Medics need to transition to combat arms and have OSUT training similar to the Infantry... change my mind?

CSM Michael Chavaree — Wed, 06 Mar 2019 02:33:11 -0500

As we divest combat medics from MTFs and Focus more on the wartime capability of combat medics how do we increase lethality and survivability? What if... day one training was combat medic focused instead of BCT, then getting introduced to medicine. Interoperability with combat arms, asset vs. liability, decrease flash to bang from requirement and demand signal to execution of capability. Thoughts?

Response by MAJ Javier Rivera made Mar 6 at 2019 4:56 AM

MAJ Javier Rivera — Wed, 06 Mar 2019 04:56:01 -0500

Although it makes sense becoming a 68W requires a lot of time and focus do to amount of information and skills the SM needs to absorb and learn. Therefore I, with my limited medical knowledge but a former receiver of their service , prefer those trainees to learn the required medical knowledge and skills once they mastere them integrate them in the tactical game. My humble opinion.

Response by SPC Bradly Martin made Mar 6 at 2019 10:15 AM

SPC Bradly Martin — Wed, 06 Mar 2019 10:15:09 -0500

Nope I totally agree. I loved our medics but not going to lie we had a few turd medics work with us. Turds because they only wanted hospital duty or sick call duty. They dragged in the field.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2019 10:20 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Mar 2019 10:20:35 -0500

I agree, but that would require splitting them back into two separate MOSs like they were before they were reintegrated into one MOS (91W) back in 2006. Until then, AMEDD C&S has their dirty stinkin' paws all over them claiming technical proficiency because a small portion of medics will work in clinics, hospitals, and CSH's.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2019 4:28 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Mar 2019 16:28:23 -0500

I agree with the principle of integrating training more “forward in the battle space” so to speak, it wouldn’t work well in an IET setting.

1. The problem with 68W training as is (and this is an opinion), is that although it is intense, it doesn’t adequately set up medics to perform a lot of their medical functions. Unlike other branches, soldier medics don’t go through a clinical/ride time portion for their training, which is very key in civilian EMS training programs. Students do not get to integrate skills with clinical/emergency presentations. The training is, essentially, a rushed job in the end.

2. There is a significant body of skills and knowledge that the 68W in AIT doesn’t get but needs. Although I can’t expect 68Ws to all be paramedics, they do need to be familiar with how to use monitors, vents, and various other equipment, along with some knowledge of them that allows them to integrate better both in clinical and forward environments. TCCC is relatively easy all things considered, but operating in an FST may not be so straight forward. They are asked to far exceed what they were taught, and I think the army has realized they need more rounded medics.

3. A lot of 68Ws get stuck in more administrative roles that limit their medical exposure. It’s easy to say a unit will continue to train a new medic up, until all medics do is MEDPROS. This is why I think longer 68W AITs are needed with actual clinical rotations: units often fail to continue to develop their medics. This way they have a good basis of knowledge and skills at least.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2019 11:13 PM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Mar 2019 23:13:16 -0500

I agree to the training part. The Geneva Convention is very explicit on what medics can and can't do. I do think that medics and infantry should cross train. This would be similar to what we have with Special Forces medics. That training would be challenging and also provide the capability for training and advancement rather than ignorance. Also, everyone in the military should have at least basic life saving skills as first aide and Cpr (rescue breathing) are part of basic. The medics acting in an Infantry capacity and vice versa would make them targets. The main duty of a medic is to save lives and protect their patients. Patients include friendly and enemy as medics must treat both. Infantry on the other hand is taught to protect against the enemy therefore that would be the challenge to overcome.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2019 9:45 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Mar 2019 21:45:54 -0500

Just my opinion MSG I believe medics need to be dynamic in and off the battle field in unit sustainment and combat roles. I personally feel that an extension of AIT for medics is warranted not only in increasing combat effectiveness but technical expertise. I feel medics need to be incorporated into unit level training on a grander scale than they are, which should increase the combat expertise for line medics. We as an MOS are so diversified by our individual experiences that we largely become ineffective in any roles that we are unfamiliar with. The worst line medics starting off are ones that have just come from a hospital, conversely our line medics on average have substandard medical knowledge than our hospital counterparts. Combat techniques and medical training arent that difficult to incorporate into a unit METL, as such I truly believe that a push for increased medical education should be our focus, if we train for medical effectiveness when we incorporate medics from the MTFs into the units who should train them in their combat roles we will have a more rounded combat medic. I do think that it will be interesting to see how we as an mos adapt to future requirements though, with the incorporation of the ECM program and the dynamic needs of the future how will we ensure that medics receive not only the technical knowledge to sustain a patient for up to 24 hours but the tactical abilities to work with our linemen effectively and being an asset in combat as well as during patient care.

Response by SFC Casey O'Mally made Mar 21 at 2019 5:30 PM

SFC Casey O'Mally — Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:30:02 -0400

Two problems:

First, AIT length. 68W AIT is approx 4 months. Tack on BCT and you are looking at being in OSUT for almost 6 months. That is entirely too long for a standard OSUT rotation.

Second: Branch support. The rest of the medical branch is not combat arms. They do not operate and are not focused as a combat arms branch. Moving 68W to combat arms will cause issues at senior planning levels as branch planners and doctrine writers have to shift focus for one MOS within their branch. Are PAs combat arms, then, as well? What about Medic PLs? They are more logistician than medic, but it would be ludicrous to say the medic is combat arms but the PL in charge of them is not, wouldn't it?

No, medics are not combat arms. Especially since, in most circumstances, they are not engaging the enemy (yes, they CAN use a weapon to secure wounded, understood, but that is not their primary function). But that is OK. Not everyone SHOULD be combat arms. Someone has to tell the grunts where to point their weapons, has to make sure they HAVE weapons to point, has to get them to where they need to be, has to make sure they are fed, and has to put band-aids on their boo-boos. If I have to send a bunch of folks into a firefight, would you rather have one more combat arms guy, or a guy who makes sure those combat arms guys live to fight another day?

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 12 at 2024 10:50 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Nov 2024 10:50:49 -0500

This is a late comment to this post; however, there are somethings that, when considering this question, must be taken into consideration. Across the military, medics are considered support personnel. The medical side of the military is considered (although perhaps not publicly) a support function. Medicine is always cyclical. In time of war, it becomes paramount (at least publicly) that medics and medical personnel stand at the peak of readiness. In the absence of War or conflict, meh…let’s forget lessons learned. Access to care will always trump combat medical readiness. Local agendas will always trump REAL medical readiness. Contracting out jobs (gotta get those civilian jobs up and become the areas largest civilian employer to keep those senate seats) once provided opportunities for proficiency and autonomy. Cuts…if I’m going to take away something…it won’t be the things that go fast or blow things up. With a large portion of the medical force (military wide) being less than truly ready, adding just one more thing to be competent in will give one more reason for medical readiness to dwindle even further.