Now that's a bayonet

[hpbear101]

322315
Finally got a bayonet for the 1866 Chassepot needle rifle. My grandson is pretty excited to go shoot a few rounds with bayonet attached.

[Gewehr-Guy]

They are indeed an impressive blade! I have one for my Gras rifle, but have never shot it with bayonet attached. Looking forward too a range report, as a Chassepot is on my want list!

[Sasquatch-1]

I had one of these sword bayonets and passed it on to my eldest son who is a bit of a Civil War nut. Mine had a large whole for the barrel and if I remember correctly, it was stamped 1860 with the letters RI. I haven't seen in many years, and I am going by faulty memory on the date. I was never sure what rifle it went with.

[MOC031]

Finally got a bayonet for the 1866 Chassepot needle rifle. My grandson is pretty excited to go shoot a few rounds with bayonet attached.

I know of - but know little - of the Chassepot rifle. My 30 years in the military mind makes me curious as to what the military/arsenals of the day used as their logic for deciding a bayonet that long would be the perfect length for the troops to gut the enemy with?

Perhaps they had so little faith in the reliability of the needle rifle they thought they'd ensure the troops would at least have a sword (or spear) to stay in the fight?

A little off topic, but over the years I've regularly been amused at enthusiastic reloaders who own Lee Enfield No. 4 Mk1 rifles attempting to duplicate Mk VII ballistics in a search for a reload that would match the sight settings on their rifles over the course.

Not only is there no bullet out there on the market that exactly matches the G7/G1 BC of the Mk VIII, but the military pams for the rifle specify that that the rifle is to be sighted in (by way of the proper height front sight element choice for elevation adjustments during zeroing) WITH THE BAYONET FIXED.

I went down the road of attempting to do the same thing duplicating the Mk VII over two decades ago (already knowing there was no commercial bullet available to match the ball round). It took a while before I dove into the military pams and discovered that there was another factor at play: zeroing was to be done with the bayonet attached.

I tossed the project to just find the tightest grouping reload in my rifle, and then zero the rifle at 400 yards (fine tuning elevation by filing down a too-tall front sight) and accept the differences that made on the rear sight settings at other ranges, and never mind the bayonet.

I do know from that personal experience with my rifle and a couple of other No. 4 Mk 1 rifles that hanging a bayonet off the muzzle of the rifle makes a big, big difference in point of impact.

Can't recall what it did to the grouping, because I didn't see a future in fixing bayonets on the berm before shooting in a match when my relay was called...

I don't suppose there's a military pam available somewhere for the troops issued the Chassepot rifle. But it would be fun to see what happens to POI as well as grouping with and without the bayonet attached.

[challenger_i]

In the days of lining up and potting away at One's adversary, bayonets were more of a psychological weapon than a tactical device. The larger, uglier the blade, the more intimidating to One's foe.

[georgerkahn]

In the days of lining up and potting away at One's adversary, bayonets were more of a psychological weapon than a tactical device. The larger, uglier the blade, the more intimidating to One's foe.

A history prof at college where I worked voiced that in the real old days of combat, e.g., the very early ones with firearms, many could have been considered "single shot weapons" for a good many reasons -- damp powder, technique, ability of soldier to load, and often timing: enemy getting real close -- so the bayonet then was an actual fighting device, where soldiers endeavored to impale or slice their opponent. He then went on to say the the modern bayonet's primary purpose was to save ammunition -- with its suggested use to terminate the downed opponent with a slash or stab. This info comes from his voice -- no listed references ;) -- but it did and does kind of make sense to me... To put a downed opponent out of their misery, not that long a blade was required.
geo

[challenger_i]

The trick is to "Insert blade, twist 90 degrees and remove". Some of the recruits I dealt with thought the "twist" was to make it easier to remove. Nope, says the Old Grunt instructor: "Hurts way more when you twist it!"

[jaysouth]

I have fond memories of the good old days when rifles had stout wooden stocks, metal buttplates and bayonttes. Vertical butt stroke and diagonal slash with the blade.

[challenger_i]

Yah. "Butt Stroke to the Head" had lots more panache with a Garand than an M16 ever dreamed of!

[GregLaROCHE]

When I saw the title I immediately thought of my Chassepot and it’s massive bayonet. One of the reasons bayonets got longer was to compensate for guns getting shorter. A soldier needed enough reach to out the enemy mounted on a horse.

How are you planning to load for your Chassepot or has it been converted to a Gras?

