-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is $300 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Combat knives: dagger vs bowie
- Thread starter Whisper21
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 2,693
My guess- less utility with a double edge dagger. If you want to carry a knife for combat, you'd want both utility and a weapon. Bowie style fits the role nicely.
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2012
- Messages
- 140
Because the face of warfare changed after the '70s. You're more likely to have to slice an MRE, or knock a hole in a mud hut wall than stab someone in the subclavian artery. The M9 and 3S bayonets issued today follow the trend that the AK bayonet set, i.e. a rough use knife that could still be used as a weapon in a pinch. I'm still waiting for the Smatchet bayonet to be announced though.
I'm not sure that there is any standard "military combat knife" anymore. Are you referring to the Kabar?
The people I know who have been to the Middle East to fight carried a variety of blades, way more Cold Steel and Benchmade and ESEE knives than Kabars. Some only used a multi tool and made it home safely.
I know that a lot of people were issued Terzuola CQB1s in the 2000's, the best mass produced "military combat knife" I can think of. These were definately more "dagger" than "bowie" but are great for general utility.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2013
- Messages
- 2,807
I would prefer a tanto over either. They're very popular as well. Preferably one of these two.
Choosing any one fixed blade, though, I'd prefer my kukri.
Choosing any one fixed blade, though, I'd prefer my kukri.
a commando dagger is more of a highly specialized tool for obvious intentions.
there is an inherent weakness in its structure for anything other than thrusting.
eventually, it made more sense to field a general purpose knife where utility became paramount.
though when needed, a design that could be just as lethal to fight with.
a dagger however, remains a symbol of the elite
thanks largely to the legacy of the commando tradition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_knife
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_knife
there is an inherent weakness in its structure for anything other than thrusting.
eventually, it made more sense to field a general purpose knife where utility became paramount.
though when needed, a design that could be just as lethal to fight with.
a dagger however, remains a symbol of the elite
thanks largely to the legacy of the commando tradition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_knife
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_knife
Precisely. Though I would say "after WW2 if not WW1." A knife is rarely used as a weapon in combat. It's a utility tool. A dagger is not a utility tool, and since there is no more hand to hand trench warfare, or going deep behind enemy line to silently dispach sentries...out went the daggers and in came the Kabars and such. Infinitely more useful, and, in a pinch can be used as a weapon.
But why did the dagger, in your opinion, fall out of favor? That's the question the OP posed.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2012
- Messages
- 678
I would guess that we still have troops that do 'wet'work' at least in Vietnam we did but they were more likely using piano wire or some other quiet means to bring someone to target heart rate zero. Sticking a blade in someone tends to cause them to make noise and that is not what a small strike force wants. My boss was a behind the lines guy operating out of Cambodia in the early 70's. He told some stories of night missions with goals of removing key leaders of cadres along the Ho Chi Minh trail. Having someone screaming would have meant dying in country and we did not have soldiers in Cambodia officially. All their gear was civilian issue, no military gear while on the ground in Cambodia. Ugly stuff really but at the time it was part of the strategy.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2013
- Messages
- 1,173
While what you guys are saying is true to some degree - you can still complete utility tasks with a dagger - my guess regarding the stems of change would be:
- culturally influenced changes sparked by new/trendy marketing
- media (i.e., action movies showcasing what Hollywood believes to be a "commando-knife."
- and knife companies competing, and showcasing "new" & more "improved" knives..
- and people *following each other, keeping up with the Jones's type dealio
While I agree that Bowles are both great for fighting & utility, daggers can do the same (maybe with more effort, but still..) I think our cultural perception of what a combat knife "should be," has drastically changed from 50 years ago..
True, no doubt that style of hand to hand still is still used by an elite group.
One thing worth noting is that one of the things Fairbairn's dagger was designed to do was hit an artery and cause unconciousness in under 30 seconds (at some spots instataneously). It was meant to work "quietly."
I will admit I have no training or experience in knife fighting, but I am in the military. Whoever said that a soldiers knife needs to be a utility tool is spot on. Your chances of having to pry with your knife are much higher than having to stab somebody with it.
Not particularly. The "tench warfare" style daggers were found to be great weapons but poor tools. Pure fighters...no utility. They were of little use to the "non-commando." Hence the Mark 2/Kabar, MK1, Randall No. 1, etc. It was driven by what servicepeople would/could use, not "trendy marketing."
