RAMC personnel at liberty to bear arms

[BJanman]

Hi

I have been trying for a while now to establish whether or not RAMC personnel used arms during the Great War. Information from men who served at the time indicates that they did not, examples include the 'R.A.M.C.' poem by W H Atkins, from The 'Southern' Cross, which starts "We carry no rifle, bayonet nor bomb, but follow behind in the rear." and Pte Braid's entry in his personal diary, which states "We carry no arms of any kind, and we are at the snipers’ mercy. They are up trees and lying hiding about, just on the off chance of picking you off." Even Frank Dunham wrote in his personal diary, which is in the book 'The Long Carry' that he gave back his rifle when he was picked to become a Regimental Stretcher Bearer.

I have now spoken to RAMC WW2 veterans and they advise they did not carry arms. However they said they could have carried arms for protection of their patients but were not issued with arms, with the exception of officers who were sent to places of extreme danger.

From past discussions on the forum and talking to WW2 veterans I have come to believe that from 1898 all RAMC personnel were trained to use arms [even conscientious objectors, as opposed to those who enlisted into the Non-Combatant Corps] but they were not equipped because they were under the protection of the Geneva Convention. If this is correct then presumably in the Great War they would have been allowed to pick up the rifle or revolver of the wounded soldier they were treating and use it to protect the wounded soldier.

I know it is a long shot but does anyone have any information that would prove this did happen?

Thanks

Barbara

[auchonvillerssomme]

This has been discussed a few time with no difinitive answer, there have been quotes from the relevent geneva conventions that state that they could carry arms for defence but I have never seen pictures of RAMC O/R's carrying weapons and to be honest during WW1 I think there would be limited or no need for them to carry arms.

Mick

[SiegeGunner]

See post #11 on this thread, Barbara - http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...=141007&hl=

[auchonvillerssomme]

That still doesn't answer the question though, whether RAMC personnel used arms during WW1.

Posters keep going off thread and discussing modern practice, which if anyone wants to know the modern practice I can from experience give a difinitve answer being ex RAMC myself.

[BJanman]

Thanks guys. I remember contributing to the 'Weapons for Tradesmen' thread but couldn't remember the title and couldn't find it again. I have looked at the link to 'International Humanitarian Law - Treaties and Documents' and will print it off and have a good read.

I know the question of whether or not the RAMC carried arms has been discussed before on the forum, with the conclusion that they didn't, but what I cannot understand is if they were at liberty to bear arms then why didn't they. For example, Pte Braid states they were at the mercy of the snipers but everything indicates that he could have picked up a revolver or pistol of the man he was carrying and fought back for protection. If it did happen then I am guessing evidence would be found in regimental war diaries, which I do not read, as it would be RAMC personnel on the front lines who would need to do this. I am guessing it would be safer for men in CCSs or hospitals to allow the enemy to take them prisoner than fight back if they came under attack.

This question is close to my heart because my Great Uncle, 473546 Pte Charles James Bolton, RAMC was killed by a sniper.

Thanks again

Barbara

[Andrew Upton]

The simple answer seems to be that although permitted to carry arms and use them, medical personel rarely did so. The only Great War example I have ever seen (courtesy of Paul Reed) was a MO in the front line wearing his holstered revolver. This might be due to what seems to be the continuing and erroneous belief by many (including civilians as well as soldiers at the time and today) that medical personel carrying arms is against the Geneva Convention, or that whilst permitted it is somehow against the spirit of the Convention and creates a negative impression if done. I myself favour a more practical reason - when you're up to your arms in blood and gore the last thing you want to be fiddling about with is a rifle or revolver as you have other things to be attending to.

[clive_hughes]

This is a bit of an extreme and unusual incident, but...

when the "Welsh Students Company" RAMC were under training in the UK early in 1916, on one occasion they were lectured by a fire-breathing officer (granted he might not have been RAMC himself) on what to do when reaching the Front.

He told them to rip off their red cross brassards as soon as possible, pick up a gun (there would be plenty lying around, he assured them), and start fighting! This company consisted of theological students mostly training for the Nonconformist Ministry. It had taken some persuasion for them to enlist in the first place, as their tradition was on the whole anti-war. They were left boggling at this "advice"!

They can't have been trained in arms for similar reasons, and any attempt to have done so would have drawn protests which the various accounts of their service would surely include.