[hpbear101]

When I saw the title I immediately thought of my Chassepot and it’s massive bayonet. One of the reasons bayonets got longer was to compensate for guns getting shorter. A soldier needed enough reach to out the enemy mounted on a horse.

How are you planning to load for your Chassepot or has it been converted to a Gras?

Mine is still in the original Chassepot needle configuration. Replaced the rubber obturator with one made from a hardware store rubber stopper and formed on a lathe. It works great and has a couple hundred rounds on it. I made the needle from a 1.5mm TIG electrode it should last forever.
322350

I have two methods of loading.

1: is the paper tube formed on a mandrel. This one uses a Lee 45-405HB bullet
322348

2: the quick and easy is a cartridge made from a plastic straw and loaded with a heeled bullet, or the traditional correct Chassepot tapered bullet (shown in pic). Makes it very easy to keep OAL correct for the needle. It works pretty well occasionally will have to brush the chamber if the cartridge fails to leave the barrel. I just loaded a few more in the straw with BP, topped with cornmeal and no wads.
322349

I do plan on making a more period correct cartridge at some time it's just a time consuming process.

The biggest issue is the musket caps. I tried a lot of rounds using CCI caps and had constant misfires (very frustrating). CCI caps are a copper cup with priming mixture. The needle just passes right through the cup and doesn't reliably fire the cap. RWS caps are made of brass so it is a much harder cup and the needle will crush the priming mixture and fire reliably. Also RWS caps have slits along the side of the cap which I suspect allows the priming mixture (I also fill the musket cap with some 4F) to reach the main charge.

[Adam Helmer]

322315
Finally got a bayonet for the 1866 Chassepot needle rifle. My grandson is pretty excited to go shoot a few rounds with bayonet attached.

hpbear101,

Very interesting post. I hold an M.A. in history and collect military arms and bayonets. The bayonet was once a very useful implement: It ensured a single-shot equipped soldier had something of a weapon if his arm failed to fire or if he did not have enough time to reload. It also effectively deterred cavalry from trying to overrun a square of infantry.

I do not have a Chassepot, but do have an 1873 Gras and bayonet of similar length. During my research for my master's thesis, I read many Civil War medical records on wounds and was surprised to learn only about 2% of treaded wounds at 1863 Gettysburg were from bayonets. Another medical report said that 2% of "treated wounds" were because bayonet wounds were nearly always fatal.

Currently, the military issues bayonets almost like a Swiss Army Knife Tool. Some double as wire cutters and other tasks. I like collecting bayonets. Be aware affixing a bayonet will CHANGE bullet point of impact. I prefer to sight in my military rifle WITHOUT bayonet affixed.
Be well.
Adam

[TNsailorman]

I am a history buff from the time I learned to read. I was waiting to see if someone would post about the bayonet changing the point of aim when attached. Thanks Adam. It sure would on the Garands I have owned and carried. Different rifles normally would have different shifts in POA. Although I have bayonets for my 1903 & 1903A3, I have never shot either with a bayonet attached. I am not much on "going Hollywood" when shooting. As far as usage goes, usage has changed with the times and weapons and situations. There are a lot of old wives tells out there from people who never had to use one in a combat situation. james

[Adam Helmer]

322315
Finally got a bayonet for the 1866 Chassepot needle rifle. My grandson is pretty excited to go shoot a few rounds with bayonet attached.

hpbear101,

Very interesting post. I hold an M.A. in history and collect military arms and bayonets. The bayonet was once a very useful implement: It ensured a single-shot equipped soldier had something of a weapon if his arm failed to fire or if he did not have enough time to reload. It also effectively deterred cavalry from trying to overrun a square of infantry.

I do not have a Chassepot, but do have an 1873 Gras and bayonet of similar length. During my research for my master's thesis, I read many Civil War medical records on wounds and was surprised to learn only about 2% of treaded wounds at 1863 Gettysburg were from bayonets. Another medical report said that 2% of "treated wounds" were because bayonet wounds were nearly always fatal.

Currently, the military issues bayonets almost like a Swiss Army Knife Tool. Some double as wire cutters and other tasks. I like collecting bayonets. Be aware affixing a bayonet will CHANGE bullet point of impact. I prefer to sight in my military rifle WITHOUT bayonet affixed.
Be well.
Adam

[Larry Gibson]

As to the change of zero when bayonets are fixed, consider that when bayonets are fixed the expect combatant distance, i.e. range, is very short. Any change in zero will be negligeable at close quarter combat ranges.

