Charge Bayonets!

Dugger

Banned
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Location
Southern Ohio
:sabre: Who we got here who is an expert on Civil War deaths by the bayonet? I was just reading some stuff on bayonet use in the Civil War and the number of deaths is considerd to be pretty low...which I knew....less than 2% depending on who ya wanna belief. However, one article ( I was surfing) did note that bayonet wounds tended to be fatal pretty quick so docs never really treated a lot of men with this type of wound thus the count is lower than it should be. Since I was a kid I been looking at Civil War pics and bayonets are everywhere. Everywhere! Hell I got 2 of em! Everybody got a fixed bayonet. Another guy claimed the bayonet was more of an intimidation weapon. If you saw a determined bunch of men coming at you in formation with fixed bayonets you instinct was to...run away! People seem to have a healty fear of being run thru with cold steel. The Chamberlain thing at LRT ya know. So, few got stabbed but the weapon served it's purpose. Ok..just trying to get some input on this. I on break now and I need stuff to argue bout or agree with. Time on my hands. :D

O, Stonewall Jackson had kinda a bayonet fetish as most know. Just thought I would toss that in. "Pitch em over yer head with the bayonet" or something like that.
 
Another guy claimed the bayonet was more of an intimidation weapon. If you saw a determined bunch of men coming at you in formation with fixed bayonets you instinct was to...run away! People seem to have a healty fear of being run thru with cold steel. [/QUOTE]


Yessir.

Given a choice, I prefer the bullet.
 
I'm thinking it's possible more died from blunt trauma to the head than bayonets. Such as rifle butts, falls from horses, clubbing of any kind. Head injuries certainly received less attention than today.

Just a guess.
 
I'm thinking it's possible more died from rifle butts, clubs etc., blunt trauma to the head. than bayonets.

Just a guess.
Very likely. Seems Americans, in my reading, preferred to club their rifle rather than poke holes in guys with bayonet. NOW, the British in the Rev War were, from what I have read, the cream de la cream of bayonet pros. (we friends now by the way) Course in the smoothbore era you got in close, blasted off a few volleys, then did the bayonet thing. Americans were not as hip on this. Got better after Baron von Stuben drilled em. He was a real character by the way. Read..The Drillmaster of Valley Forge. Excellent read. He taught our guys the Prussian system...bad azz system for it's day.
 
Very likely. Seems Americans, in my reading, preferred to club their rifle rather than poke holes in guys with bayonet. NOW, the British in the Rev War were, from what I have read, the cream de la cream of bayonet pros. (we friends now by the way) Course in the smoothbore era you got in close, blasted off a few volleys, then did the bayonet thing. Americans were not as hip on this. Got better after Baron von Stuben drilled em. He was a real character by the way. Read..The Drillmaster of Valley Forge. Excellent read.


Agreed. Read the French weren't too bad with it either.
But then the French and English had beeen and went on killing each for years.

Have to admit, the line of gleaming bayonets would certainly make one a little edgy.
 
Agreed. Read the French weren't too bad with it either.
But then the French and English had beeen and went on killing each for years.

Have to admit, the line of gleaming bayonets would certainly make one a little edgy.

Yup. I been there. Was on The Oval at OSU in 1970 during those Spring riots when the Ohio National Guard cleared it. A regiment did the charge bayonet thing and came on in perfect line of battle. Very intimidating. I ordered my buddies to perform a retrograde movement...fast. I also informed them that those M1's were loaded and those Guardsmen were not in a good mood...and I don't blame em! I actually had trouble convincing my buds that the Guard might just open fire. Sh#t happens. Kent State happened bout an hour or two later and I understand why...tragic...but I understand.
 
Another guy claimed the bayonet was more of an intimidation weapon. If you saw a determined bunch of men coming at you in formation with fixed bayonets you instinct was to...run away! People seem to have a healty fear of being run thru with cold steel.


Yessir.

Given a choice, I prefer the bullet.[/QUOTE]
:beer:
 
Bayonets are a very handy thing to troops in the field travelling light. It's a candle stick, entrenching tool, fire poker, pot holder. meat tenderizer and a host of other neat little tricks oh, and it fits on the end of your gun.
 
The bayonet is an amazing weapon. Not only does it instill fear in the enemy, but it can instill courage, elan, and esprit de corps in the bearers. It is human nature to draw away from sharp pointy things, just as it is animal nature. It takes amazing courage to withstand a bayonet charge, and history is crammed with battles where the bayonet played a difference. ONe of them is the battle of Culloden, April 16, 1746. Prince WIlliam, Duke of Cumberland trained his troops to more effectively use the bayonet to resist the highland charge by thrusting not straight ahead but to the right. When the Highlanders charged, they would often duck down and raise thier Targe (shied) over thie head to push the musket and bayonet of the Government troops up and over. Cumberland's new tactic had the troops in a position to stick the Scots as they raised their arm, and exposed thier left side, thus covering the man to their right. At Waterloo, the hollow square was effective against the French cavalry because not only did the squares mutually support each other, but horses are not stupid, and will not charge into bayonets. IT is the same reason that in modern times, the bayonet s used in riot and crowd control situations, because of the natural fear and intimidation of cold steel on the end of a rifle. The rifle may be unloaded, but people know that a bayonet is always loaded.

