# Bayonet obsolete? Not yet, apparently -



## pcain (18 Mar 2005)

*Platoon-scale bayonet charge was British Army's first since the Falklands:*

Friday 18 March 2005        

 telegraph.co.uk 

'I bayoneted people. It was me or them'
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 18/03/2005)

The daring and bravery shown in Iraq by the men of 1 Bn, the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment were so outstanding that their battlegroup receives no fewer than 37 of the honours awarded today.

They include 33 gallantry awards, among them the Victoria Cross awarded to Pte Johnson Beharry, two Conspicuous Gallantry Crosses, the second highest award for gallantry, 10 Military Crosses and 17 Mentions in Dispatches.

The succession of heroic actions under fire included the first bayonet charge since the Falklands Conflict and the 23-day defence of the former governor's residence in Amarah under siege from a continuous attack.

The gallantry awards have made the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment (PWRR) the most decorated in the history of the British Army, with a total of 57 Victoria Crosses and a host of other medals.

Although formed in only 1992, it is the senior English regiment of the line, tracing its history back to 1572, and its forebear regiments have fought in virtually all the major campaigns in which the Army has taken part.

Lt-Col Matt Maer, CO of 1 Bn, the PWRR, described yesterday how his men were forced to fight every day for five months in Iraq, coming under 860 separate attacks, with 109 alone on one day.

On the first day of their deployment they found themselves drawn into a three-hour running battle with insurgents, he said. "We knew it was going to be a very long and very hot summer."

The steadfast defence by Y Company of the former provincial governor's residence in Amarah saw a number of Military Crosses awarded to the battlegroup, which also included Royal Welch Fusiliers.

Major Justin Featherstone, the Y company commander, who, despite repeatedly being told he could withdraw if he saw fit refused to do so, is among the 10 members of the battlegroup awarded the Military Cross.

But it was inevitably the bayonet charge, led by Sgt Chris Broome, from Trowbridge, Wilts, who is awarded the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, that captured the imagination.

The three-hour battle during which it took place began on May 14 last year when a dozen gunmen ambushed nine soldiers from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders in a pair of armoured Land Rovers.

The Argylls were attacked on the road to Amarah, with insurgents repeatedly attacking the vehicles with small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades.

The Land Rovers sped through the ambushes only to come upon two dozen insurgents putting together an improvised roadside bomb. 

Two platoons of the PWRR, a total of 40 men in four Warrior armoured vehicles, were sent from nearby Camp Condor to hunt down the bombers.

When they saw the insurgents waiting in ambush in foxholes alongside the road, the four infantry sections in the Warriors, 28 men in all, dismounted, carried out a flanking manoeuvre and charged the insurgents with fixed bayonets.

Cpl Mark Byles, 34, from Portsmouth, who is awarded the Military Cross, said: "The look on their faces was utter shock. They were under the impression we were going to lie in our ditch, shoot from a distance and they would run away.

"I slashed people, rifle-butted them. I was punching and kicking. It was either me or them. It didn't seem real. Anybody can pull a trigger from a distance, but we got up close and personal."


----------



## pcain (18 Mar 2005)

telegraph.co.uk

Last charge for the bayonet - a victim of modern warfare
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 15/09/2002)

It defeated the Zulu Impi at Rourke's Drift, terrified the Germans in Flanders Fields and routed the Argentinians during the Falklands War. 

Now the bayonet, one of the oldest weapons in the Army's arsenal, has been rendered redundant by the onset of modern technology. With the adoption of powerful new machine- guns and grenade launchers it is often impossible to use the bayonet in 21st century combat.

Units which served in Afghanistan have reported that in some cases only two out of every 10 soldiers would have been able to "fix bayonets", had the command been given.

Among the weapons used by British soldiers which were unsuitable for bayonets were the Belgian-made Minimi machine-gun and the M16 semi-automatic rifle.

It is not possible to fit any bayonet to the Minimi, while the MI6 can only take an American blade, which the British Army does not possess.

A third weapon used by the Army, the SA80 rifle, cannot be fitted with a bayonet if a grenade launcher is attached. Nor can a bayonet be used on the SA80 when the rifle grenade, a newly acquired weapon which differs from the grenade launcher, is fixed to the muzzle.

One Army officer explained: "It's fair to say that the bayonet is unlikely to see much service in future wars.

"You have to be realistic. The bayonet was designed for muskets because you could fire only one round before undergoing a complex reloading procedure.

"The bayonet gave the infantryman another weapon. Now you have 30 rounds in a magazine so things have moved on."

The bayonet has been an essential part of combat since it was invented in the French town of Bayonne, from which the term "bayonnette" - and hence bayonet - was derived in the mid-17th century.

In the intervening 350 years, the bayonet has undergone a number of variations but its purpose has remained consistent - to kill the enemy at close quarters.

The Scots Guards and The Parachute Regiment launched bayonet charges as recently as the Falklands conflict in 1982, when they stormed heavily fortified Argentinian positions.

"The bayonet charge remains one of the most frightening acts an enemy can face and there is nothing better to prepare your men for battle than issuing the order to fix bayonets," said a senior Army officer.

Ian McKay, a platoon sergeant in B Company 3 Para led a bayonet charge against a heavily fortified Argentinian bunker during the Battle of Mount Longdon. 

He was killed in the assault, but was awarded a posthumous Victoria Cross for his valiant actions which later proved to be one of the turning points in the battle. Soldiers of the 2nd battalion Scots Guards used the bayonet when they ran out of ammunition as they attacked Argentine positions on Mount Tumbledown in June 1982.

Capt Henry Murray was also awarded a Victoria Cross for "conspicuous bravery" for leading a series of bayonet charges to prevent his company being overrun by Germans during the First World War battle of Stormy Trench in 1917.

Any attempt to abandon the bayonet is likely to meet stiff resistance from within the Army and especially from instructors at the Infantry Battle School which has a bayonet as its unit symbol.

One senior Army officer, said: "Bayonet charges are part of another military era but the weapon still has its uses and I would hate to see it withdrawn. It is a weapon of last resort, which it has been through the ages."

The first recorded history of the bayonet being used as a weapon was in 1647, when it was introduced into the French army.

It was a plug bayonet, a spear-like blade to which was attached a long conical plug inserted into the muzzle of the soldier's musket. The original bayonet had two basic design defects: the musket could not be fired once the bayonet was fitted, and during the act of fitting the soldier was virtually unarmed.

The effect of these defects were demonstrated in Killercrankle in 1689, when English troops were overwhelmed by a rush of Scottish Highlanders as they were fixing bayonets.

This led to the socket bayonet, which had the blade attached to a hollow sleeve and slipped over the muzzle of a musket. The blade lay below the axis of the barrel and left sufficient clearance to permit the weapon to be loaded and fired while the bayonet was fixed.

Although generally considered as the infantryman's assault weapon, the bayonet was originally a defensive tool against a sudden rush of cavalry.

With the arrival of a breech-loading and magazine-fed rifles, the infantryman was capable of defeating cavalry at a distance and the bayonet became primarily an offensive weapon.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman insisted that its policy of bayonet use had not been altered, but conceded that the weapon was no longer suitable for some of the Army's principal weapons.

"It is true that you cannot fix a bayonet to some weapons that were used in Afghanistan by the Royal Marines," he said.

"But soldiers and marines are still taught how to use the bayonet when they are undergoing basic training and that will continue."


----------



## oyaguy (18 Mar 2005)

With the personal weapons of frontline infantry getting lighter and smaller, wouldn't the bayonet be even more useful for close in fighting? Unlike a Lee-Enfield, a Lee-Metford, or a Brown Bess, a C7, or whatever variant, is rather light to use as a club. So wouldn't a bayonet be even more necessary? Not to mention the skivvy factor.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Mar 2005)

Whether it's obsolete or not, anything extra you can use, to your advantage, in a fight is worth it. These aren't schoolyard scraps, your trying to kill the other guy by any means possible. Nothings fair and there are no rules.


----------



## Britney Spears (19 Mar 2005)

Bayonets are obsolete. Its absurd that half the chest space on the TV is taken up by the silly bayonet mounting rig. Considering that only 4 troops in a Canadian section are equiped with a bayonet (in a British section, only 1 or 2 in 4 troops have bayonets) any "bayonet charge" today will be a  rather half hearted affair.


----------



## Gunnerlove (19 Mar 2005)

I will keep my bayonet as it is light and never runs out of ammo/jams when clearing a trench.


----------



## dw_1984 (19 Mar 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Bayonets are obsolete.



Although some say the bayonet is obsolete, being the engr, I have to point out that landmines are not.  How many infanteers carry mineprodders?  Well then, guess what you'll be prodding w/.  The bayonet may not be as effective in its intended role as before, but now there are other uses for it.


----------



## Britney Spears (19 Mar 2005)

> Well then, guess what you'll be prodding w/.



Umm, like a million other things? e.g. a cleaning rod? 

So if YOU the keen sapper is never without your mine prodder, you obviously have no use for a bayonet then?


----------



## badpup (19 Mar 2005)

Also may serve as a useful tool if you ever have to eat an American MRE   ;D


----------



## dw_1984 (19 Mar 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Umm, like a million other things? e.g. a cleaning rod?
> 
> So if YOU the keen sapper is never without your mine prodder, you obviously have no use for a bayonet then?



What were you taught to use if there was a mine strike?  I believed it was covered in your SQ.  Your bayonet.  The cleaning rod is probably good as a back up trip wire feeler (just gota be more more careful w/ it because it's harder to feel tension).

Britney Spears, have you not read any of the posts in this thread?  I think it's been proven that the bayonet is still used in modern day combat (albeit much less than before).  PWRR's proved that in Iraq...still useful.  I'd be pissing my pants if a soldier yelling and screaming with bayonet affixed was running towards me.


----------



## Britney Spears (19 Mar 2005)

Sorry bub, I don't have  SQ.



> I think it's been proven that the bayonet is still used in modern day combat (albeit much less than before).



No it hasn't. 




> I'd be pissing my pants if a soldier yelling and screaming with bayonet affixed was running towards me.



That's nice to know, did you learn that on SQ as well?

Heh, how fast can you run with a bayonet? 

Faster than 2500ft/sec?

( Stole that one from my Plt WO on basic, god bless his soul.)


----------



## dw_1984 (19 Mar 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Sorry bub, I don't have   SQ.
> 
> No it hasn't.
> 
> ...



Ok no SQ, then the old QL2 then.

Read my wording...it is still USED in modern combat...WHAT were the PWRR using...bayonets.  Therefore that negates your "No it hasn't."
The bayonet is part of your FFO.  Better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it.

So I supposed you wouldn't feel fear at all if you were face to face w/ a charging enemy.


----------



## Britney Spears (19 Mar 2005)

> Better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it.



Heh, I say the same thing, except I'm talking about an extra 30 rd mag or 3. Weighs about the same as a bayonet. Wanna bet on who/which one  would win?



> Read my wording...it is still USED in modern combat...WHAT were the PWRR using...bayonets.  Therefore that negates your "No it hasn't."




Good lord, I think we're done talking.


----------



## dw_1984 (19 Mar 2005)

And I supposed you'll jerry rig this extra mag to replace where the bayonet goes?

You wanted to argue semantics.  I just played along.  I was simply stating there are other uses for a bayonet.  It's not dead weight.

I'll just leave this thread alone...I really want to know what others think about the usefulness of the bayonet, especially those who've been on roto.


----------



## Armymedic (19 Mar 2005)

one other good use for a bayonet, when mounted on the rifle, is for an improvised IV holder in the fd.....put the bayonet on, stick in down as far as you can, hook IV bag to buttstock.

It works and works well.


----------



## Freddy Chef (19 Mar 2005)

After clearing a trench, (empting your mag), you bayonet the enemy (bayonet affixed before assaulting the trench), to finish him/her off. Should anything happen while you are changing mags, you still have your bayonet affixed to deal with any other enemy within 3m.


----------



## Canadian Sig (19 Mar 2005)

Thats the only thing I saw it used for on Roto 0. An Eng MWO used his to dig up an old 105 shell.  :bullet:


----------



## George Wallace (19 Mar 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Heh, I say the same thing, except I'm talking about an extra 30 rd mag or 3. Weighs about the same as a bayonet. Wanna bet on who/which one would win?



Now that is a pretty heavy bayonet you've got there......


----------



## Kal (19 Mar 2005)

Well, I don't believe anyone would want to use their bayonet as their primary weapon, anyone with half a brain at least.  As a field tool and last ditch weapon, the bayonet has it's place.  Although, I would assume it would be rather disheartening and traumatic to see the enemy charging if I were not ready for it.  If one trains or has become used to the enemy attacking in a similiar manner then gets a big wake-up call by something that would be the last thing they expected, which also happens to be maybe one of the most physcologically damning, it would take the fight out of them, if even a bit.  I know I would rather fight the enemy that would just shoot and arty from a distance then have to fight someone that would ambush and want to rip my throat out...


----------



## Britney Spears (19 Mar 2005)

> I know I would rather fight the enemy that would just shoot and arty from a distance then have to fight someone that would ambush and want to rip my throat out...



Some of the quotes from this thread are absolutely astounding.

Exactly how many arty barrages have you been a victim of? You're comparing it to a bunch of guys running at you with pointy sticks?

Question to Kal and DingBat, give me an honest estimate of how many enemy soldiers, armed with loaded semi-auto rifles, you expect to be able to take out with an empty rifle and bayonet. Believe me they are not going to unload their rifles and engage you in a bayonet duel just because you only had 5 mags. 

Side question: Have either of you actually ever recieved any formal bayonet training? Is this covered in the SQ course? 

The Brits know al about this, that's why there are only 2 bayonets in a British section.


----------



## Kal (19 Mar 2005)

Hey Britney, I was merely stating that I would rather face the arty because I can wrap my head around it a little easier and separate the emotion out of it.  As for fighting the guys with fully loaded weapons, I wouldn't expect to kill very many, but I would at least go down fighting and try to take at least one with me.  Now, sometimes engagement ranges can be very short, as you may well know.  In the jungle, it was found to be only 5 feet sometimes in Vietnam, in those instances I would rather have my bayonet and know how to use it and not need it, rather than not having it or not knowing how to use it and need it, I'm sure any trained individual would agree.  It wasn't covered in the SQ course I was on, but I can tell you I have done some extensive training with it.  Actually, I'm a stick/impact weapon instructor, in which half the material in done with a rifle.


----------



## JimmyPeeOn (19 Mar 2005)

I heard from a few different locals on roto that the placement of bayonets on our vest  is actually quite intimidating.  Besides if I ever did run out of ammo in a combat situation, I would rather be fighting with a bayonet than my gerber.


----------



## KevinB (20 Mar 2005)

:

 I'll give you a hint what I prefer to the bayonet...







Yep a PISTOL 

 For one - I will shoot a tgt rather than bayonetting it - why?  For I just took my primary weapon out of action if I bayonet a tgt on the ground -  What happens if the blade sticks? and another threat appears.

Secondly that mass bayonet charge was STUPID - yes it worked - but it s not a tactic to emulate - WHY?  Well what would have happend if one of those Insurgents had decided to USE his AK?  Well guess what he would likely be the most celebrated insurgent in the war so far...
  

Now given this is my issue gun 





Do you really think I want to get close and stab someone - no thanks...

I have a knife to use as a tool - and IF necessary a weapon but the carbine and pistol are way ahead on my list of weapon to kill with over a knife.


Some who are overly romaticising the bayoney should get out more...  Ever try to negotiate a hallway and do CQB with a bayonet on?  Didn't think so.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Mar 2005)

What an astounding thread! Although it has been pointed out as far back as the American Civil War that only about 1% of battlfield injuries were caused by the bayonet, it still has a fearsom psycological impact on potential enemies. The sight of cold steel collapses morale in a way that a blazing AK does not.

My own examples are limited; talking to British soldiers who had experience in Northern Ireland, but often the story sounded like "then our brick was surrounded by a mob throwing rocks and bottles. We were backed into a wall when the Corporal ordered us to fix bayonets. The mob fell back and stayed away until the "Pig" came to pick us up."

Fighting requires the ability to attack their will to fight as well as their their bodies; I will still keep the bayonet.


----------



## Kal (20 Mar 2005)

I don't think anyone who has responded to this thread would only want to fight with a bayonet, or make it their primary weapon.  Any trained operatior would rather shoot the enemy than slug or stab it out with them, but any trained operator would also know to train and utilize all tools and weapons at their disposal.  If I were ever separated from my team and the mob was bearing down, intent on killing me in the back allies, should my primary and seconday weapons go down then what are you to do?  Roll over on the ground and let them slot you?  Not for me thanks, I would still fight, if you know you're going to go down, or knowing your chances aren't good, then why not go down fighting?  I believe the origins of this thread was the physcological impact of the bayonet rather than it's combat effectiveness...


----------



## Britney Spears (20 Mar 2005)

> My own examples are limited; talking to British soldiers who had experience in Northern Ireland, but often the story sounded like "then our brick was surrounded by a mob throwing rocks and bottles. We were backed into a wall when the Corporal ordered us to fix bayonets. The mob fell back and stayed away until the "Pig" came to pick us up."



OK, so then it's not a weapon. If you want to argue its merits as a crowd control device, well thats something else entirely. We have better things for that (e.g. M-203 launched tear gas bombs, non lethal rifle grenades) than bayonets.

I don't buy the psycological impact business. Psycological impact is when your buddy gets nailed by a  Macmillan from 2 clicks away.

Besides, since there are only 4 bayonets in a section its all a moot point today anyway.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (20 Mar 2005)

The bayonet is not obsolete.  It is not intended to be used in place of a firearm, it is for use when the firearm isn't useful.  At zero range the old FN butstroke would shatter a skull without much ado, the C7 sucks for anything other than its intended purpose (firearm), unless you top it with a bit of old sharptooth.  In crowd control situations, the mob has been conditioned to think that they are NOT GOING TO BE SHOT, and they believe this until someone starts shooting, which usually results in some deaths (trampling mostly) and an inquiry, and some ruined careers.  Welcome to life in the CF.  The wonderful thing about a bayonet, is it focuses the mind like nobodies business.  It is impossible for the untrained, or semitrained, to ignore the lethality of the bayonet pointed at them, it makes them think of their own hides, and short circuits the mob aggression.  Consider a second scenario, you confront an intruder with a .22 pistol or a 10gauge shotgun; I can shoot your eyes out with the .22, but it is unlikely to inspire enough fear to make the intruder run, I will HAVE TO SHOOT, the visual impact of the shotgun will make the intruder (more often than not) think twice and beat feet.  I have personally seen the sight of bared steel back off a crowd that was NOT intimidated by guns alone.  In peacekeeping or crowd control, or in situations like close range flank attacks, psychological impact is a force multiplier.  Napoleon said the moral was to the physical as three is to one.  Overstated in modern warfare, but if a weapon has the shock capacity to keep the enemy from using his own weapons while you use yours, then it worked.  Is the bayonet different from the MBT?  Consider half of the argument about keeping the MBT was its shock effect, clearly that is the argument in favour of the bayonet.  It should also be noted it doesn't jam, is ammo independent, is a good screwdriver, wire stripper, wire cutter, mine probe, field expedient hammer, scissors, half decent hatchet, decent digging implement, and the only thing that doesn't dissolve in some of the MRE sauces.  Do I think the average soldier is going to use one like the Prince of Wales boys did, odds are against it; but when the situation arises, there really is nothing like the shock value of a charge of cold steel.


----------



## Britney Spears (20 Mar 2005)

In light of the evidence produced by mainerjohnthomas and a_majoor, I'm definetly willing to concede that a rifle/bayonet combo is useful for crowd control situations. As such, I will revise my position to say that bayonets are obsolete for anything other than cowering  unarmed crowds of protestors.



> Consider a second scenario, you confront an intruder with a .22 pistol or a 10gauge shotgun; I can shoot your eyes out with the .22, but it is unlikely to inspire enough fear to make the intruder run, I will HAVE TO SHOOT, the visual impact of the shotgun will make the intruder (more often than not) think twice and beat feet.



Thank you,  I think we're hitting the crux of the debate. There are two schools of thought WRT to your scenario which can also be applied to crowd control situations, both of which have merits. 

Your school maintains that the sound of a shotgun being racked is often enough to scare away intruders, and in this respect, a shotgun is more useful than a pistole for bedroom defence.

However, there is also another school, towards which I lean, that believes firearms of any sort should never be produced unless one intends to use it. What if the intruder also happened to be armed? More importantly, anyone in a self defence scenario must be in the mental state which has only one purpose, that is, the elimination of the threat at all costs. Any kind of halfway step will be counter intuitive to the stated purpose. Flashing a bayonet at a crowd will certainly be intimidating, but it only takes one schleevo soaked sod to make a grab for the rifle. Could there then be a situation where you would want to actually bayonet the guy but not shoot him? Unlikely I say. 

I must disagree with your comparison of the bayonet to the MBT. 60+ tons of fire-spewing depleted unranium is definitly a tad more intimidating than a bunch of guys with pointy sticks. 

Ultimately, we must always keep in mind that everything is a trade off. Having a bayonet means having less ammunition, a fact often under-appreiciated by those who do not regularly train with armour and support weapons, there's no way around it.

 I cannot understand why "if I run out of ammo" is a good reason for bringing a bayonet. Your bayonet is not ammo, why didn't you leave it at home so you could carry MORE AMMO? Or take the time you spend poking sandbags and spend it on improving your marksmanship?   

Lastly, while you certainly can wave your bayonet around the air indefinetly, you'll find that the bayonet has a much shorter useful life if you actually start poking things(like hard surfaces, for example) with it. Not that it would make much difference, since you will most likely be swiss cheese at that point anyway.


----------



## KevinB (20 Mar 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> . Not that it would make much difference, since you will most likely be swiss cheese at that point anyway.


 ;D  an excellent point!

Now given the current equipment the sections had do you really think that 2-3 bayonets will do anything?  



			
				Kal said:
			
		

> , should my primary and seconday weapons go down then what are you to do? Roll over on the ground and let them slot you?


 Well IF my primary and Secondary go down - I think I might have been able to pick up the occassional AK or other discarded weapons from my dead opponents.  Secondly - those who feel that they will just trundle down the road and bayonet someone - have you tried that in full kit and plates? - It aint going to happen.


----------



## QORvanweert (20 Mar 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> In light of the evidence produced by mainerjohnthomas and a_majoor, I'm definetly willing to concede that a rifle/bayonet combo is useful for crowd control situations. As such, I will revise my position to say that bayonets are obsolete for anything other than cowering   unarmed crowds of protestors.


          Now try telling that to the Pte(?) who just earned a VC using a bayonet. Not only do they strike fear into the enemy, if you have ever been in a knife fight you know what I mean, but they also commit you to the battle. How often do you seen soldiers with fixed bayonets surrendering? They are the last step of desperation, once you are that close then you are screwed anyways, but it is better to be stabbing him in the face with your nice pointy stick then trying to beat him to death with your empty mag. 
          Regardless of how many mags you carry, if the fight is intense enough to resort to bayonet fighting then you *will* run out of ammunition sooner or later. At which point you put on your trusty bayonet and hide out around a corner stabbing as many people as you can before they frag you. Or in your case, you will insert your last magazine (while shitting your pants because there is a bayonet charge) , fire it off and hopefully kill two or three enemies (most likely missing) and then run off around a corner and try to knock someone unconscious through their kevlar helmet with your empty magazine to take their rifle. Or even better, you have sentry takedown and you try and use your trusy KFS or gerber to cut his throat with. Or you are probing the dead to discover anyone faking and you miss someone because the muzzle on your C7 isn't all that sharp and he goes on to toss a grenade on your section. Or you are clearing a room and your action jams and buddy decides to walk around the corner and you have the drop on him but he quickly impales you on the wall while you are trying to clear your chamber. Or you have taken some prisoners and you need something to 'prod' them along with(cleaning rods don't work well here). 
         *"I cannot understand why "if I run out of ammo" is a good reason for bringing a bayonet. Your bayonet is not ammo, why didn't you leave it at home so you could carry MORE AMMO? Or take the time you spend poking sandbags and spend it on improving your marksmanship?"*
Your bayonet is the ultimate source of ammunition. It never runs out, can get you more, can defend you while getting more, can 'close with and destroy the enemy' much more effectively then a buttstroke, never jams, is self-cleaning if you stab hard enough, weighs almost nothing, is SILENT and has a myriad of other uses.


----------



## Kal (20 Mar 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> ;Well IF my primary and Secondary go down - I think I might have been able to pick up the occassional AK or other discarded weapons from my dead opponents. Secondly - those who feel that they will just trundle down the road and bayonet someone - have you tried that in full kit and plates? - It aint going to happen.



       I can understand where you're coming from, and that would be great if the discarded is laying at your feet, but like you said, if you gotta run down the road to get his rifle while in full kit.....?   Besides one may have to fight there way to the objective. (discarded weapon/ammo)   Better to fight my way there with a knife or my empty weapon than my bare hands.   I think we all know that for it to come this far too, you're either separated, or buddy is outta ammo too, or both, and while very unlikely of a situation it should not be neglected.   

Excellent point made by QORvanweert also, for sentry removal a silenced weapon would be optimal, but they're not in great quantity, so there's that trusty bayonet again.   I find that there is something almost primal and/or tribal about using your hands and an edged weapon, and when using such tools, it taps into that vicious, primal state that has been suppressed by being 'civilized'.


----------



## KevinB (20 Mar 2005)

QORvanweert said:
			
		

> , is SILENT



Dude - I dont know how many people you've knifed - but everyone I 've seen has tried to howl like a banshee.   

 You want someone dead "silently" buy a suppressed weapon.






And for me - I'd much rather give up a bayonet to have a can...


----------



## Kal (20 Mar 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Dude - I dont know how many people you've knifed - but everyone I 've seen has tried to howl like a banshee.



     That sounds pretty spot on, and I would have to agree, only because of the fact though that not enough training went into it.  I'm sure most of know this, but for those of use who don't, it isn't like the movies where the bay guy has a thin cut along his throat and dies immediately.  It's a matter of shutting the guy up for half a second so you can sink that knife into the side of his throat and rip it out the other side, tearing out the arteries, veins, breathing ways and vocal ties, may have to be repeated until the guy bleeds out, which should be only a matter of seconds.  I don't think that fits into the vision of the Canadian peacekeeper.  Caution, may be a little messy, too...


----------



## Michael Dorosh (20 Mar 2005)

Point of order, I thought the latest VC was for rescuing wounded men under fire, not bayonetting people...


----------



## pbi (21 Mar 2005)

> Bayonets are obsolete



What the hell-carry, it, I say. It's a pretty useful tool (the incoming one will probably be even better) and, you never know, you might find yourself in a situation lke those Brits, who probably never expected to use it either. And, in my experience, bayonet and pugil training are great for building morale and confidence. As for the argument about dropping the bayonet so as to be able to carry more ammo---please...if you're that weak you shouldn't really be carrying a weapon anyway. Weigh a full mag against a bayonet and see which weighs more.

Cheers.


----------



## big_johnson1 (21 Mar 2005)

QORvanweert said:
			
		

> Your bayonet is the ultimate source of ammunition. It never runs out, can get you more, can defend you while getting more, can 'close with and destroy the enemy' much more effectively then a buttstroke, never jams, is self-cleaning if you stab hard enough, weighs almost nothing, is SILENT and has a myriad of other uses.



Hehe, this is what I've been waiting for.. The old silent bayonet. Never mind the gurgling sound you'd get from slashing a guy's throat, what about the screams from cutting him open? What's that, you're slashing his entire throat out? Oh, well what about when his lung full of air rushes out? It's no gunshot, true, but it's going to be plenty loud if you're trying that hard to be quiet. Or what about the guy that tries to go for the heart, only to discover that the bayonet doens't always fit between the ribs (think about it), causing your enemy to freak out, _and not be dead_? If you have to be silent, a bayonet would not be the prefered tool.

As for carrying it, it was a pain in the neck literally on the TV (am I the only one that ever got one in the throat after crouching down too fast or something?), and while I prefer it on the belt like the webbing, it's still a good tool to have around, for mine sweeping or whatever.


----------



## Britney Spears (21 Mar 2005)

> What the heck-carry, it, I say. It's a pretty useful tool (the incoming one will probably be even better) and, you never know, you might find yourself in a situation lke those Brits, who probably never expected to use it either. And, in my experience, bayonet and pugil training are great for building morale and confidence. As for the argument about dropping the bayonet so as to be able to carry more ammo---please...if you're that weak you shouldn't really be carrying a weapon anyway. Weigh a full mag against a bayonet and see which weighs more.



Heh, I guess I'm still a little too revolutionary for the tastes of many. Less gay useless kit ==happy troop (No offence to homosexuals intended)

Weight isn't the only consideration, there's also the issue of real estate on your chest, not to mention the comfort factor. Although I'm guessing the new Bayonet will not fit on the TV as per usual(Yay! Go CTS!), and we'll have to carry it between our teeth or something,  so that will also be a moot point.

I suppose it will encourage the sect. commander to lead from the front, since him and one or two  other troops will be the only ones equipped with bayonets. Make sure  he leaves the radio with the 2ic before starting the bayonet charge.


----------



## Dark_Soldier (21 Mar 2005)

For all the good points to carry the bayonet, there are reasons not to carry it.
I don't know about anyone else, but I have never (somehow) hooked a mag to the front of my tac vest (or even its placing on the web belt) where the bayonet is. The bayonet is lightweight, you have to be pretty weak if the weight of the bayonet will weigh you down, so carry it because you never know when you may need it. 

One point I would like to make about bayonets when FISH (Fighting in Somebody's House) is that the C-7 is a long weapon for close quarters. You want to avoid exposing the barrel around the corner so that the enemy does not see it. With a bayonet attacked, this is harder, especially when you "bust a corner" (When you clear a corner with two men, one crouched and one standing). The crouched person has to have his weapon pointed downward so that it doesn't stick around the corner. To do this he has to lift the weapon and the barrel is only clearing the ground by a few inches maximum, clearly not enough room for a bayonet.


----------



## Kal (21 Mar 2005)

Feral said:
			
		

> Hehe, this is what I've been waiting for.. The old silent bayonet. Never mind the gurgling sound you'd get from slashing a guy's throat, what about the screams from cutting him open? What's that, you're slashing his entire throat out? Oh, well what about when his lung full of air rushes out? It's no gunshot, true, but it's going to be plenty loud if you're trying that hard to be quiet. Or what about the guy that tries to go for the heart, only to discover that the bayonet doens't always fit between the ribs (think about it), causing your enemy to freak out, _and not be dead_? If you have to be silent, a bayonet would not be the prefered tool.



Good points, but I ask then, what would be the preferred tool?  Obviously the silenced weapon, but those are in short supply and not just any regular troop is going to have in issued to them, secondly, a silenced weapon is not exactly silent either, especially a silenced pistol.  That metal on metal racking of the slide isn't impossible to hear.  Going for the heart, that's okay, only that yeah the guy may have a vest and plates on, but say if he didn't, turning the blade over so that your thumb is on the flat side of the blade and stab at an upward angle bypassing the ribs, that may work, but even if you hit the heart, it's not guarented to drop him instantly anyways.  

Okay, so silenced weapon is good, but most of use won't see it, for now at least, the knife makes too much 'natural' body noises, so that's too loud.  What's next?  An impact weapon of some sort, I guess.  That would take a lot of training also seeing as if the guy has a helmet on one would have to strike across the jawline which is only a couple inches wide, and the only good tool for that would be a shovel or entrenching tool.  Next?  Bare hands?  Can be done, could break the guys neck, but that is going to have to be practiced the most to get it right and you're going to have to be very, very good at it.  

So what do we do then?  Can't get a silenced weapon, impact technique if im lucky enough to have a shovel and hit that small target, unarmed technique, but that needs loads of training time and an unskilled opponent, and highly skilled operator. Then there's the knife technique, well too much body noise and others aren't necessarily flawless anyways.  May as well not train any of them then and when needed call in the recce platoon or SF to get those silenced weapons.....


----------



## Kal (21 Mar 2005)

Dark_Soldier said:
			
		

> One point I would like to make about bayonets when FISH (Fighting in Somebody's House) is that the C-7 is a long weapon for close quarters. You want to avoid exposing the barrel around the corner so that the enemy does not see it. With a bayonet attacked, this is harder, especially when you "bust a corner" (When you clear a corner with two men, one crouched and one standing). The crouched person has to have his weapon pointed downward so that it doesn't stick around the corner. To do this he has to lift the weapon and the barrel is only clearing the ground by a few inches maximum, clearly not enough room for a bayonet.



This just comes back to knowing the environment you'll be fighting in, anyone that would want to fix a bayonet to an already full sized rifle shouldn't be fighting there in the first place, it's just unrealistic.  It isn't a wonder tool, nothing ever is, but we have to know it's pros and cons before we dismiss it out right though.


----------



## pbi (21 Mar 2005)

> Heh, I guess I'm still a little too revolutionary for the tastes of many. Less gay useless kit ==happy troop (No offence to homosexuals intended)



Not really-you are standing in a long line of nay-sayers. The bayonet has been derided and dismissed for decades now-it almost slipped out of favour altogether in the post WWII years, until the realities of close combat in Korea suddenly reminded people why we might want to stab folks at close quarters. (Read David Hackworth's account of the state of US Infantry training at the start of the Korean War) in _About Face_.

But really, the bayonet is so small in terms of the space that it takes up, that it shouldn't be a problem to carry it as well as humping as much ammo as you.

And, BTW (since I am increasingly out of touch with such things...) where are we getting the statement that only a certain number of people in a section (ie: "two" was mentioned...) would carry bayonets. Is this a change to personal weapon EIS?

Cheers


----------



## Britney Spears (21 Mar 2005)

> And, BTW (since I am increasingly out of touch with such things...) where are we getting the statement that only a certain number of people in a section (ie: "two" was mentioned...) would carry bayonets. Is this a change to personal weapon EIS?



No change to personal weapon EIS.

For a British 8 man(or is it 12?) section, a fireteam of 4 would have 1x L86 LSW (no bayonet), 1x L85/AG36 (AG36 means no bayonet) 1x Minimi LMG (no bayonet) and 1x L85 IW. So a modern Brit bayonet charge would be conducted soley by the sect. Commander and 2IC (who have the bayonets). According to the original article, the Brits did not procurre any bayonets for their M-16/C-7 FOW. Does the AR-10T have a bayonet lug? What about the C7CT uppers?


Darn, I was hoping one of the new recruits/young subbies would get triped up with that one (and thus secure for the board our new target of ridicule for the week), but looks like they all saw it coming.  Now I'm really in the $hit...... ;D


----------



## a_majoor (21 Mar 2005)

As long as everyone is clear that a bayonet is a tool which has one particular use, and _may_ come in handy for many other uses, then there is nothing really to argue about. Even before the advent of firearms, the threat of cold steel was a huge morale breaker: rows of pikes were used in the middle ages to deter mounted attacks, and the bayonet is the lineal descendant of the pike!

In terms of its utility, I looked up a chapter on the Napoleonic wars in "Forward to Battle", and refreshed my memory on the use of the bayonet in the 1800s in the Peninsular campaign. Contrary to the popular image of a "thin red line" pouring musket fire onto bumbling columns of French troops, the British tended to "hide" on reverse slopes or lie down in tall grass while the French artillery blasted away, and British Riflemen and French Voltigures traded shots (since the French main body was exposed, the Riflemen could also pick off officers). As the riflemen withdrew and formed on the left of the line, the French columns would begin to advance, still only having a general idea of the location of the British line (usually by observing the actions of the rifles and the location of the artillery, which could not hide). 

At the right moment. the British line would stand up, discharge a single volley into the French column, then advance behind bayonets. The French column would usually collapse at this point, without ever waiting to cross bayonets with the British! Even hardened formations like the Imperial Guards were unable to withstand this, the climactic moment at Waterloo was the Imperial Guard recoiling from the British "Guards" when they rose out of the cornfields and attacked with a volley and charge.

Although I would personally never expect to do a bayonet charge, I do keep the idea of the psychological effect of cold steel in the back of my mind. Even on exercise, I have seen the effect on troop morale when the order "Fix Bayonets" is given (both in the defense and the offense), and can only imagine the effect on a real enemy when suddenly confronted by a bristling row of bayonets.


----------



## KevinB (21 Mar 2005)

I agree in the terms of a section attack in the plains/field of Eurpoe it can be a psychological advantage.

However in our current scenarios especially with fighting in complex terrain - they are a detriment to our task.


The current C7 bayonet is a useless knife.  It is a poor prod - the cleaning kit rod is better.  It only really function is a bayonet - and then it is poor design for that.  

I saw the new bayonet and it is a better design - and a useful utility tool.  Until then I think I'll keep my own knife on my RAV and leave the bayo in my large pile of useless CF kit...


----------



## Bomber (21 Mar 2005)

The new bayonet will be a god send to anyone that needs a good tool in a pinch.  It has no problem going through barb wire, I used it to open 105mm boxes.  And there is only a wee little nick in the tip of the blade.  So far it is showing almost no where, also the integrated sharpener puts a wicked edge on it, which is nice because you now have a useful utility knife, the current one made of the most brittle steel known to man should be dropped off the east coast to make a nice dull artificial reef.


----------



## JimmyPeeOn (22 Mar 2005)

So what do we do then?  Can't get a silenced weapon, impact technique if im lucky enough to have a shovel and hit that small target, unarmed technique, but that needs loads of training time and an unskilled opponent, and highly skilled operator. Then there's the knife technique, well too much body noise and others aren't necessarily flawless anyways.  May as well not train any of them then and when needed call in the recce platoon or SF to get those silenced weapons.....
I dunno about you guys, but I've been told if he's not wearing a helmet jam it in the temple. Again small target I know, but a lot less noise. Except for crunch, squish and the body hitting the ground.


----------



## Kal (22 Mar 2005)

JimmyPeOn said:
			
		

> I dunno about you guys, but I've been told if he's not wearing a helmet jam it in the temple. Again small target I know, but a lot less noise. Except for crunch, squish and the body hitting the ground.



     Could, still not a guarantee to drop them, however.  May just knock him out and have him wake up a couple minutes later, if it were to be done, once they are on the ground they would have to be put down for good.  It would almost be too elementary for some I think.  Besides, you want to train in tactics and techniques that you can utilize in any situation.


----------



## Kal (22 Mar 2005)

still cant be used in all situations, even if the person is wearing some type of heavy head covering, a lot of the impact force is lost and that sharp end fact is at least partially negated.


----------



## SteelMag (22 Mar 2005)

Just a quick comment..

To the soldier who carries an M-4A1 (C8) would a bayonet not be to useful mounted on such a short carbine.  Ive had the opprutunity to hold a C-8 that the OPP is using now and the weapon is outstandingly small for a carbine to me.   Now isnt the point of a bayonet to extend your reach during hand to hand combat (like a olden day spear) so you dont have to get within range to be grabbed by your opponent.  Old military rifles seem to be long sometimes for the purpose of bayonet fighting (japanese arsakias sp? type 38 bolt action rifle comes to mind as its length with bayonet attached gave much better reach than US rifles).

So is the bayonet becoming less effective because of the military becoming more reliant on shorter more compact weapons.


----------



## big_johnson1 (22 Mar 2005)

Kal said:
			
		

> So what do we do then?   Can't get a silenced weapon, impact technique if im lucky enough to have a shovel and hit that small target, unarmed technique, but that needs loads of training time and an unskilled opponent, and highly skilled operator. Then there's the knife technique, well too much body noise and others aren't necessarily flawless anyways.   May as well not train any of them then and when needed call in the recce platoon or SF to get those silenced weapons.....



I thought that was why we're recruiting ninjasnipers.. They can do ANYTHING..

Honestly though.. You are right, I didn't exactly leave any other options, but to tell you the truth, I can't think of any. Killing quietly is not an easy thing to do apparently, but maybe we need to examine if the average soldier is ever going to need that skill? If it is worth it to train everyone, maybe more training in H2H, or knife fighting, or throw a garrote into the mix.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Mar 2005)

The argument is getting into the "practical" rather than the psychological. A C-8 with a bayonet fixed is still going to get more of a reaction than one without, which is what we are really hoping for anyway.

If we are looking at the utility of various blades and edged weapons in combat, then go to a good museum and check out the weapons collections from the late middle ages. For Infantry soldiers of that age, bill hooks, gliaves and halberds, backed by a good short sword or dagger were the ideal weapons. Japanese Samurai and their retainers were also well versed in polearms, and had access to short blades in addition to the Samurai sword.

Since we fight with firearms rather than polearms, we need to keep the idea of a fighting knife as a backup (when all else fails), and the ability to mount it on the end of our rifle is a huge plus in many situations. A 22" "sword" bayonet is not really useful, but the current 8" blade should suffice for the 90% solution. The other 10%; i.e. silent sentry take out and other SF type work is probably best handled with special kit and special training (silenced weapons with locked "single shot" actions and subsonic ammunition). Personaly, I would rather have my mayhem "over there" rather than in my face, so the bayonet is not my first choice of tool, but rather my last.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Mar 2005)

Pretty good thread.

Does anyone have a picture of the new bayonet?

Ours is very very poor quality. It's often a joke how many of them troops can manage to break during obsticle courses or bayonet training.

I've seen a lot of pictures of crowd confrontations in Iraq and the soldiers more often than not had bayonets fixed. I think it's an obvious psychological issue for people on both ends of the tip.

edit: KevinB you really have some badass toys to play with.


----------



## COBRA-6 (22 Mar 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Ours is very very poor quality. It's often a joke how many of them troops can manage to break during obsticle courses or bayonet training.



Indeed, we did the bayonet assault course in Ft Knox, I could not believe how many were broken... not very re-assuring... is that because the white metal is supposed to be non-magnetic for mine-probing? Something I've heard but never seen in a pam...


----------



## Bomber (22 Mar 2005)

Hard as all hell to post this on here. But here is the link

http://army.ca/cgi-bin/album.pl?photo=Vehicles/Equipment/New_Bayonet1.JPG


----------



## Canadian Sig (22 Mar 2005)

No way does that even remotly look like it will fit in the same spot on the tac vest. I love the way we spend money...lol  :dontpanic:


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Mar 2005)

That bayonet looks pretty good to me.   Sorta reminds me of the american one.

I've seen a few pictures of our guys wearing the bayonet on the straps to the left (or right) side of the tacvest at the bottom.   Seems like it's roughly in the same spot where the bayonet would be on the 82 webbing.

Man, some people are really all about cutting up peoples necks and killing sentries.
If I ever had to kill a sentry i'd probably use a rock because if im cutting up food with my bayonet after and theres some dudes blood on it that would be gross. Ever watch CSI? Blood don't just wash off.


----------



## Bomber (22 Mar 2005)

Bayonet mounts in the same spot.  I have seen the pictures of the guys putting them on the sides and back, the only problem with it in the middle is that the new one will not shatter on your jaw if you jam it in and miss the scabbard, it will give you one hell of a nasty shaving scratch.


----------



## Bomber (22 Mar 2005)

http://army.ca/cgi-bin/album.pl?photo=Weapons/Bayonet_mounted.JPG

Here she be.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Mar 2005)

> Cutting up food, that's what a tactical folder is for.



