Bayonet obsolete? Not yet, apparently -

[sm1lodon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Handguns -- its like a repeating bayonet with some range...

My favorite quote of the week.

 

[a_majoor]

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]

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]

Handgun
Suppressor
Good Knife

Much more effective than a bayonet...

 

[Danjanou]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

(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.

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?

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.

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.