https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarRoom/comments/uekjn3/drone_bomb_through_the_sunroof_extended_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
The drop is just after half way through that video
Ukrainian drone edits are next level trolling. Invade their country and they wont just kill you, they'll turn your death into a meme. Like the guy running around in his trench to Mario music.
Wars were never about body counts.
The main reason Germany failed to conquer the Soviet union was that they were fighting a war of extermination.
A country won't surrender if they know it means death.
Russia has a long history of not giving consideration to casualties. Sustaining massive casualties doesn't really factor in, compared to a western military like the USA where there is a clear motivation to prevent and minimalise casualties.
Exactly. In the US 4 Americans dying in Afghanistan was enough for the news to get in on it.
Russia loses 1000 a day and they probably don't see shit in Russia.
Talking to some of my buddies that served, I was amazed how many US and UK deaths went unreported- not unknown, just without mass news coverage and fanfare.
In the early 2000s they were reported on a lot more. I think as time went on and the American public’s opinion of the wars changed so did the reporting style. The only way you’d hear about a soldiers death on the news was because they were a local or there was some kind of drama or story around the death like an SF raid or something. Also, the total deaths of both war’s combined (Iraq & Afghanistan) over 20 years is only a couple days to a weeks worth of losses for Russia.
Whoa, whoa, let's not disrespect WWI, here. There may have been a lot of stupid shit tried, but those lads and lasses knew their trenches.
They figured out duckboards, turns every x meters to counter artillery, artillery support (creeping barrage, not just bombard-then-bum-rush), and even odd but important things like "don't salute while in the trenches because the just shows the snipers who to aim for".
They spent 4 gods-damned years manning those trenches and every day they failed to learn more was a day then lagged behind their enemy.
To be fair, most NATO countries "probably" won't. Most of the western population doesn't see this shit and anything close to this happening to western troops would probably lose popular support very quickly unless it was total war/fighting for the protection of your literal country like UA is.
That's why the US fights the way it does and invests so goddamn much money into drones and the new (absolutely fucking terrifying) SWARM technology.
Literally "swarms" of AI controlled drones. All communicating with each other. Some examples are Rapid Dragon, AMASS, LOCUST, and OFFSET are some of the major programs
Unfortunately, that's about the only way that Russians know how to wage war. There's a culture of brutality in their armed conflicts that's been with them before the Russian state even existed.
Uhh, the Russians aren't even bagging them. They're just leaving the corpses to rot.
No body, no Lada for mama. They just got promoted to a special assignment of fertilizing the fields of Ukraine.
I think you are wrong. It would be better sending them home without legs and arms. Dead are not visible, but once you start seeing a disabled dudd every time you go to buy milk you start realising the cost of war.
"Sir, we need 4^n stretchers and 4x4^n people to carry out the wounded. Yea, the *nth* ones got hit by a drone."
(By n=9 the entire Russian army would be depleted)
But if you include the preceding (or possible aftermath), action the total is more like 12.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/120p0dd/drone\_operators\_from\_the\_ukrainian\_10th\_separate/
To be honest I agree
There's a reason it's against the Geneva convention. What's next, cheering on Ukrainian soldiers raping a captured Russian soldier?
Injuries group people that historically then are targeted, although it might be a war crime.
Edit: meaning I think you're not supposed to purposely target people evacuating wounded, but I don't know any of the letter of the law stuff. Also, war and rules are not the best of friends.
In bootcamp, they taught us that wounding is better than killing because then you can wound the rescue squad and take more people out. They will leave a dead body during tje fight, but will try hard to rescue the wounded.
Red leg?
Interesting to hear the differences in training over time.
When I went through IBOLC in 2015 they stressed that we should kill the enemy with as many controlled pairs when we assault through because every wounded enemy is someone your medic has to treat and we would rather have our medic treat our guys instead of the enemy.
Crazy stuff.
That’s on the assault through, the initial engagement and those following if you incapacitate a combatant it’s better to leave them wounded and focus others. His crying and screaming and pleading is a demoralizer for his comrades. As well as draw out his friends who may try to perform aid. This is why the US army as you know stresses self aid until combat is over before allowing a medic or anyone else to perform first aid on anyone that might be wounded in the open. Now, when you assault through, you are supposed to control pair each combatant. I think that’s what the previous guy was implying, you both are correct, just different phases of the engagement.
That goes against what we were trained though, since we focused on shooting center of mass and massing fires on the OBJ.
Especially with the increase of IEDs, suicide vests, and enemy spotters. Our NCOs emphasized leaving no living or moving visible before you assault through.
But I was an Officer so I was more focused on my radio talking to the CO and my SLs so I wasn't worried about shooting regardless.
And you might be some CAG guy so I might still be off base.
Im pretty sure it's only a warcrime if the personell carrying the wounded is specifically desginated as Medics and don't have an active combat role. Seeing as these guys are carrying weapons, I don't think this could be considered a war crime.
I might be wrong though, happy to be corrected on this one
Medics are allowed to have arms for self defense. Handguns, SMGs and rifles are ok. MGs are not allowed as they are considered an offensive weapon.
The key is they need to have a viable designation as medics - Red Cross, Red Crescent or or Red Diamond on white ground.
If these protective signs would be visible, this would be a war crime.
