The best way to use a bayonet to kill

[grantsmil]

From 'Bayonet Training. 1916'.

"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

Here is an image that appears to show the "short point", as practiced by some Australians.

[ChrisC]

Was it something like 0.01% of wounds caused by the bayonet in WW1? Sure I read it somewhere - can't remember where.

Chris C

[PhilB]

In that "short point" position, the soldier is almost touching his opponent. Is it assumed that the opponent hasn`t got a rifle & bayonet? Phil B

[squirrel]

Given the confines of a trench it looks about right - presumably there was a maneuvre to get the person in a postion for this to be done.

[Chris Henschke]

Grantsmil has loaded an excellent image, however it shows the 'Jab or Upward point'.

The short point was used at a range of about three feet, and in close fighting it is the natural 'point' to make when the bayonet has just been withdrawn after a 'long point.'

The image shows the 'jab or upward point' and was taught to "be employed successfully in close-quarter fighting in narrow trenches and when "embraced" by an opponent."

Chris Henschke

[PhilB]

Does that mean it`s to be used only if you (& your opponent) haven`t got room for a "normal" thrust?

[Chris Henschke]

Yes

[grantsmil]

The short point was used at a range of about three feet, and in close fighting it is the natural 'point' to make when the bayonet has just been withdrawn after a 'long point.'

The image shows the 'jab or upward point' and was taught to "be employed successfully in close-quarter fighting in narrow trenches and when "embraced" by an opponent."

Yes, hence no mention of the other hand moved close to the bayonet grip. I assumed this method is also mentioned in 'Bayonet Training. 1916' ? I can't seem to locate my copy at the moment.

Here is a more conventional image of bayonet practice.

Followed by another image for that 'further away foe'(?)

[Tom A McCluskey]

Chris

Statisticians often highlight this low percentage of bayonet casualties. (Going off theme for a minute ...) Remember, the cult of the bayonet was impressed on the troops with regular routine. In fact one of 4 things that Kitchener's men were taught, almost daily (before even the issue of uniforms), was the use of the bayonet. The British Army learned in Napoleonic times the psychological impact that troops charging with fixed bayonets had on the enemy, moreso, if the troops looked like nothing was going to deter them from their mission of taking a life. My point being that in the absence of other close quarter weapons, such as pistols and SMGs, the bayonet was impressed upon the men as the weapon of choice.

And, here are the hard facts:

1. Casualty statistics are done on those returning to dressing stations. Who hangs around after the battle to measure up who was killed by what?

2. The bayonet is one of the most personal ways of killing someone. Most recipients of a bayonet wound are stabbed and gouged to death. Which is why, when referring to bayonets this is a ridiculous statistic (see para1).

3. Read any infantryman's account of the First World War and the use of the bayonet, especially the soldiers willingness to use the bayonet, and its effects are frequently mentioned.

Hope this helps put another slant on this thread (None of which is supposed to be facetious, just getting my point across - Excuse the pun )

Aye

Tom McC

PS - Grantsmil - Great Pictures

[PhilB]

Chris

The British Army learned in Napoleonic times the psychological impact that troops charging with fixed bayonets had on the enemy, moreso, if the troops looked like nothing was going to deter them from their mission of taking a life.

Tom McC

There seems to be a subtle difference between bayonet use in Napoleonic and WW1 times and that`s in the timing. The commander, who would be watching the action, would choose the optimum moment in Napoleonic times to launch the bayonet attack. He would have seen that the enemy were weakened, demoralized & in the open. In WW1, however, this wasn`t the case. The troops went over at a pre-arranged time with no consideration of the current state of the enemy who was probably entrenched. Not the same thing at all? Phil B

[Tom A McCluskey]

Phil,

I am not getting into a argument on the aspect of the mental state of the French or Germans whenever British soldiers were assaulting their position, or carrying out a bayonet charge on them. There are plenty of instances of Germans mentioning seeing the 'glistening of bayonets' which had the psychological impact that was needed.

Aye

Tom McC

[Chris Henschke]

Tom,

you make some good points that I have always thought important to remember when these statistics have been quoted. Use of the bayonet was commonplace and to try and compare it's use with casualties caused by artillery is not applicable.

Chris Henschke

[PhilB]

I`m sure the sight of "glistening bayonets" would always be electric. However, it`s possible that, seen before an attack, it might harden the resolve of the entrenched defenders (to make sure the bayonets didn`t reach them) whereas the weakened and demoralized force in the open, with a charging line of bayonets, may see it differently? I`m not putting this forward as fact, just conjecture! Phil B

[Tom A McCluskey]

Phil,

I think because there is no context in my first quote, so, as we are all aware the bayonet is not a weapon of distance. Having fixed bayonets did not going to save the day for various divisions in the 4th Army on the 1st of July, 1916...daylight, 700 yards away from the enemy and more, up against machine guns and dug-in defenders that have plenty of time to reduce an assaulting force's numbers, attackers with weapons at the highport or slope. Without a doubt, there is no psychological impact.