You ever try cutting a can of ravioli open with a pocket knife?   
Man leave the pocket knife at home and carry 5 more bullets!   :blotto:

I was attempting a little sarcasim, you seem to miss it often heh 
I   find that many people seem to have some romantic concept of soldiers running around "slotting tangos" with a knife. I agree there are actually times and places for that sort of thing (and it doesnt hurt to have the training) but many young soldiers, i think, really need to be grounded. I know many of our peers in the reserve world talk about killing just being killing and all the high speed shit they would do with all the SF/JTF slang. 

I think many of our peers   (hell maybe me or you)   would shit their pants if they actually had to use a bayonet to kill someone. I'm a big fan of trying to convince reserve world 'operators' to slow down a little. I find some guys try and use "the lingo" to seemingly make up for less experience or TI?

If you want to practice using a bayonet of all things to kill someone more power to you. I figure i'll use my bayonet for more menial tasks such as cutting rope, making tent pegs or trench markers, cutting foilage in a hide, attaching it to the C7 blade pointing down so i can dig it into the ground and sleep with my helmet on the scope  
I know theres better tools out there for that job, i carry a kabar knife/cold steel recon tanto or the survival version of the "jump knife" when im in the field. I always ask my wife which one i should bring and she tells me to fuck off. (Point to note, wives dont give a shit what knife you bring to the field) 
I'd just like to see a better model bayonet so you can use it more effectively as a tool, you know, have wider applications.

Edited a lot becuase i spell like a 5 year old.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (23 Mar 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> You ever try cutting a can of ravioli open with a pocket knife?
> Man leave the pocket knife at home and carry 5 more bullets!   :blotto:
> . I figure i'I'llse my bayonet for more menial tasks such as cutting rope, making tent pegs or trench markers, cutting foilage in a hide, attaching it to the C7 blade pointing down so i can dig it into the ground and sleep with my helmet on the scope
> I know theres better tools out there for that job, i carry a kabar knife/cold steel recon tanto or the survival version of the "jump knife" when im in the field. I always ask my wife which one i should bring and she tells me to **** off. (Point to note, wives dont give a crap what knife you bring to the field)
> ...


     The Old FN bayonette, once you got an edge on it, was the second best tool for any job required in the field, and lighter than carrying the other seventy odd tools that were better for each of the tasks.  It was unbreakable (save for the truly gifted), and if you did ever need to stick someone, it was designed to be an excellent penetrating weapon.  It was not for finesse throat cutting or other commando crap, it was designed for the intended purpose of punching through watever was between hilt and heart.  It was a general infantry weapon, not a special forces "silent death" anti sentry device, but again, its the second best tool for the job, and if you have to take a stab at it (pardon the pun) then it will do as a field expedient.  The first C7 bayonet introduced was a fragile piece of crap.  I am used to abusing my bayonet, and so I broke a few.  If you're going to carry one, give us one that can take a little punishment, and can actually do the job.  The new one actually looks like a bayonette, and sounds like it can take a little abuse.  Its about time we got a decent one.  The bayonete is not obsolete, except when your issue kit is a useless heap of (edit comming) sh*t.


----------



## Britney Spears (23 Mar 2005)

Well, take out the word "bayonet" and you could say the same thing about the C-7 vs the FN C1 too. Times have changed and the emphasis is different nowadays. Most infantrymen today don't even carry plain ol' C-7s anymore.


----------



## Old Man (24 Mar 2005)

Quick Question, NATO Boy, admittedly a bit of a left turn from the thread topic.
Which Stalwart Guardian had highland units fighting to the sound of bagpipes? I was on SG 04 but was away from the LIBs so might have missed this. When marching with pipes I often thought that the sound would lend some power to an attack, even modern day - how did it work out?

By the way, although I've been reading the forums on this site for a while, I'm new as a posting member, so hello to all. Hope I don't break etiquette before learning the ropes.


----------



## Danjanou (24 Mar 2005)

The operative word is psychological here, an important if overlooked aspect in combat.

Read the accounts of the Brit action again. The last thing these Iraqi insurgents expected was the Brits to come charging at them, and therefore it worked. From the sounds of things instead of doing what they should have dropped into good firing positions and shot these idiotic Brits running at them screaming with pointed sticks and their heads off, but they didn't.

Instead they probably stood there jaws dropped until the squaddies close the distance and then, well game over.

Monday morning quarter backing this, it probably didn't look too smart a move for the commander on the ground, but it worked end of story.

Psychological weapon for the side using it too. Anybody remember that old â Å“spirt of the bayonet mentalityâ ? or is that taboo in these SHARP warm fuzzy days. Gets the aggression up, the adrenalin going, things you want, need in a fire fight. Great training tool IIRC.

Bagpipes do that too. I severed in two Highland units and nothing like an going in on a Platoon or Coy attack on Ex with the pipes. During the period when I was in a non kilted unit I was on the receiving end of a Bag pipe "charge" in Nova Scotia and didn't like it one bit.

Tradition be damned, they are still around because they still work! Not the best weapon in our arsenal but better than nothing, and only an idiot believes in â Å“unarmed combat.â ?


----------



## MJP (24 Mar 2005)

Proposing that we use helmets, rifles or boots based on tradition is ridiculous at best.   I understand what you are trying to do, by viewing our current equipment from a historical standpoint,   but I think your argument falls flat.   Bayonets wether we like it or not our going to stay as part of our EIS for the time being, even if only four guys in section have them.   At least the new bayonet can be used to actually cut something..maybe that'll alleviate some of hate (mine included) for the current bayonet.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (24 Mar 2005)

Unarmed Combat.....The last resort for a soldier. Bayonet, E-Tool, Pick, whatever...........The bayonet is indeed a psychological tool as well as a deadly weapon. A motivated and ferocious Infantry Soldier with a bayonet fixed, is a man who is prepared to use it. That tells the enemy that it's time to do the business, and that a mere lack of ammo will not halt the attack.

That and the fact that when the ammo runs out and the force of 3000 enemy is overrunning your position, you have to do something, 'cause they're not going to let you live. 

I like the bayonet, I just wish we um, had one, um we could be more 'proud?' of..........


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Mar 2005)

> 2. Helmets - These have been around since the Dark Ages; but their usefulness is questionable.



I've been hit in the helmet with a ricochet from a C7 while in the butts at connaught. Had a huge tree Branch hit the sit of my helmet during the ice storm.   Had my helmet save me from cracking open my skull when our grizzly hit a huge hole , banging my head off the port. Wacked in the head with a steel picket from a troop horsing around and not paying attention. (Look at me, im darth maul, im a starwars looser). been kicked in the head pretty hard by an over zealous enemy force guy.

Just to name a few useful situations.

I think you should take a look at how many wounded soldiers in Iraq are owing their lives to body armor protecting their center of mass and helmets protecting their heads.   

Usefulness is questionable?



> Riflemen are still the men that win the firefight with accurate fire (C9s can only suppress the enemy.) ANSWER - TRADITION



How i see it, in a platoon the C6 gunner is the MVP followed by the C9 gunners. ("2 C9s make up for 80% of the sections firepower")

It's interesting to look at it from a tradition point of view but I don't think your examples are very accurate.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Mar 2005)

NATO Boy said:
			
		

> 1. Bagpipes in battle - I have seen this on exercise (Stalwart Guardian) with other highland regiments and in history (WW2 anyone?.) Why were they still used in WW2 for controlling the fight when radios were in existence? Why do units today still use them during raids or Coy level offensives? ANSWER - TRADITION



Lets see some examples of Bagpipes being used in an operational environment - Micheal seems to be saying you're full of it....



> 2. Helmets - These have been around since the Dark Ages; but their usefulness is questionable. While they give ballistic protection from "light" ordnance and shrapnel, they increase your silhouette and make your head an easier acquired target. Anyone can attest that a 5.56 or 7.62 round can bust up our helmet at 400 meters, so why not incorporate a new design (hemelts these days appear to be just variants of the US M1 helmet anyway, I think it's time to examine a new concept.) ANSWER - TRADITION



WRONG - the latest USMC Lessons-Learned to come out of the Battle of Fallujah were to ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS wear your protective gear.   I highly doubt this observation was included for the sake of tradition.   The guys in battle are saying "helmets work"....



> 3. Combat boots - I know this can get broad so I'll just refer to the MK 3s. Leather boot with rubber sole with resemblance to Vietnam Era jungle boots and even resemblance to WW2 3RD Division Cdn Infantry boots (minus the cuff of course.) Why do we still use these instead of more new designs completely other than cost concerns (Gore-Tex, Danners, la dee da dee da....) ANSWER - TRADITION



WRONG - it is a simple and effective boot to issue to soldiers.   MkIII's are strong leather, easily maintainable, and are a fairly high boot for ankle support.   You will also notice that the Temperate Combat Boot is meant to be the replacement for the MkIII - perhaps the CF isn't basing its footwear decisions on tradition but rather on new understanding of orthopedic health for footborne troops?   



> 3. Battle rifles - They have evolved, no doubt in that (automatic fire, high velocity small calibre ammo, optics, manufacture, e.t.c.); but there intended use and function has not changed. Riflemen are still the men that win the firefight with accurate fire (C9s can only suppress the enemy.) ANSWER - TRADITION



What are you talking about?   We use battle rifles because of tradition?   You're off your rocker.   If you think a C9 can only suppress the enemy, then try fighting against an entrenched Machine Gun.   I don't see one bit of tradition in using a rifle or a machine gun - perhaps, just perhaps, we are using them *because they are effective*?

Sounds to me like someone needs to read English's On Infantry to learn the basics of the trade....



> Although these examples have other answers for their uses (not to mention they are few and between,) two of them essentially follow the motto "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" to a "T" much like the trusty Bayonet. As for the bagpipes, I'll let you figure that one out.



I remember Dave Grossman saying that even in recorded Bayonet fighting, most soldiers flip their rifles around and use them as clubs.   Perhaps the short little pointer on the end of a rifle isn't enough to be a suitable offensive tool for soldiers?


----------



## Britney Spears (24 Mar 2005)

Can we kindly stop quoting the A&SH/PWRR actions in Iraq as unequivical proof of the utility of the bayonet charge on the modern battlefield? One single anecdote is not sufficient evidence to validate an entire set of tactics. Would you like me to find some examples of bayonet charges being shot to ribbons by defenders with enough training to not run away at the first sight of the enemy? I'm sure there's been a few since the Boxer rebellion.

I guess I must be too young to be intimidated by sharp sticks. I imagine the sight of my position being painted by laser designators/rangefinders would be much more morale crushing, I know I'd take off like a jackrabbit if I ever saw one of those. For that purpose, a PEQ-2 mounted on a C8SFW is a pretty terrifying weapon.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Mar 2005)

Britney is right - I've seen first hand statements by American soldiers that Iraqi Hadji's are the only ones who can consistenly fuck up a two-sided ambush.  I'd hardly use fighters of this caliber, who run away from a fuming Brit, as validation for a bayonet charge.


----------



## COBRA-6 (24 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Kudos to your Sergeant for attempting to instill aggression in his soldiers, though....



I agree, modern combat effectiveness aside, nothing instills the spirit of violence and aggression like bayonet/pugil training or a bayonet assault course... really focuses the mind on the true end state of being a soldier...


----------



## KevinB (24 Mar 2005)

Tradition....

Well I for one beleive differently...





















































So much for tradition...


----------



## KevinB (24 Mar 2005)

I'm not to big on parades...

 Besides I found more tradition...
 ;D


----------



## CH1 (25 Mar 2005)

Something I learned many moons ago while posted south of the Mason/Dixie.  This little bit of wisdom was given by some very knowledge street people.  When you run out of bullets, you are fair game, but if you have a knife (bayonet), you have respect. Simple in thought but true.

so much for my 2 1/2 cents.

cheers


----------



## a_majoor (29 Mar 2005)

(This paper was 'published' in the Spring 2000 edition of the Canadian Army's Infantry Journal. Due to its relative length, it was listed in the publication's table of contents as internet only.)

A la bayonet, or, "hot blood and cold steel"

by: Capt Michael M. O'Leary, The RCR
Copyright, 1999

http://members.tripod.com/RegimentalRogue/papers/bayonet.htm

A well written dissetation on the bayonet


----------



## Jungle (29 Mar 2005)

The role of the Infantry is still to "Close with and destroy the enemy..." Although some people are romantically referring to them as "bayonet charges", these actions are simply the last phase of an assault on an enemy position. During an assault, all weapons in an Inf section move forward, regardless if they have a bayonet fixed or not. But if I have to close with and get personal with the enemy, I want all chances on my side; and yes, that includes a few bayonets in the Section/ Platoon.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (30 Mar 2005)

When our ancestors fought with cold steel, it was expected that you would look down the length of your arm to see your enemy dying on your steel, and feel his muscles spasming around your blade.  It takes a lot of nerve to kill at point blank range.  Tankers and Airmen can attack enemy systems, riflemen can shoot sight pictures, silouttes and keep an emotional distance.  Machine gunners can coldly lay down suppressing fire and "service" their targets.  When you go to zero range combat, you have to look your targets in the eye, and watch as your bullets take them apart.  That is as huge a psychological step from faceless sight picture as it was for our ancestors facing the enemy with 18" of shortsword.  The order to fix bayonets places the troops firmly in the mental place to look their enemy in the face, and watch them die.  Do not disreguard the psychological impact of this change.  The warrior spirit was easy to induce standing in ranks, shoulder to shoulder, you took your reenforcement from your brothers to the left and right, the massed fury of the army as it advanced.  Today, we fight more dispersed than at any time in history, and our individual troops are expected to show more initiative than juniour officers of a century ago would have.  A soldier must find within himself the tools to make the transition from modern soldier, the weapon technician, to warrior, the in-your-face killer, like flipping a switch.  Bayonet training is one method of giving our soldiers that "switch".  The order to fix bayonets builds the fire in the soldier, you are not going to snipe at range, you are going to close with and kill the enemy.  We don't get pipers or trumpets, or the sound of a thousand throats bellowing a warcry any more, they just don't fit in modern combat, but we have the same needs as the Hoplites at Troy, to nerve yourself to engage the enemy closely, and kill him.  In a game where seconds seperate the victors from the victims, anything that can prevent a half seconds hesitation in your troops, or give it to your enemies, is an effective weapon.  Can the same function be served by other means?  I think so, but I haven't seen them yet.  For now, the bayonet remains a part of the infantrymans training for a good reason, and not related to the slight chance of perforating some poor fool, but for its effects on the minds of the infantryman fixing the bayonet, and the people looking at receiving it.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Apr 2005)

Some closing thoughts:

If we are really discussing the utillity of "getting it on" at hand to hand range, then the rest of our equipment has to change as well. Soldiers need to wear "shot gloves" with enough weight in them to break bones when striking an opponent. Elbow and knee pads should have raised metal bosses so when you knee or elbow an opponent, it will leave an impression. The mounting bracket on helmets for the night visiion equipment is also useful when head butting an opponent. Finally, instead of having a bayonet or fighting knife (which is of limited utility against an armoured opponent anyway), each soldier should have a small club or extendable baton (like the ASP) which he can use once the stock of the rifle has been broken over the enemy's head.

On the other hand, if we are talking about conditioning the soldier for the battle, and having a secondary weapon for CCO or prisoner control, then the bayonet is still the way to go


----------



## dutchie (1 Apr 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Soldiers need to wear "shot gloves" with enough weight in them to break bones when striking an opponent. Elbow and knee pads should have raised metal bosses so when you knee or elbow an opponent, it will leave an impression. The mounting bracket on helmets for the night visiion equipment is also useful when head butting an opponent. Finally, instead of having a bayonet or fighting knife (which is of limited utility against an armoured opponent anyway), each soldier should have a small club or extendable baton (like the ASP) which he can use once the stock of the rifle has been broken over the enemy's head.



Or we can just carry a pistol as a back up.....


----------



## Kal (1 Apr 2005)

Although the dialogue of this thread is quite interesting, I find it more interesting the mindsets of those posting, especially those of a proponent for the bayonet.  Here's where I become intrigued.  When someone states that the bayonet is still an effective weapon, someone else chimes in to say, well, I would rather have a pistol.  It is agreed that everyone would rather have a primary and secondary firearm before even thinking about engaging with a bayonet/knife/asp, etc.  But what if you were one of those poor f***s that ran out of bullets in somalia and had been killed by impact weapons or knives, seeing as knife use is very prevalent in that part of the world.  I almost find it encouraging to see those that want to mold the mind and soul and body into that of a warrior and a weapon, and I believe unarmed combatives and instead of 'knife fighting',  learning 'effective knife use' is one of the best avenues to do so.  As I and many have said that training with a knife trains the pyscoholical to be a warrior perhaps even more than the body.  

Now this isn't a post to bash the 'gun fighter' but to maybe show that there is more than gun fighting, and just because you have a gun does make it the end all be all and neglect or even think that one doesn't need the other areas of training.


----------



## Loggy001 (9 Apr 2005)

Britney I think your just trying to piss people off and be stuipd.

A bayonet is not obsolete. Its has many uses and will always be an effective weapon in close quarter combat. Thats why it is still taught to all army soldiers. 

A bayoent is also very silent for those momemts were stealth is required.


----------



## Skinny (9 Apr 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Or we can just carry a pistol as a back up.....



but what backs up the pistol?


----------



## Infanteer (9 Apr 2005)

They skipped "Silent Kills with the Bayonet" on my BMQ....


----------



## KevinB (9 Apr 2005)

We actually used to teach different methods of sentry removal in Battle School -

 However the fact was often neglected that you actually had to get that close undetected - and the stabbing up thru the scrotum area was recommended, as it caused so much pain the tgt usually collapsed from pain.

Kal - Neither Shughart or Gordon ran out of ammo, and the bayonet would not have helped with umpteen thousand Somalians.  Knife fighting has a limited role - but with a knife not a half assed bayonet.

 Filling people with BS about the "power" of the bayonet will get a lot of troops killed needlessly - the majority of our troops are incompetant with their service weapons - we need to focus on the GunFighter to given them the confidence to use it properly and have them come out of lethal force encounters alive


----------



## Kal (9 Apr 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> We actually used to teach different methods of sentry removal in Battle School -
> 
> However the fact was often neglected that you actually had to get that close undetected - and the stabbing up thru the scrotum area was recommended, as it caused so much pain the tgt usually collapsed from pain.
> 
> ...



     Well, I can't argue with your post.  I wouldn't want to fight with that old brittle bayonet that is still issued, but a stronger tool, such a Coldsteel recon tanto or SRK, but I figured I sounded crazy enough in this thread that I had to draw the ine somewhere.  Like I said though, I would rather know it and not need, rather need and not know.  I still believe the knife fighting instills that warrior mentality that is lacking among some troops.

Oh thanks for the shivers up my spine by reminding me about the 'crotch kill'.  First heard of the Royal Marines using it...


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Apr 2005)

From: A la bayonet, or, "hot blood and cold steel"

http://regimentalrogue.com/papers/bayonet.htm



> Should bayonet training be dropped from Army syllabi? No, not necessarily. While it remains an available weapon, soldiers should be aware of its employment, but also of its limitations. Alternatively, the training of close quarter combat, including bayonet training, should be expanded and given broader scope. The intent is not to infuse a warrior spirit, for this cannot be done artificially, but to broaden the skill set and responses available to the average soldier.
> 
> First, let's update the bayonet. We continue to issue every soldier a bayonet that does not justify its own weight. Replace it with a sturdy, well-honed utility knife with a high-quality steel blade. Leave the bayonet mounting hardware on the hilt for the rare cases in which it becomes necessary. Teach the soldier how to handle a rifle and bayonet, but let's bring in a professional in improvised fighting techniques to help develop a useful combat system for it. Parade square parries and thrusts are only appropriate if the enemy has had similar instruction and is willing to fight by mutually understood rules. The Military Manual of Self-Defence (55) offers a series of aggressive alternatives to traditional bayonet fighting movements, its focus more on disabling the opponent than parrying until a clean point can be made. While not necessarily offering a full replacement to classic bayonet training, it does show that more options exist.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Apr 2005)

I agree that there is something to be said for the psychological impact of a rifle with a pointy thing on the end.  However, as an alternative, if you need a backup that doesn't depend on bullets, I'd prefer to see something like a kukri issued.  I would think the mind f*ck factor of these weapons, in the hands of troops PROPERLY trained in their use, would surpass that of a bayonet.  It also serves as a machete, axe, and has a dozen other field applications....my $.02

CHIMO, Kat


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Apr 2005)

> I'd prefer to see something like a kukri issued.   I would think the mind f*ck factor of these weapons, in the hands of troops PROPERLY trained in their use, would surpass that of a bayonet.   It also serves as a machete, axe, and has a dozen other field applications



We're Canadian, though.   What are the chances of a Kukri looking too agressive?

Forget the fibrals ripping off Canada, imagine the public outcry when a picture of a soldier carrying one of those suckers pop up?


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Apr 2005)

Good point, Ghost. However IMHO (as always, don't want to look like an expert or anything), the Great Canadian Masses need to be educated to the fact that if we are going in harms way, we need to be able to return that harm.  If people can swallow the notion of their sons and daughters carrying a rifle, a bloody big knife shouldn't be that much of a stretch...

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## gottyfunk (14 Apr 2005)

i can uderstand the reasons for having a bayonet (sorta)  i would think of it as more a transitional device. If u have a weopon failure then you transtion to the next, and so on. Makes a bit more sense to have a handgun to transtion too instead of a blade that is a p.o.s . If it being issued as a tool .................well thats what the multiplyers for.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Apr 2005)

gottyfunk said:
			
		

> i can uderstand the reasons for having a bayonet (sorta)   i would think of it as more a transitional device. If u have a weopon failure then you transtion to the next, and so on. Makes a bit more sense to have a handgun to transtion too instead of a blade that is a p.o.s . If it being issued as a tool .................well thats what the multiplyers for.


Let's not forget that in a close in battle, there may not be time to get your handgun out.  If you are beyond bayonet range but within handgun range, then chances are you can seek cover and remedy the fault with the rifle.
Let's not forget the psychological effect of the bayonet on both the user and the intended victim.  There is nothing like the gleam of a bayonet shining in the dawn light to get troops motivated, and nothing worse to morale than a group of screaming soldiers coming at you, all to a man with a bayonet pointed seemingly at your throat.  So, let's not poo poo the bayonet.


----------



## KevinB (14 Apr 2005)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> Let's not forget that in a close in battle, there may not be time to get your handgun out.



 :

I can draw and fire pistol much faster than someone can draw a bayonet and use it effectively.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Apr 2005)

He may be refering to having the bayonet already fixed prior to the enemy encounter.


----------



## GO!!! (14 Apr 2005)

The bayonet also has other uses, like the control of PWs and crowds. It is very intimidating and not necessarily lethal. 

We do need a new one though.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Apr 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> :
> 
> I can draw and fire pistol much faster than someone can draw a bayonet and use it effectively.



A bayonet already fixed on a rifle and pointing at your head will make you submit faster than a pistol.  Now, suppose you have body armour on, a rifle in hand, it's hot, etc, etc and your rifle jams just as you enter a room and see Tommy and Timmy the Terrorist in the room.  Will you drop the rifle, fumble for the pistol and then go shooting?  Or, with bayonet already fixed, use it to stab Tommy in the throat and then club Timmy into submission?

I know this is rhetorical, and we could both "what if" this to death.  My point is that the bayonet is not obselete.  Does the CF need a new bayonet?  Yes, because the one we have is brittle.  Would I rather a pistol than a bayonet?  I don't know.  Would I like both?  CERTAINLY.  

The point is that in even a block two environment, a bayonet fixed to a rifle sends a psychological message to "them": "We're ready and we're agressive".  It has it's uses.


----------



## Kal (14 Apr 2005)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> A bayonet already fixed on a rifle and pointing at your head will make you submit faster than a pistol.   Now, suppose you have body armour on, a rifle in hand, it's hot, etc, etc and your rifle jams just as you enter a room and see Tommy and Timmy the Terrorist in the room.   Will you drop the rifle, fumble for the pistol and then go shooting?   Or, with bayonet already fixed, use it to stab Tommy in the throat and then club Timmy into submission?
> 
> I know this is rhetorical, and we could both "what if" this to death.   My point is that the bayonet is not obselete.   Does the CF need a new bayonet?   Yes, because the one we have is brittle.   Would I rather a pistol than a bayonet?   I don't know.   Would I like both?   CERTAINLY.
> 
> The point is that in even a block two environment, a bayonet fixed to a rifle sends a psychological message to "them": "We're ready and we're agressive".   It has it's uses.



Urban ops are tight enough without hindering yourself further by adding another 1/2 foot length to your weapon.  I would hazard a guess to assume the houses in the middle east are smaller than ones here at home and would only exagerate the problem.  As to fumbling with a pistol if your rifle goes down, well, you need more training then.  A transition from rifle to pistol can be done very quickly, in a matter of a couple seconds really.  As to slotting the guy while fixed, is good in theory, the enemy will not likely die immediately and from only one stab.  Flipside also, having the baynet fixed is a longer range weapon, while good if fighting someone unarmed or with a similiar weapon, in the close confines of CQB, the enemy may be so close as to clear your unweidly weapon out of the way and kill you, therefore having pistol back up is essential.


----------



## KevinB (14 Apr 2005)

vonGarvin - I understand your point   - but you won't see ME doing anything in a close quarter battle environment with a bayonet fixed - the C8SFW is long enough - let alone a C7A2 - without the bayonet attached.  Heck some of the houses in Afghan - the pistol a light and no kit was the only means of navigation...

 You can transition seamlessly from carbine to pistol - as your access stage to the pistol with your strong side - your weak is rolling the carbine and stowing it against the body.   During withdraw your weak should be able to move back and be ready to find the strong and puch out to the tgt.

 My point is I don't see a need for the bayonet in our current focus and feel that using it beyond a utility knife is filling our troops with antiquated illusions that will get them killed - it is the same idea for those who feel that cocking the weapon is part of the escalation of force   :   Having done Cyprus that was relevant then - however our new AO's are NOT.

I won't begrudge troops wanting bayonets - but I woudl not be foisting them on them either...   Tool inthe tool box use it as you see fit.


----------



## GO!!! (14 Apr 2005)

If even one of you can point out an infantry unit with pistols for all, time and $ for weapon transition trg, and short barrelled rifles for all, please inform me, as I want to go there!

Until then, my bayonet stays on my kit!


----------



## KevinB (14 Apr 2005)

GO!, for the last three years I have always had a pistol in addition - C6 gunner, Sec 2i/c, Wpn Det Cdr, and Section Commander. For tours we seem to be able to rangle C8's.  The JTF have run transition ranges for 1 and 3VP - continuation training is the unit responsibility, since both units has a number of Hill retirees it should not be a problem to find a SME.   I train/shoot on my own since I LONG ago gave up with the CF ever getting/keeping me at a competent level.
 Any training/course I have taken with "higher" level instruction tend to disregard the bayonet.

I have been threatend overseas with a bayonet and it was all I could do to stop myself from laughing.


----------



## GO!!! (14 Apr 2005)

GO!, for the last three years I have always had a pistol in addition - C6 gunner, Sec 2i/c, Wpn Det Cdr, and Section Commander. For tours we seem to be able to rangle C8's. 

Good! so what about the other 20 guys in the platoon? As I said, not enough pistols.

C8 - good, as long as you only deploy in pl, coy size - as I said, not enough C8s

The JTF have run 2 x 12 man serials - 2 yrs ago, and as I said, not enough ammo for transition trg - or its continuation

As for your "higher" trg, how much of it required you to guard violent prisoners in a field environment for several hours?

If you really were threatened with a bayonet and laughed, it would have been REALLY funny if the guy stuck it on the left side of your ballistic plate and killed you, as recently happened in Iraq.

AND the JTF does alot of things we cant replicate in a light infantry unit.


----------



## gottyfunk (14 Apr 2005)

So good issues have been brought up. Especially in mout, will a bayonet properly defeat body armour ? what happens if u hit a trauma plate ? gonna have enough time to go for unprotected area?. With a side arm you could try a double to center and then to head/face or butt stroke to the face. I guess military sop is what need modifying , but being a knife nut the current blade sucks except as a door stop.


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Apr 2005)

gottyfunk said:
			
		

> So good issues have been brought up. Especially in mout, will a bayonet properly defeat body armour ? what happens if u hit a trauma plate ? gonna have enough time to go for unprotected area?. With a side arm you could try a double to center and then to head/face or butt stroke to the face. I guess military sop is what need modifying , but being a knife nut the current blade sucks except as a door stop.



A door stop?   Maybe on a doll house.  The bayonet is brittle and ineffective (the current issue bayonet that is).
Let's face it.  For an 18 year old recruit (yes, I was one once), the only thing sexier than the FN C1A1 with a  Bayonet fixed wore a bra. (I hope that came out right).  It makes the soldier aggressive when bayonets are fixed (not always useful, but if you are about to "close with and destroy", it helps).
As for pistols and C8s for all: whither shall we get these?  Would it be nice?  Sure would!  Heck, the MP5 would probably be better in a block 2 urban environment. (less chance to perforate a wall but great stopping power against a human chest).  But, as I mentioned previously, we could all "what if" this to death.  My point is simply that the bayonet is still useful.  The original post mentioned a bayonet charge in Iraq by a Brit unit.  The main point of that is not that the enemy were killed from a long range, but they actually "closed with and destroyed".  The shock effect on the enemy is sometimes enough to give you the upper hand.
As for being threatened by a bayonet and laughing, well, that's your perogative, and since I wasn't there, I have no idea what the situation was (the black knight of Monty Python fame threatening to bite off yer knee caps comes to mind), so, perhaps it was laughable.  Now suppose you have a dozen or so screaming, yelling "Huns" coming at you, and all you see is the gleam of steel.  Psychologically, that could be devestating.  Now, if you're in a LAV 3 APC as they do this, well...."Coax, Battle, Men, on!" "Battle on!" "Coax ready....fire!"  "Firing now, Target....Firing now, Target" "Target Stop" "Gun safe, first, wide, main, 200, Start Mode" "Switches up, over-ride off, Nav to turret, Start mode.  Man....what were they thinking?" "I dunno....gotta light?"
 :fifty:


----------



## gottyfunk (16 Apr 2005)

Ok so we all beleive a bayonet is still a usefull tool, but who was the smart guy who decided to mount the frog on the middle of tac vest? 
Who evers idea it was did some homework in qcb, I ve read and seen the odd subject on were to place a defense blade for the best retention and ease of draw and they all said on center chest area as it was a very easy 
ly controled area. the article was very interesting and was written by the designer of the crkt hissatsu, its a traditional tanto blade(not the squared up one most us see). He addvicates mounting blade center mass and drawing on a ftf . It was in a older guns magizine couple years back . I am just wondering if the mounting of our bayonet has something to do with this midset ? or is it just ease of access? any ideas ?


----------



## Kal (17 Apr 2005)

while the carry site is good for drawing with either hand, it's not perfect.  it's as accessable to the enemy as it is for yourself, and it relatively easily to stop or hinder the draw of the knife just long enough for the enemy to draw one of his weapons, if they haven't already.


----------



## KevinB (17 Apr 2005)

The centre line bayonet - can't be used rappeling or parachuting - and with the snap system good luck getting it in a hurry.

Also a large # have broken doing up he sees me down.  The current doctrine is to move it to the weak side C9 pouch


----------



## paracowboy (17 Apr 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> The centre line bayonet - can't be used rappeling or parachuting - and with the snap system good luck getting it in a hurry.
> 
> Also a large # have broken doing up he sees me down.   The current doctrine is to move it to the weak side C9 pouch


yup, push it around to your back, get it out of the way.


----------



## LMN (25 Apr 2005)

If EVERYONE was issued a sidearm, I'd MAYBE be willing to give up my bayonet.  Seeing how that's not going to happen anytime soon, I'll keep it thank you very much.  And even if I had a sidearm, I'd still be inclined to carry it with me.  I'd rather haul it and never use it than be stuck in a situation where I really needed it and didn't have it.  

Besides, they make a fairly decent utility knife...sharpen em up and you can cut that ol' ham steak in pinapple sauce into edible sizes.  That and I like to use it to cut hessian matting and rope instead of eating the blade on my pocket knife.


----------



## dutchie (26 Apr 2005)

LMN said:
			
		

> I'd rather haul it and never use it than be stuck in a situation where I really needed it and didn't have it.



If we selected what we were going to carry based on this idea, we'd all be loaded down with 450 lbs of mostly useless kit. We can't carry unlimited amounts of kit, we are very limited in space and weight. If you drive everywear, fine, put it in the truck/carrier. If you're rucking it, carry what's NEEDED, no more.



			
				LMN said:
			
		

> Besides, they make a fairly decent utility knife...sharpen em up and you can cut that ol' ham steak in pinapple sauce into edible sizes.



Mmmmm, yummee! I hope I get your bayonet next! All that delicious ham and pineapple sauce rotting on the inside of the scabbard!



			
				LMN said:
			
		

> That and I like to use it to cut hessian matting and rope instead of eating the blade on my pocket knife.



I think you need to invest in a new field knife if you 'eat the blade' on hessian and rope. That's what your _supposed_ to cut with it, for God's sake.


----------



## Britney Spears (26 Apr 2005)

> Quote from: LMN on Yesterday at 02:35:32
> Besides, they make a fairly decent utility knife...sharpen em up and you can cut that ol' ham steak in pinapple sauce into edible sizes.
> 
> Mmmmm, yummee! I hope I get your bayonet next! All that delicious ham and pineapple sauce rotting on the inside of the scabbard!



I never fail to get a kick out of guys using issued blades (Bayonet, Gerber, C5 multitool, KFS) onfood. We recently made it a policy to wear rubber gloves when handling CLP (something I've been doing since the 3rd day I got in, due to the well known toxic and carcinogenic nature of CLP), the same CLP you use to polish those blades. 


And you guys EAT with those things?  Gee I wish I could be as hard as you one day.....


----------



## paracowboy (26 Apr 2005)

ANYway, bottom line, the bayonet isn't going anywhere. Love it or hate it, you're still gonna be humpin' it. A couple hunnerd years from now, we're gonna have Interstellar Infantry gripin' 'bout how useless it is.

And back on track - Good on those Brits! (Me, I dunno. Prob'ly never enter into my thinking to fix bayonets, but it worked, so kudos to them!)


----------



## Dale Turner (1 Jun 2005)

Everyone seems to be complaining about having to "hump" a bayonet around with them. I'm not sure where you guys got your bayonet but mine's not that heavy! ;D

You can always use it as a mine probe.  I'd rather use the bayonet than my gerber.


----------



## Britney Spears (1 Jun 2005)

The weight isn't the problem, it the useless-ness that's the problem. The melmac plate  isn't heavy either, but who carries that that thing around?


----------



## 1feral1 (1 Jun 2005)

I'd rather have a bayonet and not need than need it and not have it.

Now there is a lot of pers who seem to have a mad hate for the ole Nella C7 bayonet. So, if you had to have a bayonet for your C7 wouild you want an M9? Or the new USMC version? Our the new Euro C-2000? 

Did you know that the C7 Nella is a PI version of the US M7, and get this the M7 design goes back to the M4 for the US M1 Carbine in 1943, and the US M3 trench knife too.

Other bayonets follwed for the USM1 Garand in the Korean War( the M5), and then the bayonet for the M14 rifle too (late 1950s), then along came the US M7 for the M16 FOW. Recently and currently, its made in many countries including Germany, Canada, USA, Korea, The Philippines and even copies have turned up in China.

Plus its blade design type was also used on HK's G3 rifle, and this type was generic to Norway, Sweden, and the then West Germany. Also copied by the Turks too.

So even though you whinge and say it breaks, its been around for over 60 years, and the Cdn one is about the best, although the scabbard design has lacked creativity.

Now what about the new CF bayonet for the Diemaco C7 family? Its called the C-2000, and its going to be OD in colour (not black like its Euro counterpart), plus Eickhorn is making it, but it will be made in the UK, not in Germany or in Canada. Go figure, but the company was bought out by a UK firm. It will be capable of cutting wire too.

Now, get this, they'll also be serialised (on the blade), so they'll be controlled and tracked by CFR. So, not as easy to acquire as the old Nella which pop up even here at the gun shows, and are quite common around the world to collectors, etc. After all they have been around for 20 years now. Humm, time does fly.

One final thing, the screw driver on the end of the C-2000 scabbard is deleted on the Cdn model, so ya's won't get a poke in the chin when its worn inverted on your tac vests.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## honestyrules (5 Jun 2005)

Like it or not COY MEDIC is right. The bayonet is our "mine prodder" too. Just like when you do your training for overseas...


----------



## GO!!! (5 Jun 2005)

How about when you GO overseas, and since you have so much shite on the end of your rifle and a 203, you can't mount a bayonet?

And since your bayonet is dull (not allowed to sharpen it) conductive (not a really great mine probe) and heavy when added to the 85lb rucks, it gets left behind with the gumby boots, arctic slippers and e-tool.

If you need more evidence of these being dropped on ops, look to the USMC, who is considering dropping it all together in favour of a utility knife.

And for fu(ks sakes, if you are in a minefield, call the Engineers!


----------



## KevinB (5 Jun 2005)

I prod with a section of cleaning rod.  Why - cause I dont carry my bayonet overseas  ;D

 Secondly as GO stated - with PEQ/PAC, SF Light, M203 perhaps - exactly how much bayonet fighting do you expect to do?  For those who remember 10+ years ago when we used to training in UA Cbt and Bayonet and Pugil Stick Fighting weekly - those days are gone.

 Putting a bayonet on the end of my C8 I would be a liability to myself and my teammates - 

Try trying to slash, butstroke (never a good idea - giving the control are of your weapon to the enemy...)

I know its romantic - but get over it - its time came and has gone.  I still carry a blade on my kit - but it is to icepick people who put their hand on my pistol.


----------



## Britney Spears (5 Jun 2005)

Well it's nice to know all the CSS types are so enamoured with the bayonet and want to carry it everywhere between their teeth.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Jun 2005)

OK, I am not a tradesman, I am in the combat arms, and people who decry the bayonet are probably the same ones who carry 100 feet of rope, a few d links, and other useless crap.   You are a weapon.   When your rifle jams or runs out of ammo, you still have it as a club.   Having a pointy end on it only serves to amplify your killing ability.   And lets not forget the psychological effect of a bayonet.   As the original post in this daisy chain stated, it served its purpose just a relatively short time ago.   Sure we have laser beams, hyperbaric weapons, GPS guided bombs and all that, but nothing says "I mean business" like a bayonet on the end of a rifle.  And I quote:

"The look on their faces was utter shock. They were under the impression we were going to lie in our ditch, shoot from a distance and they would run away.

"I slashed people, rifle-butted them. I was punching and kicking. It was either me or them. It didn't seem real. Anybody can pull a trigger from a distance, but we got up close and personal."

"Utter Shock".  Nothing like that to make a guy stop shooting at you....or breathing.....


----------



## KevinB (14 Jun 2005)

Yeah I might need that rope  :


Jungle - GO has some very valid points, how often to BN's do bayonet training?  and why is it only once in a blue moon?
 Like anyone who is not taking his/her training seriously your going to get hurt if you think the bayonet is an effective weapon on a rifle if you don't practisie it a lot - and how often do we practise it in FULL kit.

 Wearing a Gen III frag vest and plates plus Helmet - your mobility is SEVERLY constrained - you cannot do HALF (if not more) of the manuver that are taught - so why teach them.

 Yes it is a pyschological item and gets troops worked up - but I put it to you so was the _dawa_ that Congolese Witch Doctors prctised on the Simba's -- they beleived they where impervious to bullets -- The Belgian Para-Commando's demonstrated very clearly they were not!
  Similiarily the Belgians issues ALL their Para-Commando's with pistols while we where in Afghanistan.  Maybe they learned something?

 Secondly the while the bayonet is good for stabbing people in the back (the Iraqi's in the intial question routed) - what happens if your enemy stands and fights - with weapons?

The NELLA bayonet is ass - I've broken 5-6 in my career, I never broke an FN bayonet.

And the dig against being a Cpl for X years - Not cool, so what Cpls are the ones out there doing the job and mentoring the young privates one on one in the Bn's - GO had a valid point that a lot arrive with DUMB ideas - ideas foisted them on the the BSL.


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Jun 2005)

I agree that bayonet training is not effective; however, the bayonet still is valid.  As for the Witch doctors and the psychological effect, that is not a good analogy for the effect of the bayonet.  A more valid analogy would be the All Blacks doing their dance prior to a match in order to "psych out" their opponents.  A bit of Psy-Ops, perhaps.  Regarding the bayonet, the problem is with the training, as mentioned.  Perhaps 70 lbs should be strapped on a lad and THEN go out and stab rubber targets, and for heaven's sake, get one that doesn't break when you try to peel an orange with it


----------



## KevinB (15 Jun 2005)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> It's not about being inspection ready.   It's having kit that the system can replace.   Your danners go kaput?   What do you do?   Order some from Blackhawk?   No.     You wear the issued kit (even though Danners or whatever may be better, but the Mk IV is "okay").



What about us medically issued Danner folk?   In 1996 I was sent to a podietrist and as a result have been issued those boots ever since?   IF my boot blows out - worst case is I sign for an issue pair in my size UNTIL I can get a replacement.

 The whole what happens if non issue stuff fails is a bit of a red herring as - it does not matter what failed - the system needs to have replacement kit - big deal IF I dont return the blown item - I'll simply sign for another set until I can get it worked out - No one can tell me that can't and does not work.



Back to the bayonet - sure use it - fill your boots but NO ONE can show me that the psychological "boost" it gives is a good idea in the current combat arena - use it to "hone" troops agression, sure.   IF it comes down to fighting witha   bayonet - I think there will be many troops who are no longer breathing and one can scavange ammo off them - I dont see the goign doing fighting in a coy postion with all at 'fixed bayonets' as logical or rationale choice.
 I'd much rather spent the time it take to get one semi proficient at bayonet drills, into CQB shooting and FIBUA tactics so they DONT need to rely on a bayonet - HECK foreign weapon training would be time better spent.


----------



## Acorn (15 Jun 2005)

If you want to think of it as a true killing weapon, the bayonet has been obsolete since Gustavus Adolphus (17th C). In the Napoleonic Wars the Brits used to emphasize that "Frenchies don't like cold steel up 'em." It was, and is, true. However, NOBODY likes "cold steel up 'em," and since the intro of the bayonet very few people have been killed by them in battle (lots in various atrocities though). Garvin alluded to the psychologcal effect, which is powerful. 

Anyway, to save myself some typing, I'd recommend Grossman's *On Killing* for those who haven't read it, and a re-read for those who have read it some time ago. 

Acorn


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Jun 2005)

OK: here's the point (pun intended): Bayonet is still useful, still part of the equipment issued with the C7A2, and still required.  Have we done bayonet fighting in combat since Korea? No.  Neither have we been in many firefights in which 10 loaded magazines were required (though that's issued in Afghanistan: light AND mech infantry).  Heck, why bring rifles at all when, Medak aside, Canadians haven't really been involved in Combat since Korea.  (Yes, Op Apollo in Afghanistan was a combat op, so to speak, but other than the snipers, and maybe JTF, what combat did we actually see?).  

And, FYI,  yes, I do have operational experience, in case anyone was wondering, and no, Korea is NOT involved


----------



## KevinB (18 Jun 2005)

FWIW this topic also came up on Lightfighter

Chuck (basicload) offers his comments - lets just say Chuck is 'experienced'   



			
				basicload said:
			
		

> quote:
> Originally posted by BDUser:
> IIRC there was a bunch of Scots that used bayonets pretty effectively against al-Sadr's crew last year.
> 
> ...


