The best way to use a bayonet to kill

[burlington]

A recent posting HERE about atrocities commented on soldiers being bayonetted through the neck.

This made me recall reading that by 1918 the Australians had perfected a method of quick and relatively painless way of killing viz that the bayonet is thrust upwards through the neck so that it pierces the spinal cord.

The victim dies quickly and in little pain and there is not a lot of blood. Or so I have read.

Also, it is said that this created havoc amongst the enemy. Or perhaps that is just an Oz myth or factoid.

Any comments?

Martin

[Jon6640]

At the end of the day there is no 'nice' way to kill with a bayonet. I recall toms in the Falklands going for the face and eyes as the Argentinian winter kit was so thick it made bayonets less effective.

[birkettm]

I have came accross this before. Twas in a much earlier timeframe though - Napoloenic or 13 Colonies....

[PhilB]

It would have to be a fairly accurate bayonet thrust to hit the spinal cord? I really can`t see even Australians, (repositories of all military virtue! ) being that good! Even Sharpe and Harper couldn`t do that. Phil B

[slovdave]

Possibly true, but as an initial reaction I should have thought that the neck is an unhelpfully small target to aim your bayonet at (not to say the spinal cord which is even smaller) and suffers from the instinctive reaction of throwing up the hands/arms in defence. This surely means a high probability of missing the target entirely whilst momentum closes the gap with the 'victim' leaving the assaulter in danger of counter attack. As I understood it, the point of bayonet drill aiming for the centre of mass was that it's much harder to get out of the way/defend.

I'm probably wrong though.

Cheers.

Dave.

[burlington]

It will soon be daytime in Oz so I expect that we will get the full story when we wake up in the morning here in the U of K

Martin

[stevem49]

A recent posting HERE about atrocities commented on soldiers being bayonetted through the neck.

This made me recall reading that by 1918 the Australians had perfected a method of quick and relatively painless way of killing viz that the bayonet is thrust upwards through the neck so that it pierces the spinal cord.

The victim dies quickly and in little pain and there is not a lot of blood. Or so I have read.

Also, it is said that this created havoc amongst the enemy. Or perhaps that is just an Oz myth or factoid.

Any comments?

Martin

I was taught - centre of the body, dirty bayonet (more germs) - Stick it in, twist it, pull it out. Worked for me! A wounded 'victim' in agony calls on more of the enemy's resources, so a quick kill is not so good.

stevem

[Guest KevinEndon]

My great grandfathers story of using a bayonet went like this. Please do not tell me it was a porky pie I have lived 40 years with this image lol.

" I would come accross a Hun, stick the bayonet in him, twisted and threw him over my shoulder, I lined up the next one, stick the bayont in him, twisted and threw him over my shoulder, I lined up the next one, stick the bayonet in him, twisted and threw him over my shoulder". This story went on and on and on. No wonder so many Germans died during the war my Grandfather by his accounts did it.

The best way to use the bayonet and is still taught today is the old fashioned in, twist and pull. No doubt the books tell you to do it that way to cover some sort of convention but real life is totally different.

Kevin

[Chris Henschke]

From 'Bayonet Training. 1916'.

"para 19. Point of the bayonet directed at the base of the opponent's throat, the rifle held easily and naturally with both hands,..."

"para 23. If possible, the point of the bayonet should be directed against an opponent's throat,...other vulnerable and usually exposed parts are the face, chest, lower abdomen and thighs, and the region of the kidneys when the back is turned."

"para 30. From the position of the "short point" shift the right hand up the rifle and grasp it above the backsight, at the same time bringing the rifle to an almost vertical position close to the body, and, from this position, bend the knees and jab the point of the bayonet upwards into the throat or under the chin of the opponent."

They would have aimed for the throat because that is how probably the entire BEF were trained in the bullring.

Chris Henschke

[burlington]

The reason of course for twisting the bayonet once thrust in was not to allow for easy withdrawal but so that the blood had an easy passage out of the body rather than accumulate therein.

(Message to moderators: 'If this gets all too much for you please look away!')

Martin

[Willywombat]

The reason of course for twisting the bayonet once thrust in was not to allow for easy withdrawal but so that the blood had an easy passage out of the body rather than accumulate therein.

I'm not sure about that. I was always told that the twisting was to relieve air pressure and thus make it easier to get out, as well as making the wound a tad nastier. I believe that's also the reason for the grooves down the length of a bayonet, as well as making the blade stronger and less likely to bend.

I'm not sure I'd be very good at bayonet fighting if it came to the crunch, although no doubt a "them or me" situation might give me some encouragement. I think I'd prefer to pop off the hun at a distance if at all possible.

