The first man with a rifle the silencer. At first I thought it is a variant of the SAR-21, then I thought it may look like a Tavor with a silencer, but alas, I think it is something totally different. Can someone kindly ID this?

Eh? That's a rifle? Looks like an FN-P90 to me.

Yap, its a P90

The dorsal mounted magazine really gives it away.

The FN P90 Triple Rail with silencer

http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg13-e.htm
http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galle...s/1400/1419.htm

p90 used by commandos

just saw STK's CPW. Does SAF uses it?

Evo answered your question. That information can be found on wikipedia, so I guess that's considered open source?

Looking at your question again, it sounds like you're asking about whether the CPW is in use by the SAF? As far as I know, it was still in prototype stage when it was shown in 2008.

yup, confirm FN P90...worth noting is that the rightmost guy is holding an Ultimax Mk2...these things don't die that easily huh :P

yes I am asking about the CPW in SAF usage. I saw it being listed on some gun-mongering website already so thought it could be in production.

I was wondering why the P90 operator has a silencer attached to his weapon,when his other team members are not using silenced weapons. I mean wouldn't that be a defeat of purpose as the unsilenced guns are going to attract OPFOR attention should they ever fire. It is also a pity that the P90 does not come with laser/red-dot aiming devices

Just think about CDO purposes and why a silenced weapon, even just one, might be useful for missions. Range is marginal though.

well, the P-rail is there. perhaps appropriate optics will be attached for real ops. no one likes to risk 1206 on exercise.

most prob P90 assigned to scouts

Its not necessarily so, both LRRPs and Strike teams are assigned it....

The posed picture gives the wrong idea about how a beach landing (covert) is actually done... :P more like landing on the beach for a picnic... :P

Is it just a staged picture? BTW I'm not familiar with SAF protocols etc, but 2nd Soldier from right is wearing what looks like a Red Cross (which pretty much stands out so there goes all the efforts of camo) and carrying a rifle, I was always under the impression that if you wear a red cross, carrying a weapon etc is verboten or violating the Geneva Convention or whatever law which governs the rule of the red cross, hope somebody more familiar with this can explain.

Medics are allowed to carry weapons for "personal protection". They can kill or heal, but no both at the same time, AFAIK.

from Wikipedia:

The first Geneva convention, officially adopted the red cross on a field of white as the identifying emblem. This symbol was meant to signify to enemy soldiers that the medic qualifies as a noncombatant, at least while providing medical care.

According to the Geneva Convention, knowingly firing at a medic wearing clear insignia is a war crime.

In modern times, most combat medics carry a personal weapon, to be used to protect themselves and the wounded or sick in their care. When and if they use their arms offensively, or carry arms that qualify as offensive, they then sacrifice their protection under the Geneva Conventions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_medic

Carrying an assault rifle pretty much qualifies as offensive, IMO. I don't think the team medic will wear the armband in real ops? Weapons for 'personal protection' pretty much means pistols/handguns.

I was thinking along the same lines too really and it just seems odd IMO for someone visibly wearing a red cross and carrying an assault rifle especially these days where the use of the Red Cross/Red Cresent is becoming more contentious.

Well, for the medic, it is required for them to display an obvious vivid logo that distinguish themselves from the other combatants. It is a ruling enforced by the Geneva Convention, e.g. a Hospital much have a red cross or red crescent logo at least 9 squares large and vehicles used for carrying the wounded must display the logos large enough to differentiate themselves from others.

As for the medics carrying SAR-21, I believe it is just an act of standardizing the eqpt given to the troops. But I believe with the up-coming of the SAR-21 carbine, they might be issued with that instead. I dun see anything wrong with carrying a rifle, just like a Bronco ambulance carrying a GPMG.

I am not a medic and know little about the Geneva Convention's protection for medics in war.

But i do know that having a red cross over a white background is a very distinguishable sign even in thick vegetation.

It is also very logical to deduce that if an armed enemy medic is nearby, their troops won't be far away. In times of war, which is filled with chaos and violence, it is really very easy to ignore the Geneva Convention.

Thus my question is that in such scenarios will the combat medic in SAF still display the armband prominently?

A point to note is that i have noticed that the red cross sign on the exterior of older army ambulances are hinged and can be folder up to cover up the sign. This must have meant something.

why kill medics when u can capture them ?

The medic is allowed to carry his organic, personal arms (that means his SAR-21). He is fully aware that during combat, if he is firing, he has all the right to be shot back at. If he does kill someone in combat while mixing in with the troopers at the front, Geneva convention says he's in deep sh!t. That's why during combat he lingers at the back, rushing out to save casualties as instructed by his commanders.

In exercises, he is simply treated as an ammo carrier for SAR-21 users...or if your SAR-21 kena IA, go to him and swap for a working one :P my platoon medic used to complain that the SAR-21's a bit of an overkill for use on wild boars...like what you say, a pistol should suffice :P

[edit] Btw the medic MUST have his armband on during ops...Geneva convention also...

what capture medics when you can maim them? :ph43r:

Yeah. Actually, rather strangely, the Geneva Convention also specifies that the armband must be worn on the left. And it used to be worn on the left until rather recently, and there's been no change to the Convention's articles either. I wonder what's going on there?

