Thoughts on using enemy uniforms

[Tom1 10]

Like hell secret/special forces of all sides don't break the rules. War isn't fair.

What's wrong with having an extra working feature in the game, you don't have to use it, but other players may like to create their missions with the option included.

[Whirly 1]

Taliban planted an IED right outside of base while troops were finishing construction. They were dressed up as Afghan National Army pretending to be searing for an IED.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Guess some people are just afraid that changing uniforms won't be noticed at all and can be used as somekind of "godmode"-cheat. So what would be a good procedure to uncover/verify someones ID? What about some special passwords/phrases or signs, gestures or something else that can't be known by the opponent? Perhaps in 2035 all soldiers are equipped with an life tracker and important facilities are secured with advanced security (sensor/alarm) systems anyway??

[batto 17]

@antoineflemming: If you go several pages back there's group photo of US & UK troops in Afghanistan. They look like normal people living in Afghanistan (except the guns of course). (This was my first post, yay). Regarding the Geneva Convention's Law of War: Better to get headshot from enemy in friendly uniform than be spilt in half by debris from nearby JDAM explosion and die slowly. War is hell.

Edited April 6, 2012 by batto

[antoineflemming 14]

@antoineflemming: If you go several pages back there's group photo of US & UK troops in Afghanistan. They look like normal people living in Afghanistan (except the guns of course). (This was my first post, yay). Regarding the Geneva Convention's Law of War: Better to get headshot from enemy in friendly uniform than be spilt in half by debris from nearby JDAM explosion and die slowly. War is hell.

Dressing as civilians vs dressing as the enemy... And I'm sorry, I don't see the relevance nor the point of comparison between getting shot by an enemy in a friendly uniform as opposed to being split in half by JDAM debris. What is the connection between the two? You have proven nothing. Whirly, once again, you post examples of those who clearly don't regard the ethical Laws of Land Warfare...

@Clarkey1: SF dress like the population. They don't dress like the Taliban.

And, I'm sorry Rye, are you in the military? Must not be, because that kind of crap wouldn't come from a soldier. And it's ETHICS, not simply morals. I JUST had a discussion about this with a US Army Major yesterday. Doing something like that is against Army, and most likely Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force protocol. It's against what was established at the '49 Geneva Convention, so probably ALL of NATO adheres to that. I'm not saying it shouldn't be in the game, but I DON'T think it should be in the campaign. For a civilian, I'm sure it doesn't mean much to you. You can go to prison for violating the Laws of Land Warfare. Leave the functionality there, but BIS should take it out of the campaign. I don't care what year it is, that's not going away. Yeah, the enemy may do that a lot, but NATO forces shouldn't do it just because the enemy does it.

But, go ahead Whirly, keep posting up examples of unethical forces employing this practice. Because the more you post examples of these forces, the more it makes me feel just fine with games portraying them as the "bad guys". I'm sure a lot of the forces you think are "smart" also indiscriminately attack and kill civilians. But I'm sure that "smart" as well, right?

Edited April 6, 2012 by antoineflemming

[rye1 21]

What do the Taliban dress like then? And are you against BLUFOR doing it or OPFOR?

The US Army Major - well that's one persons opinion, isn't it?

Here's another one:

1:30. Unconventional forces. The Dirty War.

The Geneva, Hague Conventions were around when he stated that.

This kind of crap does not come from a soldier, does it? ;)

I've heard of the stories, some may be myths, of Special Forces using all kinds of attire.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Rye

[antoineflemming 14]

What do the Taliban dress like then? And are you against BLUFOR doing it or OPFOR?

The US Army Major - well that's one persons opinion, isn't it?

Here's another one:

1:30. Unconventional forces. The Dirty War.

The Geneva, Hague Conventions were around when he stated that.

I've heard of the stories, some may be myths, of Special Forces using all kinds of attire.

Taliban also dress like civilians. Except when they dress in ANA uniforms.

[rye1 21]

So how do the conventions feel about that? If you dress as a civilian, and your enemy dresses as a civilian.

How do contractors or guerillas play a role within this? How do they feel about the enemy using it?

By the way did the Major say they did not use enemy weapons ever as well? And was he conventional or unconventional? There's subcultures of Forces dependent on their role so some argue with unconventional tactics or clearly reject them (even if they are in use). Ask a Commando what you ask a desk clerk... ;)

Edited April 6, 2012 by Rye

[NoRailgunner 0]

@antoineflemming do you still believe in those fairy tales about Captain America vs the axis of evil/dark side? Are you that naive that everything in a game that is BLUFOR has to be always upright and smart while the OPFOR should have to be two-faced, stupid and weak? Why should a game restrict its players to use enemy uniform only to a certain faction/side? Its a feature that has it use and imo the only thing that could be worth discussing is which advantages/disadvantages one would have using it ingame.

