Should the Combat Life Savers (CLS) Course be standard across all branches?

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Jan 2014 05:04:54 -0500

Do you think all services should have one unified CLS course and also should we make improvements to the courses we have now as far as army personnel ?

Response by SPC Stephen Bobchin made Jan 13 at 2014 5:09 AM

SPC Stephen Bobchin — Mon, 13 Jan 2014 05:09:01 -0500

We should have a standard CLS course for all branches. We all deploy to the same areas, and have the same risks. If anything, we should make it more advanced

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Jan 14 at 2014 1:21 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 01:21:43 -0500

What improvements are you suggesting?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 18 at 2014 4:16 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 18 May 2014 16:16:52 -0400

CLS HAS changed drastically since 2004. It is now the Warrior First Responder Course, or some version of X First Responder, etc. It focuses on the TC3 concepts and has an approved POI consistent with current lessons learned. Yes i agree it should be standardized across the board with all services. The combat doesnt change, nor does the bodies response to trauma, based on the branch you serve.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Jul 28 at 2014 8:51 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Mon, 28 Jul 2014 08:51:04 -0400

Sure, send everyone through the same school and save the $$$ wasted on redundancy... They could do the same for other schools that aren't unique to the branch of service. For example, basic electronics is basic electronics, no matter where you go. Perhaps I'm biased, because I went through and taught at Navy Schools, but Naval Technical Training does a pretty decent job overall in vocational training for young Sailors and Marines. And dare I say, it would be a step up for the Army, which used comics for some of its training... : /

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2014 4:07 PM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 16:07:26 -0400

Yes, I think CLS should be standard across the Services and be taught by one branch (Army). This would create the need for multiple locations if we want to maintain the flow of troops to the AOR. Like others have said, we are becoming more "purple" and if the branches can't train how to treat injuries the same, how is it we can teach other operations in a joint fashion?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 20 at 2015 2:34 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:34:20 -0500

I know I'm going to use a 'dirty word', but doesn't this just make common sense? Why would we NOT want all members to be trained in life-saving? Just because you are a 'paper-pusher' does not mean that your area will never come under attack. If all can understand the lingo from one branch to another, then that is just one more advantage we have over everyone else!

Response by LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU® made Feb 20 at 2015 2:53 PM

LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU® — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:53:22 -0500

I think that is a great idea. I actually think we should make CPR and other First Aid training more in depth. Regardless of where we are at, people will need some sort of care where a medic, doctor, nurse, etc may not be present.

This was they learned in Somalia, so all rangers, SF, go through an intense training on first aid. i think I learned somewhere they had to take care of a goat and the instructor would cut it or do something that the soldier would have to quickly fix it medically to keep it alive.

Any actual stories on that from anyone?

Response by SGT Richard Moschetti made Jan 13 at 2018 6:16 PM

SGT Richard Moschetti — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 18:16:21 -0500

Combat MEDICAL SERGEANT'S Should train every COMBAT ARMS UNITS THE COMBAT LIFESAVER COURSE

Response by SSG John Morgan made Jan 13 at 2018 8:04 PM

SSG John Morgan — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 20:04:29 -0500

Yes,invaluable training!

Response by SP6 Charles Gorman made Jan 13 at 2018 9:05 PM

SP6 Charles Gorman — Sat, 13 Jan 2018 21:05:46 -0500

Yes, sense it's interdiction back in the 90's or even before, it has help in time of emergency's to save lives or at least stabilize the individual injuries until medical help could arrive on scene to treat the injured and extract them from the area to a field medical hospital.

Response by MAJ Michael Cummings made Jan 15 at 2018 7:42 AM

MAJ Michael Cummings — Mon, 15 Jan 2018 07:42:06 -0500

The Army really screwed up when they changed the coarse and removed the IV portion.

Being combat arms, we did not have enough medics to go around so we opted to get as many through CLS as we could. We ended up with nearly 50% certified. This was all in the day which giving IVs was part of the training.

It proved to be a true combat multiplier indirectly more than directly due to the confidence it gave soldiers going outside the wire that they would have a better chance of survival.