How useful are bayonets?

"The actual Southern battlefield "cornbread" was made by stirring one's corn meal directly into salt pork grease to make a sticky paste, twirling your bayonet around in the mix until it clung to the bayonet, and then toasting the mix on the bayonet over a fire. You put a short stick into the portion of the bayonet which fits over the rifle to make a handle, to avoid burning your hand while holding the bayonet. This actually worked pretty well to make a cake, as the bayonet heated the cake from within, the grease in the mix helped it slide off the bayonet when done, and the fire gave it a nice, crispy finish on the outside. Of course, it was still pretty crude, smoky, and dirty"

https://www.csmonitor.com/The-Cultu...Hardtack-crackers-and-Confederate-Johnny-cake
 
afishhunter said:
...
After the war there was no recorded instance of anyone on either side having suffered a wound or killed from a bayonet, after any of the battles.
(Yes, they did keep track of wounds.)
.....
Click to expand...

They kept track of the wounds treated at the aid stations. I suspect that most of those who were bayoneted died on the battlefield and so never made it to an aid station. That would be one of the consequences of fighting an opponents from arms length.

n2s
 
afishhunter said:
I used mine to keep the 'ol smoke pole muzzle down in camp back when I did Civil War Reenactments.
My use was historically accurate. During that war a lot of men on both sides used their bayonet for that, or to hold a candle.
The one thing they didn't use them for was sticking the enemy.
After the war there was no recorded instance of anyone on either side having suffered a wound or killed from a bayonet, after any of the battles.
(Yes, they did keep track of wounds.)
FYI: Even though the Civil War had more wounded and killed than all the wars prior and after combined that the US has been involved in, roughly 40% of the troops on both sides never fired a live round (they shot blanks). If they did shot live rounds, they intentionally fired over the enemy's heads. Since a lot of families had someone fighting in both sides, (they thought if they had fought for the winning side they would not suffer as much incrimination and/or retribution, no matter who won) the soldiers did not want to take a chance on shooting their brother, cousin, uncle, father, etc.
Click to expand...

They say this is true for every war regardless of who’s on the other side. Most people don’t want to kill other people and so shoot towards the enemy without truly aiming even when presented the opportunity.

Here is an interesting video on the subject.
 
afishhunter said:
I used mine to keep the 'ol smoke pole muzzle down in camp back when I did Civil War Reenactments.
My use was historically accurate. During that war a lot of men on both sides used their bayonet for that, or to hold a candle.
The one thing they didn't use them for was sticking the enemy.
After the war there was no recorded instance of anyone on either side having suffered a wound or killed from a bayonet, after any of the battles.
(Yes, they did keep track of wounds.)
FYI: Even though the Civil War had more wounded and killed than all the wars prior and after combined that the US has been involved in, roughly 40% of the troops on both sides never fired a live round (they shot blanks). If they did shot live rounds, they intentionally fired over the enemy's heads. Since a lot of families had someone fighting in both sides, (they thought if they had fought for the winning side they would not suffer as much incrimination and/or retribution, no matter who won) the soldiers did not want to take a chance on shooting their brother, cousin, uncle, father, etc.
Click to expand...

Say wot!?

The 1870 Surgeon General’s Medical and Surgical History of the War of Rebellion listed the types of wounds treated in Union hospitals. Because the report listed fewer than 1,000 bayonet wounds, a number of historians then and since concluded that soldiers rarely fought with the bayonet and it hadn’t been of much use as a combat weapon.

During the 150th anniversary of the Civil War that conclusion has come under question.

For example, Craig L. Barry in his article “Mythbuster: The Bayonet” for Civil War News, believes the Surgeon General’s report can be read to mean that bayonet wounds were more often fatal. Therefore, soldiers with bayonet wounds never made it to a doctor:

“Some period accounts state that few bayoneted soldiers survived the trauma due to the heavy loss of blood that resulted in such a short time. Perhaps if there were cause of death or autopsy reports from burial details we would have a different perspective of the damage done by the bayonet, but none are known.”

As for your FYI; just as a FYI - no troops during the 'War Between the States' fired 'blanks,' as you state.

They didnt, as 1. they had no 'blanks' (blanks, as we understand them in the 5-in-1 movie sense) nor would they need blanks ..., even had they thought of the concept.

(Why you as a reenactor dont know this, I cant fathom but) 1. The vast majority of the long arms in that particular conflict, were muzzle loaders*

2. Had soldiers needed to fire a (relatively) non-lethal volley, they need only load a powder charge in the barrel without adding the last component - that of a ball.

This would result in a flash and a bang without killing anybody.

Now, what you MIGHT be referring to (and which you some how got wrong); several long arms from the conflict have been found containing not only a couple but several charges of powder and ball. This is well documented.

Soldiers have been loading and re-loading but without firing their rifles.

What this means is up for discussion - one theory is the one, you have outlined above (that these soldiers didnt want to shoot anybody). Others might think it due to shock/battle fatigue.

Personally, I wouldnt know, why these long arms were found with the barrels full of powder and shot.

*Yes, there were rifles using self contained cartridges - the revolutionary Henry amongst them - but the most numerous ones used were muzzle loaders.
 