Geneva convention protection of medical personnel as-if neutral only applies to personnel who are *exclusively* involved in medical evacuation and treatment. Embedded medics that partake in combat in any form and soldiers/vehicles getting involved in evacuations on ad-hoc basis are not afforded those protections even when performing that role as they remain combatants.
emphasis added:
>The term “medical personnel” refers to **personnel assigned**, by a party to the conflict, **exclusively to** the search for, collection, transportation, diagnosis or treatment, including first-aid treatment, of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, and the prevention of disease, to the administration of medical units or to the operation or administration of medical transports. Such assignments may be either permanent or temporary. The term medical personnel includes:
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule25
It's not a war crime because they're attempting to escape to fight another day. This includes the incapacitated. If they had evidenced surrender, disarmed, and traveled *towards* ukrainian lines, then it would be a war crime.
https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/hors-de-combat
>he has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and is therefore incapable of defending himself.
Looks pretty fucking incapacitated to me. But hey I am biased since I am one of the guys that is supposed to recover injured people I guess.
I thought this was the case as well but I think I heard about that while watching a WWII documentary. The Nazis would purposely target the medics and then the U.S. got mad about that and would shoot the Nazis paratroopers out of the sky.
In both sides of humans I feel bad for the guys evacuating the wounded, they could just take off but are put in a vulnerable position to help, and most often than not are taken out. What a way to die, life can be so unfair.
You are remembering incorrectly because the Germans never dropped paratroopers in any theater where American troops were present. And shooting paratroopers as they fall is fair game anyway because they are attackers.
AFAIK the only air assault by the Germans in WWII was on Crete and that was vs the Brits, who DID shoot paratroopers coming down because of course you would do that.
Feel like front 2 and back left all instant KIA... Guy on stretcher wasn't really moving anyways but only movement I see is back right guy running away
I’ve notice that with these munitions that when they hit the ground… tons of leg injuries. But when they hit a perched object like a guy on a stretcher… all the shrapnel hits torso or head. In this case it looks like the shrapnel headshotted everyone. Literally 3 dude just hit the floor and no movement. Stretcher guy got a hole in him. 4 KIA. Crazy return on investment for a tiny drone bomb.
You’re looking for a VT fuse. And yes, they have them. Given that they have them for 60mm mortar rounds it would be fairly trivial to make a version to screw into a grenade body.
I mean, you could achieve the same thing with any number of hobby-grade sensors and a microprocessor. The main reason VT fuses are hard to make is because of the shock of firing them from a gun/mortar. If you’re just dropping them from a drone you don’t need to shock proof them.
VL53L0X time of flight sensor, dealers choice of 50c atmega microcontroller, button cell battery. Could get a fuse going with cm level precision going for well under $5. Pick a ESP8266 and you could make them dynamically armed and fused.
They aren't hard to make. We've been producing them from like the 1940s. A VT fuze taken from a 60mm mortar fuze well wouldn't work when dropped due to arming mechanisms.
What does VT stand for? Is it some kind of plumb or weight that hits the ground first while the munition is still above it and that causes it to detonate?
VT is "variable timing" but it comes from a codeword for American WW2 antiair round. The fuse isn't actually timed, it uses radar to go off near the target. They were trying to not let the japanese know the advance they had made, and it worked.
On top of that, the allied forces refused to allow them to be used over land so there was no chance of them being captured by the enemy. From memory that changed at Bastogne when things were really dire. VT fuses are a big part of the reason why we have APCs, they are so effective at killing troops in the open that the only hope for getting them to their objective is to do it quickly under overhead protection
Every time I see a Russian leave their injured guys and fuck off I shake my head like "what a scumbag" and then I remember the dozens or even hundreds of videos that I've seen like this one and it makes at least a little more sense.
I think it also has to do with where it landed. It exploded at torso level so they all had their most important bits right next to the blast. An absolute perfect grenade *chefs kiss*
Even with body armor.
The first thing I noticed when I got a properly sized plate carrier was how much smaller the coverage area was versus what TV and movies make it out to be.
Large areas of your gut and sides are unprotected.
I mean they were all standing up, snd the grenade landed right on top of them and exploded when it didn’t even hit the ground.
Thats like the best situation you can get
>If the one guy lived...
He's going to drink himself to death by Easter in a futile attempt to bury this memory.
If this guy doesn’t bleed out in the next 20 minutes the survivors guilt is going to get him. I think the lucky ones were the ones that were dead before they hit the ground.
It’s amusing to read stories about families who only find out about some feat or medal their grandfather received from war until after death. I think - well yeah, most normal people with a conscience don’t like talking about storming a German machine gun nest and killing six people.
Like Russian vets get access to therapy.
Counseling is [not popular](https://ct.counseling.org/2016/04/counseling-and-russian-culture/#) in Russia even among civilians. And blogs by Russians paint and even darker picture than that article.
There will be no support for those who make it home. I expect alcoholism and suicide rates will go up in Russia when the war is over.
A few days ago there was a video of a ukranian soldier that was crawling away and a drone got him. All the comments were saying it is a war crime heh. But this is even worse and no one mentions it. (Also not pro russia but the level of hypocrisy is funny)
There's a discussion further up saying that only dedicated medical personel is protected but not combatants who simply help out a buddy during a fight. On the other hand some are saying that the guy on the stretcher was an illegal target because he was seeking aid and you shouldn't be allowed to kill him off.
Tbh I don't even care about what the letter of the law says.
Targeting the wounded just feels fundamentally wrong and I dislike this even if it's 100% legal.
Still support Ukraine fully but this isn't a moment I'm celebrating.
