Why Have Bayonets Become Shorter Over the Years?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ต.ค. 2024
- Please consider supporting the channel on Patreon HERE: / mikeb128
Also, if you like Military Surplus gear and collectibles, visit my online store HERE: www.mikesmilitaria.com
In modern warfare today, if you ever end up having to use a bayonet, then many things have gone horribly wrong to reach that level of desperation.
Nonsense it’s more fun to use a bonnet we need more bayonet charges.
If you consider today’s bayonets are multipurpose tools and when an individual soldiers is low an ammo….
Tell me you've never been in combat without telling you've never been in combat:
I’m thinking a lot of modern warfare turns into urban combat as was seen in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Ukraine. Small teams of soldiers clearing homes and buildings room by room. In those situations I can very much see close combat melle scenarios occurring often enough where designing a good bayonet could be very helpful in giving your soldiers the edge in hand to hand combat.
@@colebevans8939 in super close-quarters hand-to-hand sticking a knife to the end of your rifle makes it longer and more unwieldy, especially for tight rooms and such. There's especially not much point when afaik jabbing your enemy in the chest with the barrel of a rifle is more than enough to cause serious damage.
Their application has shifted from dissuading a cavalry charge on an open field to close quarters combat with enemy infantry in urban environments and fortified positions.
The British Army used bayonet charges succesfully on numerous occassions during the Falklands War. The psychological damage inflicted on the Argentinians was significant in hugely reducing morale and shortening the length of the campaign.
Doesn't it also have to do with the fact that almost like two-thirds of the Argentinian forces that were there didn't actually want to be there and the leaders of Argentina didn't expect the British to actually respond militarily?
I don't know, just feels like bayonet charges wouldn't work as well with a more well disciplined and higher morale fighting force.
@@noobsowhat5744 This. The number of troops in this battle were few and not exactly the best trained.
I am only aware of one single charge executed by one platoon…
I worked with a paratrooper who had to bayonet Argentinian conscripts, he didn't talk about it much but did say it was absolutely brutal, as you'd expect
@@noobsowhat5744Not as much. In two actions, the battles lasted a day and involved the best Argentine regiments and special forces. The times when the British faced conscripts who wanted to surrender, the actions were over very quickly. The Argentine forces combined a lot of their conscripts on a 3:1 basis with troops who were professional in order to hold the line. This is why the fighting on Mount Tumbledown, Wireless Ridge, Goose Green, Mount Kent, Mount Longden and Mount Harriet were all full-on battles for the positions.
Imagine an infantry square, facing cavalry, as at Waterloo. The outer ranks of the square knelt, with fixed bayonets. In general, a horse would refuse to charge a bayonet array. Cavalry was used early in WW1, until the barbed wire and machine guns made cavalry charges suicidal.
Cavalry charges were used throughout WW1 and even WW2. The occasions you’d use them became less frequent, however. One example is to push an enemy position during their retreat so they didn’t have time to set up in a new location.
Calvary charges were even *useful* throughout the war, because there were no other effective transportation methods quicker than feet capable of all terrain travel. If you consider dragoons as Cav, they were incredibly useful.
@@williamchristy9463 that isnt a charge tho
@@sarpkaplan4449 What about the Australian Light Horse at Beersheba in 1917? Admittedly, this was not, technically speaking, a cavalry charge. It was a charge made on horseback, against Turkish positions, by mounted infantry with bayonets in hand.
A trained warhorse would absolutely charge into a bayonet array. They were literally bred and trained to charge into things with no regard for their safety. That's the entire point of a calvary charge.
Bayonets were introduced in the late 17th and early 18th centuries to enable musketeers to defend themselves against cavalry without requiring a proportion of the infantry to be armed with pikes (and hence not able to shoot). I suspect that fighting infantry is easier with a shorter bayonet, but if you need to face a cavalry charge, a long firearm and bayonet combination is a good idea. Cavalry charges got rarer during the second half of the 19th century, and very rare during the 20th century.
Modern bayonets are effectively stabbing swords. No longer spears or pikes.
The reason they kept long bayonets for so long was kind of important for it to be left out. Particularly since it was likely the prime reason bayonets shrank.
As long as mounted cavalry was a thing infantry needed long rifles with long bayonets.
