Bayonets? Yes or No?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by tangolima

This is a common explanation. Life in armed forces is boring. If soldiers are allowed to sharpen bayonets, very soon there will be no bayonets left to be sharpened. The steel will be ground away.

There is much truth to this statement. I once made the mistake of buying a mil-surp AK bayonet by mail order. What I received was about 75% of what had started out as an AK bayonet.

[44 AMP]

Still, I don't see any practical application but I don't want to be told you can't have that.

Military history is full of practical applications, and there are still practical applications today, though not as widespread or common as they once were.

Civilian history? not so much, although they could be counted as militia equipment.

NO ADULT likes to hear "you can't have that". The people saying that, making those decisions, and worse, sometimes making their will law, are NOT treating people as adults. They are treating us as if we were children who must be told what they can, and cannot do, or have, for their own "safety".

IF they are allowed the power to determine what we can, and cannot have, it is a very small step from there to determining what we can and cannot think, and ALL other aspects of our lives.

I respect their right to their own opinions, and they are free to tell me what I should, or should not do, or believe all day long. When thy go from should to must, and make that a law, they go too far.

[bamaranger]

I saw a photo a while back of bayonet use. The guy was in Alaska, his knock around bear rifle was a M44-7.62x54r carbine. The bayonet was extended, and the rifle stuck in the ground next to him while he fished.

[HiBC]

The bayonet was essential for accessing the ham and lima beans inside a case of C-Rations. That cardboard was tough and there was the wire wrap!
I've forgotten the names but there was a company or battalion commander during the Korean war who insisted his unit excelled in bayonet proficiency.

I don't recall the details, I think it was a "Must Hold" situation,but sure enough,
out of ammo they held against human wave attacks.
I read an account of the battle and IIRC a Unit Citation. I think the point was,
"Out of ammo? Those poor bastards are going to get stuck!!"

Edit: I looked it up! https://nationalinfantrymuseum.org/a...ayonet-attack/

"On February 7, 1951, Millett led his Soldiers from Easy Company, 2D Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division atop Hill 180 near Soam-Ni, Korea."

On longer versus shorter rifle/bayonets effectiveness.....Yes,it can be argued.
I'm not an authority but I did fence for a few years.
There is the principle of forte vs foible.

The shorter weapon is far more powerful in the parry. With a cool head and some agility its possible for the shorter weapon to deflect the longer weapon and get inside the pokey point. Beware the butt stroke!

[44 AMP]

The shorter weapon is far more powerful in the parry.

Yes, but the shorter weapon also means the other guy's pokey part is closer to you. Given roughly equal positions and skill, the longer reach is an advantage. It is not a guaranteed decisive advantage, but it is an advantage.

Given unequal positions (Or skill) things change.

"Give up Annakin, I have the high ground!" is not just some jedi bravado.

The advantages of the high ground and of reach over your opponent have been known since prehistory.

Despite what you see in movies, tv and theater, real sword fights involve both ends and rarely involve running and jumping all over the set. Actual masters rarely even cross swords and the same applies to a bayonetted rifle. Popular adventure fiction rarely shows real sword or bayonet fighting, its scripted dancing.