Does anyone know what war, or which battle within a war, brought about the change for medics carrying rifles?

2018-02-26T14:09:08-05:00

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?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2018 2:15 PM

2018-02-26T14:15:43-05:00

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.

Response by SPC Brian Mason made Feb 26 at 2018 2:25 PM

2018-02-26T14:25:23-05:00

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.

Response by SPC Joseph Wojcik made Feb 26 at 2018 2:29 PM

2018-02-26T14:29:06-05:00

I believe the Geneva Convention states that medics can't be denied the right to defend themselves or the wounded under their care.

Response by SFC Stephen Atchley made Feb 26 at 2018 2:32 PM

2018-02-26T14:32:28-05:00

Traditionally, most United States medical personnel also wore a distinguishing red cross, to denote their protection as non-combatants under the Geneva Convention. This practice continued into World War II. However, the enemies faced by professional armies in more recent conflicts are often insurgents who either do not recognize the Geneva Convention, or do not care, and readily engage all personnel, irrespective of non-combatant status. As their non combatant status is not respected, many US medics no longer wear non combatant markings. This can enable medics to be used as medically trained soldiers, fighting aggressively rather than just in self-defense. Combat Medics in the United States Army and United States Navy Hospital Corpsmen are virtually indistinguishable from regular combat troops, except for the extra medical equipment they carry.

In modern times, most combat medics carry a personal weapon, to be used to protect themselves and the wounded or sick in their care. When and if they use their arms offensively, they then sacrifice their protection under the Geneva Conventions.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2018 4:28 PM

2018-02-26T16:28:30-05:00

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.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2018 7:15 PM

2018-02-26T19:15:52-05:00

I don't know, but I believe it became more of a Norm, because of the Battlefield today, being More Urban and Mobile, so Medics need to be mobile and may have to engage when taking contact.

Response by SSgt Dan Montague made Feb 26 at 2018 10:18 PM

2018-02-26T22:18:52-05:00

Our corpsman were only allowed to carry pistols for self defense.

Response by SSG Carlos Madden made Feb 27 at 2018 11:50 AM

2018-02-27T11:50:14-05:00

Might be a good idea to tag 68W MOS and/or HM NEC since they'd be the pool of experts who might know the answer.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Feb 28 at 2018 9:01 PM

2018-02-28T21:01:36-05:00

WWII (Japan), Korea, Vietnam- they did not sign or fellow the Geneva Conventions on medically personnel.