When traditional cavalry died in WW 1, so did the main reason for 5 ft rifles with 2 ft bayonets
Exactly. As far as I am aware, with the exception of the "Horse Soldiers" in Afghanistan, the last horse mounted cavalry charges were during WWII - the Poles and the Cossacks.
But cavalry didn't die until like 1940? Early in WW2 Poles, Germans and Russians were using quite extensively cavalry units. Horse-back fighting was basically dead unless in dramatic situations, but cavalry units were one of the most successful "infantry" units for all sides at that point. And horse-equipped units were a staple until 1945, tho after 1940 they stopped being a personal equipment of a soldier and more a way to get resources to the front line.
Also, the "long rifle" concept was tried to be kept alive through nearly whole of WW2 as "anti-tank rifle" and only in 1942 armor became strong enough for those rifles to be deemed unworthy of continuation. Up until 1942 cavalry units equipped with anti-tank rifles were a serious problem for armored divisions, as they were highly mobile, off-road units capable of tank destruction.
@@Ghatbkk And the Italians
@@Ussurin mounted infantry isn't cavalry. It's mounted infantry.
Thank you for pointing this out. It's probably the central reason coupled with an increasing magazine size. Once you could fire enough bullets and cavalry was superceded by armoured vehicles the bayonet became more if a tool and a desperation weapon.
The Australian Light Horse in WWI were "mounted infantry" - they rode to the battle location and then dismounted to fight on foot. But they undertook a mounted charge on Beersheba using their Lee Enfield bayonets as sabres.
Before even watching my answer to my friend was: "Because we no longer have to poke riders from horses or the horses itself. and than its trenches and cities! Try to fight with a spear in those close quarters!"
After watching: "Told you so, mate!"
Nice collection though!
Real easy to poke soldiers charging in your trench with a spear.
After that you should be using combat knives and pistols anyway
Didn't carry one in the field in Vietnam. Useless on an M-16
However, an entrenching tool proved to be an effective close quarter weapon
the length of the bayonet for the old designs as you mentioned, turns it to a spear. This was for cavalry, which we all know, got made obsolete in the first word war. Not the main reason, why they phased it out, but it is one of the reasons why they kept the length, i dont think it was to do with combat with other infantry as it was with combat with cavalry.
Quite right. They were invented to curb the need for actual pikemen who, back in the 1400s to 1600s were deployed to protect the musketeers when they were reloading.
However, Napoleon truly reinforced the bayonet charge as an incredible military tactic to break the enemy line regardless of numbers. The psychological force of an enemy charging you with gun spears made the undisciplined drafted soldiers rout, which formed the bulk of most armies.
The American civil war was a foreshadowing of WW1, in the sense that the cannon's accuracy, and the rifle's range was so greatly improved, that napoleonic tactics proved incredibly costly and obsolete. Men were cut down at long range before they could even make the final run. See Pickett's charge.
WW1 sealed the bayonet's fate with the invention of truly automatic machine guns, which rendered charges suicidal.
I should note there are instances in WW2 and after where a random bayonet charge here and there did succeed. See the banzai charges of the early WW2 days before American tactics adapted to it.
Actually, cavalry did not become obsolete in the first world war, although that is a fairly common misconception. I'd recommend checking out Brandon F.'s video on the topic (link: th-cam.com/video/ju1WURm15YU/w-d-xo.html)
Bob: My Bayonet is longer
Hans: My Bayonet is stronger
Bob: My Bayonet is more lightweight
Dimitri: My Bayonet is extra compact
That guy: My Bayonet is an undermounted shotgun
The American: my bayonet is a underslung grenade launcher with flechette round loaded. 🤣
@@jessicaregina1956 my bayonet is a minigun 😈
All guns are types of long pikes.
*HORSES* were replaced by armoured vehicles. You needed a spear in Napoleonic times to form infantry squares to keep the cavalry away. But spears cannot penetrate a tank. If you are riding inside an armoured car having a long tool will get in your way. In close urban combat inside buildings you again have a confined space in which to operate. SMGs replaced rifles for tank crew. And then the rifles again got shorter. Helicopters, trenches and boats also have confined space. When do we get the laser beams? ;-)
i think there are two main reasons for why bayonets got shorter.
number one is that a long bayonet will stop a horse, but it won't stop a truck, jeep or tank, (maybe a motorcycle if you're lucky) the fewer horses you face, the less bayonet you need.
at this point the bayonet becomes and afterthought, to the point where we're no longer making bayonets to be bayonets, we're making trench knives with the mounting hardware needed to be bayonets.