----------



## Britney Spears (18 Jun 2005)

If I were issued a lightweight fighting tomahawk I'd carry it.

But only if it was LIGHTweight....


----------



## KevinB (18 Jun 2005)

Yeah I figured someone who make a dig about that one...  :

 However he (bl) says he was not joking.  I guess if you think of items to attack someone with a Tomahawk seems a bit more effective to quickly clobber someone than a knife.

Anyway anyone else questioning it keep in mind BL was in the Ranger Regt in Somalia (think BHD), OEF, OIF.  He's killed more people than cancer and is now in a Ft Bragg based unit that is not Ranger but often works with them ...


----------



## Infanteer (18 Jun 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Anyway anyone else questioning it keep in mind BL was in the Ranger Regt in Somalia (think BHD), OEF, OIF.   He's killed more people than cancer and is now in a Ft Bragg based unit that is not Ranger but often works with them ...



Wow, your CV doesn't get much more authoritative than that....


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jun 2005)

All we need is a person here who has "killed more than the Spanish flu" and then the oneupmanship game is won  

Various people are circling around this from the "operational kit" perspective or the "psychological" aspect. Both attitudes are quite hard, you either believe a bayonet is an effective piece of kit, or not. For the "not" side, they either want to go with a sidearm (few and far between in this man's army) or substitute a "better" weapon and more ammunition. As a BTW, close combat generally devolves into a melee involving throwing your helmet, hacking away with an entrenching tool or 3' picket, or if you are really prepared, you already have some sort of club or improvised mace handy (see various WWI books or historical displays). A sawed off 12 gage would be quite handy in this situation as well (especially if it has a hardwood stock).

In the absence of compelling reasons to believe otherwise, I will be content to carry a bayonet, since it weighs less than a crystal ball, and I never know if I will suddenly have to deal with prisoners or a hostile crowd in a "Full Spectrum Ops" setting. Since I am not normally issued a sidearm, I will also keep it in mind should I get into a really desperate situation. That being said, I also expect to be able to take steps to preemptively prevent *having* to get it on with a bayonet. I like to keep my mayhem 1-300m away, thank you.


----------



## KevinB (22 Jun 2005)

But Sarge my bayonet won't fit.   ;D








Relax its a personal gun.   Lower did not start life as Diemaco and it does not go select fire.


----------



## GO!!! (22 Jun 2005)

Methinks someone has gone a little overboard on the pers. kit... NICE.

If the queen did'nt give it to me, I dont need it, except for
My danners
gloves
underwear
iron sight for c7a2 rail
surefire
e-trex
headlamp
maglite
day bag
kidney pad
snugpak shirt
raincoat
stealth suit 
insoles
pocket rocket stove....

Nice webbing tho - wheres it from?


----------



## KevinB (23 Jun 2005)

Paraclete RAV - stupid money - but I bought it while we where in Afghan, the day after I realised I could not drive and wear the gear I had.   Eagle has the CIRAS and SOE/Lightfighter have the Warhammer -similar and improved on designs - and CHEAPER.  Two of our guys (one lurks but I dont think he posts here) bought the Warhammer - and it seems a lot more sleek.

 I am a dirty kit slut - I have like 8 different Surefire Flashlights - not even sure why.  The DHTC guys have RAV's in OD (I'm much cooler  ;D in Coyote) - one of my friends there stripped a lot of crap off my kit - and I just got admonished that I put a lot of it back on (still no bayonet  ) and delete a whole bunch of crap.

Thread Hi-Jack
- Also I am moving so I have to inventory a whole shit load of kit I have been hoarding over the years and sell or give it away...


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 Jun 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Various people are circling around this from the "operational kit" perspective or the "psychological" aspect. Both attitudes are quite hard, you either believe a bayonet is an effective piece of kit, or not.



I'd rather have a good combat/utility knife that has the fittings to be used a bayonet if needed, rather than a merely adequate bayonet that serves little other purpose.


----------



## paracowboy (23 Jun 2005)

paracowboy has the new bayonet. He likes it! He likes it a lot. He now needs to find things to stick with it. He is also enjoying referring to himself in the third person, and may continue to do so all day.


----------



## Garry (25 Jun 2005)

Interesting thread- just found it, read the whole dang thing........

For the guys who were debating the pipers use: Militia Ex, summer 77, Nova Scotia. I was Armoured Recce, and we (among others- I was a brand new Tpr...LOL, we could have been anywhere, I wasn't sure)) had pinned down a Highland infantry unit in a copse of woods. They couldn't go back (ocean iirc) and we had a couple of long fields, with several fences, between us and them. We had dismounted the entire Sqn's complement of GPMG's, and were calling in Arty fire on the pinned down infanteers. It wasn't long before mortars laid down a smoke screen between us and them. My Sgt hollered out to "get ready, here they come".....from somewhere behind the smoke, I heard the pipes start up, then slowly a single piper appeared out of the smoke. He was followed by the entire Bn, bayonets fixed, line extended, walking towards our fixed guns. ( I still get goose pimples remembering it) Scared the beejezus out of me, and I just lay there watching until my Sgt kicked me and got me firing...I was the first to fire too!! Couple of points- first off, this wasn't real, it was pretend. I wasn't much of a soldier- brand new, basically eager and fit but untrained, however I froze- then I "killed" a heck of a lot of guys with fixed bayonets. I also got a heck of a lesson from my Sgt, when I questioned the enemy's tactics: "Tpr, you may not be able to choose when you're going to die, but you can sure as he** choose how"..... (always liked that one)

Re: "everyone hollers when getting stabbed". Respectfully disagree.

Re: issue vs personal kit. Kit lists are generally made by old soldiers to make sure that new soldiers have what they need to accomplish the task. These kit lists are modified by the old soldiers as the task +/or AO changes. They are also modified by the Commander to make sure that the kit that she feels she needs to accomplish the mission will be there. We have to have some faith in our Leaders- and they have to have some faith in us. Generally speaking, I always performed a kit check- and I cut the "old" guys a lot more slack than I'd cut the "new" guys....but "I" made sure that what "I" felt "I" needed to accomplish the task was there. Period.

Re: switching from a rifle to a pistol while in close contact. Friends of mine who carry daily told me about   the "30 foot" drill. They said that an agressor who gets within 30 feet of you will be able to close with you before you can get your sidearm out and up. I didn't believe them, so I tried the drill. You may want to as well.....

Re: usefulness of a bayonet. In all honesty, I have never participated in a real life, no fooling bayonet charge. While I certainly have "thoughts" about the efficacy of bayonets (I "think" there are times when they'd be very effective) I have NO operational experience with bayonets. ....and near as I can tell, the "only" BTDT person's argument was copied....., he was quoted......Hmmmm, eh?

In all honesty, when arguing about most anything, I think it may be worthwhile to ensure that what you "think" isn't presented as "fact". 

Cheers-Garry


----------



## 1feral1 (25 Jun 2005)

The C-2000 bayonet can be seen by doing a search for 'bayonet can-2000'. What will come up is the black generic Eickhorn. The CF version is in OD, serialised, and does not have the screw driver at the base of the scabbard. This was removed from the design so it does not cut anyone in the chin when worn inverted on the TAC vests, etc.

Eickhorn has been sold to a UK based company, and the bayonets for the CF contract will be made in the UK.

Diemaco sent me some pics, but they are too large to post on here, and if anyone wants a pic, email me, and I'll fwd it to ya's, and maybe someone can figure out how to shrink it down so it can be posted here.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## scm77 (25 Jun 2005)

Wes if you go to http://www.imageshack.us you can upload the pictures to that site since they're too big to upload to this site.

Incase you aren't familiar with imageshack here's how to do it.

1. Go to the site http://www.imageshack.us
2. Click on "browse"
3. Select the image you want to upload from your computer.
4. Click on "host it!"
5. A page will then come up that has a series of lines of text in boxes.  There will be a box (should be the second one down) that says "Thumbnail for forums (1)"  Copy all of the text that is in that box and paste it into where you type your replies for this forum.
6. Press the "back" button and repeat the process for any other images you want to use.
7. When you've got all the codes for your different pictures copied and pasted, and press post your post will have a thumbnail of the picture that can be clicked on to view full size.

It will look like this...


----------



## Kal (26 Jun 2005)

Garry said:
			
		

> Re: switching from a rifle to a pistol while in close contact. Friends of mine who carry daily told me about   the "30 foot" drill. They said that an agressor who gets within 30 feet of you will be able to close with you before you can get your sidearm out and up. I didn't believe them, so I tried the drill. You may want to as well.....



Then how does one account for the success in utilizing this transition by the number of premier SWAT and SF units?   I believe for the instances that the target does close the gap, extreme CQB shooting tactics should be employed.   To "...get your sidearm out and up..." isn't necessarily needed.   What I mean is, if the target is within a foot or two or is already on me, simply drawing and shooting from the hip will be combat effective.   If the baddy already has a hold and/or is attacking, I will not have the room to draw, bring the weapon up and push it out to shoot, but I may have enough room to draw and shoot from the hip.   Also, I believe the some hand to hand skills are required when such instances present themselves.   I do not want to build up so much muscle memory that I only allow myself to shoot with my arms fully extended.   Since I've already decided to use potentially leathal force in employing my pistol, once the aggressor is in range to physically touch me, I may slam my fingers into their eyes draw and hip shoot giving them a double or triple tap of 230 gr. .45 into their hip either dropping them with a shattered hip or spine or gaining enough room to shoot more accurately.  

Edit:  Still believe in the combat knife and tactics, though.


----------



## Garry (26 Jun 2005)

Kal,

I "think" the operative word in your post was "I believe". 

Have you tried the drill?

We can talk until we're blue in the face- doesn't mean a thing. Go try something, then come back and tell the rest of us what you've learned- then we all learn.

Not to be confrontational, but it took me awhile to realise that there really are a lot of people out there spewing crap. Not on purpose, but simply because they "believe it's true".....a "Bud told them"....."everyone knows"...."it sounds about right".....

In this instance, people were discussing what the best option was, in close contact, for staying alive with a primary weapon failure. Some said bayonet, others said drawing their sidearm. I merely stated the existence of a drill that addressed this problem. Please note that I didn't read about it on the net, nor was I told about it- I tried it myself. 

Give it a shot, see what you think, then make your own decision about the efficacy of your plans. The drill is- stand comfortably with your sidearm in a "normal" carry position (some type of holster). Now would be a good time to ensure that it is unloaded. Have a Bud stand about 30 feet away. Without warning, have him run at you as hard as he can, and attempt to cut you (pretend knife is a good idea) or inflict some other blow on you. You try and draw your weapon and (pretend) to shoot him before he lands a blow.

Not that it matters, but I was unable to draw my sidearm before I was slashed. I found that I was better off responding to the threat in a different manner. Bottom line, though, is that one way or the other, it doesn't much matter- because it was me...and this is the internet, and you don't KNOW me....try it yourself, and then you'll KNOW, vice think.

Facta non verba.

Cheers-Garry

PS- this show me attitude works for a variety of situations


----------



## Britney Spears (26 Jun 2005)

Garry:

Your 30 foot knife drill is well known amongst LE circles and I imagine most of our readers on this thread as well. It's a controlled test under a specific situation that doesn't have a great deal of meaning on the modern battlefield. For your drill to prove anything you are assuming that 

- Your rifle is dry(as in you have NO ammo left) or broken (Maybe a good time to draw and ready your pistol? Hmm?)

- While your rifle is dry or broken, and you're standing there stunned with your pistol still in the holster, an enemy armed with a knife sees you, but you don't see him. 

- The knife wielding enemy then makes a decision that he's going to try to rush a man armed with both a rifle and a pistol, presumably he has guessed that your rifle is empty and sees that your pistol is still holstered.

- The enemy stealthily makes his way to within 30 ft of your position, while you are still standing there stunned with pistol holstered. At this point he suddenly gets up and runs at you with knife drawn.

- Of course we'll have to assume that all your section mates are either dead or not paying attention.

So yes, you are probably right that a determined enemy can close a 30 ft gap before most of us can draw a pistol, especially if we haven't been doing a lot of specific pistol training (an unfortunate reality today, I'm afraid), but at that point, so many people would have had to screw up so many things that in all likelyhood there's a barrage of 155mm (or 105mm today i suppose)  inbound 4 seconds above your head and you're all dead anyway. The question from the beginning of the thread still remains: what are the chances that such a situation could occur? 

Wise words an old man once told me:

" If you're close enough to get into a bayonet fight, then either his arty is about to fall on you or your own arty is about to fall on you, probably both. In any case sitcking around to cross bayonets is a bad idea."

I'll take up serious bayonet fighting when the enemy figures out how to  run 2300ft/s.    ;D


----------



## Garry (26 Jun 2005)

Britney,

In spite of the sarcasm, you have a point.

We could what if this to death (heck, y'all already have). I think, though, that we could eventually arrive at a situation where a soldier is not standing around, slack jawed, wating to die ......

Suffice it to say that there are a lot of options available, and one should try and plan their response to a critical incident while one has time on their hands. Being face to face with someone who truly doesn't like you is not the time to find out that what you "thought" would work, doesn't.

Bottom line, train. If what you're taught doesn't work, find another way. Once you've found another way, practice that.

Point in all of this is, I read pretty much nothing in the preceeding pages that said "hey, I tried this with a bayonet and it worked great"....or "I tried this with a bayonet, not worth it....so now I do this". What I read was "I think, I believe, how about"...and my favourite "the SF/JTF/Delta guys use....."...sheesh.

And as for the "smart man"....I agree 100%. I'd go so far as to say that if you're within rifle range, you probably should be running"

(Old cowardly Tanker)  8)

Cheers.


----------



## Kal (26 Jun 2005)

Garry

I hope you are not under the impression that I was attacking your opinion, I had no such intention.

What you said about the 30 foot drill and people spilling BS is the truth.   I have tried the drill in the past as you suggested also.   What I have found is that the attacker with attack differently when having a different weapon.   (well duh, eh)   When attacking with a knife or some type of impact weapon, they will run at you, when using a firearm, they will usually draw and shoot from a stationary position, and the good ones will draw and shoot on the move.   I found that I had a very hard time getting my arms extended for accurate shooting when they charged, that's why I said I wouldn't want to build so much muscle memory there.   Biggest lesson learned, MOVE.   If you don't move, you're in it much more worse than if you would have.   Personally, if the attacker is charging and we are within a couple feet of each other, or is already on me, I will engage with some type of hand-to-hand tactic to buy myself a second to draw and fire.   If the attacker is starting their attack within a couple feet, and I just try to draw and shoot, I may get off a couple rounds, but I will be badly injured or killed shortly.   This is because, if I focus only trying to draw and shoot, I will not defend myself from the occuring attack and will incur multiple slashes, stabs or impacts.   I was watching a video in which the attacker was armed with a foam brick, and the 'good guy' had his pistol holstered.   The attack started within about 4 feet of each other, the 'good guy' got whacked with that brick 2 or 3 times before he was able to draw and fire, because he only focused on drawing.   What is to say that first strike didn't knock him out and the attacker when on to kill him...   

I _Believe_ a great learning resource and case study is the EXTREME CLOSE-QUARTERS SHOOTING video by Ralph Mroz.   I forget what the exact statistic is, but it's something along the lines of all LE shootings happen within 9 feet, considerably shorter than 30.   There isn't a stat for civvy shooting, but I would assume it would be the same, is not closer.   I found though, if the attacker is attacking within a few feet, it is better for me to move, disrupt their draw, grab hold the weapon bearing limb if it's a weapon other than a firearm, use my empty hand tactics if I have no weapon out, then draw and fire.   If I can get to the back of the target, even better.


----------



## Kal (26 Jun 2005)

Britney, I concur.  The reality of the enemy starting their attack 30ft feet out by charging is very, very unlikely.  I think the reason why the drill was conceived was to show that other tactics must be practiced because actual engagement ranges (for LEO's at least) is much shorter than that, and what may work on the 50' square range will probably suck at 5' with the guy trying to kill you.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (27 Jun 2005)

I have tried a version of that 30ft drill when caught doing IA/stoppages during  house to house (exercise), it turns out my instinctive reaction was to but-stroke the OPFOR (sorry 'bout that Dale, but you did surprise me ;D).  My pistol may as well have been in the armoury, it never occurred to me to go for it.  If I would have had a bayonet mounted, well, Dale might have something really interesting to show off in the mess, rather than just a concussion.  I don't doubt that some of my secret squirrel friends could have drawn and capped the OPFOR before he closed, but the pistol never even crossed my mind until after the OPFOR was down.


----------



## Old Ranger (28 Jun 2005)

Simplify the CQB with your side arm.  The "222" rule
In 2 Seconds, Draw and fire 2 Rounds at figure11  2 feet (try 2 meters as well)away.
Chest shots from the hip are best, even if wearing vest you can knock them off balance to get a clean head shot.

If you got it, practice with it!  Know one can predict exactly what is going to happen.  There are enough Movies and Solider Stories to prove that. 

Bayonets for option of taking out sentries, or is everyone issued with silencers to take everyone out that is awake and can hear the "zip"

"The more you Sweat in training the less you Bleed in Combat" to quote an advertisement I saw.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (12 Jul 2005)

I have never mounted my  bayonet on my  weapon other than in drill classes  or on parade.  did use to probe for militia mines during CAC 89 in  Petawawa.  I do not see why they  would get rid of it, it has proven its value  when needed.
there was a story  in the newspapers during the Gulf War 1 about a group of Americans clearing trenches with armoured dozers with a multi barrelled machine gun, they  broadcasted a warning  over a loud speaker, telling the soldiers to surrender or meet their maker.
they  lined a dozer up and it was pushing dirt into the trench system and a gunner was firing the machine gun infront of the dirt that was filling in the trench as it drove along the trench system.
The media was making a huge stink about it , the US Forces had  PR team trying to put a positive spin on the story. The PR company was blowing it, offering all sort of excuses  why they  did it that way.  Finally  a full Colonel had enough and explained it like this to the media.
Using a dozer and a machine gun made more sense to him then sending young American Sons into the trenches and using  a pig sticker to force the ememy  out of the the trench system. To him it meant less letter writing home to family  members of killed Us Soldiers. 

The bayonet might be replaced by newer weapons but the fear  having a knife   or bayonet plunged into you is much scarier then being shot. It is a much more personal way  to kill your ememy. you have to look in his or her eye to use it.  I had an old RSm his words on bayonet fighting  was  like this  1) never bring a knife to a gun fight, 2) never worry  about the pro knife fighter he will kill you,  the wanna be kniife fighter will slice and dice you  but you  will recover and be scarred 3) bayonet is a last resort weapon when all else fails.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Jul 2005)

Hello guys, been a while. ;D

Just been reading this thread in its entirety.  Find myself siding with Capt. O'Leary and vonGarvin.  A knife of suffiicient heft and weight is always a useful thing, even if it is just for opening rations, pyro boxes or hacking down a few branches to create some support for expedient overhead protection - though I understand branches might be in scarce supply in Afghanistan.   If a knife is to be carried then why not a knife that can be stuck on the end of the rifle.  As others have noted it fixes the mind wonderfully, both the attacker and the defender and the muggins in the crowd.  

In fact given the shortness of the modern rifles I have often wondered whether there isn't cause to revert back to the era of the Baker rifle of 1805.  The rifle was to be employed at long range.  CQB was not anticipated for the riflemen of the day.  However surprises occur and to accomodate surprises the Rifles were issued a bayonet.  The rifle was actually shorter than the muskets of the day (steel hafted pikes really).  It was felt that this put the riflemen at a disadvantage to the regular infantry and so they were supplied with longer bayonets - long enough that when supplied with a working hilt, unlike the bayonets, that they could be used as swords, and were called such.

Anybody feel like carrying a pointy blade the length and heft of a machete that could be stuck on the end of the rifle if necessary?  By the way Kukris are nasty things and very hard to master.  I have an issue WWII copy picked up in Ismailia in 1946.  Round, slippery wooden hilt - very hard to control the blade.

One further point on the PWRR assault on the "trench".  Many stories on this assault out there but I remember posting an article describing the assault.  The trench was a ditch beside the road. No zig-zags, no independent slits, no obstacles.  The actual assault element of the platoon was a single brick of four that was taken in tow by a Corporal, presumably the section commander.  The impression given was that the enemy force was flanked by the Corporal and his brick while the rest of the platoon, mounted in Warriors, put down suppressive fire.  

In a narrow linear feature like a ditch there is only room for one or two men to face off against each other at any given time.  It becomes "Horatio at the bridge" in reverse.  The Iraqis could have had a company of their own men armed to the gills and just had to wait until their turn came to get a shot at the Corporal's brick. Other options include shooting their own men in the back to get a better shot at the Corporal or else jumping up out of the ditch to be able to shoot down on the Corporal and his troops.  Did I mention the Warriors giving covering fire?  Another option for the Iraqis could have been to run away down the ditch giving the Corporal the opportunity to shoot them in the back.

Once the Corporal was in the ditch all fighting would have occurred within the 30 foot range. When Corporal runs out of ammunition he relies on guys behind to step up and start shooting.  Swinging point and butt likely generated some elbow room allowing "passage of lines" as well as maintaining momentum.  As Corporal passes over recently shot body soldier behind bayonets individual on ground to finish him off.  Corporal would not be best pleased if soldier behind put a round of 5.56 (or even 9 milli) into Corporal's backside. Solidier behind more likely to hit desired target with bayonet reducing the risk of collateral damage to Corporal.

Calls for speculation on some points here admittedly, but drawn from accounts with a bit of knowledge of history - look to WWI trench raid accounts - Lee-enfields with fixed bayonets traded for shotguns, hand grenades and knives.

By the way, prior to that action the PWRRs and the Argyll's were being heavily engaged by the enemy with daily shellings.  After the engagement enemy activity in the area apparently died down considerably.  Probably coincidental.

But perhaps there is something to be said for meeting an besting the enemy on his own terms, face to face in a knife fight.  After all many of the west's enemies make much of the fact that the western way of war currently involves killing large numbers from great distances.  While this saves western lives and makes tactical sense it allows the otherside to convince themselves, their supporters and a considerable body of uninformed, if not hostile international opinion that we in the west are cowards.  That we are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary.   

Perhaps the Corporal's little rampage helped to establish a degree of moral superiority locally.

Just more grist for the mill guys - not picking a fight (unless someone wants one ;D )

Cheers, Chris.


----------



## Samsquanch (9 Nov 2006)

Don't forget Iwo Jima. Those boys did some serious knife fighting in dug in positions. History has a way of repeating itself if you don't learn the lessons. Obiously handguns would be very effective or the old trench broom (shotguns).
Cheers


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Nov 2006)

Here's a shot of Paras doing some FISH (Fighting in Someone's House). If you watch carefully, you will see the bayonet attached to the commander's rifle. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXmMIxYTZyk&eurl=


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (16 Nov 2006)

The FISH video brings back an earlier use of the bayonet, for convincing someone that they want to get the f%#k out of your way, and for giving them an encouragement somewhere between shouting and shooting in its firmness.  Do you want to be killing everyone you see?  Maybe, maybe not.  Do you want to discuss matters while house clearing?  Hell no!  The bayonet is useful for getting non-combatants, or undecided belligerents to come to Jesus without having to visit him (as one of my WO's used to describe it).  It's also nice to have an alternative when someone pops between you and your rifle team partner, and you really don't want to test his tac-vest on the through-and-through for the Timmy that just jumped between you.  Say what you will about bullets vs bayonets, a bayonet stops six inches past the barrel, and a 5.56 is just begun to bounce.


----------



## KevinB (16 Nov 2006)

:  Dudes the bayo has gone the way of the dodo.

 Muzzle strikes are much more effective at getting people to obey -- and you dont stick a knife in them (always bad with the imbedded crowd we have these days...

Consider the section's we have now - 4 bayo's are LOST due to the M203 and C9.
 The C8SFW loses 1.5" of knife blade when one attaches a bayonet.


Anyone taking a bayonet into a house for MOUT is a MORON -- you want the smallest weapon profiel to reduce to AOA to a doorway or obstacle.

  The Term FISH was a Lightfighter joke


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Nov 2006)

I-6makes a very good point.  For all intents and purposes, the bayonet is up there with the Catapult.  Did it serve its purposes?  Naturally!  Could it still work today?  Certainly, but not for *us*, and for the very reasons I-6 points out above.  Attaching a bayonet is fine, but when you add all the necessary "stuff" (such as M-203, frikkin' lasers and all that...), well, it just doesn't cut it (pun intended).  
Personally, I like bayonets.  Not for the killing they can do, but for the morale effect on the holder.  Adds to the "killing spirit", no?  Perhaps the romantic in me ("Gleaming bayonets!"), but when it's time to say good bye, it's time.  Too bad, we finally have a bayonet that doesn't fall apart when you look at it sideways.


Just my $0.02 worth


Now, where's my hover tanks?  Get them, and the wheel/track debate is OVER


----------



## Jay4th (16 Nov 2006)

My bayonet never left my barrack box.  I-6 got me a nice folder a couple years ago for X-mas that  opens my rations real well.  I just don't hold with humping any piece of gear no matter how small or light that 's only purpose is to get me a posthumous award.  Nobody is ever going to let you mount one for crowd control, if they ever even use you for crowd control. Mout, well there just aint enough room in there for the both of us.

Hovertank good, bayonet hangs on wall


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Dec 2006)

Interesting AAR about the USMC battle in Hue during the Vietnam War. 

I remember that we studied this AAR with great interest in the UK in the 80s as this was one of the few examples of serious FIBUA conducted by allied forces since WW2 or Korea. As a result, we sometimes fixed bayonets during general war FIBUA training (a problem if you're using blanks though) and ran some 'indoor bayonet assault courses' that were quite exciting (to say the least). We also took our bayonets to Northern Ireland, but only used them for whacking bushes etc, and never trained to use them during riot/ crowd control operations.

19.FIX BAYONETS: In Hue we experienced a number of very close encounters with NVA soldiers inside buildings or when turning into alleys or hallways. These EYEBALL-TO-EYEBALL MEETING ENGAGEMENTS HAPPEN ALL THE TIME and Marines need to be prepared for instant action. The best insurance is to HAVE YOUR BAYONET FIXED and to be prepared to deliver a quick, decisive thrust at the face or chest. If you don’t kill him, you’ll scare the hell out of him and cause him to retreat rapidly. This happened at least twice that I know ofon the south side resulting in a wild hand-to-hand melee that could have been avoided and decided in the Marines’ favor with a quick bayonet thrust.


----------



## KevinB (3 Dec 2006)

Frankly I dont understand some of the AAR --
 IF I was ready to make a quick desisive thrust I would not be ready to shoot...
  Some moron jumping me with a knife if going to get a bunch of rounds into them -- I will take the cut (I wear plates on my chest - and with my weapon infront of me shooting I'd bet a case of beer that Mohammed is not going to be sticking me in the eye.

Just my $0.02

I am no longer a soldier.
  But I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Dec 2006)

"By the push of the bayonets, no firing till you see the whites of their eyes."

Frederick the Great, King of Prussia (1712-1786)
In the battle before Prague, during the Seven Years War.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayonet


Anyone had problems with our C7 bayonets breaking? They seem to snap like twigs, far less sturdy than the old C1 bayonet...


----------



## boondocksaint (4 Dec 2006)

The new bayonet is fine, much better then the old one.

But as Jay says, things get tight in there. Imagine wearing about 100lbs of gear, then hunching through Yoda's door. Now add several inches of 'pointy' to get bunged on something. We were told to practice 'muzzle contacts' by the Americans we RIP'd with because close in fighting would happen. And it did. 

I think everyones issue is the possibility of a stoppage at that critical moment in close quarters. We practice some great remedy drills with Gunfighter, not to mention, as Canadians we kinda specialize in fighting each other with our fists or whatever is handy.

Ounces make pounds, and that's another half liter of water I carried without it.


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Dec 2006)

boondocksaint said:
			
		

> as Canadians we kinda specialize in fighting each other with our fists or whatever is handy.
> 
> Ounces make pounds, and that's another half liter of water I carried without it.


Two very good points, pun intended!


----------



## KevinB (9 Dec 2006)

Besides how do I fit a bayonet on this  







and it hangs out a bit below my Tux  ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Dec 2006)

Put the bayonet on the side of your headset, pointed towards the bad guys, so that you can head butt them


----------



## observor 69 (9 Dec 2006)

Remember taking my JLC in Lahr a few decades ago. Doing crowd control practise using some soldiers as practice crowd. As the crowd gets unruly our fellow student platoon leader says "Mount bayonets" or something to that effect. So shortly thereafter a demonstrator swings a 2x4 at me and it gets stuck on the end of my bayonet.  Ever try to get a 2x4 off a bayonet in a crowd.  ;D


----------



## geo (9 Dec 2006)

Ever try to get a 2x4 off a bayonet in a crowd.?

Fire a bullet!!!  (note - this might not be a DS solution)


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Dec 2006)

Valuable advise from Sgt Larry Bailley: " Always keep two rounds back, in case some ******* gets stuck on your pig sticker.  Anyone asks, I never said that".


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Dec 2006)

OK then, how about a Khukri? By the way, if anyone knows of a good source for a proper one (ass opposed to the dime store versions floating around) let me know. Lost mine ages ago to a thief.
http://kitup.military.com/2006/11/index.html

When you absolutely positively have to chop something
November 2, 2006|Kit Up! 

I have been in the Army 17 years now and twice deployed to a combat zone and I have yet to be issued a bayonet. The reasons for this generally fall into two categories. First, commanders consider the bayonet too dangerous to use (soldiers might hurt themselves), and second, the bayonet is accountable property and you’ll be paying for it if you break (read use) it. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not all fired up to go out and stab someone with a bayonet, but there are times when you need a potentially sacrificial instrument to chop, hack, dig, probe, or test the proverbial waters with, and the last thing I want to do is get slapped with a $120 statement of charges because I used my shiny new M9 bayonet to probe a recently plastered section of brick wall looking for contraband and the tip broke. Say hello to the kukri. The kukri is the fighting knife of the Nepalese Gurkhas. A traditional kukri is hand-made in Nepal out of leaf spring steel (I’m told that Mercedes-Benz springs are the best) and is a combination hatchet, short sword, and fighting knife. While mine is by no means "traditional" (mine was made in India I believe) what it is, however, is a most excellent piece of kit, which I have used time and time again for all those jobs for which an issue bayonet would have been the ticket, were such a bayonet available. Moreover at $40 a shot (a traditional kukri will run you $150 or more) I am not losing any sleep if I chip the blade on my kukri (which I have done, trying to hack through a undiscovered piece of rebar.)

Gurkha Kukri


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Dec 2006)

Daft - the only problem that I have with my traditional Kukri is maintaining a secure grip.  The oval, wooden hilt, especially if wet, makes it difficult for me to maintain directional stability.  It becomes like a flag in the breeze on the down stroke, wanting to turn 180 degrees from the direction of travel.  My first few strokes tend to be clean but it is harder to maintain that accuracy over time.

If there were one change that I would like to see to the Kukri it would be a triangular hilt and some sort of guard, perhaps even a pistol grip to maintain that directional stability.  Other than that, I agree that the Kukri has a really nice multifunctional blade.

Cheers


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Dec 2006)

Daft....PM inbound.  Kirkhill;  You need one with the water buffalo horn handle, much friendlier grip.  Accuracy suffers because you are performing an unnatural (to you) motion.  Don't forget, a decent Khukri weighs about 2 lbs, and if not practiced often, your forearm quickly tires.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Dec 2006)

Kat - do you have some more info on that handle?

Edit: PS - that heft is why I like the Kukri blade over the machete/parang style of blade.


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Dec 2006)

I used to wrap my handle in para cord. Gives you a better grip, and also keeps some para cord handy if you need it. You can also make a wrist loop for the knife in case you drop it. The Ghurkas I worked with cringed (politely) when they saw that though... ever the purists, they just used the basic knife as is.


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Dec 2006)

The rosewood grips are okay, but have a tendency to get "slick" over time and usage.  The ridge around the centre also gets uncomfortable very quickly.  For an extra few shekkels, you can get buffalo horn grips.  They are smooth, but get kind of tacky as it warms up in your hand, kinda difficult to explain, but you see what I mean.  The rosewood also tends to dry out and crack unless kept oiled or waxed.  Good dealers also offer "westernized" grips, longer than the native knives, for our big western meathooks.  The shape of the blade and its weight are what makes it a phenominal chopper, as the reverse curve maintains contact with the "sweet spot" longer than conventional chopping blades. Ounce for ounce the British Army Service #1 is one of the best field knives out there, ridicule and Rambo comments notwithstanding.


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Dec 2006)

Just wondering... have we hijacked this thread with our Khukri banter? Ah well... if so it's a good hijacking in any case.


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Dec 2006)

Mea Culpea, just one of the very few things I know a (very) little bit about..... ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Dec 2006)

Moi aussi.  Childhood fascination with the little fellas and their big knives.  Too many Victor comics.


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Dec 2006)

http://www.army.mod.uk/brigade_of_gurkhas/hqbg/vcs/index.htm

OK, back on track with a Gurkha falvour..

"...Subadar Lalbahadur Thapa took command of the remaining two Sections and led them forward towards the main feature on the outer ridge, in order to break through and secure the one and only passage by which the vital commanding feature could be seized to cover the penetration of the Division into the hills...This steep cleft was thickly studded with a series of enemy posts, the inner of which contained an anti-tank gun and the remainder medium machine-guns.  After passing through the narrow cleft, one emerges into a small arena with very steep sides, some 200 feet in height, and in places sheer cliff...

The garrison of the outer posts were all killed by Subadar Lalbahadur Thapa and his men by kukri or bayonet in the first rush and the enemy then opened very heavy fire straight down the narrow enclosed pathway and steep arena sides.  Subadar Lalbahadur Thapa led him men on and fought his way up the narrow gully straight through the enemy's fire... The next machine-gun posts were dealt with, Subadar Lalbahadur Thapa personally killing two men with his kukri and two more with his revolver... He and two Riflemen managed to reach the crest, where Subadar Lalbahadur Thapa killed another two men with his kukri, the Riflemen killed two more and the rest fled.  Subadar Lalbahadur Thapa then secured the whole feature and covered his Company's advance up the defile.

...The outstanding leadership, gallantry and complete disregard for his own safety shown by Subadar Lalbahadur Thapa were an example to the whole Company, and the ruthless determination of this Gurkha officer to reach his objective and kill his enemy had a decisive effect on the success of the whole operations".

Extracts from London Gazette 15 June 1943


"...On approaching the objective one of the sections was forced to ground by very heavy Light Machine Gun, grenade and mortar fire, and... accurate fire from a tree sniper... Rifleman Bhanbhagta Gurung, being unable to fire from the lying position, stood up fully exposed to the heavy fire and calmly killed the enemy sniper with his rifle... The section then advanced... but... was again attacked by very heavy fire.  Rifleman Bhanbhagta Gurung... dashed forward alone and attacked the first enemy fox-hole.  Throwing two grenades, he killed the two occupants and... rushed on to the next enemy fox-hole and killed the Japanese in it with his bayonet.

Two further enemy fox-holes were still bringing fire to bear... Rifleman Bhanbhagta Gurung dashed forward alone and cleared these with bayonet and grenade ...subjected to almost continuous and point-blank Light Machine Gun fire from a bunker on the North tip of the objective ... Rifleman Bhanbhagta Gurung... doubled forward and leapt on to the roof of the bunker from where... he flung two No.77 smoke grenades into the bunker slit.  Two Japanese rushed out of the bunker... Rifleman Bhanbhagta Gurung promptly killed them both with his Kukri.  A remaining Japanese inside the bunker was still firing the Light Machine Gun... so Rifleman Bhanbhagta Gruung crawled inside the bunker, killed this Japanese gunner and captured the Light Machine Gun.

...Rifleman Bhanbhagta Gurung ordered the nearest Bren gunner and two riflemen to take up positions in the captured bunker.  The enemy counter-attack followed soon after, but under Rifleman Bhanbhagta Gurung's command the small party inside the bunker repelled it with heavy loss to the enemy.

Riflemen Bhanbhagta Gurung showed outstanding bravery and a complete disregard for his own safety.  His courageous clearing of five enemy positions single-handed was in itself decisive in capturing the objective...

Extracts from London Gazette 5 June 1945


----------



## geo (9 Dec 2006)

Exiting reading,

I would love to read the war diary of the units that were on the receiving end and given intimate knowledge of Riflemen Bhanbhagta Gurung AND Subadar Lalbahadur Thapa.

If the germans refered to the 1st SSF as being the "Devil's Brigade", imagine what the Japanese and Germans had to say about the Gurkhas.

I can imagine:

Dear diary, today I had my A$$ served to me on a platter.........


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Dec 2006)

There are some interesting tales of the Gurkha "hunting trips" in North Africa, especially at El Alamein.  Rommels boys didn't like them at all.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Dec 2006)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> OK, back on track..



But do isolated instances make the case for the bayonet?  One quarter of the CEF Lieutenants who won the VC in the First World War did so while using a Lewis Gun to impose their will upon the enemy, but this doesn't mean that all junior officers should carry an MMG today.


----------



## geo (9 Dec 2006)

Hmmm....

Lots of fellas in WW1 would sharpen their entrenching tools in preperation for uninvited guests.... using the tools that are at hand

Officers carrying the MMG?...... Eek! No - not best use of MMG though they are supposed to know how to site and use the darned thing.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Dec 2006)

Comparing World War Two usages of the Bayonet with today is not an effective comparison.
In WWII: bolt action rifle meant that if Jerry popped around the corner at your muzzle end, you may not have time to chamber a round, therefore, jab him with bayonet fixed
Today: semi-automatic rifle means that if Timmy pops around the corner at your muzzle end, you simply squeeze the trigger. Weapon jammed?  Butt stroke him, kick him, whatever you can do, buying time to put on a fresh mag or whatever the stoppage is.
In WWII: the only thing added to rifles was a bayonet.
Today: SUREFIRE lights, lasers, M203 Grenade launchers and more!
The point is (I love that pun!) is that although ANYTHING that can hurt a bad guy is good (bayonets included), it's a matter of priorities.  So, would you rather have a laser pointer you can use to designate targets to machine guns, LAV 3s or Leopards, or a bayonet?  An M 203 that can lob HE shells at the enemy, or a bayonet?  A surefire light that can be used to spot him in a dark room, with IR filter, so that he cannot see your beam of light, or a bayonet?  Unfortunately, it's an "either/or" situation.  If it were possible to have all, then fine.  Since it's not possible WITH OUR SMALL ARMS FAMILY, then forget it.


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Dec 2006)

Obviously you never mastered the handling drills for your Johnny Seven when you were a kid, Cap.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Dec 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Obviously you never mastered the handling drills for your Johnny Seven when you were a kid, Cap.



Johnny Seven?


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Dec 2006)

The "One Man Army" toy from the 60s?  Hey, I'm old, but not THAT old

(Thank you, google-fu!)


----------



## Trooper Hale (10 Dec 2006)

My granddad has a great old phrase that his dad used to tell him about the First War and tranch warfare. Its that "The bayonet was rarely used on a man who hadnt surrendered first". Its a nice old line but i'm not sure how accurate it is. Previous posts talk of the comparison of the bolt-action compared to a automatic weapon. I'm sure someone here has mentioned the bayonet charge the Brits in Iraq did a few years ago now.
We know that in the Stan & Iraq right now theres a lot of room clearance happening, to have a big bugger off blade on the end of your weapon not only puts the fear of Jesus into Johnny A-rab and Terry Wrist but is a very effective tool in dealing with them if the situation becomes nescersary.
I'd feel a lot more comfortable knowing that with my rifle and my bayonet i can deal with opposition at close quarters rather then always trusting i'll have enough rounds there to deal with it. Without it you'd find a need for it.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Dec 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Besides how do I fit a bayonet on this
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agreed. Might not work for you, but what about Pte. Bloggins in c/s 11C? Unlikely that he'll have the high speed kit, includung the backup Glock for IAs, anytime before 2050.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Dec 2006)

More fodder for you bayonet fans out there... and can we get a bayonet for the Leopard?

For Joffre, as well as the other proponents of the new doctrine, the "supreme weapon" of the infantry was the bayonet and the mission of the infantry was "glorious above all." France's confidence in the bayonet even extended to the Conseil Superieur de la Guerre adopting a bayonet for the cavalry in February 1912. 

offense a outrance 
http://www.worldwar1.com/france/jpff1914.htm


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Dec 2006)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> More fodder for you bayonet fans out there... and can we get a bayonet for the Leopard?
> 
> For Joffre, as well as the other proponents of the new doctrine, the "supreme weapon" of the infantry was the bayonet and the mission of the infantry was "glorious above all." France's confidence in the bayonet even extended to the Conseil Superieur de la Guerre adopting a bayonet for the cavalry in February 1912.
> 
> ...



Ok Daft - now you are living up to your moniker.  Verdun + Bayonets - Machineguns = Slaughter + Mutiny.  Not necessarily the best of plans.


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 Dec 2006)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> For Joffre, as well as the other proponents of the new doctrine, the "supreme weapon" of the infantry was the bayonet and the mission of the infantry was "glorious above all." France's confidence in the bayonet even extended to the Conseil Superieur de la Guerre adopting a bayonet for the cavalry in February 1912.
> 
> offense a outrance
> http://www.worldwar1.com/france/jpff1914.htm



And here I thought most of the threads here were struggling to get the Army from the 1990s over the millenial dateline, and you're trying to make the case for the bayonet based on the First World War.  Why don't all we just watch _Zulu_, admire the bravery of Tommy Atkins, and lobby for a return to cold steel and a single shot breech-loader because it's a more efficient mount for the "supreme weapon."


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Dec 2006)

I guess I forgot to attach the 'tongue in cheek' smiley face. Oops, they don't have one yet! But I do have a French Lebel bayonet right here ca. 1914. I guess I could fall on that instead ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 Dec 2006)

As usual the debate gets polarized.

If we want to talk about the best weapons for CQB, then sawed off 12 gauge shotguns, sharpened entrenching tools, shot gloves or brass knuckles, metal bosses on elbow and knee pads, ASP batons and ferocious training in Krav Maga or related arts is required.

If we are talking about mental and physical conditioning for combat and a secondary ability to deal with "less than lethal" situation such as CCO, guarding and handling prisoners, then there is a good case to be made for the bayonet (especially for a line troop who does not have the high speed kit).

History is not a reliable guide, it was well known as far back as the American Civil War that only about 1% of battlefield injuries were caused by the bayonet, and accounts of sudden encounters between troops at short range often describe rock throwing or swinging rifles and muskets like clubs, rather than a sudden slash and thrust of cold steel. (The soldiers in "Saving Private Ryan" threw helmets at each other, which is also recorded as a real reaction). Actually stabbing or knifing people is an anomaly.

On the other hand, the actual threat of cold steel often caused the enemy morale to collapse; in the book Forward into Battle describes the British "thin Red Line" achieving it's shock effect by suddenly revealing themselves at close range (after lying down in the tall grass or a reverse slope), firing one volley and immediately advancing with bayonets leveled.

Like I have said on this thread, I prefer my mayhem to be 100m away from me, but I am realistic enough to recognize that in today's environment a bayonet may be useful, and certainly the real or potential positives (including fitness and mental conditioning) outweigh minor inconveniences like taking up some real estate on the load carrying equipment or the extra bit of weight.


