A zombie thread I started! With respects, what is the source of your information? I’ve never come across a medical text detailing how much greater in difficulty it was to patch up a triangle bayonet versus a knife bayonet. I know that people seem to think triangle bayonets cause greater wounds, but, so far as I’ve been able to tell, nobody has offered up decent evidence to demonstrate this.
The reason I asked the question in the first place was because I heard a Civil War “living history” enthusiast (reenactor). About the only interest I have in military history was the medicine. I can recall surgical instructions for treating puncture wounds but I don’t recall anyone bothering to note that triangle bayonets were different or worse than knife bayonets.
There’s a tendency with military technology perceived as “old” for some people to insist that it absolutely has not been used despite clear historical records showing same.
I’ve read numerous incidental accounts of bayonet use in the American Civil War and WWII, and I’ve read many assertions that “no” bayonet use took place in those wars. Same thing with surface-ship actions: one can read about the repeated naval battles off Guadalcanal, which include a battleship sinking another battleship/battlecruiser (depending on how one would rate the older ship) and then read assertions that NO surface actions, and certainly no battleship actions, took place after Pearl Harbor.
My guess would be that we’re too eager to “debunk” what we perceive as older “myths.”
I wish I could remember where I found this cite. According to Union medical records, during the Civil War less than 1/2% of the battlefield wounds treated had to anything to do with lacerations or puncture wounds inflicted during hand to hand combat. I have three theories for why this might be true.
#1. By the time we get into hand to hand combat I am more likely to kill or be killed rather than just wounded.
#2. By the time the enemy closes in for hand to hand combat I am already fleeing.
#3. Firearms are so effective that bayonet charges are of limited use.
It’s also worth noting that the bayonet is traditionally the weapon of choice for finishing off wounded foes. It’s also possible that in close combat, bayonet strikes on a given opponent were repeated, thus increasing the likelihood of lethality and decreasing the number of cases showing up at dressing stations.
OOOOOOOOOOORAH!!! and THATS part of why i decided to be a Marine over all others! political correctness will eventually swallow the whole military, Marine Corps included) but i know in my heart that they will always be the last to give up their time honored traditions to a bunch of bleeding heart mothers whining about their “baby boys” (who, coincidentally are signing up to volunteer to kill people, knowing that they risk injury or death themselves) and people who join and then complain that the military is “too hard on them” tearstears*. I think the Marines keeping bayonet training is a GREAT idea because as one guy above me said, it makes a person more aggressive as well as more confident. you cant expect people to be successful in combat if they are so scared and insecure of their own physical abilities that they simply freak out and run the second their weapon jams or runs out of ammo. they need to be confident that they can kick ass withOUT their rifle. and THAT is what makes MARINES, MARINES!!!
Chris Nanney
I checked it out, the incident in Iraq was because they were running out of ammo.
British troops also used bayonets in the battle of Mount Tumbledown during the Falklands War.
The last time apparently Brit troops used a bayonet was in Afghan, when Lieut Adamanson ran out of ammo and killed a Taliban with it.
I understand your viewpoint as it is pretty gobsmacking that they’re being used at all, and the present ones used by the Brit Army aren’t IMO anything much.
I read somewhere that the use of a triangle bayonet was thought to be too harmful to mend as opposed to a knife type bayonet and a “gentlemen’s” war agreement was decided, somewhat like the “Geneva convention” rules of war that a triangle bayonet would not be used in order to allow the sewing or mending of a the wound. As war goes, this of course is not written.
The star was used to make it stronger, so it won’t bend or break so easily.
Suction is not the explanation, as you would have to turn the star bayonet also.
The healing of the injury is not important.
The severity of the injury is not worse, as the star shape impedes penetration a bit… Well anyway the damage done is related to energy, so its the strength of the user not the type of blade… in a rough way.
A sharp blade or knife affixed to the end of a rifle might lead to more unintended cuts to one’s self (especially on a muzzle loader) or one’s comrades if operating in close formation. A triangular or squared bayonet with a conical or chisel point might require a more deliberate action to cause harm.
I’ve cut myself with a knife a lot, but never stabbed myself with an ice pick or an awl.
Bayonets were designed for their intended use. The standard infantry bayonet was expected to be used somewhat like a spear, and for that, the triangle shape is best as the bayonet is great for poking holes in the enemy and won’t bend easily in any direction when you stab someone with it. Cavalry bayonets were also used like swords, so those tended to sword style. Bayonets were used so infrequently in the Civil War that afterwards the military changed to knife style bayonets, and the bayonet become more of a utility camp knife that could be used as a bayonet in a pinch.
As far as I am aware, no one ever designed a bayonet based on any type of agreement.
I suspect that the triangular bayonets were also easier for 18th century industry (blacksmiths?) to manufacture relative to a round spike or a blade of some kind.
The idea that the shape had something to do with wounding is kind of absurd, in that getting a deep hole poked in you by ANYTHING prior to antiseptic surgery and antibiotics was likely to be a death sentence, regardless of whether it was triangular in cross-section, square, circular or lenticular.
I’m guessing that the progression of bayonets was three/four sided spike bayonets originally, then sword bayonets, as someone got the bright idea that it could do triple-duty as a short sword and as a stabbing bayonet as well as a sort of ghetto polearm/glaive. Then, from there, the bayonets gradually shrank until they overlapped with the knives the troops already carried and just took over that role in many cases.
Wait, cavalry bayonets are/were a thing? Was this some kind of hybrid thing for musket-carrying dragoons, supposed to be held in the hand as a sabre while mounted, and attached to a musket as a bayonet while dismounted?
If you want to see an example of one, do a google image search for “1856 Enfield sword bayonet”.
It was pretty common for the longer rifle-muskets to be made in shorter carbine versions for cavalry and naval use, and these shorter rifles often had sword bayonets available.
While almost every infantryman had a standard triangular bayonet, things varied a lot more with the cavalry. Some had sword bayonets, and others had saddle-mounted swords like the Model 1860 light cavalry saber. Some cavalrymen also carried pistols, and would either leave the sword/saber in the saddle when fighting on foot or would not bother carrying a sword at all, relying entirely on their pistols instead if they weren’t using their rifle.
The first bayonets were what are called “plug bayonets”. These literally just plugged into the end of the musket, and had the rather obvious disadvantage that you can’t shoot the musket with the bayonet attached. Later on, they got the bright idea to attach the bayonet with rings or a socket (or both), so that the musket could be fired with the bayonet attached and not blow up the barrel in the user’s face.
All of the plug bayonets that I have seen have been the knife type of bayonet.
Early ring and socket bayonets tended to be knife style bayonets, at least the ones that I have seen. There was this concept of “reach” during the musket days where it was thought that the guys with the longest muskets and bayonets had the advantage, since they could poke holes in their enemy before the enemy could poke them back. This led to longer spike bayonets that quickly became popular among early socket type bayonets. Variations like the triangle bayonet came later as they attempted to make the bayonets less easily bent during combat.
Bayonets had accounted for roughly a third of all battlefield casualties during the Napoleonic and U.S. Revolutionary periods. During the Civil War, bayonet casualties dropped to less than 1 percent. After that, the military switched to using bayonets that were more like a utilitarian camp knife that could be attached to a weapon in a pinch, which is what we still use today.
Not exactly useful but on the question of firing the rifle to dislodge the bayonet, Charles Yale Harrison in his WW I novel “Generals Die in Bed” describes a trench raid where the protagonist is running along a trench and bayonets a German soldier. He then fires to release the bayonet. Harrison was born in the U.S. and served in the Canadian army during WW I and his novel was widely viewed as a graphic and accurate account of the fighting.