The last British bayonet charge for the British were seen in the Iraq and Afghanistan. In May, 2004, a detachment from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders surprised a force of 100 insurgents near Al Amara, Iraq with a bayonet charge. British casualties were light, but nearly 28 guerrillas were killed. And as recently as October of 2011, a British Army lance corporal named Sean Jones led a squad of soldiers from the Prince of Wales Royal Regiment in a bayonet charge against Taliban fighters in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. After being ambushed and pinned down by militants, the 25-year-old ordered his squad to advance into a hail of machine gun fire. “We had to react quickly,” Jones remarked. “I shouted ‘follow me’ and we went for it.” He was awarded the Military Cross for his actions. Even in an age of GPS-guided bombs, unmanned drones and network-centric warfare, 300-year-old technology - like the simple bayonet - can still carry the day.
During the Falklands war, British troops pulled off a number of bayonet charges in the brief campaign to drive Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands in 1982. The Scots Guards and the Gurkhas chased 500 enemy troops off the summit of Mount Tumbledown in the pre-dawn darkness of June 14. The British suffered 63 casualties in the battle; 160 Argentine soldiers were either killed, wounded or captured.
Two weeks earlier, a 2 Para private by the name of Graham Carter led his comrades in a bayonet charge against a force of enemy troops across Goose Green. 2nd Parachute Regiment members charged the trenches of the Argentinian positions after running out of ammunition. 28 members of 2 Two-Para charged fixed positions containing nine M60 machine guns and six entire companies of Argentine troops in a battle that lasted 3 hours. The Paras lost 6 men in the action, that saw the Argentinian side lose 221 soldiers Killed, wounded or captured.
They must have been bloody actions.
One point to also mention:
The change of warfare.
From open field frontlines marching towards to the small and compact trenches in WWI you needed a smaller and more agile version of a bayonett. Rifles got shorter, bayonetts got shorter.
Compared to a 1.2m muzzleloader with a .6m saber on the muzzle a .9m K98k with a .3m knife in front is way more agile in close quarters
5 year old vid getting some love. Bless the algorithm.
Yes, strange, it appeared on my today (20.12.2022).
Good mic dude, it just feels like YOU ARE IN MY FUCKING BACK
When I went thru Army Basic Training in 1973, this is what they told us "if all you have left to fight with is your bayonet, you better run like hell, because that man (the enemy) is going to shoot you." They did have us go thru Pugil stick training, simply because they enjoyed watching us beat each other up.
It seems like the most important detail is missing; the disappearance of horses. The bayonet started as the plug bayonet in the late 1600s, where a musketeer could double as a pikeman with the use of a plug bayonet. Pikemen were primarily a counter measure against cavalry. As horses has disappeared from the battlefield and muskets has evolved to assault rifles, the bayonet is largely obsolete.
The Remington 1917 bayonet is pretty stout.
In modern times a bayonet is more a tool then a weapon. But it's still a lethal weapon.
actually they figured out that you can deflect and parry a long bayonet easily as its tip is so far from its axis or fulcrum and still have distance to reset and have your opponent on your tip while they are to close to use theirs. you can then pull it back out for another poke in close. that's why they got shorter.
Agree the Swiss bayonet is beautiful… (rifle is 1898 not 1998😂)
PIKE not spear. The bayonet was to turn everyone into a rifleman but retain the pike to repel the calvary. The maneuvers of the day were not much removed from the tercio.
Because they are basically utility knives that also ahve the utility of poking things at the end of your gun.
Given the reliable nature and capacity of modern firearms, there is little to no need for large dominating melee weapons. If you are using a bayonet these days, it is an intimidation tactice against anyone you are just as willing to shoot.
This is no laughing matter, millions of bayonets suffer from being so short
Because we learned during Trench Warfare that Longer Bayonets were less able to defend in Narrow Confines!
The Guns shoot further and faster now. A sharpend E-Tool works better.. You can chop thur necks and hack off hands Much easier than with a Bayonet
with out watching: 1) people dont ride horses into battle anymore. the need for distance has thus deminished.
