Bayonet obsolete? Not yet, apparently -

[vonGarvin]

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]

British Army Recruit Pool

London - August 25 2009  - Just another weekday fixture.

 

[PuckChaser]

"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]

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]

In the first scenario, the soldier should have gone right to .556.

Would he have had any? 

 

[Forgotten_Hero]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.