Bayonet obsolete? Not yet, apparently -

[PuckChaser]

A bayonet is far more efficient at lethal force than an ASP baton would be. For non-lethal crowd control, the C7 can be used to perform non-lethal strikes with just a little bit of practice.

The only thing better than a bayonet for a secondary weapon is a pistol... and we've had pistols around almost as long as we've had rifles. Yet we still have bayonets.

 

[Fusaki]

A bayonet is far more efficient at lethal force than an ASP baton would be.

You're arguing in circles. I already addressed this point <a href=http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28762/post-900128#msg900128>here.</a>

For non-lethal crowd control, the C7 can be used to perform non-lethal strikes with just a little bit of practice.

A Red Herring.  This point is irrelevant to the question of whether or not bayonets are obsolete and only sidetracks the discussion, except maybe to point out that the bayonet is not required for non-lethal use of force situations.

 

[PuckChaser]

My only point was that in replacing the bayonet with the ASP, you've traded a one-function tool for another one-function tool. The current design of bayonet hasn't changed much in the last 40 years, but perhaps DRDC can put their collective noggins together and come up with a modern bayonet-equivalent that can perform the multiple roles you seek. IMO the bayonet is still useful, though our current edition needs a lot of work to be battle ready.

 

[Michael OLeary]

IMO the bayonet is still useful, though our current edition needs a lot of work to be battle ready.

The questions remains, what "work" should be done to make it useful as a general issue tool, and such that it might still remain useful as a bayonet for those few soldiers who may (however rarely) have that need?

We need to be well beyond the attitude of "we must keep it, it's a symbol of the infantry", and "we must keep it, because if we don't we'll have a gap between the mess tin carrier and the buttpack1" as basic arguments for the bayonet in operations.


Endnotes

1. If you just got hung up on "we don't use webbing anymore", "what's a buttpack?", or "there are no mess tin carriers anymore", then you may not be smart enough to engage in this discussion.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Lets face it:

When push comes to shove, you find a way to do what you have to do. Neutralize the threat or face the consequences of your actions/in actions. If you have to resort to bludgeoning with your fists, so be it.

In the case of Bayonet or not, it's one more tool that I have if and when I have to neutralize a threat. Sharp things pierce, cut through kit and equipment, and require less energy and force than bludgeoning with a rifle or an ASP. Also, blood loss is a good way to immobilize an enemy.

In the end, its like insurance; we question why we need it, bitch about how much it costs and wish we didn't need to keep it on us. When things go wrong however, it's our best friend and we're thankful to have it.

Just my  :2c:

 

[Michael OLeary]

So, we shouldn't change the bayonet or its scale of issue because some day, somewhere, for someone, it might be useful in an act of desperation?

Ever try to cut something with a C1 bayonet? Or a C7 bayonet (the first type)? Apparently they were finally recognized as deficient enough to revisit the blade style and capability.

What, exactly, are we undermining by questioning further how we might improve the bayonet in usefulness, or in scale of issue, i.e., by not giving a single-use bayonet to people who don't even carry a weapon it can be used on?

 

[Kat Stevens]

So, we shouldn't change the bayonet or its scale of issue because some day, somewhere, for someone, it might be useful in an act of desperation?

Ever try to cut something with a C1 bayonet? Or a C7 bayonet (the first type)? Apparently they were finally recognized as deficient enough to revisit the blade style and capability.

What, exactly, are we undermining by questioning further how we might improve the bayonet in usefulness, or in scale of issue, i.e., by not giving a single-use bayonet to people who don't even carry a weapon it can be used on?

Yes, about 200 blocks of DM-12.

 

[Fusaki]

My only point was that in replacing the bayonet with the ASP, you've traded a one-function tool for another one-function tool.

No.

What you've done is traded a obsolete tool for one that has real use today.

-The primary role of the bayonet is lethal force CQC. While it may have secondary non-lethal/psychological uses, it is a <a href=http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28762/post-899057#msg899057>poor performer</a> when compared to other alternatives.

