Whats wrong with this soldier?

[joebahama]

http://cgi.ebay.com/BBI-Elite-Force-...QQcmdZViewItem

Well for those of you that may know I'll elaborate:

This soldier is supposed to be a WW 2 Medic attached to the 101st Airborne circa Normandy 1944.

Well he has .45 pistol on his belt and he is carring a M1 Garrand Rifle.

The Problem:

Medics in the US military did not carry arms, ammunition, or explosives of any kind in accordance with the then subscribed Geneva Convention. This applied to army medics and Navy Corpsman attached to Marine Units in the Pacific as well. Once you wore that Red Cross on your arm or your helmet you weren't even supposed to pick up a rifle to hand it to a combatant. In fact many conscientious objectors to the draft were pulled into the Medical Corps and Chaplain Corps. I think this was amended in the 60s after combat scenarios changed and it was realized that most belligerent nations did not obey this rule just like the Japanese and Germans did in WW 2 and most certainly the Vietcong in the 60s. Just a little something I remember from Military History 135 from College. I don't think medics carried arms until the latter part of the Vietnam war perhaps sometime after 1967. But I am sure it wasn't in World War 2.

Oh and by the way I do like these new WW2 paratroopers from BBI elite force.

Heres a few more:

http://cgi.ebay.com/BBI-Elite-Force-...QQcmdZViewItem

http://cgi.ebay.com/BBI-Elite-Force-...QQcmdZViewItem

http://cgi.ebay.com/Ultimate-Soldier...QQcmdZViewItem

[GungHo]

True, that most medics did stay true to the "Red Cross code".......but I've read several stories about medics carrying a side arm in WW2......and Vietnam.

[Clutch II]

beep your wrong heres a link to read:


http://www.nwha.org/news_1Q2003/news_page5.html

[Clutch II]

heres the piece:



Observers of period photographs will quickly notice that British orderlies are usually armed with pistols. It is a mistaken assumption that the Geneva Convention forbade medics from carrying weapons--they were only forbidden from using their weapons in a combatant or offensive role while on medical duty. Obviously, the line between using a weapon in self-defense and using one to attack the enemy can depend on one's perspective, and the U.S. Army strictly prevented its medical personnel from carrying arms to avoid the potential for misunderstanding. Judging from published accounts, however, it would seem that the British orderlies tore off their Red Cross armbands during firefights and assumed a combatant role far more frequently than American medics.

[Obiwanjacoby]

Can't we simply ask BBI about their historical sources? From what I hear the figures are based on real-life individuals. More possibility of a "break with uniform code" that way.

-PJ

[joebahama]

Well I personally met a medic that was attached to the first Infantry Division (The Big Red One) during World War 2 and he told me that once you went into Medic Training the US army's policy was that you were not to be issued with a weapon. The only type weapon allowed was their knife and that was to be used for other purposes. I agree that in a combat scenario with all **** breaking loose a medic may actually have to pick up a weapon to defend himself or another soldier; but I doubt if one would overtly carry a holstered .45 or a M-1 Garand rifle.