I read with sorrow a story this morning on Military.com that reported the head of Army basic training is moving to do away with bayonet skills.
It’s funny that just a few days ago I was discussing with a colleague why the military has all but abandoned the bayonet. I mean, there is no more intimidating device than said blade protruding from the barrel of a rifle. Think of a squad of Marines storming a house in the battle of Fallujah with bayonets fixed…talk about devil dogs.
There’s military effectiveness in having such a secondary weapon in close quarters battle when the quarters are REAL close. Taking the one and a half to two seconds to draw your combat knife from your armor could mean the difference between life and death. Having the bad boy already deployed for action could buy you those few precious seconds.
Besides, most of the combat knives hanging off Joes’ armor and MOLLE aren’t ever going to be used for anything more than tearing open a packet of country captain chicken.
But more than the tactical use of the bayonet, there’s that strategic objective — the intimidation factor. You have one of those bad boy Ka-Bars attached to your M4/M16, you’re going to get noticed…and in a good way. The enemy is going to focus on that blade coming at them instead of you, when the doors are being kicked — and besides, think of what the bad guys would think when they see that squad of Joes coming toward their compound with knives attached to their guns: they mean business.
Look, I understand Gen. Hurtling’s dilemma: too much training means we gotta shave off some marginal skills. And and sure some of you are going to generate some convincing arguments that knives should be kept off the end of rifles based on today’s longer-range engagements.
But let’s take a step back and maybe get a little medieval on someone for a change. Maybe the intimidation alone will keep the enemy from firing a shot.
Just a thought…
– Christian
{ 83 comments… read them below or add one }
Well, I guess the question needs to be asked…..is it really relevant to day's fight? Seems like it is but how many bayonet engagements has anyone hear about?
Just yesterday and two weeks ago
I would say bayonets are part of a long bygone era of mass troop formations attacking each other head on. How are bayonets relevant in combined arms strategies which rely on overwhelming force? Or in close quarters or urban combat where weapons developers are focusing on shorter length weapons.
They've been used plenty since the use of formation warfare.
That is indeed a crying shame. The actual combat value of the bayonet on today's battlefield is negligible, but the psychological value is fantastic both for the user and the enemy. There's just something visceral about a blade. You know your CO means business when the order "Fix Bayonets!" is given. Plus it scares the crap out of the bad guys, as the author noted. Thank God the marines aren't turning into the self-interested PC sinkhole that today's US Army has become.
I think that the change is due to time demands on training, not political correctness. Go back and read the article.
You should look into modern tactical tomahawks that I hear are used in theater. I don't know to what extent they are used in the real world but they look tough as nails and would be quite intimidating hanging off a steely-eyed marine's kit to any Arab or Pashtun, I hear they like those symbolic shows of force. Anyone out there ever equip one?
I think its worth noting new technology isn't the always best; in fact its often the worst, since it is constantly being replaced/upgraded. The knife for instance is a real piece of technology since the basic design has been in full use for millennia. Or look at personal water transport, for years people employed animal bladders, now were back there in a similar thread with camelbaks, a Old Tech Lives!
Hells yes Christian. Although we don't have any bayonet engagments recently the next World War could be around the corner at any time and we all know when you go to full scale war that resources are a big problem and that includes ammo. Never know when that bayonet training will pay off. I do agree right now its doing no good but if I were to go through basic (doing ROTC) I would want to do bayonet training. I guess to me it doesn't make sense spend a $100 down when it could save a thousand lives make sense?
Screw bayonets…we need pikes! Big scary pointy objects. That'll have the enemy crapping their pants. No military utility (like the bayonet) but boy will we feel all tingly and manly and stuff.
I dunno. Every time I see a bayonet on the end of a rifle, I think of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" when scimitar man starts whipping around his blade, and Indy just shoots him from afar.
Which is why you put a bayonet *on a gun.*
I seem to recall a certain jihadi jackhole claiming that we didn’t have the stomach to fight up close and personal. The option needs to remain part of the toolkit.
Lets bring back flame throwers. Now THAT is intimidating…
The true reason why it was banned is because they secretly put Bible Verses on them… I have my sources…
dunno how relevant but in the 1982 falklands war (uk – argentina) several bayonet charges were used by british troops (paras and royal marines) when ammo was running low (resupply a real problem) and the battles were becoming bogged down (inertia) coupled with the knowledge they were facing mainly conscript / poorly motivated troops. several kills were confirmed and statements later by argentinians facing them supported the terror they induced. i'm sure there will be cases out in iraq / afghanistan where they have been used but perhaps not reported if seen as 'barbaric'. now when they invent proper plasma swords ….
