Hand to Hand combat?

[Fly Pusher]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

... somebody ****ed things up royally... [/QB]

This has already been established beyond any reasonable doubt.

[M1A1TC]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

M1A1TankCommander,

German trench raiding parties of WWI used to prefer sharpened E-tools for such work. This is hardly the same as the scenario you apparently envision. BTW, the Russians, Spetsnaz in particular, are very fond of the sharpened E-tool. I've seen pictures in which the latter throw the weapon at a target while leaping through the air. Let's say I don't want to be on the receiving end!

Regards,

John Kettler

I know about Spetsnaz using shovels, trust me. '

You didnt get my point at all. The shovels that were used for hand-to-hand combat are steel with short sturdy wooden handle.

Modern E-tool (In the US Army) is a flimsy folding piece of crap, that no one ever carries with them. I would never try using that as a weapon. It is highly unlikely that a modern US soldier would be in such a long battle where he would run out of ammo and be reserved to using E-tool

[SgtMuhammed]

Yes, the modern U.S. e-tool is garbage. If they don't bring you pioneer tools it is nearly impossible to dig-in in anything other than very loose soil or sand. Hit a couple of rocks and you immediatly begin sacrificing them to the foxhole gods.

You could probably whack one or two people before you are left with a short lenght of pipe in your hand. In more ways than one.

[MikeyD]

"It is highly unlikely that a modern US soldier would be in such a long battle where he would run out of ammo and be reserved to..."

Often, hand-to-hand fighting has nothing to do with running out of ammo. In VERY close-in melee fighting a gunshot is likely to go right through the enemy and hit a comrade! In the earlier account about of the T.C. using a knife on an attacking VC soldier, with only one hand free his pistol would've been useless if a round wasn't already chambered. What's the old WWII advice about how to extract a bayonet that's stuck in a body? Fire a round so the recoil will dislodge it! :eek:

[cassh]

Bigduke6 -

You state:-

maybe even millions of young men from industrialized nations killed, because they were taught using your bayonet in a battle somehow adds to the chances of a infantryman surviving a battle

Should one infer from that, that military advances are mere extended bayonet charges?

Do you not suppose that the advance is not to engage the enemy with cold steel, but to get into a position that disrupts/dislocates his forces and puts him at a disadvantage where you can bring about fire or manoeuvre to his grave disadvantage? You don't try and take hill 312 because you want to stab the enemy - you want the hill so you can spot and drop nasty **** on his head from a long way away.

Now unfortunately these prime positions of critical vulnerability are not handed to one on a plate. Often the enemy says "well come on then, push me off!"

So that's what you do. Often the only way to winkle the ****ers out is on the point of a bayonet.

To state that the bayonet, because its inception was as an anti-cavalry weapon, currently has no use in an infantry role is total bollocks to say the least.

If that were the case the bayonet would not have lasted much past 1920's when the Russians conducted some of the last recorded cavalry charges in combat during their civil war.

In many ways you underline my exact point. The contemporary wisdom [sic]/assumption is one rarely, if ever needs a bayonet in modern combat.

Yet military experience in combat of the last 30 years, proves completely the opposite.

The reason is that there are some basic infantry jobs/tasks one undertakes where fixing bayonets is the wise option; to not do so would be crassly naive:-

Any/all assaults /attacks

Positional defence against any assault / attack if they get close in (i.e. ****! They're a bit close, better fix bayonets)

Fighting in any close country

FIBUA

Clearing /fighting through enemy positions (especially trenches/bunkers etc)

Any night fighting

In these circumstances, which are the bread-and-butter combat fought by the infantry you find that getting up-close with the enemy, often at night, is entirely necessary.

In the Falklands conflict, enemy dug in between rock outcrops on mountains and hills, in gullies and saddles.

Night attacks were the norm, so in these circumstances, the various British Army and RM units all used the bayonet extensively to reduce blue-on-blues and ricochets when in-close between the rocky terrain clearing enemy positions.

Likewise in the first Gulf War infantry units that cleared the various enemy metallic concentrations (objectives Steel, Lead etc.) used the bayonet to pacify the enemy.

Further, in the Tora Borra U.K. special forces were forced to use the bayonet time and again when almost over run by enemy fighters.

Again, in 2004 twenty odd Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders were caught short in a vehicle ambush and were forced to bayonet charge an enemy force of approximately 100 to remove the threat and stay alive. They killed 35 and captured 19 enemy.