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 Dec 2006)

Agreed Arthur, it just has to be a balanced decision, not one made principally on the romanticism of the bayonet.

As I have stated elsewhere:



> First, let’s update the bayonet. We continue to issue every soldier a bayonet that does not justify its own weight. Replace it with a sturdy, well-honed utility knife with a high-quality steel blade. Leave the bayonet mounting hardware on the hilt for the rare cases in which it becomes necessary. Teach the soldier how to handle a rifle and bayonet, but let’s bring in a professional in improvised fighting techniques to help develop a useful combat system for it. Parade square parries and thrusts are only appropriate if the enemy has had similar instruction and is willing to fight by mutually understood rules. The Military Manual of Self-Defence (55) offers a series of aggressive alternatives to traditional bayonet fighting movements, its focus more on disabling the opponent than parrying until a clean point can be made. While not necessarily offering a full replacement to classic bayonet training, it does show that more options exist.
> 
> One possible approach is to incorporate in Army physical fitness training a structured martial arts program. A discipline can be selected to develop confidence, balance, reflexes, and close combat tactics. This program could include combat techniques; both unarmed and with a variety of weapons, including the bayonet, within a progressive format. This program could lead to every field soldier having recognized skill levels in a close quarter combat system that supports rather than confines reflexive responses in hand-to-hand combat. It should also provide advanced training and continuous skill maintenance throughout a soldier’s career.
> 
> We must continue to train our soldier in close quarter combat techniques, but it should be based on a rational analysis of the purpose and components of that training untainted by the romanticism of tradition.



Referenced footnote:



> (55)  Herbert, Colonel Anthony B., U.S. Army (Ret), Military Manual of Self-Defense; A Complete Guide to Hand-to-Hand Combat, New York, Hippocrene Books, 1984


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Dec 2006)

+1

Now you're talking.


----------



## KevinB (11 Dec 2006)

One of the best Close Combat tools is your helmet -- drive the bridge of the NV mount thru his face.

 Teaching Martial Arts to soldiers is typically counter productive -- as they will need to do it in their gear.  Those who remember back to the golden days with the SSF UACC and the Demo team -- remember only the tgt was wearing a flack vest...  I've said and so have a countless number of BTDT tyoes here that is current operations the carbine or rifle is simply incapable of mounting a bayonet.  Running "foreign" weapons classes once every two weeks woud be a MAJOR improvement to the ability of the soldier in the complex envrionment -- getting low on ammo or out -- guaranteed there will be EN or FR weapons around...

 Those who currently avocate mounting the bayonet I would state do not have a good background in Urban Combat or have any recent operational experience.

Shotgun = Breaching tool.  Too high recoil, too low ammo capacity, and too imprecise.

There is a dedicated CQB Forum at Lightfighter, its moderatored by REAL BTDT guys will extensive training in CQB


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Dec 2007)

More bayonet fixing going on in Afghanistan.

Royal Marines Dawn Assault

See 7:38 in this clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiE_KxvwZyQ&feature=related

Continued action in this clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njlr9VT1GG0&feature=related


----------



## KevinB (19 Dec 2007)

So foolishly carrying too much kit, utterly exposed 

 and using a bayonet... :


----------



## geo (19 Dec 2007)

Those daring Royal Marines.............


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Dec 2007)

Exactly. You can't expect to win a medal if you don't have a bayonet fixed. ;D


----------



## KevinB (19 Dec 2007)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Exactly. You can't expect to win a medal if you don't have a bayonet fixed. ;D



I will concede that point -- the citation sounds better too.


 However I'm a big fan of shooting people dead from as far away as possible -- I'd rather carry a 2lb handgun than a 1.5lb bayonet...


----------



## 2 Cdo (20 Dec 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> However I'm a big fan of shooting people dead from as far away as possible -- I'd rather carry a 2lb handgun than a 1.5lb bayonet...



The more distance between me and Achmed is always better. If it gets up close I'd agree with you, pistol over knife anyday! ;D


----------



## Teflon (20 Dec 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I will concede that point -- the citation sounds better too.
> 
> 
> However I'm a big fan of shooting people dead from as far away as possible -- I'd rather carry a 2lb handgun than a 1.5lb bayonet...



have to agree there on both counts "co-ax, 1000, ON",... Damn that's right, not my job anymore to run turrets,.... *sigh*


----------



## a_majoor (20 Dec 2007)

Classic Far Side cartoon dealt with this issue (looking for the actual picture

"Harold was cornered by the street ducks, when suddenly, he remembered the 12 gage"


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Jan 2008)

These are the most dramatic images of British soldiers on the front line ever shot by the troops themselves. 

They show paratroopers and Royal Marines fighting in Sangin province at the end of September in the most fierce exchanges of the controversial Afghanistan campaign. 

The pictures are stills from high-quality videos shot unofficially by troops who strapped mini-cameras to their helmets before storming towards enemy positions with bayonets fixed. 


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=414531&in_page_id=1770


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Jan 2008)

The hardest embed: Going native with the Royal Marines

Terrill became the oldest person and the only civilian ever to pass the course. But it was still only preparation for the real challenges which came just a few weeks later, when his adopted unit, 11 Troop of M Company, 42 Commando, found themselves in Helmand: 

"On one occasion there was a company assault planned," he recalled. "We went in under cover of night, commando style. But it all hit the fan as the sun came up. There was an enormous firefight. 

"I've been in war zones before, but this was different. At one point we fixed bayonets ready for close-quarter combat. It was interesting that my training stood me in very good stead: I did what I was told to do."

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/PeopleInDefence/TheHardestEmbedGoingNativeWithTheRoyalMarines.htm


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Jan 2008)

More bayonet fixing going on... well, if those bloody Paras were more careful, perhaps they wouldn't need to fix them more often

Conflict through a lens

GUNS AND CAMERAS: Sergeant Will Craig in Afghanistan

'FIX bayonets,' said the British officer about to lead an assault on a Taliban position in Afghanistan.
It could have been an order made 150 years ago when the armies of empire wore red instead of khaki and fought battles with cold steel and on horseback instead of the modern weapons we see being used today.

Troops fighting hand-to-hand with bayonets fixed is not what you envisage when you think of modern conflcts, but this is the reality of the so-called war on terrorism.

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/slideshows/Conflict-through-a-lens.3440558.jp


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Jan 2008)

More bayonet work, this time from the Royal Anglians who apprently were doing some 'winkle picking' - well done lads

How Royal Anglians killed 1,000 Taliban 
By Thomas Harding
Last Updated: 1:53am GMT 17/11/2007



The intensity of combat in Afghanistan has been laid bare as one Army regiment revealed that it had fired one million rounds, killed 1,028 Taliban and lost nine men in a six-month tour of duty.
   
Members of the Royal Anglian Regiment receive medals at Elizabeth Barracks after returning from their tour of Afghanistan

At times, fighting saw 1Bn of the Royal Anglians having to "winkle out the Taliban at the point of a bayonet", said Lt Col Stuart Carver, the commanding officer, at the battalion's medal ceremony.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/16/wanglians116.xml


----------



## geo (20 Jan 2008)

D&B,  while the bayonet appears to be an anachronism in modern warfare, it is a clear & definite signal to the troops receiving the order that they are about to close with & destroy the ennemy.  

Not an accident but an intentional act.  As such, the troops receiving the order can compose themselves - knowing what is about to happen and what they have to do.

As such, there will always be a place for the bayonet


----------



## Nfld Sapper (20 Jan 2008)

Right geo you never know when you would have to do Self Extraction Drills.


----------



## NL_engineer (20 Jan 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Right geo you never know when you would have to do Self Extraction Drills.



cleaning rods work just as good for that.



			
				geo said:
			
		

> Not an accident but an intentional act.  As such, the troops receiving the order can compose themselves - knowing what is about to happen and what they have to do.
> 
> As such, there will always be a place for the bayonet



It also has a sociological effect on the enemy


----------



## Nfld Sapper (20 Jan 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> cleaning rods work just as good for that.
> 
> It also has a sociological effect on the enemy



Cleaning rods are best used as trip wire feelers, for prodding they suck eggs as they don't have a sharp point to "dig" into the ground.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Jan 2008)

Absolutely not.
They are handy for all kinds of things....and fixing bayonets on the end of your C-7 is one.
There is a psychological advantage to those who "fix bayonets". Most people don't like pointed objects (spears or bayonets) being thrust at their throat, eyes or stomach. Couple this with the person who is doing the thrusting looking like someone out of the lunatic bin...and screaming like one...I think you get my message.
In my opinion, we should do a bit more training in this area. The only time infantry do it are on BIQ formally. I do not know if any other trade trains on the bayonet.....I don't believe so.


----------



## HItorMiss (20 Jan 2008)

They are teaching Bayonet combat in basic now so it is taught to all trades in the CF, now what the majority do with that training after they graduate basic that is beyond me....


----------



## Nfld Sapper (20 Jan 2008)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> They are teaching Bayonet combat in basic now so it is taught to all trades in the CF, now what the majority do with that training after they graduate basic that is beyond me....



I believe that is only for the Reg Force Courses as I have the most recent TP for the Reserve BMQ and there is no mention of bayonet combat in it.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Jan 2008)

Glad to see that is taught to all. Should be refreshed yearly, like PWT, etc


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Jan 2008)

I'd prefer more range time over bayonet drills


----------



## HItorMiss (20 Jan 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> I believe that is only for the Reg Force Courses as I have the most recent TP for the Reserve BMQ and there is no mention of bayonet combat in it.



I never talk about anything with the reserves in mind. I have little time for the reserves as a training system and so I never look into what they are doing.



Quag,

I can't see why doing a once a month referesher on point, parry, smash etc etc would impact range time heck you get more range time why not do the Bayonet drills as background...2 birds one stone as it were.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Jan 2008)

I have no problem with doing the drills, just would like to get my shooting skills up first and if its a secondary thing I am down with that, and yes I know it takes minimal money and equipment to make it happen.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Jan 2008)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> I never talk about anything with the reserves in mind. I have little time for the reserves *as a training system * and so I never look into what they are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Before bulletmagnet gets flamed, I would like to point out that he clarified his statement: nothing wrong with reservists, just that he doesn't like the reserves as a training system.
Now, for a proper conduct of bayonet drills, it should, IMPO, be conducted as a range.  Could be done as background activity, but I agree with Quag in that the focus should be on musketry skills over bayonet skills.  But, before we talk about bayonet drills, let's talk about getting to the ranges on a regular and effective basis first.


----------



## Nemo888 (20 Jan 2008)

I think the new bayonet looks so useful I wouldn't have to bring my own kinfe anymore. But it's just the old US Marine KA BAR from WWII.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Jan 2008)

You're looking at a few hours, tops, once per year. If the Army would drop some of the irritating briefings (ie SHARP, DIVERSITY  etc) that I had to endure, then the time is there. Plus, there are always those days with nothing on the schedule, so why not fill it.
What would be wrong with doing it on morning PT???
Also, range time = money. Range time is always good, BUT there are only so many bullets to go around, and you can't have them all.


----------



## KevinB (21 Jan 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> You're looking at a few hours, tops, once per year. If the Army would drop some of the irritating briefings (ie SHARP, DIVERSITY  etc) that I had to endure, then the time is there. Plus, there are always those days with nothing on the schedule, so why not fill it.
> What would be wrong with doing it on morning PT???
> Also, range time = money. Range time is always good, BUT there are only so many bullets to go around, and you can't have them all.



Range time is needed full stop.

As for bayo training - C9's, M203's etc have removed the majority of bayonet capable weapons from your entity.  Add in suppressors and its a no brainer as to what you'd rather have on the end of the weapon.
   Bayo training is very awkward to teach - its either done scripted or with Pugil sticks which dont resemble a rifle with bayonet on it at all.

You can quote whatver units you like about the bayonet - and blah blah blah spirit of the bayonet -- your way better off to be competent with the weapons and tools at your disposal - for the CF that means accurate fire - using the Night fighting gear that is issued as well.

Most of the units you discuss are equipt fairly archaicly and dont have half of these items -- plsu they are stuck in bizarre stupidty about crossing open ground for no reason and some other various "romantic" notions.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Jan 2008)

SO its a problem to outfit a company of troops with the C7 with bayonets fixed to do bayonet drills?
And did anyone mention charging over open ground? NO!
I agree with you regarding live fire, don't get me wrong. BUT...what is wrong with pugil training to reinforce aggression, technique etc?
Like I said before, THAT could be company PT one morning per month. 
Too many platoon commanders have no imagination or are forced to schedule long ruck marches or runs in order to satisfy some aribtrary figure set by the CO or the OC. This would be somewhat of a break from long boring marches or long runs.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Jan 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Cleaning rods are best used as trip wire feelers,



Hum, no !!

Theres a reason why we always used wire as trip-wire feelers. Cleaning rods have nowhere near the flexibility required to detect a trip-wire without setting it off.


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Jan 2008)

Glad you said it first.  As a trip wire feeler, a cleaning rod makes a damn fine trip wire activator.  A long stalk of grass would be preferable.


----------



## KevinB (21 Jan 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> SO its a problem to outfit a company of troops with the C7 with bayonets fixed to do bayonet drills?
> And did anyone mention charging over open ground? NO!
> I agree with you regarding live fire, don't get me wrong. BUT...what is wrong with pugil training to reinforce aggression, technique etc?
> Like I said before, THAT could be company PT one morning per month.
> Too many platoon commanders have no imagination or are forced to schedule long ruck marches or runs in order to satisfy some aribtrary figure set by the CO or the OC. This would be somewhat of a break from long boring marches or long runs.



Most units have amounts of the C8FTHB upper - why alter to train the bayonet?
  Secondly using a PEQ/PAC and light makes even the C7 bearers unweildy
- is bayonet fighting really a good option with 60lbs of kit on you?
I firmly beleive in training as you fight and thus I see the bayonet as a waste of weight, and training time.
   Like hand to hand, bayonet skill is an art that 1 time a month will give very little.  
 Weight training and circuit training will built a better soldier than that will.
A muzzel strike will do enough damage - and if your out of ammo, their will be other weapons and others with ammo around that can no longer fight.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Jan 2008)

You've given me a myriad of reasons why we SHOULDN'T conduct bayonet training. So play devil's advocate and tell me WHY we SHOULD do Bayonet training. Bear with me, I'm old.
And the reason that there will be lots of other stuff lying around does hold water.....do you really think you'll have the time to drop your C& and grab a club or whatever?


----------



## SteveB (21 Jan 2008)

No, as a well equipped and properly trained individual, he will transition to his pistol. ;D


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Jan 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> And the reason that there will be lots of other stuff lying around does hold water.....do you really think you'll have the time to drop your C& and grab a club or whatever?



Actually I believe for the last few centuries soldiers have used their weapon as "the club" at that moment.

My own comments on bayonet fighting, which have been referenced before in the thread, start here. (Or get the pdf.)


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Jan 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Range time is needed full stop.
> As for bayo training - C9's, M203's etc have removed the majority of bayonet capable weapons from your entity.  Add in suppressors and its a no brainer as to what you'd rather have on the end of the weapon.
> Bayo training is very awkward to teach - its either done scripted or with Pugil sticks which dont resemble a rifle with bayonet on it at all.
> You can quote whatver units you like about the bayonet - and blah blah blah spirit of the bayonet -- your way better off to be competent with the weapons and tools at your disposal - for the CF that means accurate fire - using the Night fighting gear that is issued as well.


First of all, the number one priority should be range time, just as I-6 states.  Next topic.
Bayonet drills do have a place, but I would argue NOT for teaching relevant fighting skills, but more as aggression training.  There is a lot to be said for fighting spirit, and if taught correctly, bayonet fighting skills, along with proper pugil fighting, have their place.  Instead of range time?  Never.  Instead of a run in the elements at -16 degrees?  Of course!  It gets the blood pumping, and I have seen rather timid recruits start to come out of their shells during the training.
As a final point, being competant with your weapons and tools (night fighting, night shooting, basic shooting for that matter!) is part of the number one priority: range time.
Not bayonet skills at the expense of fighting skills.


----------



## Gager (21 Jan 2008)

Re: Reserves

We did it a couple mornings during PT on our SQ course but it wasn't on the course timetable. Some of my friends have had similar experiences. Basically all up to the course staff.

As much fun as stabbing a bag on a rope can be - I'd rather have more range time or just time on weapons handling..


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Jan 2008)

OK did any of you read the opening post....?????
and not everyone has a pistol....so that dog isn't hunting. I'm talking Canadian Army here, not JTF2 or Delta Force.
The more I read of some of these posts I'm wondering how many of you actually are in the military.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Jan 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> The more I read of some of these posts I'm wondering how many of you actually are in the military.



And by reading some of yours, i wonder if you ever were.

Works both ways pal.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Jan 2008)

A few of us are in the military.  One or two of us, anyway.


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Jan 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> OK did any of you read the opening post....?????



Your point?



			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> and not everyone has a pistol....so that dog isn't hunting. I'm talking Canadian Army here, not JTF2 or Delta Force.



And, as noted, not everyone in a "rifle company" even has a rifle that will take a bayonet anymore.  How many bayonets in a platoon would serve to satisfy your romantic vision of a successful "bayonet charge"?



			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> The more I read of some of these posts I'm wondering how many of you actually are in the military.



And some may be wondering how long ago you got out.


----------



## SteveB (21 Jan 2008)

You must have missed my smiley face. :'(
You are of course correct, most infanteers don't have a pistol, though many more do than was perhaps once the case.  You did ask I-6 were he was going to pick up the club and, though he may not have a handgun, he did read an article on-line about them, once. ;D  Further, half of I-6's latest comment was directed towards the Brits tactics outside of the propensity for the bayonet.

Mortarman Rockpainter raises what is likely the only really valid point.  I too have seen good results with recruits and young soldiers with this type of training.  The same result would probably come with any combatives training.  Too bad there are too few resources to ever contemplate that.  Speaking of resources, imagine issuing a C-7 to everyone.  As everyone knows, we currently issue the C-7A1/2 to everyone that doesn't get a C9 or C8 or C8FTHB.  I'm not being an ass here, seemingly everyone knows that the C79 is weak at best and loses it's zero if abused in the least, and now you want to practice the point, smash and vertical butt stroke?  I would prefer to use the time practicing tactical mag changes in various positions under stress, or watching TV.

My final point in the form of a question.  Why is it that it's the Brits alone that seem to be stuck in the fixing bayonets before Charlie team takes the trench?  We have now had a battle group in continuous combat for years, yet not one word on any after action report about the lack of bayonet training.  Ah forget it, I've worked with Brits, I've answered my own question.


----------



## KevinB (22 Jan 2008)

Sims's CQB training can ramp up both skills and controlled agression.

  I'd prefer the CQC hand to hand stuff in kit much more than bayo as I beleive bayo training while useful to young recruits (what make the grass grow - blood blood blood etc) is pretty much useless on troops with more experience and training.

  I still suggest getting a CANSOF training team out for range and close quater combatives is 1000x more effective than some bayo training.

 Everyone has a handgun dont they


----------



## geo (22 Jan 2008)

At present, CQC hand to hand is taught to the newbies when the show up at their battle school.

WRT Valcatraz, they wer giving it to the troops upon their arrival.... but there was/is talk to move it to the back end of their trade training.  Something about them getting banged up and missing the start of their trade training...

Be it at the start or end of their training, CQC unarmed combat is definitely something everyone needs to learn.


----------



## KevinB (22 Jan 2008)

All Infanteers get it going thru BSL -- I am talking about the rather short term CQC course that was going on three or for years ago - a bit more involved than the basic class in bsl.  Back to the days of the SSF UAC


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jan 2008)

To answer the question,  of how long ago I got out.,...well I'm not.
Some of you may regard me as obsolete, however I'm 50 and still going strong.

I absolutely beleive that bayonet training and  CQC are very necessary to bring out the kind of aggression that a soldier needs to defeat the enemy (no matter who it is) in battle. I realize that the age of "fix bayonets, over the top lads" is long gone. I also realize that with the new optics on the C7, some can be broken, lose zero etc if you abuse it. However, if all you have is a rifle, bayonet and nothing else around, and you've emptied your mag, and you're suprised by the enemy, what are you going to do if you have NOT been trained in CQC or bayonet fighting? Just a thought....
Don't tell me to go for my pistol, because I haven't been issued one.
The bayonet IS NOT obsolete and neither am I.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Jan 2008)

Well done OS,

Agreed. It's just another important tool in the toolbox for anyone in the FEBA, outside the wire, etc etc and should not be forgottten. I have to agree with I6 too re: providing more sophisticated unarmed combat training. We always tend to let that stuff slide during extended periods of 'peacetime' training when we try to make war seem less 'nasty', and then pay the price when it comes to combat. 

So, IMHO, let's not forget that when it comes right down to it, some day, anyone in action may have to be able to use a bayonet and we would be negligent should we not, as an army, prepare our soldiers to defeat an enemy with this weapon - as we do with all our other weapon systems.


----------



## KevinB (22 Jan 2008)

OS,

 My point is you've got 10 mags -- if your out - and have an empty weapon your a dumb ass since you've obviously killed some baddies and have taken friendly losses and should have equipt yourself with a functioning weapon system.

 I'm about the biggest training nazi around, and if I thought for a minute that based on my experience the bayonet had a place on the modern battelfield I'd be arguing to make time for it.  However I'd rather carry another rifle/carbine mag or nutsack for the Mg's than carry a bayo -- I have a fixed blade beside my handgun -- if It gets that ugly I will be smashing my NV mount on my helmet off someone or stabbing them after I tossed my pistol at them (what sort of self respecting jihadist could not restist grabbing for a custom 1911 eh?).

I've got a sling, a redimag, a light etc. on my carbine -- I dont see bayonet fighting even IF I where so inclined to carry one as a reasonable option.

  I see a lot of passion for the spirit brought into this -- however we have to look at modern reality -- and the bayo is not there.


----------



## KevinB (22 Jan 2008)

As for using systems
Our sigs and my C8's (His C8A1 my SFW)






SFW w/ Can





C9A2





Pl HQ




about two days later the guys with C7A2's got C8A1's

Jay4th's carbine from TF1-06





Buddies from TF3-06





I'm just trying to point out while your argument may have been valid pre 9/11 we've learned a lot since then


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jan 2008)

Infidel-6
While agree with MOST of your points, there MAY be a time where that sharp pointy object you are issued is going to come in handy. Don't dismiss it as "obsolete" just because this is post 9/11. 
By the way, bayonets don't weigh all that much.


----------



## medaid (22 Jan 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> (what sort of self respecting jihadist could not restist grabbing for a custom 1911 eh?).



Mate, if you're EVER tossing that 1911, make sure you toss it backwards, I'll be there to catch it... mmm shiny...

On a serious note and on the topic of CQC and all things pointy. I continually stress that CSS pers need basic CQC skills. Don't tell me that a MedTech or a MSEOp is not going to need it, because this type of mindset will go no where. 

Leave the advanced skills to the Infantry, but basic CQC, defensive tactics MUST be taught to CSS and PRes personnel. It should be incorporated into the regular training schedule as 1 hour a night for CQC. It will keep the skills sharp and make sure that the troops understand self-control and that these skills are not meant to be used for bar room fights. If they are, they will be charged. Simple as that. 

Liability issue? We train our soldiers in the PRes to use weapons, and to employ them effectively and I have yet to see many of them running around robbing banks or assaulting people. Proper training will curb the likelihood of abuse. 

Basic CQC skills and knife skills. BASIC. 

One Mind, Any Weapon


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Jan 2008)

I remember that 3-06 wpn well.


No not mine.


----------



## tank recce (22 Jan 2008)

MedTech - The notion of regular HtH / CQC for the Mo' has been raised... not frequently, but on more than one occasion. The "liability" issue is less "Will Tpr Shnooks head out to the Loose Moose this weekend and try to break someone," as "Tpr Shnooks might hurt himself tonight and we'd have to cover his civvy pay until he's back at McD's."

I've never agreed with either concern; we are (theoretically) adults who don't (usualy) do stupid things. CQC would be a potent weapon in the fight against skill and pers haemmorhage.

A far more telling issue is our complete and utter lack of qualified instructors. In my 22 years, I've seen exactly *2* HtH sessions. Both were by members who were also Police Tactical officers...


----------



## medaid (22 Jan 2008)

tank recce said:
			
		

> MedTech - The notion of regular HtH / CQC for the Mo' has been raised... not frequently, but on more than one occasion. The "liability" issue is less "Will Tpr Shnooks head out to the Loose Moose this weekend and try to break someone," as "Tpr Shnooks might hurt himself tonight and we'd have to cover his civvy pay until he's back at McD's."
> 
> I've never agreed with either concern; we are (theoretically) adults who don't (usualy) do stupid things. CQC would be a potent weapon in the fight against skill and pers haemmorhage.
> 
> A far more telling issue is our complete and utter lack of qualified instructors. In my 22 years, I've seen exactly *2* HtH sessions. Both were by members who were also Police Tactical officers...



The personal injury portion is just as baseless as the first one we've both raised. As a PRes soldier, or service person, we are bound to be injured at one point or another in our careers. Even during training nights, weekends or when ever. Our chances or injury is increased by merely the virtue of our jobs and the path that we chose. 

I agree with you many of these excuses are ridiculous IMHO.

The qualification is pointless, because it's not a lack of will from the PRes pers to take the course, rather the lack of interest to instruct us. Now, I could be totally wrong about that, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that there are many who believe that PRes pers cannot be taught how to be effective instructors as we don't instruct that often in this field. However, how often to many of the qualified RegF instructors teach? No, I'm not bashing I seriously want to know! 

There is allot more to teaching CQC then just beat em down and hang em. I understand that. We need to teach proper use of force, and the force continuum as well. In fact teaching our troops, all of our troops CQC skills can only broaden their UoF knowledge and their options if they were ever confronted with a situation that the use of a firearm is not necessary. 

I've been taught skills in searching PWs but honestly, the skills deteriorate, as most units don't put an emphasis on these perishable skills, and they do perish quite quickly. 

I don't know... that's just me. If I was given a chance to qualify as a Basic CQC instructor I would do it.


----------



## hoddie (22 Jan 2008)

> I remember that 3-06 wpn well.
> 
> 
> No not mine.



It was mine.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Jan 2008)

Well well.


----------



## KevinB (23 Jan 2008)

We finally dragged him out -- good to see you here bro.


----------



## MG34 (23 Jan 2008)

Welcome aboard


----------



## hoddie (23 Jan 2008)

Longtime lurker ^-^
I will have to start getting my post count up. ;D

As for the whole bayonet issue, I never carried mine overseas.  It was attached to my BOB for just in case puproses.  I did have an SRK attached to my 6004.  It opened more MRE's than bad guys however. :
Hoddie


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Jan 2008)

Not being up on my acronyms, which are all handy if we all have the same aide-memoires....just what the heck is BOB? In Winnipeg it's an FM radio station.....joking here!! :
Every soldier should carry a sharp pointy object (in addition to the bayonet). 
Here's another "when I was a young soldier" story....
We weren't allowed to carry knives other than the C-5 pocket knife....K-Bars, etc were verboten.

Things have come a long way. We're a far more professinal army than we were 10 years ago.


----------



## medaid (23 Jan 2008)

OS:

   A BOB is a Bail Out Bag


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Jan 2008)

Thank you, now just what the heck is a Bail Out Bag?? Pardon my ignorance, but I am a few years older than the average soldier.
ANd I'd be so much more professional if I would hit spellcheck or proof read


----------



## MG34 (23 Jan 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Not being up on my acronyms, which are all handy if we all have the same aide-memoires....just what the heck is BOB? In Winnipeg it's an FM radio station.....joking here!! :
> Every soldier should carry a sharp pointy object (in addition to the bayonet).
> Here's another "when I was a young soldier" story....
> We weren't allowed to carry knives other than the C-5 pocket knife....K-Bars, etc were verboten.
> ...



Not far enough yet though, we are still suffering from a few dinosaurs in key places that are screwing up the common sense revolution 
  WRT the bayonet, the issue is more of training than wether or not  a soldier still has one issued, Nothing is more dangerous than having an unskilled soldeir taking on a skilled adversary. One other thought is history has proven that since the bayonet has been issued to any army, the use of it has never been all that great.Man apparently has an aversion to sticking cold steel into warm bodies, in most situations the rifle is inverted and used as a club to bash the enemy to death...go figure. The bayonet for all intents and purposes is a " comfort item" giving the soldier the illusion he has a means to defend himself when his primary weapon is out of action.


----------



## medaid (23 Jan 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Thank you, now just what the heck is a Bail Out Bag?? Pardon my ignorance, but I am a few years older than the average soldier.
> ANd I'd be so much more professional if I would hit spellcheck or proof read



Not at all mate . A BOB is much like a more updated E&E kit. Most often now a BOB is carried in a vehicle so that it could be slightly bigger in size. A few good examples of a BOB or an E&E bag are as follows:

One from my company: http://www.icetactical.com/pouch-eande.html  (I know... I know shameless plug >)

One from a really good company: http://www.countycomm.com/FORCE1.htm they call em a Force Multiplier Bag, but most people I know uses them as BOBs.

So those are two examples of BOBs or E&E, with the ICE one being a smaller more compact size of the two.

In the states, and overseas, people generally put spare mags, maybe an IMP or two, a few smokes, frags, maps, compass etc. Most of them are all MOLLE adaptable so you can swap attachments as you please. They are great for range bag, tool kit, or anything you want to tote around with you. Originally the County Comm one was designed as a police patrol bag. It works really well in all applications actually.

I hope that helps


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Jan 2008)

MG34, thank you for your comments. Good common sense advice. SO if we issue them, let's train them to use it, properly. Chances are they'll never have to "fix bayonets" and use them as they were intended, but you never know.
The dinosaur comment....I'm trusting that you're not including me in that lot.  ^-^

Med Tech, Thank you for your explanations. Good ideas. Question: would not the issue patrol pack be a BOB, if required? I'm cheap....and issue stuff usually works for me.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (23 Jan 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> MG34, thank you for your comments. Good common sense advice. SO if we issue them, let's train them to use it, properly. Chances are they'll never have to "fix bayonets" and use them as they were intended, but you never know.
> The dinosaur comment....I'm trusting that you're not including me in that lot.  ^-^
> 
> Med Tech, Thank you for your explanations. Good ideas. Question: would not the issue patrol pack be a BOB, if required? I'm cheap....and issue stuff usually works for me.



Maybe because it would already be on your back when doing patrols?

My 2 cents, take them for what its worth.


----------



## medaid (23 Jan 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Med Tech, Thank you for your explanations. Good ideas. Question: would not the issue patrol pack be a BOB, if required? I'm cheap....and issue stuff usually works for me.



Sure it could  but a BOB bag or an E&E bag allows MOLLE attachments, where as the small pack isn't compatible with ANYTHING. It's all personal preference really so what ever happens to work for you . 

The disadvantage of a the small pack is that there is no organizational capability. So when you reach in to grab stuff, it could be anything. With a properly built bag it'll allow the operator to know where he/she stored their stuff and hence reach it much quicker then rummaging through a pack with no dividers. 

But that's just me . Like I said, the issue stuff may work for some and not others, the same way goes int he tactical gear world. Not everyone could be made happy with one product.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jan 2008)

The day pack on my tour had all the things we needed to live in leu of a ruck sack.  Therefore we had a seperate bag (I suppose an additional issued day pack would suffice even though it isn't that good).

Or what NFLD Sapper said.


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Feb 2008)

More bayonet porn courtesy 42 Cdo RM....

It’s dawn, and the shelling starts. Time to go into the Taleban maze
The Marines need to set up a secure zone for civilian workers. First they must defeat an elusive enemy that wages a hit-and-run campaign from its labyrinthine mud compounds

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1381532.ece

Captain Mackenzie Green, Officer Commanding 10 Troop (Left) sends a situation report during the initial breech (entry) into the enemy compounds

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/3056/opvolc1kf4.jpg


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Feb 2008)

hmmmm....what's that on the end of his rifle???


----------



## Big Red (12 Feb 2008)

Extra weight and length.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (12 Feb 2008)

Also know as the pointy end  ;D


----------



## Cdnronin (20 Mar 2009)

In May 2004, a platoon from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders were ambushed in Basra, Iraq by 100+ insurgents from trenches. They had RPGs, Machine guns, etc.  The Brits ran out of ammo and reverted to a bayonet charge against the trenches.  Final tally: Brits -2 wounded, insurgents-20+ dead.

The Case Study of the action can be read at http://matt.webville.ca/2009-Bayonets-in-Basra.pdf

Thus, proof that a bayonet charge is still relevant in the 21st century!!


----------



## Nfld Sapper (20 Mar 2009)

Well the main pic on the document seems photoshoped to me


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Mar 2009)

Cdnronin said:
			
		

> Thus, proof that a bayonet charge is still relevant in the 21st century!!



The Argylls charged with bayonet when they were left with no other tactical options.  Continuing to fight from their initial positions was not an option because they lacked the ammunition to do so.

Saying this action, in itself, "proves the relevance of the bayonet" is like saying that if they had no bayonets and charged with rifles swung by the barrels it would similarly "prove" the relevance of the club in modern warfare.

Establishing relevance for the bayonet is a more complex issue than simply finding occasions when it was used as a last resort.

My own thoughts on the bayonet - A la bayonet, or, "hot blood and cold steel"


----------



## Old Sweat (20 Mar 2009)

One could question an awful lot about the operation before looking at the use of the bayonet. For starters, after asking about the basic load of ammunition, whatever could the CofC been thinking? Here we are with all sorts of sexy comms devices and all sorts of weaponry available, and these jocks found themselves in a position not far off what those poor Belgian paras were in in the early days in Rwanda. They were bloody lucky to get out of the mess alive.


----------



## kkwd (20 Mar 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Well the main pic on the document seems photoshoped to me



That photo is just one they pulled off militaryphotos.com.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (20 Mar 2009)

kkwd said:
			
		

> That photo is just one they pulled off militaryphotos.com.



Still seems photoshoped to me, something seems off with the bayonet.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Mar 2009)

In the British Army we often trained to use the bayonet in the assault. It's a drill, just like anything else, and was not regarded as anything special. 

The British believe that if the bad guys know that you're willing to close with and violently stab them to death, they'll think twice about sticking around. Many of my colleagues used the bayonet effectively in the Falklands War and, although the memory haunted many of them, they were clear that it helped break the will of the enemy to fight on and proved that our fanatics were better than theirs.

In the final analysis, an infantryman's rifle is both a club and a spear, and he should be trained to use it as such should the situation arise.


----------



## KevinB (21 Mar 2009)

Keep in mind beltfed weapons and explosives are the doctors perscription for a bayonet attack...


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Mar 2009)

I would still prefer to undertake "Crowd Control" with fixed bayonets than machine guns.  It makes the whole thing more personal.

And I think that the Crowd would be more likely to believe they are going to get gored than shot, encouraging them to move back at the pace of the advancing points rather than scattering hastily causing undesired casualties.


In these situations that you folks are facing, where the unarmed crowd member of today is the armed kid of tomorrow that demonstration of willingness to meet them on their own terms may pay dividends.

Somebody said that the moral is to the physical as three is to one.  Engaging a culture of the knife with bombs from 30,000 ft may be smart military tactics.  It may not be the most productive "Pacification" tactic. 

Bit of a diversion.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Mar 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Keep in mind beltfed weapons and explosives are the doctors perscription for a bayonet attack...


I agree with you there, however, when you're desperate and have SFA to lose......


----------



## geo (22 Mar 2009)

> I would still prefer to undertake "Crowd Control" with fixed bayonets than machine guns.  It makes the whole thing more personal.
> 
> And I think that the Crowd would be more likely to believe they are going to get gored than shot, encouraging them to move back at the pace of the advancing points rather than scattering hastily causing undesired casualties.



Having a rear rank with fixed bayonets certainly was effective.... BUT, I would contend that a spool of concertina/razor wire being bounced up and down, from street level to eye level as you continuously moved forward certainly got everyone's attention.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Mar 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Having a rear rank with fixed bayonets certainly was effective.... BUT, I would contend that a spool of concertina/razor wire being bounced up and down, from street level to eye level as you continuously moved forward certainly got everyone's attention.



The best way to contro, a crowd is to not let it become one. We always preferred to drive into the middle of them with armoured vehicles, dismount and beat hell out of and arrest anyone stupid enough to stick around... but hey, I like the new Tac Vest too, so I'm suspect!


----------



## geo (23 Mar 2009)

D&B... I would wager you spent some time in Belfast


----------



## a_majoor (23 Mar 2009)

Interesting side note about crowds.

A technique which has been developed over the past few years is a "Flash Mob" assembled via cell phones, text messaging and the Internet. The first ones I am aware of were assembled during the anti-globalization "protests", with the debut being "N30" on November 30, 1999 at the opening of the WTO meeting in Seattle. 

This sort of behaviour is more difficult to counter through traditional plans like "not letting a crowd assemble", and flash mobs have been organized for weird stunts like "world pillow fight day" where the crowd assembles, performs the deed and disperses before the authorities can react.

WRT the bayonet, it is still the most potent symbol of resolve the average soldier has, the issue these days is two fold: training the soldier so he has the resolve to use it, and being able to think and move tactically to defeat flash mobs and their insurgent counterparts (flash ambushes?) so there is less need to get to close quarters with deadly force.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Mar 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> D&B... I would wager you spent some time in Belfast



Yes. At least in Belfast you knew what you were going to be doing every Friday night!


----------



## KevinB (23 Mar 2009)

Crowd control?  This is not Cyprus or FYR.

 You can have ANP beat them with 3" bamboo stick to get them out of the way, or run through them with a LAV/BISON/Stryker...

With a PEQ, Flashlight, suppressor (if you lucky) where does my Bayonet go?

a Muzzle strike (even with a can on) will knock the wind out of someone who got your attention, and yet you could not pop him for a variety of reasons.

Like Geo stated - IF your doing Crowd Control - razor wire doing the shake can be awfully persuasive - and Mr Carbine is not fouled.

  Frankly - Less Lethal Shotgun and 40mm ammo is a better idea - as why go near someone when you can bonk them from afar.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Mar 2009)

Gotta agree with I6 on this one. Give us this day our Plastic Bullets, and lead us not into the back of the police landrover for a sound thrashing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_bullet

The phrase 'targets will scream like a baby when hit' comes to mind. These were great for the pre-arrest treatment of stroppy and inebriated rioters.


----------



## Teflon (31 Mar 2009)

Gotta love the bouncy razor wire!


----------



## geo (31 Mar 2009)

Teflon said:
			
		

> Gotta love the bouncy razor wire!



I thought it got everyone's attention...


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 May 2009)

Lessons learned re: stabbing people to death. And people wonder why I think the infantry's cool?


CLOSE COMBAT
________________________________________

"If your bayonet breaks, strike with the stock; if the stock gives way, hit with your fists; if your fists are hurt, bite with your teeth." 
- - Gen. Mikhail Dragomirov

"Close combat, man to man, is plainly to be regarded as the real basis of combat." 
- - Carl Von Clausewitz

COMBAT EXPERIENCE 

When two disciplined dismounted infantry units clash, the war becomes a one-on-one fight between soldiers at close range. 

Lesson Learned 

Hand-to-hand fighting skills provide a means of self protection. 

WW II: The 6th ID in the Philippines

During the Philippines campaign of 1945, the 6th Infantry Division faced dug-in Japanese positions along the Simbu line 12 miles northeast of Manila. Attacks on the line led to many instances of close combat. Leading a five man patrol near Mt. Matoba, PFC Tilford Cantrell of the 63rd Infantry was unexpectedly rushed by a Japanese Captain wielding a bayonet. Cantrell sidestepped the charge, used a textbook butt stroke to stun the officer and then shot him, pointblank, with his M-1. Three more Japanese jumped the patrol at that point but Cantrell quickly shot each of them down within a few feet of his location. One of them even got close enough to put a bayonet through his jacket, but Cantrell was left unhurt. Quick reactions and the courage to fight it out "close and personal" paid dividends for Cantrell and his buddies. [1] 

Lesson Learned 

A disciplined defender in a well prepared fighting position will have to be driven out by a direct assault of a more determined foe. 

KOREA: 1st Bn 5th Cav

An account of the attacks on Hill 312 in January 1951 by the 1st Bn 5th Cavalry gives a clear example of the intensity of close combat during the Korean War. 

"It [Hill 312] was taken only after a desperate hand-to-hand struggle between men of the 5th Cavalry's 1st Battalion and the strongly dug-in Reds. . . Dug in on the crest, the enemy delivered small arms fire and hurled grenades down on the advancing troopers, who hurled the grenades aside or attempted to throw them back. Finally the assault platoon reached the crest and covering fire was lifted. Most of the Chinese had remained in their holes during the heaviest fire and emerged to fight with rifles, and bayonets and spades. For a time, the battle hung in the balance; then the 3rd Platoon of A Company was committed and came charging up the hill with fixed bayonets. The enemy positions were overwhelmed, although small hand-to-hand engagements took place for some time." 

The "Garry Owens" Charge Up Hill 314 

In a similar incident, the 3rd Bn 7th Cavalry ("Garry Owens") attacked up Hill 314 along the Naktong River line near Taegu in the face of 700 enemy. They fixed bayonets and drove the North Koreans from their holes. The fury of the attackers broke the enemy defenses as they threw down their weapons and ran. The shock action of a bayonet charge exhilarated the attackers and demoralized the defenders. This action earned the "Garry Owens" a distinguished unit citation. [2] 

Lesson Learned 

Even in modern combat, soldiers will have to rely upon basic combat skills such as bayonet and hand-to-hand fighting to accomplish the mission. 

WW II: The 10th in Italy

During WW II in the Italian theater, the 10th Infantry (Mountain) Division decided to use the bayonet as the "weapon of choice" during a daring attack on German positions on Mt. Belvedere which dominated the approaches to the Po River Valley. Two regiments (the 85th and 87th) of the 10th Division set out to assault this well-protected hill on the night of 19 February 1945. The only hope for success lay in achieving surprise, so the men unloaded their weapons and fixed their bayonets. No accidental discharge would occur to imperil the surprise attack. The men moved up the hill, achieved surprise and, by the use of cold steel, took the German positions. The Germans threw all of their remaining artillery against them along with seven ferocious ground counter attacks, but the 10th held firm. [3] 

KOREA: TROPIC LIGHTNING and Bayonets on Hill 180

Early in February 1951, the Eighth Army was counter-attacking the Chinese forces south of the Han River in an attempt to retake Seoul. Easy Company, 27th Infantry (Wolfhounds) of the 25th Infantry Division, had to take dug-in enemy positions on Hill 180. Between CPT Lewis Millet's Easy Company and the enemy lay a large dike, a deep ditch, and a flat expanse of frozen rice paddies. The 3rd Platoon laid down a base of fire and CPT Millett led the 1st Platoon up the hill to their left. Millett shouted, "Get ready to move! We're going to assault the hill. Fix bayonets! Charge! Everybody goes with me!" At a trot, the men followed CPT Millet over the rice paddies and up the hill despite withering enemy fire. Using grenades and BAR support, the 1st Platoon made it up the hill and was shortly followed by the 2nd Platoon. The 3rd Platoon, slipping and sliding down and then up the ice-covered slopes of the hills, raced 200 yards over open terrain in a frontal assault. Meanwhile, CPT Millett led his men up the left of the hill and began systematically to clean out the enemy holes with bayonet and grenade. The men, screaming "like Apaches" lunged at the startled Chinese with their bayonets, plunging their weapons into the Chinese necks, chests and backs as the enemy tried to run. The hill was cleared. Of the approximately 200 Chinese and North Korean defenders, 47 were killed, 18 of them by the bayonet. In the words of noted observer S.L.A. Marshall, "Easy Company's use of cold steel was not marked by any parade ground finesse. . . It had not been a perfect show: there is none such where men fight. But together they had staged the most complete bayonet charge by American troops since Cold Harbor." [4]

Lesson Learned 

You don't win the battle until you drive the enemy out of his hole and kill him. 

