[James Langham2]

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...

[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.

[Legbreaker]

Unfortunately for that plan, shape usually trumps colour when identifying enemy/friendly vehicles.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Unfortunately for that plan, shape usually trumps colour when identifying enemy/friendly vehicles.

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.

[Legbreaker]

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.