Do I need to go on? Yes these incidents are not everyday and the norm of combat, but they are likely to be faced at some stage by any soldier in their combat career. Therefore, like any eventuality, you must prepare for it.

I never expected on taking on a T-72/T-80 but I trained for it.

I never expected shooting down a Mig-23 / Mil-24 / Mil-8 but I trained for it.

I never expected to be fighting Russians in the sewers of Germany but I trained for it.

Do you see my point? Just because it is a rarity does not mean it cannot/will not happen.

Close-quarter-battle and bayonet fighting may all seem a little gung-ho, but actually it is the thing that separates good soldiers from the norm. It is the ability to kill up close and personal. It is something not many can do, let alone do well.

Yet it is the single best determiner of combat worth/ability across the board for the infantry.

It demonstrates courage, skill, professionalism and most importantly self-belief and a grim determination to prevail no matter what.

It's very easy to be glib about the true nature of combat when you're not the one fighting. Go and visit any unit in Iraq now and tell them you're taking away their bayonets and see what reception you get. Short thrift I am sure.

[cassh]

MikeyD -

Often, hand-to-hand fighting has nothing to do with running out of ammo. In VERY close-in melee fighting a gunshot is likely to go right through the enemy and hit a comrade!

Exactly right there. Especially so when at night.

[flamingknives]

Regarding the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, did any of the insurgents get bayonetted? Or was the knife there to lend impetus to the rush?

[cassh]

The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders incident was reported by the press as a bayonet charge - but in all likelihood it was a classic pepper-pot fire and manoeuvre in pairs or twos ending with a bit of bayoneting when amongst the enemy. That the bayonet was used seems almost certain - to what extent I don't know.

I think that when you're outnumbers 5-to-1 one you need any extra psychological help and moral impetus you can get; and the bayonet signals to the enemy "my intent is to close with, and destroy you" which may explain why 19 surrendered and 45 odd bugged out.

[Bigduke6]

Cassh,

Of course troops armed with bayonets and trained to use them would give short shrift to the proposition they give up their bayonets. They've been propagandized, specifically trained to think that way.

How long did the cavalry hold out, arguing there was a role for a man on a horse in a modern war and that the apex of that role was hitting another man with a sword in hand-to-hand combat?

Just because there is a tiny, theoretical chance a certain type of combat migh take place, does not mean it makes sense to prepare systematically for that kind of combat.

For instance, during the course of the First World War something like half, that's right half, the ocean supply to Allied armies was horse fodder. True some of the horses were doing proper work, hauling supplies and artillery pieces on road. But a lot more of those horses were just mounts being maintained, because the military decision-makers could not bring themselves to admit that cavalry, in that war, had gone the way of the dodo. They kept waiting for the breakthrough, so the cavalry could do its thing and start hitting fleeing infantry with its swords.

Never happened. All that effort, all that training, was just wasted. Could have been used more efficiently elsewhere. I submit that, from a "killing the enemy" point of view, bayonets fall into that category, and what's more they have done for at least 150 years.

The essense of military preparation is getting ready for the war and the battle that actually comes, not the one that you would like it to be. Bayonet fights make great reading, but they are militarily insignificant.

Hand-to-hand combat where individual soldiers duke it out with bayonet, butt stock, and fist is so rare as to be statistically non-existant in pretty much any war since the times of Marlborough. The number of times bayonets actually crossed among battalion-sized units in the Napoleonic Wars - when missile weapons were orders less efficient than today, and combat lasted two decades and involved just about every army in Europe - can pretty much be counted on the fingers of two hands.

Here's a web site for you:

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/default.htm

If you find the time to read that, you will find that there are about a bazillion ways people get hurt in wars, and for practical purposes, bayonets isn't one of them.

In other words, sure people get stuck by bayonets in wars. But for every one of those wounds, there are hundreds of thousands, and probably millions, of missile wounds. Getting modern infantry ready for bayonet combat makes only slightly more sense, in rational terms, as getting ready to receive a charge by lancers; and a good deal less sense than getting ready to deal with attack dogs, stinging insects, or the incidental crash of an aircraft near one's fighting position.

So why do it? Why has infantry frequently kept its bayonets, and trained assiduously with them, to this very day?

Simple. Recruits in modern armies from industrialised nations are literate, usually well-educated, and for practical purposes the products of a suburban upbringing. The worst violence mst kids like that have ever seen, in real life, is a school yard fistfight. They are non-agressive and have been brought up to believe violence is bad, anti-social, and not the way to solve problems. Even worse, they are brought up to look out for number one, to believe personal sacrifice is stupid, and that just because a hierarchical superior tells you to do something, there may well be good reasons not to do it. He is politically ignorant.

