I was recently sent a photo of some civilian carbine/vehicle training. Some of the things I saw in the photo bothered me, and I’d like to discuss why.
First, I should probably cover my background, as in the past not doing so has led some people to assume that I did not have relevant experience, although the “about me” link above has the relevant information.
I was an FMF Corpsman (8404) and deployed to Anbar province for essentially all of 2006. I have treated injuries ranging from those caused by knives to those caused by multiple artillery shells, and many things in between. I have taken part in mounted as well as dismounted patrols in varying terrain (rural, suburban, urban) and participated in training and security activities at small fixed bases far from higher levels of care or support. During this and other times, I or the units to which I was attached were the target of direct and indirect fire, IEDs, complex ambush, and near ambush attacks. I also co-wrote an SOP (standard operating procedure) on the treatment of injuries sustained during convoy operations. Okay, moving on…
What many people do not understand about “tactical” medicine, or care under fire, is that time can be as valuable as treatment. “Hey!” you say. “In the photograph above, time seems to be taken seriously! That one guy is seriously injured and needs to be treated right away, so the the other guy is treating him while the woman covers them.”
Well, that’s exactly the problem. In a combat situation – also known as anywhere bullets are flying in two directions – the immediate treatment of casualties needs to take a back seat to the suppression/elimination of the enemy. That’s because fire superiority wins fights, and winning the fight allows you to safely evacuate your casualties to a higher level of care. And in this example, we have three people being taught by at least one instructor that it’s okay for two out of three shooters to be voluntarily taken out of the fight while the third shoots at what appears to be multiple attackers. The attackers are also apparently from the Revolutionary War, because they’ve dressed and covered themselves in a neat row from which to attack.
Having one shooter maintain a static position and empty multiple magazines at the bad guys – while shooting from a position and location that opens a large portion of her body open to injury – is a good way to lose a fight. Once that lone defender goes down (and with multiple opponents, that’s a matter of probability), the remaining attackers are free to move around both sides of the vehicle and kill the first responder as well as finish off the injured guy, neither of which is maintaining control of their carbines.
Not only could the man providing aid be working with the woman to shoot the bad guys, but the injured guy (who probably got shot because he was wearing his drop leg holster too low), if conscious, could also be shooting while he either waits for or receives treatment. It really doesn’t matter what his injury is. At the very least, the uninjured man could put direct pressure on the wound while providing covering fire or looking at the front of the vehicle for bad guys trying to sneak around the front, which the woman cannot see or defend against from her position.
This would double or triple the volume of fire directed at the bad guys, and also provide additional angles from which bullets could be placed on target. The net result would be a more rapid movement of that casualty from the battlefield to a higher level of care. This point seems to be missed by the instructors, although it is somewhat possible that my interpretation of the photo is entirely wrong. I would like to know things such as “why didn’t they drive away?” and “how far away are the bad guys?” but those questions are not readily answered by the photo.
My job as a Corpsman was “to keep as many men at as many guns for as many days as possible,” because that serves multiple purposes. It helps achieves the mission, which is, after all, why the military unit is there in the first place. It limits the amount of time additional forces may be required to take part, thus keeping them from being exposed to enemy fire. And it allows for the most effective and rapid evacuation of those casualties in immediate need of a higher level of care. Which is why I found the Field Medical Service School admonishment “fire superiority is the best medicine on the battlefield” to be eerily accurate.
Not to mention that the woman is decidedly NOT shooting at bad guys in the middle of the mag swap.
this is a great article always have heard the saying the bullets don’t stop flying just because one hit you
“the injured guy (who probably got shot because he was wearing his drop leg holster too low)”
Favorite thing I’ve read this week right there!!
Sometimes you have to laugh to keep from crying. Sometimes I am amazed by how many wrong things one may deduce from a picture.
Iâll start with the obvious – thatâs me in the picture. That woman on the right. You know, the one reloading.
What you can only partially see, due to quality of an image being dropped to 72 dpi and size reduced for web consumption, is another shooter on the other side of the vehicle. You can see the top of his head through the window. If, you know, you bothered to look.
Crop on the image, however, is missing A WHOLE OTHER GROUP OF SHOOTERS! Here’s a picture for you.
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/943402_597517906926277_1212697713_n.jpg
Ms. Tissy
This photo only serves to illustrate my point – how many people are available to return fire but are wasting time pulling the casualty out of the vehicle?
Yes, I could not see the people covering the front.
But the basic point remains – whoever was teaching you these skills needs a refresher in TCCC.
Dear Andrew,
There are 5 people to engage, one to treat.
Upon being declared ready to move, some shooters become movers, while others cover.
