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 sofa View Post
    Medics should be armed no question, they would do more good with a gun killing the bad guys that want to harm there mates, look on it as preventing injures.

    Kill first. And if that did not work, treat the injures
    That's not what a medic is there for on the battlefield.
    Granted, I believe they should know GRIT and REEF orders and weapons training, because if the shit hit the fan then they need to get down and be on the ball with the rest of us.
    I am not saying as part of a section, but trained up to recognise what is going on and to deal with the situation. Deal with it as a non-combatant.

    I would say arm them and give them weapons training for the purposes of defending themselves, their casualty and making weapons safe too. But not for the purposes of section-in-attack.
    That makes a mockerty of their training. Have them move with the section, if needs be, but not as part of the section-in-attack.
    By moving, I mean, up to the point of having them hang back with the FSG (as a non-combatant attachment for the section) while the assault goes in. Then if anyone is hit up, they are nearby, but not partaking in the assault in any way.
    Last edited by mallen83; 9 June 2009, 00:33.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by mallen83 View Post
      By moving, I mean, up to the point of having them hang back with the FSG (as a non-combatant attachment for the section) while the assault goes in. Then if anyone is hit up, they are nearby, but not partaking in the assault in any way.
      Not being infantry I am a little rusty about the formations...
      Does a medic travel with a section or section first aid left to the members of the section?
      Without supplies no army is brave.

      —Frederick the Great,

      Instructions to his Generals, 1747

      Comment


      • If you look in CS4 there is the breakdown of the Medical Company.

        There are Detachment medics that job it is to go out on patrol with the rest of the section, platoon , or company.
        I went into an Italian restaurant and ordered dessert and they gave me tiramisu and a blindfolded horse and I said No, I said mask a pony (mascarpone)

        Comment


        • Realistically if you are injuried during an infantry company attack (or bigger) the first time you will see a medic is when you reach the CAP, if numbers are not a problem possibly at the CCP.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Dazzler View Post
            That sounds quite stupid. There are more than likely other guys around taking care of business, Medics should be doing their primary care when it is needed, not trying to kill everything that moves.
            They would just be following the first few rules of first aid.

            Making the area safe!
            "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
              They would just be following the first few rules of first aid.

              Making the area safe!
              Nope. Engaging the enemy would make them combatants, and as such an enemy soldier would be entitled to engage them as hostile and take them out.

              Smart thinking there ZULU. Have the skilled technician who can save the lives of your injured comrades be taken out by the enemy. How many will that leave you down in your section if they get taken out?


              Medics are classed as non-combatants - like padre- and are not engaged in section-in-attack formations.
              As DEV pointed out, there are combat medics, who are trained in tactics and so on to move alongside the section tactically, but not as a part of section-in-attack. I think they hang back with the FSG group (I am not 100% sure of what the role here is) as an attachment for the section.

              They are trained in weapons, tactics, field craft, GRIT and REEF orders, etc. But not in engaging the enemy all the way up to the FAP. They hang back with the FSG and if needed get to the front and treat the wounded and injured accordingly.

              Comment


              • Why should they be hanging around at the back?

                The action and where they're needed is up near the front, if and when people become casualties.

                I'm not talking about them going in posting grenades and clearing rooms. I'm suggestign covering and suppressive fire to reduce incoming fire in and around the casualty in order to extract them into cover.

                And if you patrol with a combat unit, you are a combatant. An artillery round, 30mm, grenade, 84mm AP, 81mm mortar round, RPG or 500lb bomb doesnt discriminate whether or not you wear a little 2"by 2" red cross on your shoulder
                "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


                • I would think that the geneva convention's overall intent in this area is to protect hospital units, CCPs, RAPs etc from direct attack, once they are identified as such. For example, a hospital unit puts a gigantic red cross on top of their tents to identify them as such, so that the other side don't start bombing them.

                  Similarly, you don't shoot at people who are obviously attempting to treat the wounded. This doesn't mean that the person who is treating the wounded has to have a medic badge on their uniform, or that someone without a medic badge who tries to help someone who is wounded is magically exempt from protection, and fair game (try to argue that one at a war crimes tribunal, "I didn't see a medic badge on him" won't get you far).