[Whirly 1]

I JUST had a discussion about this with a US Army Major yesterday. Doing something like that is against Army, and most likely Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force protocol. It's against what was established at the '49 Geneva Convention, so probably ALL of NATO adheres to that.

The UK Military Manual specifies that:

The employment of the national flag, military insignia or uniform of the enemy for the purpose of ruse is not forbidden, but the [Hague Regulations] prohibit their improper use, leaving unsettled what use is proper and what use is not. However, their employment is forbidden during a combat, that is, the opening of fire whilst in the guise of the enemy. But there is no unanimity as to whether the uniform of the enemy may be worn and his flag displayed for the purpose of approach or withdrawal. Use of enemy uniform for the purpose of and in connection with sabotage is in the same category as spying.

But, go ahead Whirly, keep posting up examples of unethical forces employing this practice. Because the more you post examples of these forces, the more it makes me feel just fine with games portraying them as the "bad guys".

In the Skorzeny case in 1947, the US General Military Court of the US Zone of Germany acquitted the accused of charges of improper use by entering into combat disguised in enemy uniforms. The Court did not consider it improper for German officers to wear enemy uniforms while trying to occupy enemy military objectives and there was no evidence that they had used their weapons while so disguised.

http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule62

[antoineflemming 14]

@antoineflemming do you still believe in those fairy tales about Captain America vs the axis of evil/dark side? Are you that naive that everything in a game that is BLUFOR has to be always upright and smart while the OPFOR should have to be two-faced, stupid and weak? Why should a game restrict its players to use enemy uniform only to a certain faction/side? Its a feature that has it use and imo the only thing that could be worth discussing is which advantages/disadvantages one would have using it ingame.

I'm talking campaign. I've never believed in an absolute good West vs Evil East. But there's certain things that NATO forces aren't supposed to do. Whether they do it anyway, IDK. I just don't think it should be in the campaign. Every where else, fine. But not in the campaign. And if it is, it's not realistic that they could look at an enemy soldier and not be spotted. Pretty sure the Iranians can tell who is Iranian and who is a Western white man. You should have to at least keep your head down to walk past them.

---------- Post added at 09:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 AM ----------

The UK Military Manual specifies that:

The employment of the national flag, military insignia or uniform of the enemy for the purpose of ruse is not forbidden, but the [Hague Regulations] prohibit their improper use, leaving unsettled what use is proper and what use is not. However, their employment is forbidden during a combat, that is, the opening of fire whilst in the guise of the enemy. But there is no unanimity as to whether the uniform of the enemy may be worn and his flag displayed for the purpose of approach or withdrawal. Use of enemy uniform for the purpose of and in connection with sabotage is in the same category as spying.

In the Skorzeny case in 1947, the US General Military Court of the US Zone of Germany acquitted the accused of charges of improper use by entering into combat disguised in enemy uniforms. The Court did not consider it improper for German officers to wear enemy uniforms while trying to occupy enemy military objectives and there was no evidence that they had used their weapons while so disguised.

http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule62

Well yeah, that's what I said. They're not allowed to fight in enemy uniforms. So the Germans were not wrong because they didn't use their weapons while disguised. The law is that you can't fight the enemy and be disguised in an enemy uniform.

[batto 17]

Dressing as civilians vs dressing as the enemy... And I'm sorry, I don't see the relevance nor the point of comparison between getting shot by an enemy in a friendly uniform as opposed to being split in half by JDAM debris. What is the connection between the two? You have proven nothing. Whirly, once again, you post examples of those who clearly don't regard the ethical Laws of Land Warfare...

Hmm, not sure but I guess that even civilians were considered enemy in early days (they would tell Taliban). And Taliban wear same clothes as civilians so you can consider it enemy uniform. My point is that case b) is much more painful death but is fine with ethical Laws of Land Warfare while a) is also painful death (but quicker I guess) but is fine. And if one side doesn't abide that law why should you? I mean, don't execute prisoners, don't torture them, but use any possible tactical advantage. I can't understand how is being slaughtered by enemy soldier in friendly uniform worse than being slaughtered by enemy soldier. On the other hand I unserstand why is being tortured to death worse than being POW.

[rye1 21]

I don't know... fake tans and a beard do a lot nowadays. :cool: Also, we're multicultural meaning we may find someone who 'fits' in. Meaning you can find a group who can fit in. Or we can use the local guerilla forces, or someone who fled from Iran. There would be or may be infighting within Iran, or things kicking off - i.e. Sunni's or other religions or ethnicities, and therefore people fleeing.

You select your player face through the profile menu anyhow. And with the Iranian uniforms, it's hard to tell facial features. NATO comprises of many countries too.

