It's time for a change. The Red Cross MUST be removed. As should all those in the brass who have so far refused to do it.
This commment is unpublished.· 8 years agoDocumented AARs point to the challenges faced in the provision of care - and changes made from these are conitnually being made. However, making the HUGE leap from improving training to removing Red Crosses is a just that - a leap of logic. This should not be taken as a defense for the needs exisiting and the time it took to implement them - but, at the end of the day, it all comes down to using the ever-shrinking dollars that Congress doles out to the Army. And, at the end of the day, EVERY dollar can ultimately be tied to saving lives whether it's for better body armor, better armament, or better medic training. LTC Mabry's report has been used to prepare better application of skill sets. PS - the 92% survival rate is NOT a hollow number. I know for a fact it is not.
This commment is unpublished.· 8 years agoDang -- you say the 92% is not a hollow number; that implies deep inside knowledge and access to any actual study. It implies that you have studied 'the' study.
Show me the money: You either have it, or you don't. Without the study in hand, it's a hollow claim.
Our calls are not just to remove Red Crosses; that's only the most obvious and common sense step. Anyone who defends keeping on the Red Cross will be dismissed as a crackpot or a stooge/mouthpiece. Arming the helicopters is a separate matter. Removing the red cross is just common horse sense.
MEDEVAC is a very complex issue and with many dirty corners.
What is your stance on removing the red cross?
This commment is unpublished.· 8 years agoI have supplied the explanatory graph to the members of the RACAC.
As to removing the red crosses I am not opposed to doing so - they are only visible at a closer range than is normally used for targeting (bull's eye is a term everyone loves to use that belies their real visibility from the ground anyway).
Arming them, IMHO, will NOT shorten response time nor add much in the way of measurable improvements. BUT, I do not have "facts" to back that up - only an opinion.
Where will the extra crew members to man the guns come from? Force Structure is a "zero sum gain" - there MUST be a "bill payer" from some other type of unit if DUSTOFF is to "gain" a third crewmember to man the weapons. That's a "Cold Hard Fact" of life when you start to design new unit manning.
AND, when the medic lands, he/she MUST attend to the patient - manning the weapon becomes untenable (unless you have that third crewmember - see above)
This commment is unpublished.· 8 years agoDANG, I hear your beef about the money and yes the ever shrinking dollars congress allocates to the Army are of course the reality Army command has to address. IT is not a solution to take dollars from other life saving units to have funds for that "3rd" crew member manning the gun some of us want to see in our MEDEVACS. However, if we don't change what some of us feel are bad policies simply because of funds available..well that sort of rationale just isn't okay. Pretty much I think John Q Public (and Jane) will take money out of their pockets to fund the health and welfare of our troops. The red crosses are visible and need to be removed and the MEDEVAC birds need to be armed and the money and the policies need to be there to make that happen.
This commment is unpublished.· 4 years agoRemoving Red Crosses can only be done if the US opts out of the Geneva Convention Accord/Agreements. Have you ever performed duties as a FM ? Have you ever read the Key West Agreement between the services ?
I served as a FM in the 80's/90's and we were fully able to support a patient from pickup to droopy to include severe trauma patients. We were EMT-B's with additional in ACLS, intubation, ATLS, NALS, PALS and everything in between. We trained in all aspects. Just because the credentials don't exists does not mean we weren't capable. Sounds to me like you need to go make your publishing mark on something else.
This commment is unpublished.· 8 years ago[quote name="Dang"]And, at the end of the day, EVERY dollar can ultimately be tied to saving lives whether it's for better body armor, better armament, or better medic training.[/quote]
Don't make me laugh! I'm in the plans office at my unit, a unit whose entire mission is to train Soldiers, and you would not believe (or maybe you would APPROVE) the loads of Army Mandatory Training tasks we have to stuff into the schedules or require the Soldiers to complete between their regular work and lunch. Warfighting? How about the annual "always keep your work area impeccably secure and never let anyone cyber-bully you or the guy at the next desk might be targeted by a Finnish Phishing Scam that is the DoD's Absolute Number One Priority just now" training, or the training to be alert to possible "insider threats" like rednecks or dissatisfied housewives with gambling issues, (which meanwhile reassures us that Islam has to be twisted Jonesville-wise to pose any plausible threat in CONUS), until it's all we can do to make sure we know what WE are training on before we see our trainee units, a couple of weeks a year, ever....
EVERY dollar? When male Army PT instructors are now having to wear mommy-boobs and preg-Nancy tummies for part of their freakin' "Sensitivity Training"? What lives are saved there?