New 68W Training

Yep

The last two statements are accurate in my book, the best Corpsman and Medics I have served with were force multipliers in many different facets. Medicine is just one piece of the pie.
 
Doczilla said:
The whole "medic stays with the PSG" idea is not compatible with small unit movements, or even kinetic operations as a whole.

You better be ready to lay down some scunion when needed. Good line medics are qualified on crew-served weapons, and game- changers like mortars, Carl-G, and 40mm systems (203, 320, MK19,and M47).

If you're planning on being useful, you have to be a lethal weapon first--- yet still be a master of the basics up through PHTLS and some ATLS skills.

Being a well rounded medic is not easy.
Click to expand...

True, but far, far too many of our 68Ws put more importance into weapons than medicine.
 
Last I checked the best medicine is preventive medicine, and in combat that's your rifle.
There's also far far too many medics who don't place enough importance on tactical skills, mainly ones that believe they shouldn't be in firefights unless things are going wrong.
 
And how exactly does 'fire superiority' = preventative medicine?
 
The national library of medicine defines preventive medicine as "A medical specialty primarily concerned with prevention of disease and the promotion and preservation of health in the individual." Anyone who's spent a day in combat training, let alone a combat unit, could tell you that fire superiority not only wins battles but keeps your guys alive. It allows you to control the situation, prevents the enemy from maneuvering, and hinders their ability to get off accurate shots. In brief: it's preventive medicine because it's a measure taken that preserves yours and your unit's health.

Considering that you obviously don't know TCCC protocol in both medical and tactical areas and you don't know how fire superiority prevents your guys from getting injured I feel the need to ask again: are you sure you've done any combat medicine for real?
 
*Pretty sure that "fire superiority" means very little against an IED or in a situation where ROEs prohibit effective use of firepower*.

Unless your unit rolls around machine-gunning every rock, lump, and guy they see...

It's people like you who give 68Ws a horrific reputation and reinforce failure.
 
i have to jump in. as both a line medics and a civilian medic. i would much rather have my guys having hands on doing pt assessments. visualizing real patients and having to do basuc life support with me in the rig or with anyone than just trying to teach them in a classroom setting.

now regarding weapon issues. the reason why we gain fire superiority is so that the the person that is going to get him and pull him to cover has a less chance of getting injured. now if you truly know ur tccc like u say u do u would also know that you would be instructing him to do self aid or buddy aid if possible. and yes i do know my tccc :censored::censored::censored::censored: since i do instruct the medic tables.
 
and fire superiority actually has nothing to do with preventive medicine. you have two jobs as a medic in a line unit. first as a soldier second as a medic. in a firefight u have to return fire. once u are able to stop and provide medical aid u do so. also if ur in the middle of giving aid and u need to start returning fire you do so because you are a soldier and primary mission as a soldier is to be superior on the battle field.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is every casualty from an IED? Nope. Is every disease that comes around something you can get a vaccine against? Nope. Same deal. You might as well try arguing that the hepatitis A vaccine isn't preventive medicine since it doesn't protect against HIV.

I've never had an ROE that prohibits effective use of firepower, if you've ever taken an ROE/EOF class you'd know that lethal force is allowed in any situation where military personel's lives are at stake. I've been in situations where "oh this would be much easier if we could simply call in arty" but I've never been told I couldn't use any weapon that my unit currently had at it's disposal if we made enemy contact nor in a situation where what we could use was absolutely ineffective.

Who says you have to roll around "machine gunning" every rock lump etc? You make PID or take contact, you contribute to fire superiority. its simple.

I disagree. It's people like you who make 68Ws look like idiots who don't know their own protocol, are afraid of getting in the fight, and don't know effective use of combat medicine. If anyone is reinforcing failure and giving us a horrific reputation, it's you. You don't even know the basics of TCCC, that's just flat out pathetic and disgusting considering that that is the dogma of military tactical medicine. Perhaps next you'd like to argue that tourniquets shouldn't be applied to extremity arterial bleeds... at the rate you're going I'm half expecting that sooner or later.

And I take your silence as a "no, you have never been in combat as a medic"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
EMT11KDL said:
i have to jump in. as both a line medics and a civilian medic. i would much rather have my guys having hands on doing pt assessments. visualizing real patients and having to do basuc life support with me in the rig or with anyone than just trying to teach them in a classroom setting.

now regarding weapon issues. the reason why we gain fire superiority is so that the the person that is going to get him and pull him to cover has a less chance of getting injured. now if you truly know ur tccc like u say u do u would also know that you would be instructing him to do self aid or buddy aid if possible. and yes i do know my tccc :censored::censored::censored::censored: since i do instruct the medic tables.
Click to expand...

I agree with the top statement in the sense that real patient care always teaches more than trauma lanes/dummies.

I don't think what you'd tell the casualty to do was ever the argument here, the argument was whether or not a medic is a rifleman or not and about basic TCCC guidelines such as breathing management.
 