-The primary role of the ASP baton is non-lethal CQC.  In it's secondary role as a lethal force tool, it is <a href=http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22211/post-119788#msg119788>effective</a> as well.  Maybe it might not do this secondary role as well as the bayonet does, but consider that:

      Bayonet use as a lethal force tool has, throughout history, been exceedingly <a href=http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28762/post-898446#msg898446>rare.</a> Even today, it's easy to see why today the chance to skewer someone on a bayonet is astronomically <a href=http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28762/post-900128#msg900128>unlikely.</a>

The dismounted soldier can only carry a limited weight.  Equipment must be chosen based on the likelihood of it's necessity in combat, the gravity of the consequences of not having it, and the availability of other tools that will do in a pinch.  Every extra pound a soldier carries impairs his ability to fight.

Given the <a href=http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28762/post-899749#msg899749>alternatives</a> to the bayonet, the low chance of needing a lethal force CQC weapon, and the much higher chance of needing a non-lethal tool, trading the bayonet for an ASP baton will make the soldier more effective without a change to the current weight of his combat load.

I maintain, the bayonet is obsolete.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Yes, about 200 blocks of DM-12.

At least it saved you from dulling the blade on your Grohmann.

 

[Kat Stevens]

After about 75 blocks of frozen DM-12, the Russell knife is just too damn small to grip comfortably, after 100, it's friggin' agony.  The pig sticker did a great job.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Yes, about 200 blocks of DM-12.

Ah yes the  Sprengkörper DM12, (Sprengmasse, formbar) 

;D

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I remember the instructor saying: "Don't eat the explosive" Huh? I said, but after working with DM-12 for a couple of day I ha this craving for fudge. Mind you we were in Wainwright in the summer.

Bayonet use as a lethal force tool has, throughout history, been exceedingly rare. Even today, it's easy to see why today the chance to skewer someone on a bayonet is astronomically unlikely.

Wonderbread, perhaps you mean in the 20th century, prior to breechloaders, the bayonet was a significant primary weapon of the infantry. The problem with the baton is that it requires a fair bit of training to be used properly.

 

[KevinB]

The problem with the baton is that it requires a fair bit of training to be used properly.

So does the bayonet.

All the bayonet proponents, have you done bayonet training with a PEQ-2 or Surefire Flashlight attached to the CF issue TRIAD-1?
Your guaranteed to ruin the PEQ (or PAC-4C) and quite possibly the light.

A baton gives extra reach, more nimble striking and a whole lot more.
  A decent folding knife is a better tool than a bayo.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Wonderbread, perhaps you mean in the 20th century, prior to breechloaders, the bayonet was a significant primary weapon of the infantry.

Can you provide sources and statistics. My research indicates otherwise.

http://regimentalrogue.com/papers/bayonet2.htm

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)

(See the linked page for the footnoted sources.)

 

[mariomike]

Regarding the small number of  bayonet victims carried back to the surgeons. I think many/most were left for dead where they fell. It's also hard to imagine many making it back to an aid station on their power. A bayonet fight is likely to be a fight to the death, or someone is going to have to run away. Fight or Flight response.  Medical Aid might not be able to rescue the victim because the enemy who made the bayonet attack now occupy the area.
You can close up a knife wound, but closing a bayonet wound would not be as easy. The rapid blood loss would be soon fatal. In Triage, they teach us that transport priority goes to those you think have the best chance of surviving.  A bullet wound from a distance would often cause a survivable wound to the extremities. The bullet wounded soldier could rescued because the enemy did not occupy the area.
I understand that in the media world of today the bayonet may not be seen as "community friendly". It has also been pointed out that, in some situations, the rifle barrel can be used instead. But, the fixed bayonets I used to see on the TV news in the American Race Riots civil unrest, the college's, herding people in Vietnam, even on the streets of Montreal during the FLQ Crisis, made a very strong impression.

   

 

[Michael OLeary]

maromike, I'm sure you can provide some reference for that assumption?

http://regimentalrogue.com/papers/bayonet2.htm

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)

If the value of the bayonet on the battlefield is to be assessed, it needs to be done on facts and not what people "think" might happen.

