As a tanker duringthe first Gulf War, we were issued bayonets (I forget the make/M-model) but they looked like they may have last been used by G’Pa Tank at the Chosin Reservoir.
We took it as a professional insult.
ETA: almost all of them wound up at the bottom of our sponson boxes.
What’s a sponson box?
That’s where you store bayonets.
It’s a shame no one has ever mounted bayonets ON tanks.
If you squint a little, and consider any kind of blade a bayonet, you can say they did in 1944 in Normandy. The blades were more like saw/shovel blades for cutting through hedgerows, not spears for stabbing people, though, so like I said you have to squint a little to make the claim.
Well, outside of Warhammer 40K…
Of course, flailson tanks were fairly common.
Not really a tank, though its often called such by the press, but the police use battering ram AFV’s. That’s kinda-sorta bayonetesque isn’t it?
Epic flail!
Ehhhhhh… Not really. Combatives is basically MMA. It’s the flavor of the week. Until you get to higher level training that most don’t get the techniques are more suited for the octagon than the battlefield. It is really good PT and teaches aggressiveness and battle focus. It also injures a lot of soldiers.
The Rhino Plow. The claim to fame of my National Guard unit. A clever NCO came up with the idea of welding steel from German beach obstacles to cut through the hedgerows.
The V-1 didn’t exactly have a bayonet, but the wings did have a cutting edge.
What is taught at higher level training? The touch of death, withering sarcasm?
That right there deserves to be an internet meme.
Okay, THAT made me burst out laughing!
Although I don’t doubt that bayonets were much less important in US Civil War combat then previous wars, I’ve read suggestions that the “low percentage of bayonet wounds” is an exaggeration produced by the way the statistics were gathered, and there may well have been more bayonet wounds inflicted in the war than those figures show.
As I understand it, only wounds on those who were brought back to field hospitals were counted. Bayonets are used at point-blank range (obviously), which is inside the “fight or flight” critical distance, a situation which typically makes combat much more savage and desperate. It’s been reported (Keegan on Waterloo injuries, for example) that dead bodies found on the field with bayonet wounds were often found with multiple bayonet wounds – it must have been hard to stop in the heat of the action, and it’s harder to get away from someone bayoneting you than it is to drop into cover after taking a Minie ball in the shoulder from 300 yards. And so it seems possible that to be wounded by a bayonet often meant to be finished off in savage close combat, and thus not to get the wound(s) recorded at aid stations and field hospitals at all.
So it may be that bayonets were used more than the statistics indicate.
Seeing as a bayonet is essentially a short spear*, maybe we should compare statixtics of wounded vs. dead soldiers from the medieval period and earlier, if any such exist.
Neither has the combat value of an aircraft carrier.
Spoken like a true Virginia congressman.
How to get tased, how to get your ass kicked by a guy 60 pounds heavier than you and the best ways of bringing a knife to a gunfight.
Right - that’s the primary purpose any more of “combatives” training and was the true point of the brief revival of bayonet training in the Army (FWIW: During my own Basic, in 1985, NO bayonet training or hand-to-hand combatives were covered.).
Last massive operational display of fixed bayonets by the US military might have been by Guard units during 1960s civil disturbance responses. More as a way to signal “Ok, in this burned out ghetto we’re not expecting flowers”.
My understanding is that the point of bayonets was not so much the power of a single soldier with one, but rather an entire group of soldiers acting in sync. Their guns could attack at a distance while simultaneously their bayonets would defend from anyone trying to charge.