LST_164

[BJanman]

Hi Andrew

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I understand that priority would be to patch up the casualty as quickly as possible and get them off the battlefield to safety, and this means they could have been up to their arms in blood and gore but I am not convinced that is the answer. Pte Braid indicates they were at the snipers mercy because they were not armed, he doesn't say they were at the snipers mercy because of the nature of their work. I thought I had found the answer as the Geneva Convention states they are only allowed to use small fire arms but then saw that rifles and pistols are small fire arms. Maybe there was an unwritten law that told them not to pick up a weapon of a combatant soldier as it creates a negative impression, which was your first point.

I wasn't expecting anyone to give examples because I'm still not convinced the RAMC, at that time, were at liberty to bear arms. I will keep looking for clues.

Barbara

I think it is safe to conclude that the fire-breathing officer giving the lecture was not RAMC

[SiegeGunner]

In the crowded conditions of the Western Front, medical personnel were presumably seldom far from the protection, or at least covering fire, of armed soldiers. But what about other theatres, perhaps in particular East Africa, where the enemy was not the only hazard?

[BJanman]

That's a good point. I will see what information I can gather about the RAMC's involvement in East Africa.

Barbara

[Andrew Upton]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I understand that priority would be to patch up the casualty as quickly as possible and get them off the battlefield to safety, and this means they could have been up to their arms in blood and gore but I am not convinced that is the answer. Pte Braid indicates they were at the snipers mercy because they were not armed, he doesn\'t say they were at the snipers mercy because of the nature of their work. I thought I had found the answer as the Geneva Convention states they are only allowed to use small fire arms but then saw that rifles and pistols are small fire arms. Maybe there was an unwritten law that told them not to pick up a weapon of a combatant soldier as it creates a negative impression, which was your first point.

I wasn't expecting anyone to give examples because I'm still not convinced the RAMC, at that time, were at liberty to bear arms. I will keep looking for clues.

I'm sorry, but the 1906 Geneva Convention is quite clear on the matter, and from it's repetition in a number of RAMC issue documents and similar the point was very much reinforced.

The only Geneva Convention relevant to the Great War period is the 1906 Geneva Convention, replacing as it did the 1864 Geneva Convention, and in turn being replaced by the 1929 Geneva Convention. The 1906 Geneva Convention was ratified by Great Britain on April 16th 1907, and by the United States on February 9th 1907.

The entire 1906 Geneva Convention can be read from a digitized scan/copy of an example printed in book form in 1916 at the following address:

http://www.archive.org/stream/genevaconvention00confuoft

or as a transcribed version (without the additional notes simplifying the main points alongside the main text) at:

http://www.vlib.us/medical/geneva.htm

Chapter 2, Article 8, Points 1 to 3 (page 7 of the 1916 digitized copy) relating to the protection of medical units is quite clear, and reads as follows:

“Article 8.

The following facts are not considered to be of a nature to deprive a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 6:-

1. That the personnel of the unit or of the establishment is armed, and that it uses it arms for its own defence or for that of the sick and wounded under its charge.

2. That in default of armed orderlies the unit or establishment is guarded by a piquet or by sentinels furnished with an authority in due form.

3. That weapons and cartridges taken from the wounded and not yet handed over to the proper department are found in the unit or establishment.”

The accompanying notes beside them read “Rights to protection not affected”, “Defence of wounded, etc., allowed”, “Armed guards permitted” and “Undelivered arms, etc., of wounded”.

At no point is any reference made specifying what form arms for defence may take, nor specifying what form they may not take, only that they are allowed, and reinforcing that fact several times.

I have also been through the rest of the 1906 Geneva Convention to see if reference to this issue is made anywhere else, but it is not, and is solely confined to Section 8.

[Andrew Upton]

Additional supporting evidence can be found in the book Royal Army Medical Corps Training 1911 (reprinted 1915). The entire book can be read as a digitized scan/copy at the following address:

http://ia350640.us.archive.org/flipbook/fl....us.archive.org

Chapter XIX, pages 190 to 200 covers the Geneva Convention, both the 1864 and 1906 versions. In the general introduction on page 190, paragraph 363 says the following:

"363. The protection afforded to the personnel of medical units is not forfeited by the fact that they carry weapons for self-defence or hold the arms and ammunition of the wounded who are under their care.

In the convention of 1864, these points were not clearly expressed, and the protection was only given when sick or wounded were actually found with the medical unit. In the new Convention the protection is granted in all circumstances."

”

At no point is any reference made specifying what form arms for defence may take, nor specifying what form they may not take, only that they are allowed.

