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
{ 81 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
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.
← Previous Comments