FALKLANDS

The Scots Guards faced a well-trained Argentine Marine battalion as they launched a ground attack on Tumbledown Mountain in the Falklands. The Argentines were heavily dug into a series of intricate bunkers. The Scots Guards had to assault each position with grenades and bayonets. In one particular incident, a Scot's Guards' Major was charging toward an Argentine bunker when he suddenly came face to face with an Argentine soldier. Attempting to fire his rifle, the officer discovered that his magazine was empty. The Major, reacting on instinct, took the only course of action he had and killed the Argentine soldier with his bayonet. As Major John Kizzely of the Scots Guards said: "We did fix bayonets because I believe bayonets kill people and are useful. . . It certainly saved my life." [5] 

Major Chris Keeble, who assumed command of 2 Para after LTC Jones' death, said this about close combat in the Falklands, or "gutter fighting" as he called it. "You have got to kill the enemy, you have got to destroy the machine gun, before he destroys you. Every trench you attack, you destroy it. You jump in the trench and rake it with fire, and if you see an Argie, it's either him or you." [6] 

Reference 
FM 21-150, Combatives, Dec 1971, provides bayonet and hand-to-hand techniques and procedures on how to train soldiers. 

Bottom Line 
Bayonet and hand-to-hand combat training build a spirit of aggressiveness, develop confidence, and instill the will to win. 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_2-88_chpt1.htm


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 May 2009)

A question for those who have been through the pre-deployment training cycle for Afghanistan a few times:  *How much bayonet fighting training was in the pre-deployment training schedule for the early rotations? How much has been added to the pre-deployment training for recent rotations?*

If the argument is being put forward that this is an essential and frequently applied skill for modern warriors, surely it has been documented through the current Canadian Lessons Learned process with visible results.


----------



## MJP (4 May 2009)

We did exactly zero for work-up with bayonet for both Athena Roto 2 and TF1-06.  I think it has been mentioned earlier in the thread but for 1-06 allot of us ditched our bayonets.  Having only 1-3 people in a dismounted section that can actually mount a bayonet makes for a pretty poor bayonet charge.  The buildings you have to enter are small and adding a bayonet just increases the length and likelihood that you will catch your weapon on something.


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 May 2009)

MJP said:
			
		

> The buildings you have to enter are small and adding a bayonet just increases the length and likelihood that you will catch your weapon on something.



Good point. The British rifles are shorter so they mount bayonets as an SOP to help with the 'stand off' distance of the bad guys.


----------



## KevinB (4 May 2009)

Now that the Brits have the Daniel Defense SA80RIS - I wonder how long the knife will last...


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 May 2009)

The British like their combat cutlery, so the ol' pig sticker is likely to stay for the foreseeable future:

"Throughout the pages of any Small Arms School Corps
Journal you will find several depictions of the bayonet. On
the front and back cover alone there are three. It is
inextricably linked with the history of the firearm, and
remains the last survivor of those edged weapons from the
past that is still carried into action by virtually every 21st
century British infantryman. Whether as emergency pike, assault weapon, badge of
distinction or tool, the bayonet remains the badge of the
Infantry."

http://www.infantry-weapons.org/docs/Bayonet_History.pdf


----------



## Fusaki (4 May 2009)

In that case, the bayonet is a heavy piece of nostalgia to carry around.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 May 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> In that case, the bayonet is a heavy piece of nostalgia to carry around.



I think it is more than that.  Keep in mind that that bayonet is being carried by an individual who, at least in the 80's, the era of the Falklands, came from a society whose idea of a "good time" was to head down to the local football field with a snootfull of beer and engage in "a bit of aggro" - mayhem, melee, rumble - call it what you like.

I am afraid that I think your average British Squaddie is a bit different than your average Canadian Squaddie.


----------



## Michael OLeary (5 May 2009)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I am afraid that I think your average British Squaddie is a bit different than your average Canadian Squaddie.



All the more reason to be careful what examples get trotted out as "proof" that the bayonet has universal relevance.


----------



## navypuke (5 May 2009)

I know that this is a bit late, as I was reading this on Page 2 of this topic but someone mentioned the pyschological impact of a shotgun being racked and I can give two examples from real life. We were boarding a suspect vessel in the gulf in 2002, and the crew was being belligerant. A few of the boarding party members retracted their ASP batons and they crew immediatly calmed down. And another instance my friend told me about was that the bridge crew of a vessel they boarded was being uncooperative and trying to go for stuff in cabinets (they thought maybe weapons) and the guy on the shotgun racked his action and that immediately got the attention of the crew and they stopped and did what they were told. 

I believe the bayonet has its uses, and should be kept as an extra knife or something. Hell I knew a guy on boarding party who carried no fewer than SEVEN knives on his person during boardings and he scared the shit out of the boarded crews. He also has 185 tattoos and was big as hell but thats beside the point.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 May 2009)

navypuke said:
			
		

> And another instance my friend told me about was that the bridge crew of a vessel they boarded was being uncooperative and trying to go for stuff in cabinets (they thought maybe weapons) and the guy on the shotgun *racked his action * and that immediately got the attention of the crew and they stopped and did what they were told.


"Racked his action"?  You mean he put his shotgun into a rack?  Or did he cock it?  ???


----------



## Fusaki (5 May 2009)

> I believe the bayonet has its uses, and should be kept as an extra knife or something. Hell I knew a guy on boarding party who carried no fewer than SEVEN knives on his person during boardings and he scared the crap out of the boarded crews.



Keep the bayonet as an _extra_ knife? Easy there rambo.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but naval boarding is usually of a very limited duration.  Troops in the sand on the other hand, could be outside the wire for extended periods and are therefore required to save weight wherever possible.  Carrying around 7 knives to _intimidate_ the bad guys isn't nearly as important as getting through the grape fields so we can get in a position to _shoot_ people.

The bayonet as a weapon has been rendered obsolete by the assault rifle.  The bayonet as a utility knife is quickly being rendered obsolete by the multi-tool.


----------



## KevinB (5 May 2009)

"racking" the slide on a Shotgun just ensures the enemy knows you did not have a round chambered.


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 May 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> The bayonet as a weapon has been rendered obsolete by the assault rifle.  The bayonet as a utility knife is quickly being rendered obsolete by the multi-tool.



But the ceremonial and symbolic arguments will see lugs on assault rifles until someone designs a service rifle that actually cannot mount a bayonet.  

And then the eternal cabal of Regimental Sergeants Major, powered by the energy of generations of past RSMs spinning in their graves, will have to either suggest historic weapons for Colour escorts, or plug bayonets for ceremonial occasions.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jun 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> But the ceremonial and symbolic arguments will see lugs on assault rifles until someone designs a service rifle that actually cannot mount a bayonet.
> 
> And then the eternal cabal of Regimental Sergeants Major, powered by the energy of generations of past RSMs spinning in their graves, will have to either suggest historic weapons for Colour escorts, or plug bayonets for ceremonial occasions.



Good lord! Then we would have to bring back scarlet parade uniforms and pith helmets.....


----------



## Michael OLeary (3 Jun 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Good lord! Then we would have to bring back scarlet parade uniforms and pith helmets.....



And drill.

Proper drill.

Not this modern soft-shoe approach with its too-fast count and lack o' practice.

Good old square bashin' .....

Oh, sorry, my mind wandered of there .....


----------



## NL_engineer (5 Jun 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> The bayonet as a utility knife is quickly being rendered obsolete by the multi-tool.



I carry a KBAR to use as a fixed blade knife, I don't want to saw through paracord  :

I carry my bayonet to use as a prodding/digging tool (I could just leave it in the FOB, but that would require using my Kbar for that purpose).  It does fit nicely between my IFAK and smoke grenade pouch.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Sep 2009)

British officer wins two gallantry awards for fending off Taliban attack with bayonet

A young British officer, Lieutenant James Adamson, who won two gallantry awards while serving in Afghanistan has told how he fended off an enemy attack by bayoneting a Taliban fighter to death. 

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
Published: 9:00PM BST 12 Sep 2009

Lt Adamson, who is single and comes from the Isle of Man, was moving between two eight man sections when a group of Taliban fighters attempted a flanking attack Photo: CHRIS SAVILLE/APEX 
Lieutenant James Adamson was awarded the Military Cross after killing two insurgents during close quarter combat in Helmand's notorious "Green Zone". 

The 24-year-old officer, a member of the 5th battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, revealed that he shouted "have some of this" before shooting dead a gunman who had just emerged from a maize field. 
 Seconds later and out of ammunition, the lieutenant leapt over a river bank and killed a second insurgent machine-gunner with a single thrust of his bayonet in the man's chest. 
The officer was one of 145 members of the armed services who last week received awards in the latest Operational Honours list. 
In a graphic description of the intense fighting in Helmand, the officer told of the moment killed the second fighter. He said: "It was a split second decision. 
"I either wasted vital seconds changing the magazine on my rifle or went over the top and did it more quickly with the bayonet. 
"I took the second option. I jumped up over the bank of the river. He was just over the other side, almost touching distance. 
"We caught each other's eye as I went towards him but by then, for him, it was too late. There was no inner monologue going on in my head I was just reacting in the way that I was trained. 
"He was alive when it went in – he wasn't alive when it came out – it was that simple." 
Recalling his feelings in the moments afterwards Lt Adamson, said: "He was young, with dark hair. He only had kind of whispy hair on his chin, not a proper beard, so he wasn't that old, maybe a teenager. 
"Afterwards, when he was dead, I picked up his PKM (Russian-made belt-fed machine gun) machine gun and slung it over my back. 
"We then had to wait for more of my men to join us. We thought there could be more Taliban about and we were just watching our arcs of fire, waiting for more to come out of a big field of maize which came right up to the river we had been wading through. 
"One of my men, Corporal Billy Carnegie, reached us, looked at the two dead Taliban on the ground and then saw the blood on my bayonet and said "boss what the **** have you been doing?" 
The firefight, in July 2008, began during the middle an operation to push the Taliban out of an area close to the town of Musa Qala in northern Helmand. 
Lt Adamson's platoon of 25-men, which was leading the assault, had just halted their advance when they were attacked. 
Lt Adamson, who is single and comes from the Isle of Man, was moving between two eight man sections when a group of Taliban fighters attempted a flanking attack. 
He continued: "The Taliban kept on probing us – sending in fighters to attack, first in twos then in fours. 
"There was a gap between the two sections and the Taliban realised this and were sending in men to get between the two groups so they could split us up and isolate us. 
"Myself and Corporal Fraser 'Hammy' Hamilton were wading nipple deep down a river which connected the two positions. Hammy was ahead when the Taliban fighter with the PKM (Russian machine gun) appeared from a maize field. 
"There was an exchange of fire and 'Hammy' fired off his ammunition and then the weight of fire coming from the Taliban forced him under the water. 
"The machine-gunner had also gone to ground but was still firing in our direction periodically. I had just caught up when 'Hammy' came up out of the water like a monster of the deep. 
"Then another Taliban man came through the maize carrying an AK47. He was only three to four metres away. 
"I immediately shot him with a burst from my rifle which was already set on automatic. He went down straight away and I knew I had hit him. 
"Hammy said I shouted: 'have some of this' as I shot him but I can't remember that. I fired another burst at the PKM gunner and then that was me out of ammunition as well. 
"That was when I decided to use the bayonet on him. It was a case of one second to bayonet him or two seconds to put on a fresh magazine. 
"Nothing was really going through my mind but briefly I did think 'if this works out the boys will love it' – as in the rest of the platoon that I commanded. 
"The undergrowth is so dense in the 'Green zone' that I often ordered bayonets fixed because you knew the distances between you and the Taliban could be very short. It is also good for morale." 
His Military Cross citation read: "Adamson's supreme physical courage, combined with the calm leadership he continued to display after a very close encounter with the Taliban, were of the very highest order. 
"His actions also neutralised an enemy flanking attack which could have resulted in casualties for his platoon." 
Two weeks earlier Lt Adamson had won a Mention in Dispatches (MID) by leading his men in an ambush against the Taliban in the same area. 
It is understood that the young lieutenant is the first member of the armed forces to receive two awards for gallantry during the same operational tour. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6178044/British-officer-wins-two-gallantry-awards-for-fending-off-Taliban-attack-with-bayonet.html


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Sep 2009)

So the bayonet is obsolete eh? I think not.


----------



## wannabe SF member (13 Sep 2009)

Outside of any deliberations on the bayonet, this lieutenant is a hard***


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Sep 2009)

The incongruous said:
			
		

> Outside of any deliberations on the bayonet, this lieutenant is a hard***



I will concur with that assessment.

I am reading "On Killing". Good book. It takes a special kind of person to use the bayonet like he did. Good work.


----------



## MJP (13 Sep 2009)

OldSoldier said:
			
		

> So the bayonet is obsolete eh? I think not.



 I lost my longish post while trying to reply from before due to internet gremlins.

I hardly think though that the 4-5 cases that have been cited in recent conflicts (2001-09) are any indicator that we should continue to carry a bayonet.  It's potential for actual use is extremely low, and well it may serve a small niche role in hand to hand combat, We honestly are not seeing the numbers to haul around and find space on our vest for as Wonderbread put it " a heavy piece of nostalgia".


----------



## wannabe SF member (13 Sep 2009)

OldSoldier said:
			
		

> I will concur with that assessment.
> 
> I am reading "On Killing". Good book. It takes a special kind of person to use the bayonet like he did. Good work.



Very good book indeed, as you said, we are lucky that the lieutenant is a sheepdog and not a wolf.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Sep 2009)

MJP said:
			
		

> I lost my longish post while trying to reply from before due to internet gremlins.
> 
> I hardly think though that the 4-5 cases that have been cited in recent conflicts (2001-09) are any indicator that we should continue to carry a bayonet.  It's potential for actual use is extremely low, and well it may serve a small niche role in hand to hand combat, We honestly are not seeing the numbers to haul around and find space on our vest for as Wonderbread put it " a heavy piece of nostalgia".



Come on now, its not like its 3 feet long and weighs ten pounds. And if the young gentleman didn't have the bayonet, where would he be? DEAD!
It is not "Nostalgia" but what could be a vital piece of kit. It may save your life, or someone elses.


----------



## MJP (13 Sep 2009)

Umm maybe we read different articles



			
				OldSoldier said:
			
		

> Come on now, its not like its 3 feet long and weighs ten pounds. And if the young gentleman didn't have the bayonet, where would he be? DEAD!
> It is not "Nostalgia" but what could be a vital piece of kit. It may save your life, or someone elses.



From the article:



> In a graphic description of the intense fighting in Helmand, the officer told of the moment killed the second fighter. He said: "It was a split second decision.
> "I either wasted vital seconds changing the magazine on my rifle or went over the top and did it more quickly with the bayonet.
> "I took the second option. I jumped up over the bank of the river. He was just over the other side, almost touching distance.
> "We caught each other's eye as I went towards him but by then, for him, it was too late. There was no inner monologue going on in my head I was just reacting in the way that I was trained.



The dude ( a very brave dude at that)  made a concious decision to not reload his rifle and jump from cover to kill another guy.  BZ to him, it certainly takes balls to do that.  However reloading your rifle even under stressful situations isn't a huge timewaster.  This is especially true if you are professional and practice it over and over again til it becomes second nature.   I guarantee you that round fired is faster than any dude with a bayonet.  

Before anyone brings up the 21 foot rule just remember that the "rule" states that in the time it takes the average officer to recognize a threat, draw his sidearm and fire 2 rounds at center mass, an average subject charging at the officer with a knife or other cutting or stabbing weapon can cover a distance of 21 feet.   We are not drawing firearms and in most cases are not firing pistols, where a slight misalignment can mean a huge miss.


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Sep 2009)

MJP said:
			
		

> Umm maybe we read different articles
> 
> From the article:
> 
> ...



"93rd, 93rd, damn all that eagerness!" 

Sir Colin Campbell

www.aboutscotland.co.u...3bala.html

Huzzah!


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Sep 2009)

The incongruous said:
			
		

> Very good book indeed, as you said, we are lucky that the lieutenant is a sheepdog and not a wolf.




“… any unit that puts a measure of faith in the bayonet has grasped a little of the natural dread with which an enemy responds to the possibility of facing an opponent who is determined to come within ‘skewering range’. What these units (or at least their leaders) must understand is that actual skewering almost never happens; but the powerful human revulsion to the threat of such activity, when a soldier is confronted with superior posturing represented by a willingness or at least a reputation for participation in close range killing, has a devastating effect upon the enemy’s morale”.

Lt Col Dave Grossman, On Killing, P. 126-7


----------



## Fusaki (16 Sep 2009)

In the rest of that passage, Grossman is specifically referring to times in history when the sight of massed bayonet charges have caused the enemy to break formation and retreat.  He's talking about the American Civil War, Napolean, WW1, and warfare up until the proliferation of assault rifles.

But do you know what else has a devastating effect on the enemy's morale?  Shooting fuc*ers in the face, thats what.

While a bayonet is not that heavy, soldiers cannot carry unlimited weight either.  The question becomes this:  Is it better to carry a bayonet or is it better to carry an extra mag?

The _massed_ bayonet charge Grossman is actually referring to in DandB's  post is becoming less and less likely as small arms in the rifle section diversify over time.  First, there was only slow reloading muskets in The Regiment - and that was when the bayonet was a good idea.  Then, automatic rifles with magazines made it practical shoot more then one guy at a time at close range - limiting the bayonet's effectiveness.  Then we started putting LMGs into the sections, reducing the bayonets available in the charge.  Then we started using M203s and reduced the number bayonets even more.  Now, in the age of high mag capacity carbine length assault rifles only 4 of 10 soldiers in a mechanized infantry section are available to fix bayonets in combat.  I'll bet that in the future we'll see a further diversification of weapons in the rifle section - probably in the form of a Designated Marksman Rifle.

What I'm getting at is this: if only a couple dudes in the rifle section are capable of fixing bayonets, then there is no way they're going to inspire the fear of a massed bayonet charge Grossman is talking about.  They're better off carrying an extra mag of 5.56 and focusing on giving the badguys PTSD in other ways.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Sep 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> In the rest of that passage, Grossman is specifically referring to times in history when the sight of massed bayonet charges have caused the enemy to break formation and retreat.  He's talking about the American Civil War, Napolean, WW1, and warfare up until the proliferation of assault rifles.



Or not...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujve6_hHFdY&feature=related


----------



## a_majoor (16 Sep 2009)

OTOH, I recall speaking with British soldiers who did tours of Northern Ireland during "the troubles" being in section sized patrols and cornered by large mobs. The Corporal would order "Fix Bayonets" and the large crowd _would_ fall back, giving the patrol some breathing room until an armoured personell carrier (usually a "Pig") could come retreive them.

At 8 vs 20+ it wasn't the sight of a glittering sea of steel that was making the crowd fall back, but rather the show of determination.

Incidentally, for those of you who say we don't need the bayonet since using it is a low probability event, would you go without quick-clot, tourniquets or an Israeli pressure dressing since they take up room and are not likely to be used?


----------



## 40below (16 Sep 2009)

Perhaps the CF could compromise and develop something that is lighter and takes up less space while maintaining the tactical advantages of a bayonet?


----------



## Fusaki (16 Sep 2009)

_Well, if Mel Gibson says so..._  :



> Actual bayonet combat is extremely rare in military history.  General Trochu saw only one bayonet fight in a lifetime of soldiering with the French army in the 19th century, and that was when French units collided accidentally with a Russian regiment in the heavy fog of the Crimean War's Battle of Inkerman in 1854.  And in these rare bayonet engagements actual bayonet wounds were even rarer yet.
> When this uncommon event does occur, and one bayonet armed man stands face to face with another, what happens most commonly is anything but a thrust with a bayonet.  Just as Roman Legionnaires had to fight the tendency to slash with their swords rather then thrust, so too do modern soldiers tend to use their weapons in a manner that will not necessitate thrusting into their enemy's bodies.



Thats from On Killing pg 122 and thats the context your previous post lacks.

While there have been cases in history when the terror inspired by a massed bayonet charge has broken enemy ranks, these cases are rare and actual killing by bayonet is even rarer.  According to Grossman, soldiers are just as reluctant to actually use their bayonets in combat as their enemies are afraid to have bayonets used on them.

Grossman does acknowledge that bayonets have in the past turned the tide of battles by quoting Paddy Griffith on page 126: 



> One hundred percent of casualties may have been caused by musketry, yet the bayonet could still be the instrument of victory.  This was because the purpose was not to kill soldiers but to disorganize regiments and win ground.



But man, the days of musketry and masses of infantry in close formation are long gone. Aside from a few freak occurrences, there just isn't a place for the bayonet charge when the modern threat is soviet tanks and fleeting insurgents.

And what about those recent occurrences when bayonet charges have been implemented with success?  I'd guess that those are extremely rare, and I'd even suggest that the actual use of the bayonet was blown out of proportion.  There is this romantic image associated with the bayonet and the bayonet charge.  The command "Fix bayonets!" is synonymous with "Prepare for close combat!" and Leonidas' call of "Μολὼν λαβέ" as his 300 Spartans faced Xerxes army at the Gates of Thermopylae.  Just look at the _glorious_ depiction of Mel's bayonet charge in your link to We Were Soldiers.  War stories such as these are as romantic as they get - and as such they've most likely been embellished for the sake of satisfying the audiences craving for high drama.

In our military culture we really do have an infatuation with the image of the bayonet.  We refer to troops outside the wire as "bayonets on the ground" and we Present Arms with bayonets fixed to show loyalty in the direst of times to the Colours we salute.  But in my opinion, a symbol is all it is.  In 2009 the infantryman is required to think critically about what gear will help him accomplish the mission and what equipment is worn on his vest out of nostalgia.


----------



## Fusaki (16 Sep 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Incidentally, for those of you who say we don't need the bayonet since using it is a low probability event, would you go without quick-clot, tourniquets or an Israeli pressure dressing since they take up room and are not likely to be used?



On my last tour, 1 man out of every in 3 of my company found good use for one or all of the above.  And thats not just a war story, I'm making a point:

The chances of needing first aid equipment is HUGE in comparison to the chances of being required to conduct a bayonet charge.  The two are not even in the same league.

The question is not "will it _ever_ have a use?"  but "does the odds of me needing it and the consequences of me not having it outweigh the encumbrance of carrying it around?"  My opinion is no.  For that weight, I'll carry an extra mag.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Sep 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> The question is not "will it _ever_ have a use?"  but "does the odds of me needing it and the consequences of me not having it outweigh the encumbrance of carrying it around?"  My opinion is no.  For that weight, I'll carry an extra mag.



....or nothing at all.  Soldiers are still overburdened by today's fighting loadout.  If I can drop weight by getting rid of useless stuff in order for a guy to be 10-20 lbs lighter, I will do so.  Doing so will decrease fatigue on a fighting man.

Don't be so inclined to wave Grossman around as proof of non-firers or the need to use bayonets.  Sure, he was the first to write for the general public on the topic and has some very good ideas, but other parts of his writing rest on very shaky ground and have been shot through by others.


----------



## COBRA-6 (16 Sep 2009)

If a secondary wpn is required for CQB, I will take a pistol over a bayonet every time.


----------



## Michael OLeary (16 Sep 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Incidentally, for those of you who say we don't need the bayonet since using it is a low probability event, would you go without quick-clot, tourniquets or an Israeli pressure dressing since they take up room and are not likely to be used?



In my own paper on bayonets (which has been referenced before in this thread) my conclusion, despite a hearty run at the underlying old-school "bayonet mindset", never concluded that we should get rid of it.  I did, however, conclude that we need a modern reassessment of the bayonet and bayonet fighting to ensure it is worthy of the being added to the soldier's load.

The error, to my mind, is that each time these singular examples of bayonets in use come up is that some may think that merely fixing bayonets will turn any soldier into a close quarters killing machine. Therefore, the only requirement for that capability to be brought into action at need is to make sure bayonets are carried in the infantry forever.  I think we can all agree it's not that simple a solution.

Then again, didn't some Royal Marine Sergeant recently take out a motorcycle bomber with a rugby tackle, another rare instance of a "combative skill" being used in combat, and yet not one argument that everyone should have it.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Sep 2009)

With respect to the weight issue, and I would add the related issue of overburdening a rifle by tacking on various appurtenances:

Wouldn't one obvious solution be to properly design the weapon system carried by the infanteer so the all the various sighting systems, aiming aids, spotlights, radar warning receivers ..... are properly sized and integrated so that they don't have to be bodged up in the field? 

Some of the weapons that I have seen you guys running around with would make Rube Goldberg blush.  Don't they upset the balance of the weapon?

If the bayonet lug were exposed and available,  traditionalist that I am,  I would certainly be inclined to carry the bayonet.

No matter how many mags you carry you will always reach the point where the "Plumber's Nightmare" you are carrying is nothing more than a club, a blunt instrument.  The bayonet will always make that "club" a more effective weapon.

With respect to the issue of French and Russians not employing "Steel" when they had the opportunity:

Perhaps that is as much a matter of military culture and Tactics, Training and Procedures as anything else.  Unless a force is trained to use a weapon, and becomes comfortable with it, and expects to use it and, in the case of the bayonet, becomes eager to use it,  it will never magically clear the enemy from the field just by deploying it.  The enemy has to believe that the wielder really wants to use it and that they are good with it.

The 18th and 19th century Brits developed that reputation.  Other nations not so much.  Even in the US Civil War there was a difference between the two sides in their attitudes to the bayonet.  Reputedly the Southerners were much less eager to engage with the bayonet than the Northerners.

So, Wonderbread, I actually end up siding with your point, if you have no intention of using a bayonet, and the other side knows that you have no skills or capabilities in that regard,  solely due to a lack of practice - nothing else is intended there, then far better to bring the Swiss Army knife and leave the bayonet at home.

Cheers, Chris


----------



## Infanteer (17 Sep 2009)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> So, Wonderbread, I actually end up siding with your point, if you have no intention of using a bayonet, and the other side knows that you have no skills or capabilities in that regard,  solely due to a lack of practice - nothing else is intended there, then far better to bring the Swiss Army knife and leave the bayonet at home.



A pretty good summation - it sums up my ideas on the pistol as well.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Sep 2009)

I have my FAL bayonet with sheath on the table beside as I write, this thing is incredibly light. While not the pinnacle of the art of knife making, it still works. With modern materials the bayonet does not have to weigh anything close to the weight of the FNC1 bayonet. I suspect that a good knife can still serve many purposes for the modern soldier, including affixing it on the end of their rifle. Make it light, strong and multi-purpose.

I totally agree with the training aspect, the bayonet like any fighting system needs training to employed properly. I think the Gurkha is the prime modern example of this. The Kuri (I hope I got that right) is both practical and symbolic at the same time, it is a visible and potent reminder to their enemy of their will to close and fight. I would be interested in what the Taliban think (not their propaganda) of going up against them.


----------



## KevinB (21 Sep 2009)

Bayonets are antiques.

 Yes you can use a Brown Bess to kill the Taliban too - but not a good idea.
   The 19th Centurty called and it wants it doctrine back...

 The Lt. jumped first without thinking -- his pistol or reloading the rifle would have been better choices, as what happens when another target pops up?

 Bring up one incident of a bayonet and I can bring up 10,000's situations that pistols or carbines have been used to greater effect.

 Carry a good knife - but dont mount the damn thing --- trying bayonet fighting with a Flash Light, PEQ etc...


----------



## a_majoor (25 Sep 2009)

While the Lt might have done better by pulling out a 12 gauge and blowing the guy's head off, the real fact of the matter is he had the will to engage the enemy.

Without the will to get up close and personal, he or any other soldier could have been festooned with all kinds of secondary weaponry including "plasma rifles in the 25 watt range" and still be cut down because they were frozen in fear or panic.

Bayonet training and carrying a bayonet helps to instill the will into the soldier, regardless of how unlikely it is to be used (even I know only @ 1% of battle injuries in the American Civil War were caused by bayonets and other edged weapons).

Arer there alternatives to bayonet training and bayoonets to instill willpoer into the soldier? Perhaps there are, a lifetime of training and indoctrination produced the Spartans and Samuai warriors, to use two historical examples, and VDH points out that democratic armies on what they see are "just wars" are pretty fierce fighters as well. The question is how do we instill this in the average recruit?


----------



## Infanteer (25 Sep 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Bayonet training and carrying a bayonet helps to instill the will into the soldier, regardless of how unlikely it is to be used



I've never bolstered due to a knife sitting on my webbing.  Canvasing the Afghan vets around the office also led to the same conclusion.

Training instinctive aggressiveness in soldiers does not require the carrying of a bayonet.  I can accomplish just as much with pugil stick fighting and milling.

Give me that chainsaw bayonet from Gears of War though....


----------



## KevinB (25 Sep 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Arer there alternatives to bayonet training and bayoonets to instill willpoer into the soldier? Perhaps there are, a lifetime of training and indoctrination produced the Spartans and Samuai warriors, to use two historical examples, and VDH points out that democratic armies on what they see are "just wars" are pretty fierce fighters as well. The question is how do we instill this in the average recruit?



Propper combat shooting, and hand to hand skills.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Sep 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I can accomplish just as much with pugil stick fighting and milling.



Pugil Stick .... isn't that kinda like a rifle with a padded butt and padding where the point thing is supposed to go?

Give it up you two. ;D

Sharp pointy thing good.  Sharp pointy thing with long blade better.  Sharp pointy thing with long handle just about as good - even if the "handle" is a plumber's nightmare.

Conversely club good.  Club with sharp pointy thing attached better - even if "club" is a plumber's nightmare.

If you are going to carry a knife, and it seems you all are, it costs nothing to put a device on the knife so that it attaches to your (for want of a better expression) rifle and puts some distance between you and the other bugger.


----------



## sm1lodon (6 Dec 2009)

They said guns on airplanes were obsolete, also, up to the Vietnam war, because they had this modern marvel, the Much Vaunted Guided Missile. Problem is, they had more planes to shoot down than missiles with which to do it. I.e. they ran out of ammo.

Then the pilots, to quote one source, were "Screaming for guns."

Bayonets will never be obsolete. Yes, it is preferable to kill your enemy with bullets. It's even more preferable to be piloting a remote UAV from an office chair in a bunker in the Nevada desert. Even more preferable, were it available would be to push some button somewhere that made all murderers drop their weapons, bow down in penitence to their god and perform community service for the rest of their natural lives.

But combat isn't about believing, naively, that the ideal will always or ever be available. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

The bayonet will never die. But people will continue to die on the sharp end of it, no matter what "experts" may say, sitting in their armchairs, about the obsolescence of such a stone-age concept as killing someone with a sharp instrument! Rather!


----------



## Fusaki (6 Dec 2009)

> The bayonet will never die. But people will continue to die on the sharp end of it, *no matter what "experts" may say, sitting in their armchairs*, about the obsolescence of such a stone-age concept as killing someone with a sharp instrument! Rather!



 :

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

Have you ever actually _held_ a bayonet before?


----------



## sm1lodon (6 Dec 2009)

Yes.


----------



## NL_engineer (6 Dec 2009)

sm1lodon said:
			
		

> They said guns on airplanes were obsolete, also, up to the Vietnam war, because they had this modern marvel, the Much Vaunted Guided Missile. Problem is, they had more planes to shoot down than missiles with which to do it. I.e. they ran out of ammo.
> 
> Then the pilots, to quote one source, were "Screaming for guns."
> 
> ...



Well if you plan on getting that close, fixing the bayonet will just get you killed; and using it as a fighting knife doesn't count.

Please tell me how the bayonet that only left mt vest only a handful of times over seas (for use as a prodding/digging tool), has a place on the modern battle field.

EDITED to add

Please provide us with proof and experience with your answers


----------



## Journeyman (6 Dec 2009)

sm1lodon said:
			
		

> ....no more bearing .....than me reading a book by Richard Marcinko has on your experiences in theater.


Perhaps if more people listened to themselves....


----------



## sm1lodon (6 Dec 2009)

What I'm reflecting on is the information already posted above that demonstrates that bayonets are, indeed still useful in modern combat. People are using them, to this day, when they choose to, without being killed in the process.

I also noted that guns are still useful on combat aircraft, no matter what the experts said about that.

I make no other claims. 

I will quote the original post in this thread:

Platoon-scale bayonet charge was British Army's first since the Falklands:

Friday 18 March 2005        

 telegraph.co.uk 

'I bayoneted people. It was me or them'
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 18/03/2005)

The daring and bravery shown in Iraq by the men of 1 Bn, the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment were so outstanding that their battlegroup receives no fewer than 37 of the honours awarded today.

They include 33 gallantry awards, among them the Victoria Cross awarded to Pte Johnson Beharry, two Conspicuous Gallantry Crosses, the second highest award for gallantry, 10 Military Crosses and 17 Mentions in Dispatches.

The succession of heroic actions under fire included the first bayonet charge since the Falklands Conflict and the 23-day defence of the former governor's residence in Amarah under siege from a continuous attack.

The gallantry awards have made the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment (PWRR) the most decorated in the history of the British Army, with a total of 57 Victoria Crosses and a host of other medals.

Although formed in only 1992, it is the senior English regiment of the line, tracing its history back to 1572, and its forebear regiments have fought in virtually all the major campaigns in which the Army has taken part.

Lt-Col Matt Maer, CO of 1 Bn, the PWRR, described yesterday how his men were forced to fight every day for five months in Iraq, coming under 860 separate attacks, with 109 alone on one day.

On the first day of their deployment they found themselves drawn into a three-hour running battle with insurgents, he said. "We knew it was going to be a very long and very hot summer."

The steadfast defence by Y Company of the former provincial governor's residence in Amarah saw a number of Military Crosses awarded to the battlegroup, which also included Royal Welch Fusiliers.

Major Justin Featherstone, the Y company commander, who, despite repeatedly being told he could withdraw if he saw fit refused to do so, is among the 10 members of the battlegroup awarded the Military Cross.

But it was inevitably the bayonet charge, led by Sgt Chris Broome, from Trowbridge, Wilts, who is awarded the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, that captured the imagination.

The three-hour battle during which it took place began on May 14 last year when a dozen gunmen ambushed nine soldiers from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders in a pair of armoured Land Rovers.

The Argylls were attacked on the road to Amarah, with insurgents repeatedly attacking the vehicles with small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades.

The Land Rovers sped through the ambushes only to come upon two dozen insurgents putting together an improvised roadside bomb. 

Two platoons of the PWRR, a total of 40 men in four Warrior armoured vehicles, were sent from nearby Camp Condor to hunt down the bombers.

When they saw the insurgents waiting in ambush in foxholes alongside the road, the four infantry sections in the Warriors, 28 men in all, dismounted, carried out a flanking manoeuvre and charged the insurgents with fixed bayonets.

Cpl Mark Byles, 34, from Portsmouth, who is awarded the Military Cross, said: "The look on their faces was utter shock. They were under the impression we were going to lie in our ditch, shoot from a distance and they would run away.

"I slashed people, rifle-butted them. I was punching and kicking. It was either me or them. It didn't seem real. Anybody can pull a trigger from a distance, but we got up close and personal."


Now, there was no report of any of the soldiers using bayonets being killed.

So, that is my basis for claiming that bayonets are not obsolete, and evidently never will be.

Here are some thoughts about why planes need guns

http://www.72ndvfw.org/resources/train/0707strafing.pdf

My points, in brief, are that no amount of experience or opinion can discredit the facts that are presented, right here in this thread, and in materials available through research on Google, that bayonets are not obsolete, just like guns are not obsolete on planes.


----------



## Journeyman (6 Dec 2009)

sm1lodon said:
			
		

> So, what you are saying in brief, is that since you didn't use your bayonet for combat, that no one, ever, for the rest of the history of mankind, has any right to regard it as being useful, correct? That it has no place on the modern battlefield, for any combat use, whatsoever?


No, what I believe is being said by several people here, many with actual combat experience, is that there are more effective weapons.  It's a trade-off with weapon balance, weight, utility of alternate tools, and requirement to maintain skill sets.

Arguing against that position is one person, who may or may not have completed his CFAT, saying that bayonets are _capable_ of killing an enemy, therefore everyone should continue carrying them.

That very same logic, with equally absent experience, holds that people can get killed crossing the street, so every infanteer should also carry a bus.   :


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Dec 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> No, what I believe is being said by several people here, many with actual combat experience, is that there are more effective weapons.  It's a trade-off with weapon balance, weight, utility of alternate tools, and requirement to maintain skill sets.
> 
> Arguing against that position is one person, who may or may not have completed his CFAT, saying that bayonets are _capable_ of killing an enemy, therefore everyone should continue carrying them.
> 
> That very same logic, with equally absent experience, holds that people can get killed crossing the street, so *every infanteer should also carry a bus.*   :


Oh good God, please delete that, lest DLR see it and try to issue me a bus!!!!


----------



## MJP (6 Dec 2009)

sm1lodon said:
			
		

> So, what you are saying in brief, is that since you didn't use your bayonet for combat, that no one, ever, for the rest of the history of mankind, has any right to regard it as being useful, correct? That it has no place on the modern battlefield, for any combat use, whatsoever?
> 
> So, please, tell me, the experience and knowledge YOU have, having been present in every single engagement, no matter how small or great, where you have personally witnessed, with proof, in every single battle since, WWII onward, where you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that under no circumstances, and on no occasion, has a bayonet EVER been used effectively as a weapons.
> 
> If you can prove that, that the bayonet has not been, and never will be, useful in any combat situation, ever with absolutely no exceptions whatsoever, then, we will give credence to YOUR point.



I wonder if you have truly read the thread carefully?  It has been shown a few times in the thread the usage of a bayonet in a recent combat situation.   No one is debating that fact,  however several people with quite a bit of experience have shown fallacies behind the argument that one should always have a bayonet.  Showing rather that it, like past weapons is becoming dated and better options for a user exist.

I hardly think that because it "may be useful in certain situations, so we should keep it" is a very valid argument.  As I6 said and  Journey man has eloquently pointed out. above.


			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Bayonets are antiques.
> 
> Yes you can use a Brown Bess to kill the Taliban too - but not a good idea.
> The 19th Century called and it wants it doctrine back...
> ...


----------



## NL_engineer (6 Dec 2009)

sm1lodon said:
			
		

> So, what you are saying in brief, is that since you didn't use your bayonet for combat, that no one, ever, for the rest of the history of mankind, has any right to regard it as being useful, correct? That it has no place on the modern battlefield, for any combat use, whatsoever?



Yes the bayonet has been used, and has done well in its intended purpose.  With the sword being one the most used weapon throughout history, should I carry one of those too? by your logic yes  :



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> That very same logic, with equally absent experience, holds that people can get killed crossing the street, so every infanteer should also carry a bus.   :



it would prevent this from happening 







I have been looking for an excuse to post it.

Edited to fix pic


----------



## sm1lodon (6 Dec 2009)

Sorry , I was in mid-edit when the dogs started piling again. 

There are people on here who are of the opinion that the bayonet is obsolete. I don't believe that, based on fairly recent, and historic events.

They are free to do and believe whatever they wish as am I.

They believe the bayonet is obsolete, I don't, and neither did those dead Taliban, briefly, before they died, perhaps.

You having never flown in a plane doesn't invalidate air travel.


----------



## medaid (6 Dec 2009)

I think... I have solved DLRs problem.

Issue a bus with bayonets attached to the frame, then fill it with infanteers who shall wield swords to cut down their enemies from the windows. Ala Dawn of The Dead.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Dec 2009)

MedTech said:
			
		

> I think... I have solved DLRs problem.
> 
> Issue a bus with bayonets attached to the frame, then fill it with infanteers who shall wield swords to cut down their enemies from the windows. Ala Dawn of The Dead.



Hey I think you are on to something.......

Someone promote him!


 ;D


----------



## Loachman (6 Dec 2009)

sm1lodon said:
			
		

> You having never flown in a plane doesn't invalidate air travel.



There is a significant difference between trying to get somewhere in a WWI SE5a and a modern Airbus, nein?


----------



## George Wallace (6 Dec 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Hey I think you are on to something.......
> 
> Someone promote him!
> 
> ...



I don't know about promotion, but perhaps with the right "Documentation, Trials, and Prototypes" a $500 Suggestion Award may be in the offering.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Dec 2009)

sm1lodon said:
			
		

> Sorry , I was in mid-edit when the dogs started piling again.
> 
> There are people on here who are of the opinion that the bayonet is obsolete. I don't believe that, based on fairly recent, and historic events.
> 
> ...



Please state your experince with bayonets in an actual theater.

If you don't have any listen to what the members that have been over there have to say about the bayonet, both good and bad.


MILNET.CA MENTOR


----------



## medaid (6 Dec 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I don't know about promotion, but perhaps with the right "Documentation, Trials, and Prototypes" a $500 Suggestion Award may be in the offering.



$500!!! NO WAY!!! Sweeet! Beers George?


----------



## sm1lodon (6 Dec 2009)

I do listen to what people have to say, regardless of their level of experience relative to mine. I don't necessarily follow it, or value it.

I will state  that based on what the original poster said, the bayonet is not obsolete and will never be.


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Dec 2009)

sm1lodon said:
			
		

> I do listen to what people have to say, regardless of their level of experience relative to mine. I don't necessarily follow it, or value it.
> 
> I will state  that based on what the original poster said, the bayonet is not obsolete and will never be.



It's one thing to have an opinion, but the purpose of debate is to actually present a case which could possibly convince someone that your point of view has validity beyond it being your opinion, this usually more complex than simplistic repetition of single points.

For example, here is my opinion on bayonets and their usefulness on the modern battlefield: A la bayonet, or, "hot blood and cold steel"


----------



## sm1lodon (6 Dec 2009)

Oh. I was not aware that the purpose of the forum was debate. I was stating a conclusion at which I arrived after examining the material in that forum when I first posted in this.

That was it. And still is.


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Dec 2009)

sm1lodon said:
			
		

> Oh. I was not aware that the purpose of the forum was debate. I was stating a conclusion at which I arrived after examining the material in that forum when I first posted in this.
> 
> That was it. And still is.



Thank you for your summation,  In that case your contribution has been noted and I guess you'll have nothing further to add.


----------



## GAP (6 Dec 2009)

The bayonet and/or equivalant is a handy little tool....Now in the days of yor....we used them to open C-ration cans (now you woosts have little tinfoil packages.....do you carry sissors?), cut said empty C-Ration cans to create a mini-stove for the C-4 used to heat our meals, pry out stuff, clean our fingernails, etc.  ;D

Section attacks with bayonets fixed? nope, never even thought of it. The only time we fixed bayonets was for searching villes, poking in haystacks, walls of hoochs, checking the ground in the pigpens for tunnels, that kinda stuff. 

I would assume there are still some searching of buildings/huts going on.....so there is a use, but what do I know......I'm past my due date.....