A kid like this can easily be trained to be a good shot, to use the equipment modern infantry uses, and to be fit enough to operate it under stresssful conditions. With a little more effort he can be convinced his role in life is to be a member of a small military subgroup. Young minds are easily molded, etc.

But how do you convince a kid like that to do the really tough job: go forward under fire? War requires finding the enemy and killing him, and even today in modern armies the most efficient way of finding enemies is by sending out one's own infantry to be shot at. The problem is, your suburban recruit is no moron and has a well-developed sense of self-worth. Left to his own devices, he won't go anywhere, he'll call in artillery, it's not like he's too stupid to operate the radio.

Bayonet training is a way of overcoming all that. It teaches young recruits - in spite of massive historical evidence to the contrary - that bayonets can matter in an a battle the recruit could reasonably be expected to find himself, and that further, the "spirit of the bayonet" is the acme (I love that word, Wiley E. is my hero!) of military excellence.

The message is "Go forward, find the enemy, and kill him. You have bayonet training, you will therefore defeat the enemy in man-to-man combat." The yelling and poking of stuffed dummies and bashing of squaddie mates with pugil sticks has zero to do with killing enemy in a real war, but it is extremely effective in convincing recruits they are "warriors", and so capable of seeking out the opponent and defeating him.

This message is doubly effective, in my opinion, because during most of human history war was men trying to kill men in face-to-face fights; so an appeal to that concept what war should be all about appeals to the suburban recruit on almost an instinctual level. That's just my read of human psychology, take it or leave it.

But what cannot be gainsaid is that bayonets for their entire existence have wounded precious few soldiers, and killed even less. Their design purpose - keep the cavalry away - became obsolete almost two hundred years ago. If you want to answer the question why some armies continue to train their soldiers to use bayonets, there are plenty of answers, but none of the realistic ones have anything to do with trying to hurt the enemy.

I fully agree with you that one of the defining factors of high-quality troops is an ability and willingness to get in close with the enemy and defeat him. But that has very little to do with bayonets.

[Drusus]

It is hard for me to believe that the main reason for bayonet training is teaching people to be killers. I believe it is more about tradition. And knowing that you have that last resort is a psychological advantage. I don't really know if there is any use for bayonets in the real fighting, but I must say that it would seem likely that the soldiers _could_ end up in a bayonet fight. And it is important that the soldiers have a feeling that if that happens, then they know what to do. We were teached to clean our equipment with a branch of pinewood if we ended up in a nuclear weapons fallout (propably we were also supposed to do this with chemical weapons too, don't remember), then we would end up quickly in a cleaning tent that was ofcourse ready and able to take all the fighters in a big unit simultaneously. There was one tent in batallion or more likely one in a brigade. No reason to fear nuclear weapons... The reason we had this training is the same for there being dug & cover teaching.

In my military training there wasn't much close combat training and I never saw a bayonet during the year I was in army. If you end up in close combat you are most likely to go with your primitive reactions anyways. The teaching we had was first some moves and then we were told that in reality it is more effective to just kick & rip & scream and so on... You must be a professional close combat fighter to use effectively the moves you have learned. The thing that the primitive reaction might be to thrust with a sharp stick is a different matter.

[SgtMuhammed]

The main reason for hand to hand and bayonette training is to try to convince soldiers that the only deadly thing about the infantry is the infantryman. If the only option soldiers think they have is to fire at an opponent then they will find themselves in constant fear of situations where their firearms are useless. Showing them that they can kill with anything is a psychological advantage. At least the Army hopes it is.

It is more effective to turn the rifle around and club someone with it. Everyone knows how to use a club, most people are very clumsy with a knife and the rudimentry training given by most armies does little to change this. Mele weapons require constant practice to remain proficient. No modern army does this.

Duke is right though, the bayonette as a viable weapon system was obsolete once reliable firearms became standard issue.

[Nidan1]

Bayonet training in modern western infantry arms is just so much macho "bs". Its good excersize to stand in the sun with a group of your buddies and do "vertical butt strokes" for an hour, screaming at the top of your lungs, and imagining your enemy reeling under the power of your assault.

There is no heft to the modern assault rifle, even the AK family has gone to plastic composite material. So other that poking someone in the eye with the tip of your bayonet, the modern rifle is good for shooting, not for braining someone in close assault.