The important part, which is not seen in the picture, is the AAR, which points out who did what wrong, and that’s why there are pictures and videos, and then it’s done again, and again, and again. Every one plays the driver hit, everyone gets to be left shooter, right shooter, support shooter… but that, again, isn’t in the picture.
I do enjoy your blog, and we agree on the fact that you need to win the firefight, otherwise there is not point – if everyone is dead, then we’re dead and that’s it.
That being said, we can always agree to disagree and I’ll keep on learning 😀
Thank you,
Tissy
Tissy,
It would not matter if there were 10 shooters – that was not the appropriate time to devote so many resources to treating an injured person.
You are welcome to disagree with anything I say, just know that I am approaching this from the standpoint of having done it under fire.
I applaud your desire to learn and do not take issue with you personally. I take issue with whoever trained you.
I don’t know Andrew.
If I have set up a far ambush on a motor vehicle convoy I want them to stop and dedicate some people to treating the wounded.
First, they are in MY kill box. I chose it and placed my men at the most optimal positions to take advantage of cover and fire arches.
Second, if I am lighting off an ambush I feel that I have enough firepower to take down my threat. So if more of my target unit go down to treat the wounded that further slides the balance of fire in my advantage.
Add to that the knowledge that for every person you wound (to varying degrees) they are going to take at least one to treat and two more to move.
A note here, US military body armor comes with a nifty handle in the back. The primary purpose of that handle is not to make you look cool carying it around (thing M-16), its so one man can drag a buddy. If you are lucky you can drag with one hand an suppress with the other.
Oh, and +1 for carrying a SAW.
Matt P, are you arguing or agreeing with Andrew? The scenario you dictated is exactly why EVERYONE capable of pointing a gun and shooting should be reacting to contact when ambushed.
Also, those drag handles suck. I weighed in at around 270 lbs in flak, Kevlar, combat load, weapon and associated gear. I’ve drug a lot of bodies in training and overseas (fortunately not ours). The idea of being able to drag a guy by that shitty strap, and still have ANY chance of suppressing an enemy is hilarious. Suppression comes from making hits and near misses, and people that have taken a LOT of near misses are hard to suppress when they know unless they are actually being hit, they are still in the fight.
Shoot first, treat later, simple as that.
You want them to do that because if they do that, they’ll lose.
The last time I tried to drag a downed guy (it was a Corpsman actually) by the carry strap, it broke. I ended up dragging him by an arm.
I was playing devil’s advocate and explaining the situation from the enamies point of view. I guess civilian shooting schools wouldn’t teach ambushes because they are decidedly not “defensive” in nature.
I have never tried to drag anyone by the handle, but then I was a trigger puller not a motrin dispenser.
That photo is a good example of just because someone establishes a school, doesn’t mean they know what they’re talking about. I’ll bet there’s a lot of bad advice being passed off as “training” these days by the Johnny-come-lately tactischools.
Thanks for the evaluation of the picture. Learned something new.
That’s what they taught us in Combat Lifesaver school. Kill the enemy first, then treat the wounded. It’s more important to stop them from shooting you some more than it is to patch the wounded.
It’s funny. I looked at the photo before I read the post and thought, “why’s he screwing with the wounded guy? Shouldn’t he be finishing the gunfight?”
Yeah, what I was taught in TCCC is first suppress the mechanism of injury i.e. stop the guys that are shooting at you. Then it’s stop the bleeding, start the breathing, dress the wound, treat for shock.
and yeah, the thigh holster too low is a funny comment.
Interesting point of view historically speaking, since traditionally medics and corpsmen went around unarmed with nice big red crosses on their uniforms identifying their noncombatant status. In which case tending to the wounded was their only priority.
I know that in the past decade those we’ve been fighting haven’t honored the red cross, and neither did the Japanese during WWII, but when did it finally become SOP to arm medics/corpsmen?
We’ve been armed for a very long time, sometimes only with pistols, but from my historical research, it would be rare at any time in history for a corpsman with Marines to be completely unarmed.
Andrew,
I read your article as not intended to address the appropriate responses for FMF Corpsmen. You state that, as FMF Corpsman, it was your job to “to keep as many men at as many guns for as many days as possible.” From that I assume that a FMF Corpsman would primarily respond by tending to wounded. Clearly the circumstances around a firefight would dictate your response, but I do not want to hypothesize endlessly.
Note: I have no mil/le/rick taylor experience.
Thank you for the post.
Yes, we do treat wounded and yes, sometimes under fire. But when faced with a near ambush as the photo seems to indicate, everyone needs to be shooting.
SOP here in Afghanistan for casualities while in contact is to return fire/eliminate threat and immediately deal with life threatening wounds (massive bleeding), everything else can wait until the contact is dealt with.