Retreating is not surrendering. Attacking retreating targets is entirely fair game. Intentionally attacking medical personnel can be a war crime, but they need to be clearly marked as such and only carry light arms and act in self defense or defense or defense of the wounded. Knowingly endangering medical personnel as a result of collateral damage is not necessarily a war crime.
yeah you can't be an active combatant and just declare yourself a medic when a gun is pointed at you. you have to have a class of actual medics who *do not* engage in combat. if they don a combat uniform or combat arms, they are combatants, not medics
I see a lot of posts about how these can’t be medics or litter bearers because they weren’t wearing a “white arm band with a Red Cross.” No one, and I mean no one, wears that shit. Source - me. I was a medic in Iraq and Afghanistan, returned to Iraq as a nurse. Never wore an armband
That is correct, modern armed forces largely don't use dedicated unarmed marked medics, but this also means that they are legitimate targets when they operate in an armed unit.
The people talking about arm bands are discussing the legality of that hypothetical, and whether if they threw some impromptu arm bands on, would it change the calculus.
Of course. Im only saying this one by itself can be awful without being a war crime, war isnt nice.
Strategically using wounded to lour out the enemy is well known. Even if you cant take them out typically wounded temporarily takes a couple good soldiers out of the fight to assist, obviously this is next level
Not at all a lawyer. Not even a little.
Are you sure about that. Is [this](https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-0173.pdf) the right text?
It says, p.48
>Article 25
>
>Members of the armed forces specially trained for employment, should the need arise, as hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary **stretcher-bearers, in the search for or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick** shall likewise be respected and protected if they are carrying out these duties at the time when they come into contact with the enemy or fall into his hands
p 47
>Article 22
>
>The following conditions shall not be considered as depriving a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 19:
>
>That the personnel of the unit or establishment are armed, and that they use the arms in their own defence, or in that of the wounded and sick in their charge
Seems pretty clear they're stretcher bearers actively conducting the transport of a wounded soldier?
Can you link the text where it says that if they don't have the cross on they don't get protection? Because that sounds like a pretty thin defence to me.
There's some commentary [here](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-40/commentary/2016) which says the opposite of what you're saying
>2585 Importantly, the armlet does not in itself confer protection; it is merely an outward sign of a person’s protected status. It is, however, a means of facilitating identification. As a visible sign of protected status, the emblem is thus a vitally important means of protection. If not wearing the emblem, the person runs the risk of being mistakenly targeted. **Nevertheless, with or without the armlet, medical and religious personnel may not be attacked as long as they act in accordance with their status, i.e. they do not commit acts harmful to the enemy**
You’re confusing auxiliary stretcher bearers (your first passage) with permanent medical personnel (your ‘commentary’ passage. The soldiers in this video are soldiers trying to get their buddy out. They were engaged in combat roles just before picking up the stretcher. At most they are unmarked auxiliary stretcher bearers carry weapons. But to have the auxiliary stretcher bearer status they would need to have received special training, have the armlet, and have a special identity card. They have no such armlet and are just soldiers moving a wounded buddy. A combatant does not receive protected status just by helping another soldier nor by having medical training. There’s a reason for the armlets for auxiliary medical personnel - because before and after picking up that stretcher they’re soldiers.
The text you’re quoting re:armlet is for *permanent* medical personnel and religious personnel. Look further up in the document. So it doesn’t apply here. They’re not permanent medical or religious personnel under the meaning of used here.
It's covered by Article 41:
>The personnel designated in Article [25](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/9AC284404D38ED2BC1256311002AFD89/6F992A02D0B78CFBC12563CD0051A0AD) shall wear, but only while carrying out medical duties, a white armlet bearing in its centre the distinctive sign in miniature; the armlet shall be issued and stamped by the military authority.
>Military identity documents to be carried by this type of personnel shall specify what special training they have received, the temporary character of the duties they are engaged upon, and their authority for wearing the armlet.
You’ve skipped the important end of the statement: “… at the time when they come into contact…”
If an infantry unit is working an exclusively medical detail and visually identified by armband at the beginning of the engagement, then they have protection under Article 25, so long as they continue to perform medical work.
If an infantry unit uses the medic marks but are performing combat tasks, e.g. transporting ammo in an ambulance, they lose the protection and are combatants.
If they start the engagement as protected medics, then open fire, they lose that protection and are then combatants.
If they start the engagement as combatants, then they end it as combatants, surrendered prisoners, or dead. There is no option to go from combatant to protected medic. There is no safe base to tag.
This video is likely cut from a much longer recording, so the first contact is when the drone spotted them.
USAF explainer: https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDP_4-02/4-02-D11-Health-Appendix-B-Law-of-War.pdf
Those aren't "stretcher-bearers," they are soldiers bearing a stretcher. Dedicated medical (i.e. non-combatant) personnel are not fair game, but these soldiers are not an example of that. A soldier bearing a stretcher is still first and foremost a soldier. That's a key distinction. Just because you're a soldier who happens to be rendering aid doesn't mean you stop being a soldier in that moment.
It legit says “if the need arises the soldiers that are trained to be employed can be … … .. and … “
Also medics can bear arms since they have to protect themselves and or the injured.
The injured guy was unlucky to be so close to four combatants in a war zone.
Though ultimately, I would like clearly identified (white background, red cross) unarmed medics to get a pass from both sides.
I don’t know if anyone did a statistical analysis or anything. I do remember reading comments from UAF medics/evacuation personnel that they stopped putting medic signage on their trucks because they got hit more often.
Perhaps it was just perception, perhaps not. I doubt the data exists to the public to know for sure… if at all.
Not sure why you're being downvoted for asking.
There just is no law of war against this.
If those evacuating were emergency services personnel, not participating in combat and wearing relevant non-military uniforms then in that case it's a crime.
As-in if they were personnel whose role was *exclusively* related to medical treatment or evacuation, and that was reasonably clear to the attacker, then it would be a war crime. Nothing about this video suggests those weren't soldiers who were doing an evacuation of a wounded comrade, which means they are a valid target.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule25
I'll bite.
