Kewl Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 I wouldnt get into all this guys, my sister is training as a lawer and shes done european law, and ive been used as a guiny pig on her cases shes been given, and its all down to how you interpret the law, so there isnt a black white line can cant, you cant judge it till its happened. So if i were you guys, and want to avoid a headache, id drop your critique of the geneva convention. actually there are lines you cant cross regarding the Geneva Conventions...just go read the rules surrounding the treatment of P.O.Ws. Of course not everything is black and white and there are people trained to deal with the legal issues surrouding these rules of war (case in point, the video posted here awhile back showing enemy combatants being picked off in the desert by an apache. I believe a German lawyer said they violated the conventions but after repeated reviewing said there was nothing there that out of order.) But thats the same with any law isnt it? Kind of a basic/obvious point? I mean if everything was black and white there would be only one verdict for each kind of crime, which i'm sure you know that there isnt. I've still not found anything in the Geneva conventions that place any restriction on the use of the .50 cal; i have seen documents written by various militaries that restrict its use somewhat, but nothing that would cause a war crime trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parabellum Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 There is nothing in the Geneva Conventions that mentions 50-caliber rifles. The issues dealt with within the convention deal with unnecessary injury. If you kill a man, it doesn't matter how you kill him - he's dead. What the Convention is concerned with is causing injury that does not kill, and is in excess of what would keep him out of action for a time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyovan4 Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 What the Convention is concerned with is causing injury that does not kill, and is in excess of what would keep him out of action for a time. So, the Convention encourages combatant nations either to wound the enemy enough to put him out of the fight (but not cripple him for life) or kill the enemy but discourages combatant nations from attempting to cripple the enemy for life without actually killing him?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kewl Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 (edited) What the Convention is concerned with is causing injury that does not kill, and is in excess of what would keep him out of action for a time. So, the Convention encourages combatant nations either to wound the enemy enough to put him out of the fight (but not cripple him for life) or kill the enemy but discourages combatant nations from attempting to cripple the enemy for life without actually killing him?? the point is, imo, either a quick kill or a wound that will take the fight out of someone but a wound that is still treatable so you can take a prisoner. The whole premis behind the Geneva Conventions was to "humanize" war as much as reasonably possible. As well as addressing the various aspects of war. Edited April 11, 2004 by Kewl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebb Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 Ok, if you wound an enemy it then takes at least 3 of their people to treat him, and get him back to some kind of aid station, which obviously takes up a lot more of their time and resources than if you had killed him outright, it also has a big impact on the moral of the soldiers around him, while he is writhing around screaming in pain, this can be more effective than killing twice as many people but not affecting their moral or numbers. As for this argument over the particulars of the Geneva Convention, as i said before, once in a combat situation they dont really exist until it comes down to issues dealing with Civilians who may in the firing line, and POW's after the fighting is over, (obviously a grey area because there is often a period after the main engagement, and before a fully declared cease fire, that people are killed who may have been trying to surrender but who the enemy feel are still a threat in certain situations) This is really a debate better served in one of the military training establishments such as Sandhurst, where they will go over and over such delicate issues trying to decide, as an officer, what your actions would be in certain scenarios, thought up by the instructors to create no win situations for the recruits to see how they deal with them. We had ROE's but that was as far as it went, and even they could be "flexible" that is the nature of conflict.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streinger Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 Back to the topic...during the war over here, I was issued M-70 (Yugoslavian AK-47 copy, foldable stock), in 7,62X39mm, and 2 combat kits. Now, the weapon comes with 5 30rd clips (1 in the wep, 4 in the mag pouch)..150rds total- that's a standard combat kit. Additional 150 rds I had to carry in my back pack- so 2 combat kits equals 300rds total. But as alot of guys here pointed out, one could never had too much ammo...so I always had 2 additional clips taped together that I kept handy, in my field jacket's pocket. And there were always logistic guys supplying us with ammo, so I soon ended up with 400-500rds of ammo on me. Shooting medics, non-combatants, what next? LMAO..as infantry/medic, I can tell you I was definatelly shot at....somebody must have forgotten to introduce the guys on the other side with the article in question... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F'n New Guy Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 whats a medic doing with an ak47? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streinger Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 whats a medic doing with an ak47? are you asking seriously?!? There's no way in hell I would go out in the field unarmed...and forget about the red cross patch on my arm or on my back-pack...that would be just like putting a big juicy target on my back. I was in cammo all the way... Anyway, beside being a medic, I ended up doing alot of other non-medic stuff, like being an assistant guy for a machine gunner, doing recon, and even operating a machine gun mounted on our vehicle... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mamon Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 Streinger...I imagine you fought against Serb forces if you're Croatian? I'm interested to know about your experiences, but I know this thread isn't for that. There are some other guys here that have been deployed to Bosnia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streinger Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 Sure, Mamon..shoot me a PM and I'll be happy to answer all of your questions.