Chaplains in T2K

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by CDAT

So here is my chaplain question for the group. Under current laws of war Chaplains can not touch weapons, this is the reason every one is assigned an aid. I am guessing that this would fall by the wayside but would it be before or after "you are on your own". Thoughts, if after then they (the character) would not start with a weapon, if before they would. But either way would they have much skill with it?

He would not come with a weapon, for he was not issued one; however, our battalion chaplain at 24th ID went to the range with our unit every chance he got, because he loved target shooting, and he could routinely shoot Expert. (I don't know if he was allowed to wear it on his uniform.) So a chaplain could in fact be deadly accurate, just not carrying a weapon (initially?).

The chaplain's assistant, on the other hand had a fully stocked HMMWV, and was literally the most heavily-armed man in the battalion, including an M16 with M203, an M1911A1 pistol, several AT-4s, a Dragon with 3 reloads, boxes of grenades, and ours carried both a hunting knife and a dagger. Of course, he also had to have mad skills and a good knowledge of rituals and holy books from several faiths.

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

It should also be noted that there no US military regulation that prevents Chaplains for be awarded marksmanship awards.

OK, question answered.

[ArmySGT.]

I don't recall. However, I would swear the Catholic Chaplain I was transporting had and issue M9 pistol for self defense. I think having a pistol is a case by case basis. I could well be fully wrong on that too, as it is fourteen years later.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

I don't recall. However, I would swear the Catholic Chaplain I was transporting had and issue M9 pistol for self defense. I think having a pistol is a case by case basis. I could well be fully wrong on that too, as it is fourteen years later.

I've never seen a Chaplain with an issue weapon. Of course, Iraq and Afghanistan changed the rules on just about everything, and I wasn't part of that, having already medically retired.

[The Dark]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I've never seen a Chaplain with an issue weapon. Of course, Iraq and Afghanistan changed the rules on just about everything, and I wasn't part of that, having already medically retired.

The last I heard (although I'm a couple years out of touch with any chaplains) was that regs (FM 27-10, Army Regulation 165-1) required chaplains to be unarmed in combat and in unit combat skills training.

More broadly, under the Geneva Conventions, chaplains are non-combatants, and one carrying a weapon could be considered to have forfeited the rights of a chaplain under Protocol I (e.g. they are not considered a POW, cannot be compelled to work, and must be provided transport between camps for visits to groups of POWs). An armed chaplain loses their protected status and, if wearing a chaplain's badge, could be found guilty of perfidy (falsifying protected status) and subjected to appropriate sentencing (usually execution, if history is any teacher). Likewise, chapel buildings (like hospitals) become legitimate targets if a weapon is taken into them - their protected status is contingent on not being used in a combat role.

Now, in the case of our current conflicts, where the opposing side isn't particularly beholden to the GC, it would make more sense to unofficially carry a personal weapon. For a more conventional conflict, less so.

[bobcat]

i have seen it both ways. it seems the closer to garrison you get the less chaplains would be carrying. given sufficient manpower shortages i could see more chaplains carrying more weapons just so they can actually get around to the soldiers that most need a chaplain. i believe a rifle would lend more credibility among front line troops, after all how can you bless something you aren't willing to do.

[mpipes]

Well, if we are talking the environment in summer 2000, my bet is "Geneva be damned"...if the chaplain wants a gun he will have it be it a pick up or issued. I think ultimately it would depend on the chaplain and the tenants or their convictions and faith. However, once the nukes are flying and things grow really desperate, no one is really going to raise a fuss about who is armed as far as Geneva is concerned.

[dragoon500ly]

I've been looking over some of the TO&Es for the 1970s and 1980s, and there was no authorized weapon for the chaplain, the captain's assistant was authorized an M-16. There were two MTO&Es, one for 2nd Armored Division Forward, dated May, 1981 and one for 2nd Infantry Division, dated January, 1985 that authorized pistols for the chaplain. Both of the MTO&Es were removed within the same year of issue.

These were the only two of thirty-one reviewed that mentioned armed chaplains.

