Project Reality Forums

my uncle was in kosovo(i dont remember which year, an if u wondered it was the norwegian army)

and one day he went on a patrol with a rifle squad accompanied by a combat medic. and he said 2 me that the medic only carried a pistol.i was like totally dazzled.

why did the medic only carry a pistol..
is that even any use?
why didnt he carry a rifle?

he said it was cus of the Geneva rules or somestuff..

so i all im saying is if maybe the medic only would carry a pistol.
with a lot of mags

OR

a PDW like MP5K or P90

this is just suggestion...

US Navy Corpsmen use rifles, and so do the British and PLA combat medical staff.

Im pretty sure now-a-days (for the US millitary at least) medics have to qualify as riflemen.
Since vietnam the geneva convention has pretty much gone out the window

Expendable Grunt wrote:US Navy Corpsmen use rifles, and so do the British and PLA combat medical staff.

this is true

Might it have been a seperate like Medical unit or something? Maybe part of NATO or the UN? Or like a proper proper medic rather than combat medic??

Yes, because downgrading to side-arm is a sure way to get people to play the class.

SGT.JOKER wrote: Since vietnam the geneva convention has pretty much gone out the window

You had BEST be trollin'.

on insurgent/militia maps there is no way medics would be unarmed/armed with a pistol, because they are fighting irregular forces

on MEC maps and PLA maps there is a certain arguement for it...but the 'fighting' is rather intense in the game so I doubt a medic would go without a proper firearm.

I'm not sure why ur uncle went without a rifle, perhaps the main offensive was over and peacekeeping was the order of the day?

There is differences between medics, and combat medics right? Medics are certified to have a pistol but are NOT allowed to be engaged what so ever..and combat medics are the other way around..

Combat medic is just a soldier with extra first aid training, such as training in the use of gas or suction equipment. but medic will also apply to those giving healthcare outside of the battlefield, like in camp bastion right the way back to Birmingham back in the UK.

I think medical response teams are counted as combat medics since they often have to drop in to hot areas, but they are comprised of healthcare professionals afaik

so the terms are becoming interchangable?

This again?! LIES, LIES I TELL YOU!!!

I'd quote the Geneva Convention again to make the point, but I don't think there's much point...

I've heard from a guy that during his training, medics were taught to only shoot at non-lethal places on the enemy, being able to go and aid him afterwards.

Like only disabling the enemy if medics were to be engaged.

And a hostile nation is going to abide by the rules that any foreign Medical personnel equipped with a pistol is considered exempt from engagement? Let alone an Insurgency? I think not.

We must have forgotten that there are civilians entering countries of conflict on thier own good will to aid and rebuild another's society. Who they themselves have been captured and been subject to horrific fates far worse than most can imagine, simply for being guilty of innocence. Let alone a soldier clad in a particular nations uniform offering medical services to his/her countrymen.

Someone must be daft or delusional. Leave it as is, before we see gameplay turn for worse. This is almost as bad as someone previously suggesting that there should be women and children inside of Al Basrah's Insurgency map.

its because in some nations, and most countries in the past, Medics arnt part of the military and are actually regular doctors or nurses who have volunteered or have been chosen for duty and as such are not suposed to be killed by troops. there for if he carried a rifle it would be a little harder for troops to identify that he is not a soldier. the geneva convention states that it is illegal to purposfully kill doctors/surgeons unless they present themselves as a direct threat. hence the pistol was just for self defence.

and as for today most medics are soldiers trained in first aid, or someone who joined the army and is training to become a surgeon etc.

If the medics only get a pistol it should also be punishment for shooting the medics.

Just a thought, but if medics did get a pistol, how the hell is that gonna effect gameplay for the medic?

If you do put a punishment for killing medics.. then i see a very weird picture forming in my head.

*A 2 guys from your squad lying wounded on the ground, your the medic who has a pistol. There is an enemy squad of 6 people standing next to you, just watching you. the moment u reieve anyone from ur squad..or ur team they r gonna get wasted*

Either that or u try n take them all on with ur pistol or just leave them.

Dunno if i wanna be in that situation to be fair...

it's like this: According to the Geneva convention; to be protected by this convention a medic is only allowed to shoot in self defense or to defend his patient. Self defense is not considered to be so at long range and therefore only a small sidearm is necessary. If a medic picks up a rifle and engage in normal combat activities his protection stated in the Geneva convention cease to apply. The convention only applies when fighting a regular army and an army from a country that has signed the convention as well.. When fighting irregular warfare such as in Iraq and Afghanistan the opposing part have no Geneva convention to follow and so the medics use rifles..

The other point about small sidearms are the fact that the medic is carrying a lot of equipment and has a job in the field where something as large as a rifle easily get in the way..

I'm from the Norwegian army as well