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F'n New Guy Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 i didnt know medics could carry that type of equipment pass the band aids, the 7.62 30round mag. and that fresh bandage . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streinger Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 I don't no why are you so surprised....wasn't there a medic in BHD movie armed with M16 or CAR15? Like I said, it was AK-47 copy, foldable stock version, back then a standard medic weapon. Nowadays, our guys switched to FN FAL, which is qite long and heavy, even the foldabe stock PARA version, so if I do go to Afghanistan, I'll most likely be issued a 9mm ERO SMG, a Croatian UZI copy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F'n New Guy Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 well its just that we only give our medic an m9, ive never seen him with a m16. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalker Posted April 19, 2004 Author Share Posted April 19, 2004 well its just that we only give our medic an m9, ive never seen him with a m16. sorry for my ignorance if I am wrong (I haven't been to the army)..!! but is a M9 not a bit poor?? not an M16 but maybe a submachine gun or colt m4... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F'n New Guy Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 i guess im ignorant too stalker, i didnt think medics could do that, id have to find that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarauderMike Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 Canadian Medics carry the standard C7A1. The reason for this is so they can defend the casualties in their care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supasniper Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 it might just be me but isn't the aim in war to kill/maim the enemy thus removing his ability to fight? if so i am firmly of the opinion that the GC is a load of ######, like the move from 7.62 to 5.56 (where snakebite this is his fave topic...) a 5.56 round will -as has already been said- go in one side and out the other with a minimal amount of dammage where as a 7.62 will stop anything and everything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarauderMike Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 ...a 5.56 round will -as has already been said- go in one side and out the other with a minimal amount of dammage where as a 7.62 will stop anything and everything Actually, a 7.62mm round will go through you, likely knocking you on your ###### and either kill you outright or hurt really bad, due to a number of things including hydrostatic shock... A 5.56mm round (standard NATO, no fanciness), will more often than not - tumble inside your body, causing quite a bit of damage, which can kill you and does a lot of hydrostatic shock damage to your insides. This is why, in the past, some referred to the 7.62mm round as a "killing" round and the 5.56mm as a "wounding" round. Now, granted a dead enemy is always good. But a wounded one, that takes a couple of his buds to carry him off the field, is also good. Depending on the situation, if you have the choice (which many SOF do), you would taylor your weapons to the situation. Lessons learned from Somalia on the part of the Delta was that the special AP(it think) 5.56mm round they used went through a target (like a 7.62mm but without the punch or the lethality). Had they used standard 5.56mm rounds the targets they hit might have become more combat ineffective. Normal infantrymen however, use what they are issued with, 7.6mm or 5.56mm, depending on that nations scale of issue for small arms. Which is better? Depends again on the situation and the nature of the enemy...and if you even have the choice... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 The truth about hollowpoints and the "Geneva Convention" : http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soup31314 Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Ok I'm back now been on the pak border for the last 20 some-odd days. To clear this up some. They are not hollow points. They are actually called long range rounds. But there is a nice little hole all the way thru the tip. As for medics carrying m16/m4 or ak47/ak74. Medics are not doctors so they are not non combatants. Our medics carry m9 at the line level then at the support level carry m16/m4 or m248 saw (yes automatic weapons). But they are trained to only use there weapons to defend a patient. As we are not fight a war against a nation or army. The GC doesnt cover them at all. They are not soldiers. They dont follow the rules. As for the GC we follow it when it comes to civilians and non combatants (IE we dont shoot women and childen or medic vehicles.) In Iraq I carried 10 mags (flat low level), This war its 5-7 (high level, and mountains got to drop the weight to climb hills.) Have a great day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebb Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 WB Soup.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 WB soup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricJ Posted May 2, 2004 Share Posted May 2, 2004 well its just that we only give our medic an m9, ive never seen him with a m16. sorry for my ignorance if I am wrong (I haven't been to the army)..!! but is a M9 not a bit poor?? not an M16 but maybe a submachine gun or colt m4... Our Squadron medics all universally carry M16s (with IR pointers), some with M9s too. But given the nature of the deployment, the people who would normally carry a 9 got issued either an M4 or M16 (mainly depending on rank, or just how many came in) because the 9-mil.... yeah. Matter of fact, I knew this one NCO in the first Gulf War said he had alot of stuff, like AT-4s, etc. But I usually carry 7 magazines, 6 on me, and one on my M4. Then my 249 I got three 200 round boxes, and one 100 round box, and a 100 round bag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F'n New Guy Posted May 2, 2004 Share Posted May 2, 2004 i guess u and soup would know i could write my unit in iraq and ask what their medics carry i just thought since their medics they couldnt carry firepower. my mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarauderMike Posted May 2, 2004 Share Posted May 2, 2004 i guess u and soup would know i could write my unit in iraq and ask what their medics carry i just thought since their medics they couldnt carry firepower. my mistake. Yes, FNG I "suppose" they would. Theirs is the voice of experience...not just a voice. Amazing what a bit of experience or (God-forbid) research will do.... (sigh) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.