Many consider the bayonet as "obsolete" because they've never had to use one. However, consider this; those that needed to use one and didn't have one aren't here to express the need for the bayonet. At close quarters combat ranges the need for the bayonet is ever present. Been there, done that......

[inspector_17]

Saw 12 gauge trench guns with bayonets attached once, belonged to an Army Reserve MP unit. Those bayonets were LOOONG bright and SHINEY! 2 platoons worth as I recall. Definitely intimidating!

[Adam Helmer]

Guys,
My Internet provider is "Off and On", so I cannot understand my recent double post. Whatever. Larry Gibson nailed it: at close range, an affixed bayonet versus POA/POI is moot.

At Waterloo in 1814, the French tried 7 times to overrun Wellington's Infantry squares with cavalry and the squares held because of the bayonet. A surviving French cavalryman wrote about the "forest of blades."

Adam

[GregLaROCHE]

Mine is still in the original Chassepot needle configuration. Replaced the rubber obturator with one made from a hardware store rubber stopper and formed on a lathe. It works great and has a couple hundred rounds on it. I made the needle from a 1.5mm TIG electrode it should last forever.
322350

I have two methods of loading.

1: is the paper tube formed on a mandrel. This one uses a Lee 45-405HB bullet
322348

2: the quick and easy is a cartridge made from a plastic straw and loaded with a heeled bullet, or the traditional correct Chassepot tapered bullet (shown in pic). Makes it very easy to keep OAL correct for the needle. It works pretty well occasionally will have to brush the chamber if the cartridge fails to leave the barrel. I just loaded a few more in the straw with BP, topped with cornmeal and no wads.
322349

I do plan on making a more period correct cartridge at some time it's just a time consuming process.

The biggest issue is the musket caps. I tried a lot of rounds using CCI caps and had constant misfires (very frustrating). CCI caps are a copper cup with priming mixture. The needle just passes right through the cup and doesn't reliably fire the cap. RWS caps are made of brass so it is a much harder cup and the needle will crush the priming mixture and fire reliably. Also RWS caps have slits along the side of the cap which I suspect allows the priming mixture (I also fill the musket cap with some 4F) to reach the main charge.

I load mine similar to you. I roll paper on a mandrel and glue a bottom on it. I have a big piece of round stock the tight length with a hole the correct diameter. It supports the paper so I can tap down the powder and filler. It’s important to get the OAL length right with filler. I use cream of wheat. How do you install the primer? The normal direction? I put mine in reversed so the needle strikes the anvil.
Unfortunately, I only have a fifty meter range available and with the sights set to the closest distance, I’m 1 meter over my point of aim.

[Sasquatch-1]

Bayonets to cartridges. I think this tread's been :hijack:

[WILCO]

Bayonets to cartridges. I think this tread's been :hijack:

:) :) Yup!

[hpbear101]

I load mine similar to you. I roll paper on a mandrel and glue a bottom on it. I have a big piece of round stock the tight length with a hole the correct diameter. It supports the paper so I can tap down the powder and filler. It’s important to get the OAL length right with filler. I use cream of wheat. How do you install the primer? The normal direction? I put mine in reversed so the needle strikes the anvil.
Unfortunately, I only have a fifty meter range available and with the sights set to the closest distance, I’m 1 meter over my point of aim.

I partially fill the musket cap with 4f then glue it to a card stock disk, then push it into the tube "backwards." I also set up a set of aluminum round stock bored out for a tight fit on the paper/mandrel to support it while giving the powder some compression.

[Rapier]

In US history, the bayonet has played a major roll, the very first hint that the Union Army got that Thomas Jackson was present at the battle of Manasas was the gleaming of his Brigade's bayonetes in the sun rise. Their bright bayonets were sticking up above the knoll that his troops were hidden behind. He had marched and run his troops all night to move 40 miles over mountains to get in a position to surprise the Union Army at sunrise. And suprise them he did.

The Banzi charge in the Pacific is actually a bayonet charge. The Marines on Saipan got a taste of the Imperial Marines, the 6' tall Japanese, in close combat, for the first time, on Saipan with bayonets. Had it not been for Naval gunfire from the ships at sea, the US Marines on Saipan would have been whipped for fair according to most factual historical documents. The Marines that served on Saipan, that I have talked too over the years, said the Imperial Marines were very, very good with the 99 and the 2ft long bayonet it mounted.