In Oman, the British SAS did just that by the way - among other things - to disguise themselves. Contractors have also done it around the world.

P.S. What about using other FRIENDLY uniforms? I.e. a British infantryman using American uniform?

Example: http://www.eliteukforces.info/images/gallery/uksf/sas-iraq-2.jpg, http://www.eliteukforces.info/images/gallery/uksf/uksf-afghanistan.jpg.

Just another interesting story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Reilly

"During World War I, he donned a German officer's uniform and attended a German Army High Command meeting."

Edited April 6, 2012 by Rye

[batto 17]

a) is also painful death (but quicker I guess) but is fine.

Correction: a) is also painful death (but quicker I guess) but isn't fine with the law.

[iratus 71]

Guess some people are just afraid that changing uniforms won't be noticed at all and can be used as somekind of "godmode"-cheat.

Yeah, that also was my impression.

Tanking enemy uniform isn't that OP if you think about it, because it not only confuses your enemy but also your allies. It's kind of the same as with those people who feel verry clever and are stealing enemy tanks during Warfare missions. They usualy get friendly-fired (and then tend to complain about it "why you kill me you morons!!! I said it in the chat that i'm stealing that tank!!11"). You simply don't know who's friend or foe if everyone wears the same uniform because there are no blue triangles floating over the heads of your teammates (unless you play on newbye difficulty of course). Using enemy uniforms may work for a small, well organised team fighting on its own deep beneath enemy lines (Spec Ops), but for larger forces the downsides outweight the benefits.

I wonder how the AI reacts to players in disguise. If using enemy uniform only shows up in a specific mission its most probably a script dealing with it (using setCaptive and things like this).

[antoineflemming 14]

Hmm, not sure but I guess that even civilians were considered enemy in early days (they would tell Taliban). And Taliban wear same clothes as civilians so you can consider it enemy uniform. My point is that case b) is much more painful death but is fine with ethical Laws of Land Warfare while a) is also painful death (but quicker I guess) but is fine. And if one side doesn't abide that law why should you? I mean, don't execute prisoners, don't torture them, but use any possible tactical advantage. I can't understand how is being slaughtered by enemy soldier in friendly uniform worse than being slaughtered by enemy soldier. On the other hand I unserstand why is being tortured to death worse than being POW.

No you can't consider civilians enemy ever unless they are armed, at which point they are now combatants. Especially not in the early days (like, WW2 and before), when opposing forces actually wore distinct uniforms. Civilian apparel is not considered enemy uniforms, and civilians aren't supposed to be considered enemy. Just because a criminal murders someone doesn't mean that you should all of a sudden have the right to do so. Just because someone breaks the law doesn't mean that you are now justified to break the law. Don't execute or torture prisoners. But the enemy does. Doesn't mean you should. Honestly, this applies to any law. The issue is not who you are killed by. The issue is that it is deception, called perfidy.

In the context of war, perfidy is a form of deception, in which one side promises to act in good faith (e.g., by raising a flag of surrender) with the intention of breaking that promise once the enemy has exposed themselves (e.g., by coming out of cover in order to capture the surrendering forces).

The practice is specifically prohibited under the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, which states:

Article 37.-Prohibition of perfidy

1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:

(a) The feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;

(b) The feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;

© The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and

(d) The feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.

2. Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation.

Here's the case where the German soldiers weren't charged:

The issue of whether the donning of enemy uniforms in order to approach the enemy without drawing fire was within the laws of war was established under international humanitarian law at the trial in 1947 of the planner and commander of Operation Greif, Otto Skorzeny, at the Dachau Trials. The court did not find Skorzeny guilty of a crime by ordering his men into action in American uniforms. He had passed on to his men the warning of German legal experts, that if they fought in American uniforms, they would be breaking the laws of war, but they probably were not doing so just by wearing the uniform. During the trial, a number of arguments were advanced to substantiate this position and that the German and US military seem to be in agreement on it. In its judgement the Court noted that the case did not require that the Court make findings other than those of guilty or not guilty, so consequently no safe conclusion could be drawn from the acquittal of all accused.

[rye1 21]

British SAS in N. Africa used German disguise to get past checkpoints (With a someone who was Fluent in German).

They did sabotage in it.

[antoineflemming 14]

British SAS in N. Africa used German disguise to get past checkpoints (With a someone who was Fluent in German).

They did sabotage in it.

Well yeah, after reading that law, the violation comes in when you fire on enemies while in an enemy uniform. So, like what we saw in the conference video (E3, Gamescom, or Both) is allowed (dressing up as the enemy and stealing vehicles)

[rye1 21]

So sabotage is allowed? What if the sabotage kills people? :p

[antoineflemming 14]

So sabotage is allowed? What if the sabotage kills people? :p

??. All I know is that this law only says that it's illegal to fire a weapon in an enemy uniform. Weird.

