Medics and weapons
Moderator: DAS MEDIC
Medics and weapons
We have a member who insists that an Artz would have carried a rifle, I'm not convinced does anyone know? Thanks
Hanging up my Knochensack for now, it's been a good war!
Re: Medics and weapons
On the Russian front Medics carried side arms due to both sides not signing the Geneva convention. But on the the Western front i dont think they did not 100% sure thou
And that boys is how you take a penalty.
Re: Medics and weapons
Cheers Jon, I'm pretty sure they didn't on the Western front either...I did read once that the Amis shot medics with more than a side arm.
Hanging up my Knochensack for now, it's been a good war!
Re: Medics and weapons
If they did carry a weapon IMHO i couldnt see it being more than a side arm as a smg or rifle would get in their way while carying out their medical duties, but im sure they didnt cary any weapons on the western front thou
And that boys is how you take a penalty.
-
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:14 pm
- Location: Tunbridge Wells
- Contact:
Re: Medics and weapons
Depending on the ferocity of battle in Normandy for instance, it was not un-common to see medics with side arms, this also depended on the type of the unit the medic was attached too.
Medics in the western theatre were not specifically targetted by the allies, howver in Russia, these were on the high priority list of Russian snipers along with Officers, Pioneers etc.
Medics in the western theatre were not specifically targetted by the allies, howver in Russia, these were on the high priority list of Russian snipers along with Officers, Pioneers etc.
-
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 8:33 pm
- Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
- Contact:
Re: Medics and weapons
Pistols were carried by medics on the western front, but to a lesser extent than in the east. The argument for rifles, SMGs, and MGs seems to be based on a bit of confusion. It wasn't uncommon for soldiers to be pulled off the line to serve as stretcher bearers, still carying their rifles or what-not, which sometimes are seen in photos. Another is that armed guards were assigned to medical companies and sometimes cause similar confusion in photo interpretation.JDR wrote:On the Russian front Medics carried side arms due to both sides not signing the Geneva convention. But on the the Western front i dont think they did not 100% sure thou
FYI, Germany did sign the various Geneva Conventions, as individual Soveriegn States (Prussia, Baden, Bavaria, Wurtemberg, and Saxony) during the 1860's and later as a unified German nation (1906 and 1929). The Nazi government made it clear that they intended to stand by the previous agreements as the conventions benefited their own armies, though their ability to do so waned as the war went on. The reverse can be said of the Soviet Union, as the communist party made it clear that they would not be beholden to any contract or treaty signed before the revolution, including the Russian Empire's signature to the 1864 convention.
Shane
Re: Medics and weapons
"Moscow Tramstop" by Henirch Haape talks about medics picking up MP40's on 22nd June 1941 as a result of the days events IE Medics being shot atJDR wrote:On the Russian front Medics carried side arms due to both sides not signing the Geneva convention
-
- Posts: 846
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:23 pm
Re: Medics and weapons
I had a chat with a leibstandarte veteran at the weekend he was not happy about seeing a German medic with a pistol at beltring "they did not wear them in the west only in russia because the russians would kill the medics". so in the west nothing in the east a pistol or whatever they picked up when they needed it.
Re: Medics and weapons
Thanks for that bit of info... cheers
Hanging up my Knochensack for now, it's been a good war!
- Wolfenberg
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:17 am
- Location: Bagà - Spanien
Re: Medics and weapons
I think tha medical officers were allowed to wear pistol in all fronts and they did, surely, in the Ostfront and in places they can meet partizans (like Yugoeslavia, Greece, Albania, Italy).
-
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:38 pm
- Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Re: Medics and weapons
There's a lot of misunderstanding about the Geneva Convention and whether or not medical personnel are permitted to carry weapons. There was recently a thread on this topic on another forum and there were many photographs posted of Sani's carrying weapons. Here are the pertinent articles from the Geneva Convention:
SELF-DEFENSE AND DEFENSE OF PATIENTS
A-11.When engaging in medical evacuation operations, medical personnel are entitled to defend themselves and their patients. They are only permitted to use individual small arms.