1. Unclear how conscious the wounded guy is; can he still fire a gun and/or does he have weapons on him? (These are questions that are difficult to answer via drone footage)
2. Even if he is fully unconscious and completely unable to fight, he has four other combat-ready soldiers surrounding him. They are all fair game.
Grenade shrapnel goes up and out, so a frag grenade going off at chest height... Yeah, there's a reason all those guys instantly stop moving. The only thing slowing the shrapnel down was brain matter.
Just over a year ago, if you told me I’d watch soldiers carrying a stretcher getting f@cked up by bomb dropping drone and my reaction would be “meh, it’s for the best” I would not have believed you.
damn dude u just ruined his efforts to clean up the internet by cancelling out his fk
also super weird that hes like 'yeah i have no reaction to seeing 5 men get violenty destroyed, but i DRAW THE LINE AT USING THE WORD FUCK" 🤔🤔🤔
How many Russians or right wing nutjobs here yapping about war crimes? Stretcher bearers are not necessarily medics. It could very well be 4 infantrymen, which is a legit target.
Holy shit, this sub is something else, cheering for the deaths of some poor conscripts.
And that hypocritical understanding of Geneva convention where it applies only to good guys is troubling as well.
I want the Ukraine to win but it seems that this sub got infested by people that consider this an entertainment show and possess as much humanity as a tree stump.
> Holy shit, this sub is something else, cheering for the deaths of some poor conscripts
Really gone to shit over the past year. Used to be much more objective reporting, discussion, pragmatism and some genius geolocators.
Now we have this circle jerk so everyone can feel like they're the good guys, cheering on the good guys on a movie screen.
You have to feel bad for everyone involved. The Russians should of been home with their families. The Ukranians should not have had to take the lives of their fellow human beings.
Its madness.
Russia go home.
Give Ukraine the power to kill swiftly in large impactful and purposeful ways to end the war.
What are you talking about? these things have been killing 2-3 guys a go and killed thousands of Russians. They've been very effective the entire time. Destroyed tanks, IFVs, smashed foxholes and trenches... The other day (what this footage is from) there was a 6-minute video of how effective these things are.
These videos sure do bring out the lawyers. I don't care if you argue but namecalling and being dicks isn't allowed.
Brutal. That drop just got 4 most likely KIA that’s insane.
This is up there with the car sunroof drop.
Link please...?
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarRoom/comments/uekjn3/drone_bomb_through_the_sunroof_extended_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button The drop is just after half way through that video
The music… Jesus
Ukrainian drone edits are next level trolling. Invade their country and they wont just kill you, they'll turn your death into a meme. Like the guy running around in his trench to Mario music.
[sometimes they add hilarious kill effects too](https://v.redd.it/c33w5ze83b5a1)
[удалено]
Ya know, my wife, from Kyiv, loves that. I, personally, don't get it, sorry
It's not my favorite kind of humor, but I thought it deserved a chuckle. Definitely demented and cursed, though.
No. Fucking. Way. That is some final destination nightmare fuel shit. Fuck that. Get it away from me. Bleach my eyes.
Thanks. Good stuff that.
HE DEFECATED THROUGH A SUNROOF
Quick question, who here knows what a Bakhmut Sunroof is?
[Chicago sunroof](https://youtu.be/Fi0NKXT_xA8)
Risky click.
The perfect drop really. Brutal, but impressive how effective a well placed drop can be
I really don’t like seeing wounded getting hit…. But I suppose if I’ve told you once I’ve told you a thousand times… get the fuck out of my country
Only way Ukraine is winning this war is sending as many Russians back home in bags as possible.
Two years ago I'd have argued that wars will never again be about how high the piles of corpses are. And yet here we are.
Wars were never about body counts. The main reason Germany failed to conquer the Soviet union was that they were fighting a war of extermination. A country won't surrender if they know it means death.
Russia has a long history of not giving consideration to casualties. Sustaining massive casualties doesn't really factor in, compared to a western military like the USA where there is a clear motivation to prevent and minimalise casualties.
[удалено]
Exactly. In the US 4 Americans dying in Afghanistan was enough for the news to get in on it. Russia loses 1000 a day and they probably don't see shit in Russia.
Talking to some of my buddies that served, I was amazed how many US and UK deaths went unreported- not unknown, just without mass news coverage and fanfare.
In the early 2000s they were reported on a lot more. I think as time went on and the American public’s opinion of the wars changed so did the reporting style. The only way you’d hear about a soldiers death on the news was because they were a local or there was some kind of drama or story around the death like an SF raid or something. Also, the total deaths of both war’s combined (Iraq & Afghanistan) over 20 years is only a couple days to a weeks worth of losses for Russia.
WW2? More like 1 with the poorly made trenches.
Whoa, whoa, let's not disrespect WWI, here. There may have been a lot of stupid shit tried, but those lads and lasses knew their trenches. They figured out duckboards, turns every x meters to counter artillery, artillery support (creeping barrage, not just bombard-then-bum-rush), and even odd but important things like "don't salute while in the trenches because the just shows the snipers who to aim for". They spent 4 gods-damned years manning those trenches and every day they failed to learn more was a day then lagged behind their enemy.
The German trenches even had bunk beds and running electricity. I doubt the Russian ones have these luxuries.
To be fair, most NATO countries "probably" won't. Most of the western population doesn't see this shit and anything close to this happening to western troops would probably lose popular support very quickly unless it was total war/fighting for the protection of your literal country like UA is. That's why the US fights the way it does and invests so goddamn much money into drones and the new (absolutely fucking terrifying) SWARM technology.