[JoeJames]

Several times over the years I have noticed comments about the semi-cruciform shape of many early bayonets. It was often commented that the shape caused the wound to be much harder to heal than one from a knife shaped bayonet, and I assume that was intentional.

[Baltimoreed]

I have shot my trenchgun and an 1866 musket with fixed bayonets and it’s a hoot. 322528

[Wayne Smith]

Thanks, Adam. I too have read history for years as a hobby (my doctorate is in psychology) and was waiting for someone to mention that calvary was still active at the time. A horse will not advance into bright, sharp steel. The times a square was broken was frequently because a horse was injured and fell into the square, usually with the rider dead. The square could not stand that impact.

[Tripplebeards]

Man that thing is long. Pretty cool, Looks like it’s well used. It looks like a slithering snake. lol. Bet it has a few stories to tell.

[Adam Helmer]

I collect military arms and bayonets for each rifle. Several rifles shoot better groups and to the sights with their bayonet affixed. I am on my 15th notebook documenting such things as well as reload performance. It is a fun quest.

Adam

[wilecoyote]

Several times over the years I have noticed comments about the semi-cruciform shape of many early bayonets. It was often commented that the shape caused the wound to be much harder to heal than one from a knife shaped bayonet, and I assume that was intentional.

right. this dates back to final solutions typical of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, when war surgery applied the efficiency of roasting spits to close combat. in Italy there was a particular type of dagger, called misericordia (mercy), specifically designed according to these parameters to finish off the opponent, better if he had fallen from a horse and wearing a bulky armour_
100% intentional and efficient, even in the civil sphere she found an excellent welcome_
the cruciform/triangular bayonets were the last official gesture to legalize this conduct, which generally did not find the same favor among the counterparts, as was being found in possession of explosive ammo or in any case custom ammunition modified to increase its harmfulness. (reverse fmj ball, lead butt exposed, to name one according to the Italian poor man's genius)_
right or wrong, afaik any sharpened/modified bayo was not welcome, as well as against war conventions, and notoriously the pioneer versions, factory sawtooth blade to facilitate field carpentry work, could spell big trouble for the owner, once captured_ I suspect that their high value on the collector's market derives from the fact that a limited number were distributed, and even smaller was the number of those who appreciated the prospect of being taken prisoner and found in possession of such a tool_

[45workhorse]

Trained to use the bayonets, in boot camp.
Only two times I have seen it used, both where training.
One recruit made a comment about another recruits mother! Horizonal but stroke to the head. Instructor looked at the injured recruit, and said, "I guess you learned a valuable lesson today!" Nothing else was said.

The other time Mob training, how the Marine with a M-60 wound up on the front line I don't know, but Marine agitator made a comment and before I could reach him, the buttstock of the M-60 was planted in his chest.

Did not mean to hijack the thread!

[Baltimoreed]

A military shotgun or rifle without a correct bayonet [and sling] is like a day without sunshine.
322693

[challenger_i]

The ultimate "Social Distance" device...

[Sasquatch-1]

I just re-watch "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly," last night. In the scene where the Yanks and the Rebs are fighting over the bridge, I was surprised at how many of the soldiers were carrying fixed sword bayonets. They were actually more prevalent than the spike bayonet.

[Adam Helmer]

In my Civil War reenactment company (42nd U.S. Volunteers, The Bucktails,) all the Springfield M1855 and M1861 rifled muskets take a sword bayonet and the M1853 British Enfields take a spike bayonet. The Rebs adopted the .577 caliber of the Enfield as their standard caliber arm. Both sides in the CW used many Enfields.

Be well.

Adam

[MOC031]

I collect military arms and bayonets for each rifle. Several rifles shoot better groups and to the sights with their bayonet affixed. I am on my 15th notebook documenting such things as well as reload performance.

As a point of interest, the military pams published in the later half of WWII for the Lee Enfield No.4 Mk1 specify that the rifle is to be zeroed for both adjustable and fixed rear sights at 300 yards with the bayonet fixed. Or at least, the British and Canadian pams specify that; I have not seen an Australian pam for the rifle at any time.


Sidebar: While the British and Canadian pams specify zeroing the exact same rifle with the exact same ammunition using the same 300 yard aperture, the value they give for high above point of aim the point of impact should be at different shorter ranges differs greatly. Going on memory, it is a difference of several inches at 100 yards. I have never seen anyone else mention this discrepancy, which leads me to regularly confirm the discrepancy to ensure I didn't make a mistake in what I noticed.

