Hacksaw Ridge

>>1913667
Its a case study of a medal of honor recipient. It details what he actually did, so obviously it is historically accurate.

The guy was a seventh day evangelist who became a combat medic and won the medal of honour on Okinawa.

I haven't seen the movie.

>>1913671
Are you being sarcastic? Because it totally could be very inaccurate.

He is mentioned in the official army history of Okinawa.

>>1913678
>medal of honour
This is America, motherfucker

>>1913687
It's also seventh day adventist, but you didn't correct that, idiot.

OP here. To be clear I mean accurate in terms of how it portrays life/battle during WWII.

>>1913667
He was brave, but I really can't condone his actions, as his refusal to carry a firearm needlessly endangered his fellow soldiers.
Haven't seen the movie either, and I still don't know what deal with the devil Gibson made to get back into Hollywood after his whole drunken jew rant thing.

>>1913694
Do you not understand how this guy win a medal of Honor for saving his fellow soldiers?

How fucking stupid are you?

>>1913695
I fully understand how he won the Medal of Honor, but refusing to carry a firearm in a war puts your fellow soldiers at risk.

>>1913690
Pardon me if my military expertise exceeds my knowledge of obscure protestant pacifist sects.

>>1913697
If you're a combat medic, wouldn't carrying a fire arm be what puts your fellow soldiers at risk?

You're just some dumbass hurt durr gun faggot.

Does anyone know why Band of Brothers depicts the medics as not carrying weapons, either? If that was common then why is this such a big deal? Did the BoB medics have pistols and I didn't see? Did this guy set a precedent that by the time of the events in BoB the medics were not using guns?

>>1913713
He set a precedent by winning the medal of Honor while being a contentious objector.

Do you people not grasp the significance of this?

>>1913713
US medics generally carry a personal weapon. M4s in this day and age. Usually slung if doing actual medic shit.

They carry so much shit.

>>1913727
Yeah you didn't understand my question.

File: Eurgene Rose.jpg (50KB, 200x312px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 200x312px

>>1913730
Ok so is Band of Brothers's depiction of Eugene Rose inaccurate?

>>1913732
Do you realize that Okinawa happened after the events portrayed in Stephen Ambrose book?

Mam why am I even talking to you?

File: 1473259025479.gif (866KB, 352x224px) Image search: [Google]

866KB, 352x224px

Yeah, OP, I bet a bunch of people here on /his/ were on the couple of festival screening this movie had.

Its premiere in the US is literally tomorrow, you mong.

>>1913736
It's been some time, but from what I can recall of the laws of land warfare classes, but fuggit...

In accordance with the laws of land warfare, medics, and medical facilities, are not supposed to be targeted as long as they are unarmed, and wearing overt markings designating them as medics / medical facilities. Hence, the lack of weapons and overt red cross symbols you see on a lot of the old school med shit.

Since medics wound up getting targeted and killed anyway, they started to carry personal weapons to defend themselves and their patients, and stopped wearing overt markings.

>>1913703
>If you're a combat medic, wouldn't carrying a fire arm be what puts your fellow soldiers at risk?

Yes and no. Originally combat medics either weren't required to carry weapons at all or were only equipped with handguns due to enemy combatants being forbidden from aiming at them. Over time, however, this rule of war was ignored more and more until it became necessary for a CM to carry a firearm for their own self defense and to add a little more firepower to the platoon.

It's difficult to say whether carrying a weapon into combat would hinder a combat medic as the lighter weight would ensure them greater stamina and faster running speed to possibly save or carry more soldiers, Conversely, however, carry a weapon would slow a medic down but would allow them a degree of self defense and allow them greater access to wounded comrades near enemy lines. It all really depends on the situation.

Ultimately the US army wouldn't have started the trend of arming their combat medics if they didn't believe it would be of value and so we can assume that one would be more effective armed than unarmed.

>>1913803
>>1913875
Thanks.

>>1913875
>It's difficult to say whether carrying a weapon into combat would hinder a combat medic as the lighter weight would ensure them greater stamina and faster running speed to possibly save or carry more soldiers

Modern doctrine requires the combat medic to conduct triage and treatment in a designated spot, rather than run around treating individual casualties as depicted in most films. The medic walks in the rear with the platoon sergeant, and in a fight, the platoon sergeant designates a casualty collection point, and all casualties are brought their by aid and litter teams from the assault elements. When it's time to move casualties, the platoon sergeant grabs guys from the assault elements to act as litter bearers.

Carrying a weapon doesn't impact his ability to perform his duties, whether pistol or rifle.