On page 195, Article 8 of the 1906 Geneva Convention is again covered (minus the additional notes) and reads as follows:

"Article 8.

The following facts are not considered to be of a nature to deprive a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 6:-

1. That the personnel of the unit or of the establishment is armed, and that it uses it arms for its own defence or for that of the sick and wounded under its charge.

2. That in default of armed orderlies the unit or establishment is guarded by a piquet or by sentinels furnished with an authority in due form.

3. That weapons and cartridges taken from the wounded and not yet handed over to the proper department are found in the unit or establishment."

”

Again, at no point is any reference made specifying what form arms for defence may take, nor specifying what form they may not take, only that they are allowed, and reinforcing that.

I have also been through the rest of the 1906 Geneva Convention as printed in here to see if reference to this issue is made anywhere else, but it is not, and is again solely confined to Section 8.

Also of note is the paragraph at the bottom of page 124, entitled WARFARE IN UNCIVILIZED COUNTRIES”:

"249. Whilst the general principles already described are applicable to warfare in countries not signatory to the Geneva Convention, there is this essential difference that sick and wounded cannot be left on the field to be cared for by the enemy. The medical units may require an armed escort, and the medical personnel may have to carry arms for the defence of the sick and wounded in its charge and for its own protection."”

Yet again, at no point is any reference made specifying what form arms for defence may take, nor specifying what form they may not take, only that they are allowed.

[Andrew Upton]

Yet more supporting evidence can be found in the Manual of Military Law 1914 in Chapter XIV, paragraphs 187 to 189, pages 262 to 263:

"187. It is expressly permitted that the medical personnel and medical orderlies may be armed and may use their arms for their own defence, or for that of the patients under their charge, against marauders and such like (g).

188. In some armies it is the practice to use trained soldiers as medical orderlies, while in others it is not; it is therefore expressly permitted that a piquet or sentinels taken from a combatant arm may be used as a guard to a medical unit. This guard, however, must be furnished with an authority in due form (h), so as to ensure that the privileges of the guard of a medical unit, which are, whilst it is so employed, identically the same as those of the medical personnel, are not obtained improperly (a).

189. The fact that the arms and ammunition belonging to wounded men are found in a medical unit or hospital must not be construed to constitute an act harmful to the enemy. Every endeavour should, however, be made to hand over such articles to the proper department as early as possible (b.)."

The accompanying notes beside them read Arms., Armed guards.”and Arms of wounded. References (g), (h), (a) and (b.) are as follows:

"(g) Geneva Convention art. 8 (1).

(h) Mandat in the original French, i.e., a written statement signed by a responsible authority. The members of such a guard need not wear the badge referred to in para. 214.

(a) Geneva Convention, art. 8 (2) and art. 9 (para. 2).

(b.) Geneva Convention, art. 8 (3)."”

Once again, at no point is any reference made specifying what form arms for defence may take, nor specifying what form they may not take, only that they are allowed.

[Andrew Upton]

Here is also the 1909 (amended to 1914) Musketry Regulations, Section 87A., paragraph 434A., page 159, pertaining to soldiers of the RAMC and AVC, stating:

"434A. Recruits of the R.A.M.C. and A.V.C. will fire practices I to IV, table B (Royal Artillery, &c.), Appendix II. The following standard will be required:-

Practice 1. – All shots in a 12-inch ring. Those who fail to attain this standard will repeat Practise 1 until they do so, or expend the full allowance of ammunition. Ammunition not required for the above practices is to be expended on preliminary training on the 30 yards range as considered necessary.

Trained soldiers of the R.A.M.C. and A.V.C. quartered in South Africa will fire Table B (Royal Artillery, etc.), Appendix II."”

This shows that they were not only expected to be familiar in the use of the rifle, but also proficient in its use.

[BJanman]

I'm sorry

Well I'm not because you are really helping me.

I can see you have studied the Geneva Convention in depth, and I really do appreciate you taking the time to provide so much information and highlight the important and relevant parts. I did try to find the entire version through Google but was not successful. I noticed it was revised, [in 1946 I thought], which confused me a bit because I was not sure which version I was reading when I did find information. I read about the small fire arms here under A-6. Defense of Self and Patients under Care. I suspect now it is from a different version altogether. I have cut and pasted what you have provided here and also bookmarked the links. There is a lot of information so it will take me a while to read and digest but I may come back with questions, if that is ok.

