Should medics have weapons training???

[Barry]

Luchi, it's possible to be a medic without being in a Med Coy.

[luchi]

Luchi, it's possible to be a medic without being in a Med Coy.

There is a distinction to be clearly made here.

A Medic as in AME wears the required insignia under the GC and bound by the rules of wearing it.

A soldier trained in advanced first air etc while might be refered to as the medic is not a non combatant person and thus not a medic under the terms of the GC.

[rod and serpent]

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

Be careful for what you wish for

[rod and serpent]

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?

Every boot on the ground counts as does every round.

[rod and serpent]

Below is an extract of a piece I found on www.Armynet.mod.uk , certain bits of sensitive information have been removed. However there is enough material to give you a better insight in to the role of a combat medic.

A day in the life of a CMT based at Lashkar Gah.

My job title is Combat Medical Technician (CMT), but we are branded as non-combatants due to the Geneva Convention. Despite this, we are on the front line with Infantry soldiers. As I carry my weapon around I see myself as combatant, and as soon as that first round goes off I will be in that firefight, and to my left and my right won’t be the Geneva Convention, it will be fighting troops with their lives on the line. If and when a casualty arises I will treat the wounded troops, and also the enemy. The fate of the wounded lies with those that apply the first field dressing.

[California Tanker]

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.

[Topic Hijack] It's ammunition capacity, as mentioned earlier, but not for suppression. They just figured that a soldier carrying 210 rounds of smaller ammo can hit more Godless Commies than a soldier carrying 140 rounds of larger ammo. Partially due to numbers of rounds carried, and partially due to the greater practical accuracy of the smaller round.[/topic hijack]

Better to have a medic capable of shooting a rifle than one not capable of shooting a rifle. Yes, in theory there should be adequate fires on the enemy from other soldiers, but you never can tell.

NTM

[Truck Driver]

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.

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

The latter comment is another reason, apart from the weight saving, etc. Don't know if it
was a deliberate one, or not, at the time.

Person gets killed by a 7.62mm rd, patrol makes note of the spot and moves on.
Person gets wounded by a 5.56mm round, resource(s) gets allocated to look after
the casualty, thus reducing the effectiveness of that formation.

That's an explanation I got several years ago, anyway....

[California Tanker]

Only works on the assumption that the people you are fighting care.

The Red Commie Horde doctrine did not include stopping to deal with casualties. That was a problem for follow-on units to deal with.

NTM

[rod and serpent]

http://www.army.mod.uk/army-medical-services/5324.aspx

[BoonDoc]

Back to the original question.....

Medics should have weapons systems because the enemy doesn't follow the Geneva Convention. They will not hesitate to fire on the medics.

The best medical care you can give to a wounded casualty is to throw a lot of lead down range. Then, once we have fire superiority, we can start our ABCs and treat the patient.

Personally, I always had a pistol on me. Even in the loo. We had someone in my unit get shot while in the PB and out taking a leak. You just never know when you will be required to return fire and protect yourself and your team.

[RoyalGreenJacket]

agreed - if everyone played by the rules then the red cross on your arm might actually mean something but in recent conflicts, any 'infidel' is fair game and having an unarmed medic on the battlefield is like having a soldier with no body armour or helmet in the sights of the enemy.

they will engage medics and some of the enemy tactics are designed to kill / injure medics and recovery teams in the follow up of any incident where there are initial casualties.



Rod and Serpent has served as a Combat Medic for the British Army in Afghanistan and i am pretty confident that his rifle was among his best friends out there.

as a commander, i would see a medic in a patrol without a weapon as a liability and a burden.

too right - medics should not only have weapon training, but because of their proximity to the FEBA, they should also be highly proficient in defending themselves and their casualty when the sh|t hits the fan.

[DeV]

And in a conventional combat there is no guarantee the enemy can see the red cross!

[Buck]

thats not R&S is it? PERSEC i guess...:P

[RoyalGreenJacket]

lol no Buck that is not R&S, just a random pic of a medic in Afghan with his kit and rifle, which i feel is a critical piece of kit for any medic in any military uniform.

[Buck]

yeah, agreed. Medics should def have weapons training. what if they're the only one left (God forbid) but even Ross Kemp got weapons training when he went over!!