Michael Yon: US medavac helicopters and the Crusader Cross

#2
And easily avoidable- Simply slap the Red Crescent on the side instead.

Both are legal symbols under the Conventions, and probably a bit more appropriate to the theatre.
 
#4
No it wouldn't. Go and revise what the Red Cross/Crescent actually means under the Convention.
 
#5
No it wouldn't. Go and revise what the Red Cross/Crescent actually means under the Convention.
Geneva Convention (II) said:
Medical aircraft, that is to say, aircraft exclusively employed for the removal of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, and for the transport of medical personnel and equipment, may not be the object of attack, but shall be respected by the Parties to the conflict, while flying at heights, at times and on routes specifically agreed upon between the Parties to the conflict concerned.

They shall be clearly marked with the distinctive emblem prescribed in Article 41, together with their national colours, on their lower, upper and lateral surfaces. They shall be provided with any other markings or means of identification which may be agreed upon between the Parties to the conflict upon the outbreak or during the course of hostilities.
I took the bold to mean that dedicated Medevacs weren't allowed to be armed.
 
#6
No it wouldn't. Go and revise what the Red Cross/Crescent actually means under the Convention.
Read the article.

The Taliban have not signed the Geneva Convention; a Red Cross denotes an unarmed helicopter which will be even more likely to draw fire, and being unarmed means it needs top cover AH-style, which leads to further delays in getting airborne.
 
#7
Read the article.

The Taliban have not signed the Geneva Convention; a Red Cross denotes an unarmed helicopter which will be even more likely to draw fire, and being unarmed means it needs top cover AH-style, which leads to further delays in getting airborne.
Just because it needs Top Cover it doesn't mean that will result in delays. If the VHR pair are there thy will be legging it to the flightline also. If they are up they will split Either way the medevac heli will lift and route
Our MEDEVAC chinooks are armed same as the standard heli's for Self Defence, just the same as any medic has the right to carry a personal weapon.
 
#8
Forniup, have a look at the article.

Yon puts it very well, and shows how a delay in getting top cover had unfavourable results.
 
#9
Forniup, have a look at the article.

Yon puts it very well, and shows how a delay in getting top cover had unfavourable results.
Hadn't read it when I posted.

Yes a delay in one instance albeit tragic. Delays can be for many things. As far as I can see there is no reason given for the delay in this case. There could have been issues with the Airspace for all we know. I have only had experiance with our Medevac and Pedro. Ours require top cover in a lot of instances they will lift without top cover. Pedro are armed well and when talking to them take great pride in being willing and able to put themselves into any situation to medevac guys.

If you can't see the firing points you can have all the firepower you want on a helicoper but you can't engage randomly especially when you don't have the SA to know where all the friendlies are.

That said, if the Dustoff were configured like Pedro it would seem to make more sence.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#10
Our MEDEVAC chinooks are armed same as the standard heli's for Self Defence, just the same as any medic has the right to carry a personal weapon.
Er......in theatre, UKFOR don't have a dedicated MEDEVAC helo....the MERT use whatever cab is designated ( although they prefer CH47 cause it's big and quick and reasonably rugged).....it carries standard armament because it can (in theory) be re-roled for any requirement at short notice.

Both Pedro and Dust-off use the dedicated Blackhawk variant.


- unarmed 'Dust-off'

- the other ac is the older Vietnam - era UH1b 'slick' , pictured in Somalia

Michael has some form on the issue of, in particular, unarmed US Army ' Dust Off ' helos... see his earlier piece : " An Open Letter to Leon Pannetta and President O'Barmer'
Golden Seconds

I'm guessing his letter got a polite brush-off.......
 
#11
Er......in theatre, UKFOR don't have a dedicated MEDEVAC helo....the MERT use whatever cab is designated ( although they prefer CH47 cause it's big and quick and reasonably rugged).....it carries standard armament because it can (in theory) be re-roled for any requirement at short notice.

Both Pedro and Dust-off use the dedicated Blackhawk variant......
Yes I am aware of that, usualy CH47, usually with Top cover of some kind.
 
#13
Yon is also a grade A nutcase, have a look at the long winded argument on the US SF forum that originated with the above story, there's a link to it somewhere on here, to cut a long story short Yon comes across as a complete head dobber, shame as his dispatches were very good
 
#14
Forniup, have a look at the article.

Yon puts it very well, and shows how a delay in getting top cover had unfavourable results.
BB helicopter operations are not controlled by the Pedro and MERT crews, dependent on the time line of this things have changed, it was originally run by KAF i understand but changed very quickly after the WG incident.

Pedro are quick and both carry miniguns one protects and the other recovers the casualty (which is awesome to watch) both carry paramedics onboard with rifles, thier sole purpose is to get in and get out and do a little bit of life saving within the relms of what you can do in the back of a blackhawk, going flat out back to bastion.

The MERT works slightly different but carrys mini guns, M60 and an armed support team to gether with the APACHE as top cover. However the lifesaving stuff they can do in the back of that platform is quite frankly amazing.

Its not really a speed thing as the Chinook can outrun the APACHE so its more about the assets required and the type of casualty taken, this decision is all based on the 9 liner

Regardless of what badge is painted on it they're all armed and have been since Vietnam so not sure what the septic is moaning about really
 
#19
I get that. But can they shoot at it?
You raise an Interesting Question.

Given they view images of the Prophet as Harram, are they in fact actually encouraged to do so? If tghey are, they are shooting at an image of their Prophet ( PBUH)


aaaaaaargh head hurts.
 
#20
Can't see any problem about arming choppers that bear the red cross emblem:

Art. 22. The following conditions shall not be considered as depriving a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 19:
(1) That the personnel of the unit or establishment are armed, and that they use the arms in their own defence, or in that of the wounded and sick in their charge.
(International Humanitarian Law - First 1949 Geneva Convention)
No logical difference between a medic toting an SA80 and a chopper carrying a .50 or even missiles, as long as the crew uses any weaponry purely "in their own defence, or in that of the wounded and sick in their charge." What would be a problem would be taking a pop at Terry for purely military purposes.

Having dismissed that red herring (now there's an idea for a new emblem!) the question is, "does putting a red cross on the side make a chopper more or less of a target for the Taliban?"
Well, heretical though it may sound, the obvious thing is to ask them. OK, so you're not going to invite them into Bastion for a chat over a pint and a bag of pork scratchings, but roundabout channels of communication do exist, as we all know.
If slapping on the red crescent instead of the red cross would make them leave casevac choppers alone, it would be worth doing.
However, I strongly suspect that as far as they're concerned any of our aircraft are legitimate targets, whether they're carrying casualties or not.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top