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2013
- Messages
- 2,807
I will agree with other posters about its limited utility in comparison with a Bowie. I do like daggers, however.
You are certainly welcome to like daggers! Though, apparently, not many service people did.
And I thought you said you preferred tantos.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2013
- Messages
- 2,807
You are certainly welcome to like daggers! Though, apparently, not many service people did.
And I thought you said you preferred tantos.
I do, I do. You see, you can tell my preferences based on what I own. I own 8 tantos (soon to be 9), 3 Bowie-styled blades (I have another being shipped to me right now), and one dagger.
I'm very specific about my tantos, however. If they don't feature a reinforced tip like the original Lynn Thompson American Tantos, I'm generally not interested.
That Spyderco Lum Tanto is beautiful, though....
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2012
- Messages
- 424
I have a good friend who served in Iraq who carried both a Cold Steel Peace Keeper and SOG Seal Bowie. The dagger saw action in CQC and performed it's intended purpose very well. The SOG bowie performed well at utility tasks and on one occasion chopping through power lines that had become entangled on his APC's cammera boom when it decided to extend by itself, insulated handles come in handy sometimes. Both designs have their place on the battlefield.
the faibairn sykes fighting knife / british commando dagger was introduced during the second world war for use of behind the enemy lines operations (including the british s.o.e. and american o.s.s., whose missions included sabotage and subversion).
besides the british commandos, free and allied military elements who were trained by these commandos
adopted the f/s knife and in time even developed their own war daggers.
one good example was the introduction of the American m3 trench knife.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_fighting_knife
on which it's blade design became the basis of the m4 thru m7 series usgi bayonets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M7_bayonet
in a way, thanks largely to the lasting legacy of the last great war.
basically, most daggers forms were slim and did not have the more ideal wide belly for general cutting utility to put an effective secondary bevel edge on.
hence, the raise of the bowie shaped m9 bayonet with its multiple applications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M9_bayonet
and the usmcs OKC3S
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331438/pointy-end-united-states-marine-corps-daniel-foster
which is geared for hand2hand with a touch of bill bagwell's big bowies philosophy.
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/defensive-knives-other-weapons/7274-story-bill-bagwell.html.
besides the british commandos, free and allied military elements who were trained by these commandos
adopted the f/s knife and in time even developed their own war daggers.
one good example was the introduction of the American m3 trench knife.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_fighting_knife
on which it's blade design became the basis of the m4 thru m7 series usgi bayonets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M7_bayonet
in a way, thanks largely to the lasting legacy of the last great war.
basically, most daggers forms were slim and did not have the more ideal wide belly for general cutting utility to put an effective secondary bevel edge on.
hence, the raise of the bowie shaped m9 bayonet with its multiple applications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M9_bayonet
and the usmcs OKC3S
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331438/pointy-end-united-states-marine-corps-daniel-foster
which is geared for hand2hand with a touch of bill bagwell's big bowies philosophy.
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/defensive-knives-other-weapons/7274-story-bill-bagwell.html.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 2,696
No, the lack of utility like those you replied to said, is a much more accurate reason. Of course, there are always a ton of inputs leading to a change, but historically 99.9999% of these soldiers never would use a knife in combat, but absolutely would use it to perform all sorts of nitty gritty utility tasks. And the soldiers with their boots on the ground found out that daggers SUCK at utility tasks and wanted different style knives. the change happened before Hollywood had that level of effect on people, I believe. A dagger is just simply a crappy thing to carry on today, and even yesterday's, battlefield.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2006
- Messages
- 5,603
Sentry and dogs are removed with firearms and cartridges designed to work with suppressors. Preferable brain stem hits. Armed and unarmed self defense type stuff are still taught but the chances of really getting close enough to remove sentry s with a knife, garrote, whatever are not that good. Competent planning attempts to remove things like luck or chance from any operation. It's a lot easier to do on TV than in real life, to be sure. Imagine attempting to sneak up and reduce a position with two guards and a dog. Orbiting B52's at 42,000 ft with sniper pods and guided bombs work much better than suppressed firearms too, especially when guided by someone on the ground. The use of knives in combat in western type armies is rare. The last I recall was a Honduran or El Salvadoran soldier in Iraq. The Spanish contingent his unit was attached to departed hastily, the bad guys rushed in and he took at least one out with an auto, type unknown. Not Benchmade or Microtech. Something more like the Italian Hunting autos I believe that sells at gunshows here for maybe $30