[PhilB]

The throat seems to have the disadvantage of being a small target but the advantage of being very easily seriously damaged. Anything you hit in there is likely to be life threatening? Phil B

[marina]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Oct 16 2006, 09:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The throat seems to have the disadvantage of being a small target but the advantage of being very easily seriously damaged. Anything you hit in there is likely to be life threatening? Phil B

Medieval foot soldiers used to finish off the wouunded with a dagger thrust up into the hlittle soft bit at the base of the skull.

Marina

[Crunchy]

Martin is correct, and it is a point (no pun intended) I was made aware of last month. Spent a week walking the battlefields Australians fought on in France and Belgium with Dr Peter Pedersen. (A rare treat for Aussies and Kiwi's). During our discussion on 2nd Villers-Bret Peter mentioned that by this stage of the war the Diggers in 'Pompey' Elliot's Brigade had been training in bayonetting through the base of the throat which was much more effective than earlier methods - and they used it effectively in this particular action. This was based on his research of primary sources. I'm not sure if they developed the technique. Chris Henschke's post indicates that this was not so.

Peter (who wrote Monash as a Military Commander) has a new book coming out in March 2007 which I think will be titled " ANZACs: Gallipoli to the Western Front". Commissioned by Penquin. From the excerpts I have seen it sounds as if it will be a good book. He rates some Brit Commanders as very good and some homegrown Aussie commanders as poor - good to see some of our Aussie myths being stripped away!!! Being a party of ex-Army Officers we primarily focussed on the background, planning and objectives of each action and the relative achievements. Nothing like seeing the ground to put things in perspective.

Regards

Crunchy

[Chris Henschke]

Whoops - overlooked the introduction!

para 1. "...The bayonet is essentially an offensive weapon - go straight at an opponent with the point threatening his throat and deliver the point wherever an opening presents itself..."

Can anyone point to any manuals or instructions of the period that include 'twisting' as part of the training?

Chris Henschke

[Tom A McCluskey]

Hi All,

The throat seems the most logical as it is the most exposed, and vulnerable, that will give the most positive results. The alternative to this I suppose would be the groin.

Windpipe - lack of air...death

Jugular - massive loss of blood ...death

Spine - cessation of signals to the arms legs ...paralysis

Brain (if thrust upwards from an acute angle), again with fairly predictable results.

I have no doubt that in the real situation any exposed part would be a target, and the victim may be subjected to a frenzied attack. but the trouble is soldiers are burdened with straps and equipment, and in the case of the Germans this was made of leather, plus a gas mask around the kidneys. Also, the use of body armour appears to be more prevalent in the German army. A leather belt covered the lower part of the abdomen, and the chest is protected by the ribs (unless of course the blade slips between them). Equipment, straps, and bone structure could have a tendency to deflect a blow, or lessen the effect of the thrust. The Commandos had this same problem during the second world war and opted for the throat - downwards, or stabbed the intended target to death in a two-man attack.

There was a period when the army was teaching to slash (after the second world war), the thought being that this would give a horrendous wound, but the equipment problem still prevails.

Hope this helps

Some good bits on this in the 'whites of their eyes'

Tom McC

[burlington]

Can anyone point to any manuals or instructions of the period that include 'twisting' as part of the training?

This came from the memoirs of a WW1 soldier though which one of the very many I can't recall. I don't really want to read them all again!

He mentioned his training in bayonet use. 'IN, TWIST and OUT'. 'Gets air in to the wound and allows the free flow of blood.'

Martin

[PhilB]

Being a party of ex-Army Officers we primarily focussed on the background, planning and objectives of each action and the relative achievements. Nothing like seeing the ground to put things in perspective.

Regards

Crunchy

Whereas we non-ex Army officers didn`t bother with that intellectual stuff and just knocked back our tinnies?

I`ve been checking on Bernard Cornwell (usually historically accurate) and he seems always to have his infantrymen ordered to "aim for the belly, not the ribs". In my time, though not PBI, I was never told to aim for the throat so perhaps it was a WW1 thing. The neck is one of the few places where you could disable someone in battle gear with a slashing stroke, but that seems not to have been the aim if a straight thrust was advised. Even so, a moving 4 inch square does seem a very difficult target. Phil B

[Crunchy]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Oct 17 2006, 06:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whereas we non-ex Army officers didn`t bother with that intellectual stuff and just knocked back our tinnies? Phil B

Fosters I hope. Apologies if I sounded pompous never intended it to be. Swung the banjo, sorry shovel, as a sapper myself once. - drank Swan Lager in those days.