By the convention, the Medic cannot engage the enemy except in self defence or in the defence of the wounded in his care. Similarly, the enemy cannot engage a medic or his wounded except in self defence. So if both are shooting at each other, the one who shot first is a war criminal :)

(If I'm not wrong, US Army medics also carry their organic M-16s into battle.)

Why maim them when you can let them do their jobs, and strain the enemy's medical resources?

point being that having an extra medic (captured or not) is always a useful asset to have on a battlefield. medics armed or not are inconsequential. they are far more valuable to either side alive rather than dead.

although technically geneva convention states that captured medic can be used to heal or treat friendly combatants (captured redland medic treat blueland people) only after they have treated their own captured / wounded forces (redland medic must treat redland people first before blueland forces), a loaded rifle pointed to the head changes alot of power relations and helps to "reinterpret" geneva conventions on the ground.

better healthcare means better troop survival rate. more medics = better healthcare. why would anybody want to kill a medic is quite beyond me.

a medic with a rifle is a non issue. a medic shooting back with a rifle is a threat first, then a medic. you neutralize threats first.

stars pretty much sums it up...

but i'm still qt interested as to how come the pic shows CDOs using ultimax mk2...wayang purpose? :P

Could depend on when the picture was taken as well.

Saw this is CNA, can anyone id this?


http://www.channelnewsasia.com/imagegaller...e/phpJdBR2e.jpg

I think its the Famas.

Never noticed this thread before ... pardon my late commentary

I was a medic and even I knew precious little about the Geneva Convention when I was doing my active service in the late '80s. Heck, hardly anyone, at the troop level, in the SAF knew or cared.

Case in point. On an assault, MG team and PS declared casualty. Medic, after administering critical First Aid, picked up MG and used it to support the assault. Exercise Controller was impressed and praised Medic. sidenote - Medics almost never get declared casualty.

The last decade, during my reservist, I noticed a shift in the doctrine filtering down to the individual soldiers. There were suddenly much more ROE lessons with scenario plays. Then and only then did the trainers actually take a different stance on how medics conduct themselves in an exercise. For an old bird like me, the "new" code of conduct for medics and the sudden attention on us was "interesting".
(I had a 6 year break before I started my Reservist stints)

I definately used my firearm and engaged the "enemy" much more, back in the '80s. I can count on 1 finger the number of times I used my weapon, under the new ROEs, in the whole Reservist stint.

Things we used to do last time include flipping the armband around so as to be more "tactical". Flipping it back face up only when contact is imminent. Nobody ever said a thing ... it was all accepted as part of being tactical.

The exercise controllers view that differently these days.


back on topic ... +1 for FAMAS

In my platoon, I was treated as a sort of valuable entity of some kind. PS pretty much told me to hide behind some thick cover and follow behind the platoon by a few bounds. I read up on the Geneva Convention on my own time, and was rather surprised that it dictated that the armband must be worn on the left, (like all the old pictures), but the new directive says to wear it on the right. I wonder when this changed? Anyway, I followed the Convention to the letter, never fired at enemies and stayed out of sight so that they wouldn't have to fire at me :)

Well, except one time during an assault, when my whole platoon got "killed" (evaluation mah, got TES set, cannot anyhow declare who's down, who's not) except for me and one LAW gunner. I went up to my PS, who was bleeding out (that beeping always drives me crazy), and he ordered me and the LAW gunner to go charge the last trench, but told me to strip myself of all red crosses first, that is to say drop my ELISS pack (thanks Senior Medic!) and take off the armband before going, so it looks like protocol was observed.

I was once t-loaned to another battalion to command an M113 ambulance (those fitted with four hanging stretchers) and to my surprise I have to draw a Browning but to pack it under one of the stretcher in case we need to fight.

Well, now you know where the term 'Combat' Medic comes about! :rolleyes:

Now we only mount GPMGs. Cupola no space to mount M2HBs anymore :)

Anyway, Medics can bear arms to defend the wounded under their care, so long as you didn't shoot first, it should be fine :)

I note that in recent times, the SAF Medical Corp has gone through an image makeover. It's good to know too that CMOs are now viewed in a better light than when I was serving. "In my times" ;) CMOs were commonly viewed as PS runners. The Coy medics in my unit worked really hard to change that perception but that was the exception rather than the rule.

It's also interesting to note that in my last few Reservist exercise, the controllers were much more knowledgeable about our medical work. It used to be that declaring casualties was solely about seeing how the PC coped. At least now, they do look at the medics and know what to look for too. It's all good and getting better ...

:)

I remembered in my ATEC, one of the riflemen was declared casualty by the ATEC controllers. The injury was randomly selected and the result was 'severed scrotum'! The guy said no way in hell that he would allow the medics to bandage his balls. Luckily for him, the controller closed one eye.

Its also drilled into us medics nowadays that if we don't get our act together the entire platoon is in trouble, because they can rely on pretty much only us as first responders. I wonder if the other men also got the idea that if they lose the medic, the wounded are pretty much f***ed in a combat situation.

Also, I had a pretty good PS. He was always behind me (usually pushing me up a hill while the GPMG gunner pulled) and looking out for me.

A few weeks ago, Channel 5 was showing Resident Evil: Apocalypse.

Is Oded Fehr, Carlos Olivera from the Umbrella corporation, using a Tavor-21 ?

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3611924736/tt0318627