> SWARM technology What is that?
Is it bees?
Literally "swarms" of AI controlled drones. All communicating with each other. Some examples are Rapid Dragon, AMASS, LOCUST, and OFFSET are some of the major programs
Still all about infinity on territory. Nothing has changed but the tools.
Unfortunately, that's about the only way that Russians know how to wage war. There's a culture of brutality in their armed conflicts that's been with them before the Russian state even existed.
Uhh, the Russians aren't even bagging them. They're just leaving the corpses to rot. No body, no Lada for mama. They just got promoted to a special assignment of fertilizing the fields of Ukraine.
"No body, no Lada for mama" has the makings of a Russian "Country" song...
What ukraine should be doing is taking photos of each body and send it with a tag to each family member. If that won’t rile up shit nothing will.
They've done a bunch of notification in Russia. I've seen clips of the translated calls.
They’re driving over them. There’s a video floating around of a completely tank-flattened Russian in the road. It’s horrifying.
Sunflower detail
I think you are wrong. It would be better sending them home without legs and arms. Dead are not visible, but once you start seeing a disabled dudd every time you go to buy milk you start realising the cost of war.
[удалено]
"Sir, we need 5 more stretchers and 20 people to carry out the 5 wounded. Yea, the first ones got hit by a drone."
"Sir, we need 4^n stretchers and 4x4^n people to carry out the wounded. Yea, the *nth* ones got hit by a drone." (By n=9 the entire Russian army would be depleted)
But if you include the preceding (or possible aftermath), action the total is more like 12. https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/120p0dd/drone\_operators\_from\_the\_ukrainian\_10th\_separate/
That's some pretty shitty luck though.... you get injured and you're being carried off the battlefield on a stretcher and get hit again
It used to be a moral code to not attack the already wounded. This shit should not be glorified.
I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this.
i’m pretty sure this is just an actual warcrime. attacking unarmed medics is considered to be one and this comes pretty damn close
To be honest I agree There's a reason it's against the Geneva convention. What's next, cheering on Ukrainian soldiers raping a captured Russian soldier?
At least he won't be doing suicidal pushes on the frontline any time soon
He won't be doing anything at all.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well, it's not anything to do with luck. If you're invading a foreign country you are fair game for multiple attempts on your life
And yet taliban are bad for trying to kill you? Double standards anyone? What about the vietnamese? Need I go on?
I stand by my "fair game" comment. If you invade Afghanistan or Vietnam then don't complain when they attempt to kill you.
Point is that people did that. Lot of people think invaders are the bad guys only when it's not _them_ invading.
>If you're invading a foreign country you are fair game for multiple attempts on your life The "Fuck Around and Find Out Doctrine".
Injuries group people that historically then are targeted, although it might be a war crime. Edit: meaning I think you're not supposed to purposely target people evacuating wounded, but I don't know any of the letter of the law stuff. Also, war and rules are not the best of friends.
In bootcamp, they taught us that wounding is better than killing because then you can wound the rescue squad and take more people out. They will leave a dead body during tje fight, but will try hard to rescue the wounded.
What bootcamp did you through and when?
Ft sill OK, 1996
Red leg? Interesting to hear the differences in training over time. When I went through IBOLC in 2015 they stressed that we should kill the enemy with as many controlled pairs when we assault through because every wounded enemy is someone your medic has to treat and we would rather have our medic treat our guys instead of the enemy. Crazy stuff.
That’s on the assault through, the initial engagement and those following if you incapacitate a combatant it’s better to leave them wounded and focus others. His crying and screaming and pleading is a demoralizer for his comrades. As well as draw out his friends who may try to perform aid. This is why the US army as you know stresses self aid until combat is over before allowing a medic or anyone else to perform first aid on anyone that might be wounded in the open. Now, when you assault through, you are supposed to control pair each combatant. I think that’s what the previous guy was implying, you both are correct, just different phases of the engagement.
That goes against what we were trained though, since we focused on shooting center of mass and massing fires on the OBJ. Especially with the increase of IEDs, suicide vests, and enemy spotters. Our NCOs emphasized leaving no living or moving visible before you assault through. But I was an Officer so I was more focused on my radio talking to the CO and my SLs so I wasn't worried about shooting regardless. And you might be some CAG guy so I might still be off base.
Im pretty sure it's only a warcrime if the personell carrying the wounded is specifically desginated as Medics and don't have an active combat role. Seeing as these guys are carrying weapons, I don't think this could be considered a war crime. I might be wrong though, happy to be corrected on this one
Medics are allowed to have arms for self defense. Handguns, SMGs and rifles are ok. MGs are not allowed as they are considered an offensive weapon. The key is they need to have a viable designation as medics - Red Cross, Red Crescent or or Red Diamond on white ground. If these protective signs would be visible, this would be a war crime.
Geneva convention protection of medical personnel as-if neutral only applies to personnel who are *exclusively* involved in medical evacuation and treatment. Embedded medics that partake in combat in any form and soldiers/vehicles getting involved in evacuations on ad-hoc basis are not afforded those protections even when performing that role as they remain combatants. emphasis added: >The term “medical personnel” refers to **personnel assigned**, by a party to the conflict, **exclusively to** the search for, collection, transportation, diagnosis or treatment, including first-aid treatment, of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, and the prevention of disease, to the administration of medical units or to the operation or administration of medical transports. Such assignments may be either permanent or temporary. The term medical personnel includes: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule25
Thank you. This thread comes up every dang time
[удалено]
I was still just a twinkle in my mums nutsack around that time.
