Military markings

[Onan the Clumsy]

I was thinking the other day about how the RAF uses the rounldle for its markings, but over the years has introduced many variations on the theme. You've got your same width bands, the thin white band, the no white band and the ADGB with the yellow border etc etc etc.

Seeing as there must be something like the Geneva Convention that requires a country to identify its equipment and combatants through markings and uniforms, and considereing that ignoring that leaves your service people open to be shot as spies, how does everybody agree on what constitutes 'official' markings and uniforms?

So when the RAF changed the roundle for instance, did they have to register the new pattern with some quasi ISO standards body, over a lavish luncheon deep in a smoke filled room somewhere in Switzerland? How does this work?

What about markings you want to keep secret?

What about unit markings?


so many questions.

[Slow Hands]

Those winter evenings must just fly by.

[Onan the Clumsy]

Did you join prune specifically to post that response?

[teeteringhead]

What about markings you want to keep secret? err excuse me:confused:

If they're "markings" then they're hardly secret are they - or am I missing something...

Alternatively, if you wanted to keep your markings secret - you could put them inside the aircraft then noone would see them!:8

[rivetjoint]

Wow I can't believe I'm answering this but isn't it the pilot who needs to be protected under the Geneva Convention rather than their smoldering aircraft?

I regularly see military aircraft in the UK with nothing more than the 5 digit serial number on the tail and the usual blurb around the cockpit. As long as you give the rescue parties some way of identifying what it is they're looking for who needs anything else?

[Onan the Clumsy]

If they're "markings" then they're hardly secret are they - or am I missing something Well the Germans...who else? used to have a little Heinkel (I think) fighter that they could only produce in small quantities. They marked them with a big identifying number painted on the front that was easily readable to allied pilots. Once they had attacked the invading bomber streams, they'd land, rearm and refuel and the ground crew would paint a new number on and then they'd take off to attack the returning bomber streams. Later in the debriefing session, it would appear that the Luftwaffe had twice as many of these fighters than they actually had.

By secret, I meant a marking that would reveal some tactical information about the aircraft that you might want your people to know, but not the enemy, like D-Day markings for instance. A bit pointless if you have to register them first.



I should have put this in Spotters Corner shouldn't I? :ugh:

[SASless]

If you purposely leave the markings off....is that in reality a marked....unmarked aircraft? Now on the other hand...if one were to remove markings would that be the same as not marking the aircraft on purpose. Although the end result would be the same....the intent would altogether different...that is in the first case one is not trying to prevent someone from knowing the identity of the aircraft while in the latter case,one is intentionally preventing some one from knowing what the identity of the aircraft is. To complicate this situation, if a marking is improperly applied due to technical defect, would that in itself constitute a disguised marking or would it rather count as a marking although not intentionally deceptive. If a third party took any kind of action based upon the lack of markings, the removal of markings, or a defective marking, would they then be liable in international court for that action. Would they by rights of the concept of "burden of knowledge" premise of law have a valid defense?

Hang on....I have gotten myself confused here. Maybe I better start over and see if I can state my questions in a simpler manner.

When you find yourself facing a squad of riflemen and your back is to the wall....does it matter why you wound up there? Really...it is not like you are going to win an appeal after the fact!:E

[stillin1]

Seriously now!
If my unmarked ac is captured by the enemy and shot for being a spy - I don't care - it's the jet's fault for letting me down "sausage-side".
If however, there is a Geneva Convention thingy that says that being badly marked is a no-no, I'm really worried. Wot if it's like car number plates and stuff - you get done for it? I'm having a word wiv de boss first thing in the morning. Gross lack of due care and all that.
I will of course not be marked either, as I'm planning to pass myself off as a tree-hugging cross-dressing lesbian tourist with lousy dress sense that needs a lift to the nearest Red Cross Repatriation Station.
I've got a plan so cunning that.....................!:cool:

[rivetjoint]

I've got a plan so cunning that.....................!

.....that I haven't noticed that the last 2 war zones didn't have trees? :)

[Onan the Clumsy]

Please Mummy, can I go to Spotter's Corner now? :8 :{

[Razor61]

I've seen some places where aircraft have 'passed through' that they have covered up their roundels or painted them out.

[stillin1]

Oh bugger!
Thank goodness I never jumped out then!
Yer right - a fundamental flaw to Plan A.
However I do have a Plan B: It involves a Walrus suit, a small balaclava and a pink canoe (you could put .....................)ugh:

[6foottanker]

Thought they came about cos the Germans were lacking a bit in the targeting department during WW2, and we thought we'd give them a sporting chance, us being proper gentlemen and all that!;)

[bayete]

Used to fly a German built aircraft, owned buy the RBS.. that had roundels on it. How does that work??

[CBA_caption]

I Really must be bored....

UK roundel history (http://www.ukserials.fsnet.co.uk/roundels.htm)

For the spotters out there! (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/airnet/mam.html)

CBA

(Why isn't the horlicks working?!?)

