Are all bayonets about the same?

[major bill]

It appears many world armies have came out with a wide variety of bayonets. However, many outwardly look a lot alike. I know there are differences, but many of the Bayonets used in the Civil War look similar to those used in the American Revolution and much like bayonets used in the Spanish American War.

During the Civil War some sabre bayonets, but were they often used as sabres? I do wonder if the sabre bayonets were worth the extra weight.

I have only carried two types of bayonets, the long M1942 on a shotgun and the M7 on the M16. The M1942 was longer, but not sure it was any better. Both seemed great to stab someone with. The M1942 is a bit heavy and awkward.

Are there period sources that show the men liked or disliked the sabre bayonets.

 

[JOHN42768]

Col. Berdan's sharp shooters threw them away only to find they had to pay for replacements. I guess that make their response to the bayonet known.

 

[major bill]

Sadly this guy did not come out until 1872. Often called the 1872 trowel bayonet.

It would make a wide wound. I do wonder what Civil War solders would have thought about it.

 

[Schwallanscher]

Sadly this guy did not come out until 1872. Often called the 1872 trowel bayonet.

View attachment 201710

It would make a wide wound. I do wonder what Civil War solders would have thought about it.

great to do some digging (at least those who did some digging)

 

[major bill]

great to do some digging (at least those who did some digging)

Plant ya now dig ya latter. I can dig it!

 

[JOHN42768]

There were other similar experimental versions used for the Trapdoor and Krag. None made the cut (Pun intended)

 

[major bill]

I always liked German World War One engineer bayonets. If you could not stab them you could saw them to death.

After the battle you could help the doctors amputate arms and legs.

 

[JOHN42768]

As I recall in WW1 getting caught with one of the butcher knives was pretty much a death sentence since it was considered cruel and inhumane. Not that regular bayonet seems that humane.

 

[Schwallanscher]

As I recall in WW1 getting caught with one of the butcher knives was pretty much a death sentence since it was considered cruel and inhumane. Not that regular bayonet seems that humane.

they were supossed to be used to cut down trees - on the other hand i think they were outlawed in the treaty of versailles - so were tanks and aircraft and lots of other stuff

 

[UCVRelics]

That's why I went US Army Armor No bayonet required. I have always felt that if they got close enough for you to have to use a bayonet your were pretty well screwed.

 

[UCVRelics]

on the other hand i think they were outlawed in the treaty of versailles - so were tanks and aircraft and lots of other stuff

I was taught at the US Army War College that under the Geneva Convention you could not shoot an enemy combatant with anything larger that NATO 7.62×51mm, So we were instructed to aim at their canteens with a 50 cal, as that was equipment.

 

[Schwallanscher]

I was taught at the US Army War College that under the Geneva Convention you could not shoot an enemy combatant with anything larger that NATO 7.62×51mm, So we were instructed to aim at their canteens with a 50 cal, as that was equipment.

come on, how many .50 cals are ou there (not just us) - that needs to be nonesense

 

[John Winn]

I was taught at the US Army War College that under the Geneva Convention you could not shoot an enemy combatant with anything larger that NATO 7.62×51mm, So we were instructed to aim at their canteens with a 50 cal, as that was equipment.

I'm surprised you were told that. In combat it is permissible to shoot the enemy with whatever you've got. The rule about caliber has to do with the use of expanding or exploding ammunition. Anything less than 400 grams is considered small arms and must employ non-expanding projectiles; thus, full-metal jackets. Exploding .50 sniper rounds are now commonly employed and are perfectly legal as they are not "small arms" (i.e. could be considered artillery).

Edited to note the actual treaty definition of small arms as projectiles less than 400 grams.

 

[Schwallanscher]

I'm surprised you were told that. In combat it is permissible to shoot the enemy with whatever you've got. The rule about less than .50 has to do with expanding or exploding ammunition. Anything less than .50 is considered small arms and must employ non-expanding projectiles; thus, full-metal jackets. Exploding .50 sniper rounds are now commonly employed and are perfectly legal under the Geneva Convention as they are, technically, considered artillery.

does that mean i'm allowed to shoot every single enemy combatant with a 155mm howitzer?

 

[John Winn]

does that mean i'm allowed to shoot every single enemy combatant with a 155mm howitzer?

Yes.

Incredibly, back when the treaties covering what weapons are allowable it was actually said that the goal wasn't to kill the enemy but to simply render combatants incapacitated. Thus, using expanding or exploding small projectiles was inhumane as they would cause unnecessary suffering. Incapacitation was reasoned preferable to death because it would take more men to remove wounded - and would thus have a greater impact on the ability of the enemy to continue to fight - but dead men could just be left.

Interestingly, it's been ruled not a treaty violation to use expanding bullets to fight terrorists, who are not considered to be troops of a recognized nation and are thus not covered by any treaties. So, any amount of suffering may be legally employed in their case.

 

[major bill]

I'm surprised you were told that. In combat it is permissible to shoot the enemy with whatever you've got. The rule about less than .50 has to do with expanding or exploding ammunition. Anything less than .50 is considered small arms and must employ non-expanding projectiles; thus, full-metal jackets. Exploding .50 sniper rounds are now commonly employed and are perfectly legal under the Geneva Convention as they are, technically, considered artillery.

I think using the 50 caliber can be use on ground troops. I think the against the Geneva Convention is likely a myth.

 

[Schwallanscher]

Yes.

Incredibly, back when the treaties covering what weapons are allowable it was actually said that the goal wasn't to kill the enemy but to simply render combatants incapacitated. Thus, using expanding or exploding small projectiles was inhumane as they would cause unnecessary suffering. Incapacitation was reasoned preferable to death because it would take more men to remove wounded - and would thus have a greater impact on the ability of the enemy to continue to fight - but dead men could just be left.

Interestingly, it's been ruled not a treaty violation to use expanding bullets to fight terrorists, who are not considered to be troops of a recognized nation and are thus not covered by any treaties.

i knew the latter - on the other hands using artillery or tank shells on single combatants is kinda eypensiv

the geneva convention led to the modern tumbler ammunition that is allowed and causes even worse wounds

 

[UCVRelics]

I'm surprised you were told that.

There are several different addition, addendum's, changes etc, and frankly I never cared that much for any of them, As I'm old school TCB. The CW was just like any other war. No Man ever won a war laying down his life for his country, ETC, Gen GSP

 

[John Winn]

i knew the latter - on the other hands using artillery or tank shells on single combatants is kinda eypensiv

the geneva convention led to the modern tumbler ammunition that is allowed and causes even worse wounds

While it might be expensive to fire artillery at a single combatant it doesn't violate any treaties.

And considering expense, how much does it cost to kill a guy with a drone strike ? Would have been way cheaper to drop a 155 round on him but that's not feasible.

 

[UCVRelics]

It was over 30 yrs ago, and now that I think about it y'all are right 50 cal is legal, its the AP and Incendiary rds that aren't. At the end of the day if its the CW or any other, How many of my guys made it home.