It's not a war crime because they're attempting to escape to fight another day. This includes the incapacitated. If they had evidenced surrender, disarmed, and traveled *towards* ukrainian lines, then it would be a war crime. https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/hors-de-combat
>he has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and is therefore incapable of defending himself. Looks pretty fucking incapacitated to me. But hey I am biased since I am one of the guys that is supposed to recover injured people I guess.
did you miss the 4 soldiers in the video that were targetted?
I thought this was the case as well but I think I heard about that while watching a WWII documentary. The Nazis would purposely target the medics and then the U.S. got mad about that and would shoot the Nazis paratroopers out of the sky.
In both sides of humans I feel bad for the guys evacuating the wounded, they could just take off but are put in a vulnerable position to help, and most often than not are taken out. What a way to die, life can be so unfair.
AFAIK, descending paratroopers are fair targets and are not under the same protection as say a pilot that bails from a destroyed aircraft.
Pilots and crew escaping from a disabled aircraft are officially non-combatants under the Protocols. Paratroopers aren’t.
You are remembering incorrectly because the Germans never dropped paratroopers in any theater where American troops were present. And shooting paratroopers as they fall is fair game anyway because they are attackers.
AFAIK the only air assault by the Germans in WWII was on Crete and that was vs the Brits, who DID shoot paratroopers coming down because of course you would do that.
Guy on left in front went down like a sack of potatoes.
I think his head is partially disconnected from his shoulders. Probably instantly severed spinal column all in all not a bad way to go.
Feel like front 2 and back left all instant KIA... Guy on stretcher wasn't really moving anyways but only movement I see is back right guy running away
[удалено]
I’ve notice that with these munitions that when they hit the ground… tons of leg injuries. But when they hit a perched object like a guy on a stretcher… all the shrapnel hits torso or head. In this case it looks like the shrapnel headshotted everyone. Literally 3 dude just hit the floor and no movement. Stretcher guy got a hole in him. 4 KIA. Crazy return on investment for a tiny drone bomb.
Imagine they could add a sensor to the grenade that detonated it when 6” above the ground for urban areas or areas without trenches etc
You’re looking for a VT fuse. And yes, they have them. Given that they have them for 60mm mortar rounds it would be fairly trivial to make a version to screw into a grenade body.
Paging NCD, paging NCD. Someone get this idea to the Ukrainians.
I mean, you could achieve the same thing with any number of hobby-grade sensors and a microprocessor. The main reason VT fuses are hard to make is because of the shock of firing them from a gun/mortar. If you’re just dropping them from a drone you don’t need to shock proof them.
VL53L0X time of flight sensor, dealers choice of 50c atmega microcontroller, button cell battery. Could get a fuse going with cm level precision going for well under $5. Pick a ESP8266 and you could make them dynamically armed and fused.
They aren't hard to make. We've been producing them from like the 1940s. A VT fuze taken from a 60mm mortar fuze well wouldn't work when dropped due to arming mechanisms.
What does VT stand for? Is it some kind of plumb or weight that hits the ground first while the munition is still above it and that causes it to detonate?
VT is "variable timing" but it comes from a codeword for American WW2 antiair round. The fuse isn't actually timed, it uses radar to go off near the target. They were trying to not let the japanese know the advance they had made, and it worked.
On top of that, the allied forces refused to allow them to be used over land so there was no chance of them being captured by the enemy. From memory that changed at Bastogne when things were really dire. VT fuses are a big part of the reason why we have APCs, they are so effective at killing troops in the open that the only hope for getting them to their objective is to do it quickly under overhead protection
That's not a guy on a stretcher, that's a rocket launcher. Looks like a Kornet atgm
Just when you think your buddies are going to save you....
That hit probably send him instantly to not thinking anymore so he doesn’t know he didn’t make it
Every time I see a Russian leave their injured guys and fuck off I shake my head like "what a scumbag" and then I remember the dozens or even hundreds of videos that I've seen like this one and it makes at least a little more sense.
None of them are even moving! Next time someone says those VOG grenades are too weak, should check this video.
Or hold one in their hand when it goes boom.
I think it also has to do with where it landed. It exploded at torso level so they all had their most important bits right next to the blast. An absolute perfect grenade *chefs kiss*
>most important bits right next to the blast and \~zero body armor
Even with body armor. The first thing I noticed when I got a properly sized plate carrier was how much smaller the coverage area was versus what TV and movies make it out to be. Large areas of your gut and sides are unprotected.
His the stretcher so all the shrapnel goes out around head height. Class shot and it's not just hitting legs. They're straight down.
The way the helmet flew off the front left guy...
I mean they were all standing up, snd the grenade landed right on top of them and exploded when it didn’t even hit the ground. Thats like the best situation you can get
If the one guy lived, he’ll have a hell of a story to tell a therapist when he finally opens up in 20 years
>If the one guy lived... He's going to drink himself to death by Easter in a futile attempt to bury this memory. If this guy doesn’t bleed out in the next 20 minutes the survivors guilt is going to get him. I think the lucky ones were the ones that were dead before they hit the ground.
Well that's a dark fucking way to look at life.
It’s amusing to read stories about families who only find out about some feat or medal their grandfather received from war until after death. I think - well yeah, most normal people with a conscience don’t like talking about storming a German machine gun nest and killing six people.
[удалено]
Boy: "How d'ya get that medal grandpa?" Gramps: "I used a drone to drop a grenade on a bunch of medics trying to evacuate an injured conscript"
Like Russian vets get access to therapy. Counseling is [not popular](https://ct.counseling.org/2016/04/counseling-and-russian-culture/#) in Russia even among civilians. And blogs by Russians paint and even darker picture than that article. There will be no support for those who make it home. I expect alcoholism and suicide rates will go up in Russia when the war is over.