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Dec 2009)

The evolved question throughout this thread which various posters have happily ignored is not _"do you carry a sole purpose bayonet or nothing"_, the question is _"do you carry a bayonet (with no other significant purpose), or do you carry a useful tool that happens to have as one of its purposes the capability of being fixed on a rifle"_?

There have been posters who sole argument for every infantry soldier to carry bayonet has been the rare instances of it having been used as a rifle-point weapon in the absence of other options.  These posters have usually also ignored the sheer rarity of these instances.

Others have argued for the bayonet as a general purpose tool - but were not necessarily talking about those Canadian issued bayonet familiar to most Canadian soldiers of recent decades, i.e., those for the FN C1 and the original C7 bayonets.

The prevailing argument has been against carrying a bayonet solely to have something to fix on the rifle and stab someone.  But, the idea of the idea of issuing a useful knife with a good quality blade as a general tool, one which could as easily also be fixable as a bayonet, has been supported by a variety of posters.  This approach helps to eliminate the likelihood of soldiers choosing to carry a general purpose knife in addition to a bayonet that did not serve in that capacity, and also means a bayonet isn't carried just for those special times when both you and the enemy have run out of ammo and you decide that a bayonet fight is an appropriate course of action.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Dec 2009)

GAP said:
			
		

> The bayonet and/or equivalant is a handy little tool....Now in the days of yor....we used them to open C-ration cans (now you woosts have little tinfoil packages.....do you carry sissors?), cut said empty C-Ration cans to create a mini-stove for the C-4 used to heat our meals, pry out stuff, clean our fingernails, etc.  ;D
> 
> Section attacks with bayonets fixed? nope, never even thought of it. The only time we fixed bayonets was for searching villes, poking in haystacks, walls of hoochs, checking the ground in the pigpens for tunnels, that kinda stuff.
> 
> I would assume there are still some searching of buildings/huts going on.....so there is a use, but what do I know......I'm past my due date.....



Nah but you do have a different insight to the usefullness of the bayonet.


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Dec 2009)

Hua....


A Change in Mission

Lt. Arthur Karell and his Marine battalion were sent to Now Zad, Afghanistan, to train Afghan police. Instead, they had to fight the insurgents who had taken over the town.
By Kristin Henderson

Sunday, June 21, 2009 

"Fix bayonets." 

Not long after giving that order, 1st Lt. Arthur Karell was hunched in a dirt trench crowded with Marines. The hushed darkness bristled with eight-inch blades fitted beneath the barrels of dozens of M-16 assault rifles. 
You fix bayonets when you expect to need the aggressive combat mind-set that's produced by the primal sight of massed blades. You fix them when you expect to search hidden places. You fix them when you expect the fight could push you within arm's reach of your enemy -- gutting distance. In modern warfare, that's extraordinarily rare. 
The problem was, Karell didn't know what to expect. He was from Arlington. He'd traveled the world. This place, though, was like nowhere he'd ever been. The 2nd Battalion of the 7th Marine Regiment had deployed to Afghanistan last spring to train Afghan police. But when Karell's platoon arrived in Now Zad, the largest town in a remote northern district of Helmand province, they'd rolled into a ghost town. 

The Afghans who used to live here, more than 10,000, had been gone for several years, their abandoned mud-brick homes slowly melting into the dusty valley. Insurgents were using the place for R&R. At night, all you heard were the jackals, ululating like veiled, grieving women. The fact that Now Zad had no civilian residents, much less any police, had somehow escaped the notice of the coalition planners who had given the Marines their mission. 
"They saw what they wanted to achieve but didn't realize fully what it would take," Task Force 2/7's commander, Lt. Col. Richard Hall, said at the time. "There were no intel pictures where we are now because there were few or no coalition forces in the areas where we operate. They didn't know what was out there. It was an innocent mistake." 

So, with no police to train or civilians to protect, the Marines in Now Zad were left with the job of evicting the insurgents who had taken over the town. The fight to root them out began a year ago in the predawn twilight of June 15, in a trench. 

Karell was about to lead the first assault of his first deployment. Some Marines in his platoon had done tours in Iraq, but Afghanistan was new to all of them. The dried-up irrigation trench they were in led toward the edge of Now Zad, then ran parallel to a thick mud wall that was taller than a man and that separated the town from a small forest. 

No coalition forces had ever been beyond that wall. With the trees blocking their view, all they knew about what lay beyond was that whenever they got close, they were shot at. Whether the small arms fire had been coming from bunkers in the wall or the trench alongside it, they didn't know. So Karell gave the order to fix bayonets. 
Silently creeping forward through the trench, Karell remembered feeling the same charged mix of fear and electric anticipation as when he rowed crew in high school and college -- that last 30 seconds before a race as the craft slid into place. He and his platoon sergeant, Staff Sgt. Gabriel Guest, had been first to jump into the dark trench and had already decided they would be at the front when the assault on the wall began. "We're not asking them to do these things unless we're willing to do it," they'd reasoned between themselves, because the old cliche was true: "Everyone can get afraid out there." 

Among the Marines in the trench, Karell was one of the oldest at 29, though he looked younger. Now Zad's blowing dust had cracked his voice, as if his teen years at Arlington's H-B Woodlawn high school weren't that long ago. After Harvard and the University of Virginia law school, he'd gone to work on K Street for Wilkie Farr & Gallagher, investigating corporate corruption in developing countries and watching the news from Iraq and Afghanistan. "Seeing these guys go off to these wars time and again, these young guys who are having kids they never see," Karell remembered, "I couldn't just sit there while that was going on." He's the oldest of six, his father the son of Finnish immigrants, his mother Mexican American. At the time, no one in his family was in the military. 
He joined the Marines. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/12/AR2009061202123.html


----------



## KevinB (9 Dec 2009)

C9 - cannot take a bayonet
C7 or C8 with M203A1 cannot take a bayonet.

You have 4 weapons in the section/squad that cannot mount bayonets, so its tough to do an effective beyonet charge...

Handguns -- its like a repeating bayonet with some range...


----------



## Fusaki (9 Dec 2009)

> C9 - cannot take a bayonet
> C7 or C8 with M203A1 cannot take a bayonet.
> 
> You have 4 weapons in the section/squad that cannot mount bayonets, so its tough to do an effective beyonet charge...



Don't forget the LAV crew...

But hey, don't underestimate the bolstered strength of 3 determined men with bayonets fixed. ;D


----------



## Dissident (9 Dec 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Handguns -- its like a repeating bayonet with some range...



My favorite quote of the week.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Dec 2009)

Now if you want a potent multi purpose tool that *also* has use in CQB, then let's issue everyone a compact crowbar. Slamming the bad guy upside the head with either the pointy end, chisel end or blunt (bent) end will certainly end most arguments in your favour, and if the user has some sort of unarmed combat training, then it will be that much better.

A similar discussion took place in another thread about unarmed combat training, and one point I remember making is if we are primarily training troops in unarmed combat for actual utility, then their equipment would also change (troops would have to carrry an ASP baton, wear shot gloves and have metal bosses built into elbo and knee pads to inflict maximum injury). Unarmed combat systems like Aki-budo or Krav Maga would also be taught if the *primary* aim is to use unarmed combat to kill, injure or subdue the enemy.

However, since the primary purpose of teaching unarmed combat is to instill controlled agression to the troops and give then a tool that can be used under particular conditions, then what is being taught is quite sufficient. 

A good multifunctional bayonet backed by proper training has the same purpose (and can be used for other things as pointed out). Single use bayonets (ie the initial issue C-7 version) still have the virtue of helping instill agression in training and have a few uses outside of actually sticking it to someone, although that primarily depends on the psychological value of the weapon and the preceived will to use it.


----------



## Fusaki (9 Dec 2009)

> A similar discussion took place in another thread about unarmed combat training, and one point I remember making is if we are primarily training troops in unarmed combat for actual utility, then their equipment would also change (troops would have to carrry an ASP baton, wear shot gloves and have metal bosses built into elbo and knee pads to inflict maximum injury). Unarmed combat systems like Aki-budo or Krav Maga would also be taught if the primary aim is to use unarmed combat to kill, injure or subdue the enemy.
> 
> However, since the primary purpose of teaching unarmed combat is to instill controlled agression to the troops and give then a tool that can be used under particular conditions, then what is being taught is quite sufficient.
> 
> A good multifunctional bayonet backed by proper training has the same purpose (and can be used for other things as pointed out). Single use bayonets (ie the initial issue C-7 version) still have the virtue of helping instill agression in training and have a few uses outside of actually sticking it to someone, although that primarily depends on the psychological value of the weapon and the preceived will to use it.



I think you've just proved my counter-point. (pun! ;D)

The actual carrying of bayonets does not instil any aggression in anyone.  It is the pugil training that accomplishes this task.  What soldiers need, then, is a good multi-tool for utility purposes and lots of CQC.

Or in other words:

1)  The primary role of CQC is to instil controlled aggression.  Therefore, the issue of ASP batons and shot gloves is unnecessary.

2)  The primary role of pugil fighting is instil controlled aggression.  Therefore, the issue of bayonets is unnecessary as well.


----------



## KevinB (10 Dec 2009)

Handgun
Suppressor
Good Knife

Much more effective than a bayonet...


----------



## Danjanou (10 Dec 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> But hey, don't underestimate the bolstered strength of 3 determined men with bayonets fixed. ;D



We could give em all these ( with appropriate training of course)





 >


----------



## a_majoor (10 Dec 2009)

Not so fast there Wonderbread:

The tools of unarmed combat are your body parts, so I don't _have_ to issue you anything to make you effective if the need arises.

The tools of weaponscraft are the weapons, and pugil stick fighting _is_ bayonet fighting, so if I teach you how to use a bayonet in a controlled agressive manner, you will need (surprise!) an actual bayonet if and when the need arises.

Yes,stipulated that actual bayonet charges are rare, and even in the American Civil War edged weapons accounted for a vewry small percentage of injuries and deaths, there is still a place to train for this, and there are enough examples out there in combat, CCO and other situations where a functioning bayonet was needed and effective that I will not discount the training use or carriage of a bayonet.


----------



## Fusaki (11 Dec 2009)

So if I'm reading you right, you're saying:

1)  Soldiers need to conduct pugil fighting in order to instil a mindset of controlled aggression.

2)  If you're going to train a soldier in pugil fighting, you should give him a bayonet, so that - if necessary - he can use that skill to increase his combat effectiveness.

3) Therefore, soldiers should carry bayonets.

The problem here is that the critical task (increase combat effectiveness) is only a secondary benefit to the bayonet skills and aggressive mindest gained from pugil training.  It fails to consider _Selection and Maintenance of Aim._  What is the _real_ mission? To increase the soldier's combat effectiveness in order to win wars.  

So what makes a soldier effective in combat? Lots of things, but in this discussion we're talking about his skills and his mindset:

1a) Soldiers need efficient training that develops practical combat skills.
1b) Bayonet fighting is a useful skill on only the rarest occasions, and on those occasions other weapons (ie, the pistol) would do the job better.

2a) Combat skills need to be applied through a mindset of controlled aggression.
2b) Controlled aggression can be taught through unarmed combat (non-bayonet) training. 

3) Therefore, soldiers should be given a more practical fighting tool, and train an aggressive mindset through other unarmed combat training.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Dec 2009)

Sigh

Go back through the 20+ pages of examples and you will see places where a pistol, 12 gage shotgun or other, theoretically more effective weapon would not cut it (British foot patrols standing off mobs of Irish thugs during the troubles is the best example I can think of). Waving a pistol around when your section is trapped in an alley would probably enflame the situation not in your favour (two British soldiers who somehow drove into a funeral march were killed with their own pistols when the mob swarmed them).

No weapon, weapons system or training will be effective in 100% of the situations that arise, so it is good to be able to have the widest range of training and tools to deal with the widest range of potential situations you might encounter.

Would it be better to replace the bayonet with a Gerber multi tool with a bayonet lug? Debatable, but a multi function tool (like bayonets with wire cutters) that can be used as a knife and bayonet is something that has more upside than downside in my opinion.


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Dec 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Sigh
> 
> Go back through the 20+ pages of examples and you will see places where a pistol, 12 gage shotgun or other, theoretically more effective weapon would not cut it (British foot patrols standing off mobs of Irish thugs during the troubles is the best example I can think of).



Although I'm a bayonet advocate, we never used them - or even issued them - in Belfast or the Border regions. Baton rounds, snatch squads, armoured vehicles, baselines yes; bayonets, no. They used them in the very early days ('69 - 71 I think)but not for long.


----------



## Loachman (11 Dec 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> you will see places where a pistol, 12 gage shotgun or other, theoretically more effective weapon would not cut it



No? Adding bayonets to rifles would have more of an effect than an equal number of shotguns? In a strict riot control situation, perhaps, maybe, as people are unlikely to get too close to troops thus armed, but they'll just bring out stand-off weapons like Molotov cocktails. If the crowd thinks that firearms are likely to be used against them, then they'll likely stay even further away, thus negating any value that the bayonet may have had.

Are Israelis, who seem to be dealing with such situations more than anybody else lately, using bayonets at all?.

We're not in a riot control situation anyway.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Waving a pistol around when your section is trapped in an alley would probably enflame the situation not in your favour



And waving rifles with fixed bayonets around would have a more calming effect?



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> (two British soldiers who somehow drove into a funeral march were killed with their own pistols when the mob swarmed them).



They were rapidly surrounded and set upon. They did not even use their pistols because, it was thought at the time, they did not wish to harm civilians or "enflame" the crowd further. There were also many more people than rounds available, so they were not going to shoot their way out of the situation. Regardless of what they did following their wrong turn, did not do, or could have done, they were dragged from their car, beaten senseless, stripped to their underwear, and subsequently shot.

Would bayonets have saved them? How many people could they have stabbed outwards through the windows of their car before being dragged out, beaten senseless, stripped to their underwear, and subsequently stabbed with their own bayonets? Or torched in their vehicle.

I fail to see how this example favours your argument for carrying bayonets, which are not usually issued with pistols (the only weapons that these two had) anyway.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> No weapon, weapons system or training will be effective in 100% of the situations that arise, so it is good to be able to have the widest range of training and tools to deal with the widest range of potential situations you might encounter.



With what weapon(s) should thay have been issued (other than perhaps a better map), and would a bayonet have been mountable on it/them, and in any way useful in their situation?

There is a limit to what troops can carry, as we all know, so how wide should this range be? What other weapons should be added? Given a non-modular Tac Vest, where/how should it be carried? What should be given up in order to compensate for the additional weight?

To carry this to an extreme, a variety of other obsolescent/obsolete/primitive weapons could have been just as useful in any case of bayonet use in combat: swords would add a touch of elegance, no?



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> a multi function tool (like bayonets with wire cutters)



Has anybody ever tried that feature? Does it actually work? Can the scabbard be removed/replaced easily enough? I've seen flash eliminators notched to hold a wire in place while a round was fired through it, which would seem to be a much simpler and quicker method of wire cutting if somewhat non-stealthy.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> that can be used as a knife and bayonet is something that has more upside than downside in my opinion



I could see some value in issuing a good knife that has a secondary bayonet lug feature. Most bayonets are just clunky objects with something that looks like a blade, which is not allowed to be sharpened.


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Dec 2009)

Well done Cpl Malone, CGC:

His citation described how on three separate occasions he took on the Taliban or helped rescue colleagues during his six month deployment to Helmand Province which ended in April.

On the first occasion when Cpl Malone's unit was ambushed by insurgents he was ordered to take them on and led the assault.

During the counter attack he ordered his colleagues to fix bayonets and together they charged the enemy who were routed and ran.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235128/Hero-Royal-Marine-proposes-Buckingham-Palace-receiving-medal-bravery.html


----------



## Fusaki (11 Dec 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> No weapon, weapons system or training will be effective in 100% of the situations that arise, so it is good to be able to have the widest range of training and tools to deal with the widest range of potential situations you might encounter.



This just isn't possible.

The soldier only has a finite time in which to train and a finite load he's able to carry.  A specialized tool for every job is a pipe dream.

What the soldier needs is the fewest number of tools that work in the widest range of situations.  Modern war is about flexibility, not clinging to ancient doctrine "just in case" we need it again.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Dec 2009)

Nice to see British bayonets inspiring US allies... they don't like it up 'em!

US warfare experts inspired by bayonet charge by British troops   

Warfare experts in the US are using a famous bayonet charge by British troops as an example of how to tackle insurgents.

They were inspired by the heroic assault by 20 members of the 16th Air Assault Brigade in Basra in May 2004.

A convoy was ambushed by more than 100 members of the notorious Shia militia, the Mahdi Army. When they started to run out of ammunition the Brits fixed bayonets and charged at the enemy positions screaming.


Many of the Iraqis fled the British onslaught, which left more than 20 dead.

Just a handful of British soldiers were wounded and the incident is now being hailed as a major triumph for shock tactics.

The Urban Warfare Analysis Center said: "The attack captured the element of surprise. Enemy fighters probably believed propaganda stating that coalition troops were cowards, unwilling to fight in close combat."



http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/04/14/us-inspired-by-bayonet-brits-115875-21277431/


----------



## Fusaki (15 Dec 2009)

> *BROWN, MELVIN L.
> 
> Rank and organization: Private First Class, U.S. Army, Company D, 8th Engineer Combat Battalion. Place and date: Near Kasan, Korea, 4 September 1950. Entered service at: Erie, Pa. Birth: Mahaffey, Pa. G.O. No.: 11, 16 February 1951. Citation. Pfc. Brown, Company D distinguished himself by conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action against the enemy. While his platoon was securing Hill 755 (the Walled City), the enemy, using heavy automatic weapons and small arms, counterattacked. Taking a position on a 50-foot-high wall he delivered heavy rifle fire on the enemy. His ammunition was soon expended and although wounded, he remained at his post and threw his few grenades into the attackers causing many casualties. When his supply of grenades was exhausted his comrades from nearby foxholes tossed others to him and he left his position, braving a hail of fire, to retrieve and throw them at the enemy. The attackers continued to assault his position and *Pfc. Brown weaponless, drew his entrenching tool from his pack and calmly waited until they 1 by 1 peered over the wall, delivering each a crushing blow upon the head.* Knocking 10 or 12 enemy from the wall, his daring action so inspired his platoon that they repelled the attack and held their position. Pfc. Brown's extraordinary heroism, gallantry, and intrepidity reflect the highest credit upon himself and was in keeping with the honored traditions of the military service. Reportedly missing in action and officially killed in action, September 5, 1950.


http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/koreanwar.html



> WILSON, BENJAMIN F.
> 
> Rank and organization: First Lieutenant (then M/Sgt.), U.S. Army Company I, 31st Infantry Regiment, 7th Infantry Division. Place and date: Near Hwach'on-Myon, Korea, 5 June 1951. Entered service at: Vashon, Wash. Birth: Vashon, Wash. G.O. No.: 69, 23 September 1954. Citation: 1st Lt. Wilson distinguished himself by conspicuous gallantry and indomitable courage above and beyond the call of duty in action against the enemy. Company I was committed to attack and secure commanding terrain stubbornly defended by a numerically superior hostile force emplaced in well-fortified positions. When the spearheading element was pinned down by withering hostile fire, he dashed forward and, firing his rifle and throwing grenades, neutralized the position denying the advance and killed 4 enemy soldiers manning submachineguns. After the assault platoon moved up, occupied the position, and a base of fire was established, he led a bayonet attack which reduced the objective and killed approximately 27 hostile soldiers. While friendly forces were consolidating the newly won gain, the enemy launched a counterattack and 1st Lt. Wilson, realizing the imminent threat of being overrun, made a determined lone-man charge, killing 7 and wounding 2 of the enemy, and routing the remainder in disorder. After the position was organized, he led an assault carrying to approximately 15 yards of the final objective, when enemy fire halted the advance. He ordered the platoon to withdraw and, although painfully wounded in this action, remained to provide covering fire. During an ensuing counterattack, the commanding officer and 1st Platoon leader became casualties. *Unhesitatingly, 1st Lt. Wilson charged the enemy ranks and fought valiantly, killing 3 enemy soldiers with his rifle before it was wrested from his hands, and annihilating 4 others with his entrenching tool.* His courageous delaying action enabled his comrades to reorganize and effect an orderly withdrawal. While directing evacuation of the wounded, he suffered a second wound, but elected to remain on the position until assured that all of the men had reached safety. 1st Lt. Wilson's sustained valor and intrepid actions reflect utmost credit upon himself and uphold the honored traditions of the military service.


http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/koreanwar.html


> Fight to the Death
> 
> According to his posthumously awarded Distinguished Service Cross citation, as the men fell back, Kahoohanohano -- although already wounded in the shoulder -- ordered his squad to a more defensible position while he gathered grenades and returned alone to the machine gun post.
> 
> ...


http://www.military.com/news/article/medal-of-honor-likely-for-isle-man.html?ESRC=eb.nl

Therefore, every soldier should carry an E-Tool on his FFO.  _Just in case._


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Dec 2009)

An e-tool is a bit different from a bayonet. Your comparison is the proverbial apple orange debate. 

While you make some very good  points,  there is nothing like a bayonet fixed to the end of a rifle, being used by some very dertermined troops to put the fear of whatever higher power you beleive in, in our enemy.

A bayonet weighs very little, and has more uses than just sticking on the end of a rifle.

But then again, what would dinosaurs like us know?


----------



## Fusaki (15 Dec 2009)

> there is nothing like a bayonet fixed to the end of a rifle, being used by some very dertermined troops to put the fear of whatever higher power you beleive in, in our enemy.



Scarier then a determined troop trying to hack your head open with a serrated frikken shovel?


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Dec 2009)

Again, apples vs oranges. E-tools aren't issued that much anymore.
Bayonets are. :christmas happy:


----------



## Fusaki (15 Dec 2009)

> Again, apples vs oranges. E-tools aren't issued that much anymore.
> Bayonets are. :christmas happy:



I hope you're not calling me a dinosaur! ;D


----------



## mariomike (15 Dec 2009)

I bet you could take a guys head off with a shovel:
http://www.spetsnaz-gru.com/spetsnaz-entrenching-shovel-1.htm
Doesn't everyone in Canada carry one in the trunk of their car?

I know it's been mentioned on Milnet before. A shovel with a hole in it. The failed "MacAdam Shield-Shovel" of WW1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacAdam_Shield_Shovel


----------



## a_majoor (15 Dec 2009)

In the first world war, troops would reach for entrenching tools and other handy items to respond to trench raids. Trench raiders would also carry lethal devices such as home made maces, brass knuckles and trench daggers since the then issue bayonet was rather long and unweildy in a trench when attached to a rifle. (This does not mean bayonets wern't used, just not in the way the QM intended).

E tools (well the WWI kind anyway, not these ones) are handy for digging in, but are often carried in awkward locations to reach when on the move. Dropping your ruck and unstrapping the shovel for the climactic "e-tool charge" might make a good movie scene, but in the real world I think most angry men slicing away with shovels, picks and mattocks were the defenders in the trenches  rather than the attackers. (As an aside, while their Sergeant-Majors would have approved of the agression they showed, they were probably horrified the men did not down tools and fix bayonets like they were trained to do...make of that what you will!)

Once again the arguments are two fold: do the troops have the aggression and will to close with the enemy, and do they have appropriate tools to do so. Easily accessable tools like a bayonet make unleashing this much easier, rather than having to run back to the CQ to grab a shotgun, or more improbable add on devices like this


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Dec 2009)

Yes a sharpened shovel probably could take a head off.  There would be a few variables (ie strength of the shovel weilder, etc). 
Having said that, I do not beleive that shovels are carried on patrols or offensive ops.

A bayonet is.


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Dec 2009)

Big Silverback said:
			
		

> An e-tool is a bit different from a bayonet. Your comparison is the proverbial apple orange debate.



Both are ultimately single use tools which have been put to a variety of other purposes.  Both have demonstrated effectiveness as killing weapons (when models designed to be effective in that role are selected for the purpose of debate).  One advantage to the e-tool is that it's an instinctively applied bludgeon with an edge, handling a rifle and bayonet is not as simple as many wish to think - nor have we really updated its employment since HM Queen Victoria was handing our VCs.  If we're going to form square and have every man's left and right guarded by the next soldier less than a pace away, then standard bayonet fighting tactics work can work (as long as the enemy cooperates).  If you're in a melee, sometimes it's better to have something to swing about to channel your rage and pain through.  The right tool for the right job - the question is, does the right job for a single-purpose bayonet occur often enough to justify its weight for every soldier?  Alternatively, can we provide an effective multi-use bayonet that justifies it's carriage even when "pig-sticking" isn't likely to happen?  After all, why aren't all troops still carrying an e-tool? - perhaps because not enough soldiers needed it often enough to justify carrying it everywhere.



			
				Big Silverback said:
			
		

> While you make some very good  points,  there is nothing like a bayonet fixed to the end of a rifle, being used by some very dertermined troops to put the fear of whatever higher power you beleive in, in our enemy.



That short sentence infers a large number of conditional qualifiers - then again we can ask the 24th Foot about the utility of bayonets in the hands of a trained and determined troops when the enemy is even more determined to kill you back.



			
				Big Silverback said:
			
		

> A bayonet weighs very little, and has more uses than just sticking on the end of a rifle.



A good quality, well-designed bayonet does, yes.  But it has also been noted that some of the bayonets issued in the recent past barely qualified for use as prodders beyond their mostly theoretical usefulness as bayonets.


----------



## Fusaki (15 Dec 2009)

For the record, my original post about E-Tools was a response to daftandbarmy:

You can't cherry pick freak occurrences and cite them as evidence for the utility of any tool - that includes both bayonets _and_ folding-serrated-war-shovels.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Dec 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> For the record, my original post about E-Tools was a response to daftandbarmy:
> 
> You can't cherry pick freak occurrences and cite them as evidence for the utility of any tool - that includes both bayonets _and_ folding-serrated-war-shovels.



Good point. By the same logic I guess that means that most AA defensive weapons, as well as the air to air capabilities of most fighter aircraft, are just a waste of time and money. I'm sure the bayonet has been used, and been proven, in the role that it was designed for, more often, more recently.


----------



## Michael OLeary (16 Dec 2009)

Comparing rates of use to air defence weapons in a conflict with no air threat is presenting a red herring argument.  There was something said earlier about comparing apples to oranges .....


----------



## sm1lodon (16 Dec 2009)

How about this: The bayonet is among the least desirable weapons to be in a position to have to use, but that does not change the fact that for most militaries in the world it is still carried, and hopefully is an actually useful knife in and of itself, thus not just dead weight and space when not being affixed to the end of a rifle for that one-in-a-million chance a bayonet charge might be called for.

On occasion, even in modern warfare, the bayonet charge has been used to great effect. But this does not change the fact that it is among the least desirable methods to have to utilize, shooting your enemies from a protected spot at a decent distance obviously being more desirable by FAR.

Some believe in eliminating the bayonet and replacing its weight and space with something more useful, such as extra ammo, while others affirm that it removes a last-resort option that does not take up that much weight and space.

In summary, bayonets still exist and are on ultra-rare occasions, used for bayonet charges. Some believe it would be better off extinct, and others don't think so.


----------



## KevinB (16 Dec 2009)

Wow thats just not a waffle thats a Belgian waffle.  Pick a side, don't be a commentartor - we can all read.

Screw the bayonet -- issue everyone Flamethrowers...


----------



## GAP (16 Dec 2009)

76 posts of trolling.....


----------



## Jungle (16 Dec 2009)

sm1lodon said:
			
		

> How about this: The bayonet is among the least desirable weapons to be in a position to have to use, but that does not change the fact that for most militaries in the world it is still carried, and hopefully is an actually useful knife in and of itself, thus not just dead weight and space when not being affixed to the end of a rifle for that one-in-a-million chance a bayonet charge might be called for.
> 
> On occasion, even in modern warfare, the bayonet charge has been used to great effect. But this does not change the fact that it is among the least desirable methods to have to utilize, shooting your enemies from a protected spot at a decent distance obviously being more desirable by FAR.
> 
> ...



Dude, are you looking for a job with The Learning Channel or something ? (AKA The LC... crossthread points ?? )

Have you thought about going into politics ??


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Dec 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Screw the bayonet -- issue everyone Flamethrowers...


 :evil:
And for the artillery, one of these per battery!


----------



## Will M (17 Dec 2009)

One earlier post states that 1% of battlefield injuries were with the bayonet. But fatalities were not listed as most bayonet attacks result in death. Most are run through several times. Just something to think about


----------



## George Wallace (17 Dec 2009)

Will M said:
			
		

> One earlier post states that 1% of battlefield injuries were with the bayonet. But fatalities were not listed as most bayonet attacks result in death. Most are run through several times. Just something to think about



I'm thinking.......Yes I am.  Seems to me that death is the ultimate fatality.


----------



## Michael OLeary (17 Dec 2009)

Will M said:
			
		

> One earlier post states that 1% of battlefield injuries were with the bayonet. But fatalities were not listed as most bayonet attacks result in death. Most are run through several times. Just something to think about



I link and I link, but no-one reads:



> Statistics from the American Civil War state that over three months of action near Richmond, characterized by above average rates of hand-to-hand combat, casualty ratios for the Union Army were significantly in favour of projectile wounds. While over 32,000 men received treatment for bullet wounds, only thirty-seven were treated for bayonet thrusts. *An observer from the same period confirmed that the wounds evident on the dead were in similar proportion. The damage inflicted during "bayonet assault" was most often executed by bullets.* (29)
> 
> (29) - Bullet v. Bayonet – American Civil War, Canadian Army Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, Winter 1962


----------



## Will M (17 Dec 2009)

Civil war statistics, but not earlier conflicts where it was safer to be in a line regiment and be shot at with volley, % of being hit was very low compared to cannon grapeshot or bayonet.  Bayonets were secondary weapon, , but used much more.  Also good for dispatching wounded.


----------



## Michael OLeary (17 Dec 2009)

Will M said:
			
		

> Civil war statistics, but not earlier conflicts where it was safer to be in a line regiment and be shot at with volley, % of being hit was very low compared to cannon grapeshot or bayonet.  Bayonets were secondary weapon, , but used much more.  Also good for dispatching wounded.



Maybe I should just cut and post the whole paper:



> The bayonet does not rate highly as a cause of wounds and death in comparison to other battlefield weapons. Napoleon’s own surgeon-general claimed that "for every bayonet-wound he treated there were a hundred caused by small arms or artillery fire." (22) One source gives sabre and bayonet wound statistics as 15-20 per cent before 1850 and only 4-6 per cent after 1860. (23) Similarly Puysegar is recorded as stating that one should "just go to the hospital and … see how few men have been wounded by cold steel as opposed to firearms." (24) And Duffy quotes Corvisier as giving bayonet wound statistics as only 2.4 per cent. (25) Statistics from the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 give two and a half percent as the overall casualty rate for spears, swords and bayonets. (26)
> 
> Byron Farwell, in his work on the pre World War I British Army, Mr Kipling’s Army, presents the following:
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Dec 2009)

TOMAHAWKS!! That's the ticket! ;D


----------



## HItorMiss (17 Dec 2009)

Agreed!

You can use a Tomahawks for CQC and breaching and throwing it's the best for everyone!


----------



## Fusaki (17 Dec 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> TOMAHAWKS!! That's the ticket! ;D



Funny you should mention that.  The bayonet debate over on lightfighter saw a modern fighting Tomahawk such as <a href=http://www.americantomahawk.com/products/vtac.htm>this</a> one suggested as the better alternative to the bayonet.


The Lightfighter discussion: <a href=http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5436084761/m/2031063541?r=9361085541#9361085541>the bayonet: tool for the toolbox, or useless anachronism?</a>

The bold emphasis and box brackets are mine.


> > IIRC there was a bunch of Scots that used bayonets pretty effectively against al-Sadr's crew last year.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tomahawk VS Bayonet!






****EDIT****

Here's a response to the above post that I think sums it up pretty well:



> > If we are talking about a soldier that has no side arm, I still stand by the fact that an M-4 with gadgets on it and attached to a soldier by sling of snap link is not a good fighting platform. In that case I would carry a light weight fighting tomahawk.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Dec 2009)

A bit of nostalgia....

WRT to CQB, here is a Jap Type 30, Variation "B" bayonet  (c.1942) that I have, with a bullet strike on the blade, bought this locally at an old Vet's estate sale here at God's Waiting Room (AKA Bribie Island), lots of retirees here 

If only this one could talk.

Rather large waves of attacking Japanese with their bayonets fixed was quite common in this neck of the woods, not so long ago.

Times however have changed.

OWDU


----------



## a_majoor (18 Dec 2009)

Cold steel worked wonders in the Napoleonic wars according to Paddy Griffith.

The British soldiers would be hidden from the advancing French columns in the tall grass or a reverse slope, rising to discharge a volley then advance with bayonets fixed. The multiple shocks (sudden appearance of the enemy, impact of a volley on the undeployed column and the sight of an advance behind cold steel) was often enough to cause the French morale to collapse and the advancing French column to disintegrate without resorting to actual bayonet thrusts.

Interestingly, when soldiers came to close quarters unexpectedly, the tendency was to swing muskets like clubs or throw rocks at the enemy (echoed in the scene in "Saving Private Ryan" where the American and German solders throw their helmets at each other before the American remembers his pistol and fires [that one's for you Kevin!]).

Bayonet training develops controlled agression and the display of cold steel tends to destroy the morale of enemy soldiers, beligerent civilians who are confronting soldiers or POW's who are being guarded by soldiers with fixed bayonets. 

All good reasons in my mind to keep bayonets.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Dec 2009)

I agree with Thucydides. A bayonet is a powerful psychological weapon. Most people can't stand the sight of a sharp objects attached to  rifles with very determined soldiers operating them.
If you read LCol Grosmans' writings, you will find out that this is a form of "posturing" that degrades the enemy's will to fight.
The bayonet should stay.


----------



## KevinB (18 Dec 2009)

FYI the soldier on Lightfighter posting against the bayonet is a very experienced Tier1 SOF MSG...
   He got a BSV in Afghan in 2002 and a SS in Iraq in 03-04.

For any with recent experience in Iraq and Afghan, do you really think the bayo will do anything psychologically?
  I don't one little bit


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Dec 2009)

Big Silverback said:
			
		

> I agree with Thucydides. A bayonet is a powerful psychological weapon. Most people can't stand the sight of a sharp objects attached to  rifles with very determined soldiers operating them.
> If you read LCol Grosmans' writings, you will find out that this is a form of "posturing" that degrades the enemy's will to fight.
> The bayonet should stay.



It is a powerful psychological weapon .... to us.

But how powerful is it as a psychological weapon to potential enemies who may be from a culture in which edged weapons aren't considered as much of a barbaric anachronism as they are within western culture.  The psychological effect we imagine something to have within our own frame of reference may not be equally applicable to others.


----------



## Loachman (18 Dec 2009)

There seem to be two camps. They can be divided along two overlapping lines: Bayonet is not useful/bayonet is useful and BTDT/NBTNDT.

I have NBTNDT but I'll generally always defer to the ones that have.

I'll also hazard a guess that the success of a charge is more dependent upon the shock factor of a bunch of big aggressive guys running at one while yelling and screaming than the simple sight of a bayonet - which may not even be noticeable under the circumstances.

Personally, I'd rather have the equivalent weight in extra ammunition, but then the remote circumstances under which I'd ever have to use it are rather different as well.

As a survivor of a downed helicopter, it's not too likely that running towards an enemy could ever be a good idea, and there's no guarantee that I'd be in any shape to do so either. Hopefully, and least one arm/hand/finger and one eye (preferably all on the same side) would still be operable.


----------



## HItorMiss (18 Dec 2009)

In the end having BTDT, I'll take a good knife and a Pistol then a hunk of metal that may or may not scare the enemy.

I also think of it this way, many many techniques exist and have been studied to deflect and/or minimize the usefulness of the Bayonet, but I don't know one person who can dodge or deflect a pistol round to the chest.


----------



## Will M (18 Dec 2009)

Thanks for the whole paper, new info is always good as there will always be conflicting stats, chose the best ones. Alot is said for not running out of ammo, this is the best solution, but one will run out even in Afganistan, then the bayonet is useful and you do not run out of it, just your endurance. Yes I have herd 1st hand accounts of its use there, earlier in the conflict, I think the CF has learned much since being in the peacekeeping business.


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Dec 2009)

Will M said:
			
		

> Yes I have herd 1st hand accounts of its use there, earlier in the conflict, I think the CF has learned much since being in the peacekeeping business.



Any yet, not one person has tried to present any examples of attempts to rewrite basic infantry training or pre-deployment training to emphasize the importance or recurring employment of the bayonet overseas.


----------



## Will M (18 Dec 2009)

And  Germany, famous for their bayonets and edged weapons no longer uses the bayonet. As Napoleon said, you can do anything with a bayonet, except sit on it!


----------



## Fusaki (18 Dec 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Cold steel worked wonders in the Napoleonic wars according to Paddy Griffith.
> 
> The British soldiers would be hidden from the advancing French columns in the tall grass or a reverse slope, rising to discharge a volley then advance with bayonets fixed. The multiple shocks (sudden appearance of the enemy, impact of a volley on the undeployed column and the sight of an advance behind cold steel) was often enough to cause the French morale to collapse and the advancing French column to disintegrate without resorting to actual bayonet thrusts.



Sure, I have no doubt that the bayonet was, during the Napoleonic Wars, a viable weapon.  But there are lots of things that were a good idea then that are a bad idea now:





And we've come a long way since then:













I can't say for certain if the guys above are carrying bayonets or not, but I want to establish a general contrast about what soldiers wore at Waterloo and the cutting edge of equipment today.

Everyone's got a buddy in CANSOF.  Ask _him_ if he thinks bayonets are obsolete.  Sure, CSOR isn't the RCR/PPCLI/R22eR, but they _are_ an authority on dismounted infantry combat. I think it's safe to say that there's overlap between units in the fundamental skills. In 2009, bayonet fighting just isn't one of them.


----------



## Will M (18 Dec 2009)

Bayonets can be in todays terms a multi task item. Still good if you want to be quiet. I would want one in the event of being separated from your unit, might come in handy for preparing food or shelter, and a polished blade can signal. If nothing else, they are great to collect as wall hangers. I dispatched a bat that had unluckily found its way into my house, using a bayonet.


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Dec 2009)

Will M said:
			
		

> Bayonets can be in todays terms a multi task item. Still good if you want to be quiet. I would want one in the event of being separated from your unit, might come in handy for preparing food or shelter, and a polished blade can signal.



So, you want a good knife.  If it has bayonet fittings, that's a nice extra.  That argument has been repeatedly been put forth by those arguing against a poor quality single purpose bayonet.

Bayonets are supposed to be dull, in order to minimize reflection (nothing to do with sharpness).  You won't be signaling with a proper bayonet.




			
				Will M said:
			
		

> If nothing else, they are great to collect as wall hangers. I dispatched a bat that had unluckily found its way into my house, using a bayonet.



Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Dec 2009)

My first bayonet, along with all the necessary drill:


----------



## Fusaki (18 Dec 2009)

Big Silverback said:
			
		

> If you read LCol Grosmans' writings, you will find out that this is a form of "posturing" that degrades the enemy's will to fight.



I have read Grossman, and I addressed that point <a href=http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28762/post-875155#msg875155>here.</a>




			
				Will M said:
			
		

> Bayonets can be in todays terms a multi task item. Still good if you want to be quiet. I would want one in the event of being separated from your unit, might come in handy for preparing food or shelter, and a polished blade can signal. If nothing else, they are great to collect as wall hangers. I dispatched a bat that had unluckily found its way into my house, using a bayonet.



And I-6 already addressed that point <a href=http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28762/post-896673#msg896673>here.</a>


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Dec 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Everyone's got a buddy in CANSOF.  Ask _him_ if he thinks bayonets are obsolete.  Sure, CSOR isn't the RCR/PPCLI/R22eR, but *they are an authority on dismounted infantry combat. *


*cough* *BULLSHIT* *cough*
They *may* be the Canadian authority on special operations; however, they are NOT the authority on dismounted infantry combat.  

I am.


(OK, I'm not, but I am one of his key staff advisors.  OK, the Canadian authority on infantry combat)


(PS: The bayonet may or may not have its use.  We've heard both sides.  But in the end, we are all posting opinions on the internet, safe in our homes, perhaps even sipping a Crown and Cola.  Who knows?  In Aid to the civil power, or when dealing with civilian crowds in a non-warfighting operation, perhaps the sight of a bunch of soldiers fitting bayonets may get the desired effect.  In COIN, in a third world nation, it may be as useful as tits on a bull.  Just as Main Battle Tanks are fairly useless in most aid to civil power operations, so too the bayonet may be quite useless in warfighting.)


----------



## Fusaki (18 Dec 2009)

Fair.

The CSOR is not the Authority that governs dismounted infantry doctrine in the CF, and _I_ am not the authority on CSOR _or_ dismounted infantry doctrine.


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Dec 2009)

Just so that others know where I'm coming from and so that they know I'm not dissing Wonderbread:
CSOR and JTF-2 have a very unique and specialised role in combat.  To call it "infantry combat" would be a dis-service to both the infantry corps and to the SOF and SF community.    Here's but one example: infantry often rely upon 155mm artillery to assist them in doing "things", whereas SOF/SF: not so much.  

:cheers:


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Dec 2009)

I think everyone knows by now what side of the fence I am on, and I am firmly in favor of retaining the bayonet.
Call me a dinosaur, sure. You may never fit a bayonet on the end of your rifle, but its still an option if you have it.


----------



## NL_engineer (19 Dec 2009)

In the current theater, the 9mm has more of a psychological affect then a bayonet/or any other big f***ing knife.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Dec 2009)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> In the current theater, the 9mm has more of a psychological affect then a bayonet/or any other big f***ing knife.



Agreed, but this MAY not be the only theater of ops we are involved in. Afghanistan is important, BUT it is counterinsurgency warfare. Conventional warfare is a different kettle of fish.


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Dec 2009)

Because there's nothing like cold steel to turn the tide of 7000 Chinese main battle tanks.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Dec 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Because there's nothing like cold steel to turn the tide of 7000 Chinese main battle tanks.


I get your point. Sarcasm does not become you.


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Dec 2009)

Sarcasm aside, please describe the nature of "conventional warfare" as you understand it in which you believe the bayonet to have such importance and usefulness.


----------



## KevinB (19 Dec 2009)

I am a big fan of issuing handguns to everyone, but beyond that, Aid to Civil Power, a BAYONET?  Does anyone think that a JAG would think that a bayonet would be a reasonable use of force continuim segment?
  ASP Baton and Pepper Spray - thats the ticket, stabbing a bunch of Canadian citizens or threatening too?  While I am willing to admit I have seen situations in AtCP that Lethal Force was authorised and reasonable - that was aimed 5.56mm applicable, not stabbing someone.

For those that romanticise the bayonet
 If I run out of ammo, there are going to be a lot of other weapons lying around that I would take before I ever resorted to mounting a bayonet.
 1 PKM gunner on the OPFOR and your Gallant Bayonet charge just became the stupidest move ever and the OC and CSM are writing a ton of letters, and Ramp Cermonies runneth over...

 Plus you've won stupidest PL WO/PL Comd ever award in the current CF history, tough bet in in the limited odds of winning a VC....


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Dec 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I am a big fan of issuing handguns to everyone, but beyond that, Aid to Civil Power, a BAYONET?  Does anyone think that a JAG would think that a bayonet would be a reasonable use of force continuim segment?


