Bayonets vs other Melee weapons

[loomer]

Bayonet charges have happened twice in the last decade, no more to my knowledge. That doesn't mean bayonet training is without merit, but it's certainly less valuable than even sixty years ago. And there is no plan, to my knowledge, that the US Army plans to abandon all HtH training. Because that would be completely fucking retarded.

[defanatic]

One problem with no ammo - often the best way to ectract the bayonet from a vanquished foe is to loose of a round to help jerk the blade from the body/corpse so as to be ready for the next foe.

I heard this was banned. Won't the war referees come crashing down on your arse (or whatever) if you do this?

[open_sketchbook]

I was under the impression the bayonet became obsolete when the first German wacked a Frenchman in the head with a shovel in WW1. Given the choice between a short unbalanced weapon with a dinky knife that is an empty weapon with a bayonet, and a big entrenching tool with a sharp edge, lots of heft, and a wieghted metal end, I think I'd go with braining the other guy with the glorified spade.

[Phantasee]

Bayonet charge in Iraq: http://news.scotsman.com/iraq/Argylls-f ... 2529212.jp
MC for bayonet charge in Afghanistan: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8252974.stm

[Alyrium Denryle]

I was under the impression the bayonet became obsolete when the first German wacked a Frenchman in the head with a shovel in WW1. Given the choice between a short unbalanced weapon with a dinky knife that is an empty weapon with a bayonet, and a big entrenching tool with a sharp edge, lots of heft, and a wieghted metal end, I think I'd go with braining the other guy with the glorified spade.

That is actually an important point I think. One has to look at why bayonets were developed. They were basically a more efficient way of having a pike and shot formation. Hell, in the early days bayonet armed line infantry did pike drills. They were basically a way to have one's gunners also be able to handle a cavalry charge, and fight in hand to hand combat. This was in an age when there was no longer armor of any kind on a battlefield, and infantry had basically been fighting pike and shot for a while. It did not matter if your soldiers had hideously unbalanced monstrosities pretending to be short spears, because everyone had them.

Unless someone was particularly skilled, it would not be especially difficult for someone with a sword provided even the minimum training I have had to take out someone armed with a bayonet, regardless of type of rifle. The only hitch will be if there is a pike-formation like wall of guys with bayonets(but of course combat is chaotic and the swordsman could trip or something).

[Eleas]

We played around with this in the military. Albeit with a modified version of this rifle and against rubber enclosed metal batons (of similar weight and weild of an officer sabre).

This strikes me as mildly absurd. You had rubber enclosed metal batons with the balance and weight of cutting swords? You have no sword training and yet you imply that training would only increase the utility of the bayoneted rifle - not the sabre which, lest we forget, requires years of training to become effective? Both strike me as wildly improbable statements. A baton is a mass weapon, and thus must by nature be hugely dissimilar in its characteristics to a straight cutting implement, let alone a curved one such as the sabre.

The first few rounds where easily won by the batons. But after that the bayonnett won every time. You simply had no chance with a shorter weapon.
And that was after a few hours of playing around. If we had had real training it would have been even more in favor of the bayonett.

Much to the dislike of our officer.

I have no doubt that the bayoneted rifle is an excellent weapon for what it is: a secondary, stopgap solution based on the barest rudiments needed for close-combat fighting. To claim that your goofing off would prove its superiority as a weapon seems pretty asinine, however. There's a reason the sword was popular for so long, and that reason is not that people were too stupid to construct short spears for themselves as some kind of ultimate weapon.

[Spoonist]

I was under the impression the bayonet became obsolete when the first German wacked a Frenchman in the head with a shovel in WW1.

Whatever gave you that idea? It goes against common historical conceptions of the lessons of trench warfare.
IIRC the bayonets where enhanced and became standard after the lessons in WWI. Instead of having cheap spikes, almost all major countries switched to blades.

You see a bayonet knife is practical for so much else that the troops will carry it regardless. While relying on other objects that the soldiers are not likely to carry during a charge (like a big shovel) is not practical.

Where you might be confusing things is the introduction of a foldable shovel that, when sharpened, quickly became a favorite for some troops in close quarters during WWII. IIRC there are several mentions regarding this in literature regarding stalingrad.