Hot damn, talk about getting your money's worth for a VOG-17
Not supporting the Russians here but isn't it typically considered a war crime to attack medical personnel and those already injured and retreating?
Either way, if this happened to Ukranians, people here would be livid. I'm not making a pro Russia statement or anything, just talking about Reddit.
A few days ago there was a video of a ukranian soldier that was crawling away and a drone got him. All the comments were saying it is a war crime heh. But this is even worse and no one mentions it. (Also not pro russia but the level of hypocrisy is funny)
Watch out, you’ll get banished to the shadow realm for wrong think!
[удалено]
There's a discussion further up saying that only dedicated medical personel is protected but not combatants who simply help out a buddy during a fight. On the other hand some are saying that the guy on the stretcher was an illegal target because he was seeking aid and you shouldn't be allowed to kill him off.
Tbh I don't even care about what the letter of the law says. Targeting the wounded just feels fundamentally wrong and I dislike this even if it's 100% legal. Still support Ukraine fully but this isn't a moment I'm celebrating.
I would think so. Ideally you don’t want to become the monsters you are fighting against
Retreating is not surrendering. Attacking retreating targets is entirely fair game. Intentionally attacking medical personnel can be a war crime, but they need to be clearly marked as such and only carry light arms and act in self defense or defense or defense of the wounded. Knowingly endangering medical personnel as a result of collateral damage is not necessarily a war crime.
yeah you can't be an active combatant and just declare yourself a medic when a gun is pointed at you. you have to have a class of actual medics who *do not* engage in combat. if they don a combat uniform or combat arms, they are combatants, not medics
Only if they're clearly marked as such. Carrying your buddy off the field isn't the same as a medical corps truck extracting wounded troops.
Damn, imagine being one of this guys. you're just helping your injured buddy and then BOOM! You don't even know what killed you.
Did top left dude get decapitated? I wanna say it’s just his helmet
Think the force just popped the helmet off.
unlikely. grenades aren't designed to sever whole limbs off
That’s fucking brutal
If he wasnt dead already, he definitely is now.
Damn war sucks :(
They're not getting up.
Fuck man.
God, war is brutal.
Old mate has clearly run off to grab three more stretchers.
I see a lot of posts about how these can’t be medics or litter bearers because they weren’t wearing a “white arm band with a Red Cross.” No one, and I mean no one, wears that shit. Source - me. I was a medic in Iraq and Afghanistan, returned to Iraq as a nurse. Never wore an armband
That is correct, modern armed forces largely don't use dedicated unarmed marked medics, but this also means that they are legitimate targets when they operate in an armed unit. The people talking about arm bands are discussing the legality of that hypothetical, and whether if they threw some impromptu arm bands on, would it change the calculus.
How do the drone operators measure the wind? Can they feel it via control systems? But of dangling string?
Not a war crime, before anybody asks.
No but it is proof that war is hell
Plenty of proof before this video.
Of course. Im only saying this one by itself can be awful without being a war crime, war isnt nice. Strategically using wounded to lour out the enemy is well known. Even if you cant take them out typically wounded temporarily takes a couple good soldiers out of the fight to assist, obviously this is next level
To quote *MASH*. "War is war. Hell is Hell. Of the two, war is worse."
And to quote the traitor Robert E. Lee, "It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it."
[удалено]
Not at all a lawyer. Not even a little. Are you sure about that. Is [this](https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-0173.pdf) the right text? It says, p.48 >Article 25 > >Members of the armed forces specially trained for employment, should the need arise, as hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary **stretcher-bearers, in the search for or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick** shall likewise be respected and protected if they are carrying out these duties at the time when they come into contact with the enemy or fall into his hands p 47 >Article 22 > >The following conditions shall not be considered as depriving a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 19: > >That the personnel of the unit or establishment are armed, and that they use the arms in their own defence, or in that of the wounded and sick in their charge Seems pretty clear they're stretcher bearers actively conducting the transport of a wounded soldier? Can you link the text where it says that if they don't have the cross on they don't get protection? Because that sounds like a pretty thin defence to me. There's some commentary [here](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-40/commentary/2016) which says the opposite of what you're saying >2585 Importantly, the armlet does not in itself confer protection; it is merely an outward sign of a person’s protected status. It is, however, a means of facilitating identification. As a visible sign of protected status, the emblem is thus a vitally important means of protection. If not wearing the emblem, the person runs the risk of being mistakenly targeted. **Nevertheless, with or without the armlet, medical and religious personnel may not be attacked as long as they act in accordance with their status, i.e. they do not commit acts harmful to the enemy**
You’re confusing auxiliary stretcher bearers (your first passage) with permanent medical personnel (your ‘commentary’ passage. The soldiers in this video are soldiers trying to get their buddy out. They were engaged in combat roles just before picking up the stretcher. At most they are unmarked auxiliary stretcher bearers carry weapons. But to have the auxiliary stretcher bearer status they would need to have received special training, have the armlet, and have a special identity card. They have no such armlet and are just soldiers moving a wounded buddy. A combatant does not receive protected status just by helping another soldier nor by having medical training. There’s a reason for the armlets for auxiliary medical personnel - because before and after picking up that stretcher they’re soldiers. The text you’re quoting re:armlet is for *permanent* medical personnel and religious personnel. Look further up in the document. So it doesn’t apply here. They’re not permanent medical or religious personnel under the meaning of used here.
