embed the medics right into the Coy's

[starlight_745]

It is difficult to separate the two skill sets.  The whole concept of field medical support ranges from minor complaints to sick parade to treating those wounded by enemy action.  It would be very difficult to have two MOC's providing this care.  I remember reading somewhere that during WWI there were 30 times more casualties from disease than enemy action.  I agree that the infantry combat medical care skill set should be improved, hopefully the new Combat First Responder course will fill that void.

 

[old medic]

That reminds me of the old terms "stretcher-bearer" or "cas-aid"....

QL3's should not be giving time off, light duty, etc.  Regardless of what we were doing a few years ago.
Medics need to be accountable up the medical chain.

As for the comment about PRes Pte/CPl's doing it, I have to agree with Armymedic. That was then.

 

[PRL ER NO]

It is nice to see the combat arms soldiers thinking.  The use of "combat first aid responders" is an idea.  However, to remind you, the goal of the enemy is to limit the number of fighters, for example, every wonder why most antipersonal mines only blow off a foot, it takes two soldiers to remove one injuried from the battle field thus limiting the fighting soldiers in the battle.  The combat first aid responders if "embedded" in the fighting group should not be included in the total number of soldiers, ie a section of 8 with 2 first aiders.

I do agree that the first aid skill set should be improved and self aid and buddy aid promoted. 

I find it odd that all of your examples have related to other countries armies.  Their doctrine is different that ours and their set up is also different.  If you combat arms soldiers want embed medics in your units, maybe think of solutions that work with in the Canada army and work with what we have.  I don't like it, but we have to live with it.

 

[Infanteer]

It is nice to see the combat arms soldiers thinking.   The use of "combat first aid responders" is an idea.   However, to remind you, the goal of the enemy is to limit the number of fighters, for example, every wonder why most antipersonal mines only blow off a foot, it takes two soldiers to remove one injuried from the battle field thus limiting the fighting soldiers in the battle.   The combat first aid responders if "embedded" in the fighting group should not be included in the total number of soldiers, ie a section of 8 with 2 first aiders.

I was proposing that the infantry be alloted a "hard position" of platoon medic - since the Medical Corps cannot or is unwilling to fill the position, we should use an Infantryman with a suitable amount of training as a medic.  It need not "siphon" troops from rifleman positions.

I do agree that the first aid skill set should be improved and self aid and buddy aid promoted.

Yup, and by the sounds of things, we're getting better at it.  At least it appears we are moving beyond the "your co-worker falls off a ladder" scenario.

I find it odd that all of your examples have related to other countries armies.   Their doctrine is different that ours and their set up is also different.   If you combat arms soldiers want embed medics in your units, maybe think of solutions that work with in the Canada army and work with what we have.   I don't like it, but we have to live with it.

Sometimes it pays to look at others are doing, especially when their armies have far more real world experience in sustained combat operations.  For us to ignore what the Brits and Americans have learned in three years of fighting for the sake of looking for a "Canadian" solution would be foolhardy.

 

[Armymedic]

Infanteer,
I believe we are on the same net but talking different languages...

Is this really required of a "field medic".  I'm talking about sending guys to patch up people in the middle of a firefight.  The US were able to do it in Vietnam.

I think what you are referring to is a 031 qualified as a Combat Lifesaver (US Army), or Tactical Combat Cas Care (the full US SOF course not the Canadian version). These are those pers in a firefight who would do just basic patch, scoop and run with strictly acutely injured casualties and bring them to the CCP or evac them via veh or helo to a med facility. They do not replace properly trained medical pers, but supplement them. Every Sect could have a CLS qual pte, Cpl, taught as part of a QL 4 course.

You'll still need the 1-3 Med techs per Coy, Sqn, Bty.

 

[medicineman]

This is a question because I am quite unfamiliar with the details of the Medical Branch.

Is this really required of a "field medic".   I'm talking about sending guys to patch up people in the middle of a firefight.   The US were able to do it in Vietnam.   Perhaps there is need to separate "field medic" and "hospital medic up into two different trades?
???

Infanteer,
    The primary health care skills are required of a field medic in a platoon.  The vast majority of what you deal with on a day to day basis is illness or minor injuries.  Speaking for myself, when I was a baby QL5 in Croatia, about 95% of my day to day work was run of the mill sick parade, about 3% minor traumas, and the rest the really scary stuff.  No change when I was in Kabul last year or Haiti this year - actually even less scary stuff.  As per normal, disease and minor injuries accounted for more time lost than operational injuries.
    The medics in Vietnam had to look after the day to day needs of their troops the same way,  whether in their slit trench UAS or in a clinic when back in Battalion lines.  The training received by the Navy guys with the Marines tended to be somewhat better than the Army guys - the Navy corpsmen had better clinical training early, since they could easily find themselves alone or nearly so on a ship somewhere, and then did their field medical training at the Fleet Marine Force Field Medical Schools if they were going to a unit.  Clinical training with the Army folks tended to be either on the job or as formal schooling after their combat medic course - but again had to be done in one way or another.
    Incidentally, this issue of splitting the trade into field and clinical subsets or seperate MOC's came up in the mid 80's - we are still awaiting the results of the survey.

MM