They were basically a more efficient way of having a pike and shot formation. Hell, in the early days bayonet armed line infantry did pike drills. They were basically a way to have one's gunners also be able to handle a cavalry charge, and fight in hand to hand combat.

Agreed. It was a very effecient way of not having to use halberds to protect a musket/rifle unit. (Wasn't it the swedes who still had halberds in the great northern war?)
I have not read about bayonets being used to counter cavalry though. Is that during Napoleon? If you have a source that would be most interesting.

Unless someone was particularly skilled, it would not be especially difficult for someone with a sword provided even the minimum training I have had to take out someone armed with a bayonet, regardless of type of rifle.

Which era and what equipment are you talking about here, because my experience both goofing around in the military and as a re-enactor would go counter to this. Regardless if it is formation or single combat.
Note that I'm not saying you are wrong, instead I'm interested in the basis for your point of view.

We played around with this in the military.

This strikes me as mildly absurd.

Agreed, it was intended as an anecdote. Not hard evidence.

You have no sword training and yet you imply that training would only increase the utility of the bayoneted rifle - not the sabre which, lest we forget, requires years of training to become effective?

Back then I had no sword training, agreed. We where just goofing around. Today I would set it up differently if indeed we wanted to test this.
But I think that I would still agree with the sentiment based on mock battles during re-enactment. Unless you give the swordsman a shield of sorts the longer reach of the AK with a bayonet should win the day. But I have not any recent hard experience with this so I could be wrong.

A baton is a mass weapon, and thus must by nature be hugely dissimilar in its characteristics to a straight cutting implement, let alone a curved one such as the sabre.

Again agreed. I think there are much better objects to use to replace a sabre in mock battle. But to us and the officer back then, the length, feel and weight of those batons where similar to the officer's dress uniform sabre. I have not given it much thought after that and would probably do a different assessment today.

To claim that your goofing off would prove its superiority as a weapon seems pretty asinine, however.

Not the way I intended it. Hope that the clarification above sorts this out.

There's a reason the sword was popular for so long, and that reason is not that people were too stupid to construct short spears for themselves as some kind of ultimate weapon.

The popularity bit could be said for the spear/lance as well so I would be interested in your reasoning here as well. There are several reasons why swords where and are popular. Not all of them because of their military prowess and sometimes it switched between being a primary and a secondary weapon. Also the tech advancement of the sword and its deratives make it really hard to compare over the ages. Myself, if I had the choice then I'd go with either as long as I get a shield or even better pack both as they complement each other.
So if you could be a little more explicit I'd appreciate it.

[Stuart Mackey]

Unless someone was particularly skilled, it would not be especially difficult for someone with a sword provided even the minimum training I have had to take out someone armed with a bayonet, regardless of type of rifle. .

Really? and you have tested this theory against a trained infantryman?

[Marcus Aurelius]

I was under the impression the bayonet became obsolete when the first German wacked a Frenchman in the head with a shovel in WW1.

Whatever gave you that idea? It goes against common historical conceptions of the lessons of trench warfare.
IIRC the bayonets where enhanced and became standard after the lessons in WWI. Instead of having cheap spikes, almost all major countries switched to blades.

You see a bayonet knife is practical for so much else that the troops will carry it regardless. While relying on other objects that the soldiers are not likely to carry during a charge (like a big shovel) is not practical.

Where you might be confusing things is the introduction of a foldable shovel that, when sharpened, quickly became a favorite for some troops in close quarters during WWII. IIRC there are several mentions regarding this in literature regarding stalingrad.

Sharpened shovel as weapons certainly date back to WW1. They had some significant advantages over the rifle and bayonet combo, most notably they were shorter, which was often a good thing in the trenches, and they could be used for hacking much in the same way as an axe, which would have been an advantage to strong men in particular. They were not big shovels rather than military entrenching tools, although the folding type was not yet invented. I have never seen a good study on how common they were but the modern consensus seems to be that they were not very common after all; most soldiers still preferred the rifle and bayonet, since it could shoot, whereas the sharpened shovel was a pure melee weapon.

The re-newed emphasis on bayonets, which before WW1 were already considered obsolescent, was one of the wrong lessons learned from that war. The correct lesson was the effective use of the MP18 submachine gun by the German stormtroopers in spring 1918.

