Fortunately, at least one of our Veterans has chosen to do the homework, and lays out in clear, simple language (that even koolaid drinkers could understand, if they could be bothered to educate themselves) the difference between MedEvac and CasEvac. Read on:
The Difference between MedEvac & CasEvac
It never ceases to astound me that the self-proclaimed experts are so ignorant of the basic terms and definitions and too lazy to find the definitions they wish to elaborate on. In recent months, that has been one self-published journalist on a crusade to remove MedEvac markings from DustOff helicopters. He has recently proclaimed that the definitions of CasEvac and MedEvac are just too murky to figure out, for him, and hence beyond the comprehension of his readers, the Generals, and politicians he's trying to convince. Previously, he couldn't figure out what "Arab" means.
So what does the Army say is the difference?
a. Medical Evacuation. MEDEVAC is defined in FM 8-10-6as the timely, efficient movement and en route care by medical personnel of the wounded, injured, and ill persons, from the battlefield and other locations to MTFs (medical treatment facilities). The term MEDEVAC refers to both ground and air assets. Divisions are equipped with both ground and air MEDEVAC assets.
b. Casualty Evacuation. CASEVAC is defined as movement of casualties to initial treatment facilities and movement of casualties to MTFs in the combat zone. It does not include en route care by medical personnel and implies that nonmedical assets (UH-60s or CH-47s) are being used to move casualties. CASEVAC should only be used when the unit has a large number of casualties (exceeding the ability of the MEDEVAC aircraft to carry) or MEDEVAC is not available.
Now, this doesn't mean that the wounded cannot be treated during CasEvac, but that, in the Army, the primary purpose is to get wounded to medical treatment by the fastest means possible, even if that is on a bird that doesn't have dedicated medical personnel, or a primary mission of transporting the wounded. There is no where in the Geneva Conventions that it says you can't transport wounded on armed helicopters, but it does say you can't put the Red Cross on an offensive vehicle. It is against the Geneva Conventions to use medical facilities to fight from or hide behind medical equipment when conducting offensive operations, or to transport combatants to the fight in designated medical vehicles.
c. Casualty Evacuation Support for Operations. Use of CASEVAC aircraft for combat operations will be determined by the force commander. He should always request the use of MEDEVAC aircraft first. If current MEDEVAC support is insufficient to meet his requirements for evacuation of casualties, he should request CASEVAC support from the aviation brigade. If necessary, requests to use utility helicopters for CASEVAC operations will be made through the division G3. MEDEVAC aircraft that are DS to a division will receive their missions through the DMOC. The DMOC is responsible for airspace control measures and mission planning for MEDEVAC assets. .... In either case, the ground commander requesting CASEVAC support must understand that CASEVAC support provides transportation for casualties and does not provide any care en route to the treatment facility...
Now them IS the facts, and War On Terror News has much more. A MUST READ here.
There is no excuse for the aforementioned journalist/milkook/photographer of fuzzy moons/self-proclaimed scalper of Generals/personal consultant to Pentagon officials' ignorance. Well, other than the need to keep the funds rolling in to his PayPal.
Given the FACTS as WOTN lays them out, there is no excuse for anybody to remain ignorant.