I trained for combat all my young life, playing cowboys and indians with my friends, when I was a kid. The military just perfected the skills that I started learning when I was 10 or 11.

Americans have a military tradition, even without conscription, they don't need bayonet training to teach them how to be soldiers.Good leadership guiding group dynamics and motivation is all that is needed. I would dare to say that the British experience is very similar, as it would be in other western countries in the 20th century.

[SgtMuhammed]

Of course all this brings us to the main point of the thread. I just don't believe hand to hand is such a big part of modern combat as to warrent a large expenditure of effort. I don't have a real problem with how it is implemented now.

[Bruce70]

The difference between supplying bayonets for that one time in a hundred when they will be useful, and maintaining a cavalry regiment for that one time in a hundred when they will be useful is, I think, obvious.

Also, if the world's defense forces had any sense they would design a bayonet that could be used as an entrenching tool, not the other way around.

Like most people, I think, I enjoyed bayonet training. Never expected to actually use it, but then I was in the reserves - never expected to do much of anything. The training itself appeared to improve moral, more so than actually carrying one into battle would at a guess.

As you say, there are many reasons to train with and issue bayonets, and you are probably right that none of them have much to do with killing someone. But the other benefits outway the small cost IMO.

Now, why should BFC go to the trouble of modelling them? Without playing the game I don't know if it's worthwhile, but on the face of it, it would seem that if your troops do close to within HtH combat range, then the one-to-one representation will look pretty silly if they do nothing different. I am guessing that BFC is keeping quiet about this because they too, don't know how important it will be yet.

On a similar note, I am interested to know about individual soldier targeting. Will a soldier aim at a particular enemey, or just shoot at the CoM of a squad? At long ranges it won't matter, but at ranges of 10-20m or so, it could look a bit funny.

All-in-all, I think the move to one-to-one representation will be the biggest and most demanding change that BFC will make to the new engine. If I were in their shoes, I don't think I would have gone that way, but if they pull it off, it will be pretty spectacular

[cassh]

Bigduke6 -

Of course troops armed with bayonets and trained to use them would give short shrift to the proposition they give up their bayonets. They've been propagandized, specifically trained to think that way.

No, it is because some have actually had to clear a trench/house/gully etc and realised that firing their weapon is sometimes not an option without accidentally wounding/killing their comrades. Not having the bayonet means they have one less option.

As stated earlier in a confused and fluid melee you often you have to check fire for fear of fratricide and resort to the next best option - which is often a bayonet.

It is not some ultra gung ho mentality - it is a common sense practical solution to certain combat circumstances.

How long did the cavalry hold out, arguing there was a role for a man on a horse in a modern war and that the apex of that role was hitting another man with a sword in hand-to-hand combat?

Indeed, the sabre/lance delivered by cavalry has been obsolete since the invention of the breech-loading rifle / artillery when volume and accuracy of fire meant sodding great horses, vulnerable shrapnel and bullet alike, didn't really make an effective frontline weapons platform. However, there currently is no weapon I know of that has made the bayonet obsolete in role in which it is used.

It is not used as you seem to suggest as a weapon in its own right to the exclusion of standard infantry arms; but as one element in an array of options available to the soldier.

The very reason you fix bayonets on the last bound of an assault is so you can shoot accurately up to that point. You then fix bayonets when the chances of close contact become significantly higher.

The bayonet by its very design as you know designed to allow the weapon to fired normally. Given a clear shot a soldier will always take it if it can be done without ill effect on his own guys.

In the British army I can guarantee you, the likelihood of its use in a close assault is high, just as I can predict the use all the other elements of the assault phase such as suppressing fire, grenade posting, fight through etc.

Just because there is a tiny, theoretical chance a certain type of combat might take place, does not mean it makes sense to prepare systematically for that kind of combat.

Firstly, just because you don't stab someone doesn't mean it's not needed or used. As a psychological weapon its merits in getting the enemy to surrender should not be underestimate.

Defeating rather than killing you enemy is how you win battles.

To follow your logic then soldiers would only train on fixed and narrow parameters of what they know will happen rather than what might or could happen!

Most soldiers rarely if ever engage the enemy at over 400 meters with an assault rifle, yet ever military small arms range I've ever fired on had a 600 meter firing line as standard and many had 800m, 1000m etc with a good deal that had up to 2km for sniper/match/gpmg training.

