Why couldn’t he have been dispatched with a rifle?
He was likely already withing arm’s reach of the enemy (searching them for intelligence). In that situation it takes less time to pull a knife and stab the other guy than it would to get the rifle pointed in the right direction and pull the trigger.
Read the link in post 10.
I used to have an AK-47 acquired in Cambodia when I was in Viet Nam. It had a triangle shaped bayonet. The bayonet was triangular in cross section . I asked the sainted Dr. Laubengayer about the reason for the shape of the bayonet. He said that it would cause an angular shaped wound (three angular shaped wounds, actually) which would not get blood supply and would lead to sepsis.
If saw-tooth bayonets are illegal, I guess those C02 knives used by divers are out of the question.
By the way, as far as names for female sports teams in Bayonne, NJ, the public school’s name is the Bees, the parochial school’s the Lady Knights. They just didn’t opt for the obvious choice.
A handgun would have done the job just as well, or even better - the guy should have had a squadmate covering him with a rifle while he searched.
Well, I read it, and it provided no information on as to why the incident in question required the use of bayonets. All it says is something about “closing with the enemy”. Well, duh - of course you have to close with the enemy. My own infantry training emphasized that a firefight isn’t over until you’ve charged the enemy’s positions, after sufficient softening. It’s just that I don’t see why you need bayonets to charge.
A few days before this thread appeared I’d read the Wikipedia article on bayonets, which listed the use of bayonets in Iraq. Most of them were done by the British.
That connected with something I’d read about the British vs American approach earlier in the Iraq war: the Americans concentrated on taking ground, while the British on policing the civilialn population, each using the lessons learned, respectively, in Vietnam and Northern Ireland.
If that’s so, it may explain the use of bayonets. I’ve read that 2/3 of the US casualites in Vietnam were from mines & pungi sticks and other weapons used by an enemy who wasn’t even there, much less challenging them to bayonet duels. Whereas in Nothern Ireland…
They generally don’t issue a soldier more than one firearm (cost), and you aren’t allowed to bring your own (geneva convention). So an average enlisted soldier isn’t going to get a pistol, period. They won’t even let you loot fallen enemy for weapons and ammo. Perhaps things have changed since the first Gulf War, but PC in combat is maddening. I got yelled at for using a butt pack I bought myself, but wasn’t issued and told to get in the correct uniform!
I appreciate the answers people have provided in this thread. I don’t think anyone has come up with a concrete answer to the question though.
ODesio
I can only guess on that one,could have been concerns about ammo supply,or might have been for the morale effect, both ours and the bad guys.
Hi. This bayoner causes a triangular wound which is difficult to deal with. Think of how your soft tissue reacts as you breathe and move. The movements would constantly open up the wound. Two closely sited side might begin to knit, but movement will open that up again. Remember they did not have stitches then so not much could be done. Plus the poor blood supply to the sides and tissues would swiftly cause further problems. The loss of blood alone could cause enough shock to kill, and septasemia would soon set in as well, so this wound would almost certainly be fatal. Hope this helps. I heard the same and it makes sense to me. HS
The above is roughly what I read some years ago in relation to the cruciform section bayonet (essentially “triangular”), most commonly found today on older Chinese Type 56 (AK 47) assault rifles. This bayonet is permanently attached, swings in a semi-circle to fix, and is folded back into a groove in the lower front handguard when not in use. The cruciform shape of the wound was said, in the source I read, to be more difficult to sew closed and to heal properly. Still, I doubt that is the INTENTION behind this style of bayonet. I suspect convenience of use or manufacture in the Chinese case. Russia used the same style of bayonet from at least the late 1800’s to post WW II.
I like the posts suggesting the triangular shape was originally intended to replace a particular pike-style weapon (used to ward off cavalry, I believe), or rather to graft that useful older weapon onto the more effective “modern” firearms that were coming onto the battlefield to get a two-weapons-in-one advantage.
As several posters have said, bayonets aren’t given the same emphasis and function as in the past today, so their modern design is not much more than a tool with a secondary function as bayonet.
Can I state any of this with authority? No. It comes from my reading.
Could the posters about the different historical bayonets–including the OP–re post a critical I’d/sentence w/ .jpg links? I can’t follow what the heck is going on…
A triangular bayonet is the type commonly found on muskets through the 1700s and 1800s. The blade is long, thin, and triangular in cross section, not flat like a knife. Here are some examples:
A typical example would be the British land pattern musket, also known as the Brown Bess musket. Here’s a picture of a Brown Bess with the bayonet attached:
In contrast, here are some sword bayonets, which have a flat blade (some literally were swords that you would stick on the end of a rifle):
http://www.nzaaawgtn.org.nz/images/a09/it09_038.jpg
And here is a sword bayonet attached to a musket:
http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/book_images/high/v2_x3_s02_ss00_14.jpg
Triangular bayonets were used on main infantry muskets like the British Brown Bess and the French Charleville. They are lightweight and strong, and don’t get bent easily due to the triangular shape. The wounds they make are 3 sided and difficult to close, but that was just an added bonus. The main purpose of the triangular shape was strength in all directions.
Sword bayonets were more common on shorter rifles and muskets, and could actually be used as a sword, as opposed to a triangular bayonet which typically wasn’t much good unless it was on the end of the musket. Shorter rifles and sword bayonets were used by cavalry. Infantry, in contrast, would line up in long lines, and after shooting, would affix bayonets and charge. A long line of infantrymen with pointy things at the end of their muskets is a very formidable force, and George Washington got his butt kicked up and down the battlefield by the British doing exactly that until he went into Valley Forge and got some decent bayonet training. (as well as some good army discipline training). Triangular bayonets are good at stabbing, and aren’t so good at slashing. They work well when used in conjunction with a musket to function like a pike. A row of pikemen doesn’t need to slash. Stabbing works just fine in that situation. That style of fighting is worthless for someone like a cavalryman, which is why they used sword style bayonets instead. Each type of bayonet had its purpose.