As Larry Gibson pointed out, 300 yards is not a distance where the troops are likely to have already been given the order "Fix bayonets". I primary have used my Long Branch in Service Rifle competition, so I have never bothered seeing what it groups like while comparing bayonet fixed versus no bayonet - I can't imagine being welcomed to join your relay while fixing bayonets.

Historically, the career infantryman and senior NCO remaining in me is intrigued by the question: What was the military thinking behind specifying the rifles would be zeroed at 300 yards with the bayonet fixed? I don't believe that was so with the previous version of the Lee Enfield during WWI. By that time of WWII, those susceptible to the siren whisperings of The Good Idea Fairy would have probably been weeded out by the reality of three years of war with both the Germans and then Japan.

About the only thing I can think of to offer as an explanation is that the military visualized troops defending from fixed defensive positions, engaging an attacking force from 300 yards in. Where, should the attack not be stopped, the last defense would be man to man bayonet fighting in the defensive positions. A desperate ongoing battle that would not leave time for platoon commanders to give the order to fix bayonets at the time when the attacking infantry were now so close that what had been a shooting battle was now going to be bayonets and buttstrokes.

As far as the bayonet being a thing of the past, it is still very much a part of basic infantry training in at least some NATO countries, although certainly not as much as in the aftermath of WWII. The Brits at the very least have on numerous recent occasions put their bayonets to very good use against the hajjis in Afghanistan:

https://www.military.com/history/british-soldiers-afghanistan-counterattacked-taliban-ambush-bayonet-charge.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6178044/British-officer-wins-two-gallantry-awards-for-fending-off-Taliban-attack-with-bayonet.html

Having never participated in anything like that overseas on deployment, will say that a couple of times while tasked to act as the OPFOR, watching troops storming towards me as the designated enemy machine gun position, watching a screaming trooper with his war face on closing with me with his bayonet levelled at my face was pretty unnerving, despite the fact I knew it was just another battle in the War With The Fantasians. I remember thinking "I hope this guy remembers that this is just training while I sit here behind this light machine gun loaded with blanks while he practices clearing the enemy fighting positions".

[wilecoyote]

...Historically, the career infantryman and senior NCO remaining in me is intrigued by the question: What was the military thinking behind specifying the rifles would be zeroed at 300 yards with the bayonet fixed? I don't believe that was so with the previous version of the Lee Enfield during WWI. By that time of WWII, those susceptible to the siren whisperings of The Good Idea Fairy would have probably been weeded out by the reality of three years of war with both the Germans and then Japan.
About the only thing I can think of to offer as an explanation is that the military visualized troops defending from fixed defensive positions, engaging an attacking force from 300 yards in. Where, should the attack not be stopped, the last defense would be man to man bayonet fighting in the defensive positions. A desperate ongoing battle that would not leave time for platoon commanders to give the order to fix bayonets at the time when the attacking infantry were now so close that what had been a shooting battle was now going to be bayonets and buttstrokes...

...it would be charitable to remember that every officer who graduated from a war academy was forced to learn from books (!) the ways and tactics of his predecessors.
nor was it obviously worthwhile to question them.
so it happened that in the 1WW there was still a reference to when muzzle loaders and black powder were used, and therefore the bayonet found significant use and utility_ subsequently the mentality of the strategists did not update much with respect to technological progress, with all the nonsense that came with it resulted, together with the waste of human life, and the 1WW was the most tangible testimony of this, even if completely silly things continued to be imposed afterwards, at least here, by us_
​

[MOC031]

...it would be charitable to remember that every officer who graduated from a war academy was forced to learn from books (!) the ways and tactics of his predecessors.​

It would be equally charitable to remember that in the trench war of WWI that you mention, the bayonet was quite useful when those who went over the top ended up clearing the enemy trenches once they got there. Bayonets were also a real thing in WWII, particularly in the Pacific in the close quarters fighting with the Japanese.

As for the Brits mentioned above who used their bayonets affixed to their SA80 rifles to great affect over in the sandbox a few years ago; it is a difficult stretch of the imagination to think the officers of their day responsible for training and equipping them with bayonets were focused on books from their predecessors from the age of muzzle loaders and black powder.

More than a few things in the infantryman's arsenal are hardly ever used - but we carry them anyways, because when you need them, you need them. I never once used a hand grenade in a TIC on a deployment, and yet for years I walked around with two of those steel weights in my battle rattle; I never would have left the FOB without them. Or my bayonet.