A-12.The mounting or use of offensive weapons on dedicated medical evacuation vehicles and aircraft jeopardizes the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions. These offensive weapons may include, but are not limited to machine guns, grenade launchers, hand grenades, and light antitank weapons.
A-13.Medical personnel are only permitted to fire in their personal defense and for the protection of the wounded and sick in their charge against marauders and other persons violating the Law of War.
SELF-DEFENSE AND DEFENSE OF PATIENTS
A-11.When engaging in medical evacuation operations, medical personnel are entitled to defend themselves and their patients. They are only permitted to use individual small arms.
A-12.The mounting or use of offensive weapons on dedicated medical evacuation vehicles and aircraft jeopardizes the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions. These offensive weapons may include, but are not limited to machine guns, grenade launchers, hand grenades, and light antitank weapons.
A-13.Medical personnel are only permitted to fire in their personal defense and for the protection of the wounded and sick in their charge against marauders and other persons violating the Law of War.
-
- Posts: 1919
- Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 8:32 pm
- Location: Worcestershire UK
Re: Medics and weapons
Jager_Lang wrote:Pistols were carried by medics on the western front, but to a lesser extent than in the east. The argument for rifles, SMGs, and MGs seems to be based on a bit of confusion. It wasn't uncommon for soldiers to be pulled off the line to serve as stretcher bearers, still carying their rifles or what-not, which sometimes are seen in photos. Another is that armed guards were assigned to medical companies and sometimes cause similar confusion in photo interpretation.JDR wrote:On the Russian front Medics carried side arms due to both sides not signing the Geneva convention. But on the the Western front i dont think they did not 100% sure thou
FYI, Germany did sign the various Geneva Conventions, as individual Soveriegn States (Prussia, Baden, Bavaria, Wurtemberg, and Saxony) during the 1860's and later as a unified German nation (1906 and 1929). The Nazi government made it clear that they intended to stand by the previous agreements as the conventions benefited their own armies, though their ability to do so waned as the war went on. The reverse can be said of the Soviet Union, as the communist party made it clear that they would not be beholden to any contract or treaty signed before the revolution, including the Russian Empire's signature to the 1864 convention.
Shane
Having put alot of research into this - Im in agreement. Yes we know there were times when medical staff picked up weapons, but we're supposed to be looking at the rule, not the exception. An Artz is a doctor - thus an officer - thus was entitled to carry a pistol regardless. As for toting an MP40 - VERY douptful. Look on ebay for 'Sani' or '2wk artzt' and look at the photos available. You would see many medical staff wearing their issue pistols, and some may even have rifles in their vehicles. But Ive not seen any effectively carrying rifles, or any combat pictures whereby rifles or MP40s are being carried. This doesnt mean that guys didnt pick up weapons or use them, but like I say, we are looking at portraying the rule, not the exception.
As for krankentraeger, they were normally men from outside of medical units, assigned to carrying the wounded. HOWEVER, some were apart of the medical staff, but not regarded as official Sanis, rather just as orderly/admin staff. So its not unusual for these guys to be armed.
-
- Posts: 2753
- Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:20 pm
- Location: Afra
Re: Medics and weapons
thanks for that tom,
So in the german army, a Sani was a doctor ? and not a 'medic' as classed in the western world ? In the US army, a Medic was a Medic and not a doctor, as a doctor was an officer and a Medic was classed as an NCO.
So in the german army, a Sani was a doctor ? and not a 'medic' as classed in the western world ? In the US army, a Medic was a Medic and not a doctor, as a doctor was an officer and a Medic was classed as an NCO.
-
- Posts: 1919
- Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 8:32 pm
- Location: Worcestershire UK
Re: Medics and weapons
The collective term for medic = sani. But a sani could be an orderly up to a doctor. Doctors were generally addressed by their rank or title i.e. 'artz', 'oberartzt' or 'doktor'.
-
- Posts: 2753
- Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:20 pm
- Location: Afra
Re: Medics and weapons
understood,
cheers for clearing that up tom
cheers for clearing that up tom