As I mentioned before, you train for many things you don't expect to do; but because you train for all conceivable eventualities it means there is less doubt and uncertainty in your mind and your unit's mind - which results in initiative, cohesion and higher tempo in combat.

Training and battlefield inoculation gives soldiers experience and confidence prior to actually gaining first-hand exposure. Preparation for all aspects of close quarter combat is crucial to that process because it means that when they do get in close with the enemy they already know the battle drills and assault techniques.

One of those techniques is to know what to do with a bayonet when and if the situation arises. You don't go looking for it, but if it comes to you, well you know what to do - job done.

Just a straw poll of friends and family highlights the underlying inaccuracy of the received wisdom you are espousing. My Grandfather for example got his DSO in Tunisia for a hand-to-hand action, my Uncle got his MC in Korea fighting off overrunning Chinese hand-to-hand and my training sergeant was mentioned in dispatches for similar actions in the Falklands. These are just my immediate family and friends I know who have seen combat. This sample may not be normal, but looking at unit histories and memoirs such as Band of Brother, 18 Platoon etc we can see it's not that uncommon.

Statistics - See What Wellington Said

BTW your link although a good resource doesn't offer much to the development of the discussion unless you offer a summary of the findings - otherwise it's just a link to somewhere that may or may not have germane information.

I agree statistically most wounds and deaths will be from other means.

However, how many raised hands of surrender are indicated in MIA casualties?

Friendly forces hand-to-hand combat casualties will by the very nature of combat go under reported. How can you know what happened to the section/platoon that was assaulted and overrun?

Napoleonic Non Bayonet Use?

Hand-to-hand combat where individual soldiers duke it out with bayonet, butt stock, and fist is so rare as to be statistically non-existent in pretty much any war since the times of Marlborough. The number of times bayonets actually crossed among battalion-sized units in the Napoleonic Wars - when missile weapons were orders less efficient than today, and combat lasted two decades and involved just about every army in Europe - can pretty much be counted on the fingers of two hands.

I think with regard to the Napoleonic wars you are possibly in error - try Oman or Napier on the Peninsular War - I can assure you that at the battles of Coruña, Talavera, Lines of Torres Vedras, Fuentes de Oñoro, Albuera, Ciudad Rodrigo, Badajoz, Salamanca and Vitoria the bayonet was used extensively. In fact, British doctrine/practice relied heavily bayonet charges as the final act before breaking, routing and pursuing the French. It went something like this…

</font>

• The British laid low to avoid the French cannonade</font>
• The French tightly packed columns advanced</font>
• The British extended line stood up/revealed itself and volley fired repeatedly from about 150 yards.</font>
• Standing only two ranks deep (as opposed to three in most continental armies) the British battalion had a third more troop frontage - and therefore a third more potential firepower</font>
• The British poured on the fire and when the French looked a bit shakey the British would put in the bayonet charge</font>

This was the basic British infantry doctrine that combined superior firepower and a coup de grace charge that usually broke the French Infantry. It's the main method used to check the French again and again from 1809 -1814.

So I don't know where you are getting your information regarding Napoleonic warfare from by the merest look at almost any battle will reveal the use of the bayonet when infantry bodies come together.

[Cpl Steiner]

I saw an interview once with one of the British SAS soldiers involved in the 1982 Iranian Embassy hostage rescue operation, and he said that in such a situation, aggression was the deciding factor, not weapons, or even marksmanship for that matter.

It seems to me that the value of bayonet drill and other sorts of training is primarily in the way it gears a soldier up for the fight. In any threatening situation, we all produce adrenalin, but how this adrenalin affects us can be partly influenced by prior training. Soldiers trained purely in marksmanship will find their adrenalin making them want to hide or run, whereas those trained in aggressive drills such as bayonet charges will find their adrenalin making them want to seek out the enemy and wipe them out. Adrenalin can make us into heroes or cowards, but it depends on how we have been taught to react to it, IMHO.

[Bigduke6]

Cassh,

"With Musket, Cannon, and Sword" by Brent Noseworthy

"The Face of Battle" by John Keegan

"The Campaigns of Napoleon" by David Chandler

All three pretty much debunk Oman and Napier's descriptions of typical infantry combat as dramatic encounters between well-controlled formations of infantry. Noseworthy pretty much demolishes Oman's famous French column vs. British line.