[Spoonist]

The re-newed emphasis on bayonets, which before WW1 were already considered obsolescent, was one of the wrong lessons learned from that war. The correct lesson was the effective use of the MP18 submachine gun by the German stormtroopers in spring 1918.

Completely agreed and a good clarification. Bayonets where not popular during WWII, but rather so in military circles between the wars.

[Stuart Mackey]

The re-newed emphasis on bayonets, which before WW1 were already considered obsolescent, was one of the wrong lessons learned from that war. The correct lesson was the effective use of the MP18 submachine gun by the German stormtroopers in spring 1918.

Completely agreed and a good clarification. Bayonets where not popular during WWII, but rather so in military circles between the wars.

Depends on the Army NZ liked them well enough, and used them often enough with good effect.
They don't like it up-em!

[Stuart Mackey]

The correct lesson was the effective use of the MP18 submachine gun by the German stormtroopers in spring 1918.

Actually, it was fire, maneuverer, communications, command, control, logistics and the full mobilization of the nation state for war..

[Spoonist]

The correct lesson was the effective use of the MP18 submachine gun by the German stormtroopers in spring 1918.

Actually, it was fire, maneuverer, communications, command, control, logistics and the full mobilization of the nation state for war..

None of which is relevant in the context of trench warfare and you forgot; massproduction, propaganda, decentralization and combined arms.

[Stuart Mackey]

The correct lesson was the effective use of the MP18 submachine gun by the German stormtroopers in spring 1918.

Actually, it was fire, maneuverer, communications, command, control, logistics and the full mobilization of the nation state for war..

None of which is relevant in the context of trench warfare and you forgot;snip

What the fuck do you think broke the stalemate ffs? It wasnt submachine guns Armed forces work on the basis of systems, not wonder weapons.

[Spoonist]

What the fuck do you think broke the stalemate ffs?

Overreacting much?
The topic was talking about weapons used in meele combat, moving to lessons from trench warfare in that context. Talking about big picture stuff would be a clear derail.

[Eleas]

.
But I think that I would still agree with the sentiment based on mock battles during re-enactment. Unless you give the swordsman a shield of sorts the longer reach of the AK with a bayonet should win the day. But I have not any recent hard experience with this so I could be wrong.

I would be less certain. For one, the bayoneted longarm will have a far poorer balance, simply due to the concessions necessary to make it an optimal rifle. It will be harder to grasp as effectively as a sword, and will be far less nimble. Compared with a hand-and-a-half sword, it's not even got a reach advantage worth speaking of, nor does the ability to butt-stroke bring anything new to the table (these techniques are included in among others the Tallhoffer manual, as well). The bayoneted rifle will have mass on its side, and that is all.

Again agreed. I think there are much better objects to use to replace a sabre in mock battle. But to us and the officer back then, the length, feel and weight of those batons where similar to the officer's dress uniform sabre. I have not given it much thought after that and would probably do a different assessment today.

It's hard to just jump into one-off testing when a weapon requires so much skill to use properly, in all honesty.

The popularity bit could be said for the spear/lance as well so I would be interested in your reasoning here as well. There are several reasons why swords where and are popular. Not all of them because of their military prowess and sometimes it switched between being a primary and a secondary weapon. Also the tech advancement of the sword and its deratives make it really hard to compare over the ages. Myself, if I had the choice then I'd go with either as long as I get a shield or even better pack both as they complement each other.
So if you could be a little more explicit I'd appreciate it.

Of course. I firmly agree with your reasoning here. As for my own... well. I believe one reason why you would spend so much material, industrial effort and decades of training on the sword as opposed to other weaponry is that the sword was the best compromise available at the time. You could rarely go wrong with the sword; it was a good choice in most areas, and a superior choice in several. Paired with a shield, it was even more effective. You could defeat armour with it, you could cause your enemy to bleed out, and you could both strike and defend in ways that would be harder with an axe, a halberd or a club, and you could fight at close range or at some distance. All of these things could be done better by more specialized gear, but the sword would do adequately for most such situations.

I'm starting to wonder, though, if the sword might actually be less effective than the bayoneted rifle in exactly the situation where the bayoneted rifle comes into play. The possibility of there being someone nearby with bullets still left in his gun would be a clear deterrent to the full and effective use of swordsmanship, I should think.

