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]

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]

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]

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.