I think I showed my age with that one:  ~20 years ago, there I was, at OKA, to me a "Jag" was a type of car, and ROE was fish eggs.  

So true, JAGs may have good intentions, and would probably advise against the use of them; however, the mere sight of a bayonet-equipped could (on Earth 2, anyway) may even disperse a crowd.  I mean, if rifle-equipped soldiers are on the scene for whatever reason, then the assumption is that they would perhaps have to use those rifles as intended: to deliver high velocity slugs of metal into people.    So, then, maybe, the sight (as a deterrent) would help prevent the high velocity metal slugs hitting people in the forebubbles.


Anyway, I prefer HELLFIRE to RIFLE FIRE, after all, a fair fight just means that you haven't prepared properly for the fight at hand.


----------



## MikeL (19 Dec 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> There are lots of photos of Occupation troops ( eg: French troops in the Ruhr 1923 ) and guarding PoW's with fixed bayonets. They look intimidating. Implied message to civilians and PW's, "We may not shoot you dead, but we won't hesitate to ( silently ) stab you in the leg".
> 
> It's hard to see, but the attached photo shows a bayonet.



Thanks for the history.. but it doesn't have relevence to modern times.  Plus with all the media an PR involved now, it would be a huge public uproar if they saw Canadians guarding/handaling detainees with fixed bayonets.


----------



## mariomike (19 Dec 2009)

Post removed. Sorry for the historical reference. 
A bayonet offers an intermediate response between doing nothing and firing upon unarmed prisoners/civilians. 

Los Angeles Times,January 19, 2003: USMC
"In a modern context, bayonets are used for controlling prisoners":
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jan/19/nation/na-bayonet19

In Vietnam, bayonets were used to herd prisoners. 
Closer to home, bayonets were fixed during the LA Riots, and the FLQ crisis in Canada.

Se also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayonet#Modern_use


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Dec 2009)

Back To The Bayonet For UK Troops 

Helicopter gunships and pilotless attack planes deployed for the first time make Afghanistan the most hi-tech war Britain's forces have ever waged.

Yet on the ground it is proving to be doggedly old-fashioned. As the Taliban defy Nato from dugouts and trench lines, battles are being fought at bayonet-point.
The Helmand desert resembles the Western Desert of World War Two as the two sides clash in hand-to-hand fighting.

Whilst many expected the Falklands War, 26 years ago, to be the last time UK troops were ordered to fix bayonets, deadly kill-or-be-killed combat has occured in Iraq and Afghanistan several times.

"To close with and kill the enemy is what we do," he explained. "The bayonet will not let you down."

Each time the British have come off best, thanks to the training recruits are given in a skill that has changed little since the days of the Redcoats.

Infantrymen learn the technique on a specially-restored bayonet training assault course. Sky News was given an exclusive glimpse of a platoon being put through their paces.

"Kill him! Kill him! Stab him in the guts!" screams instructor Corporal Greg Brittain, as an exhausted trainee plunges his rifle towards a camouflage-clad dummy.

This is not for the squeamish. After crawling under razor wire, clambering walls and wading through water the recruits have to detach their bayonet and use it as a knife repeatedly to stab the enemy.
Platoon commander Lt Martin Bowden-Williams judges the aggression his men can summon up with an expert eye. He took part in a real bayonet attack in Iraq 18 months ago.

"To close with and kill the enemy is what we do," he explained. "The bayonet will not let you down."
For the trainees, it is a right of passage coming towards the end of boot camp. Each has his own way of summoning up the necessary fury without the adrenaline of real combat.
"You think of your worst situation, someone you don't like," gasped Daniel Frow as he stumbled off the course. "That and not letting your mates down."

Many said modern weaponry was no substitute for boots on the ground. The grim and gruelling war in Helmand is proving the worth of a six-inch blade with 15 stone of muscle behind it.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Uk-Soldiers-Get-Hand-To-Hand-Fighting-Training-As-More-Battles-Are-Being-Fought-At-Bayonet-Point/Article/200809215098493


----------



## MikeL (19 Dec 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> A bayonet offers an intermediate response between doing nothing and firing upon unarmed prisoners/civilians.



BS

Do you have experiance handaling detainees in Afghanistan or another war?


Theres quite a few options to handle violent/resistant detainees that immediatly come to mind..

With the rifle - 

Jab them with the barrel
Use the rifle butt

* Rifle doesn't need a bayonet to demotivate resisting/violent pers
With your body

Kicking, grabbing the resisting detainee an throwing them to the ground, etc

Oh an zap cuffing their hands, etc


----------



## MikeL (19 Dec 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I did not say that bayonets were the _only_ option.



Maybe my english/grammar skills suck, but it seems like you implied they were. 



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> A bayonet offers an intermediate response between doing nothing and firing upon unarmed prisoners/civilians.


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Dec 2009)

All I can say for certain is this:
None of us here online will be able to say conclusively, one way or the other, that the bayonet has any use.  I just think back to the horse and cavalry and all that.  The advent of the tank saw the horse cavalry disappear as the dominant arm.  Yet the horse has continued to be used, even in the Afghan war.  Hell, Canada was thinking donkeys as pack animals.
I'm not trying to say "The horse continues to be used, therefore, so too will the bayonet."  Instead I'm just saying that the "bayonet" may still have use, and most certainly, all of us can agree that it is no longer as ubiquitous as it once was.  Perhaps the combat knife is the modern day "bayonet", no longer attached to a rifle?  I don't know.


Though I am guilty of one thing, though it was on exercise in 2002.  
To paint the picture, the combat team had just secured the objective, and was in the midst of fighting off the counterattack.  (This was all live fire).  Anyway, one of the Pl Comds reported in that ammo was getting low, and he recommended falling back off the position, rebombing and attacking once again (We would need the A1 to rebomb, and the objective was still not safe enough for them to move us).  I jumped in on the net as LAV Captain, and said words to the effect of "No.  Dig in, fix bayonets and prepare to repel assault.  Out."  A bit dramatic, yes, and certainly false bravado on my part, especially considering that the "enemy" consisted of remote controlled pop up targets that weren't actually firing at us.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Dec 2009)

I personally didn't fix bayonets; however, we did practice "discouraging mobs" in our work up training, using bayonets fixed.  And I did hear of incidents in which bayonets were used.  But that's all second hand info (on my part).  So, no, I didn't stab her.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Dec 2009)

British Army Recruit Pool

London - August 25 2009  - Just another weekday fixture.


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Dec 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> "The wound was mitigated because the bayonet blade was deflected off her sternum but a serious scar remains."



That's a pretty weak bayonet thrust if it stopped at the sternum.


----------



## Fusaki (20 Dec 2009)

> Government of Canada website link posted above: "The wound was mitigated because the bayonet blade was deflected off her sternum but a serious scar remains."



I can only see three interpretations of the above scenario, and in each one the bayonet is inneffective.

1)  The soldier intended to use lethal force against the woman.

     The bayonet failed because he was to able to pierce her sternum.

2) The woman deliberately cut herself on the bayonet as propaganda.

     She saw the reporters nearby, and put herself in a situation to be cut, but not too badly, so that she'd have a reason to cry foul to the media and portray government response to the Oka Crisis as unjust and oppressive. This could potentially explain why the bayonet had not been driven into her chest with the lethal aggression you might expect. In this case, the bayonet failed because instead of diffusing the situation, it escalated it.  The negative publicity undermined government efforts to keep the situation under control.

3)  The soldier intended to use his bayonet in a non-lethal manner.

     In this case, the bayonet failed for the same reasons as in scenario 2.  While the soldier was able to neutralize a belligerent non-lethally, the negative publicity it caused did more harm then good.

Now consider alternatives to the bayonet in an Aid to Civil Power situation: 

In the first scenario, the soldier should have gone right to .556.  If it were, in fact a lethal force encounter, he should have used the most effective weapon at his disposal.

In the second scenario, a baton would have been much more effective.  You can't smash your head on someone else's baton as easily as you can cut yourself on someone else's bayonet, so therefore you'd have a much more difficult time spinning the media to suit your goals.

In the third scenario, a baton would have again been more effective.  A baton is much more suited to non-lethal force because it is much more difficult to cause permanent or life-threatening harm.  By the public, batons are seen as a much more legitimate form of civil law enforcement as they have been used by police services for hundreds (thousands?) of years.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (20 Dec 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> In the first scenario, the soldier should have gone right to .556.



Would he have had any?


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (20 Dec 2009)

> Would he have had any?



If he didnt have any, thats not much of an argument for issuing bayonets but rather an argument for issuing ammunition.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Dec 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Would he have had any?


Trust me: we had tons of ball and tracer ammo.

EDIT TO ADD: ROE at that time, as I said, was fish eggs.  Anyway, at one point, as I stood atop the Mercier bridge, I had on me five magazines, all loaded.  The state of my rifle was readied, and the safety was on.  No, I wasn't in a threatening situation, it's just how we did it then.


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Dec 2009)

Even if lethal force is intended against the person at the front of the mob, it may not be intended against the two people behind the intended target, so stepping immediately up to 5.56 may not have been a logical option in scenario #1 described above.

Regardless, any argument for the use of bayonets n Aid to Civil Power operations does not automatically make a case for the universal carriage of bayonets in combat. They can easily remain in storage until the shields and batons also come out - and could be issued with standard service rifles to assigned crowd control elements and not to every infantry soldier including those with C9s, M203s, etc.

The AtCP argument is a red herring to the central point of discussion.

We might as well add that they are required for ceremonial drill, therefore .....


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Dec 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Regardless, any argument for the use of bayonets n Aid to Civil Power operations does not automatically make a case for the universal carriage of bayonets in combat.



That's partially my point.  There may be a use for them, but I do doubt that they are needed across all spectra of conflict.  Much as M777's are useless in aid to civil power, so too may the bayonet be useless in "general combat".  Maybe not useless.  Heck, a blunderbuss may still kill; however, I'd much rather have wave after wave of A-10s backing me up.


----------



## Fusaki (20 Dec 2009)

> Regardless, any argument for the use of bayonets n Aid to Civil Power operations does not automatically make a case for the universal carriage of bayonets in combat. They can easily remain in storage until the shields and batons also come out - and could be issued with standard service rifles to assigned crowd control elements and not to every infantry soldier including those with C9s, M203s, etc.
> 
> The AtCP argument is a red herring to the central point of discussion.



Then again, with that whole "3 Block War" thing, soldiers are expected to transition across the spectrum of conflict at at moments notice. AtCP might not be a red herring, as soldiers may not have the time to head back to the CQ and have specific tools issued for that specific purpose.

I'll maintain though, that there are probably better tools then the bayonet for that role - namely, the ASP baton.


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Dec 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Then again, with that whole "3 Block War" thing, soldiers are expected to transition across the spectrum of conflict at at moments notice. AtCP might not be a red herring, as soldiers may not have the time to head back to the CQ and have specific tools issued for that specific purpose.



And that takes us down this road:



> Staff has the tendency of over-loading the soldier to prepare him for every contingency ('carry an axe just in case he has to break down a door'). - Col SLA Marshall, "The Soldier's Load and the Mobility of a Nation", The Combat Forces Press, Washington, DC, 1950



One recurring point that has been raised is to question whether the potential use of a bayonet (especially one without other principal purposes) is whether it is worth its weight for all to carry one.


----------



## mariomike (20 Dec 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I'll maintain though, that there are probably better tools then the bayonet for that role - namely, the ASP baton.




There is mention of the combined use of batons and bayonets under "Crowd Control Formations" and "Weapon Positions":
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:9lF2qVxGA9YJ:www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/19-15/CH8.htm+sight+bayonets+create+strength&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Dec 2009)

How many troops regularly carry ASP batons, have the training to use them and can use them while carrying their rifle? A baton is a niche tool with only one really good use, the bayonet  is a multi-function tool that can also be afixed to the end of a rifle.


----------



## Fusaki (23 Dec 2009)

Colin P said:
			
		

> How many troops regularly carry ASP batons, have the training to use them and can use them while carrying their rifle?



The fact that bayonets are currently issued on a wide scale and ASP batons are not is totally irrelevant to the discussion about why or why not bayonets are obsolete.



> A baton is a niche tool with only one really good use, the bayonet  is a multi-function tool...



If you read back over the past few pages of this thread, you'll see a number or arguments to the contrary.

I'll reiterate. The following reasons as to why the bayonet should be kept around have been raised, and the counterpoints that have shown that there are alternatives that are at least as effective, if not much, much more.

The better alternative to the bayonet as...

-a lethal force backup to the primary weapon: the pistol, ASP baton

-a less-lethal/crowd control tool: the ASP baton

-a utility tool: the multi-tool

-sentry removal: the suppressor

-as a training tool for aggressive mindset (pugil): CQC/Unarmed Combat/ASP training

Disadvantages of the bayonet:

-adds length to the rifle, inefficient for CQB/OBUA/soviet trenches/confined spaces

-inefficient weight, considering the alternatives above

-in a mechanized infantry section, only 3 of the 10 soldiers will be available to fix bayonets for an old school bayonet charge.  In a light infantry section, only 6 of 10 will be able to fix bayonets.  Some of those soldiers will be carrying C8s, further degrading the effectiveness of the bayonet.

-soldiers charging with bayonets tend to get mowed down by machine guns, as demonstrated by WW1.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Dec 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> The better alternative to the bayonet as...
> 
> -a lethal force backup to the primary weapon: the pistol, ASP baton



I don't buy that the ASP baton should be classed as a backup to the primary weapon. Yes, it can be used in the lethal force role, but only on certain areas of the body, but more often than not its just gonna hurt for a second. If the ASP is all you have, and you're out of ammo, go for it (it's better than throwing your helmet at the guy). But I'd never trade that for a good quality knife, be it a bayonet or something else.


----------



## Fusaki (23 Dec 2009)

ASP vs bayonet as a backup to primary is debatable.  While a pistol is ideal, the ASP as a few advantages over a bayonet.

Consider that that an ASP:

-can be used with one hand

-it's range is just as long, if not longer then the bayonet

-in CQB, the ASP baton beats the rifle mounted bayonet because it is faster to deploy

-you're really only using it to get to your next rifle anyway - whether that be from a friendly or enemy casualty.  If your next weapon happens to be an AK, then the ASP can go back on your gear untill that runs dry too.  It's just not practical to carry around your first rifle in case you need to use the bayonet again.


----------



## Loachman (23 Dec 2009)

Some think that bayonets should be carried as a back-up weapon.

Some think that pistols should be carried as a back-up weapon.

Why limit oneself when there's http://www.gunsandammomag.com/cs/Satellite/IMO_GA/Story_C/LaserLyte+Pistol+Bayonet ?


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Dec 2009)

Why would you limit the bayonet to just being mounted on the rifle? In a CQC situation I'd be grabbing it straight from the scabbard and placing it somewhere soft on the enemy without worrying about the rifle. That's like saying if you're going to transition to pistol, you would only use it in the proper marksman firing stance. The only time I could see an ASP having a range advantage is when the bayonet is in your hands, not on the end of a rifle. I really don't think the surface area of the ASP is going to be able to block effectively against an enemy with an empty rifle (or any other field expedient weapon of the same size) who's swinging it at you. 

What happens to the ASP if you're on soft terrain and can't find something hard to collapse it? I don't think I'd want to waste time to take my helmet off, and try to smash it down on that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Dec 2009)

Everyone I have talked to that have used batons in their works says they take a fair bit of training to use effectively. 

Weight wise I have a FAL bayonet that is very light, as was the bayonet of my AGB42b, unlike the large and heavy bayonet on the FNC1. 

If you look at many of the 20th century uses of the bayonet, you will note that many were defensive in nature and not requiring a bayonet charge, something I agree is unlikely to succeed unless you are cornered, by an enemy with no regard to the Geneva convention and you are running out of ammo. In which case doing something totally unexpected might just work. I agree the choice of pistol over bayonet is clear. Going by our own domestic history, it's unlikely that a soldier will get much warning about being sent to the aid of a civil power and likely will not be getting any baton training beforehand, much less getting the batons in time to deploy. They will deploy with the equipment they have. The bayonet does give the option of somewhat less lethal response in that circumstances. Intersting enough some of the accounts from Iraq was that pistols were better for crowd control than rifles, generally as the population equated a pistol carrier to someone with the authority, will, desire to kill you and get away with it, as opposed to a conscript that might or might not have ammo for their rifle.

Loachman
You beat me to it, I was plannin on posting that as well.


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Dec 2009)

For whatever it is worth, the only documented instance of Canadian troops actually using their bayonets in North West Europe that I have found was at about 0500 hours on 9 August 1944 during the Worthington Force operation. Ten Platoon of the Algonquin Regiment was trailing the rest of the column (which itself had been split up) when it was fired on by an 88. The platoon commander immediately rushed the gun position with his two half-tracks and the platoon jumped out of the vehicles and assaulted it. When the company commander arrived, he found both 88s were destroyed and 25 of the 30 Germans were dead. He noted the survivors were terrified because "the Algonquins had used their bayonets freely."

Now, I don't believe that the bayonets were decisive or that there would have been any other result if they had not been used. This certainly is not the exception that proves the rule. They were, however, used effectively.

If I was to offer an opinion, it may be that no one wants to be the infantry officer who decides to do away with the bayonet in the Canadian army. Besides being ganged up on by the other two regiments just on general principle, he would probably be derided by his own, no matter how many others across the army secretly agree with him. It is, after all, capable of killing enemy troops, unlikely as that may be. Its romantic image may serve to keep it in the inventory. Or perhaps, the bayonet survives for no other reason than for ceremonial purposes. Since it survives one way or the other, I guess its main purpose is to prompt vigorous debate, and that is not a bad thing.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Dec 2009)

We're just joking when we talk about sneaking up behind sentries in all our kit (Canadian Commanders love to see how much shit they can load troops down with) and taking them out with a bayonet/knife right?


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Dec 2009)

Further to my last and since this is the silly season, contrast this to how easily the pioneers and mortars were axed from the infantry battalion establishment. These capabilities, it can be argued, are much more of an asset to a battalion than is the bayonet. This reminds me of one of the Peter Principles, the one that says to the effect, that the amount of effort devoted to considering an issue is in inverse proportion to its cost or importance. This can be demonstrated at an officers' mess meeting, where a new redecorating scheme costing tens of thousands of the members' dollars will pass with nary a murmur, and the next 45 minutes are spent in heated debate over spending a few bucks per month on crested matches.*

*I am dating myself. This sort of thing went on when people were allowed to smoke indoors and messes were the social centre of regimental life. Edward would probably concur in this, as he no doubt also experienced it.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Dec 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> We're just joking when we talk about sneaking up behind sentries in all our kit (Canadian Commanders love to see how much crap they can load troops down with) and taking them out with a bayonet/knife right?



There are 3 sentry takedowns covered on the CQC Basic course, one of which uses the bayonet. The remainder are neck breaks.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Dec 2009)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There are 3 sentry take downs covered on the CQC Basic course, one of which uses the bayonet. The remainder are neck breaks.



I'm not going to lie that's pretty awesome. I wish I could do a course like that instead of the radiation safety officer course I was on last  :

How practical is sneaking up on a sentry and doing a _solid snake_ kinda take down though?
It looks good on WW2 movies, some commandos scaling up the ass end of a mountain cliff to sneak up on 2 German sentries staring off in the opposite direction smoking and joking- but I wonder the actual application of it today?

Overseas I stopped carrying my bayonet and just had a fighting knife. Some guys had them some didn't, no one seemed to care either way.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Dec 2009)

The course was re-written in 2002, so the techniques are definately more modern. I don't think it's pretty practical for the current conflict, however I'm not combat arms and haven't been in that close contact with the enemy. Mostly its taught as a tool in the toolbox, just in case we do end up in another country on country warfighting like Korea, etc.


----------



## Fusaki (25 Dec 2009)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Why would you limit the bayonet to just being mounted on the rifle? In a CQC situation I'd be grabbing it straight from the scabbard and placing it somewhere soft on the enemy without worrying about the rifle. That's like saying if you're going to transition to pistol, you would only use it in the proper marksman firing stance. The only time I could see an ASP having a range advantage is when the bayonet is in your hands, not on the end of a rifle. I really don't think the surface area of the ASP is going to be able to block effectively against an enemy with an empty rifle (or any other field expedient weapon of the same size) who's swinging it at you.



You just proved my point.

The only half-decent argument so far for keeping the bayonet is for the 1 in a million situation when:

-You're in a lethal force encounter; and

-You're not able to have a buddy pass you a fresh mag/grab unspent mags off a friendly casualty; and

-You're not able to grab the rifle off a dead enemy; and

-You're not able to extract back to the LAV, or some place with more ammo; and

-You're close enough to the enemy that you MIGHT be able to charge him without getting yourself shot; and

-There are no friends around who would be trying to get a clear shot at the guy you're about to engage in CQC with; and

-given the above, you'd probably have no time to mount the bayonet on a rifle anyway; so

-in essence you're really just advocating the carriage of a fighting knife; which 

-you said yourself is inferior to an ASP baton, given the ASP's longer range.

But *even if*, in this one in a million freak occurrence, we *were* to find the bayonet to be superior to the ASP baton, there are still at least 8 other good <a href=http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28762/post-899749#msg899749> reasons</a> why the bayonet is obsolete.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Dec 2009)

Rifle > Pistol > Fighting knife?


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Dec 2009)

I am willing to stipulate that it makes little sense to carry a 2lb, 18" long pig-sticker on the off chance that one may need to carry out a bayonet charge against a defended position after your last bullet has gone.

But I fail to understand the angst against installing a fitting on a functional fighting knife and/or swiss army knife that would allow them to be attached to the barrel or furniture of a service rifle / assault rifle / smg / pistol.

In what way is that more onerous than carrying a separate ASP/tomahawk/entrenching tool?

And by the way, with these 10 tonne CQ vehicles being driven around the countryside thesedays it would seem that the OC could have his CQMS carry a pretty large tool-kit into the theater, if not the AOO.

PS British Army crowd control baton Circa 1946  (aka entrenching tool handle)

http://onlinemilitaria.net/shopexd.asp?id=3898


----------



## Michael OLeary (25 Dec 2009)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I am willing to stipulate that it makes little sense to carry a 2lb, 18" long pig-sticker on the off chance that one may need to carry out a bayonet charge against a defended position after your last bullet has gone.



Everyone keeps saying they see the bayonet charge as a possibility after all _their_ ammunition is gone.  Wouldn't it be more prudent, with a greater possibility of success, if the desired criteria is that most of the enemy's ammunition is gone?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Dec 2009)

If I recall correctly the Brits used bayonets in the defense of the Hook in korea?


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Dec 2009)

To paraphrase another rmember here (who shall remain nameless until he/she chooses to reveal him/herself): 

" 'Ain't Army.ca great? You can, without a pang of conscience or peer censure, freely discuss the process of skewering your fellow man - on Christmas."

And with that, I've attached my idea of the perfect Christmas present... next to a well executed ambush that is.  

Merry Christmas to the bayonet thread! :christmas happy:


----------



## Fusaki (25 Dec 2009)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> But I fail to understand the angst against installing a fitting on a functional fighting knife and/or swiss army knife that would allow them to be attached to the barrel or furniture of a service rifle / assault rifle / smg / pistol.



Would you install tits on a bull?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Dec 2009)

Well that pretty well describes half of the high tech programs the US military has worked on in the last 20 years.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Dec 2009)

If the "real" objection is weight and/or the space taken on the tac vest, then consider the size and weight of a pistol and 2+ loaded magazines or a 12 gauge shotgun + however much ammunition you would consider "prudent" to carry just in case.

Over the years, I have actually used the bayonet for a multitude of secondary purposes (from cutting cord to windlassing wire onto piquets) and know and understand its purposes for my and against the enemy's morale (and body), while most of the time I have actually been issued a pistol in theater the true purpose of that was to identify me to the locals and allies as a person of authority rather than any utility as an actual weapon. (the pistol as a psychological weapon!)


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Dec 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Everyone keeps saying they see the bayonet charge as a possibility after all _their_ ammunition is gone.  Wouldn't it be more prudent, with a greater possibility of success, if the desired criteria is that most of the enemy's ammunition is gone?



Agreed


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Dec 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Would you install tits on a bull?



Perhaps not, but bulls have tits - vestigial and useless - ornamental - just in case.  The have not been removed from the original pattern.


----------



## Jungle (26 Dec 2009)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Perhaps not, but bulls have tits - vestigial and useless - ornamental - just in case.



Ah-HAA !! Then let's talk about chickens; they don't have tits !! That's the reason roosters don't have hands...

As for the bayonet, I choose to carry it or not depending on where I'm going, and what I'm gonna do. Most of the time, I leave it behind.

Hope you all had a great Christmas, and that you enjoy the rest of this silly Season !!

Have a good one !!


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Dec 2009)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Perhaps not, but bulls have tits - vestigial and useless - ornamental - just in case.  The have not been removed from the original pattern.



LOL 
Checkmate
 ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Dec 2009)

Here is a thread about the ASP baton. [Just ignore the bravado from Navy Grunt, he was a poser from way back who sometimes did post good info though]


It might help those who have questions about the baton.


----------



## Fusaki (26 Dec 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If the "real" objection is weight and/or the space taken on the tac vest, then consider the size and weight of a pistol and 2+ loaded magazines or a 12 gauge shotgun + however much ammunition you would consider "prudent" to carry just in case.



My objection to the bayonet is not about the _individual_ characteristics of weight and utility. I believe that the bayonet is obsolete because of it's lack of _efficiency_.  

Considering the alternatives, it's weight is not _justified_ by it's utility.  Water, ammo, and body armour are all heavy - especially when compared to a 2lb knife.  But at least they serve a very real purpose in the lives of dismounted soldiers.  Water, ammo, and body armour havn't yet been rendered obsolete by other tools that do the job better.  The bayonet has.  It's inefficient.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Dec 2009)

A bayonet is far more efficient at lethal force than an ASP baton would be. For non-lethal crowd control, the C7 can be used to perform non-lethal strikes with just a little bit of practice.

The only thing better than a bayonet for a secondary weapon is a pistol... and we've had pistols around almost as long as we've had rifles. Yet we still have bayonets.


----------



## Fusaki (26 Dec 2009)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> A bayonet is far more efficient at lethal force than an ASP baton would be.



You're arguing in circles. I already addressed this point <a href=http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28762/post-900128#msg900128>here.</a>



> For non-lethal crowd control, the C7 can be used to perform non-lethal strikes with just a little bit of practice.



A Red Herring.  This point is irrelevant to the question of whether or not bayonets are obsolete and only sidetracks the discussion, except maybe to point out that the bayonet is not required for non-lethal use of force situations.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Dec 2009)

My only point was that in replacing the bayonet with the ASP, you've traded a one-function tool for another one-function tool. The current design of bayonet hasn't changed much in the last 40 years, but perhaps DRDC can put their collective noggins together and come up with a modern bayonet-equivalent that can perform the multiple roles you seek. IMO the bayonet is still useful, though our current edition needs a lot of work to be battle ready.


----------



## Michael OLeary (26 Dec 2009)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> IMO the bayonet is still useful, though our current edition needs a lot of work to be battle ready.



The questions remains, what "work" should be done to make it useful as a general issue tool, and such that it might still remain useful as a bayonet for those few soldiers who may (however rarely) have that need?

We need to be well beyond the attitude of "we must keep it, it's a symbol of the infantry", and "we must keep it, because if we don't we'll have a gap between the mess tin carrier and the buttpack1" as basic arguments for the bayonet in operations.


Endnotes

1. If you just got hung up on "we don't use webbing anymore", "what's a buttpack?", or "there are no mess tin carriers anymore", then you may not be smart enough to engage in this discussion.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (26 Dec 2009)

Lets face it:

When push comes to shove, you find a way to do what you have to do. Neutralize the threat or face the consequences of your actions/in actions. If you have to resort to bludgeoning with your fists, so be it.

In the case of Bayonet or not, it's one more tool that I have if and when I have to neutralize a threat. Sharp things pierce, cut through kit and equipment, and require less energy and force than bludgeoning with a rifle or an ASP. Also, blood loss is a good way to immobilize an enemy.

In the end, its like insurance; we question why we need it, bitch about how much it costs and wish we didn't need to keep it on us. When things go wrong however, it's our best friend and we're thankful to have it.

Just my  :2c:


----------



## Michael OLeary (27 Dec 2009)

So, we shouldn't change the bayonet or its scale of issue because some day, somewhere, for someone, it might be useful in an act of desperation?

Ever try to cut something with a C1 bayonet? Or a C7 bayonet (the first type)? Apparently they were finally recognized as deficient enough to revisit the blade style and capability.

What, exactly, are we undermining by questioning further how we might improve the bayonet in usefulness, or in scale of issue, i.e., by not giving a single-use bayonet to people who don't even carry a weapon it can be used on?


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Dec 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> So, we shouldn't change the bayonet or its scale of issue because some day, somewhere, for someone, it might be useful in an act of desperation?
> 
> Ever try to cut something with a C1 bayonet? Or a C7 bayonet (the first type)? Apparently they were finally recognized as deficient enough to revisit the blade style and capability.
> 
> What, exactly, are we undermining by questioning further how we might improve the bayonet in usefulness, or in scale of issue, i.e., by not giving a single-use bayonet to people who don't even carry a weapon it can be used on?



Yes, about 200 blocks of DM-12.


----------



## Fusaki (27 Dec 2009)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> My only point was that in replacing the bayonet with the ASP, you've traded a one-function tool for another one-function tool.



No.

What you've done is traded a obsolete tool for one that has real use today.

-The primary role of the bayonet is lethal force CQC. While it may have secondary non-lethal/psychological uses, it is a <a href=http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28762/post-899057#msg899057>poor performer</a> when compared to other alternatives.

-The primary role of the ASP baton is non-lethal CQC.  In it's secondary role as a lethal force tool, it is <a href=http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22211/post-119788#msg119788>effective</a> as well.  Maybe it might not do this secondary role as well as the bayonet does, but consider that:

      Bayonet use as a lethal force tool has, throughout history, been exceedingly <a href=http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28762/post-898446#msg898446>rare.</a> Even today, it's easy to see why today the chance to skewer someone on a bayonet is astronomically <a href=http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28762/post-900128#msg900128>unlikely.</a>

The dismounted soldier can only carry a limited weight.  Equipment must be chosen based on the likelihood of it's necessity in combat, the gravity of the consequences of not having it, and the availability of other tools that will do in a pinch.  Every extra pound a soldier carries impairs his ability to fight.

Given the <a href=http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28762/post-899749#msg899749>alternatives</a> to the bayonet, the low chance of needing a lethal force CQC weapon, and the much higher chance of needing a non-lethal tool, trading the bayonet for an ASP baton will make the soldier more effective without a change to the current weight of his combat load.

I maintain, the bayonet is obsolete.


----------



## Michael OLeary (27 Dec 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Yes, about 200 blocks of DM-12.



At least it saved you from dulling the blade on your Grohmann.


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Dec 2009)

After about 75 blocks of frozen DM-12, the Russell knife is just too damn small to grip comfortably, after 100, it's friggin' agony.  The pig sticker did a great job.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (27 Dec 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Yes, about 200 blocks of DM-12.



Ah yes the  Sprengkörper DM12, (Sprengmasse, formbar)  

 ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Dec 2009)

I remember the instructor saying: "Don't eat the explosive" Huh? I said, but after working with DM-12 for a couple of day I ha this craving for fudge. Mind you we were in Wainwright in the summer.



> Bayonet use as a lethal force tool has, throughout history, been exceedingly rare. Even today, it's easy to see why today the chance to skewer someone on a bayonet is astronomically unlikely.



Wonderbread, perhaps you mean in the 20th century, prior to breechloaders, the bayonet was a significant primary weapon of the infantry. The problem with the baton is that it requires a fair bit of training to be used properly.


----------



## KevinB (30 Dec 2009)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The problem with the baton is that it requires a fair bit of training to be used properly.


So does the bayonet.

 All the bayonet proponents, have you done bayonet training with a PEQ-2 or Surefire Flashlight attached to the CF issue TRIAD-1?
Your guaranteed to ruin the PEQ (or PAC-4C) and quite possibly the light.

A baton gives extra reach, more nimble striking and a whole lot more.
  A decent folding knife is a better tool than a bayo.


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Dec 2009)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Wonderbread, perhaps you mean in the 20th century, prior to breechloaders, the bayonet was a significant primary weapon of the infantry.



Can you provide sources and statistics. My research indicates otherwise.

http://regimentalrogue.com/papers/bayonet2.htm



> The bayonet does not rate highly as a cause of wounds and death in comparison to other battlefield weapons. Napoleon’s own surgeon-general claimed that "for every bayonet-wound he treated there were a hundred caused by small arms or artillery fire." (22) One source gives sabre and bayonet wound statistics as 15-20 per cent before 1850 and only 4-6 per cent after 1860. (23) Similarly Puysegar is recorded as stating that one should "just go to the hospital and … see how few men have been wounded by cold steel as opposed to firearms." (24) And Duffy quotes Corvisier as giving bayonet wound statistics as only 2.4 per cent. (25) Statistics from the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 give two and a half percent as the overall casualty rate for spears, swords and bayonets. (26)
> 
> Byron Farwell, in his work on the pre World War I British Army, Mr Kipling’s Army, presents the following:
> 
> "The halberd was carried by sergeants until 1830, but the weapon most favoured was the pike, or rather its less efficient modern equivalent, the bayonet, which replaced it about 1700. When, during the First Sikh War, at the battle of Sobraon (10 February 1846), it was reported to General Sir Hugh Gough that the artillery was running short of ammunition, he exclaimed, ‘Thank God! Then I’ll be at them with the bayonet!’ This faith in the most primitive and least efficacious of available weapons persisted into the First World War and beyond. The bayonet is more intimidating than lethal; comparatively few have ever been killed by it." (27)



(See the linked page for the footnoted sources.)


----------



## mariomike (30 Dec 2009)

Regarding the small number of  bayonet victims carried back to the surgeons. I think many/most were left for dead where they fell. It's also hard to imagine many making it back to an aid station on their power. A bayonet fight is likely to be a fight to the death, or someone is going to have to run away. Fight or Flight response.  Medical Aid might not be able to rescue the victim because the enemy who made the bayonet attack now occupy the area.
You can close up a knife wound, but closing a bayonet wound would not be as easy. The rapid blood loss would be soon fatal. In Triage, they teach us that transport priority goes to those you think have the best chance of surviving.   A bullet wound from a distance would often cause a survivable wound to the extremities. The bullet wounded soldier could rescued because the enemy did not occupy the area.
I understand that in the media world of today the bayonet may not be seen as "community friendly". It has also been pointed out that, in some situations, the rifle barrel can be used instead. But, the fixed bayonets I used to see on the TV news in the American Race Riots civil unrest, the college's, herding people in Vietnam, even on the streets of Montreal during the FLQ Crisis, made a very strong impression.


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Dec 2009)

maromike, I'm sure you can provide some reference for that assumption?

http://regimentalrogue.com/papers/bayonet2.htm



> Statistics from the *American Civil War* state that over three months of action near Richmond, characterized by above average rates of hand-to-hand combat, casualty ratios for the Union Army were significantly in favour of projectile wounds. While over 32,000 men received treatment for bullet wounds, only thirty-seven were treated for bayonet thrusts. *An observer from the same period confirmed that the wounds evident on the dead were in similar proportion. The damage inflicted during "bayonet assault" was most often executed by bullets.* (29)



If the value of the bayonet on the battlefield is to be assessed, it needs to be done on facts and not what people "think" might happen.


----------



## mariomike (30 Dec 2009)

This link may help the discussion. I am mindful that others on the Board have a lot more knowledge of the subject than I do.  But, I do find the bayonet of interest.
"Cold Steel: A Sharp Look at Civil War Bayonets: Some have speculated that the bayonet was rarely used in combat during the Civil War, and point to the apparent dearth of bayonet wounds treated by the surgeons as evidence. There are two basic fallacies with this assumption.":
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3905/is_200407/ai_n9455571/


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Dec 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> This link may help the discussion. I am mindful that others on the Board have a lot more knowledge of the subject than I do.  But, I do find the bayonet of interest.
> "Cold Steel: A Sharp Look at Civil War Bayonets: Some have speculated that the bayonet was rarely used in combat during the Civil War, and point to the apparent dearth of bayonet wounds treated by the surgeons as evidence. There are two basic fallacies with this assumption.":
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3905/is_200407/ai_n9455571/



You may as well have cut and pasted his two points:



> First, by its very nature, the bayonet is a very intimate weapon to use or have used against you. It is much more difficult to divorce yourself mentally from the consequences of using a bayonet at close range than a long-range weapon such as a rifle. Soldiers had an innate dread of having to use the bayonet on an opponent at close quarters and an even greater dread of being targeted by such a weapon. The mere threat of being overwhelmed in a bayonet charge would often result in a demoralized line breaking and fleeing in disorder. And unlike a musket whose primary purpose arguably is to inflict casualties on the enemy, the primary purpose of a bayonet charge is to take and hold territory. This can be accomplished just as well by driving the defenders off in fear as by pinning them to the ground with a vicious thrust of the bayonet. In this way, a bayonet can be "used" without inflicting any wound at all.



I addressed the same point here:
http://regimentalrogue.com/papers/bayonet3.htm



> Even the claim of bayonet enthusiasts that it is a psychological weapon of singular importance is doubtful. The charge of infantry, à la bayonet, was usually delivered at the point where the defeat of an enemy was turning to rout. The bayonet charge was not, as it is often immortalized, the singular defining act of victory, it was, however, the act ordered by the general at the turning point of that victory. The bayonet charge, therefore, became so firmly entrenched in the minds of soldiers and observers as the defining act, rather than a dictated result of triumph, that to "get in" with the bayonet was seen as a means to success. Even in 1950, an article in the US Army Infantry School Quarterly encouraged: "Let us reinstate cold steel as the symbol of final assault, even though bullets rightly do most of the killing." (30)
> 
> Within the Napoleonic armies, the combination of cold steel combined with Gallic courage, or at least iron discipline, was considered undefeatable. (31) The pas de charge, brigades and divisions in close ranks, company or battalion wide and as deep as the available manpower permitted, were launched at opponents arrayed in more conventional linear formations. When the column met the line and retained sufficient momentum, the line could collapse, and sufficient men were released behind the line to destroy its integrity. The shock action and momentum delivered by the column could, and for the French Revolutionary Army did, turn the tide of battle and achieve victory. The French believed in the perception of the bayonet’s natural supremacy over powder to the extent of ordering that the bayonet charge was to be delivered in all battles. (32)
> 
> ...



But those examples come from an era when a bayonet charge ended nearly every battle of decisively engaged opponents. It does not, of itself, provide an argument that the historical belief in the psychological power of the bayonet charge is equally applicable today.

Note that the author quoted above specifically writes on the use of the bayonet in the American Civil War.



> The second point against citing the small number of documented bayonet wounds as evidence of its disuse is that a dead victim will have no need to be treated by the surgeon.



This point is addressed above in my last reply, which you will note comes from the same war the author you quoted writes on.

Notably, he provides no sources for his information.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Jan 2010)

Something to watch at home while curled up on the couch with the wife:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pzxb2sxbDU

Yes, he's a fanatic, but at least he's OUR fanatic!


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Jan 2010)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Something to watch at home while curled up on the couch with the wife:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pzxb2sxbDU
> 
> Yes, he's a fanatic, but at least he's OUR fanatic!


I love this guy.


----------



## Fusaki (21 Jan 2010)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Something to watch at home while curled up on the couch with the wife:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pzxb2sxbDU
> 
> Yes, he's a fanatic, but at least he's OUR fanatic!



You sir, just won the thread.

I retract all my previous assertions on the topic. ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Jan 2010)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> You sir, just won the thread.
> 
> I retract all my previous assertions on the topic. ;D



Good heavens man, don't give up! Attack, attack, attack! aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!! (frothy mouthed stabbing sounds)


----------



## GAP (1 Feb 2010)

Just to liven up the debate.....here's some fodder..... ;D

 General: Drop Bayonet From Army Training
January 28, 2010 The State, Columbia, S.C.
Article Link

Army basic training needs to get back to basics.

That's the word from Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, who's in charge of overhauling Army training.

Soldiers are taught a number of skills, but don't have the time to master all of them, said Hertling, who's assigned to the Army's Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Va.

"We need to make sure that what we're training is a good Soldier we can hand over to their first unit and make sure they're ready for combat," Hertling, deputy commanding general for initial military training, said Wednesday during a visit at Fort Jackson, S.C.

Before the war on terrorism began in 2001, U.S. troops trained to fight a large, mechanized force like the Russian army in the woods and mountains of eastern Europe.

But in recent years, basic training has undergone a number of changes as the Army adapts to an enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq that lives among the general population and travels by pickup and donkey cart. 
More on link

Argylls fight hand to hand in Iraq
16 May 2004 By BRIAN BRADY WESTMINSTER EDITOR
Article Link

SCOTTISH troops fixed bayonets and fought hand to hand with a Shi’ite militia in southern Iraq in one of their fiercest clashes since the war was declared more than a year ago, it was reported last night.
Soldiers from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders mounted what were described as "classic infantry assaults" on firing and mortar positions held by more than 100 fighters loyal to the outlawed cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, according to military sources

At least 20 men from al-Sadr’s army were believed killed in more than three hours of fighting - the highest toll reported in any single incident involving British forces in the past 12 months.

Nine fighters were captured and three British soldiers injured, none seriously.

"It was very bloody and it was difficult to count all their dead," one source was quoted as saying. "There were bodies floating in the river."

The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders were drawn into the fighting when soldiers in two Land-Rovers were ambushed on Friday afternoon about 15 miles east of the city of Amara. The soldiers escaped, only to be ambushed a second time by a larger group of militia, armed with machine-guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars.

Reinforcements were summoned from the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment at a base nearby. "There was some pretty fierce hand-to-hand fighting with bayonets fixed," the source added. "There were some classic assaults on mortar positions held by the al-Sadr forces."

Official spokesman Major Ian Clooney confirmed the Mehdi army "took a pretty heavy knocking", but refused to specify tactics. "This was certainly an intense engagement," he added.
More on link

 US Army’s own assessment of that fight. 

British bayonet charge in BASRA.
Article Link
Prepared by the U.S. Urban Warfare Analysis Center:

Executive Summary:

In May 2004, approximately 20 British troops in Basra were ambushed and forced out of their vehicles by about 100 Shiite militia fighters. When ammunition ran low, the British troops fixed bayonets and charged the enemy. About 20 militiamen were killed in the assault without any British deaths.

The bayonet charge appea More..red to succeed for three main reasons. First, the attack was the first of its kind in that region and captured the element of surprise. Second, enemy fighters probably believed jihadist propaganda stating that coalition troops were cowards unwilling to fight in close combat, further enhancing the element of surprise. Third, the strict discipline of the British troops overwhelmed the ability of the militia fighters to organize a cohesive counteraction.

The effects of this tactical action in Basra are not immediately applicable elsewhere, but an important dominant theme emerges regarding the need to avoid predictable patterns of behavior within restrictive rules of engagement. Commanders should keep adversaries off balance with creative feints and occasional shows of force lest they surrender the initiative to the enemy.