                  If someone in a section happens to be a medic, good for them. That doesn't mean they get to sit around doing nothing while everyone else is fighting. If they have a rifle, and they know how to use it, then they should be using it, unless someone is wounded. A section is far too small to have someone sitting around doing nothing.

                  mallen83, there is a fair bit of "I think" in your posts. Maybe you should go off and come back when you're sure about what you're trying to give us chapter and verse about.

                  Comment


                  • A medic within a section is an advanced first aider/combat lifesaver (not a member of the AMC), they are a medic as required - ie they could be posting a grenade one minute and tending wounded the next. These personnel wouldn't usually wear the red cross and they are not full-time medics, therefore do not get the protection that medical personnel get from the Geneva Convention. When they are giving first aid they are covered by the Convention as they have been specially trained.

                    The first time a casualty in combat will see a member of the AMC is the CCP, these personnel wear the red cross. They are armed for self defence & defence of their casualties (ie if they are attacked they can return fire). These personnel are full-time medics and therefore receive the protection that medical personnel get from the Geneva Convention.

                    The best think the section can do to help their wounded comrade is to take the position as quickly as possible so that someone can give him/her first aid, so the Section 2IC can evacuate the wounded to the Pln Sgt. The Pln Sgt will then arrange to get them to the medics (AMC) at the CCP.

                    Comment


                    • As an aside, during my cadet training, druing our sniper lectures, one of my class was asked 'Cdt x on the battlefield as a sniper, who would you shoot first?'. He replied 'The medics, Sir.'

                      The response from the instructor was 'Cdt X, you are an evil little man, but I like the way you think!'

                      I did some research on the issue with regards to armed vehicles including helicopters and in accordance with the Geneva Convention it is acceptable for the aircraft to be armed. However, in our ops manual it states that the weapons must be stowed in a non firing position unless such threat exists to cause hazard to the aircraft, crew or casualty to be lifted.

                      In addition, all of the crews qualified as first responders, EMTS and paramedics or even wilderness EMTs in the Air Corps WILL be qualified as air door gunners as part of their ongoing training. The paltform supercedes the casualty. Therefore the needs of the many etc.

                      From the thread title, absolutely medics require weapon training and even more so because the person they may have to help may have a live weapon right beside them that could cause a further casualty if not properly handled.

                      We as aircrew must know the methods of dealing with all dangerous cargo such as missiles, mortars, sraaws etc, why not medics?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Scorpy View Post
                        I did some research on the issue with regards to armed vehicles including helicopters and in accordance with the Geneva Convention it is acceptable for the aircraft to be armed.
                        So long as it is used for self protection.

                        In addition, all of the crews qualified as first responders, EMTS and paramedics or even wilderness EMTs in the Air Corps WILL be qualified as air door gunners as part of their ongoing training.
                        And are therefore qualified for protection as they are specially trained.

                        Comment


                        • Another question - How confidant are we with our own first aid/medical skills

                          I have spent the fourth afternoon this week in our local A&E with individuals from work. prompt initial action can and is a life saver.

                          One individual was stabbed badly and someone else took the knife out of the wound - result a great loss of blood and the need for a lot of blood transfusions.

                          Sometimeswe can be our own best firstaiders - both for our selves and our friends

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Kieran Marum View Post
                            someone else took the knife out of the wound - result a great loss of blood....

                            That's where he went wrong, IMHO

                            On more than one occasion, I remember being told that if a knife is
                            still embedded in the body, and it is pulled out, the first thing left behind
                            is a big hole, through which a lot of blood will get out !!!

                            Hence the rationale for leaving it in and wrapping up the surrounds of the
                            wound until the medics get to the scene.... plugging the hole
                            "Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"

                            Comment


                            • In todays and future conflicts all medical personnel should have weapons training.

                              It s not as if the bearded ones in Afghanistan or Iraq or other holiday hotspots are willing to follow the geneva convention.
                              "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
                                In todays and future conflicts all medical personnel should have weapons training.

                                It s not as if the bearded ones in Afghanistan or Iraq or other holiday hotspots are willing to follow the geneva convention.
                                Wholeheartedly agree with you on that one.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X