My point with the medical link was to illustrate the bazillion types of ways people get hurt and killed in a modern war. To me that is illustrative of what is dangerous, and what is not. See all the pentrating wounds? All the concussion wounds? All the broken bones, organs pulped by explosive overpressure or by bodies getting smacked too hard into an object a lot harder than protoplasm? It sure impressed me. So I conclude: if an exhaustive survey of modern war injuries ignores bayonet wounds either (a) it is biased agains the "spirit of the bayonet": or ( bayonets hardly ever hurt any one.

Bayonets are, for practical purposes, not dangerous in a war. So I ask, what possible sense is there in training soldiers to use such a silly weapon?

The answer I come up with is: to brainwash soldiers into being more agressive, than is rational in a war.

Fear of death is wonderfully effective at focusing the human mind on how to survive. In a war, poorly-supervised infantry has been throwing away its bayonets, en masse, for the last two centuries. It has taken, an takes, officers making the possession of a bayonet a command responsibility to keep infantry units in their bayonets, when the war is even remotely dangerous.

Now ask yourself, how hard has it been over the last two hundred years to keep infantry from throwing away its small arms ammunition?

Hmm. Are veteran infantry traitors to "the spirit of the bayonet" as well? Shame on them!

I agree the possession of a bayonet might give the soldier a warm fuzzy feeling when it's dark and the enemy avoids FPLs, or when the friendly force really isn't seeing any enemy at all, and so needs to remind itself it needs to be agressive. Thus, the less intense the conflict, the more likely you'll hear the bayonet really is worth something.

I also think Steiner is right on the money, at the level of individual combat, aggression pays.

My basic point is that war is not individual combat, but rather industrial-level violence where most people get hurt by random bits of flying metal, usually launched in their general direction by a machine. Bayonets might be useful in opening tinned rations after the shooting is over, but if the point to war is killing the enemy, the bayonet has no use on the modern battlefield.

[cassh]

Bigduke6 -

I have read all three books, most of Keegan's work and been lectured by Keegan on Waterloo. At no point did he raise this point. Moreover, there is no reference in their work to your premise that the use of the bayonet was a myth.

Keegan points out why at Waterloo psychological fear of ostensibly less lethal weapons such as the bayonet, sword and lance stems from the soldiers' fear of even the slightest wound which would often go undressed, cause infection and a painful death.

Additionally it would be unwise of any man to dismiss Oman's work. Unlike Napier's flamboyant and dramatic style, Oman's is precise, meticulously researched and one both Keegan and Chandler have base much work on.

As to Noseworthy questionable work - even he doesn't support your proposition on the non use of bayonets; he merely questions whether the British were more effective at the tactical level in methodology than the French as is received wisdom.

I think even using common sense one could see that the amount of times British regiments checked their French counterparts in infantry vs. infantry engagements would even make this tenet of Noseworthy's work questionable.

Regardless, even Noseworthy highlights the British use of the bayonet charge in the work you cite!

With Musket, Cannon and Sword: Battle Tactics of Napoleon and His Enemies

When discussing battles, military historians sometimes ignore details of tactics, ordnance and organization. Nosworthy (The Anatomy of Victory), by contrast, here emphasizes the central importance of these factors to the conduct of war?through infantry, cavalry and artillery?in the Napoleonic era. In doing so, he challenges conventional wisdom. Far from improvising tactics according to circumstances, French armies, he shows, possessed a large and coherent body of doctrine. The bayonet charge was at least as important to British tactics, meanwhile, as was the firepower of the "thin red line"; British musketry, Nosworthy contends, wasn't all that superior to that of the French. The author's major contribution, though, is to connect directly the tactical systems developed by Frederick the Great with those of this later era. That evolution rather than revolution shaped tactics between 1740 and 1815 is a drastic revision of generally accepted theory, making this work indispensable for all students of the period.

[c3k]

Bigduke6,

I agree with you that the bayonet has caused absurdly low casualties. I STRONGLY disagree with you that the low casualty figures can be interpreted as meaning that the bayonet is an anochronistic weapon that is ineffective.

In the U.S. Civil War, where a great many post-battle wound statistics exist, thousands were shot, hundreds shelled, dozens sabered and only 1 or 2 bayoneted in several heavy battles. (References available if you'd like.)

However, the bayonet charge often decided the battle. Where's the disconnect?

The bayonet charge signals the opposing side that you mean business. You will run into his positions, lock eyes, and skewer him. There is a true moral superiority in this action. The defender will RARELY stay and accept the bayonet charge. One of two outcomes occur in the vast majority of situations; the defender flees, or his defensive fire breaks the attackers and the bayonet charge fizzles out.

