Talk:Combat medic

message: To 69.201.27.21, you may know what you mean by "arms that qualify as offensive", but it needs an explanation. How can any arms not qualify as offensive? Any weapon can be used offensively. -- Necrothesp 12:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is what I mean when I say it needs more explanation. You may know that, and I had an idea that's what you meant, but this is an encyclopaedia and is read by people who don't. And as an former British Territorial soldier, I have to say that I've never heard the distinction made between offensive and defensive weapons - and I doubt whether an SAS trooper, for instance, would define a 9mm as defensive only, since they're considered primary weapons in CT operations. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 14:24, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded this section, let me know what you think! Also, does anyone know what Isrealie combat medics would wear for insignia? (before the adoption of the red crystal) would it be the red star of David? one more thing, what does everyone think about possibly merging this with the Battlefield medicine article? Mike McGregor (Can) 13:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reworded paragraph makes much more sense. I'm not sure about Israeli insignia, so I can't help you with that. As for mergng with the Battlefield medicine article, I don't think they have enough in common to warrant a single merged article. While combat medics fall under battlefield medicine, the role is too significant to merge with a general article. --Scottie theNerd 15:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Israeli medics (& medical vehicals/equipment) used the red Star of David (Magen David Adom). See discussion here. Also note that the Red Crystal need only be used outside Israel - the red Star of David can still be used within Israel, so I believe the IDF will continue using it. altmany 22:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Offensive Arms

message: Perhaps someone should change "Nazi" to "German". Not all Germans were Nazis, and this is supposed to be a neutral point-of-view encyclopedia. How much they get paid? please research and post as soon as possible.
:In the context I think the use of "Nazi" is appropriate, given that British/American/Colonial forces are referred to as "Allied" regardless of nationality Graphia 04:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nazi" is a misleading term, as a "Nazi unit" implies an actual Nazi armed force, such as the Waffen SS rather than the German army, the Wehrmacht. "German" is the conventional term to identify the major Axis proponent in WWII. As the German armed forces were separate organisations to the German government/Nazi party, I've changed the moniker. --Scottie theNerd 12:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: german vs nazi

message: I think the statement regarding Soviet forces being ordered to target equpment with the red cross needs some sort of attribution or citation. otherwise it just seems like a unsubstanietated claim about the red menace.Mike McGregor (Can) 22:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: soviet-cold war passage

message: Which current armed forces equip medics with submachine guns? --Scottie theNerd 05:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: British medics were certainly carrying them in the Falklands War, since the SLR was too bulky, although now they carry SA-80s along with everyone else. -- Necrothesp 00:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Medic armament

message: This is a bad picture for the article because it does not have clear insignia.  St.isaac 23:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medic Picture 

message: "Generally, a medic holding his/her weapon is considered to be an armed, military threat." Perhaps someone could go a bit deeper into this issue. When a medic is forced to defend himself (or his care), does he lose his legal protection? Can someone cause a medic to lose his legal protection by provoking him to draw a weapon? 22 August 2006
A medic is authorized to use a personal weapon to defend himself and his patients.  Personal defense weapons in the US are basically the M9 and M-16 variants.  Something like the M249 SAW, or crew served weapons are "offensive."  That being said, a .50 cal weapon cannot legally be used against personnel, just equipment.  Weapons and uniforms are equipment though...  Seem vague?  I think so too.
Most Whiskey's are not trained to fire any weapon with a higher caliber than a 7.62mm weapon. We are supposed to only return fire to protect ourselves and our patients. Any soldier that is capable of returning fire should do so and usually will. In the current war situation, the enemy has been known to target a medical vehicle knowing that we are lightly armed and have no 50 cal. on board. The new enemy has no regard for the Geneva Convention and usually does not honor it.--Texdoc41 (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal protection for armed medic 

message: My neighbor, an Army seargent, claims that they're doing away with medics in the combat field.  Soldiers are instructed to ask a wounded soldier "You OK?", and if the guy says "Yes", then the other soldier continues to shoot while instructing the wounded guy to put on first aid.  COuld somebody help verify this so we can add it to this article?  Thanks. --Bwefler 12:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Doing away with combat-mission medics?