Triangular bayonets were used up through the U.S. Civil War. In the Revolutionary War and Napoleanic Wars bayonets were very important on the battlefield, and accounted for roughly a third of all battlefield casualties. In the Civil War, improvements in weapons and tactics made bayonet fighting pretty much obsolete. Bayonets changed from being a primary battle weapon to being a tool used around the camp that could be used as a last ditch weapon if necessary.
Since the end of the 1800s, knife style bayonets such as these have been the most popular:
http://mosinnagant.net/images/svt_40__bayonet_series.jpg
Triangular bayonets have still found some use even up into fairly modern times, but the primary infantry bayonet these days is usually the knife style.
Early bayonets were “plug” type bayonets. You literally plugged them into the end of the barrel. These were relatively quickly replaced by socket bayonets. The advantage of a socket bayonet is that you can still fire the weapon with the bayonet attached. In the musket days, you could load the weapon, affix the bayonet, wait for the enemy, then shoot and charge without stopping in between to affix the bayonet like you had to with the plug style.
Plug bayonet:
http://webprojects.prm.ox.ac.uk/arms-and-armour/600/1884.28.35.jpg
Socket bayonet:
Goddamn. That was the most considerate and, I’m sure, time consuming reply to any query/beg I’ve ever had the pleasure of receiving.
Good people on GQ.
Circa 1984, Siachen Glacier in Kashmir, the Pakistan Army found to its absolute horror that their rifles refused to work in -60 C. They had to resort to bayonet charges on several occasions. So did the Indians. My father who was a staff officer recalled that they got complaints from the Indian side saying that the Pakistanis were mutilating bodies.
a triangular spike stuck into your vitals will produce a small wound channel that will stay partly open. that’s not the bad news. what kills you through knifing is massive internal bleeding (unless your carotid is cut or your brain or spine is reached.) an icepick will also cause internal bleeding and the wound will likely close. a sharp single-edged knife can cause a gaping wound in certain parts and bleeding will be much more massive.
so damage-wise, it’s no worse. a triangular section is indeed stronger and sturdier. as a tool, it is limited to bayonet use.
i know the m-4 is a bit fragile for serious bayonet application.
I was under the impression cruciform bayonets were easier and cheaper to make, and easier to fix to the end of your rifle than flat blade designs. I think people are paying too much attention to the ‘killyness’ of one bayonet wound over another - if you are unlucky enough to get bayoneted, your chances are never good regardless. Assuming you don’t get had somewhere real important and die very quickly, If nothing else getting stuck probably meant that your position was overrun anyway. It’s really up to how nice the other guys are as to surviving or not.
Yes, in the days of serious bayonet warfare (basically pre-American Civil War–although some commanders in the ACW tried traditional frontal charges with a mind toward slamming into an entrenched position with bayonets, almost invariably these charges were massively defeated with huge casualties by repeating riflemen firing in multiple ranks) once you’re stuck you’re probably dead. When you’re pushing into the enemy in that style of warfare your goal is going to be to continuously kill the person in front of you until you’ve broken their lines and then the cavalry was supposed to try to inflict large casualties on more dispersed infantry.
Sabers also had some usage in the Napoleonic wars as well, I believe it was the 1796 British Cavalry Saber that was often protested as creating wounds that were unnecessarily grievous, its design was influenced by swords the British encountered in India.
While it was months ago, the Battle of Danny Boy involved a bayonet charge because the British soldiers had run out of ammunition. I read the AAR at one point, but it’s been some years. Essentially the insurgents in question had taken to sending out younger recruits to harass convoys with small arms fire, the goal wasn’t so much to get involved in a protracted battle but to give young, new recruits in outfits like the Mahdi Army some experience firing a weapon in anger at a hostile force.
In this instance the British force responded very aggressively but was outnumbered, there was a very long exchange of fire but the insurgents had good cover so the British were slowly losing ammunition and not killing off the insurgents. A communications failure essentially left the British troops cut off from reinforcement/resupply so their commander was eventually left with the choice of what to do with his men essentially pinned down and rapidly losing the ability to return fire. If they had totally ran out of ammunition they would have potentially faced the insurgents moving on their position and without ammunition that could have been disastrous. The decision was made to fix bayonets and charge, it is my understanding no British were killed in action during the charge and over 20 insurgents fell to the British bayonets.
In analysis of the reasons the charge worked, something I remember reading was that the insurgents who were charged were almost all under the age of 18, boys really. They had been told by the older guys who trained them that coalition troops were more or less cowards who hid behind technological superiority/gear, and that they were not tough on a close up and personal level. The truth was the British were trained soldiers given an order to charge a position with bayonets, they were extremely aggressive–a bayonet charge is an extremely aggressive, violent thing, and while it would seem easy to stop with bullets they happen very, very quickly and it’s easier said than done to stop a bayonet charge especially if they are coming up on uneven terrain and have cover they can use to get very close to your position (it’s a different story if you’ve established a firing line and they are advancing over flat, open terrain.)
The wounds caused actually lead to this battle being investigated as a war crime. I do not know what came of it but there were allegations of mutilation and etc, which may have happened but the truth is killing someone with a bayonet is never going to be pretty and the corpse will not be pretty, either.
I have a recollection of some British general or another saying that during WWII the only people killed with the bayonet had their hands up.
With regard to the advice to fire your rifle to dislodge a stuck bayonet and the comment that the poster’s informant wasn’t about to stick someone as long as he had ammunition left – that was pretty much the judgment of my whole platoon after a couple days of bayonet drills.