PhilB Posted 6 April , 2006 Share Posted 6 April , 2006 This is an Army Veterinary Corps man. I`m surprised to see the pistol. For shooting horses? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 6 April , 2006 Share Posted 6 April , 2006 And for personal protection as well presumably? Fine looking horse by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger Posted 6 April , 2006 Share Posted 6 April , 2006 Phil, are you sure he isn't Military Mounted Police? Only joking, nice photo. Roger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n cherry Posted 6 April , 2006 Share Posted 6 April , 2006 Not sure if this will add anything...but under the terms of the Geneva Convention medical personnel can be armed for the protection of themselves and their patients. So anyone else (except padres) can be armed and used for offensive operations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzie Posted 6 April , 2006 Share Posted 6 April , 2006 I don't know much about the in and outs about calibre and such. What I do know is that if you do not use sufficient amount of destructive power to kill a horse then you won't do the job properly. To shoot a horse with the instant desired outcome, you need to use an amount of calibre that destroys the brain immediately, by shooting through the forehead and down the spine. It was once described to me as, imagine a cross from ear to eye, angling down the spine. Horses not shot correctly, were known to go mad, becoming a dangerous and sometimes lethal animal. Never mind the suffering of the animal during this time. Regards Kim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 6 April , 2006 Author Share Posted 6 April , 2006 Here`s his mate, another AVC man on what looks like the same horse. Also with pistol. Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sweeney Posted 6 April , 2006 Share Posted 6 April , 2006 Seeing that both men have 03 bandoleers we can presume that they were also issued SMLE's at least available with-in their unit. Joe Sweeney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 6 April , 2006 Share Posted 6 April , 2006 Are AVC men considered to be medical? Do they wear red cross armlets etc? I thought they would be soldiers whose job it is to look after animals. Like the farriers of the Household Cavalry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 6 April , 2006 Author Share Posted 6 April , 2006 That`s how I see it, T. Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc2 Posted 8 April , 2006 Share Posted 8 April , 2006 Are AVC men considered to be medical? Do they wear red cross armlets etc? I thought they would be soldiers whose job it is to look after animals. Like the farriers of the Household Cavalry. This is an interesting question, for which there are probably many answers depending on whether the national Veterinary units were organisationally part of the medical establishment or not. The 1906 Geneva Agreements (those in effect during WWI) do not mention veterinary units or personnel, but grant protection to "sanitary formations and establishments". Thus, it is conceivable that veterinary personnel could be part of the "sanitary formation", and thus protected. This may have been a problem in that the 1929 Geneva Convention does mention Veterinary personnel and equipment, but only in a negative sense-- Article 8(4) notes that Sanitary formations or establishments do not lose their convention protection simply if "there is with it personnel and materiel of the veterinary service which does not belong to it". Thus, it seems that the intent of the 1929 conventions is that Veterinary personnel were not protected. However, Chapter V of the 1929 Convention gives protection to "Sanitary Transports", which would have included horse-drawn vehicles and their supporting personnel-- so it is confused. It could be argued that, under the 1929 agreements, veterinary services used solely for the care of animals used by the medical services were protected, while other veterinary services, e.g. for cavalry units were not. In today's world, many armies use veterinary personnel to carry out food hygiene inspections, and thus they are part of the medical department-- in this case, they would be protected, but this is under the 1949 Convention, which came along much later. Doc2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 8 April , 2006 Share Posted 8 April , 2006 I don't know if it applied then, or whether it applies now in the US, but a qualified veterinary surgeon in this country is also permitted to treat human beings (we are, after all, just another sort of animal). I don't have examples, but suspect that army veterinarians must have saved many human lives during the GW. As the son of a vet myself, I would be interested to hear of any published memoirs of AVC vets. regards Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cnock Posted 8 April , 2006 Share Posted 8 April , 2006 The man in post nr. 1 is not carrying a pistol but a Webley revolver. Regards, Cnock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 8 April , 2006 Author Share Posted 8 April , 2006 It is my understanding that a revolver is a type of pistol? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 8 April , 2006 Share Posted 8 April , 2006 I think Cnock was just clarifying what kind of pistol it is. A Webley .455 would have been an ideal weapon for despatching a wounded horse under field conditions, as the bullet is big enough to destroy the brain without the need for pithing or bleeding to ensure death. regards Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 8 April , 2006 Author Share Posted 8 April , 2006 What`s pithing? Phil B It`s OK - I`ve just looked it up! Severing the spinal cord. I did see a photo of an AVC man carrying what looked like a jack knife but not the usual type with black chequered sides. Did they possibly carry a specialized jack knife for horse cutting? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 8 April , 2006 Share Posted 8 April , 2006 I was afraid you would ask that. It involves inserting a rod through the hole in the skull made by the bullet (or captive-bolt) and manipulating it to further destroy the brain tissue and connections. I don't know if there is a subtle distinction re pistol/revolver in Cnock's own language, but I'm sure he was only trying to refine the description - ie. what he's carrying is not just a pistol, it's a Webley revolver. Talking of shooting horses, the Grand National is due to start in a couple of hours, so let's hope they all get round safely. My shirt's on Forest Gunner, for obvious reasons ... regards Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 8 April , 2006 Author Share Posted 8 April , 2006 I have an old dictionary from the 20s which defines pithing as severing the spinal cord, which I thought would be done by sticking a knife, or similar, directly into the spine? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 8 April , 2006 Share Posted 8 April , 2006 I think that's called 'bullfighting' ! Pithing, as I described it, ensures destruction of the brain tissue and severance of the connections to the spinal cord. Shooting alone, when done properly, using the right weapon, is sufficient in itself. Let's leave it at that. Forest Gunner came nowhere, but fortunately I also had £10 each way on Numbersixvaldeverde regards Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 8 April , 2006 Share Posted 8 April , 2006 I don't know if it applied then, or whether it applies now in the US, but a qualified veterinary surgeon in this country is also permitted to treat human beings (we are, after all, just another sort of animal). I don't have examples, but suspect that army veterinarians must have saved many human lives during the GW. As the son of a vet myself, I would be interested to hear of any published memoirs of AVC vets. regards Mick Interestingly, vets can treat humans (or, should I say, are qualified to), whereas doctors are not qualified to treat animals. I believe this is because vets spend a year doing human anatomy, etc, whereas doctors don't reciprocate. So, it's safer to be run over outside a vet practice than it is to have your dog run over outside a doctor's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now