SOldies are still trained in the use of the bayonet, and it IS still used as effective tool on the battlefield. When fixed for house clearing operations, it is not necessarily used as a weapon, but as a tool, often useful for opening doors a an extension, exposing alot less of the warfighter to enemy fire or explosive devices, probing baskets and bedding and the like for weapon and ammo caches, etc. etc.

FWIW, Prior to 2004, the last effective Bayonet charge was at the Battle of Tumbledown Mt. in the Falklands. In 2004, outside of Basra, Iraq, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders mounted the most recent bayonet charge, after thier convoy was ambushed by 100 Mahdi Militia (al Sadr's nut jobs). The charge resulted in 35 E-KIA and three Highlanders slightly wounded.

I remember when I was in Basic Training, we were taught the Spirit of the Bayonet was TO KILL... we were also taught the mantra, What kinda of Bayonet fighters are there? the Quick and the dead.... in the back of my mind was the answer, The quick and those with ammunition!
 
Doug- The figure I have often heard was less than 1% of CW casualties were from any type of edged weapon (bayonets, sabers, swords, bowie knives, etc). The problem with using a bayonet is that once you stick your oponent you have to do a fair amount of work to get the bayonet back out or detach it from the end of the rifled musket, leaving you vulnerable to being attacked by another of the enemy. Soldiers much prefered to swing their weapons like a 10 pound Louisville Slugger. After you hit one enemy you can keep on swinging at anyone else stupid enough to come in range.
 
In my 23 years in the US Army I was never issued a bayonet for my M-16. Saw a box of them once but never issued one. I guess the Army's current philosophy is: Why bring a knife to a gun fight?
 
Doug- The figure I have often heard was less than 1% of CW casualties were from any type of edged weapon (bayonets, sabers, swords, bowie knives, etc). The problem with using a bayonet is that once you stick your oponent you have to do a fair amount of work to get the bayonet back out or detach it from the end of the rifled musket, leaving you vulnerable to being attacked by another of the enemy. Soldiers much prefered to swing their weapons like a 10 pound Louisville Slugger. After you hit one enemy you can keep on swinging at anyone else stupid enough to come in range.
I would accept 1% as realistically valid but this morning some guy in some article I was reading did make a case that bayonet wounds to the torso were usually fatal pretty quickly and the guy was KIA on the field with no one ever knowing if it was a bayonet, a bullet, or a heart attack. Now seems to me that in some battles the bayonet deaths would have been higher, such as Spotsylvania, where it got hand to hand for hours and men were poking bayonets tru the logs of breastworks and actually throwing rifles like spears. ???? Whatever. I reckon all this is just estimation...there was no one back then recording cause of battlefield death that I know of or was there? Writing it down. At any rate they made good candleholders. 1% overall but perhaps higher in some battles. How's that?
 
In my 23 years in the US Army I was never issued a bayonet for my M-16. Saw a box of them once but never issued one. I guess the Army's current philosophy is: Why bring a knife to a gun fight?
Interesting. Any other vets on here that were never issued a bayonet?

By the way halem my great-grandfather visited Jonesboro in 1864 with the 39th OVI. Wish I could say he was just there on a tourist visit but, well, you know!
 
Bayonets were really scary. But why have a bayonet when you can run 450 .223's downrange? That time is gone.
 
Doug, you're right we'll probably never know what percentage of deaths were by bayonet.

Wish your grandfather would have stopped by the house while he was here, would have offered him a cold one. LOL.
 
The bayonet was used and used effectively in it's intended purpose throughout the ACW, early war its use was far more prevelant. The oft cited 1-2% figure is for 1864/65 AoP. It does not include the ANV, AoT (CS or US), AoC, AoJ etc. The biggest issue in the ACW was an almost total lack of training in the use of the bayonet, so much so that it was remarked upon the rare times bayonet drill was taught. Wheras both the French & Brit armies trained heavily in its use. IMO the number was actually likely closer to 10-15% w/ 20-30% more caused by Arty w/ the remainder being small arms fire. But that is merely a somewhat educated guess.