The parts you have highlighted on my previous post may seem to be contradictory. If so then what I mean is the difference between being allowed to carry arms and being allowed to bear them, as in to have or display. RAMC personnel [with the exception of officers in extremely dangerous areas] in the Great War do not appear to have had them or displayed that they used them to protect themselves or the wounded. I'm just looking for evidence that they did use them, or the reason why they didn't if they could have used them. i hope that all makes sense.

I will get reading, thanks again for your help.

Barbara

[Andrew Upton]

The parts you have highlighted on my previous post may seem to be contradictory. If so then what I mean is the difference between being allowed to carry arms and being allowed to bear them, as in to have or display. RAMC personnel [with the exception of officers in extremely dangerous areas] in the Great War do not appear to have had them or displayed that they used them to protect themselves or the wounded. I'm just looking for evidence that they did use them, or the reason why they didn't if they could have used them. i hope that all makes sense.

I will get reading, thanks again for your help.

It helps that I already had the same argument elsewhere when someone else decided to say the Geneva Convention said something it clearly doesn't if you actually take the time to read it

It seems that the myth of it being against the Geneva Convention mostly comes from soldiers personal accounts were they say it's against the Geneva Convention, although clearly not the case, and this is re-inforced by the fact that medical personel in period photos and the like are just about never seen with weapons. As I said, I've only ever seen one picture of a clearly medical Officer with his revolver. Why this is the case I don't know for certain, but it's not because it's against the Geneva Convention

[Ghost]

Think about it, if you were carrying a stretcher with a wounded man onboard, complete with all his bits and bobs, rifle included, the last thing you would need is the extra inconveinience of your own rifle and ammo which you are unlikely to have time to use..

Alan

[Doc2]

Alan, I can't agree with that comment. I've been a medical officer in combat, and I can tell you that I always had my weapon, as did my medics. There are lots of historical examples (in the US forces, at least-- I am not as familiar with UK military medical history) of medical personnel actually having to use their weapons "for defence of themselves and their patients". To carry this a bit outside the WWI era, in Viet-Nam, some Medevac Helicopters were armed with Machine guns, since the Viet Cong had a nasty habit of "ambushing" evacuation helicopters responding to a soldier in need. Doc

[KevinBattle]

There has recently been at least one thread dealing with the aftermath of attacks (I think "Acts of Compassion"?) where it was mentioned that stretcher bearers had been fired on because the Germans had seen them collecting rifles.

Most soldiers seeing "stretcher bearers" collecting weapons would feel that the humanitarian aspect of a truce was being abused.

It's also perfectly possible to mistake stretcher bearers for troops as the red cross armband may not always be visible. Mistakes and misunderstandings must have been commonplace, where the collection and treatment of wounded was not seen to be by red cross wearing "soldiers".

I can imagine instances where mates would be attempting to rescue their wounded, regardless of wearing armbands, causing confusion as to whether they were "legitimate" targets or not. Wearing any weapon in those circumstances would invite the enemy to conclude you meant to use it.

Were stretcher bearers expected to bring back rifles etc? Surely the difficulty of bringing back a wounded man would mean discarding all personal equipment where possible, pack, greatcoat etc to get to the wound, and you wouldn't want to carry any more weight than necessary.

My Dad was RAMC in Part 2, I don't recall him talking about any weapons or training, even in Palestine, where there were attacks on soldiers. My own reaction to seeing men collecting weapons during a truce to rescue wounded would be to suspect the motives of them all, and be prepared to fire at the next one picking up a gun....

[squirrel]

FWIW, my uncle, who died last year, was a Sergeant with the RAMC in Palestine just after WW2 at the time of the bombing of the St David Hotel. He told me that outside of a military establishment, in uniform he wore a side arm and when off duty in "civvies" carried a concealed sidearm also.

[BJanman]

Were stretcher bearers expected to bring back rifles etc?

Regimental stretcher-bearers maybe but I don't really know. I did read an article by a soldier who said he was warned not to let the RAMC near his rifle if he was ever wounded because he would never see it again. He was wounded and explained what it was like going through the chain of evacuation and how at each stage he lost a small part of his kit, lost because of the busy environment. I remember the story because it made me wonder if that was why the RAMC got the nickname Rob All My Comrades. If I remember rightly he did lose his rifle in the end but it was a long way down the chain.