 

[mariomike]

This link may help the discussion. I am mindful that others on the Board have a lot more knowledge of the subject than I do.  But, I do find the bayonet of interest.
"Cold Steel: A Sharp Look at Civil War Bayonets: Some have speculated that the bayonet was rarely used in combat during the Civil War, and point to the apparent dearth of bayonet wounds treated by the surgeons as evidence. There are two basic fallacies with this assumption.":
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3905/is_200407/ai_n9455571/

 

[Michael OLeary]

This link may help the discussion. I am mindful that others on the Board have a lot more knowledge of the subject than I do.  But, I do find the bayonet of interest.
"Cold Steel: A Sharp Look at Civil War Bayonets: Some have speculated that the bayonet was rarely used in combat during the Civil War, and point to the apparent dearth of bayonet wounds treated by the surgeons as evidence. There are two basic fallacies with this assumption.":
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3905/is_200407/ai_n9455571/

You may as well have cut and pasted his two points:

First, by its very nature, the bayonet is a very intimate weapon to use or have used against you. It is much more difficult to divorce yourself mentally from the consequences of using a bayonet at close range than a long-range weapon such as a rifle. Soldiers had an innate dread of having to use the bayonet on an opponent at close quarters and an even greater dread of being targeted by such a weapon. The mere threat of being overwhelmed in a bayonet charge would often result in a demoralized line breaking and fleeing in disorder. And unlike a musket whose primary purpose arguably is to inflict casualties on the enemy, the primary purpose of a bayonet charge is to take and hold territory. This can be accomplished just as well by driving the defenders off in fear as by pinning them to the ground with a vicious thrust of the bayonet. In this way, a bayonet can be "used" without inflicting any wound at all.

I addressed the same point here:
http://regimentalrogue.com/papers/bayonet3.htm

Even the claim of bayonet enthusiasts that it is a psychological weapon of singular importance is doubtful. The charge of infantry, à la bayonet, was usually delivered at the point where the defeat of an enemy was turning to rout. The bayonet charge was not, as it is often immortalized, the singular defining act of victory, it was, however, the act ordered by the general at the turning point of that victory. The bayonet charge, therefore, became so firmly entrenched in the minds of soldiers and observers as the defining act, rather than a dictated result of triumph, that to "get in" with the bayonet was seen as a means to success. Even in 1950, an article in the US Army Infantry School Quarterly encouraged: "Let us reinstate cold steel as the symbol of final assault, even though bullets rightly do most of the killing." (30)

Within the Napoleonic armies, the combination of cold steel combined with Gallic courage, or at least iron discipline, was considered undefeatable. (31) The pas de charge, brigades and divisions in close ranks, company or battalion wide and as deep as the available manpower permitted, were launched at opponents arrayed in more conventional linear formations. When the column met the line and retained sufficient momentum, the line could collapse, and sufficient men were released behind the line to destroy its integrity. The shock action and momentum delivered by the column could, and for the French Revolutionary Army did, turn the tide of battle and achieve victory. The French believed in the perception of the bayonet’s natural supremacy over powder to the extent of ordering that the bayonet charge was to be delivered in all battles. (32)

But when the discipline and fire control of the linear formation was sufficient, as it was for Wellington, then the columnar tactic could and did fail. The column would collapse in a horrific pile of shattered bodies as the leading ranks were destroyed by rifle fire and the rear ranks continued to press into the danger area. Its final demise guaranteed by the effect of artillery on the close ranks of the attacking column. But this would seldom be considered a failure of the bayonet, only a lack of discipline and courage of the attacking formation.

The psychological power of the bayonet grew in the retelling – becoming a synonymous act with victory. The event that originally signalled a battle won now became that which could create victory if ordered. The romance of war has oft tread on the toes of its truth.

But those examples come from an era when a bayonet charge ended nearly every battle of decisively engaged opponents. It does not, of itself, provide an argument that the historical belief in the psychological power of the bayonet charge is equally applicable today.

Note that the author quoted above specifically writes on the use of the bayonet in the American Civil War.

The second point against citing the small number of documented bayonet wounds as evidence of its disuse is that a dead victim will have no need to be treated by the surgeon.

This point is addressed above in my last reply, which you will note comes from the same war the author you quoted writes on.

Notably, he provides no sources for his information.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Something to watch at home while curled up on the couch with the wife:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pzxb2sxbDU

Yes, he's a fanatic, but at least he's OUR fanatic!

 

[OldSolduer]

Something to watch at home while curled up on the couch with the wife:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pzxb2sxbDU

Yes, he's a fanatic, but at least he's OUR fanatic!

I love this guy.