It's the 21st century, not the 6th century. Bayonets are but a old fad that needs a finishing blow. Time to move onto the future. The old generation will be saying to keep them, but the current generation is saying "Bring on the future" Teach useful skills, not a skill that will probably never be used again… and has no impact on our current wars, where the enemy works by doing IED and long range ambushes with RPG's.
When I was learning urban warfare in 1991 I was really happy that we had bayonets. There were rumors of a Yougosalv deployment of my unit and there are many good uses to a bayonet in close quarter combat. Especially when you run out of ammo…
Will this affect the availability of or the permission to use bayonets?
Only if there are Bible Verses on them…
Do Army Bayonets have Bible Verses on them? Is that the true reason they are getting rid of them?
The scope, the bayonet, all of it should bear "God Bless America" These are Christians we are fighting here. Fix bayonets inspires any good American soldier to do his task.
meant to say are NOT.. my bad. proofreading not done.
Yes, we should retain bayonets so we can encumber ourselves with longer, heavier weapons when fighting at close quarters on the off chance we get to spear someone with them. Here's a protip – if you're going to point your weapon at someone you can, you know, shoot him.
I note this move comes in combination with a new initiatie to teach useful close-quarter combatives that integrate with the close-quarter battle skills soldiers actually use rather than an anachronistic weapon that interferes with them and is thus not only useless but a hinderance on the modern battlefield.
And of course you will kill all your enemies instantly with that puny 5.56 mm of yours and you are never going to run out in combat or not have the time to reload in the middle of an action. I could get cold sweat if I had to go into an urban warfare situation without a bayonet. It's worked for centuries, it's cheap and can save your life.
Recent British bayonet charge:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0bd_1249524865
So maybe, there might be a time when ammunition gets scarce? Inconceivable!
"I wanted to put the fear of God into the enemy. I could see some dead bodies and eight blokes, some scrambling for their weapons. I’ve never seen such a look of fear in anyone’s eyes before. I’m over six feet; I was covered in sweat, angry, red in the face, charging in with a bayonet and screaming my head off. You would be scared, too."
Corporal Brian Wood
Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment
___Read it, Loved it!
-AM
The posters above you were making fun of the recent ACOG "scandal" in which Trijicon was quietly engraving references to bible verses.
The true benefit to bayonet training is in the effect it has on the individual being trained. Nothing brings home the point that your are being trained to kill better than good old fashioned pointy steel. Its visceral, old-school, and compelling. It also reinforces the point that the individual is the killing machine, not the rifle, the mortar, or the airplane. Turning soft city kids into hard killing machines is not simple, and the Army has just made it that much harder on themselves.
I have to agree, these are almost the exact thoughts I had upon reading this article. These were also close to the same justification that was put forth when bayonet training was re-instituted at 4th RTBn back in the late '90s.
I also recall a moment from my youth, back on one October evening in 1983. We were drawing weapons after being recalled on DRF1. An NCO walked out and stated as he held up his bayonet, "They only issue these when we're about to do a parade, or go somewhere for real! And it seems awful dark for parade practice." About 12 hours later I was digging a hasty along the runway perimeter on Grenada
When I went through army basic training in 1977 at Ft. Jackson,we never had bayonet training. Also,being a medic,we were not allowed to carry bayonets(we also weren't allowed 30 round banana clip magazines for our M16s). That being said,I see absolutely nothing wrong with bayonet training. Next thing you know,someone will say we should stop training on how to throw hand grenades.
To be honest,if I were to speak my true feelings about the PC opinions against the bayonet & bayonet training,I'd be accused of being homophobic &/or SISSYPHOBIC(with the big emphasis on "sissyphobic").
So, I just hope that Infantry School is expanding its curriculum to include "pointy object operation and maintenance" .
As previously mentioned UK troops have been using bayonettes in Iraq, they have also been used in Afghanistan. In fact, armies that previously thought the bayonet dead such as Sweden have recently procured new bayonets.
Bayonets scare the shit out of the enemy and they instill a bit of steel into oneself. When dealing with a hostile mob a bayonet is more useful than just a rifle, when entering a house or a compaound it is also more useful than just a rifle (magasines run out, mis-fire, double-feed, failiure to extract etcetcetc.)
i would rather grab a rifle without a knife on the end of it, than one with one on it. So, i say keep the bayonet. what are they thinking?