I also know from personal experience being assigned to the SARP, the highest ranking officer in the trials that were conducted was a colonel - a very young one. If there was any focus on previous wars, it was that the rifle suitable for WWII and the Cold War that followed was no longer the best rifle. The military was not locked into the past war; it recognized that the ways and tactics of war were already changing by the end of WWII.

Incomprehensible military decisions are a reality. It is also incomprehensible that we should draw from that a conclusion that anything that doesn't make sense to us today can't possibly have been for good reason back when that decision was made.

[Larry Gibson]

"it recognized that the ways and tactics of war were already changing by the end of WWII."

That is the general thinking. However, when it comes down to that most elite club, the last 100 yards of the battlefield, not very much has changed. That is especially true when it gets down to CQB. Contrary to movies ans tv magazines do go empty, usually at the worst of times. At CQB distances you may not have time for a magazine change and must "sort out the problem" with what is at hand. Best to have a bayonet affixed on your rifle.......

As I've said many times over the years to young soldiers and, particularly, to officers; "those who needed a bayonet and didn't have one aren't here to tell us of that need. Yet those who never needed a bayonet abound in their dismay at said weapon....."

[TNsailorman]

"it recognized that the ways and tactics of war were already changing by the end of WWII."

That is the general thinking. However, when it comes down to that most elite club, the last 100 yards of the battlefield, not very much has changed. That is especially true when it gets down to CQB. Contrary to movies ans tv magazines do go empty, usually at the worst of times. At CQB distances you may not have time for a magazine change and must "sort out the problem" with what is at hand. Best to have a bayonet affixed on your rifle.......

As I've said many times over the years to young soldiers and, particularly, to officers; "those who needed a bayonet and didn't have one aren't here to tell us of that need. Yet those who never needed a bayonet abound in their dismay at said weapon....."

"Only people who have been there an done that" will understand your statement fully. james

[challenger_i]

The last two posts are proof of why we need the "Like" button...

[wilecoyote]

my referring to bayos, and related considerations, goes back to WWI here, when old infantry charges against new MGs deployement tactics were commanded
_ long story short, more than one commanding officer ended badly by hand of his soldiers; the most (in)famous was Gen. Cadorna: a carcano's hole is recognizable even today in his museum-conserved hat :razz:_
the official version it's quite different, but the hole for sure isn't a 8mm. ...

CQB or cleaning trenches was another matter, o.c._

[MOC031]

"it recognized that the ways and tactics of war were already changing by the end of WWII."

That is the general thinking. However, when it comes down to that most elite club, the last 100 yards of the battlefield, not very much has changed.
Being a member of that hardly exclusive and not elite club, and also having taught FIBUA/MOUT or whatever you want to call it as recently as 2016, I generally agree with most of what you posted. But very much disagree that not much has changed; it has changed a fair bit since I joined in 1985 to when I retired.

You are correct that there is still very good reason to continue to have the ability to affix a sharp pointy object to the end of a bang stick. We are increasingly training troops we expect to be likely to be doing house clearing to draw their pistol if they fire their rifle to slide lock or have a FTF/FTE. BUT, we have yet to arm every designed hajji killer with a sidearm as well as their rifle.

As far as that goes, if that fight happens inside a place the size of a grape hut in Afghanistan and your rifle malfunctions, the most likely way to survive that fight when you're at spitting distance is to immediately go mad gorilla with what you already have in your hands - your rifle, with or without bayonet.

And yes, you can beat the hell out of something with an M16/M4 and it will not shatter like your Gramma's fine china. It may not take to it as well or as many times as a Lee Enfield, a Garand, or an FN SLR - but the gun plumbers will give you another one.

But tactics like stacking and then mouseholing with water charges and other innovations, fighting down from the top instead of fighting up from the bottom... there is a continuing evolution to make winning that fight less costly.

I expect, and will not be surprised, to see a day in the near future where urban ops house clearing is done via an infantryman carrying a lunchbox sized box containing a small swarm of tiny drones, each just big enough to carry enough explosives to kill an enemy combatant - and the technology to recognize and sort armed combatants from civilians within that structure without control of external operators.

But that infantryman will still be carrying a bayonet - and his rifle will still have the bayonet lugs that allow for it to be mounted. Unless some penny pinching geniuses like the ones that decided the F4 Phantom didn't need a cannon in the age of nukes and rockets gets involved.