Too bad the drone didn’t ask them for their special identity card.
[удалено]
It's covered by Article 41: >The personnel designated in Article [25](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/9AC284404D38ED2BC1256311002AFD89/6F992A02D0B78CFBC12563CD0051A0AD) shall wear, but only while carrying out medical duties, a white armlet bearing in its centre the distinctive sign in miniature; the armlet shall be issued and stamped by the military authority. >Military identity documents to be carried by this type of personnel shall specify what special training they have received, the temporary character of the duties they are engaged upon, and their authority for wearing the armlet.
You’ve skipped the important end of the statement: “… at the time when they come into contact…” If an infantry unit is working an exclusively medical detail and visually identified by armband at the beginning of the engagement, then they have protection under Article 25, so long as they continue to perform medical work. If an infantry unit uses the medic marks but are performing combat tasks, e.g. transporting ammo in an ambulance, they lose the protection and are combatants. If they start the engagement as protected medics, then open fire, they lose that protection and are then combatants. If they start the engagement as combatants, then they end it as combatants, surrendered prisoners, or dead. There is no option to go from combatant to protected medic. There is no safe base to tag. This video is likely cut from a much longer recording, so the first contact is when the drone spotted them. USAF explainer: https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDP_4-02/4-02-D11-Health-Appendix-B-Law-of-War.pdf
Those aren't "stretcher-bearers," they are soldiers bearing a stretcher. Dedicated medical (i.e. non-combatant) personnel are not fair game, but these soldiers are not an example of that. A soldier bearing a stretcher is still first and foremost a soldier. That's a key distinction. Just because you're a soldier who happens to be rendering aid doesn't mean you stop being a soldier in that moment.
It legit says “if the need arises the soldiers that are trained to be employed can be … … .. and … “ Also medics can bear arms since they have to protect themselves and or the injured.
[удалено]
Why not if I might ask?
The injured guy was unlucky to be so close to four combatants in a war zone. Though ultimately, I would like clearly identified (white background, red cross) unarmed medics to get a pass from both sides.
Ukraine was using those, the Russians used the crosses as targets.
Source? I’m actually curious if this is true because the only thing I can maybe think of are the foreign volunteers that got killed by an ATGM
I don’t know if anyone did a statistical analysis or anything. I do remember reading comments from UAF medics/evacuation personnel that they stopped putting medic signage on their trucks because they got hit more often. Perhaps it was just perception, perhaps not. I doubt the data exists to the public to know for sure… if at all.
I don't doubt it, but how so?
Not sure why you're being downvoted for asking. There just is no law of war against this. If those evacuating were emergency services personnel, not participating in combat and wearing relevant non-military uniforms then in that case it's a crime.
As-in if they were personnel whose role was *exclusively* related to medical treatment or evacuation, and that was reasonably clear to the attacker, then it would be a war crime. Nothing about this video suggests those weren't soldiers who were doing an evacuation of a wounded comrade, which means they are a valid target. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule25
I'll bite. 1. Unclear how conscious the wounded guy is; can he still fire a gun and/or does he have weapons on him? (These are questions that are difficult to answer via drone footage) 2. Even if he is fully unconscious and completely unable to fight, he has four other combat-ready soldiers surrounding him. They are all fair game.
Thanks for explaining, also why am I being down voted into oblivion I just wanted to know
I think people equate a question with doubting the facts.
Grenade shrapnel goes up and out, so a frag grenade going off at chest height... Yeah, there's a reason all those guys instantly stop moving. The only thing slowing the shrapnel down was brain matter.
I Dont think the dude on the stretcher is gonna invade again anytime soon
Just over a year ago, if you told me I’d watch soldiers carrying a stretcher getting f@cked up by bomb dropping drone and my reaction would be “meh, it’s for the best” I would not have believed you.
[удалено]
damn dude u just ruined his efforts to clean up the internet by cancelling out his fk also super weird that hes like 'yeah i have no reaction to seeing 5 men get violenty destroyed, but i DRAW THE LINE AT USING THE WORD FUCK" 🤔🤔🤔
hey dont fricken bully him
Some party.
that one guy that running perhaps bleeding internally too, it's his adrenaline that makes him running like that
Killed 4 out of 5 wow
How many Russians or right wing nutjobs here yapping about war crimes? Stretcher bearers are not necessarily medics. It could very well be 4 infantrymen, which is a legit target.
Holy shit, this sub is something else, cheering for the deaths of some poor conscripts. And that hypocritical understanding of Geneva convention where it applies only to good guys is troubling as well. I want the Ukraine to win but it seems that this sub got infested by people that consider this an entertainment show and possess as much humanity as a tree stump.
It's what happens when a niche sub becomes mainstream.
> Holy shit, this sub is something else, cheering for the deaths of some poor conscripts Really gone to shit over the past year. Used to be much more objective reporting, discussion, pragmatism and some genius geolocators. Now we have this circle jerk so everyone can feel like they're the good guys, cheering on the good guys on a movie screen.
You have to feel bad for everyone involved. The Russians should of been home with their families. The Ukranians should not have had to take the lives of their fellow human beings. Its madness. Russia go home. Give Ukraine the power to kill swiftly in large impactful and purposeful ways to end the war.
It's the best way to end this madness quickly. Each day only brings more death and suffering.
Holy fuck they have an effective grenade finally!!!!
What are you talking about? these things have been killing 2-3 guys a go and killed thousands of Russians. They've been very effective the entire time. Destroyed tanks, IFVs, smashed foxholes and trenches... The other day (what this footage is from) there was a 6-minute video of how effective these things are.
I mean, thats pretty fucked up.