Armed MEDEVAC versus the Geneva Convention
Champagne anyone...?
I've been following Yon online for some time now, including his personal crusade on this particular issue. His "beef" stems from, IIRC, the death of a soldier on a patrol he was observing. The marked, army MEDEVAC helo was delayed, according to Yon, by hierarchy concerns over the security on planned LZ. This compared markedly with the Air Force Pedro rescue helicopters that would come into a "hot el zee" (to quote a thousand war films) armed and unmarked to extract the casualty. The casualty died in the field whilst the hierarchy discussed the matter. Pedros weren't available however Yon asserts that, based on his not inconsiderable experience, had they been then they would have launched, extracted and possibly saved the casualty without a protracted discussion on the matter. He wants to know why the army are so self-restricting when the AF aren't.
He has had questions asked in Congress on the matter, has recently featured on CBS etc discussing the issue and is generally creating waves and annoying yet more Generals - something he has an impressive track record of.
I agree with him to a certain extent although a) I know nothing of big balls helicopter flying and b) he can be a bit of a knob end at times. He does argue some good points but is colossally self important and doesn't take kindly to those who field alternate yet valid viewpoints.
Personally I think marking up a helicopter when operating against a dark ages enemy is just asking for trouble. Claiming moral superiority by painting your rescue cabs with red crosses is all terribly right-on and super but does just make it jolly easy for your non-latte drinking non-SoCal enemy to shoot you down.
I'd vote for no markings and lots of miniguns - it evens things up and doesn't give the bleeding heart bed wetters back home anything to fret about.
He has had questions asked in Congress on the matter, has recently featured on CBS etc discussing the issue and is generally creating waves and annoying yet more Generals - something he has an impressive track record of.
I agree with him to a certain extent although a) I know nothing of big balls helicopter flying and b) he can be a bit of a knob end at times. He does argue some good points but is colossally self important and doesn't take kindly to those who field alternate yet valid viewpoints.
Personally I think marking up a helicopter when operating against a dark ages enemy is just asking for trouble. Claiming moral superiority by painting your rescue cabs with red crosses is all terribly right-on and super but does just make it jolly easy for your non-latte drinking non-SoCal enemy to shoot you down.
I'd vote for no markings and lots of miniguns - it evens things up and doesn't give the bleeding heart bed wetters back home anything to fret about.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
StopStart
Yes, he does seem to write at length on the subject. His initial piece on that soldier and lack of medevac was very in depth which I suppose if you are on the ground waiting, waiting you have time to gather the info.
Would you agree though that he is on the side of the soldiers and has highlighted some interesting points during the two wars ?
Even if he does get up the General's noses, he STILL seems to get approval to go out with the Troops, I believe the odd time where he is banned.
Alfred,
Agree he may be self important but at least he's been there, done that for real and goes out and stays out and write it warts and all, even if he does piss people off. More than some fly in, fly out reporters.
Yes, he does seem to write at length on the subject. His initial piece on that soldier and lack of medevac was very in depth which I suppose if you are on the ground waiting, waiting you have time to gather the info.
Would you agree though that he is on the side of the soldiers and has highlighted some interesting points during the two wars ?
Even if he does get up the General's noses, he STILL seems to get approval to go out with the Troops, I believe the odd time where he is banned.
Alfred,
Agree he may be self important but at least he's been there, done that for real and goes out and stays out and write it warts and all, even if he does piss people off. More than some fly in, fly out reporters.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The realities of casualty evacuation
A bit of military history might help crystallize issues here.
During 5.5 years (2,000 days) of Vietnam operations, No. 9 Squadron RAAF effected 4,357 casevacs/medevacs of Australian, New Zealand, US and Vietnamese military and civilians. Considering 500 plus Australians killed and beyond 3,000 wounded/injured, the balance was much more toward combat casualties than routine medical evacuations. Official records also often reveal multiple night missions during a week of activities.
9SQN operated Iroquois helicopters all armed with M60 7.62mm doorguns which were not just defensive weaponry as presumed by some. I personally forced sizeable enemy groups besieging friendly forces to break off engagements due to suffering casualties from air to ground doorgun suppression by a single aircraft – nobody likes being attacked from the air without overhead protection.
Squadron aircraft were not adorned with big red crosses for casevac/medevac requirements. Majority of casualty evacuations were usually performed by the nearest utility Huey and mostly unescorted, aiming to get casualties to medical care with minimal delay. The US Army also provided an unarmed Huey with big red crosses and a medic on board at the 1 Australian Task Force base, but that aircraft was often engaged by the enemy and whether the medic could do any more for the badly wounded than crewmen/gunners was very debatable. Arresting bleeding and keeping casualties breathing was about the best that could be achieved while getting them to hospital, usually within about 15 minutes.