message: Christopher Speer is described as "leading a squad assigned the task of going through the ruins, looking for weapons, and evidence of terrorism", and also as "a medic in an American special forces unit". In my ignorance, this use of medic seems possibly at odds with the picture painted in Combat medic article. Comments? SmithBlue 10:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medic and squad leader - compat with info in this article? 

message: Maybe we could have some comparisons of various medics to civilian occupations - EMT, Paramedic etc. - 121.208.89.95 (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Civilian Equivalents

message: I believe that the Military Occupational Specialty for US Army medics changed from 91W to 68W in October 2006, not December 2005. The official title used in the US Army is Healthcare Specialist, though this is identical to calling a Navy Corpsman a 'Hospital Corpsman'. I'll change the month/year once I find verifiable sources and figure out how to do footnotes if there are no objections (I am a 68W so I may need help with POV).
Shifty-Mo (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 68 Whiskey

message: There are many references to "stretcher bearer" (or "stretcher-bearer", which I'm not convinced is correct usage!) within WP articles, but it is not obvious where to point a redirect. (Currently, two pages point to stretcher bearer, and two to stretcher-bearer. Many other potential links exist within article text.)
What were the functions of a stretcher bearer (beyond the obvious!)? Were they given any medical training? (etc). I think this is a hole in WP's coverage related to 'combat medic'.
EdJogg (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting point to raise. "Stretcher bearer" is a task not a title, I guess - traditionally carried out by both medics and other "non-fighting" troops such as bandsmen, cooks, pioneers, who would take stretchers loaded with ammunition and resupplies to the forward area and bring them back loaded with casualties. 81.132.66.172 (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  stretcher bearer? 

message: The text in the wiki article is under Modern Day where it states how because enemies faced today do not recognise the Geneva Convention, medics are indistinguishable from regular troops. I do not have sources on me, but have heard from various places that snipers were on the increase and medics and chaplains were being targeted in Afghanistan due to the effect on morale if one of them took a hit or died. If any of that is true, then the reason for medical personnel not being instantly identifiable is because they are more attractive targets, not that they become normal soldiers.
The wiki article on Sniper states as much, and has two references for that, but unfortunately Wikipedia is in the unique position of being able to create as well as process, collate and distribute information. Wiki cites a reference, the main hits in Google become those references, every other article either cites Wiki or those references. Art imitating life imitating art.
It warrants changing in my humble opinion but I currently lack time, is it better to remove the paragraph or leave it there till appropriate sources are found? 124.170.22.217 (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for lacking identifying insigna? 

message: dear sir.
just to rectify you on your statement re combat medic being also clasified as a medic.
there is a big differance in a medic and a oprational medic.i am in the front line,busy with a contact.
bullits all over,casualty in progress.you call a casavac in and 4 if need be steps to do for keeping the 
wounded alive.
there is no tea party for that.its in and out,all arranged,the show must go on.
now a medic is operating in a sickbay,hospital,clinic,
its a nother life my friend,pampering the survived,no stress.nice life,
how can you compaire the two factors.just for you to know,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.119.129 (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  combat medic 

message: This book might be relevant for expanding the article, or adding history sections in WWII articles: Tracy Shilcutt , Infantry Combat Medics in Europe, 1944-45 , Palgrave Macmillan May 2013. DOI: 10.1057/9781137347695 Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Combat Medics in WWII 

