Are all bayonets about the same?

[major bill]

We were doing a display once at the Aldershot Military Museum and I got chatting to an ex-British Army officer. He told me that it was against the Articles of War or the Geneva Convention to use metal polish to shine up a bayonet due to the polish being 'chemical warfare'.

Was he winding me up? I've never heard this before or since!

Yes he was probably mistaken.

 

[thomas aagaard]

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.

That is a common myth.

 

[UCVRelics]

Yea it is but I still like it and it always made me feel better when I was over in the big sandbox

 

[treebie2000]

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.

I realize that snipers routinely employ .50 cal. weapons these days.
But..."back in the day"...as a Non-Com from the late 70's until retirement, I was instructed and gave instruction in turn, that our .50s were not to be used as direct fire weapons against troops on the ground.
They were supposed to be used on vehicles and equipment. We had an annual briefing on the "Laws of Land Warfare" (no kidding) and this was reinforced there.
It was also explained that belt buckles (even when worn by troops on the ground) were technically equipment.

 

[7thWisconsin]

Nonsense. Both the 7.62 coax mg and the .50 mounted at the tank commander station are used to engage troops, and are trained for that purpose without a blink of an eye. We're circling around an old army joke.

 

[Patrick H]

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.

Imagine if you happened to get this thing turned sideways to the entry wound--even in the enemy's clothing. In a close fight with multiple opponents, that would pretty much be the end of the fight for you (not to mention your initial opponent.)

 

[Patrick H]

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

View attachment 201713

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

Heck, you could just show it to the enemy and scare them to death! Seriously, is there any truth to the notion that saw-edged bayonets were banned? Or is it just a myth?

Coming back to edit: My question might have been answered in post #9. Thanks!