As for the hostile mob part, yes I totally agree. Most mobs don't think you'll dare shoot them but a blade on the end of a rifle may make them think twice.
The entering a house or compound bit is rubbish. When entering a building you do not want to elongate your weapon in any way. The shorter the better. Now once you've secured the building and have captured some combatants, then you can fix your bayonet. That might work. But breaching and entering with a fixed bayonet is not gonna happen.
I can assure you that a bayonet can get affixed on a bullpup and make an instructor crap his pants.
Bayonet training is alive and well in the UK.
It's an intrinsic part of Infantry training and ultimately acts as a means to control and direct the aggression needed during an attack.
We fix bayonets as part of the preparation for the assault.
Look at the pics of Brits in Afghan and you'll see we carry the bayonet as a matter of course – often tucked into the loops on the front panel of Osprey – well ally!
Regarding house clearance – the L85 is a bullpup so sticking another nine inches of blade on the end is neither here nor there.
Like I said above, using it is more instinctive than pulling the trigger.
And they don't like it up 'em!
Actual combat value aside the psychological value has got to be huge when dealing with say an unarmed population. For example a somewhat hostile crowd at a checkpoint or around an embassy. I would have thought a couple of rifle mounted bayonets would fairly effective for keeping a crowd at arms length and avoiding pushing and shoving of troops that could lead to an accident or shots being fired.
In those scenarios I would have thought the bayonet would add to the protection of the troops. Additionally if a situation did occur I would expect the media fallout would be noticeably different between troops shooting into an unarmed (the papers would likely ignore the rock/bottle chucking locals) crowd or a blood being drawn by the use of bayonets.
There was a recent event in Iraq (in the last two years) with a US grunt taking out a roomful of insurgents with a small utility knife, but I can't find anything about it online.
US soldier stabbed in the head:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3800146
US soldier kills insurgent with a knife in Afghanistan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2231365/po…
David Bellavia decribes some very intense CQB in Fallujah in his book "House to House". Though he does not say that a mounted bayonet would have made a difference I know I'd have liked some steel in that little house.
Bayonets are very useful in combat. It is just plain stupid to stop training soldiers with the bayonets. I know for a fact soldiers still use bayonets in Afghanistan. Especially when they have to go through a plant farm, those plants that grow as tall as corn (sorry don't remember name). But they grow over 6ft tall in the spring. My point? The Taliban could be hiding in there when engaged. You never know where the taliban are in there. They could be firing 30 yards from you or even just 2 yards away. This is why the bayonet is useful in this type of situation.
Fran is right also like with alot of instances with the brits when you get swarmed when low on ammo.
The bayonet was designed to allow regements of men to stay off calvary and other fighters who could do close combat.
Over time it seems to not be needed but think about this.
Your in a tiny oupost in afghanistan. Suddenly your attacked by hundreds of fighters all you have is a light company and they are charging…..hey this sounds weirdly familiar………you havent had time to plant mines infact it is not allowed because of the small village close by and the risk of injuring civilians. You take out alot but the ragged remains are still coming. They begin to break but a number of hardcore jihadies jacked up on drugs and fanaticism get threw.
They are only a few yards away.
Its one of those worst case things but then again war is chaos.
In the first few days of OIF a Marine unit used a bayonet charge against a Fedayeen unit taking cover in a ditch. I don't recall if it was because of low ammo or just a good opportunity, but you never know.
Back in 1999 when I went through basic training most of my bunkmates were 18 year old video gamers who grew up on the push-button glory of Desert Storm. We went to the bayonet course and the drill sergeant was trying to impart the lethality of a bayonet. He grabbed a rifle and barely swung it at a tree trunk. The bayonet stuck and to his surprise he needed both hands to pull the rifle out (6'2", 220 pound sgt). The privates all stopped laughing and realized they had a serious weapon on the tip of their rifles.
Good for crowd control but for urban cqb, they'll stick each other in the stack. Its a last ditch weapon.
My personal favorite story is of an Airman in the 820th SFS. He was part of a raid in Iraq of a suspected terrorist leader and was assigned the job of breaching. After he knocked the door in, he went in and cleared a room seperate from the rest of his fire team. He went in and found a woman and the suspect, and the suspect was reaching under the bed for what turned out to be a gun. The Airman brought his weapon to bear only to realize his M4 was still slung and he was holding the mallet. So he caved the guy’s brains in.
