Bayonets: Are they practical?

[Endocrom]

^ah, so it is like the english one.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Bayonets are of limited use on the modern battlefield. The original purpose of such weapons was to give a rifleman a rudimentary defense against cavalry rather than relying on dedicated pike carrying troopers. Just as important, when reloading was a painfully slow process, it offered the opportunity for close assault and there wasn't a huge disadvantage to closing when the enemy could only fire a volley or two before closing. Even in the days of the first and second world war, the bayonet offered a degree of compensation for the relatively small magazine sizes (and low ammunition counts individual soldiers carried).

Given the sheer number of rounds a soldier carries, the ease of reloading and extended magazine sizes, the addition of a bayonett is almost quaint. Yes, in one instance in Iraq the British actually mounted a bayonett charge when a forward operating base was being overrun, but this is an exception rather than the rule. Against a well trained, disciplined force, such a maneuver is just shy of suicide.

 

[WolfThomas]

Yes they are practical but in limited circumstances these days. When it's not attached to the rifle, it's a combat knife. A lot of soldiers don't have pistols as sidearms. A stoppage in close urban combat could mean a death sentence, it's good to be able to have at least a chance to stab at them.

They are practical, for the same reasons a knife is practical. This isn't opinion either.
SWAT research has determined that a pistol vs someone with a knife at 15 feet, knife wins. An expert with a knife can get 6 lethal stabs in before someone with a pistol can make use of it.
In the case of a bayonet this range increases as now we've added the guns length to the knife, thus increasing the amount of distance someone can cover.

It only takes 1 lethal stab.

To put it in perspective the average healthy human can cover 120 feet in 6 seconds, divided out that's 20 feet per second.
In a close range situation of 15 feet you only have .75 seconds to acquire a target and fire, guns require alot more accuracy to effectively stop a target then most people can acquire within .75 seconds.

SWAT determined the effective safe distance to stop a target with a pistol or other sidearm, that is armed with a knife, is 21 feet. Which is roughly 1.05 seconds to respond and fire.

A bayonet fixed to a rifle would add a few feet to this distance, and anything under 21 feet would result in the man with the gun suffering possibly fatal stab injuries.

Let's also not forget newtons law "An object in motion stays in motion" even if you successfully shoot someone who charged at you full tilt, they will continue moving forward and that bayonet was already pointed at you, it won't stop because you got a few lucky shots off first.

bayonets are used as utility knives nowadays by regular forces, and have hundreds of minor uses which justify them (opening ration boxes etc). the special forces might maybe use them on the enemy when they need to silently kill a sentry or whatever, but by and large they have silenced weapons for that.

that said in the Iranian embassy siege when a SAS bloke was stuck on a rope over a fire he needed a knife to cut himself free, but didn;t have one and got rather badly burnt.

Also these.

 

[SimuLord]

^ah, so it is like the english one.

Except the French women actually enjoy sex. (well, so do British girls NOW, but during Victorian times "Lie back and think of England" was basically "this is less pleasant than dental surgery. We know. But make babies anyway.")

Ironic, since Queen Victoria herself (at least in her younger days when Prince Albert was still alive) was one of history's greatest nymphomaniacs...and if you've seen pictures of ol' Queen Vicky when she was in her prime, she was a cutie. I'd trade places with ol' Al if I had a time machine...

 

[Plurralbles]

Bayonets. YEs

Bayonetta. No

 

[Gadzooks]

If I had a choice, I'd always choose to have that extra tactical option in case a close quarters situation arises. Obviously practicality depends on the circumstances.

A bayonet has not become any less practical at stabbing people over the years though. People bleed the same, die the same.

Certainly melee weaponry is less relevant now for westernised armies, who rely more on long range tactics, but relevance does not change the fact that the weapon is still practical for doing its stabby stabby job.

 

[TheBlobThing]

I remember an article where the Danish troops stationed in Afghanistan asked to be issued bayonets, as a lack of them had cost lives or injuries. The Danish defence forces had abolished bayonets as impractical in a modern army.

Not sure what the specific reason was, but if front line troops asks for them, I can't see why they would be obsolete?