EMT11KDL said:
and fire superiority actually has nothing to do with preventive medicine. you have two jobs as a medic in a line unit. first as a soldier second as a medic. in a firefight u have to return fire. once u are able to stop and provide medical aid u do so. also if ur in the middle of giving aid and u need to start returning fire you do so because you are a soldier and primary mission as a soldier is to be superior on the battle field.
Click to expand...


Perhaps this is just my take, but doesn't superior mean being the surviving side? The main point of fire superiority might not be to attempt to prevent further casualties but it is a nice little side effect.
 
how i teach it both in the medic tables and cls classes is fire superiority is classified as being in control of the tactical situation. if this means heavy ground fire to gain control than its that. if its firing a few shots and bound forward than its that. each situation will be different. and sometimes its just moving your vehicles into more of an offensive position will allow you to gain control which would allow you to change from care under fire to tactical field care.
 
different strokes for different folks, personally I wouldn't go from care under fire to tactical field care if rounds were still flying unless they were only our rounds (aside for a few pop shots) or if it was an immediate life threatening injury that needed to be treated that minute and it wouldn't put myself in danger or take away from my teams security; but yes situation dictates is really the only absolute truth of combat medicine.
 
Chairborne, slavish adhederance to doctrine is the refuge of the uninformed. Yes, TC3 makes sense for priorities, but it is literally all that 68Ws are trained in, with no critical thinking or assessment required beyond identifying which cookie-cutter patient they have and treatment by rote. You claim TC3 is the be-all of "combat medicine" and go on a tangent about fire superiority, I see no difference in military and civilian care- if there's rounds flying, things are situationally-appropriate, and I react as needed.
I'm arguing that only teaching our soldiers TC3 is a waste of potential that yields inferior medics, you say "hooah" and accept mediocrity. I use my experiences both as a military line medic and a civilian Paramedic to shape shat I say, you go by claims of DZ medic and deployment time.

Find me the relevant portion of TC3 that describes how to ventilate a patient and choose/use an airway, and compare it with a well-taught civilian AEMT or medic class. Show me 68Ws fresh from school who can calculate medication doses or recognize trends and things other than penetrating trauma. You give the hooah answer, I'm saying our patients deserve better care than hooah NCOs like yourself can provide.

Also, BTDT as a line medic, it was awesome, earned my CMB in a little exchange of gunfire where I actually got to play a bit.
 
And disregard for it tends to be the practice of those who think they know more than the doctors and surgeons who came up with it. Are you telling me you don't follow your county and state protocol as a paramedic? No difference here, it's a protocol you follow unless you have a reason not to.

No it's not all that W's are trained in. It makes up the vast majority of AIT but not the entirety of it and in unit training is a whole different matter. I don't say hooah, don't put words in my mouth I don't put them in yours. And I don't accept mediocracy by any means. There is a difference in military and civie care not oy because of resources but also demographics of the major killers. And yes, I speak from my experience, just like all medical personnel do

And sure, soon as you can show me a paramedic straight from school who's only had a total of 16 weeks of medical training who can. You're comparing apples to oranges, and I might as well fire back with "show me a paramedic straight out of school who can perform chest tubes," since it's a skill set that involves different training.

Penetrating trauma is the main demographic of preventable deaths in the military, just as heart failure is the main killer in the civilian world and hence the high focus of ACLS in paramedic school.

Finally, my patient care is fine. I know my way around tactical and sick call medicine, on the other hand I'm pretty sure you made a pretty piss poor line medic simply because of your view of medics as combatants... Your infantrymen deserved better than someone who wasn't willing to cover their ***.
 
Yet you tolerate inferior training of your soldiers by endorsement of the limited, lowest-common-denominator TC3 the Army teaches.
 
Lowest denominator TC3 is CLS, not whats taught at medic school. No I endorse it for being what should be taught for AIT since that's the only skills a brand new medic will ever perform in a situation where he won't have someone to turn to for help or guidance. In a clinic he'll have senior medics and his PA easily available. In a hospital he'll have nurses and doctors as well. Even if he's working the line and pulling sick call on some remote PB where he's the only medical personnel around he can still reach his PA by radio. In combat though there is no dispatch or medical supervisor to hit up. Therefore he should be taught what he absolutely needs to be able to perform alone. Too bad paramedic school didn't teach common sense you obviously need some.
 
And again: AIT teaches you enough to be able to go to your unit and learn. Medic school isn't taught in the same way as paramedic school. Scope of practice is dictated by unit, not national or state, and they're not going to send trainees out on ride alongs in afghan to refine their skills with hands on care...
 
Finally, what exactly is wrong with teaching a simple base knowledge first? I'm sure you'd agree that you should be a basic before a paramedic, so your high horse aside what exactly is the difference here? Start with base knowledge and build off of it, the basics are never "inferior".
 
I don't agree paramedics should be basics first, nor do I agree with most military "protocols". In the civilian sector, poor protocols are avoided by many of us, and leave the agency open to lawsuits if they are found lacking (hypothetically)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top