How much fucking training could it take, you take the pointy end and you stick it in the asshole in front of you.
The real problem the Army has with the bayonet is that it doesn't cost $2.5M a piece, isn't 10 years behind schedule, and has no networking capabilities.
Yeah well said. and also it doesn't need batterys
"The real problem the Army has with the bayonet is that it doesn't cost $2.5M a piece, isn't 10 years behind schedule, and has no networking capabilities."
Too true.
I fight with North Korea or China, the Bayonets could be a life saving tool. Just imagine holding a line and being over ran, or running out of ammo. Having a bayonet could be your only option. It does have a practical value, maybe not in the current battlefield, but in other conflicts.
Ok, you're HALO III skills are not withstanding … you have real life knowledge of what you are talking about, right?
Does ity count to pray while fixing bayonets?
Can you pray to the emperor?
As an Ex Royal Marine I can assure you there is no better sound than the click of fixing bayonets and then charging the enemy, in my case people of the muslim faith.
It scares the living crap out them and by crikey does it get your fighting rage going you go like a bat out of hell screaming blue murder a truly frightening sight to behold.
Get rid of bayonets? Nah' no way, only a civilian could come up with that kind of statement when the chips are down the bayonet is always there .
Amen!
If bayonets are that only good for intimadating the enemy, then logic would have it that the bigger the bayonet, the bigger the intimadation. Therefore, an M-1 travelling around the battlefield with a 15 foot bayonet would have the enemy running all the way back to Pakistan.
The only time I ever had blood on my bayonet was when a fellow soldier fainted while we where 'standing at ease' on a parade and he fell backwards onto my rifle which is held at an angle away from the body. jabbed him in the shoulder. They work alright ha ha.
If the Taliban were talking about bayonets, we'd be laughing at them for being medieval savages with no grasp of modern warfare.
Same here.
Meanwhile the Russians have just flown a 5th-Gen aircraft. I'm sure they'll be impressed by those bayonets.
The dad burn M-16 is not strong enough to survive a serious bayonet assult. The days of a wooden stock Springfield with a solid steel barrel are gone.
Besides, we do not want soldiers playing with knives; someone might get hurt
A short carbine [shorter is stiffer when it comes to cylindrical objects like barrels) with a bayonet makes alot of sense in situations where the bad guy might be at bad breath range. You could be in the middle of a mag swap, and get rushed from around a corner. Sure you could grab your side arm, but you have that carbine in your hands. Sure, hitting him with the muzzle will slow him down, but it might not be enough. Stabbing him with an affixed bayonet…
Marines went with the "bigger is better" idea…I love their new Bayonet…freaking Bowie knife.
Don't the Russians and chinese still teach bayo fighting?
Folks seem to be missing the point — it'sseldom about using the bayonet, it's the spirit of the bayonet that counts. I would argue that bayonet training be retained.
Seconded.
The use of "bayonet skills" may be negligible in the GWOT, but ditching them completely is a bad idea. As jjkm pointed out, the bayonet itself is still good for crowd control — checkpoints, barricades, food distribution, etc. — as well as other SASO tasks.
Let's also not forget that "bayonet skills" means buttstrokes, blocks, etc. — fundamental CQB and weapons retention skills that still have a role in LIC, even the GWOT. Granted, contemporary weapons have so much gear hanging off the rails that it makes using a bayonet difficult. You can still give someone a good lick with the barrel.
Lastly, bayonet skills are a good PT exercise, and a confidence builder, and a good adjunct to basic weapons familiarization.
I've truly enjoyed this conversation. I would add one last thing – this idea (to stop bayo training) sounds like the dummies who thought fighter aircraft didn't need a gun so why train them for air-to-air combat – just fire a missile. Well we saw how that worked out in Vietnam. :)
The basic problem with Bayonets today is that the carbine is to short to use one effectively. A full size rifle like the M-1, m-14, FAL or G-3 it still is useful. Besides, cold steel needs no reload or fine cleaning to work like a m-9 pistol or m-4.
true, and well it works well when you need to kill at close range.
there is no excuse at all for not training with the bayonet and also for not training the army personal more in unarmed combat as well. ( unarmed combat that is not politically correct sport type. but systems that are intended to kill and maim a man while you mostly stay on your feet. .. on the ground when others are there who are your attackers friends is a great way to get a head, or ribs or kidney or pelvic girdle or groin kicked in while you roll around being PC. )
Perhaps substituting additional marksmanship training over bayonet training will be the way to go. Keep bayonet training for the combat arms.