[Trumpet_trousers]

If my unmarked ac is captured by the enemy and shot for being a spy

....poor aircraft! What, exactly, has it done to deserve that sort of treatment? :E

[FishHead]

From the "Rules concerning the Control of Wireless Telegraphy in Time of War and Air Warfare. "

Part II, Chapter 1, Article 3 states:
Art. 3. A military aircraft must carry an exterior mark indicating its nationality and its military character.

further articles go on to say:
Art. 7. The exterior marks required by the above articles shall be affixed in such manner as to make it impossible for them to be altered during flight. They shall be as large as possible and shall be visible from above, from below and from either side.


Art. 8. The exterior marks required by the regulations in force in each State shall be brought without delay to the knowledge of all the other Powers.
Modifications made in time of peace in the regulations requiring exterior marks shall be brought to the knowledge of all the other Powers before being put in force.
Modifications made in such regulations at the outbreak or in course of hostilities shall be brought by each Power to the knowledge of all the other Powers as soon as possible and at the latest when they are communicated to its fighting forces.

Link to ICRC document (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/52d68d14de6160e0c12563da005fdb1b/cd78ffa34e34a182c125641e003a12a0?OpenDocument)

This comes under the definition of 'Hague Law' and so is 'Customary International Law', rather than being codifed...

Jeez.... I have been hanging around too many lawyers ;)

[Onan the Clumsy]

You see, I KNEW I'd finally get a sensible answer. Thanks for that FishHead I followed the link, it reads like the rules printed on the boxtop of a board game. I thought this set a good tone:

Article 1. In time of war, the operation of wireless stations continues to be organized, so far as possible, in such manner as not to interfere with the service of other wireless stations. This rule does not apply to the wireless stations of the enemy.
:}

[SASless]

Christ on a crutch.....if you are at war with your enemy....with all that entails...just what the heck is he going to do if you refuse to mark your airplane? Shoot you down? File a protest with the Red Cross or something? Now I can just see Dubya with his head in his hands....crying "Oh, Woe is me!" ....because Saddam Hussein, files a complaint in court soon because he could not see the markings on the B-2's when they were dropping bombs on Baghdad at night. Heck, that grounds for dropping charges (sorry...had to say it!).

[FishHead]

SASless,

I guess it would be more of an 'after-the-war' kinda thing that you would take up with the ICC (not that the Yanks are into that kind of thing).

Besides.... the B-2's do have the required markings...
B-2 pic (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-2bomber-refuel.jpg)
...... if you look closely enough :)

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Well, you only get taken to court if you lose :p

[Regie Mental]

B-2s may well be marked, but american jets that look like gliders, are painted black and have the same title as an Irish rock band do not.:cool:

[PlasticCabDriver]

Never heard of a Cranberry or a Pogue, is it a new stealth type?

[ORAC]

http://photos.airliners.net/0fcd40187580b142f5fab77668b4b82f/422ee687/middle/9/3/5/190539.jpg

[Regie Mental]

Cranberry or Pogue? Not even close. Have you never heard of the U-3 Boomtown Rat?

[rivetjoint]

Regie Mental, that aircraft's biggest defence is that it never flies anywhere it shouldn't be but you're right though the removal of most of the red paint is to reduce its visibility - in the same way having United Nations stenciled on in white is meant to tell the bad guys it shouldn't be shot down!

[Razor61]

The tail markings of a 'Uniform Too' give away the Home base of the aircraft, plus its spotter number. But with it being in Dark Red on Black coat its sometimes hard to see unless in the sunlight.

Apart from those, your right, it doesn't have the 'roundel' of such marked on it.

[rivetjoint]

Razor61, sometimes yes, sometimes no, you need to have a look at a few more tails :)

[Razor61]

Although i am 'civilian' (waiting for the flak now :\ ...)... and take an avid interest in military aviation, unfortunately i don't make a habit of looking at aircraft tails.

But what i have noticed is that when certain countries pass through another on their way to another, they have their markings covered over or painted out.

Is this a political thing?

[c-bert]

Now if that isn't a cryptic post then I don't know what is - go on, do tell.....

[BTDTGTTShirt]

rivetjoint
I like looking at tails:ok: Especialy bird tails:D Even better if they dont have feathers:E
Coat getting

[Regie Mental]

Razor 61, I know that USAF aircraft carry tailcodes but when teh aircraft in question operate from 'somewhere they don't' they carry nothing but the serial - no tail code, no star & bar, zip all. Bit pointless as only the US operates the type.

[Chris Kebab]

So does anyone know if this national military markings requirement applies to UAVs? Do they count as aircraft?

[Razor61]

The rather large Global Hawk UAV has the star and bars on the rear end.

That reminds me...
A Global Hawk went into Nordholz? (Can't remember) to show the Germans what it's made of.
How does one control this aircraft (ATC) when in controlled airspace descending to an airfield?
The Controllers are probably thousands of miles away.

[adr]

There's a little bit in Skunk Works about the additional expense and effort Lockheed had to expend in order to make sure that the the radar absorbent coating used on stealth aircraft could take and hold paint for national markings, precisely for legal reasons.

adr