[Stuart Mackey]

What the fuck do you think broke the stalemate ffs?

Overreacting much?
The topic was talking about weapons used in meele combat, moving to lessons from trench warfare in that context. Talking about big picture stuff would be a clear derail.

Hey, I wasnt the one who made a stupid error, the lessons of trench warfare was that it could be broken by correct use of the aforementioned reasons, QED.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

Something to think on
Spear vs Longsword

[Spoonist]

I would be less certain. For one, the bayoneted longarm will have a far poorer balance, simply due to the concessions necessary to make it an optimal rifle. It will be harder to grasp as effectively as a sword, and will be far less nimble.

Balance wasn't that much of an issue once you learned where to hold IIRC. But it was heavy, so if the fight would drag out you'd get tired.

Compared with a hand-and-a-half sword, it's not even got a reach advantage worth speaking of, nor does the ability to butt-stroke bring anything new to the table (these techniques are included in among others the Tallhoffer manual, as well).

Aha, you assume a "bastard" sword. Not usually seen as contemporary with bayonets. So that has little to do with my experience, which explains our difference of opinion.
What where you trying to say with the Tallhoffer reference, it didn't come across that clear?

It's hard to just jump into one-off testing when a weapon requires so much skill to use properly, in all honesty.

Not really since the OP sets the parameters quite nicely. Neither soldier would have had years of training, instead testing it with unexperienced new recruits given a few weeks training would set up the test nicely.

All of these things could be done better by more specialized gear, but the sword would do adequately for most such situations.

Which is the crux. The sword is usually not the best bang for the bucks. Having something like a gladius, seax or spatha when standing shield to shield would be really handy. But if I could for the same production value produce a handful of axes or a dozen spears then it all comes down to which is my bottleneck, the number of men or how much I can spend on arms. So when we move from "elite" to "regular" armies, at the end of the of the medieval era swords and their deratives become a secondary weapon.

I'm starting to wonder, though, if the sword might actually be less effective than the bayoneted rifle in exactly the situation where the bayoneted rifle comes into play. The possibility of there being someone nearby with bullets still left in his gun would be a clear deterrent to the full and effective use of swordsmanship, I should think.

Hence the reference to Indy tactics a couple of pages ago.
But the OP stated no ammo, otherwise an officer with a sabre could have a revolver.

[Spoonist]

-Stuart Mackey
Hey hey, no need to get upset there stu, I just don't get your motivation. Lets see the quote chain shall we?

IIRC the bayonets where enhanced and became standard after the lessons in WWI.

Me starting the chain.

The re-newed emphasis on bayonets, which before WW1 were already considered obsolescent, was one of the wrong lessons learned from that war. The correct lesson was the effective use of the MP18 submachine gun by the German stormtroopers in spring 1918.

MA clarifying stuff with my statement and adding that a better lesson than bayonets would be the use of SMGs.

Actually, it was fire, maneuverer, communications, command, control, logistics and the full mobilization of the nation state for war..

You derailing stuff. Since MA fully quoted me it was clear that he replied within the context of my post. I have full faith in that MA could burp up a long list as well if that was the issue here.

None of which is relevant in the context of trench warfare and you forgot; massproduction, propaganda, decentralization and combined arms.

Me making a pitiful attempt at humor (notice the smilie) to show that burping a list could be endless without a context by extrapolating further.

What the fuck do you think broke the stalemate ffs? It wasnt submachine guns Armed forces work on the basis of systems, not wonder weapons.

You getting your undies in disarray for some reason.

So how do you go from the above to this:

Hey, I wasnt the one who made a stupid error, the lessons of trench warfare was that it could be broken by correct use of the aforementioned reasons, QED.

What stupid error? In which context?
To me you have left the topic and started talking about something completely different. If that is what you want, please go ahead, but if so make your motivation clear or add a simple [tangent] or similar for clarification.

[Eleas]

Stuart:

Of course a proper spear is absolutely deadly in the right hands. Where did I dispute that? I pointed toward the spear being what it is, namely, a spear. A long, rigid object that is less useful at close range, quite excellent at medium to long range, not very good for penetration purposes against armour, and generally requires two arms to wield.