Time is life, and a numbers game.
Would you rather supress the enemy, counter the ambush, and possibly let one of your friends bleed out… or spend time dressing the wounded during those first few critical moments in a gun fight, and leave both yourself and the whole team vulnerable to be over run?
You’ll lose friends to save the team, it’s that simple. If not, then you’ll have saved neither one.
BTW you never-ever leave your weapon on the deck, that’s what slings are for.
That brings up another question. On a near ambush the proper technique is to assault through the ambushing element. Why is the vehicle stopped? Why aren’t they driving it through the ambush? Why are they dismounting under fire on a close ambush? Clearly they expected trouble, because they are carrying long guns, so just as clearly they could have shot from inside at the ambush while driving through it.
And if the driver was hit and so they chose to dismount and fight, that means they failed to teach “driver down” tactics.
So, you would label this as a “leadership” failure. Failure from the planning, training, and combat decisions?
I think it is an example of a trainer deciding to dictate how a situation should be handled so that the students practice specific skills rather than react to the threat.
OK, guys, First you dismount the vehicle. Then you shoot at the bad guys. Treat the wounded. Fight is over and we score the targets.
instead of
Here’s a scenario, react to it.
You wouldn’t want to hand that scenario to me. I would have driven the car over the targets, scratching all of his nice paint.
Yeah, you gotta get creative. Also, if you are in an environment where you need multiple long guns per vehicle smoke is a good idea to have on hand too.
I think Rick Tayler carries them in his EDC bag…
Heh. I’ve broken more than one live fire scenario by not producing the anticipated response.
Which is, I kinda thought, what my job was as a troop leader — don’t do better at the enemy’s game; break his brain, crush his will, let him react to US. (Lots and lots of bullets in ouchie places does this very well, but handing him a tactical situation he is not prepared for PLUS lots and lots of bullets is better.)
Yeah, the stopping power on two tons @ 44 fps+ with the grill and bumper providing a straight wadcutter profile beats the crap out of any ball ammo issued. Especially if passengers are donating lots and lots of bullets for suppression. Proper response in a small arms vehicular ambush is both feet on the gas, and everyone not driving is shooting high volume suppression.
On the other hand, the scenario might have included a mobility kill on the truck. In which case, “Everyone out of the pool!” is a good plan. Stationary soft skins are just Jiffy Popcorn pans.
However, from what the photo seems to show about angles and sight lines — neither female tailgunner nor aid man is in cover AT ALL. Aid man’s begging for a bullet straight down his spinal column right between his shoulder blades, and the tailgunner seems to be swinging in the breeze. . .
Heh., I just noticed — the tailgunner is ejecting her THIRD mag from the same position, out of cover. Note the two empties on the ground right in front of her. . .
Either:
A. There aren’t many Bad Guys(tm), in which case EVERYONE involved is a bad shot, and this is going to go on like an episode of the original “A-Team” — thousands of rounds fired for very little effect, despite being at a skosh over handgun ranges.
B. There are more Bad Guys(tm) than she can hit with 90 rounds (plus how many the guy in front has fired) from stationary positions, in which case she’s dead. Because someone would have managed to land a round in her by now. . . since the guys INITIATING the ambush are more likely to have gotten off MORE rounds apiece, and from better positions.
Also, also… where was the nearest ditch?
They had to fight their way to the ditch.
Neat read. I’m glad discussion here is generally positive with constructive criticisms. One of many reasons I frequent this blog.
Mr. Tuohy,
I am considering enlisting in the U.S. Navy as an FMF Corpsman. I was wondering if I could ask your perspective on a few considerations from your position of experience?
[1] If you could do it all over again would you still have enlisted as an FMF Corpsman?
[2] If you would have continued enlistment, what direction would you have taken your career as an FMF Corpsman?
[3] What advice would you give to an aspiring FMF Corpsman?
[4] What are some of the pitfalls and/or inadequacies you saw from other aspiring Corpsmen during initial training, professionally and during deployment?
[5] With the drawdown in Afghanistan and cuts to the Military Budget do you still see being a Corpsman as a viable enlistment choice?
Thank you.
Yeah it is impossible to tell everything that was going on in the picture, but I don’t think it was the point to sharp shoot the picture or the training (that is easy to do with any picture without context), but rather use it as a tool to talk about a point because it is not only a common training scar, but it is also a serious problem in the real world. Everyone wants to help their buddy that is down, but you have to play smart and play to win, or you will have more buddies laying next to them…..or you.
Much to read.
Our priority on ships was “Fire, Flooding, Machinery, Personnel”. Same rationale… solve the big unit problem then the individual personnel problems.