If they haven’t time in basic to impart the necessary skills then perhaps the gaining units can take up the slack. Nah, screw that, they need the basics from the get-go, including officers. Can we get a bayonet lug installed on the M1A2′s?
IN 480 BC 300 SPARTANS AND A COUPLE THOUSAND OTHER GREEKS HELD OFF THE PERSIANS (1-2 MILLION DEPENDING WHO YO ASK) UTILIZING TERRAIN, SUPERIOR ARMOR AND THE BEST AND MOST FEARED WEAPON KNOWN IN THAT PART OF THE WORLD AT THE TIME. THE HOPLITE SPEAR. THE SPARTAN SPEAR WAS EIGHT FEET LONG (SHORTER BY 2-4 FEET THAN EVEN OTHER GREEKS) THE SPEAR TORE THROUGH THE ENEMY'S FRONT RANKS AND IF YOU WERE IN THE REAR OF THE FORMATION YOU HAD TO FILL THE GAPS USUALLY STEPPING ON THE DEAD. YOU GOT TO SEE WHAT A SPEAR DID UP CLOSE AND WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING AT THAT PARALIZED WITH FEAR YOU THEN GOT TO FEEL THE LAST THING THAT GUY YOU WERE STARING AT FELT. THE BAYONET IS THE MODERN DAY EVOLUTION OF THE SPEAR AND WHEN IT GETS THAT THICK , WELL ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES. WE ARE TODAY'S SPARTANS. HOOAH SCOTLAND FOR THAT CHARGE.
I've been in the Army 27 years. I have often needed a knife to do my job. I carry a Swiss Army and K-Bar. I have NEVER had to fix bayonet, not even in the Pentagon!
We used a bayonet charge effectively in VietNam. Cleared a fortified hill in fog, where casualties from friendly fire were too likely. CO (who just died a few weeks ago) ordered "fix bayonets" and they charged up hill screaming. After a few cong were skewered, rest ran. Scots Guards had similar experience in Korea. The BAND and a work party they were helping, to give other soldiers a bit of rest, were off to side of main BN area when they saw a flank attack silently charging up hill to a point where they would be able to do serious damage. Although grossly outnumbered , with little ammo, but with bayonets, ceremonial swords, picks, shovels and axes, the NCO sent a runner to warn main body and ordered a charge (yes, led by a piper) and attacked the red chinese, screaming and swing axes, with rifle support (limited to small security detail) shooting until out of ammo then using bayonets. The sight of the Scots soldiers screaming, in kilts, the pipes, and various edged weapons swing through the first chinese to be attacked scared the crap out of them and they turned and ran in panic. By the time they had regrouped, reinforcements the the ladies from hell (Scots) had arrived. Many lives were saved by such bravery and the visceral terror efffect of edged weapons. In western Pakistan, I worke dwith frontier police who carried swords on their horses (jeeps could not go where they did) as well as firearms, and they said the hill tribes had little fear or respect for gun wounds, but were afraid of swords! The Army is making a mistake here. An old Army Chief.
I think when it comes to bayonet training, they are talking about cutting it from Basic Training. I don't believe that means it will not be taught to Infantrymen and other soldiers in combat oriented MOS in AIT. My initial reaction was similar to yours, but it occurred to me that it just isn't a skill necessary for every soldier in the Army. Your average cook, clerk, or musician will probably never mount a bayonet to a rifle except when they have those fun basic training photos taken that everyone seems to do.
The Marines have it right. EVERYONE is a grunt as their back-up specialty. You'd think that with the lack of front line where anyone at nearly any time could be involved in combat, either long rang or close-up, that the Army would want ALL of their personnel to be familiar with a wide range of weapons and fighting styles. But I guess not.
I was in a combat branch and never fired by M-16 in anger. By the logic of some, I might as well have been unarmed since I never had to use it.
Keep the Bayonet….it has already proven it's effectiveness in Iraq.
Bayonets are even more relevent now then they have been in the past few decades. Shorter M-4s are being used for CQB in houses where soldiers are within inches of the enemy. Too many times I heard about enemies who tried to grab the barrel of the US soldier….the answer….a nice sharp bayonet.
Also in Iraq a tied down British unit effectively charged an attacking insurgent unit as they ran low on ammo. Not one British soldier was killed, 30 enemy where killed, and another 40 or so insurgents were captured. The report said that the insurgents became scared and panicked and became an easy target there after.