There are certainly many accounts of brutal hand to hand fighting in the bigger battles of the war, in fact off hand I can think of no major battle that did not at some point have hand to hand combat where everything from rocks bare knuckle and bared teeth were used in excess of the bayonet & clubbed musket. FWIW the man w/ the bayonet on the end of his weapon has a rather distinct advantage over the fella w/ a clubbed musket; first & foremost is competence & training. And a man w/ a bayonet who knew how to use it was absolutely lethal @ close quarters.
 
I see all these movies with the men fighting/firing with the bayonet attached...I did an experiment at the range with my ArmiSport 61.

I fired several live rounds at a upper torso target at 50 yards, off hand, and grouped nicely at center mass of the target.
Next I put my bayonet on, and fired several times, aiming at the same spot as before, but all the shots went high, and over to the targets upper left shoulder area! If I had been firing at the same target at 100 yards, no way would I have hit the man sized target with the bayonet on. I would have had to aim low, and to the right.

My first time in uniform at a reenactment, and in line with a unit we marched (3, 20 man companies, 4 abreast) at some distance in step, with bayonets fixed, at right shoulder shift. The sun broke thru the clouds for a bit, and looking at those gleaming bayonets swinging to and fro was an impressive sight!

My bayonet is used mostly for stacking arms, or roasting meat on the fire.

Kevin Dally
 
The bayonet was used and used effectively in it's intended purpose throughout the ACW, early war its use was far more prevelant. The oft cited 1-2% figure is for 1864/65 AoP. It does not include the ANV, AoT (CS or US), AoC, AoJ etc. The biggest issue in the ACW was an almost total lack of training in the use of the bayonet, so much so that it was remarked upon the rare times bayonet drill was taught. Wheras both the French & Brit armies trained heavily in its use. IMO the number was actually likely closer to 10-15% w/ 20-30% more caused by Arty w/ the remainder being small arms fire. But that is merely a somewhat educated guess.

There are certainly many accounts of brutal hand to hand fighting in the bigger battles of the war, in fact off hand I can think of no major battle that did not at some point have hand to hand combat where everything from rocks bare knuckle and bared teeth were used in excess of the bayonet & clubbed musket. FWIW the man w/ the bayonet on the end of his weapon has a rather distinct advantage over the fella w/ a clubbed musket; first & foremost is competence & training. And a man w/ a bayonet who knew how to use it was absolutely lethal @ close quarters.

johan tks. Good informative post. You say maybe closer to 10-15% and I can see that as perhaps possible. I started this thing cause I been reading bout this since a kid and I was always fascinated when young by the many accounts of hand to hand fighting that occured. Perhaps a bit morbid but kids are like that...I was. It happened at Gettysburg not only on 3rd day (Pickett) but night of 2nd day on Cemetary Hill and earlier during Longstreet's attack. I already mentioned Spotsylvania but there were many other instances of this. Seems to me if ya had a bayonet, and they all did, ya might use it but over the years many authors have discounted this and go with the clubbed musket style which was of course prevelent and effective. Guess we will never know but interesting that you think it just might have been quite a bit higher for % of bayonet deaths. Seems this just has to be mostly an opinion topic since we left with no real data on this from war sources.
 
Doug, you're right we'll probably never know what percentage of deaths were by bayonet.

Wish your grandfather would have stopped by the house while he was here, would have offered him a cold one. LOL.
Was my great-grandfather. He died in 1909 but according to my Pappa who was born in 1876 and died when I was 12......he would have accepted. I think he would have preferred corn likker. He was from Adams county Ohio. Corn likker country back then. Both of em lived to a ripe old age.
 
I see all these movies with the men fighting/firing with the bayonet attached...I did an experiment at the range with my ArmiSport 61.

I fired several live rounds at a upper torso target at 50 yards, off hand, and grouped nicely at center mass of the target.
Next I put my bayonet on, and fired several times, aiming at the same spot as before, but all the shots went high, and over to the targets upper left shoulder area! If I had been firing at the same target at 100 yards, no way would I have hit the man sized target with the bayonet on. I would have had to aim low, and to the right.

My first time in uniform at a reenactment, and in line with a unit we marched (3, 20 man companies, 4 abreast) at some distance in step, with bayonets fixed, at right shoulder shift. The sun broke thru the clouds for a bit, and looking at those gleaming bayonets swinging to and fro was an impressive sight!

My bayonet is used mostly for stacking arms, or roasting meat on the fire.

Kevin Dally
I used to shoot a hell of a lot growing up and I wonder why it shot high with bayonet on? I have never fired a rifle with bayonet attached although I have several original Civil War pieces, 2 of which I have put a few rounds thru but never with bayonet on. By the way, I got a "fine" original Colt Special Model stamped 1862 that put five rounds dead-on in bulls-eye at 100 yards using bench rest. Rifling pristine. I only shot it that one time. No sense in breaking something original.
 
Back
Top