[Larry Gibson]

There is nothing new about "going gorilla" with whatever you have, that has been done for eons. Many of us disagree with "stacking' which is a way to minimize property damage and/or potential collateral damage at the expense of your own casualties. Much better/safer [but not always permitted] is to blow mouseholes or use grenades before entry. The "stack" also is not new but an adaptation of police technique where mouseholes can't be blown or grenades used. Unfortunately, that leads to unnecessary casualties.

The concept of clearing building from the top down is also not new. The problem is getting on the top and then gaining entrance. Thus, most often buildings are cleared from the bottom up. Nothing new to that before WWII and/or after.

BTW, I not only trained in MOUT and CQB but did in fact execute that raining as I served in 2 wars and numerous other "places" during my 42 years of service. I also contracted for 3 years after retirement facilitating realistic training with realistic pyro and role players for Marines, Army and Seabee's at numerous MOUT and other training locations. That last 100 yards of a true battlefield is indeed an elite club. Just having served and trained does not get you into the club. However, please don't get me wrong or get offended, your service is very much appreciated and respected.

[challenger_i]

I always preferred clearing a building with a 500# HE, but that is just me. Blame it on my Aviation background...

[Adam Helmer]

Yes, the bayonet will always have its applications. Most vets I talked to from WWII never bayoneted a Kraut. All said they could, and did, shoot a fellow soldier, but did not have the grit to stab them. Whatever.

My studies of Civil War casualties disclosed very few bayonet wounds. Most bayonet wounds were fatal per medical documents, so were not listed on medical wound treatment records. Most close encounter wounds were listed as a result of "clubbed muskets." I collect bayonets and like the history they represent.

Be well.

Adam

[Larry Gibson]

If one were to read the actual first hand [I have] accounts of many other contemporary battles such as Asandlwana, Rourke's Drift and many others you will find the use of the bayonet was frequent.

[challenger_i]

How does that saying go? "Remain calm, and FIX BAYONETS!"

[MOC031]

Many of us disagree with "stacking' which is a way to minimize property damage and/or potential collateral damage at the expense of your own casualties.
I was never taught, nor did I ever teach, that the idea behind stacking for an entry was to minimize property damage on a battlefield. Or potential collateral damage. It was always about minimizing OUR casualties.


Much better/safer [but not always permitted] is to blow mouseholes or use grenades before entry. The "stack" also is not new but an adaptation of police technique where mouseholes can't be blown or grenades used.
Creating mouseholes is what the stack expects to go through. And generally the only reason to not simply flatten the building is there's something inside that there is either strategic or tactical value to leaving intact. Police might have to use doorways, we don't.

Nor is mouseholing an adaption of a police technique: the Canadians were using mouseholing techniques when they fought German paratroopers house to house in Ortona in WWII. The Brits were doing the same with PIATs during Marketgarden, and probably elsewhere. I would not be surprised if the Germans vs. Russians were doing the same over in Stalingrad on the Eastern Front. Ditto pretty much every military in that conflict; infantry are never shy about copying what works and avoiding repeating what doesn't.

That was long before there was ever any such thing as a police SWAT team. The formative years of the first SWAT teams in Los Angeles probably had a fair amount of input from military veterans when some urban situations started resembling military battlefields.


That last 100 yards of a true battlefield is indeed an elite club. Just having served and trained does not get you into the club. However, please don't get me wrong or get offended, your service is very much appreciated and respected.

Please don't get me wrong, but if it's an elite club, it sure has a lot of members getting admittance over the last 20 years. And I very much appreciate and respect your service for being there beside the rest of us in that club.

[challenger_i]

Front line grunts are VERY MUCH the "Elite Club". Aviation takes a bit of fire, Arty has to deal with counter-battery fire, but the grunts are, quite frankly, at the very forefront of the "Sharp End". I'll buy'em a beer any time, no coin needed.

[Larry Gibson]

Front line grunts are VERY MUCH the "Elite Club". Aviation takes a bit of fire, Arty has to deal with counter-battery fire, but the grunts are, quite frankly, at the very forefront of the "Sharp End". I'll buy'em a beer any time, no coin needed.

Exactly........"the last hundred yards of the battlefield" is synonymous to those who actually attack/defend on the ground.