[The Dark]

Originally Posted by bobcat

i have seen it both ways. it seems the closer to garrison you get the less chaplains would be carrying. given sufficient manpower shortages i could see more chaplains carrying more weapons just so they can actually get around to the soldiers that most need a chaplain. i believe a rifle would lend more credibility among front line troops, after all how can you bless something you aren't willing to do.

The flip side of that (and an argument I've seen from chaplains) is how can you speak about putting trust in God if you put your trust in an M16 instead of God? I can see points on both sides, and I expect there'd be a split, with some chaplains taking one position and some the other. I don't think there's a right answer, but either one can give a good basis for characterization of either a PC or NPC chaplain.

Originally Posted by mpipes

Well, if we are talking the environment in summer 2000, my bet is "Geneva be damned"...if the chaplain wants a gun he will have it be it a pick up or issued. I think ultimately it would depend on the chaplain and the tenants or their convictions and faith. However, once the nukes are flying and things grow really desperate, no one is really going to raise a fuss about who is armed as far as Geneva is concerned.

I was thinking on that, and I agree the conventions would go out the window around the time the nukes start flying. After that, it would be a matter of conscience. My gut instinct is that Evangelicals and Catholics would be more likely to go armed, with non-evangelical Protestants less likely, but that's only based on each group's approach to just war theory, and I could be totally wrong (and I have no clue how non-Christian chaplains would approach it).

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by The Dark

The last I heard (although I'm a couple years out of touch with any chaplains) was that regs (FM 27-10, Army Regulation 165-1) required chaplains to be unarmed in combat and in unit combat skills training.

More broadly, under the Geneva Conventions, chaplains are non-combatants, and one carrying a weapon could be considered to have forfeited the rights of a chaplain under Protocol I (e.g. they are not considered a POW, cannot be compelled to work, and must be provided transport between camps for visits to groups of POWs). An armed chaplain loses their protected status and, if wearing a chaplain's badge, could be found guilty of perfidy (falsifying protected status) and subjected to appropriate sentencing (usually execution, if history is any teacher). Likewise, chapel buildings (like hospitals) become legitimate targets if a weapon is taken into them - their protected status is contingent on not being used in a combat role.

Now, in the case of our current conflicts, where the opposing side isn't particularly beholden to the GC, it would make more sense to unofficially carry a personal weapon. For a more conventional conflict, less so.

A pistol is usually typified as a defensive weapon due to short range and small cartridge. You will find Doctors and Nurses armed with pistols too.

[James Langham2]

In the British Army chaplains are unarmed. They are commissioned officers with a status of CF4 (Chaplain to the Forces grade 4 = Captain), CF3 (=Major) and CF2 (=Lt Col). They undertake a short course at Sandhurst for specialists (after ordaining) known colloquially as the "Vicars and Tarts Course."

They are banned from carrying weapons (indeed there was a fuss when one was photographed with a weapon in Afghanistan but many are interested in shooting (2 Para's chaplain in the early 1980s coached their shooting team).

They do not have assistants.

[dragoon500ly]

In the U.S. military, chaplains are supposed to be unarmed, so I'm a bit puzzled about these stories of chaplains carrying such a variety of weapons. I've reviewed over 120 TO&Es and only two mention chaplain being armed, and equally interesting, both of these were removed within 12 months of being released. IMHO this indicates that when a chaplain is armed, they are violating military regulations, as well as the Geneva Conventions. Having said this, there are no regulations forbidding a chaplain from earning a shooting badge, they simply cannot carry a weapon in a combat zone.

As far as the chaplain's assistant, they are more drivers and administrative assistants, hence they are not violating regulations or Conventions if they go armed. In practice (Vietnam and Korea), they acted as a "bodyguard" for the chaplain.

As for medical personnel, this is a bit more open as they can be armed for self-defense purposes, especially in a guerrilla war where the rebels do not honor the Conventions. Indeed, in Vietnam especially, medics carried pistols and rifles, armed their ambulances and didn't hesitate to return fire when attacked.

In addition, Doctors and Nurses, in the U. S. Military, are commissioned officers and are authorized to carry pistols, but are not to engage in combat. I know, doesn't make sense, but it is the military and nowhere does it say it has to make sense.

So, for a T2K scenario, what does the poor GM do? It's your game, your decision is final.