Bayonets: Are they practical?
- Thread starter mrhappyface
- Start date
Recommended Videos
My friend killed an insurgent with his knife in Iraq. I'll ask him and get back to you. He carries a couple knives on him- at all times.mrhappyface said:
There's a reason people don't use them nowadays.mrhappyface said:
They're heavy, they lengthen the gun making it harder to move around, specially in closer spaces like urban settings, and aren't particularly effective.
Ever tried to stab Kevlar armors? You're better off bludgeoning the enemy. Kevlar is made to stop bullets flying at you at around 800 mps. Unlike what you see in games, stabbing someone through type 3 body armour would need your entire body behind the thrust and some decent muscle to buff it up. You're better of using some CQC.
Besides, in current days combat you rarely have the chance to "reach out and touch" someone.
Nowadays, knives in the army are tools, not weapons.
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.
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.
There's a reason why Bayonets these days mostly see use during parades and shows. Consider this, every soldier today is equiped with an automatic weapon. Sure a 5.56 MIGHT not stop someone charging you a 100 out of a 100 times, but at close range chances are quite good that they will still go down if you just follow the CQB procedure I was taught in the army (which is "Keep firing until the other person goes down").
Not to mention things like the fact that the position from which you aim a firearm isn't very conducive to sudden stabbing or thrusting attacks with the barrel and that if you are uncertain there are plenty of grenade-varieties to help you clear a room without ever having to stand face to face with a guy wielding a knife.
The reason a bayonet had some effectiveness during WW2 was because the standard weapon still was a bolt-action rifle and automatic weapons weren't found in large numbers (except for with the russians and their assault platoons). Instead of firing a shot every other second, it was simply more efficient to use your rifle as a spear in the confined spaces of the average apartment.
In the modern age, there isn't a practical use for bayonets in combat.
Not to mention things like the fact that the position from which you aim a firearm isn't very conducive to sudden stabbing or thrusting attacks with the barrel and that if you are uncertain there are plenty of grenade-varieties to help you clear a room without ever having to stand face to face with a guy wielding a knife.
The reason a bayonet had some effectiveness during WW2 was because the standard weapon still was a bolt-action rifle and automatic weapons weren't found in large numbers (except for with the russians and their assault platoons). Instead of firing a shot every other second, it was simply more efficient to use your rifle as a spear in the confined spaces of the average apartment.
In the modern age, there isn't a practical use for bayonets in combat.
Bayonets hadn't been useful as a weapon since the Napoleonic/American Civil War eras. Guns were just too effective, and when it came to close quarter fighting in trenches and alike, people would resort to clubs, brass knuckles and small trench knives. Basically, a bayonet is too long and unweldy, especially when attached to the end of a rifle (which, for trench warfare, were also far too long as it is).
Fast foward to the present, and very few situations actually call for such a weapon in the first place. Most people would just use them as impractical utility knives rather than weapons of war. Typically, even special Op soldiers like the SAS don't use knives as killing weapons. They only normally carry knives for the purpose of cutting ropes/jungle survival etc.
I have heard that some troops like to carry small hatchets and Tomohawks around with them though. Which sounds both more cool, and more practical.
Fast foward to the present, and very few situations actually call for such a weapon in the first place. Most people would just use them as impractical utility knives rather than weapons of war. Typically, even special Op soldiers like the SAS don't use knives as killing weapons. They only normally carry knives for the purpose of cutting ropes/jungle survival etc.
I have heard that some troops like to carry small hatchets and Tomohawks around with them though. Which sounds both more cool, and more practical.
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.
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.
back when armies still used muzzle loading black powder weapons they were extremely important. they were still useful in WW1 when semi automatic weapons were the norm. Mind you know weapon technology has become so advanced they are very redundant now. the only Practical use i can see for them now is in room clearance.
Upward thrust into the base of the skull, loss of motor control occurs, completely silent kill, without the gurgling of a throat slit. Doesn't hurt to carry a bayonet.
back when trenches were abundant bayonets serve as pointy objects which will poke enemies quite nicely. When a charge is commenced by the other side to attempt to take your trench, men were expected to do some intense CQB with the bayonets on each other.
mrhappyface said:
They were Impracticle during WW2. You know how many Bayonet crarges there were durring WW2? Two. Two bayonet charges. 1. led by the polish in 1939 when Germany invaded. And 2. Led by the U.S. a few days after D-Day. So by all means they are impracticle now.
It's great that a lot of you noobs think that war is like what you see in video games. Carrying a bayonet is standard practice in most 1st world militaries. Bayonets are used for various uses, not just "stabbing people". The US military M9 bayonet is used for slashing, sawing, cutting wires, and comes with a whet stone on the back of the sheathe for sharpening. In close-quarters combat fixing bayonets is also standard practice. Bayonet paractice is standard in the U.S. Army basic training as well. Using it in hand to hand combat is not something you would normally see. It is a multi-purpose tool, not a "fall back on" weapon like so many of you think.
if i was hiding behind a wall being shot at then an enemy pops up out of the ground infront of me (enemy coming out of a Hatch door, or a zombie, whatever) then i can just swing around and lop its head off without wasting bullets/letting the enemy know where i am due to the noise of the shot
Ah yes, i was just thinking that i remember hearing a few cases when in Afganistan when the order had been given to fix bayonets...i think it's a British thing, we like using bayonets.MaxMees said:
On COD5, i loved sniping with the Mosin Nagant, but i only used iron sights (in my opinion, better than the scope) and a bayonet attatchment. I loved bayonetting people, so fun.
Bayonets were meant to work with muskets, Karabiners, Lee Enfields an Garands instead of weapons that can be fitted with a shotgun or a grenade launcher. Muskets were from a time during which cavalry were actually a threat and having a second rate pike was a very good thing if you were an infantryman. For the others it was just good to be able to disembowel jerry if you wound up turning around the corner and having him there ready to ventilate your ass if you hadn't managed to chamber a new round in the old Lee Enfield. Of course they would always get jammed in the fucking ribs which was a downer and they tended to make reloading muskets a tad awkward unless you liked getting your hand jabbed with the same blade that has the hepatitis stained blood of that french grenadier who got just a little too close for comfort. In which case more power to you. So I'm going to say maybe. They have a tactical advantage in that you don't have to pull out your knife to jab the other guy. Then again if the gun gets jammed in the ribs (never go for the ribs by the way, a little bit of advice for when you're fighting off raiders after civilization has collapsed) you'll either lose valuable time trying to yank it out or have to give up your weapon. Neither is a good scenario to be in when the guns are blazing. Once again, a maybe. Bayonets are a grey area.