MOC031

Because you weren't taught it doesn't mean it isn't so. Consider you were only told what they wanted you to know. I've watched many a "stack" in training and for real, and all except in one instance, they went in through a door. If one is going through a door, the stack when properly executed is, indeed, the best was to minimize casualties. The point is, going through a door has you channelized in a kill zone the enemy [if trained] is well aware of and is probably expecting you to come through.

That one instance was back in the mid '80s I was working with the Australian SAS. I watched the Squadron on counter terrorist duty take down a build [in training] blowing a mouse hole and ground team entering there, two going through top floor windows off rope on moving helicopter and two more onto the roof all at the same time. Building was "secured" with hostage rescue and all terrorists "sorted out" in very little time. It was live fire also.

In '07 - '10 I facilitated the training of thousands of Marines, Soldiers and Seabee's. Never once, not even a single time did any of them discuss or consider a mouse hole during MOUT. They all formed "stack" and went through doors just as trained to do. My role players "killed" many of them and could have killed them all but we were there for training, not to win. When I was in Iraq thousands, more probably millions, of dollars were paid to hadji for "damage" to their buildings. Thus orders were not to shot at the buildings, mud walls or otherwise damage them, entries were to be made through doorways......

That scenario was with a small group of enemy in a known fixed location. The tactics were well planned and executed. Quite different is that last hundred yards of the battlefield where there is little if any time for such planning and resourcing. The situation is very fluid because the enemy has their own plans. the "grunt" must make decisions react instantly based on what he has right then and there.

[fgd135]

It's well documented that soldiers in WW1, on both sides of the Western Front, preferred sharpened entrenching tools and clubs as melee weapons over bayonets. Long bayonets on long rifles of the day, designed in the 19th C to hold off cavalry charges, were difficult and awkward to use in trenches, regardless of what movies you're watched. This was one of the reasons that the US incorporated trench shotguns into infantry units; handy, devastating at short range, and yes, they had bayonets, too, but bayonets were actually used as much for collecting and guarding, escorting POW's as anything else.
The need for more useful, shorter bayonets, in cqb, was one of the lessons learned in WW1, at least by the US and a few other nations, Germany, for example, even the Italians. Into WW2, US bayonets were either being shortened from existing models, or manufactured as shorter weapons compared to the long bayonets of earlier eras.

No one has mentioned yet that Russian rifles, first Berdans, and later most models of Russian Mosin Nagants, were sighted in at the factories with their bayonets fixed, and carried that way, as it was their tactical doctrine even into WW2.
Japan, too, fought with the bayonet as a very important weapon thruout WW2.

[challenger_i]

Is why the U.S. Army adopted, and fielded, the M1917 (M97 Winchester) Trench Gun. Talk about clearing a trench! As far as I know, the only U.S. implement of war the Germans (you know, the guys that gave us Phosgene gas and the flame thrower!) cried foul and petitioned to have outlawed as inhumane, and a violation of the Rules of War...
As far as the bayonet not being useful in the trenches, the French would argue that point. During the Battle of Verdun, there are several recorded incidents where German attacks on French lines were effectively repelled by the poilus standing shoulder to shoulder and presenting a forest of Cold Steel to the German infantry coming over the parapet. As for the entrenching tool being a melee weapon, there are many Nam Vets that will attest to its usefulness in close-quarters unpleasantness.

[Larry Gibson]

"Is why the U.S. Army adopted, and fielded, the M1917 (M97 Winchester) Trench Gun."

Yes, and it also had sturdy provision for attachment of a bayonet.

"As far as the bayonet not being useful in the trenches, the French would argue that point. During the Battle of Verdun, there are several recorded incidents where German attacks on French lines were effectively repelled by the poilus standing shoulder to shoulder and presenting a forest of Cold Steel to the German infantry coming over the parapet."

Indeed! There were many instances during WWI of bayonet use.

"As for the entrenching tool being a melee weapon, there are many Nam Vets that will attest to its usefulness in close-quarters unpleasantness."

In the mid and later parts of our involvement in the late SE Asian festivities the bayonet on the M16 was disdained by command as it was believed the M16 was strong enough for the use of the bayonet. While an E tool can be a formidable weapon in the actual heat of CQG trying to uncase one to use or finding one laying around is not nearly as fast or as deadly as already having a bayonet on the end of your rifle.

However, earlier the bayonet, affixed to M14 and M16, was used several times that I know of. Charlie and Nathanial also came at us with bayonets fixed on their MN rifles and Type 53s, their SKSs and their AKs. I have firsthand knowledge of such on two separate battles occurring on November 8th '65 and March 16th '66.