countrysteaksauce said:
I am well aware of bayonet usage in the current wars, like that officer in the Royal Regiment of Scotland that charged the Taliban rebels. However, what percentage of enemy casualties are caused by the bayonet? I'll give you a very liberal estimate of 200 people. There's something like 30,000 enemy casualties in Iraq alone. What percentage of those were killed by bayonets? It's less than 1%. There's a reason that count isn't higher; bayonets are impractical in modern warfare.
This isn't even counting the casualties in Afghanistan.
I was just pointing out that they had been used within the last 10 years, and (as the second article cites) was actually a very tactical choice.
That, in my view, makes it practical.
If the bayonets weren't issued then a charge wouldn't have been an option - and in a 20:100 fight my money isn't on the side of the 20 in a firefight.
Plus there was relative extensive use of the bayonet in the Falklands, and that was 20-30 years ago.
Just saying that there are still some situations in which it's practical - and therefore worthy of issue.
AndyFromMonday said:
It gives you range, but in closer quarter combat you might as well use the pistol. Really, bayonets are only useful if you don't have ANY other possibility.
You're better of throwing a knife than fighting with a bayonet to be honest.
Uh...no - throwing knives doesn't work very well. Even with training you can miss (particularly as the knives issued to the military aren't balanced throwing knives - they can/will land handle-first), and it probably won't put the enemy down immediately.
As mentioned pistols have limited ammo, and rifles are impractical in tight confines (caves, cities) - the bayonet makes a very handy back-up.
chewbacca1010 said:
These days, I'd say not really considering the advanced combat armour that soldiers are wearing, but back in the day, when it took a minute and a half to reload your rifle and all that stood between you and the enemy was a fancy outfit, then yeah, I'd say so.
I suppose you could use a bayonet to cut someone's throat, but chances are, to execute a move like that, you're going to want more direct control over your blade anyway.
I'm just speculating though.
Most troops are issued with bullet-proof vests which, ironically, aren't very stab-proof. Plus if they are they leave the sides, groin, arms, legs and neck vulnerable. They're quite easy to hit with what is essentially a short-spear.