Bayonet obsolete? Not yet, apparently -

[vonGarvin]

but I'd rather not bring a canteen cup to a bayonet fight...

I'd rather rely on my fireteam partner, the tank in the supporting troop, the direct support battery, and most of all, the echelons feeding me ammo and shit.

 

[somedude]

I'd rather rely on my fireteam partner, the tank in the supporting troop, the direct support battery, and most of all, the echelons feeding me ammo and crap.

And what happens when you're at war, in battle, and everything that can go wrong does go wrong?

 

[vonGarvin]

And what happens when you're at war, in battle, and everything that can go wrong does go wrong?

Then...you die.

 

[KevinB]

Then...you die.

Yup - it's life, no one gets out alive...


The point I would like to bring up (again) is that if you have fired all of your ammo
1) there are going to be dead and dying  friendlies around you (if your not already dead and dying)
2) those dead and dying will have weapons and ammo
3) there will be weapons on the enemy you have shot, and an Ak or SKS are better than a knife (even better a DsHk or PKM, or Mortar position...)
4) if you have fired all your ammo, and none of the other three items above are applicable - mounting a bayonet will probably not help since your a dumbass.

When I was in Iraq one of our teams got into a very bad spot - the client was killed and half the PSD team, some of the rest of the team hid in another vehicle.
  One of the shooters, killed off an insurgent PKM team and decided to do the proper thing, and used the PKM against other insurgents still in the fight.

Now just imagine if he chose to use a bayonet  ;D

Bayonets look cool on parade grounds.

But they have epic fail when used in modern combat.  Especially against an armored foe - great you slashed/stabbed his PPE, awesome.

WWI is calling and it wants its doctrine back.

 

[somedude]

Then...you die.

Quitter.

Now just imagine if he chose to use a bayonet  ;D

He'd be a dumbass for bringing a bayonet to a PKM fight.

But they have epic fail when used in modern combat.  Especially against an armored foe - great you slashed/stabbed his PPE, awesome.

And how did the bitch slap, MNVG mount or the canteen cup idea work out?

 

[KevinB]

My point on the Headbut is up close it may be all you can do.  Kill the enemy the quickest you can.
  The bayonet it not the way to do it.

I just always wanted to clobber someone with a canteen swung in 82 pattern webbing.  The old SSF UA Cbt manual had that description a long time ago, and it just seemed to me a cool way to bash in a brain, thought I've wanted to do a lot of things that are not the most practical.  To point I used to think Bayonet drills where cool.

 

[Michael OLeary]

I'd rather rely on my fireteam partner, the tank in the supporting troop, the direct support battery, and most of all, the echelons feeding me ammo and crap.

If you were nicer to the cooks in the echelon, they wouldn't feed you crap. Remember, professionals study logistics.

 

[Michael OLeary]

WWI is calling and it wants its doctrine back.

Actually, the image of the bayonet as the favoured weapon for the close in fight during the First World War is challenged by the prevalence of the various bludgeoning weapons used by tranch raiders.

 

[KevinB]

I love a good bludgeoning...

Which leds me to beleive if we learned that the Bayonet sucks in close in WWI, that it still sucks.

In combat better ways to kill end up on top.  In a peacetime army, those can get lost for items that look much better on a parade square.
  A sharp shovel or Axe only looks good with Pioneers...

 

[somedude]

I just always wanted to clobber someone with a canteen swung in 82 pattern webbing.  The old SSF UA Cbt manual had that description a long time ago, and it just seemed to me a cool way to bash in a brain, thought I've wanted to do a lot of things that are not the most practical.  To point I used to think Bayonet drills where cool.

I'd like to smash someone with a manpack.

My point on the Headbut is up close it may be all you can do.  Kill the enemy the quickest you can.
  The bayonet it not the way to do it.

It would be if it was already fixed.

To the point, I'm not suggesting that we should all run around doing bayonet charges.  It's more that it's nice to have options, and while in certain tactical situations the bayonet may not be the greatest option it is better than other options, which is why I believe it still has it's place in an infantryman's tool belt.

 

[vonGarvin]

I prefer well-timed and well-planned fireplans and good gunnery to get me onto the objective, and beyond. 

 

[Fusaki]

This thread is killing me.  :brickwall:

For the benefit of newcomers to the thread, I'll rehash some of my earlier arguments.

The low likelihood of needing a bayonet:

The only half-decent argument so far for keeping the bayonet is for the 1 in a million situation when:

-You're in a lethal force encounter; and

-You're not able to have a buddy pass you a fresh mag/grab unspent mags off a friendly casualty; and

-You're not able to grab the rifle off a dead enemy; and

-You're not able to extract back to the LAV, or some place with more ammo; and

-You're close enough to the enemy that you MIGHT be able to charge him without getting yourself shot; and

-There are no friends around who would be trying to get a clear shot at the guy you're about to engage in CQC with; and

-given the above, you'd probably have no time to mount the bayonet on a rifle anyway; so

-in essence you're really just advocating the carriage of a fighting knife; which

-you said yourself is inferior to an ASP baton, given the ASP's longer range.

But even if, in this one in a million freak occurrence, we were to find the bayonet to be superior to the ASP baton, there are still at least 8 other good <a href=http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28762/post-899749#msg899749> reasons</a> why the bayonet is obsolete.

The better alternatives to the bayonet:

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.

More on the ASP Baton vs the bayonet:

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.

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.

I'll also link in Michael O'Leary's research on how, historically, "The bayonet does not rate highly as a cause of wounds and death in comparison to other battlefield weapons."

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28762/post-898446.html#msg898446

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)

(29) - Bullet v. Bayonet – American Civil War, Canadian Army Journal, Volume 16, Number 1, Winter 1962

 

[KevinB]

I'd like to smash someone with a manpack.

I actually know a guy who killed an Iraqi with a MBITR

It would be if it was already fixed.

To the point, I'm not suggesting that we should all run around doing bayonet charges.  It's more that it's nice to have options, and while in certain tactical situations the bayonet may not be the greatest option it is better than other options, which is why I believe it still has it's place in an infantryman's tool belt.

Wonderbread and others have posted the reasons why it does not ad naseum.

But you are entitled to an opinion, even if none of us agree with you.

 

[somedude]

I actually know a guy who killed an Iraqi with a MBITR

Close enough.  ;D

Wonderbread and others have posted the reasons why it does not ad naseum.

But you are entitled to an opinion, even if none of us agree with you.

Meh.  His argument is good in that it justifies the issuing of an ASP.  It falls short of convincing me to remove the bayonet.

They'll get rid of it, things will change, some other war will start up with a different set of variables and people will see a need for it, or they won't.  Maybe we'll get lightsabres by then.  That'd be cool.

 

[Fusaki]

It falls short of convincing me to remove the bayonet.

What did I leave out?

 

[somedude]

What did I leave out?

I typed something out, but it's just what-ifs to counter your what-ifs, which you'll just what-if back, which makes it a what-if argument that's probably just a re-hash of what's already been said.

 

[Fusaki]

I typed something out, but it's just what-ifs to counter your what-ifs, which you'll just what-if back, which makes it a what-if argument that's probably just a re-hash of what's already been said.

Please, go ahead and "what-if" my argument.

If there's some reason to carry a bayonet that outweighs all the points I've outlined above, I want to hear about it.

 

[blacktriangle]

I actually know a guy who killed an Iraqi with a MBITR

Think a 521 will do? Maybe it would be worth carrying then...

 

[Michael OLeary]

Go to Radio Chatter for the Zombie tangent.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[PuckChaser]

Think a 521 will do? Maybe it would be worth carrying then...

I don't think anything would make the 521 worth carrying.