Bayonet obsolete? Not yet, apparently -

[Will M]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

"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)

Wintringham offers a glimpse of the frequency of bayonet casualties during the First World War in stating that they were so rare no separate statistical records were maintained. Bayonet wounds treated were inclusive to the 1.02 per cent miscellaneous casualties and accidents. (28)


(22)    Van Creveld, Martin, Technology and War; From 2000 B.C. to the Present, Don Mills, Maxwell MacMillan, 1991
(23)    Dupuy, Trevor N., Understanding War; History and Theory of Combat, New York, Paragon House, 1987
(24)    (Puyseger, J.F. (1749), Art de guerre par principes et par règles, 2 vol., Paris) quoted in Duffy, Christopher, The Military Experience in the Age of Reason, Hertfordshire, Wordsworth Editions, 1987
(25)    "It is impossible to establish exactly what proportions of casualties were inflicted by various weapons. the most convincing evidence appears at first sight to come from records like those of the Invalides in Paris, which detail the admissions for 1762 as follows:
68.8% wounded by small arms
13.4% wounded by artillery
14.7% wounded by swords
2.4% wounded by bayonets (Corvisier, A. (1964), L’Armèe Française de las fin du XVIIe Siècle au ministère de Choisel. Le Soldat, Paris, 65)" - Duffy, Christopher, The Military Experience in the Age of Reason, Hertfordshire, Wordsworth Editions, 1987
(26)    Wintringham, Tom, Weapons and Tactics, London, Faber and Faber, 1943
(27)    Farwell, Byron, Mr, Kipling’s Army, New York, Norton, 1981
(28)    Wintringham, Tom, Weapons and Tactics, London, Faber and Faber, 1943

 

[Fishbone Jones]

TOMAHAWKS!! That's the ticket! ;D

 

[HItorMiss]

Agreed!

You can use a Tomahawks for CQC and breaching and throwing it's the best for everyone!

 

[Fusaki]

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.

yeah and Marines and Soldiers have payed for yards of land in blood in the past too, that does not make it the preferred technique.

If a weapon is set up to take a bayonet, its is most likely not optimally set up for urban combat.

If the Scot's had the ammo to shoot the bad guys at close distance before they had to stab them, then why not do that? I'm not saying that the "bayonet charge" was wrong.... it broke the enemy's will to fight.

I'm saying that for the weight of a bayonet I can carry two 17rd Glock mags or three 10 rd .45 mags. My pistol exists to get me to my next rifle.... period. Hell, now that I think about it I think you could carry two single hit 7.62X39 AP side impact plates for the weight of the M-9 bayonet. Lets see.... rifle protective inserts or a big ******* knife..... hhmmmm  :

I have 30 plus rounds [in my pistol] to kill from 25-30 meters all the way to point blank..... if at any point I wack someone that has a rifle.... ANY RIFLE! I'm jacking their crap and running it dry or until I get an even better rifle...... The youngest pre-teen male that has ever Played "duke-nuk'em", Doom, metal gear, etc. knows that its all about trading up on your fire power.

Based upon this WELL known video game/close combat FACT...... which do you think will get you to a better weapon faster? [A] knife on the end of your rifle, or a hand gun in your hand?

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.

Thats just MHO..... I don't even carry a fixed blade kinfe currently.... its ALL about the weight

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.

When you say an M-4 with gadgets, are you refering to an M-4 with a bayonet, or with all the other do-dads (flashlight, scope, laser, etc.)? After reading your last post, if I am understanding you properly, one should carry a rifle designed for the environment they are operating in, that is set up to shoot the bad guys, not beat them to death, etc.

Then, depending on other factors - namely weight, if you are going to carry something to help you get another rifle on the battlefield, it should be something that you can easily carry, and that will allow you to easily damamge the bad guy, with as little risk/effort on your part - like the ASP, or tomahawk, vs having to get in real close/hands on with a knife.

 

[1feral1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.