2) people are not used to working with objects as they where in the past (EXAMPLE) in the 1800s everyone from layman to royalty would know how to use a 6 to 9 foot pitchfork. (stable cleaning, hay... ect) now days people use spatulas and phones. hand eye cordination is a bit off to say the least.
3) modern combat is not fought in open fields so weaponry has adapted to closer fighting... with out adapting to closer fighting.
will now watch and see if you got any points right.
neaters. you said what i said but had props. thats why you get ad revs and im just a kike spitting iconoclastic views
no horses, no long bayonets
Good for digging though
Vermutlich weil Kavallerieattacken, so mit Pferd und Reiter, eher selten geworden sind.
"longer is not always better" thank you.
Pretty damn expa(e)nsive collection you have there, man!
"useless stick" me sowing you how to use an "useless stick" by holding it by the barrel and breaking skull with it
It's fairly simple. Long ones are harder to fight with up close & personal in trenches etc, they are heavy, harder to handle/carry, they arent as good at being utility knives & they tend to get stuck in target much easier. One is much better off carrying a short sized bayonet & just add a machete to your kit if you need one.
Let's put this simply
German trench is long.
Iraqi hallway short.
You will be very surprised when You'll learn about danzgard-oshker events and heimrich cycles, called "apocalypse" by the common folk...
good vid :)
That's a good reason for a long bayonet. You wont always have ammunition.
Honestly, it looks more like a short sword than a knife.
I also want to point out that the concerns for a footsoldier to go up against someone on horseback and therefore needing the greater reach of the long rifle + long bayonet went away as well because cavalry stopped being used.
"fix bayonets!" if you heard that order in a modern army... you would already be fucked...
Affix*
@@trevorh6438 Thank you for fixing my horrible spelling, you fixed the final problem in the world and now everything is right and good, god bless you grammar nazi's.
**offers first born as compensation**
They arent used anymore, all we see is a combat knife that adapts to the barrels
The advantage of collecting bayonets for interest is that if someone came to steal them they can actually be utilized for functional purposes.
Is another factor that guns themselves have become shorter? A 18th century muskette plus a long blade had the length of a real spear or even a pike. Modern rifles are far too short to make a real spear, so one is really making something like a stabbing sword, where length is secondary to a solid inflexible blade.
One aspect im totally missing here is this.
Doesnt necessarely have to do with weight. Longer doesnt necessarely mean heavier. In WW1 there was still cavalry and sabers/swords. against those enemies you want a spear. what do you do if you dont have a long pole weapon? you make your gun into one if need be. but that need was diminished in ww2 and kept losing importance. so whats more important then? having dual use equipment. so having a handy knife that can double as a bayonette.
People’s arms got longer. I’m moving on now.
I think he called it the "M-44" but I'm not sure, he said it was a WW2 bayonet yet it looks exactly like the bayonets seen in American Civil War movies which took place a lot earlier than the 1940's.
Did you mean the 91/30 "spike" bayonet? Yes, it is similar in looks to the spike bayonets used in the American Civil War and its a design that comes from the 1800s! Spike bayonets started phasing out after WW2.
Battle tactics have changed. Long bayonets are late derivatives of the picket defense used with single shot rifles. A phalanx of stabby bayonets are no longer required. Currently bayonets are only used as a weapon of last resort and for close quarter assaults. Most soldiers confronted by a screaming bayonet charge would rather back off and shot. I think British soldiers used a bayonet charge in Iraq in the mid 2000s. Anyone would be freaked out by a screaming Englishman with a veiny, red and sun burnt face coming at you with murderous intent.
The shorter bayonet is more eficient for todays weapons.more practical also.I was an artilleryman if i ever had to use one somebody really screw up in the front line.
We’ve changed from putting bayonets on rifles to just stick your only knife on it with duct tape.
Same idk i came here the vid found me
Cause size doesn't realy matters. Its howe you use it. lol
Yep, and shorter bayonets don't rattle off the back of your left leg while running or moving.
It's only fair sportsmanship to use a shorter bayonet...
Bayonets were to repulse cavalry attack, long musket and long bayonet to reach a mounted horseman.
Once machineguns swept cavalry from the battle field the bayonets got shorter.
By the end Nazi germany was not even mounting bayonets on their last ditch weapons.
What percentage of soldiers were killed by bayonet in the World War 1?
Was there any form of protection for this type of attack?
