Use of the Bayonet

[TrangleC]

Its reason why the old style dudes dressed in bright colors and wore tall hats.

Well... as far as i know the main reason for that was that the commanders were able to see, recognize, distinguish and command their troops on the battlefield.

How you would like to die is up to you, its how you want to kill thats the question, if you had a choice, would rather be in a gun fight or a knife fight?
Call me a coward but i would like to be out of range of the death gurgle, I would'ent like to remember that.
(As to how I would like to die if I was in a battle, the snipiers bullet would'ent be to bad, or being blown to atoms, would you even feel it?
Being hacked to death in the mud, not so cool when you think about it.)

There are more important things than how much you feel when you die, i'd say. I'd rather die a gruesome death in close combat if i had the chance to defend myself and win this fight instead of being a helpless victim of a air strike or sniper, even if that might mean to die with less or without pain.

It has not much to do with being a coward or heroic, but it has something to do with dignity. I'd rather die as a warrior than as somebody's prey or a piece of cattle, if you know what i mean.

And maybe it wouldn't be so bad if every soldier would have to deal with the images and sounds of his enemy dieing instead of just pushing a button like in a computer game.

 

[merocaine]

And maybe it wouldn't be so bad if every soldier would have to deal with the images and sounds of his enemy dieing instead of just pushing a button like in a computer game

maybe if the pols who sent them off to die in the first place were left with the memorys, they might think twice in the future.

Its hard to strangle someone to death, a little easier to brain them with a rock, even easier to shot them from 100 yards, and to bomb them takes even less. That was my point people avoid hand to hand because its incredobly stressful, the byonet is effective because it takes a hugh amount of moral courage to use effectively, and that says a lot to the person recieving the charge. Most normal people would rather spend all day taking low risk pot shots at each other than charge into hand to hand combat.

 

[eckherl]

very true, but it cuts both ways, I remembers reading an interview of a british soldier who suffered nightmares every night, in them he dreams about an argantine he bayoneted to death, the guy was crying for his mother as he was killed. The soldier lived that moment night after night, the blade is so terrible a weapon, because it brings killing face to face, theres a very good reason why most combat is conducted at a distance. Only a phycopath could really feel comfortable killing with the blade. Now with a bomb from a plane there a certain amount of deniablity involved, your hitting the target, not stabbing a guy, whos screaming for his mother, to death...

It can be quite heart breaking when someone is on the death side of things or in shock for that matter. How you handle yourself in combat often will depend on how much training you have gone thru and how much unit cohesion and disipline exists. Combat will scare the crap out of you and you would be quite surprised what adreniline will do to your body when you are scared. Good training can and will get you thru it.

 

[riksavage]

The use of the bayonet in close-quarter combat does have its advantages in confined spaces, particularly when engaged in CQB operations in the likes of Afghanistan and Iraq. Most of the insurgents are using variants of the AK-47, which I doubt (unless fitted with the folding spike) are provided with a detachable bayonet. The bayonet in confined spaces, handled with confidence brings a distinct advantage to the game over an above an opponent trying to smack you with his rifle-butt.

The classic 3-Para Falklands’ tale is ‘Green Eyed Boys’, which goes into great detail about close quarter combat. One character who was subsequently killed in the fighting carried a ball-hammer and practiced, along with his section, smashing melons on the journey down south in simulated trench raids!

If you ever get the chance to visit the Imperial War Museum in London you will see an excellent WWI display of trench fighting tools, including bayonets from both the Allied and Triple Alliance powers. The extensive collection will send a shiver down your spine!

 

[Dave H]

Merocaine,

Im not sure that the ' technological advances' such as the Longbow removed the need for close quarter butchery. The Longbow arrow has been subject to interesting studies about its penetration, particularly at Agincourt. Over range the arrow would not penetrate armour but would injure horses or unprotected flesh and would cause men laden down with armour to struggle helplessly in the mud.

When the English bowmen fired their salvos they then rushed forward with knives, clubs and axes and finished off the un-horsed enemy, poking knives into eye slits, slitting throats and generally slashing about. An expert on modern day crown control has applied a computer model to agincourt where the terrain forced men to funnel and the boggy ground impended movement of armour clad troops, the longbows then added to the confusion and crush resulting in victory.

Even in the age of musket, armies didnt figt to our own standards, wounded men were finished off.

As for the psycological effects, it depends on the individual and the culture they serve in. WW2 soldiers were taught to kill sentries with knives etc, perhas no studies were carried out and maybe lots suffered PTSD.

An interesting fact about the Falklands is that more servicemen have committed suicide since than actually died in combat, possibly becuase it was a bloody close in war.

 

[merocaine]

It can be quite heart breaking when someone is on the death side of things or in shock for that matter. How you handle yourself in combat often will depend on how much training you have gone thru and how much unit cohesion and disipline exists. Combat will scare the crap out of you and you would be quite surprised what adreniline will do to your body when you are scared. Good training can and will get you thru it.

Yeah I read a discription of what being under fire will do to a guy, your body can quite literally blow its ballast, kind of like a race horse at the starting line.
Your body focuses all its energy on one thing, survival, everything else is suspened for that moment, everything that wastes your resources is expelled...not a pretty sight!

 

[merocaine]

Even in the age of musket, armies didnt figt to our own standards, wounded men were finished off.

As for the psycological effects, it depends on the individual and the culture they serve in. WW2 soldiers were taught to kill sentries with knives etc, perhas no studies were carried out and maybe lots suffered PTSD.

An interesting fact about the Falklands is that more servicemen have committed suicide since than actually died in combat, possibly becuase it was a bloody close in war.