Barbara

[Ghost]

Agree with what you say Doc2, all I am saying is that if you were in a WW1 trench and had to go and gather the wounded, you would not be too concerned with taking pot shots at the enemy. Getting everyone back into the trenches in one piece would be at the forefront of your mind, so unnecessary baggage,in this scenario, would not be welcome. Conversely, if you were under fire, the last thing you would be cared about would be stripping off a soldiers equipment, get out off the fire first.

Does, the Geneva convention apply to ambulance drivers and seretcher bearers as it does to medics?

Alan

[KevinBattle]

I wonder if the confusion is precisely that?

RAMC against stretcher bearers, ambulance drivers etc... how would an enemy know which was which?

If he knew the chap was RAMC he wouldn't expect him to pick up rifles etc, just get on with treating the casualty... however, someone in his own Battalion as musician/stretcher bearer might well know the guy and if asked to pick up his rifle, kit etc might just do that.

Therefore you could have people legitimately caring for the wounded, but one set picking up kit to bring back with the wounded.

How would you tell which were fair game and which were not. Surely stretcher bearers had red cross armbands?? What else would distinguish the RAMC "non combatants" from stretcher bearers from the attacking Battalion?

[Andrew Upton]

Does, the Geneva convention apply to ambulance drivers and seretcher bearers as it does to medics?

Chapter III, Article 9 of the 1906 geneva Convention would suggest so:

"CHAPTER III.--PERSONNEL.

Article 9.

The personnel engaged exclusively in the collection, transport, and treatment of the wounded and the sick, as well as in the administration of medical units and establishments, and the Chaplains attached to armies, shall be respected and protected under all circumstances. If they fall into the hands of the enemy they shall not be treated as prisoners of war.

These provisions apply to the Guard of medical units and establishments under the circumstances indicated in Article 8 (2)."

HOWEVER, in Chapter VI it is made clear that personnel covered by the Convention must wear the red cross on a white background to show they are protected:

"CHAPTER VI.-THE DISTINCTIVE EMBLEM.

Article 18.

As a compliment to Switzerland, the heraldic emblem of the red cross on a white ground, formed by reversing the Federal colours. is retained as the emblem and distinctive sign of the medical service of armies.

With the permission of the competent military authority this emblem shall be shown on the flags and armlets (brassards) as well as on all the material belonging to the medical service.

Article 20.

The personnel protected in pursuance of Articles 9 (paragraph 1), 10, and 11 shall wear, fixed to the left arm, an armlet (brassard) with a red cross on a white ground, delivered and stamped by the competent military authority, and accompanied by a certificate of identity in the case of persons who are attached to the medical service of armies, but who have not a military uniform."

I believe Stretcher Bearers only wore the SB armlet, in which case they would technically not fall under it's protection.

I think in rereading one of the pages I may have come across some more evidence as to why it was generally perceived to be against the Convention - Article 186 reads:

"186. The privileges accorded naturally cease if medical units and establishments are made use of to commit acts harmful to the enemy : for instance, to shelter combatents, to conceal guns, or to carry on espionage; or if the personnel take part in combat (d). Certain acts, referred to in the following paragraphs, which in the past were considered to be of a harmful nature (e), do not now deprive a medical unit of the protection afforded by the Convention (f).

Elsewhere it was referenced how a Medical Officer might be able to lead an attack or similar, in which case he must first discard his Red Cross emblem (effectively depriving himself of the protection under the Convention to allow him to legally do so) until such time as he ceases fighting, in which case he might replace the emblem.

I suspect, as I mentioned earlier, the potential detriment to the image of medical troops if seen routinely carrying arms was considered important, even though legally they were allowed.

[truthergw]

Captain Dunn, author/editor of " The War The Infantry Knew" was the MO and it is strongly suggested that at one stage of an action, he took command of the fighting. This is communicated in such a way as to imply that it was not something which would be welcomed by the powers that be. I do not believe that any one wearing a red cross brassard could remove it, use a weapon and then replace it. I wonder under what circumstances a stretcher bearer or medical orderly could use a weapon to protect a wounded man? This is a subject of more than passing interest to me as my grandfather , along with other wounded, was left behind in an enemy trench in the care of a medical orderly when those of his comrades fit enough to do so, were forced to abandon them and try to make their way back to the British lines. As far as I am aware, the medical orderly was taken prisoner along with the wounded. If anyone is curious as to what a stretcher bearer did in battle, they could do worse than read " The Great Push" by Patrick MacGill, a novel about a stretcher bearer at the Battle of Loos by an accomplished writer who served as a stretcher bearer at Loos.