Regards

Crunchy

[Crunchy]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Oct 17 2006, 06:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In my time, though not PBI, I was never told to aim for the throat so perhaps it was a WW1 thing.

Hi Phil, again,

In my day, as a PBI, (after my time in the RAE) we didn't even undertake bayonet fighing training - used it to dig a particular type of hole in Vietnam.

Regards

Crunchy

[eltoro1960]

The bayonet is an absolutely appalling weapon, the reason for the twist is multifold.

1 Cause maximum damage to internal organs

2 Break natural suction caused by contracting muscles

3 Leave the wound almost unrepairable , straight jab equals neat edges which can be stitched back, twist = raggy mess.

God I have went off my breakfast now.

[PhilB]

From the WFA website:-

British Army bayonet tactics on the Western Front

Many Great War soldiers semi-seriously claimed that the bayonet was more useful in such mundane tasks such as chopping wood, opening tin cans, digging and even hanging up clothes, than in was in combat. But there is no doubt that the bayonet became, as the war progressed, more a combat weapon of opportunity and was generally only employed when such a suitable situation presented itself.

The professed ideal bayonet target areas of the body were the throat, the chest and the groin. Many veterans soon learned that a bayonet thrust to the chest of the enemy could present problems in withdrawing the bayonet, whilst a stab to the groin meant the victim tended to grab the weapon and refused to let go. Such hiatuses in close quarter fighting made the bayonet wielder himself highly susceptible to attack. Some soldiers claimed that aiming a slashing blow at the face and the hands of the enemy was more immediately disabling to him.

During an advance on the battlefield, some British battalions had the deliberate policy of bayoneting the wounded enemy en passant to neutralise them. And there are reliable reports that wounded, and wound-faking, enemy soldiers fired at the backs of advancing British soldiers. There are also personal accounts by soldiers of both sides of bayoneting unarmed POW?s, in and behind the lines, although this was rarely admitted officially by either side.

Perhaps the most often question posed to veterans of the bayonet was ?Why use the bayonet at all in close quarter fighting ? why not just shoot the enemy?? Of course, there were occasions when ammunition had run out, was getting very short, or the rifle had jammed: as we shall see, this notoriously happened to the Canadians with their Ross rifles in April 1915. But a principal consideration was that to open fire when engaged in close quarter fighting was to put one?s comrades at risk, either directly or by a bullet that had passed through one, or more, of the enemy. It was by no means rare for a British 0.303 bullet to pass through several bodies.

[Matthew]

I think we've missed a key point in this discussion (fascinating although it has been) and that is that the bayonet is primarily a psychological weapon. If your troops are pumped-up enough to run at the enemy with their bayonets there will come a point where the enemy moral breaks and they run or freeze. This has always been the case with bladed weapons from ancient history to the advent of gunpowder; whichever sides moral breaks first is the one that will run and then get cut down.

The question has been raised as to why the bayonet over the bullet. As they always used to teach us the only way to win the fight is to capture the ground; and the only way you can do that is to get on top of it with the bayonet.

Whenever my mind falls to wondering how I would have coped in the Great War its always facing a baynoet charge that chills my blood.

[ian turner]

Cannot resist repeating the Sassoon poem, 'The Kiss':

To these I turn, in these I trust,

Brother Lead and Sister Steel.

To his blind power I make appeal,

I guard her beauty clean from rust.

He spins and burns and loves the air,

And splits a skull to win my praise.

But up the nobly marching days

She glitters naked, cold and fair.

Sweet sister grant your soldier this,

That in good fury he may feel,

The body where he sets his heel

Quail from your downward-darting kiss.

(With apologies for any inaccuracies in the quote)

++

My grandfather (Seaforths) recounted how surrendering german machingunners would be summarily bayonetted. He personally would keep a bullet 'up the spout' rather than risk arguing (by bayonet) with a big German!

Ian

[burlington]

I think we've missed a key point in this discussion (fascinating although it has been) and that is that the bayonet is primarily a psychological weapon. If your troops are pumped-up enough to run at the enemy with their bayonets there will come a point where the enemy moral breaks and they run or freeze.

I think that this was the issue with the Aussies in 1918. According to the reports I read.

I am sure that Malcolm Brown mentions it in his book '1918' - but I can't find the reference!

The bayonet is an absolutely appalling weapon, the reason for the twist is multifold.

1 Cause maximum damage to internal organs

2 Break natural suction caused by contracting muscles

3 Leave the wound almost unrepairable , straight jab equals neat edges which can be stitched back, twist = raggy mess.

Quite!

Martin