The spear has great qualities. So does the sword. But there must be some reason why swords were preferred for so long, throughout virtually every martial culture possessing sufficient metallurgical technology (even when they were all but isolated from one another), as the iconic weapon*. And I refuse to believe that reason is because every person back then was an imbecile (which I know you didn't say, but the sentiment does exist).

* Yes, I know of many other weapons being popular as all hell. That's not the issue. The issue is the sword being the archetypal weapon, which it must have become for a reason.

Balance wasn't that much of an issue once you learned where to hold IIRC. But it was heavy, so if the fight would drag out you'd get tired.

Balance affects everything; how fast you are at recovery, your precision, and yes, how tired you'll be.

Aha, you assume a "bastard" sword. Not usually seen as contemporary with bayonets. So that has little to do with my experience, which explains our difference of opinion.

Indeed. To my understanding, the sabre is derived from a design intended to use from horseback; it's not, as far as I know, optimized for footmen. It's an officer's weapon, after all.

What where you trying to say with the Tallhoffer reference, it didn't come across that clear?

The Tallhoffer Fechtbuch, which is one of the oldest surviving manuals of European swordsmanship, teaches attacks not just with the blade or tip, but the pommel and guard as well (and several unarmed techniques, grappling for instance). This is relevant because the bayoneted rifle, properly used, allows you to flick away the opponent's blade and follow up with a step-in and butt-stroke. The point was that this technique was seen with swords as well, so the two weapons are equal in that sense.

Not really since the OP sets the parameters quite nicely. Neither soldier would have had years of training, instead testing it with unexperienced new recruits given a few weeks training would set up the test nicely.

Then a spear is probably your best bet. A proper spear, not a bayonet. But if you have a bayoneted rifle, the difference for relative recruits isn't great enough for it to be worth it. Most of all, because carrying an extra spear is a bloody pain.

Which is the crux. The sword is usually not the best bang for the bucks. Having something like a gladius, seax or spatha when standing shield to shield would be really handy. But if I could for the same production value produce a handful of axes or a dozen spears then it all comes down to which is my bottleneck, the number of men or how much I can spend on arms. So when we move from "elite" to "regular" armies, at the end of the of the medieval era swords and their deratives become a secondary weapon.

While I agree that the declining usefulness of the sword was probably due to such factors, I can't help but feel that a shield wall armed with gladius would be a tough nut to crack in any sense of the word, and far more so if the enemy were armed with spears (which would allow the shield wall to outlast them, surge over them, and kill them at short range).

I'm starting to wonder, though, if the sword might actually be less effective than the bayoneted rifle in exactly the situation where the bayoneted rifle comes into play. The possibility of there being someone nearby with bullets still left in his gun would be a clear deterrent to the full and effective use of swordsmanship, I should think.

Hence the reference to Indy tactics a couple of pages ago.
But the OP stated no ammo, otherwise an officer with a sabre could have a revolver.

You're not following me. I'm saying that a swordsman's tactics would be dependent on what would keep him alive. If there was a reasonable chance that someone would be out there with bullets left, his options would be more limited than usual - he would, for instance, be advised to close relatively quickly, so any enemy would check their fire for fear of hitting their own.

[Spoonist]

not very good for penetration purposes against armour

How do you mean? Depending on the shape of the head spears have great penetration. The kinetic energy at the tip is quite high.

But there must be some reason why swords were preferred for so long, throughout virtually every martial culture possessing sufficient metallurgical technology (even when they were all but isolated from one another), as the iconic weapon*.

Even if what you are implying would be true, then why would that have any relevance towards sword vs bayonet? You should make an argument based on the tidbit, not just present the tidbit itself.
So for the point of argument lets assume that everyone would want to have swords because they are more practical to carry around. So in suprise attacks, skirmishes, cutting into peasant levies, etc which would constitue the major use of your weapon it would be much better than a cumbersome spear, which is only better in pitched battle.
The comparison would be british WWI officers running around with revolvers instead of the better rifle that the infantry that he leads has. If someone in a distant future would look back on that and claim that because the officer had a revolver it must be superior to a rifle, then they are clearly missing the context that it is being used in.
Or why the traditional image of the roman officer is that with the breast plate while the troops would have the segmentata which seems to give more protection.
So please explain the context that you see that make the sword superior not just that it is being used.

Balance affects everything; how fast you are at recovery, your precision, and yes, how tired you'll be.