[Tom1 10]

Who cares if it's illegal, if it's an undercover op no one is going to know anyway. :p

[killercam 10]

Imho its a nice feature that need some restrictions like revealing through:

- the uniform: too bloody, wrong badge, wrong parts (wrong underwear if A3 has female interrogators/hot dominatrices)

- time

- wrong equipment (weapon, backpack etc)

- wrong call signs/passwords

- wrong behaviour eg walking or running away, using unusual signs+words....

- if he can't answer on "What color is the boathouse at Hereford?" :D

Guess it can be only well done by mission design/script (module?).

I agree you know."hey tom whats that bullet hole on your heart from.. HEY YOUR NOT TOM LOOK THATS A M16 WE USE M21's :j:

---------- Post added at 07:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 PM ----------

relating to changing uniforms, let us please be able to toggle it with a function such as unit allowUniformChanging boolean

I agree if you start a MP server that should be a option to toggle

---------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:47 PM ----------

Well, I hope that there will be some ingame objects representing a fold uniform. Or at least some locker we could attach an action to. :)

What about a sewing kit to fix the holes :)

---------- Post added at 07:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:48 PM ----------

It seems way too easy at the moment. In addition to the good points already addressed by others, I feel like more than a couple of things should be implemented for the sake of realism:

1. Differences in language. The enemy should ask you questions and if you, the player, doesn't pick a reply that makes sense (out of 5 choices written in the native language), a more confrontational question should be asked. If once again, the player fails to pick the correct answer, you'll be asked to put down your weapon and surrender or be shot.

2. When approaching an organized enemy perimeter, the player should be met with a challenge (in a challenge and password security measure) or number (in a number combination security measure). Choosing the incorrect password or number combination would result in being asked to put down your weapon or being shot. The possible replies the player could give would also be written in the native language. If already inside the perimeter, there wouldn't be a need to go through this.

3. The closer you are to someone, the more likely that person should see that you're not one of them. The higher the skill level, the more likely that person would detect you. If your uniform is bloody, the likelihood of detection should increase.

4. It should take a much, much longer time to take off your own uniform and gear, take off the victim's uniform and gear, and then put on the victim's uniform and gear. When someone is dead weight and not helping you out with taking off their gear and uniform, it takes a ton of effort and time. If uniform-taking is implemented, I feel that dragging dead bodies and enemies being suspicious after finding a hidden dead body should be implemented (which leads to the next point).

5. If the enemy detects a dead body of a comrade that has his uniform and gear taken, the likelihood of being detected should be increased.

They should go on alert and line up the rank of the person killed so if your a officer and hes a officer that was killed your in the line up

---------- Post added at 07:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:51 PM ----------

Completely agree. I'm actually disappointed in this feature for two reasons:

1) This is a MilSim game. Why not leave the gamey features to Call of Duty and Modern Warfare. Hate to break it to the developers, but sneaking around an enemy installation wearing a stolen uniform is mostly a Hollywood gimmick. In the past (and occasionally in the present) when enemy uniforms were used the teams would already be wearing them or at the very least carrying them with them into the mission. They didn't go into the mission with the plan being "We're going to shoot these guys and take their uniforms and hope no one notices the large amount of blood, holes, and quite possibly improperly fitting boots, trousers, and so forth".

2) This is a the feature you choose to highlight and show off? Just about any scripter from the ArmA 2 community could have had that scripted and bug tested within a day. If that is rated amongst the most revolutionary features BI has to offer with the third installment I feel we're in for what amounts to another add-on with a graphics boost.

Thats a idea size you know pants that are to big will raise the danger and slow you down etc like boots if they are big you will 1. look weird 2.slow moving 3.not as agile

and you should be slowed down swimming due to wrong clothes

[giorgygr 61]

It is really disappointing to see people refusing features that opens capabilities for addons and mission makers.

There is no logic here..

Why don't you stay to ArmA1 instead guys? (..or further back..)

:annoy:

[Panda_pl 0]

I liked the solution in old Dos game: Covert Action.

In this game you could wear a disguise however you had to face away from enemy agents if they entered a room so they could not see your face/front/the Uzi in your hands.

It would also alert them if you did something suspicious, like opening drawers or accessing terminals (i.e. any action at all).

You just had to sand in corner and wait for them to leave.

[giorgygr 61]

Action = movement = drawing attention = more attention in details = more possibilities % to compromise disguise

(maybe depending on skill and/or rank of enemy who detected you)

Oh..i like that...

* Dammit why i m not the CEO of BIS?

I m sure i m more pretty than him..and for certainly i can sing better!