Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should medics have weapons training???

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ghostrider View Post
    As Jungle and royalgreenjacket have pointed out, it would appear that the role of a medic in the brits is soldier first and then medic second.
    In the Irish army you are an infantryman first no matter what your corps. However, the one possible exception is (in all nations that have signed the Conventions), medics => they can fire only in self defence.

    ok => taliban fire on patrol and all (including medics return fire)

    not ok => medic spots an enemy patrol (who have no chance of seeing him) and opens up

    Comment


    • Also you will find that if someone is injured the medic deals with them if at all possible rather than engauge.

      A smart enemy will not deliberately shoot a medic and will not attempt to kill all.

      Wounded causes a much greater drain on resources and morale than the dead. If you have 9 men, wound 3 then the others will have to evac the wounded.

      Of course this is not true when you are up against a pack of loonies who are determined to kill untill they are killed but then I did say a smart enemy.
      Without supplies no army is brave.

      —Frederick the Great,

      Instructions to his Generals, 1747

      Comment


      • And it wasn't an infantry man that said that

        It could take up to 4 people to evacuate 1 seriously injuried casualty.

        If you are doing a platoon attack and at the reorg have to evacuate 2 casualties, while resupplying etc etc, you are down a section already!

        Comment


        • Weapons systems are designed for one thing and one thing only. To KILL.

          Anything else it aint doing its designed purpose.

          I bet if you asked any soldier who has been in combat, under sustained fire, what their intentions were with their rifle, they would say to kill the bastard that was shooting at me
          "The Question is not: how far you will take this? The Question is do you possess the constitution to go as far as is needed?"

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ZULU View Post
            Weapons systems are designed for one thing and one thing only. To KILL.
            That is correct, and killing is the aim of the taliban when targeting us. The long-term effects of killing (on our population and it's support toward the operation) generally outweigh the short-term advantages of wounding Soldiers on the battlefield.

            When under contact, you will instinctively aim at the "center of mass" and hope for the target to die.
            "On the plains of hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions, who on the very dawn of victory, laid down to rest, and in resting died.

            Never give up!!"

            Comment


            • Actually more weapons are designed more to cause injury that kill outright.

              Comment


              • Win the firefight, treat the casualty.

                Comment


                • At the end of the day medics are just like any other soldier ( in the british army anyway) if they come under fire from enemy eg taliban they will fight back and suppress said enemy. Any casualties sustained will be treated after fire fight is won. When the brown stuff hits the fan, every round counts.

                  Comment


                  • Rod and Serpent - it's good to hear from a real medic who has been in the zone. i totally agree with your comments - no point trying to treat the casualty if you AND your casualty are going to be killed because you grabbed your FFD instead of your A2.

                    thats what i like about British Army medics - great peace of mind knowing that when we are under effective enemy fire - our medics are well trained and won't hesitate in returning fire to save themselves and their casualty.

                    keep up the good work pal - i hope you are in Afghan when i'm there next!

                    RGJ
                    RGJ

                    ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

                    The Rifles

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by RoyalGreenJacket View Post
                      Rod and Serpent - it's good to hear from a real medic who has been in the zone. i totally agree with your comments - no point trying to treat the casualty if you AND your casualty are going to be killed because you grabbed your FFD instead of your A2.

                      thats what i like about British Army medics - great peace of mind knowing that when we are under effective enemy fire - our medics are well trained and won't hesitate in returning fire to save themselves and their casualty.
                      It is actually basic first aid - first think you do? - make the scene safe - win the firefight / kill the enemy

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ZULU View Post
                        Weapons systems are designed for one thing and one thing only. To KILL.
                        Would you like then to explain why many military forces have opted to reduce the calibre of their fire arms and hence reduced the effective killing potential of those weapons.

                        Dead are buried. Wounded must be maintained and so are a drain on resources.

                        Originally posted by rod and serpent View Post
                        At the end of the day medics are just like any other soldier ( in the british army anyway) if they come under fire from enemy eg taliban they will fight back and suppress said enemy. Any casualties sustained will be treated after fire fight is won. When the brown stuff hits the fan, every round counts.
                        You said "if they come under fire" but the question was raised do medics go out on an asault?
                        Do you as a medic go out with the intention to attack?
                        Without supplies no army is brave.

                        —Frederick the Great,

                        Instructions to his Generals, 1747

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by luchi View Post
                          Would you like then to explain why many military forces have opted to reduce the calibre of their fire arms and hence reduced the effective killing potential of those weapons.
                          Because Armies realised that battles are won in part by volume of fire (suppression), and reducing the caliber meant the Infantryman could carry more ammunition.