Last edited:
BladeScout said:
Say wot!?

The 1870 Surgeon General’s Medical and Surgical History of the War of Rebellion listed the types of wounds treated in Union hospitals. Because the report listed fewer than 1,000 bayonet wounds, a number of historians then and since concluded that soldiers rarely fought with the bayonet and it hadn’t been of much use as a combat weapon.

During the 150th anniversary of the Civil War that conclusion has come under question.

For example, Craig L. Barry in his article “Mythbuster: The Bayonet” for Civil War News, believes the Surgeon General’s report can be read to mean that bayonet wounds were more often fatal. Therefore, soldiers with bayonet wounds never made it to a doctor:

“Some period accounts state that few bayoneted soldiers survived the trauma due to the heavy loss of blood that resulted in such a short time. Perhaps if there were cause of death or autopsy reports from burial details we would have a different perspective of the damage done by the bayonet, but none are known.”

As for your FYI; just as a FYI - no troops during the 'War Between the States' fired 'blanks,' as you state.

They didnt, as 1. they had no 'blanks' (blanks, as we understand them in the 5-in-1 movie sense) nor would they need blanks ..., even had they thought of the concept.

(Why you as a reenactor dont know this, I cant fathom but) 1. The vast majority of the long arms in that particular conflict, were muzzle loaders*

2. Had soldiers needed to fire a (relatively) non-lethal volley, they need only load a powder charge in the barrel without adding the last component - that of a ball.

This would result in a flash and a bang without killing anybody.

Now, what you MIGHT be referring to (and which you some how got wrong); several long arms from the conflict have been found containing not only a couple but several charges of powder and ball. This is well documented.

Soldiers have been loading and re-loading but without firing their rifles.

What this means is up for discussion - one theory is the one, you have outlined above (that these soldiers didnt want to shoot anybody). Others might think it due to shock/battle fatigue.

Personally, I wouldnt know, why these long arms were found with the barrels full of powder and shot.

*
Click to expand...
With a muzzle loading arm as used by most of the combatants, a "blank" was simply a powder charge with no ball/bullet or wad set on top.

I am aware of the arms found with several stacked loads in them.
I'm sure that in the heat if battle using a muzzle loading arm, it is difficult, if not impossible to tell if you had a misfire, with all the noise around you. Heck, I had one during a Reenactment once and did not know it. After the 4th or 5th loading (using blanks, of course) it finally fired. The rifle did not blow up, but the recoil ... (I was using 60 grains ffg per load).
As a 1Sgt, after the "battle" I ordered the company to lower the muzzle towards the ground and slap the breech after each shot from then on. That would eliminate multiple loads if they had a misfire.
Anyway, it is probably a good thing the first load in those stacked loads never went off after the successive loads were put in. The barrel would have burst, injuring if not killing the shooter and those next to him.
 
The original primary purpose of bayonets was NOT to engage in hand to hand combat or trench warfare.

The purpose of bayonets were to provide infantry with the ability to form a pike square for defense against cavalry charges.

Prior to the development of firearms, armies had groups that carried pikes whose purpose was to defend against cavalry charges and assault other infantry troops when trying to break through formation lines. Over time pike units were replaced with firearms units.

As troops could not carry both a musket/muzzle loader AND a pike, the bayonet was developed so that a musket/muzzle loader COULD become a pike. There's a reason that the bayonets developed during the late 1700s and 1800s varied in length - so that the length of the musket/muzzle loader/rifle kept a nominal length as weapons lengths changed.

Bayonets were obviously of more use during the single shot muzzle loading period than after the development of multi-round weapons and breech loaders.
 
If you were with your unit and the command to fix bayonets came down. You'd know something had gone totally wrong and things were about to get fubar.

Back in the day the spear was the main weapon on the battlefield. You could stand further away from your enemy and kill them. All other battlefield type weapons were designed to use in case you lost your spear or after your front line penetrated the enemies front lines or you wanted to get by the enemies' long range weapons. A course spears don't work well in small spaces. Many specialized versions of pole weapons were developed like the polleax. That you could do cool things with.

Choosing between holding a knife in your hand or fixing it to something long. I'd choose The latter.

Fun things to watch:
Spear
Pollax
 
Medal of Honor recipient Lewis Millett and his company found bayonets ( and hand grenades) useful in Korea. Well worth a read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Millett

"...Wielding his bayonet and throwing hand grenades, Millett yelled encouragement to his soldiers throughout the hand to hand fight. .... Out of about 50 enemy dead, roughly 20 were found to have been killed by bayonets, and the location subsequently became known as Bayonet Hill.

I spoke with Col. Millett at length on the phone about 10 years ago. I was given one of his challenge coins by one of his close associates. Millett also received a Silver Star and four Purple Hearts.

millett.jpg
 
After the Falklands campaign we got a briefing from a British Major, and according to him the SA80 rifle was initially designed NOT to take a bayonet. After the Scots Guards experience in the Falklands the British decided they would issue a bayonet with the SA80, which may be the reason that bayonet looks like an after thought. The British Major's regiment was the Scots Guards, so he may have embellished the story a bit. As far as current bayonet go, the USMC is probably the best one out there. John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top