I. Overview of Bayonet Charge
On 21 May 2004, Mahdi militiamen engaged a convoy consisting of approximately 20 British troops from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders 55 miles north of Basra. A squad from the Princess of Wales regiment came to their assistance. What started as an attack on a passing convoy ended with at least 35 militiamen dead and just three British troops wounded. The militiamen engaged a force that had restrictive rules of engagement prior to the incident that prevented them from returning fire. What ensued was an example of irregular warfare by coalition troops that achieved a tactical victory over a numerically superior foe with considerable firepower.
More on link


----------



## MikeL (2 Feb 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> General: Drop Bayonet From Army Training
> January 28, 2010 The State, Columbia, S.C.
> Article Link
> 
> ...



So Ft Jackson is getting rid of the bayonet, I wonder if Ft Benning will ditch the bayonet aswell for its Infantry OSUT/AIT.


----------



## KevinB (11 Feb 2010)

In mostly likleyhood the next Army (American) weapon will not have a bayonet lug.
 Longer rail, freefloating - and no provision for a bayonet.
More interest in adding a suppressor to all weapons that a bayonet.

 Finally folks are realizing the 19th Century called and wants its tactics and knife back...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Feb 2010)

I hear Sparky is demanding that each "Gavin" to be equipped with 106mm RR's with bayonet lug, which apparently the Marines are screaming for!


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Feb 2010)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> In mostly likleyhood the next Army (American) weapon will not have a bayonet lug.
> Longer rail, freefloating - and no provision for a bayonet.
> More interest in adding a suppressor to all weapons that a bayonet.
> 
> Finally folks are realizing the 19th Century called and wants its tactics and knife back...



Damme Kevin, if ye won't make provision for the bayonet then we shall have to start digging out the trusty spontoon.  How else will tankies be able to recognize real soldiers?


----------



## Michael OLeary (12 Feb 2010)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Damme Kevin, if ye won't make provision for the bayonet then we shall have to start digging out the trusty spontoon.  How else will tankies be able to recognize real soldiers?



The real purists will just carry a plug bayonet, ninjasnipers will carry one that looks like Sykes Fairbairn.


----------



## mariomike (12 Feb 2010)

Just something I read on the Internet. I don't know who said it:
"Every generation since the invention of gunpowder has thought that the bayonet -- the infantryman's spear of last resort -- would become as obsolete as Achilles' shield. It never has. Do you know why? Because the rifleman is forever being called upon to 'restore order.' Sometimes that means just showing our serious intentions without shooting some poor asshole as an example to the rest. Fixing bayonets allows us to announce our intentions. It also allows us to keep disarmed prisoners moving to the rear, or crowds of civilians in line at a disaster recovery center. Because merely showing it is not always enough to prevent its use, you will be taught how to use it in combat."


----------



## Michael OLeary (12 Feb 2010)

Here's a fuller version:

http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html



> "A few words about the bayonet and the rifle grenade launcher. Every generation since the invention of gunpowder has thought that the bayonet -- the infantryman's spear of last resort -- would become as obsolete as Achilles' shield. It never has. Do you know why? Because the rifleman is forever being called upon to 'restore order.' Sometimes that means just showing our serious intentions without shooting some poor asshole as an example to the rest. Fixing bayonets allows us to announce our intentions. It also allows us to keep disarmed prisoners moving to the rear, or crowds of civilians in line at a disaster recovery center. Because merely showing it is not always enough to prevent its use, you will be taught how to use it in combat. The M14 is an excellent bayonet platform, unlike Mr. McNamara's Mouse Gun which can break in a heartbeat if you buttstroke someone with it.



You've selected part of a passage being used to argue against a rifle because it was considered unsuitable (i.e., insufficiently rugged) for use as a bayonet fighting weapon.  Note that the rifle being criticized as inappropriate for use as a bayonet (i.e., Mr. McNamara's Mouse Gun), and therefore unsuitable as an infantry weapons was the M-16.

See M16 Adoption

Gee, what rifles are we using and what were they derived from? ......  :


----------



## Fusaki (12 Feb 2010)

Well then the obvious solution is to issue us M14s.

"I don't want no teenage queen / I just want my M-Fourteen!"


----------



## GAP (12 Feb 2010)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Well then the obvious solution is to issue us M14s.
> 
> "I don't want no teenage queen / I just want my M-Fourteen!"



did not!!!  ;D  (to either - we wanted both)


----------



## PanaEng (13 Feb 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Gee, what rifles are we using and what were they derived from? ......  :


Keyword is "derived from." With the improvements in the barrel and construction, todays M-16 is a better beast and so is the C7.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 Feb 2010)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> Keyword is "derived from." With the improvements in the barrel and construction, todays M-16 is a better beast and so is the C7.



Are you saying it's not still lighter in weight and having plastic vs wood furniture, which were the core traditionalists' arguments against it vice the M14 in 1970 - which is the context of the posted quote?

The point had nothing to do with the evolution of the M16 design into the modern variants or the C7.


----------



## PanaEng (13 Feb 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> The point had nothing to do with the evolution of the M16 design into the modern variants or the C7.


but that is certainly what you were implying - at least that is what I read with the roll-eyes thingy.
Anyway, yes, the M16, when that evaluation came out it wasn't up to par. 
Even the C7's we got in 87 (2 CER) were weak - it seemed that every time we jumped one or two would break or bent the barrel.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 Feb 2010)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> but that is certainly what you were implying - at least that is what I read with the roll-eyes thingy.



My use of the "roll-eyes thingy" was a comment on the invalidity of the argument against the M16 because of a claimed unsuitability as a bayonet fighting weapon, yet it has become a dominant weapon design in many nations without that purported deficiency having been established to be a major, or even realistic, deficiency.  Bayonets are, after all, the purpose of most of the almost 500 posts in this thread.  I will try to be more precise in explaining my use of emoticons in future.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Feb 2010)

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what they're teaching at the Battle School these days re: bayonets? Time was you 'fixed bayonets, changed mags' before heading off to death or glory (e.g., before departing the attack position for the enemy trenches).  iper:


----------



## a_majoor (14 Feb 2010)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, does anyone know what they're teaching at the Battle School these days re: bayonets? Time was you 'fixed bayonets, changed mags' before heading off to death or glory (e.g., before departing the attack position for the enemy trenches).  iper:



Wow, I haven't heard that particular phrase in a long time! I've fixed bayonets on exercise in a defense position just before the pop-up targets were to be started in Fort Jackson caused quite a stir among the American range controllers and various "floppers" watching the exercise. The moral factor for our troops was quite high (and no pop ups were able to penetrate our FPF and reach the trenches  ). I've also fixed bayonets in a live fire platoon attack, but this was done just prior to the assaulting sections crossing the line of departure.

I suspect a large reason we don't say that anymore is most of the time on EX a BFA is mounted on the weapon, precluding bayonets, and any "force on force" exercise with cold steel in play would result in many unfortunate accidents.

We still teach the assaulter follows the grenade into the trench with the weapon on automatic and to "bayonet anyone you don't get with the burst", so it is there by implication.


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Feb 2010)

The tangent has been removed.  Back on topic please.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## a_majoor (15 Feb 2010)

> The M14 is an excellent bayonet platform, unlike Mr. McNamara's Mouse Gun which can break in a heartbeat if you buttstroke someone with it.



Well if you want a very solid platform for bayonet work and CQB, may I suggest:


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Feb 2010)

Luvverly Thuc.

Just what I need.  Goose gun for lunch, anti-bear defence for those strolls in the park and home defense.  Outstanding  ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Feb 2010)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Luvverly Thuc.
> 
> Just what I need.  Goose gun for lunch, anti-bear defence for those strolls in the park and home defense.  Outstanding  ;D



awesome... and then you can roast what you kill on the foot long sword bayonet


----------



## KevinB (26 Feb 2010)

You can actually mount a bayonet and then install the BFA on a C7.
  I did it ONCE in Wainwright -- seemed the Enemy Force thought it was a bit much  ;D

I would be very surprised if for SARP III the weapons have bayonet lugs.
  One reason for that is (other than Colt Canada with the C8SFW) most everyone is learning from high speed video and endurance firing that moving the gas port forward on the M4/M16 style guns is a better position, a position that does not offer an area for a a bayo lug.


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Feb 2010)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> You can actually mount a bayonet and then install the BFA on a C7.
> I did it ONCE in Wainwright -- seemed the Enemy Force thought it was a bit much  ;D



An astonishing admission from a bayonet denier, if I may say so


----------



## KevinB (3 Mar 2010)

At the time it seemed to be the thing to do.  I used to beleive in bayonets, the 'psych' it gave to troops is impressive, I taught a Reserve Basic class in Petawawa in '94 and they ate it up.
  Fast forward several more years - I realized that artificially pumping them up with the bayo, was at a detriment to communication, movement, and shooting.
 I have muzzle struck people and shot people, but I have never been in a situation where I needed a bayonet.

 My biggest concern with the bayonet is the false sense of confidence it inspires, and that leadership or individuals will error greatly and end up in a WWI charge into a MG.

Nothing I have seen in my days has led me to beleive the bayonet is a useful tool, as anything I have seen done by the bayonet would have been better done by another tool.


----------



## GAP (3 Mar 2010)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I have muzzle struck people and shot people, but I have never been in a situation where I needed a bayonet.
> 
> My biggest concern with the bayonet is the false sense of confidence it inspires, and that leadership or individuals will error greatly and end up in a WWI charge into a MG.
> 
> Nothing I have seen in my days has led me to believe the bayonet is a useful tool, as anything I have seen done by the bayonet would have been better done by another tool.



Yeah, but is the other tool as handily available as the bayonet?  ;D

ps....I've actually seen bayonet's used in combat situations, but like you said, there are other tools. The Butt Stroke is actually far more effective if you are that close and out of bullets....


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Apr 2010)

Diggers get to keep bayonets as weapons

THE US Army says the bayonet is obsolete but Australian Diggers will continue to use it as a close-quarters weapon. 
Last week the US Army ended centuries of military tradition by scrapping bayonet drill, saying the practice was outmoded.
US army instructors say it is more important to teach soldiers how to improvise in close-quarters fighting with weapons such as knives.
But the order to "fix bayonets" would be staying in the Australian Army's basic training manual, a defence spokeswoman told The Australian.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/diggers-get-to-keep-bayonets-as-weapons/story-e6frg6nf-1225847179104


The USMC is keeping it’s bayonet training as well:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7066220.ece


----------



## 1feral1 (4 Apr 2010)

Speaking of Australian bayonets for the F88 FOW....

M9 (early Buck, marked with Australian crows foot) production ended going on 20 yrs ago at 20,400. New DPCU pouches are being added to replace the easily lost OD originals. Many Bucks are missing this pouch period, where the Lan Kays are not even designed to take the pouch.

M9 Lan Kay - several thousand to replace the Bucks.

The above are enititled to combat arms units only (Armd/Inf/Arty/Engr).

Many thousand M7 in both M8A1 and M10 scabbards, used in other Corps and CSSB's etc. The M7's in M10 green scabbards are special Aussie contracts, US made with the crows foot on the quillon, and the scabbard itself. 

Generic black US marked M10 scabbards are also in the system, along with Viet Nam era M7's in the original M8A1 scabbard. The majority of M7 bayonets are US marked makers such as Conetta, Gen Cut, etc.

An authorised Aussie mod to these M7's is to have a solid weld placed where the blade meets the base where it attaches on to the rifle. This is normally only peaned into position.

Some Eickhorn KCB 77's were also trialed in 1988, but were never adopted.

They have some rather wicked bayonet assault courses at the SOI and other places, and the bayonet is still taught in Kapooka. A combo of water and tunnel obsticals, in winter and summer. The use of pyro and smoke adds to the effect, along with blanks. Yes, F88 BFAs for rifles and carbines allow a bayonet to be fitted.
Cheers,

OWDU

EDITed for spelling


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Apr 2010)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Speaking of Australian bayonets for the F88 FOW....
> 
> M9 (early Buck, marked with Australian crows foot) production ended going on 20 yrs ago at 20,400. New DPCU pouches are being added to replace the easily lost OD originals. Many Bucks are missing this pouch period, where the Lan Kays are not even designed to take the pouch.
> 
> ...



oops... getting a chubby now... out


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Apr 2010)

Thankfully bayonets for handguns never caught on

http://www.ima-usa.com/product_info.php/products_id/2804


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Apr 2010)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Thankfully bayonets for handguns never caught on
> 
> http://www.ima-usa.com/product_info.php/products_id/2804



Not so fast old chap:

The LaserLyte Pistol Bayonet is just what you need to turn your pistol into the ultimate close quarters fighting pistol. The bayonet features a razor-sharp, full tang KA-BAR blade with a black Teflon coating. The handle is made from glass-filled nylon. The Pistol Bayonet will attach to medium to large frame pistols that have a rail, and a custom polymer sheath is included to protect the blade. Add the LaserLyte Pistol Bayonet to your pistol and you will have the ultimate tactical weapon.

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=343971


----------



## SeanNewman (6 Apr 2010)

My boss now is a Scottish foreign exchange officer and he is shocked that we place such a small emphasis on bayonets.

His argument is that if you focus on maintaining stand-off in order to kill the bad guys, your soldiers will lose the warrior mindset where they want to close with the enemy and destroy him by putting your bayonet into his chest.

Whether you actually have to do that is irrelevant, just having the bayonet attached on an offensive op puts the soldier in a much more aggressive mindset.

I think there is some merit to it.  I'd rather have soldiers over-hyped to kill the bad guy (assuming they're not killing everything they see), than surprised if they see him around a corner.


----------



## Greymatters (8 Apr 2010)

Although the bayonet can be a useful tool, too many sources are proclaiming it as no longer a useful weapon.  Im sure there are going to be future situations where it can be useful, but there dont seem to be any common instances or examples of it currently being proven.  Saying that, I dont think psychological reinforcement is a good enough reason for keeping it...


----------



## SeanNewman (8 Apr 2010)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> ...Saying that, I dont think psychological reinforcement is a good enough reason for keeping it...



Yes but the point is that it becomes manifest destiny in a way.  It's not just for show, and you actually end up with soldiers who are genuinely more aggressive and thus do use their bayonets quite often for their intended purpose.


----------



## Fusaki (8 Apr 2010)

The "aggressive mindset" argument has been brought up and counter-argued _ad nauseam_ over the past 35 pages.  There's nothing new here.


----------



## somedude (27 May 2010)

Judging the bayonet's applicability to modern warfare based on it's limited use when killing out gunned savages is short sighted.  Should two well trained and well equipped first world armies go toe to toe in a real effort to defeat each other through superior violence we'll see how fast soldiers resort to using bayonets/improvised sharpened things gun-taped to barrels...


----------



## Michael OLeary (27 May 2010)

somedude said:
			
		

> Judging the bayonet's applicability to modern warfare based on it's limited use when killing out gunned savages is short sighted.  Should two well trained and well equipped first world armies go toe to toe in a real effort to defeat each other through superior violence we'll see how fast soldiers resort to using bayonets/improvised sharpened things gun-taped to barrels...



While what you wrote may make perfect sense to you, it is not broadcasting a clear message.  Are you sarcastically suggesting that the bayonet is unneeded, or are you saying that it should be issued because troops will McGuyver something up if they don't have one and suddenly decide they need one?


----------



## SeanNewman (27 May 2010)

Somedude,

If what I am reading of your post is that in modern warfare the majority of the killing will be done en masse from long ranges vice in the trenches like WWI then I can see your point.

However, "most" does not mean "all".  Even if a city is floored by bombs, history has shown that it is impossible to destroy and enemy by bombs alone (Stalingrad, Berlin, etc).  Even in all-out-war when the big bombs come out, in order to call territory your own you must occupy it with boots to clear out remaining resistance and that requires being up close and personal when the enemy may be around any corner.

Unless you go nucular (_sic_ Bush humour) people will survive "superior violence" bombings.  On a side note, I would argue that killing someone with a bayonet is much more violent to both involved than pushing a button on a bomb.


----------



## KevinB (27 May 2010)

Aggressive mindset is best accomplished via good training to instill confidence.  Not some fantasy medival device adding more length to a weapon we want shorter for CQB.

 You can kill with you hands (althought trust me not the recommended method), the helmet (the NV bracket can work wonders during headbuts), a full canteen (always wanted to clobber someone with it, though the new flexible ones would probably not do as well as the old ones with a canteen cup on it).

But make no mistake killing with a rifle or pistol is a much easier method, and has less long term effects.  That said, its kill or be killed, and as long as the soldier understands that its not a game, and its the best course of action for him (or her) and his buddies, then its really not a hard task to do.

Based on my experiences no one is going to convince me that adding a 6" knife to my barrel will help me in anyway shape or form.  If I'm going to kill you, I will, but I can do it much easier without a bayonet.  Everyone else I know with experience in killing agrees.


----------



## somedude (27 May 2010)

My appologies.  What I said made sense as I typed it, however reading it later in the day it's pretty obvious that I should've worded things different.

Basically, Petamocto is on the same page.

I think that judging the bayonets applicability to modern warfare based on TTPs and experience developed during counter-insurgency operations against an enemy that is easily out manoeuvred and is clearly out gunned is short sighted.

Once your magazine runs dry you need a weapon of last resort, and I don't know about the guy above me, but I'd rather not bring a canteen cup to a bayonet fight...


----------



## vonGarvin (27 May 2010)

somedude said:
			
		

> but I'd rather not bring a canteen cup to a bayonet fight...


I'd rather rely on my fireteam partner, the tank in the supporting troop, the direct support battery, and most of all, the echelons feeding me ammo and shit.


----------



## somedude (27 May 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I'd rather rely on my fireteam partner, the tank in the supporting troop, the direct support battery, and most of all, the echelons feeding me ammo and crap.



And what happens when you're at war, in battle, and everything that can go wrong does go wrong?


----------



## vonGarvin (27 May 2010)

somedude said:
			
		

> And what happens when you're at war, in battle, and everything that can go wrong does go wrong?


Then...you die.


----------



## KevinB (27 May 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Then...you die.



Yup - it's life, no one gets out alive...


The point I would like to bring up (again) is that if you have fired all of your ammo
 1) there are going to be dead and dying  friendlies around you (if your not already dead and dying)
 2) those dead and dying will have weapons and ammo
 3) there will be weapons on the enemy you have shot, and an Ak or SKS are better than a knife (even better a DsHk or PKM, or Mortar position...)
 4) if you have fired all your ammo, and none of the other three items above are applicable - mounting a bayonet will probably not help since your a dumbass.

When I was in Iraq one of our teams got into a very bad spot - the client was killed and half the PSD team, some of the rest of the team hid in another vehicle.
  One of the shooters, killed off an insurgent PKM team and decided to do the proper thing, and used the PKM against other insurgents still in the fight.

Now just imagine if he chose to use a bayonet  ;D

Bayonets look cool on parade grounds.

But they have epic fail when used in modern combat.  Especially against an armored foe - great you slashed/stabbed his PPE, awesome.

WWI is calling and it wants its doctrine back.


----------



## somedude (27 May 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Then...you die.



Quitter.



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Now just imagine if he chose to use a bayonet  ;D



He'd be a dumbass for bringing a bayonet to a PKM fight.



> But they have epic fail when used in modern combat.  Especially against an armored foe - great you slashed/stabbed his PPE, awesome.



And how did the bitch slap, MNVG mount or the canteen cup idea work out?


----------



## KevinB (27 May 2010)

My point on the Headbut is up close it may be all you can do.  Kill the enemy the quickest you can.
  The bayonet it not the way to do it.

I just always wanted to clobber someone with a canteen swung in 82 pattern webbing.  The old SSF UA Cbt manual had that description a long time ago, and it just seemed to me a cool way to bash in a brain, thought I've wanted to do a lot of things that are not the most practical.  To point I used to think Bayonet drills where cool.


----------



## Michael OLeary (27 May 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I'd rather rely on my fireteam partner, the tank in the supporting troop, the direct support battery, and most of all, the echelons feeding me ammo and crap.



If you were nicer to the cooks in the echelon, they wouldn't feed you crap. Remember, professionals study logistics.


----------



## Michael OLeary (27 May 2010)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> WWI is calling and it wants its doctrine back.



Actually, the image of the bayonet as the favoured weapon for the close in fight during the First World War is challenged by the prevalence of the various bludgeoning weapons used by tranch raiders.


----------



## KevinB (27 May 2010)

I love a good bludgeoning...

Which leds me to beleive if we learned that the Bayonet sucks in close in WWI, that it still sucks.

In combat better ways to kill end up on top.  In a peacetime army, those can get lost for items that look much better on a parade square.
  A sharp shovel or Axe only looks good with Pioneers...


----------



## somedude (27 May 2010)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I just always wanted to clobber someone with a canteen swung in 82 pattern webbing.  The old SSF UA Cbt manual had that description a long time ago, and it just seemed to me a cool way to bash in a brain, thought I've wanted to do a lot of things that are not the most practical.  To point I used to think Bayonet drills where cool.



I'd like to smash someone with a manpack.



> My point on the Headbut is up close it may be all you can do.  Kill the enemy the quickest you can.
> The bayonet it not the way to do it.



It would be if it was already fixed.

To the point, I'm not suggesting that we should all run around doing bayonet charges.  It's more that it's nice to have options, and while in certain tactical situations the bayonet may not be the greatest option it is better than other options, which is why I believe it still has it's place in an infantryman's tool belt.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 May 2010)

I prefer well-timed and well-planned fireplans and good gunnery to get me onto the objective, and beyond.


----------



## Fusaki (27 May 2010)

This thread is killing me.   :brickwall:

For the benefit of newcomers to the thread, I'll rehash some of my earlier arguments.

The low likelihood of needing a bayonet:



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> The only half-decent argument so far for keeping the bayonet is for the 1 in a million situation when:
> 
> -You're in a lethal force encounter; and
> 
> ...



The better alternatives to the bayonet:



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> The better alternative to the bayonet as...
> 
> -a lethal force backup to the primary weapon: the pistol, ASP baton
> 
> ...



More on the ASP Baton vs the bayonet:



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> PuckChaser said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'll also link in Michael O'Leary's research on how, historically, "The bayonet does not rate highly as a cause of wounds and death in comparison to other battlefield weapons."

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28762/post-898446.html#msg898446



> Statistics from the American Civil War state that over three months of action near Richmond, characterized by above average rates of hand-to-hand combat, casualty ratios for the Union Army were significantly in favour of projectile wounds. While over 32,000 men received treatment for bullet wounds, only thirty-seven were treated for bayonet thrusts. *An observer from the same period confirmed that the wounds evident on the dead were in similar proportion. The damage inflicted during "bayonet assault" was most often executed by bullets. (29)
> *
> (29) - Bullet v. Bayonet – American Civil War, Canadian Army Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, Winter 1962


----------



## KevinB (27 May 2010)

somedude said:
			
		

> I'd like to smash someone with a manpack.


I actually know a guy who killed an Iraqi with a MBITR



> It would be if it was already fixed.
> 
> To the point, I'm not suggesting that we should all run around doing bayonet charges.  It's more that it's nice to have options, and while in certain tactical situations the bayonet may not be the greatest option it is better than other options, which is why I believe it still has it's place in an infantryman's tool belt.



Wonderbread and others have posted the reasons why it does not ad naseum.

But you are entitled to an opinion, even if none of us agree with you.


----------



## somedude (27 May 2010)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I actually know a guy who killed an Iraqi with a MBITR



Close enough.  ;D



> Wonderbread and others have posted the reasons why it does not ad naseum.
> 
> But you are entitled to an opinion, even if none of us agree with you.



Meh.  His argument is good in that it justifies the issuing of an ASP.  It falls short of convincing me to remove the bayonet.

They'll get rid of it, things will change, some other war will start up with a different set of variables and people will see a need for it, or they won't.  Maybe we'll get lightsabres by then.  That'd be cool.


----------



## Fusaki (27 May 2010)

> It falls short of convincing me to remove the bayonet.



What did I leave out?


----------



## somedude (27 May 2010)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> What did I leave out?



I typed something out, but it's just what-ifs to counter your what-ifs, which you'll just what-if back, which makes it a what-if argument that's probably just a re-hash of what's already been said.


----------



## Fusaki (27 May 2010)

somedude said:
			
		

> I typed something out, but it's just what-ifs to counter your what-ifs, which you'll just what-if back, which makes it a what-if argument that's probably just a re-hash of what's already been said.



Please, go ahead and "what-if" my argument.

If there's some reason to carry a bayonet that _outweighs_ all the points I've outlined above, I want to hear about it.


----------



## blacktriangle (28 May 2010)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I actually know a guy who killed an Iraqi with a MBITR



Think a 521 will do? Maybe it would be worth carrying then...


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Jun 2010)

Go to Radio Chatter for the Zombie tangent.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Jun 2010)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Think a 521 will do? Maybe it would be worth carrying then...



I don't think anything would make the 521 worth carrying.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jun 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Go to Radio Chatter for the Zombie tangent.
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff



Excellent. Now let's get back to some serious discussions about stabbing _real _ people to death...  ;D


----------



## Danjanou (3 Jun 2010)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Excellent. Now let's get back to some serious discussions about stabbing _real _ people to death...  ;D





http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=stabbing+real+people+to+death&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
Google search Results 1 - 10 of about 994,000 for stabbing real people to death. (0.27 seconds) 

Oh boy this is going to take a while :


----------



## a_majoor (30 Sep 2010)

While the official word is bayonet training is now out (see below), one vision of the future most assuredly _includes_ bayonet fighting; Ralph Peter's new book "The War After Armageddon". In an environment where hyperjamming and advanced robotic weapons cancel other advanced systems and each other out, soldiers are reduced to fighting close quarter combat (think WWII or Korea) as radios and data systems can't talk, and advanced obscurants and "cool suits" reduce the ability of Thermal Imagers to see in the dark.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2010/0928/One-less-skill-for-soldiers-to-master-at-boot-camp-bayonet-training



> *One less skill for soldiers to master at boot camp: bayonet training*
> 
> Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling opted to discontinue bayonet training for Army recruits. After all, the last US bayonet charge was in 1951. But in the weeks since that decision, Hertling has had some pushback.
> 
> ...


----------



## Illegio (30 Sep 2010)

Aggression is one part of the training, but the part that stuck with me was the advanced bayonet range - it teaches you to keep pushing when you are totally gassed. Many people have never had the opportunity to see how far willpower can take you when everything else is telling you to stop, and it can be a rude awakening.


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Sep 2010)

Illegio said:
			
		

> Aggression is one part of the training, but the part that stuck with me was the advanced bayonet range - it teaches you to keep pushing when you are totally gassed. Many people have never had the opportunity to see how far willpower can take you when everything else is telling you to stop, and it can be a rude awakening.



I agree. Probably the most physically demanding but mentally rewarding 5 minutes of my life. Also gave me a class in leadership, since the whole course was doing the range again if people didn't start showing drive.... I wasn't going to run it again.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Sep 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I agree. Probably the most physically demanding but mentally rewarding 5 minutes of my life. Also gave me a class in leadership, since the whole course was doing the range again if people didn't start showing drive.... I wasn't going to run it again.



5 minutes? Really? 

I preferred the 4-6 hour version myself, especially for the recruits we were training!


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Sep 2010)

It was a packed 5 minutes, I can't imagine what a 4-6 hour course would be like.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Sep 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It was a packed 5 minutes, I can't imagine what a 4-6 hour course would be like.



Frequent trips into the river (must use dead ground in the attack y'know) kept everyone refreshed!  ;D


----------



## Danjanou (1 Oct 2010)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Frequent trips into the river (must use dead ground in the attack y'know) kept everyone refreshed!  ;D



Oh like those lovely "walks" in the woods with Fred Wilkes when were young uns?  8)


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Oct 2010)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Oh like those lovely "walks" in the woods with Fred Wilkes when were young uns?  8)



On man, I forgot about those. 

The best order I was ever given was by him during a dawn attack at Fort Lewis: "Attack towards the sun" and off we howled like maniacs. I never did check on the limit of exploitation - 50 metres? 50 million kilometers? We kept going until the Americans ran away though, so I guess we done good.  ;D


----------



## Danjanou (1 Oct 2010)

I swear that man could find every river, creek, stream, pond, puddle, canal, inlet, fjord or whatever in the Pacific North West  and 
manage to ensure it was on the axis of advance. I went to Gemany just so my boots could dry out. 8)


----------



## Chilme (1 Oct 2010)

You can't argue that aside from all the combat uses, the bayonet is still a blade, which is always a great survival tool.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Oct 2010)

Chilme said:
			
		

> You can't argue that aside from all the combat uses, the bayonet is still a blade, which is always a great survival tool.



That may be the case if it's a useful blade that holds an edge, which was not necessarily an attribute of some bayonets. In such a case, it's just extra weight which is not, I suspect, recommended during "survival" emergencies.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Oct 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> That may be the case if it's a useful blade that holds an edge, which was not necessarily an attribute of some bayonets. In such a case, it's just extra weight which is not, I suspect, recommended during "survival" emergencies.



Given that most issue bayonets were supposed to spend a greater portion of their life polished than sharpened it hasn't helped the cause in justifying their continued existence.  Having said, that a decent knife, with a point and a hilt that don't break and an edge that stays sharp should be on issue along with a whetstone, and a device for sticking to a rifle (or long pole) should the situation warrant..... ;D


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Oct 2010)

Thats sounds so familiar as we circle the track once again:



> First, let’s update the bayonet. We continue to issue every soldier a bayonet that does not justify its own weight. Replace it with a sturdy, well-honed utility knife with a high-quality steel blade. Leave the bayonet mounting hardware on the hilt for the rare cases in which it becomes necessary. Teach the soldier how to handle a rifle and bayonet, but let’s bring in a professional in improvised fighting techniques to help develop a useful combat system for it. Parade square parries and thrusts are only appropriate if the enemy has had similar instruction and is willing to fight by mutually understood rules. The Military Manual of Self-Defence (55) offers a series of aggressive alternatives to traditional bayonet fighting movements, its focus more on disabling the opponent than parrying until a clean point can be made. While not necessarily offering a full replacement to classic bayonet training, it does show that more options exist.



http://regimentalrogue.com/papers/bayonet6.htm


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Oct 2010)

"It seems to me...
I've heard that song before,
That old familiar song....."


----------



## KevinB (2 Oct 2010)

When I went thru BattleSchool the best part for agression was UA/HTH for instilling agression.
  Yeah the whole Pugil and Bayo training was okay - and when you did 3-1 pugil fighting it was interesting to see if you had weak opponents you could smash them by being hyper agressive, but I stand by the fact I never ever ever ever needed a bayonet in combat.

 Ever minute training someone with a bayo could be better used to teach UA and Advanced Combat Marksmanship.

P.S. if that Brit unit actually aimed more and shot less, they would not have been out of ammo and 'needed' the stupid bayonet charge.


I'd rather have a fucking Tomahawk than a bayonet.


And as far as a psychological weapon -- Flamethrower.


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Oct 2010)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Ever minute training someone with a bayo could be better used to teach UA and Advanced Combat  Marksmanship.


I'd just teach more marksmanship before trying to teach anything advanced.   The troops can get agression 101 with UA, but unless we go into combat in t-shirts, it's not really worth much outside of [insert name of local army bar here].


			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> P.S. if that Brit unit actually aimed more and shot less, they would not have been out of ammo and 'needed' the stupid bayonet charge.
> I'd rather have a fucking Tomahawk than a bayonet.
> And as far as a psychological weapon -- Flamethrower.


Best part of this thread, especially the part about flamethrowers.


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Oct 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Best part of this thread, especially the part about flamethrowers.



Or, as TV likes to think of them, flammenwerfer.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Oct 2010)

Tangent alert re: flame weapons:

This week in 1944 - Oct 6th - the Canadian Army launched Op Switchback and crossed the (double) Leopold Canal using Wasp flamethrowers. If you've ever been there, you'd shake your head in wonder at how they manged to hold on for 6 days without being annihilated:

The 3rd Canadian Division's 7th Brigade made the initial assault across the Leopold Canal, while the 9th Canadian Infantry Brigade mounted an amphibious attack from the northern or coastal side of the pocket. The assault began on October 6, supported by extensive artillery and Canadian-built Wasp Universal Carriers, which were equipped with flamethrowers. The Wasps launched their barrage of flame across the Leopold Canal, allowing the 7th Brigade troops to scramble up over the steep banks and launch their assault boats. Two precarious, separate footholds were established, but the enemy recovered from the shock of the flamethrowers and counter-attacked, though they were unable to move the Canadians from their extremely vulnerable bridgeheads. By October 9, the gap between the bridgeheads was closed, and by early morning on October 12, a position had been gained across the Aardenburg road.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Scheldt


----------



## stealthylizard (2 Oct 2010)

One less skill for soldiers to master at boot camp: bayonet training
Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling opted to discontinue bayonet training for Army recruits. After all, the last US bayonet charge was in 1951. But in the weeks since that decision, Hertling has had some pushback.


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2010/0928/One-less-skill-for-soldiers-to-master-at-boot-camp-bayonet-training

By Anna Mulrine, Staff writer / September 28, 2010 

Washington 
When a US Army general made the decision recently to remove bayonet assaults from the array of skills soldiers must learn during basic training, it seemed like a no-brainer.

US troops hadn’t launched a bayonet charge since 1951 during the Korean War. And new soldiers preparing for an increasingly violent war in Afghanistan already need to learn far more skills than the 10 weeks of basic training allows, says Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, head of initial entry training and the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command.

So he made a change, substituting skills drill sergeants reported that they wanted to teach new recruits in favor of dropping the time-honored practice of the bayonet charge. 

But in the weeks since that decision, Hertling has heard about it. “Bayonet training is pretty fascinating,” he says. “I’ve been slammed by retirees.”

The objections to ending the training are occasionally practical. 

In 2004, with ammunition running low, a British unit launched a bayonet charge toward a trench outside of Basra, Iraq, where some 100 members of the Mahdi Army militia were staging an attack. The British soldiers later said that though some of the insurgents were wounded in the bayonet charge itself, others were simply terrified into surrender.

Instilling such terror is at the heart of the philosophical argument for keeping bayonet training, historians say. 

“Traditionally in the 20th century – certainly after World War I – bayonet training was basically designed to develop in soldiers aggressiveness, courage, and preparation for close combat,” says Richard Kohn, professor of military history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

Bayonet training is, in short, used to undo socialization – to “basically to try to mitigate or eradicate the reluctance of human beings to kill each other,” Mr. Kohn says. It is one of the challenges in US or Western society “where we have such reverence for the individual, where we socialize our people to believe in the rule of law, and all of that,” he adds. “What you’re doing with young people is trying to get them used to the highly emotional and irrational and adrenaline-filled situations in which they are liable to find themselves whether they are within sight of the enemy or not – and the reluctance to take a life.”

Hertling, for his part, has stood firm. “What’s interesting,” he says, “is if bayonet training is that important and it’s the centerpiece of everything we do, why is it the only place it’s taught is at basic training?

“If it’s that important, you’d think all the operational units would have bayonet assault courses.”

The fact is, there are more important things to teach during a time of war, Hertling adds. In a counterinsurgency fight such as Afghanistan, “You carry an M-4 carbine strapped around your chest,” he says. “You can’t do much with a bayonet.”


----------



## NavyShooter (2 Oct 2010)

I'll jump out of my lane and wish for the Flame-throwers and tommohawks too.

Damn that'd be a sight to see....

Screw your Bear Cavalry, your Penguin Infantry, and your Zombie Soldiers, I raise you one KevinB with a Tommohawk and a Flamethrower!

(For those who have seen the motivational posters with the bear cavalry and such.)

NS

(Jumping back into my lane now...FLAME AWAY.....hehehehe)


----------



## NavyShooter (2 Oct 2010)

http://www.themostawesomepageintheuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/bear-cavalry.jpg

http://www.penguinpride.com/i08/penguin_army.jpg



(Turned images into just links for the ones that have foul language in them....oops.)


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Jan 2011)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> http://www.themostawesomepageintheuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/bear-cavalry.jpg
> 
> http://www.penguinpride.com/i08/penguin_army.jpg
> 
> ...



They can't be that dangerous... no bayonets attached hence no will to close with and destory... we got 'em half licked already!


----------



## Haligonian (12 Jan 2011)

We had a young soldier in our company who after 7 months of patrolling had finally had enough of those "cute" Afghan children.  He began patrolling with his bayonet fixed and kids stopped coming near him!  The psychological power of the bayonet on display!


----------



## MJP (12 Jan 2011)

Haligonian said:
			
		

> We had a young soldier in our company who after 7 months of patrolling had finally had enough of those "cute" Afghan children.  He began patrolling with his bayonet fixed and kids stopped coming near him!  The psychological power of the bayonet on display!



So he basically alienated and intimidated part of the local population whose trust we need because he had enough of them?  Don't get me wrong, I am not saying he had to be hugs and kisses with the kids, but usually having them around meant that the area was generally clear of the bad dudes and their explosives.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Jan 2011)

Haligonian said:
			
		

> We had a young soldier in our company who after 7 months of patrolling had finally had enough of those "cute" Afghan children.  He began patrolling with his bayonet fixed and kids stopped coming near him!  The psychological power of the bayonet on display!



A perfect example of the unspoken message coveyed by the bayonet: I mean business.


----------



## KevinB (13 Jan 2011)

MJP said:
			
		

> So he basically alienated and intimidated part of the local population whose trust we need because he had enough of them?  Don't get me wrong, I am not saying he had to be hugs and kisses with the kids, but usually having them around meant that the area was generally clear of the bad dudes and their explosives.



Too true.

Sigh...

There is dumb, and then uttery fucking stupid.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Jan 2011)

Haligonian said:
			
		

> We had a young soldier in our company who after 7 months of patrolling had finally had enough of those "cute" Afghan children.  He began patrolling with his bayonet fixed and kids stopped coming near him!  The psychological power of the bayonet on display!



This post has been in my head all day. [the army.ca monkey is strong]  Now this may be a stupid question but bear in mind all my 'deployments' were with fake enemy so,  wouldn't routinely fixing a bayonet for a patrol be a command function and not left to a "young soldier"?


----------



## Haligonian (13 Jan 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> This post has been in my head all day. [the army.ca monkey is strong]  Now this may be a stupid question but bear in mind all my 'deployments' were with fake enemy so,  wouldn't routinely fixing a bayonet for a patrol be a command function and not left to a "young soldier"?



Yeah... I thought it was sort of weird as well.  He wasn't in my chain of command so I'll leave it at that. I just thought it was a good example of the psychological effect of the bayonet, as daftandbarmy grasped.



			
				MJP said:
			
		

> So he basically alienated and intimidated part of the local population whose trust we need because he had enough of them?  Don't get me wrong, I am not saying he had to be hugs and kisses with the kids, but usually having them around meant that the area was generally clear of the bad dudes and their explosives.





			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> Too true.
> 
> Sigh...
> 
> There is dumb, and then uttery ******* stupid.



Yup, maybe he scared some kids, (probably not though). Part of me agrees with the above statements, but the other part doesn't really think it matters if the kids were scared of us or not.  Its not our country/war to win, and I don't think too many of those kids give a damn about us.  I can't count the times they threw large rocks as we drove by, no matter how many times we stopped and asked them to cease throwing rocks and their elders to make them stop.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Jan 2011)

Haligonian said:
			
		

> Yup, maybe he scared some kids, (probably not though). Part of me agrees with the above statements, but the other part doesn't really think it matters if the kids were scared of us or not.  Its not our country/war to win, and I don't think too many of those kids give a damn about us.  I can't count the times they threw large rocks as we drove by, no matter how many times we stopped and asked them to cease throwing rocks and their elders to make them stop.



Amen to that. The rules are different when you're not peacekeeping!


----------



## KevinB (14 Jan 2011)

No shit its not peacekeeping, so lets just then fuck off the populace or worse?

Recipie for IED stew.

I would prefer for them to like me, okay with them tolerating or ignoring me, but to encourage them to be hostile -- dude give your head a shake.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Jan 2011)

KevinB said:
			
		

> No crap its not peacekeeping, so lets just then frig off the populace or worse?
> 
> Recipie for IED stew.
> 
> I would prefer for them to like me, okay with them tolerating or ignoring me, but to encourage them to be hostile -- dude give your head a shake.



I agree with you Kevin, waving a bayonet at my kids will make you several instant enemies. Its counderinsurgency, not chasing the Fantasians around Germany.


----------



## Sig_Des (14 Jan 2011)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I would prefer for them to like me, okay with them tolerating or ignoring me, but to encourage them to be hostile -- dude give your head a shake.



Agreed. I never had any lost love for the general Afghan populace, but walking into a town and being instantly surrounded by kids, no matter how bratty or how many little hands tried to get into pockets, always made me feel a little more comfortable than a town where you got nothing but evil eyes.

Having kids around is like a psychological force multiplier. Alienating them only achieves alienation of yourself.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Jan 2011)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Agreed. I never had any lost love for the general Afghan populace, but walking into a town and being instantly surrounded by kids, no matter how bratty or how many little hands tried to get into pockets, always made me feel a little more comfortable than a town where you got nothing but evil eyes.
> 
> Having kids around is like a psychological force multiplier. Alienating them only achieves alienation of yourself.



Unless they're the kids that signal to the bombers/snipers of course!


----------



## Snaketnk (4 Feb 2011)

I think I know which incident Haligonian us referring to; and in that particular village, insurgents would fire on us regardless of children being nearby (we had more civilian injuries as a result of their actions than friendly). If I recall correctly, the individual fixed his bayonet after the village became overtly hostile.

In my mind, I'd always keep the kids out of the way in case something happened.


----------



## Trooper Hale (21 Apr 2011)

Snaketnk said:
			
		

> I think I know which incident Haligonian us referring to; and in that particular village, insurgents would fire on us regardless of children being nearby (we had more civilian injuries as a result of their actions than friendly). If I recall correctly, the individual fixed his bayonet after the village became overtly hostile.
> 
> In my mind, I'd always keep the kids out of the way in case something happened.



And now it all makes perfect sense. Its interesting how another perspective puts something into a completely different light.

Me personally, I'm all about my sweet Browning HP and carrying enough ammunition to get me through the hard times. You cant fit a bayonet to a Steyr carbine or an LMG unless you do it with a whole lot of black tape...


----------



## dinicthus (4 May 2011)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I'd rather have a ******* Tomahawk than a bayonet.



Especially one launched from a missile frigate.


----------



## 08rangerdan (1 Nov 2011)

^^"Fighting requires the ability to attack their will to fight as well as their their bodies; I will still keep the bayonet"

Beautiful said Thucydides, I agree with your theory 110%


----------



## KevinB (2 Nov 2011)

:facepalm:


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jan 2016)

Kevin -  This one's for you  [

https://youtu.be/hKRa966S5Dc


----------



## KevinB (12 Jan 2016)

LOL Cute

 Bayonet's Save Lives -- unless the enemy has a belt fed weapon...

 :nod:


----------



## AlDazz (21 May 2019)

Have to go with carrying a bayonet. If you need to carry a knife it might as well fit on the end of your rifle.  The current issue seems well designed for other purposes as well.  The old C1 bayonet looked a little silly on the end of an SMG though.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 May 2019)

The current issue bayonet looks nice but is very fragile and routinely break when conducting bayonet training.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 May 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The current issue bayonet looks nice but is very fragile and routinely break when conducting bayonet training.



Don't get me started.... I'm firmly on the Outrage Bus about this ridiculous state of our 'cold steel'!


----------



## AlDazz (16 Jun 2019)

The bayonet can't be done yet. Brad Pitt tapes a carving knife to the end of his hunting rifle in World War Z.


----------