However, if the enemy is imbalanced for any reason, and have reason to doubt that they will no longer have mutual support from their flanking positions due to a sudden rush by the British. The enemy now no longer have the open ground to their advantage; fields of fire; and machine guns in a position to be effective. This was often all that was needed to tip the balance in the attackers favour. (However, unlike the British, the Germans could reinforce in cover). But at close quarters, with the shock of surprise, you can now put the use of the bayonet and seeing and hearing its effects into context. The Highland Division extensively used the bayonet charge, foolhardy yes, maybe, but it still had them rated as the most formidable opponent by the Germans.

Aye

Tom McC

[Crunchy]

Chris

Statisticians often highlight this low percentage of bayonet casualties.

1. Casualty statistics are done on those returning to dressing stations. Who hangs around after the battle to measure up who was killed by what?

Very valid point Tom.

Trying to determine deaths by which means is an imprecise art, particularly on the scale of casulaties in the Great War. The first reference to the low number of bayonet casualties came from the observations of a Doctor in the American Civil War (ACW) who was treating wounded. This appears to have been taken up by some historians in the 1960's as a means of supporting their thesis that the bayonet was an outdated weapon even at that time without really putting the comments into context. The statement was footnoted in their books to prove the point. Yet there are many instances of savage bayonet fighting during the ACW and in the Great War.

I think we would find that there were a lot more deaths caused by the bayonet than some historians would have us believe. The physcological impact cannot be under estimated either.

Regards

Crunchy

[Bob Doneley]

John Laffin makes the same point in one his books. He commented that in his father's experience (an AIF infantry officer) and his own experience (2nd AIF infantry sergeant), bayonets were more frequently used than historians believed. It was just that few people survived a bayonet wound to get back to a CCS to be counted as such.

Crunchie will already know this, that the last Australian bayonet charge was in Vietnam (67 or 68?). Certainly in the late 1970's and 1980's, as Army Reserve infantrymen, we were taught to bayonet or shoot any enemy soldier not obviously dead during an assault. (I still remember our grizzled platoon sergeant - Malaya and Vietnam - telling us that there would be plenty of time to worry about the Geneva Convention LATER!)

[Crunchy]

the last Australian bayonet charge was in Vietnam (67 or 68?).

Hi Bob,

Not sure. I understand the guns that were overun at FSB Coral were retaken with the bayonet. A colleague of mine in 5RAR led a bayonet charge on an enemy position in 1969. By the time they closed with the enemy, Charlie had withdrawn - the pyschological effect???

Regards

Crunchy

[Tom A McCluskey]

Hi all,

To the infantry, the bayonet holds powerful symbology; even to this day once the section commander fits his bayonet: the remainder of the section do likewise, and know that are about to embark on the final part of the assault. The fact that your foe no longer wants to stand off and fire, but wants to get at you, evidently has an effect at close quarters.

In the British Army, the symbol of the infantry is still the bayonet. This is even reflected in infantry trade proficiency, and class badges.

Obviously, the bayonet was put to good use in the Falklands. But it was also used by the Argylls to clear the crater in Aden, and more recently in Iraq.

Aden: have a look at the radio operator with bayonet fixed 2/3 down the page LHS, as I think the battalion did when they re-took the Crater.

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Aden/700.htm

Iraq:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...3/18/nvc218.xml

hope this adds something to the topic

Aye

Tom MCC

[PhilB]

The Highland Division extensively used the bayonet charge, foolhardy yes, maybe, but it still had them rated as the most formidable opponent by the Germans.

Aye

Tom McC

I imagine it often made more military sense in WW1 than walking deliberately forwards with the rifle at high port! Phil B

[findabetterole]

Gentlemen,

From personal experiance, when you are faced with a like armed oppenent who likwise is just as intent on killing you, both combatants adrenaline and will to live are at their highest if not on overload; ones only thought is to stick the mass in front. No amount of field bayonet training in closeted conditions or book learning where, how, and when to stick can prepair you for the actual event.

Yes, one draws upon ones training for the position that one finds oneself in, and if the oppertunity arrises to stick the jugular, then one takes that chance. However, that ideal never or rarely arrises. Close combat is a fearful image, and once in that position, ones savage and basic of instincts prevails.... do the harm and get the hell out of the area. There is no finese, no time to think, no time to plan ones thrust. Its basic primevil survival.

Seph.

[Chris Boonzaier]

A couple of thoughts to this...

1) I find it funny how in Brit accounts the Tommy is the best with the bayonet, all other nations cowering under the advancing blades. In german accounts the Germans with their spades and bayonets are the consumate trench fighter. In French accounts they are mean man to man fighters.

It seems each nation takes pride in being "the best" at cold steel.

2) I have read in many Boer war accounts that as soon as it came to a potential cold steel engagement the Boers would chicken out and leg it. This is mentioned in many British accounts of Boer war skirmishes/Battles.

it took many years for the penny to drop, although it should have been clear right away.... the boers had no bayonets to fight back with.

3) I have an MC to a Corps of Guides officer who killed 2 turks on a daylight raid. His bayonet was stuck in the second and he was having trouble pulling it out in the confines of the trench. He was attacked by a third man.... whose head suddenly fell from his shoulders. A Ghurka had decapitated him with one blow.

[Pete1052]

In histories of the American Civil War there are numerous accounts of bayonet charges but the medical records from the war reveal very few wounds from cold steel. The conclusion most commentators draw is that the losing side in a bayonet attack would run away when the attackers got too close.