Your argument is similar to the one posited by airpower enthusiasts in the '50s: since air-to-air missiles could shoot down airplanes, the aircraft gun could be eliminated. Ooops.

Regards,

Ken

(Edited to change the addressee of this post to Bigduke6. It had been Cassh, with whose position I am in agreement.)

[ December 24, 2005, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: c3k ]

[cassh]

c3k - I think you mean Bigduke6 not I.

Read my posts - we are in agreement!

I think that the bayonet still has an entirely valid role in close-fighting and the assault phase of battle. I am not advocating it being the primary weapon, I am merely saying it does a role no other weapon does and as such it cannot be obsolete or an anachronism as Bigduke6 would claims.

[c3k]

Cassh,

Woops. You are of course correct. I meant to reply to Bigduke6.

I'll edit my original post to that effect.

Regards,

Ken

[Bigduke6]

Keegan p 199, on wounds at Waterloo: "There were numbers of sword and lance wounds to be treated and some bayonet wounds, though these had usually been inflicted after the man had already been disabled, there being no evidence of the armies having crossed bayonets at Waterloo (or in any other battle, come to that.")

Noseworthy cites General Mitchell, who wrote just after the Napoleonic Wars ended (p 226) "...a charge of bayonets, - a thing that hurt nobody, but that was out of the conventional rules of European warfare, - invadiably put the whole to flight, though generally with what might be deemed trifling loss."

p 234 Noseworthy "In other words, from the enemy's vantagepoint, when the British bayonet charge was finally unleashed, so little distance separated the two forces that even the faintest attempt to counter-charge necessarily would have resulted in the two sides actually crossing bayonets. And since flesh and blood seeks to avoign melees in open terrain about as vigorously as 'nature abhors a vacuum', this meant that, in effect, there was no other practical option for the other side than to hastily (sic) vacate their position."

That's why I cite those authors, which is not to say you didn't get a different message.

Certainly bayonets in the hands of a formation of Napoleonic infantry - given proper fires to precede it enabled the infantry to break another infantry formation with a bayonet charge. I'm not saying the bayonet charges never occured, and I apologize if I gave that impression.

I'm saying bayonets (for practical purposes) never killed any one almost for their entire existence, and as war has become more lethal, and infantry formations became more and more spread out, what little utility the bayonet had has become less and less.

I stick to my position: for practical purposes during the Napoleonic the bayonets never crossed. One side almost always ran first. The instances of two groups of infantry actually fighting it out like in pugil stick training were about as rare as hen's teeth and male calico cats. Therefore, from a strict military rational point of view, it was a waste of time to train soldiers to use bayonets in hand-to-hand combat. It was enough to train them to perform a bayonet charge, and it was a whole lot more important to teach them to deliver effective fire, while receiving it, before the charge.

In modern war, where every one is hiding, bayonets don't even have the ability to break the enemy formation. There are no formations to break. The only thing a bayonet is useful in a modern war, realistically, is to give the holder of the bayoneted rifle more confidence he will survive a close encounter with the enemy. But all evidence indicates that is a fallacious belief; survival in modern war on the battlefield depends on staying down and shooting first, not how well the soldier performed in pugil stick school.

(Edited to fix a couple of typos, sorry, eggnog.)

[ December 24, 2005, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[cassh]

Bigduke; just need to add the following before going off to overindulge.

Staying down and shooting first won't get you very far. Successful armies manoeuvre. This allows you to get into position where your fire or potential fire is greater than youer enemy's (i.e. at platoon level a basic flanking attack whereby a section is able to get in closer to lay down heavy and accurate fire from an unexpected/undesired direction. The object is to get your enemy to surrender, die or retreat (in that order).

Entrenched soldiers taking pop shots might be necessary in the tactical short-term, but it would mean very long static wars dominated by artillery if one did not generate mobility into the equation at some point - WWI ring any bells.

Why do you think the Sturmtruppen were developed?

By reintroducing tactical manoeuvre and offensive capability to the infantry using their own organic arms the German army gave us the model pretty much every modern standing army uses at the tactical level.

I think if one were to follow your model of tactics then because artillery is omnipresent and now more lethal than ever many more men would die unnecessarily in elongated and prolonged struggles that weren't really achieving much other than running up a butcher's bill.

Wars are won by defeating your enemy, not killing every last one of them.

Sitting on your arse going nowhere brings you no nearer to a tactical, operational or strategic decision.

