Posted on Jan 15, 2015
This MEDEVAC video from Afghanistan could make you even more frustrated with ROE; do you think they should change?
87.1K
282
132
16
16
0
World: A Rescue, Under Fire | The New York Times
C.J. Chivers provides an aerial analysis of the medevac helicopter rescue of Cpl. Zachary K. Kruger in Marja, Afghanistan. Related Article: http://nyti.ms/fj...
Imagine you’re a door gunner in this Afghanistan MEDEVAC scenario. Watch the short video and then answer our question at the end.
Here is the video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mplWAClhAW8#t=14
//REAL SCENARIO BELOW //
A Marine Corporal (Cpl) has been shot. His squad is in the middle of a firefight in Marjah, Afghanistan. Your MEDEVAC unit was already on station, and now your Blackhawk is screaming in fast and low. You’re the Blackhawk door gunner (your helicopter is one of the escort birds) and desperately trying to assess the ground situation. The Marines are still taking fire, but you don’t know from where. You spot the green smoke grenade marker designating the landing zone. Your heart is racing. It’s go time.
Then you notice something very ominous…
Hiding along the tree line nearby are multiple MAMs (Military Aged Males) who may be hostiles. They may be the ones engaging the Marines. They may try to kill you. They look suspicious but you can’t get tell whether they have weapons. Although you know they may be totally innocent, you consider firing warning shots in their vicinity. You decide not to.
The MEDEVAC Blackhawk lands and they immediately start taking fire from 3 sides. Now answer the question below.
//
Question for the RallyPoint community: As the door gunner in one of the escort birds, would you have fired the warning shots anyway? Why or why not?
Here is the video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mplWAClhAW8#t=14
//REAL SCENARIO BELOW //
A Marine Corporal (Cpl) has been shot. His squad is in the middle of a firefight in Marjah, Afghanistan. Your MEDEVAC unit was already on station, and now your Blackhawk is screaming in fast and low. You’re the Blackhawk door gunner (your helicopter is one of the escort birds) and desperately trying to assess the ground situation. The Marines are still taking fire, but you don’t know from where. You spot the green smoke grenade marker designating the landing zone. Your heart is racing. It’s go time.
Then you notice something very ominous…
Hiding along the tree line nearby are multiple MAMs (Military Aged Males) who may be hostiles. They may be the ones engaging the Marines. They may try to kill you. They look suspicious but you can’t get tell whether they have weapons. Although you know they may be totally innocent, you consider firing warning shots in their vicinity. You decide not to.
The MEDEVAC Blackhawk lands and they immediately start taking fire from 3 sides. Now answer the question below.
//
Question for the RallyPoint community: As the door gunner in one of the escort birds, would you have fired the warning shots anyway? Why or why not?
Posted in these groups: 
Rules of Engagement (ROE)
Rules of Engagement (ROE)
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 71
3
3
0
There are other things that can be done besides firing warning shots of the Pilot in command does not order them. Low and fast approaches over the military aged males can be done, if the pilot is skilled enough, with minimal risk to the crew, this would draw fire from hostile actors and allow freedom of engagement. I say this as a crew chief who has been there (on the ground being shot at while loading patients) and the UH-60 escort did exactly that and saved my life. None of the ROE (at the time of the battle) were broken. Since I am out of the Army now you would have to check the current ROE and TTP's to see if such a maneuver would be legal. Stay safe.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
The TTP for MEDEVACs is to have a chase bird who doesn't have to follow the "RED CROSS" ROE. If a MED pure flight is dispatched, they are clearly in a quandary if they have to defend themselves as a crew. Their weapons are for personal defense in a evasion or other role other than MEDEVAC. The rules are very clear. I value the MEDEVAC as the bravest of flyers for this mission that they feel so compelled to fill. They go into situation knowing that they could possibly be shot or harmed without the ability to defend themselves.
