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.