While I somewhat agree with your sentiment in general terms, in this specific instance it sounds like you are of the generation that didn't do "lumpen" (military service), have you weilded an AK4 with bayonet?

Indeed. To my understanding, the sabre is derived from a design intended to use from horseback; it's not, as far as I know, optimized for footmen. It's an officer's weapon, after all.

Nah, its more probably derived from the saif and similar "eastern" weapons. A curved blade is more effecient against unarmored opponents.

The Tallhoffer Fechtbuch, which is one of the oldest surviving manuals of European swordsmanship, teaches attacks not just with the blade or tip, but the pommel and guard as well (and several unarmed techniques, grappling for instance). This is relevant because the bayoneted rifle, properly used, allows you to flick away the opponent's blade and follow up with a step-in and butt-stroke. The point was that this technique was seen with swords as well, so the two weapons are equal in that sense.

Ah, then you where saying what I thought you where saying. They are not equal at all, using the but of the sword like that is useless compared to a but attack of a rifle. Have you tried the techinque? Its a show-off/suprise technique not to be used in this context, similar to most disarming techniques which are used to humiliate an inferior opponent. I mean IMHO it would be more effecient (but unchivalrous) to step in and simply use the elbow than the hilt of the sword like that.

Not really since the OP sets the parameters quite nicely. Neither soldier would have had years of training, instead testing it with unexperienced new recruits given a few weeks training would set up the test nicely.

Then a spear is probably your best bet. A proper spear, not a bayonet. But if you have a bayoneted rifle, the difference for relative recruits isn't great enough for it to be worth it. Most of all, because carrying an extra spear is a bloody pain.

Ah, progress, but not there yet.
So why the spear but not the bayonet, please elaborate.

I can't help but feel that a shield wall armed with gladius would be a tough nut to crack in any sense of the word, and far more so if the enemy were armed with spears

But roman, frankish, norse, etc shieldwalls all used spears/javelins/lances as well, with a secondary close combat weapon like the gladius/battleaxe/spatha for when the shield-to-shield push started.
Why do you think that is?

You're not following me. I'm saying that a swordsman's tactics would be dependent on what would keep him alive. If there was a reasonable chance that someone would be out there with bullets left, his options would be more limited than usual - he would, for instance, be advised to close relatively quickly, so any enemy would check their fire for fear of hitting their own.

Oh, I followed you fine, I just ignored the possibility of a bastard sword vs bayonet fight and went with what would actually be a matchup from the same era.

[[R_H]]

Did the wide(r)spread issue of pistols amongst the enlisted also result in a decline in the popularity of the bajonet?

[Spoonist]

Did the wide(r)spread issue of pistols amongst the enlisted also result in a decline in the popularity of the bajonet?

If the bayonet can be also be used as a knife then they compliment each other so in my opinion it shouldn't.

[d'Artagnan]

I have not read about bayonets being used to counter cavalry though. Is that during Napoleon? If you have a source that would be most interesting.

As I have some experience with this (War of 1812 reenacting), I think I can speak to this.

During the main era of flintlock armed infantry warfare (probably from around 1730 to around 1840-I'm rather hazy on the dates, I'm afraid. Feel free to correct me), the main tactic the infantry against cavalry was to 'form square.' This was accomplished by folding a battalion (although larger units could be used) into a four ranked, roughly square shaped formation with a hollow center.

This is described in Smyth's Regulations for the Field Exercise, Manoeuveres, and Conduct of the Infantry of the United States, which I downloaded from my reenacting unit's site here (first link, at the top of the page). Fair warning, it's a 220 page pdf.

From page 147:

Should the enemy charge in order to break the square, the outward platoons and divisions keep up
the fire until they are very near, then charge bayonets by bringing the right knee and the butt of the
musket to the ground; the inward platoons and divisions make ready, and fire, front rank standing,
aiming well at the dragoons, and charge bayonet, standing firm.

The final volley by the inward ranks had to be delivered within a very narrow band of ranges. If it was fired when the cavalry were too far out, it risked being wasted, due to the generally awful accuracy of smooth bore muskets. Too close, and it risked killing a charging horse, who would cease to be afraid of the wall of bayonets and bowl headlong into the formation and open a gap for the other cavalrymen to exploit.