Keep the bayonet, but modify the training for CQB.
Bayonet and Edged Weapons are essential skills of an infantry soldier or Marine. I cannot imagine the military being so neglient as to fail to train our warfighters in such fundamental, basic and necessary skills. Who are the idiots running our military these days???
As a former drill Instructor, I have seeing this army gone to hell. Basic training is not like it used to be and of course our soldier are not like they were when I was in. I guess that, with the removal of the don't ask don't tell rules, our soldiers are going to be required to make any assault going backward. God Help US.
If I read the General's comment correctly, the troops will be taught more CQB with the bayonet as a knife rather than on the end of the rifle. I believe that this is of more value than using your rifle as a spear (which is what the bayonet was designed to do) which was effective against cavalry, but not against massed troops armed with AKs. I believe that last effective bayonet charge the USA undertook was Col. Millett's charge in Korea, 50 years ago. Times have changed.
The idea of conducting a bayonet charge is albeit a little archaic but the training for it is a fundamental part of new a soldier’s training. Not so much as the knife with the weapon but more to develop that aggressive nature, to force the individual to reach deep inside themselves and find that spark within that will keep them alive one day on a battlefield. If the replacement training can accomplish that then I say go for it. If not, then rifle bayonet training needs to stay.
A) if you read the article on military.com it said they are removing the bayonet training from bct not the army in general. in my 8 years in the army i have not been in a unit that even had bayonets in their mtow let along in their actual invintory.
B) if you read the point of that article the army has realized there are a lot of training in bct that is not for the basic soldier, but is for the infintry soldier
c) the weapon of choice of our current enemy in afghanistan is the ied. i know this as i am currently deployed there
Well as for the relevance in the 21st century I must say the the bayonet still has a place. The british have had 2 bayonet charges since the war on terror started, one in Basrah Iraq in 204 were the Brits killed 30 and captured 12 and another in Afghanista were a soldier charged and bayoneted a bad dude when he ran out of ammo. In addition there are some units that are actually kicing in dorrs with bayoets attached. In 203 members of the 173rd Airborne Brigade shortly after there cobat jump into Bashar Iraq, patroled much of Kurkuk with fixed bayonets. It is a HUGE pyschological factor that can not be ignored. How much did it cost the US tax payers to deliver "Shock and Awe" , thousands of smart bombs costings tens of thousands of dollars a peice. I submit that baynoets are much cheaper. And since they are "in your face" and atached to a pissed off soldier I think they have an edge over the destruction ad impersional effects of laser guided bombs. There is just something very personnal and distubing about having a big piece of cold steel slide through your gut.
I say keep the Bayonet and teach it to everyone in the service.
Via la bayonet!
I agree with the sentiment,a bayonet is a freightning piece of equipment and for a soldier in a close combat situation can be the difference between life and death
The cost of the bayonet is neglible, the training in its use should be part of the training of every soldier, the fact is war is dirty, nasty and full of surprises, the capacity for a soldier to defend himself as needed in a close combat situation is a necessity that all soldiers should have been trained in. If they are not the leadership, both politically and militarily must take the moral responsiblility for the death caused by the lack of such training.
S/SGT. ROBERT MARCONTI,25 YRS.RETIERED; I THINK THE ARMY IS DOING A BIG & I MEAN BIG INJUSTACE BY DOING AWAY WITH THE BAYONET TRAING. I SERVED IN VIET-NAM IN 68-69, AND THE BAYONET ON THE END OF A WEAPON, WAS VERY SEREAL, AND IT SHOWED THE ENEMY U MENT BISNESS, COLD HARD STEEL BISNESS, JUST MY THOUGHTS ON THE SUBJECT.
Just Nuke the Bastards!
as an e-5 in the infantry, i can tell you with some authority that the army and its f-ing generals have no interest in training for bayonets. ask a veteran of korea about bayonettes and they'll tell you about how rough korea was. they'll swear by them. i swear by them. they are excellent for a close range fight- it scares the living shit out of the enemy. they should get rid of the love affair with level 1 combatives and all that unuseable crap and train our joes on this peice of equipment.
as the recruit is being trained to use the bayonet it is a huge confidence boost. Its one of the few times in recruit training where you actually feel like you have the ability to destroy the enemy. nothing beats the rush of running through the bayonet assault course, warcrying your lungs out, and destroying that goddamn course! oorah!