Bayonet obsolete? Not yet, apparently -

[MJP]

So the bayonet is obsolete eh?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]

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]

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]

Umm maybe we read different articles

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]

Umm maybe we read different articles

From the article:


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. 
\

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

Sir Colin Campbell

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

Huzzah!

 

[daftandbarmy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

If a secondary wpn is required for CQB, I will take a pistol over a bayonet every time.

 

[Michael OLeary]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?