In studies conducted during and after WW2, it was discovered that an overwhelming percentage of men would not kill, even if it ment them dieing themselfs. It was found that in the normal soldier there was a pronounced avertion to killing. The majorty of killing was done from the air, arti, and crew serviced weapons like machine guns and tanks. This did not mean the none killers were cowards, in most cases they would stay on the battlefield tending the wounded, carrying ammo, loading weapons ect.

The top brass werent to happy about this state of affairs and set about changing training methods to increase the number of shooters. The method they used was called opperant conditioning.
The results were startling
15% in WW2
50% in Korea
87% in Vietnam
(I imagine the Falklands had firing rate similer to the vietnam war)

There was also a corosponding rise in the number PTS sufferers, killing (and being prepared to kill) exacts a cost on a soldier. It is a cost that western armys have been slow to understand, but I believe this is changing.

there a great book on the subject written by a former US army Lt Col Dave
Grossman

'On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society'

 

[Whiskyjack]

there a great book on the subject written by a former US army Lt Col Dave Grossman

'On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society'

Good book, also heard the Author speak, some interesting stuff there. I especially liked the Civil War story where (I forget the percentage) lots of muskets were picked up from the battlefield with multiple loadings because the soldiers would not fire!

 

[keyersoze]

Good book, also heard the Author speak, some interesting stuff there. I especially liked the Civil War story where (I forget the percentage) lots of muskets were picked up from the battlefield with multiple loadings because the soldiers would not fire!

Another good book is "The Scars of war" by Hugh Mcmanners. It is from a British perspective and has a lot of detail on the Falklands and GF 1 (I believe the author served in both of those conflicts)

 

[merocaine]

Good book, also heard the Author speak, some interesting stuff there. I especially liked the Civil War story where (I forget the percentage) lots of muskets were picked up from the battlefield with multiple loadings because the soldiers would not fire!

Hey cool, was that in the states? I heard that civil war story too, regiments would volley fire, at distances of 50 meters, for hours before retiring. If you think about it, at that range it should have been all over in a few minutes!
The Pussians did a study in the 1780's to find out what the hit ratio would be for a battalion volley firing at ranges of 100 feet. They set up a target (a white sheet, man high, 30 feet long) and fired a volley, bingo, I think it was about 70% who hit the target. But battles could last for days, two sides blazing away at each other, I guess it must have been the cannons that did most of the damage back then.
I guess the good thing is that we're not natural killers, for most normal soldiers
it takes a lot of conditioning to do what they have to do.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Hey cool, was that in the states? I heard that civil war story too, regiments would volley fire, at distances of 50 meters, for hours before retiring. If you think about it, at that range it should have been all over in a few minutes!
The Pussians did a study in the 1780's to find out what the hit ratio would be for a battalion volley firing at ranges of 100 feet. They set up a target (a white sheet, man high, 30 feet long) and fired a volley, bingo, I think it was about 70% who hit the target. But battles could last for days, two sides blazing away at each other, I guess it must have been the cannons that did most of the damage back then.
I guess the good thing is that we're not natural killers, for most normal soldiers
it takes a lot of conditioning to do what they have to do.

No it was a conference here in NZ about 8-9 years again now (god I AM getting old!!), even got my copy of the book autographed.

His comments on computer games and school shootings are what has stuck with me.

 

[vedang]

plzz don scare me..

All "killing" and "dying" stuff scares me..Better use a missile or an Arty shell for that..
Quick,Fast,Effective..1 SHOT KILL!!!

 

[Waylander]

You should be scary about being on the receiving end of an artillery strike.

 

[merocaine]

Sorry to be such a downer guys, but so much stuff you hear those days seems to denial of the reality of what war is really about,

colatoral damage, reducing the target, interdicting fire, presion bombing, area denial ect, all useful terms, but they do serve as a gloss as to what the real human cost is,

Quick,Fast,Effective..1 SHOT KILL!!!

case in point, are we talking about turning teenagers into hamburger, or head ache tablets!

 

[rickshaw]

One should always remember that as the Marxists at the end of WWI pointed out, a Rifle with a Bayonet has a worker at each end. The use of the Bayonet should neither be underestimated nor should it be over-amplified. The fixing of Bayonets is as someone I once read suggested, a "wonderful fixer of the mind" as well, making it clear to the user the seriousness of the situation. Seeing Bayonets approaching, I don't doubt does the same in the intended target's mind. Its effect therefore could be suggested to be far more moral than material.

 

[Raven22]

Given those statistics, the australians good performance in ww2 might have been due to the men being regular killers of animals in the rural places they lived, desensitized them to killing humans.

What utter nonsense.

 

[ADMk2]

Given those statistics, the australians good performance in ww2 might have been due to the men being regular killers of animals in the rural places they lived, desensitized them to killing humans.

Or maybe it could have been excellent and thorough training undertaken within a solid, proven organisational structure, with a strong supporting doctrine and the type of operational focus, you'd expect from a professional military force?

 

[My2Cents]

Given those statistics, the australians good performance in ww2 might have been due to the men being regular killers of animals in the rural places they lived, desensitized them to killing humans.

Just meant that a higher percentage of the recruits were already good shots before they entered training, not that they were more prepared psychologically. There is a world of difference between killing animals and killing another human being.

Not to mention that the human shoots back.

 

[t68]

Given those statistics, the australians good performance in ww2 might have been due to the men being regular killers of animals in the rural places they lived, desensitized them to killing humans.

What do you think those in others countries eat, I’m sure they to what have slaughter man working in abattoirs just like Australia.

 

[Bonza]

Given those statistics, the australians good performance in ww2 might have been due to the men being regular killers of animals in the rural places they lived, desensitized them to killing humans.

Really? Jeez mate... you'd really do well to think about whether something is a genuine observation or a complete assumption on your behalf before you post again...