message: The section "Modern day" only discusses the American forces and an American POV. 
There is also lots of OR in it. For example "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." So the Japanese in World War II (who it is true were not insurgents), recognised the Geneva Conventions and did not engage in the brutal killing of any medical personnel or patients they could lay their hand on? So this is not a new situation. The us or non use of symbols is optional and just because the US have not use such identification in some war does not mean that they have abandoned the practice for all conflicts.
As to globalisation:
* For example what did other NATO forces do in Afghanistan  do?
* What is the position of counties such as China, India and Russia?
* What is the position of the combatants in the Ukraine?
* What happened in the 90s in the former Yugoslavia, did any of the ICTY war crime trials include criminal charges for maltreating or killing combat medics?
* etc.
-- PBS (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalise modern day 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Combat medic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080918023456/http://home.att.net:80/~steinert/ to http://home.att.net/~steinert/#Brief%20History%20of%20the%20Medical%20Corps
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Combat medic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140123105822/http://www.aetc.af.mil:80/shared/media/document/AFD-071026-035.pdf to http://www.aetc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-071026-035.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Combat medic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103200014/http://www.aetc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123211901 to http://www.aetc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123211901
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Changed EMT in the introduction to EMT-B. EMT-B is currently the minimum equivalent level tested for in the military by Combat Medics. EMT-A, EMT-I, and EMT-P must be tested for after advanced training. Each EMT certification level is tested separately outside of the respective branch that Combat Medic belongs to. No branch of the Military is known to provide these certifications; they are provided by the NREMT (National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians). State certifications are an additional qualifier to consider. This was important to change because it leads to misinformation and gives recruits researching the topic an unclear idea of what specific certifications they will have. You can test for and challenge EMT-B certification after advanced training in one of the respective branches, but EMT-P, EMT-A, or EMT-I will take additional training past basic/advanced.
I believe a continued education section would benefit this article/entry. Each branch of the U.S. Military (with its own Medics) has distinctive education benefits that could be contrasted and compared. A redirect to the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Coast Guard* (Coast Guard is DHS not DoD [Department of Homeland Securty not Department of Defense]*.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubersuperman (talk • contribs) 12:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction and Continued Education of Combat Medics 

message: The current version of this article is highly misleading.  The following passage, for instance, implies that US field medics can choose whether or not to wear a Red Cross.  This section is unreferenced, and, I believe, wildly incorrect.  
:The modern-day interpretation of the U.S. Army doctrine requires medics to carry one primary weapon and, if possible, a secondary weapon.[10] 'It is also common to find American combat medics who are no longer wearing the red or white cross because it is considered unethical to do so when the combat medic is carrying weapon and could engage in actual combat.[11]
Non-combatant medics are entitled to carry sidearms.  This is permissible under the Geneva Conventions.  However, their weapons are supposed to be reserved for defending themselves, and their patients, from rogue elements.  Dangerous civilian looters, or dangerous deserters, former soldiers, who are no longer lawful combatants, because they have rejected their chain of command.
If a genuine non-combatant medic is treating wounded who are too wounded to engage in combat, and all the able-bodied soldiers are off somewhere else, and a squad of enemies approaches, he or she is not supposed to reach for their weapon, or otherwise fight back.  If the enemy also observes the Geneva Convention, the medic's patients are not supposed to require defense, because the enemy has an obligation to take prisoner wounded soldiers, and make sure they are (1) given medical care; (2) fed; (3) evacuated to a rear area where they can be safely interned.  
If the enemy does not observe the Geneva Conventions there is no point wearing a Red Cross.
I have tried to determine when the USA stopped sending non-combatant medics to the front lines.  Near as I can determine this predates the War in Vietnam.
In the 19th century, and earlier, armies were routinely followed by "camp followers".  Wives, and, well, whores, and also merchants who would fence loot soldiers acquired, on the battlefield, and elsewhere.  When a battle took place the less reputable camp followers would wait on the sidelines.  When the fighting moved on to some other part of the battlefield, leaving dead, wounded, and discared or damaged but still valuable equipment, they'd descend on the inactive area.  They'd loot dead bodies.  Individuals too wounded to fight back could face not only having their pockets picked, but having their gold teeth yanked out.  If they tried to resist the looters would kill them.
Non-combatant medics carry weapons to fight off looters.  Individuals who are wearing a Red Cross, indicating they are non-combatants, who subsequently engage in combat, fire upon enemy soldiers, are not engaging in "questionable ethics".  They are committing a serious war crime.
If the topic of this article is US soldiers classified as "combat medics" then the lead sentence should clearly state they are combatants, who do not qualify for the protections the Geneva Conventions extend to non-combatant medical personnel.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly misleading 

message: Combat Medics are a part of every country's army, however the article (which includes examples from other countries) describes the specialty as part of the US Army. This is very restrictive. Why does the article open in that way? TynoPk (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  US only?