Posted on Feb 26, 2018
Does anyone know what war, or which battle within a war, brought about the change for medics carrying rifles?
4.5K
22
15
5
5
0
Was wondering if there was a particular instance that made medics carry rifles, or if it was kind of like a "so... why haven't we done this before" moment?
Combat Medic
Combat
Military History
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 9
5
5
0
I'm not sure doctrinally what caused what to happen, but I know during World War II in the Pacific Theater against the Japanese, Medics were required to at least carry some sort of weapon, whether a hand gun or rifle, because the Japanese did not follow the Geneva Conventions. They also had to remove symbols (red cross) of being a medic because the Japanese looked for them on the battlefield.
(5)
(0)
SPC David Willis
I know in Europe there were several instances of people shooting medics as well, probably on both sides. I wonder what the last war was where the medic stipulations in the GCs or otherwise unwritten rules were actually followed.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I think it is the integration of line medics into rifle companies which occurred between the world wars, in WWI medics were part of a "medical company" (Sanitation Corps and Ambulance Service) which were considered non-combatants. Medics in a rifle company have always been armed since their first combat use in WWII. So I'd argue that it is a lesson learned from WWI fully solidified in doctrine during WWII.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SPC David Willis - All depends on who your boss is. If you work for the Doctor grab a hemostat. If you work for an infantryman, grab your rifle :)
(1)
(0)
CPT Thomas Cofield
The current Geneva Convention rules have allowed medics to carry a rifle since adoption of the 1949 version but the rule was a little more hazy prior to that. The problem with modern medics is that to be covered under the convention the medic has to be easily identified as a medic (ie with an armband or with a medical marker on the field ambulance) to be accorded consideration under the Geneva Convention. Experience in conflicts from Korea to today have shown that most of the adversaries we have fought have no desire to follow the Geneva Convention so that red cross ends up being more of a target than it does being a 'hands off' signal. Without it we were considered combatants. Technically we aren't supposed to use our personal weapons for anything other than protecting ourselves or our patients. We were also supposed to be used only for the care of wounded when and if we were captured. I don't know of that ever happening. I guess the reality is that if a country was willing to follow the Geneva Convention it more than likely would be a country that would be willing to work out the differences it had with the US in a peaceful manner.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I was issued an M4 during my time in and two deployments. I rarely fired it b/c it's not my job to return fire and seek out combat. Some of us carried 9mm as well. I would want more than a handgun.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google