There are MANY aviators who fly MEDEVAC who have propositioned for the same platform and ability to defend as the Air Force, where we remove the RED CROSS and pick up our guys with the ability to defend ourselves. There are PROs and CONs to everything, but in reality, do nation unsponsored entities honor the Geneva Convention or just shot at anything US or Allied?
There are MANY aviators who fly MEDEVAC who have propositioned for the same platform and ability to defend as the Air Force, where we remove the RED CROSS and pick up our guys with the ability to defend ourselves. There are PROs and CONs to everything, but in reality, do nation unsponsored entities honor the Geneva Convention or just shot at anything US or Allied?
(3)
(0)
Wow, my first reaction to this video was feeling goosebumps. The situation for the door gunner is difficult -- I know he only had a few seconds to decide whether to fire warning shots IVO the two military aged males. I honestly don't know whether a MEDEVAC helicopter is authorized IAW ROE to even fire warning shots, but I am guessing that would be authorized given the appropriate circumstances.
My main concern as the door gunner is that this wounded Marine on the ground could bleed out. The Marine squad is still in a firefight. I don't see any other non-US personnel in the area other than the two Afghan males in the tree line. So my first reaction is, "What is the harm in firing warning shots here?" But then what if those rounds kill an innocent civilian on accident? What if they ricochet and fragments fly into a nearby village and kill someone? If that happens, all hell could break loose in the area -- if we kill an innocent person. But if we land and get engaged by the enemy, possibly including the 2 MAMs shown, then the Marine may die here on the ground and we might as well.
In that moment, if I was the door gunner, I just don't think I could have fired warning shots. But damn that's frustrating.
My main concern as the door gunner is that this wounded Marine on the ground could bleed out. The Marine squad is still in a firefight. I don't see any other non-US personnel in the area other than the two Afghan males in the tree line. So my first reaction is, "What is the harm in firing warning shots here?" But then what if those rounds kill an innocent civilian on accident? What if they ricochet and fragments fly into a nearby village and kill someone? If that happens, all hell could break loose in the area -- if we kill an innocent person. But if we land and get engaged by the enemy, possibly including the 2 MAMs shown, then the Marine may die here on the ground and we might as well.
In that moment, if I was the door gunner, I just don't think I could have fired warning shots. But damn that's frustrating.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
SSG Justin McCoy's comments are pretty much verbatim in line with my thoughts as well. I'm about 99.9% sure that firing from a medevac (w/ medical symbols) would be against the laws of land warfare. What separates us from the rest is that we follow those, and prosecute those who don't.
My better judgement tells me that you either adjust the landing site or get fire support from another bird/ground forces. While "warning shots" aren't engagement by intent, in practice, they would likely be seen as engagement and would possibly serve only to draw enemy fire.
My better judgement tells me that you either adjust the landing site or get fire support from another bird/ground forces. While "warning shots" aren't engagement by intent, in practice, they would likely be seen as engagement and would possibly serve only to draw enemy fire.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
The ROE are heavily influenced by the Afghan gov, in response to civilian casualty numbers. What person in their right mind would hang around a firefight without being directly involved? Collateral casualties happen, and will forever be a part of war. Change the ROE now!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I'm sure there had to be time to add to their 9 line. The troops on the ground should be feeding the medevac team info up to the time the bird is on the ground. Might as well be a BP CAS mission.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
SAR is not for the light-hearted. The MEDEVAC is part of a very highly coordinated effort by the bravest of soldiers known. Combatants use "Wounded Ambush" every chance they get. Rather than killing one of our soldiers, they wound them and draw out the compassion for our brothers. It is evil, these people are evil. Less than 1% of our population has ever worn the uniform. It is a source of tremendous pride for those of us who have. That pride only intensifies with time. For the 99% of you that have never sought out the privilege of serving, never tell us what we should have done from the safety of your armchair.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Yes I would fire the warning shot, why to let them know I'm not playing if it's me or my brother in arms being killed or the mam well say hi to your virgins
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google