                          Originally posted by luchi View Post
                          Dead are buried. Wounded must be maintained and so are a drain on resources.
                          The dead used to be buried close to the battlefield; these days, the dead are flown home and have full funerals at government expense, and their families receive allowances and in some cases, pensions. Believe me, the dead are very expensive.
                          We had another guy from our Battalion returned to Canada yesterday, in a box, from Afghanistan:
                          Body of soldier slain in Afghanistan returned to Canada

                          Originally posted by luchi View Post
                          You said "if they come under fire" but the question was raised do medics go out on an asault?
                          Do you as a medic go out with the intention to attack?
                          Do medics participate in raids or ambushes ? I don't know how the Irish Army does business, but for us, a rifle is a rifle...
                          And the question raised is: Should medics have weapons training
                          Last edited by Jungle; 13 June 2009, 02:31.
                          "On the plains of hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions, who on the very dawn of victory, laid down to rest, and in resting died.

                          Never give up!!"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by RoyalGreenJacket View Post
                            i hope you are in Afghan when i'm there next!
                            Looks like we may end up there in the same time frame; I am slated to go back late next year, as part of an OMLT.
                            "On the plains of hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions, who on the very dawn of victory, laid down to rest, and in resting died.

                            Never give up!!"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by DeV View Post

                              ok => taliban fire on patrol and all (including medics return fire)

                              not ok => medic spots an enemy patrol (who have no chance of seeing him) and opens up
                              If I was a medic out on patrol, and this happened, you can be damn sure I'd be giving a Fire control order punctuated mid way by a tracer round to show my section where to aim.

                              Originally posted by luchi View Post
                              Would you like then to explain why many military forces have opted to reduce the calibre of their fire arms and hence reduced the effective killing potential of those weapons.
                              Ah the good ol 5.56mm vs 7.62mm excuse raises its head.

                              A slightly smaller bullet travelling over the speed of sound will kill just as effectively as a slightly larger one doing going a little slower. The same way as if a 60mm mortar lands on your head as opposed to an 81mm.



                              Do you as a medic go out with the intention to attack?
                              No. They go out knowing that their is an enemy out there intent on killing them and they are only going out to kill them in self defense.
                              Last edited by ZULU; 13 June 2009, 03:42.
                              "The Question is not: how far you will take this? The Question is do you possess the constitution to go as far as is needed?"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jungle View Post
                                Because Armies realised that battles are won in part by volume of fire (suppression), and reducing the caliber meant the Infantryman could carry more ammunition.
                                When considering the cyclical rate of the modern weapon, the extra ammo carried gives very little extra supression time although does increase the volume of fire.

                                The dead used to be buried close to the battlefield; these days, the dead are flown home and have full funerals at government expense, and their families receive allowances and in some cases, pensions. Believe me, the dead are very expensive.
                                The monitory cost of the dead may be relatively high but the there are other costs.
                                The dead do not have to be evacuated.
                                You do not have to dedicate resources to the dead to preserve their condition.
                                When the dead are buried in time they are remembered only by those close to them. Life goes on. Wounded serve as a constant reminder of what has gone before.

                                Look at the Nazi survivors. If hitler had killed them all who would be remembering them today?

                                Do medics participate in raids or ambushes ? I don't know how the Irish Army does business, but for us, a rifle is a rifle...
                                So is that a yes then?

                                And the question raised is: Should medics have weapons training
                                And that question was answered with a resounding yes in the interest of self defence and safety.

                                But if the answer was yes as it seems to be then you are flaunting the GC. Wether the others have signed up to it or not is not relevant. If your medics are combatants then they have no right to expect to be treated other than as a combatant.

                                Originally posted by ZULU View Post
                                If I was a medic out on patrol, and this happened, you can be damn sure I'd be giving a Fire control order punctuated mid way by a tracer round to show my section where to aim.
                                Firstly, as Dev pointed out, you would not have a medic on patrol. You micht have one of your section trained in occupational first aid but that is not the same.

                                Secondly I seriously doubt a medic was on patrol or that you ever gave a real FCO to a medic.

                                A slightly smaller bullet travelling over the speed of sound will kill just as effectively as a slightly larger one doing going a little slower.
                                There is a video on the utube thread that contradicts you. I have seen first hand the difference between various calibre and velocity rounds at various ranges.
                                If you were hit with a .308 from an old M1 in the leg you will not walk away!

                                No. They go out knowing that their is an enemy out there intent on killing them and they are only going out to kill them in self defense.
                                As said earlier and not by me, Irish AMC personnel do not go out on offencive actions.
                                Without supplies no army is brave.

                                —Frederick the Great,

                                Instructions to his Generals, 1747

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X