You must have an army whose arms can manoeuvre. An infantry arm that is static is a dead one.

Fire support elements are not there primarily to kill the enemy (although often a by-product), they are there to suppress the enemy, allowing your guys to manoeuvre, get forward and give them a bad day at the office. This is how one wins conventional wars at company and platoon level.

Whilst I commend you instinct for force protection and making sure lives are not wasted fighting with an anachronistic view of warfare, I hope I have explained why the bayonet is still indispensable (especially to someone whose view of warfare is manoeuvrist rather than attritionalist).

</font>

• It gives soldiers confidence</font>
• It gives them belief</font>
• In practical terms it offers them options no other weapon does in the close quarter battle</font>
• And its most important facet - one you also allude to above - is its ability to make the enemy want to surrender or flee.</font>

Additionally I'll shall find my copy of Keegan - if he did say that then his is in error about bayonets coming together - one need only study for the briefest of moments the fighting at La Haye Sainte or Hougomont. He may mean in open country?

Merry Christmas.

(edits - bit too hung-over to write and spell simultaneously!)

[ December 25, 2005, 03:28 AM: Message edited by: cassh ]

[Bigduke6]

Cassh,

Successful armies may maneuver, but soldiers survive by staying low, horizontal if possible, stationary if he can possibley manage it, and behind the very best cover they can as much as they can. It is of course easy enough to talk about "infantry relying on its own weapons" and "seeking out the enemy and destroying him," "avoiding attrition and seeking a decision", and so on. Officers love that stuff, and the effective officers are good at getting their soldiers to go along with that attitude.

But on the individual soldier level, cowardice is a virtue. You want to increase your chances of living, hide. The danger very much is artillery; in most wars of the last two centuries or so artillery has caused between 70 and 80 per cent of the casualties.

You want to decrease you chances of living through a war as a soldier, stand up, expose yourself to the artillery, and do what the officers suggest. It is the officer's career on the line, but then, it is the infantryman's life on the line. Threat of death has a wonderful way of undermininng just about any argument, even on the minds of young men with little experience and less personal stake in life.

As lethality on the battlefield has increased, so have attempts to convince the soldiers its worth their while to stand up and go forward have increased.

Bayonet training is a wonderful way of helping soldiers overcome the human fear of close contact with another human intent on killing him. That fear is instinctual and most likely is embedded in our medullae oblangatae. Can my muscles and sharp objects prevail in a conflict with a similar threat similarly armed? (Be it another Cro-Magnon, a saber-tooth tiger, or a grumpy mammoth) Convince the soldier he is not at an automatic disadvantage if the fight comes to hand-to-hand, and he will probably be likely to allow himelf to get closer to a hand-to-hand situaiton.

That's good, modern war requires young men to go forward and risk their lives, most frequently by getting a few wounded or killed so the remainder can do what it takes to destroy the threat; emphasis on supporting combat arms.

However, that bayonet training is doing nothing to help the individual soldier stay alive, indeed, it is training him in behavior that reduces his chances of survival on a battlefield. Further, the chances of him actually sticking some one or getting stuck by a bayonet are so small, that he would be better off using the weight of the bayonet in extra ammunition or a secondary firearm.

It's all very obvious, really. If you can see the whites of the enemy's eyes, forget pugil stick training. Just shoot.

Stosstruppen by no coincidence whatsoever are proof that's the approach that works. They were trained in inflitration, bypass, and attack by suprise and ambush. Their goal was to get close to the enemy but only to engage him when the enemy was dazed, supressed, looking the other way, or otherwise unable to shoot back. The Stosstruppen were trained to mass fires and if I am not mistaken even received an early version of machine pistol, so as to maximize their firepower once the close-range shooting began.

Stosstruppen were not, as far as I am aware, trained in the "spirit of the bayonet".The idea of foresaking firepower, close coordination with the artillery, and a high level of indivual intitiative, for an opportunity to try and stick an enemy with a knife attached to the end of one's personal fire arm, would hardly have been considered intelligent by most Stosstruppen, I think.

Peace on earth and good will to mankind! I'll say this: if all the world's armies were armed only with bayonets, the world would be a better place.

[Kip Watson]

One obvious point seems to be that (IIRR) artillery more often wounds than kills, but I'm guessing a stab with a bayonet usually kills its victim (especially in Napoleonic times?), so there will be fewer wounded with bayonet wounds, but maybe a larger number of unsurveyed dead.