9SQN normally had 2 crews on standby for casevac/medevac requirements during hours of darkness and RAAF or Army medical orderlies were included in the crew. Ultimately, a Squadron aircraft so crewed was also assigned for the role in daylight hours, but I personally viewed this as a waste of resources given that the unit averaged 13 of 16 aircraft on line daily and all were often required for trooping and gunship functions. The Australian Army was somewhat enamoured by US Army practices so it was trendy (or politically correct) to follow American modus operandi regarding dedicated aircraft for casevac/medevac requirements.
There seems to be a warm and fuzzy notion in some circles that helo casevac in military operations is sort of comparable with civil air ambulance practices. Far from it. Recovering battle casualties during the middle of a brawl often means winching them up in litters while doorguns are chattering with dead and wounded being parked on the cabin floor, sometimes among body fluids and people parts. Getting those who can be saved to medical care as quickly as possible has to be paramount and there is virtually no scope for niceties where flight times to battlefield adjacent hospitalisation are short. However, trained medical personnel aboard suitably-equipped helos like the 'Pedros' may be able to do a bit more to sustain life in cases where ferry to medical facilities is of extended duration.
Re the bits concerning the Geneva Convention. I omitted to mention that 9SQN aircraft in Vietnam all had doorguns loaded with 100 percent tracer for quick aim correction and psychological effect, as many engagements were within cricket pitch proximity. A colleague from that era (40 odd years back) mentioned to me recently over beers that it was contrary to the GC. Me being the one responsible for that initiative as the Squadron Air Weapons Officer, I told him to bugger off (almost politely!).
During 5.5 years (2,000 days) of Vietnam operations, No. 9 Squadron RAAF effected 4,357 casevacs/medevacs of Australian, New Zealand, US and Vietnamese military and civilians. Considering 500 plus Australians killed and beyond 3,000 wounded/injured, the balance was much more toward combat casualties than routine medical evacuations. Official records also often reveal multiple night missions during a week of activities.
9SQN operated Iroquois helicopters all armed with M60 7.62mm doorguns which were not just defensive weaponry as presumed by some. I personally forced sizeable enemy groups besieging friendly forces to break off engagements due to suffering casualties from air to ground doorgun suppression by a single aircraft – nobody likes being attacked from the air without overhead protection.
Squadron aircraft were not adorned with big red crosses for casevac/medevac requirements. Majority of casualty evacuations were usually performed by the nearest utility Huey and mostly unescorted, aiming to get casualties to medical care with minimal delay. The US Army also provided an unarmed Huey with big red crosses and a medic on board at the 1 Australian Task Force base, but that aircraft was often engaged by the enemy and whether the medic could do any more for the badly wounded than crewmen/gunners was very debatable. Arresting bleeding and keeping casualties breathing was about the best that could be achieved while getting them to hospital, usually within about 15 minutes.
9SQN normally had 2 crews on standby for casevac/medevac requirements during hours of darkness and RAAF or Army medical orderlies were included in the crew. Ultimately, a Squadron aircraft so crewed was also assigned for the role in daylight hours, but I personally viewed this as a waste of resources given that the unit averaged 13 of 16 aircraft on line daily and all were often required for trooping and gunship functions. The Australian Army was somewhat enamoured by US Army practices so it was trendy (or politically correct) to follow American modus operandi regarding dedicated aircraft for casevac/medevac requirements.
There seems to be a warm and fuzzy notion in some circles that helo casevac in military operations is sort of comparable with civil air ambulance practices. Far from it. Recovering battle casualties during the middle of a brawl often means winching them up in litters while doorguns are chattering with dead and wounded being parked on the cabin floor, sometimes among body fluids and people parts. Getting those who can be saved to medical care as quickly as possible has to be paramount and there is virtually no scope for niceties where flight times to battlefield adjacent hospitalisation are short. However, trained medical personnel aboard suitably-equipped helos like the 'Pedros' may be able to do a bit more to sustain life in cases where ferry to medical facilities is of extended duration.
Re the bits concerning the Geneva Convention. I omitted to mention that 9SQN aircraft in Vietnam all had doorguns loaded with 100 percent tracer for quick aim correction and psychological effect, as many engagements were within cricket pitch proximity. A colleague from that era (40 odd years back) mentioned to me recently over beers that it was contrary to the GC. Me being the one responsible for that initiative as the Squadron Air Weapons Officer, I told him to bugger off (almost politely!).
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 21st Jan 2012 at 05:50. Reason: Grammar