It would be a small percentage, perhaps higher on the Eastern front where there was less trench warfare but on the western front bayonets were pretty useless, when fixed on a rifle it severely limited the options in the narrow trenches you could only stab in a forward motion and if an enemy got inside your range then you just basicly had an expensive stick in your hands that was more of a hindrance than a weapon. Even a lose bayonet wasn’t a very practical weapon in the trenches, pre war doctrine was that a longer bayonet was better as it gave a soldier more reach when fixed so going into world war one those were some long knives, much longer than their ww2 counterparts.
Soldiers on the front quickly found out that shorter weapons that could incapacitate an enemy in one or two blows were the way to go. The field spade was one of those improvised weapons as it could be used to hack, slash and thrust in the narrow confines of the trenches. Improvised clubs and maces as well as hatchets and trenchknives were way more effective. In close quarters the fighting was often mediëval. The exception being pistols but they drew more enemies and there wasn’t always time to reload and handgrenades wich proved to be absolutely devastating in narrow trenches often taking out several enemies. The German stormtroops towards the end of the war would have some men in their squads carry as much grenades as possible and thus not take a rifle with them.
Basically a long spike turns into a knife/dagger for multipurpose?
I think modern British bayonets also have a tin opener and bottle opener built in.
{:o:O:}
With 7 magazines of 30 rounds, no one should ever get that close
Yeah, you've been in the military................
astounding that the modern russian bayonet confirms to the Genava convention where the American breaches it on at least 2 accounts.
In the constript age of the Dutch army we had boyonets for our FAL rifles in inventory. But they NEVER came out of the armory. The staf reason being that it would make the FAL utterly useless. The moment you need bayonets you already made grave mistakes in your tactics.
dude add a spring and you got a suprise
A shorter bayonet has advantages in confined areas you have a shorter turn radius.
You had men on horses in those days.
Stellar presentation, thank you for showing so many examples, as well as giving some logical input.
Only one point I find slightly controversial. At 9:36 you say that a knife-length bayonet is easier to use when fighting in close quarters. I'd argue that WWI-era bayonets, if used separately from the rifle, are already short and light enough to be very nimble melee weapons, while providing more reach and defensive capability than a modern combat knife.
What is the purpose of that hole in some blades?
They need to be longer?
Who's "they"? Women?
The British musket had a blade
Long bayonets are a serious drawback in bush and urban warfare, in some circumstances it just becomes a piece of useless equipment adding to your load on foot patrols. Especially in bush warfare nobody charges blindly hoping to get within bayonet range, it is too easy for the enemy to disappear into a wide range of directions and ambush opportunities are ample.
Ambush by bayonet. Silent.
It is because of the decreasing testosterone levels of modern men. Back then the testosterone levels were higher thus the bayonets were also longer - Tucker Carlson
No more horse charges.
Probably cause sitting in cover and calling in support doesn't require bayonets
But defending your trench from a squad advance does.
Leave it to the Marine Corps to use them in Iraq ...
We, French, always had the longest, we have been mocked but I think it’s just jealousy.
Because people are so thin now it’s redundant. You can skewer a Vegan with a potato peeler these days.
By capitalizing Vegan, you are now referring to an extraterrestrial from a solar system around the star Vega. Either that, or a car enthusiast who likes crappy old Chevy compact cars from the 70's.
Hard to engage multiple targets with a long bayonet when you have it stuck in your problem and his friends over run your position. It slows down your engagement time . We trained to engage multiple targets in my time in the military. GREAT TOPIC ... SEMPER FI !!
tbf if i had only bayonet left as last resort i would pick WW1 long ass sword over this garbage knife. Any person who knows how fighting with bladed weapons would agree that if your blade in considerably longer then its immense advantage
Neato
My girlfriend likes long bayonets
Damn bro you tried really hard not to say the cavalry word
?
Didn't pull them all out.
Probably Low T
So you can see the whites of there eyes
👍👍👍❤❤❤
they look like small pikes :)
Due to your troops being cowards and don't really do any face to face ground fighting. Soon as they are engaged they call In aircraft.
Who is “your”?
@@GamerGod-fp1tj Ignore him, he's just mad that soldiers don't suicidal charge anymore.
Aircraft? You mean a drone controlled by a millennial in the Nevada Desert. Kaboom……Lol.
Planes are pretty cool
Well I’m 2nd
Just like american cocks they also grew shorter by time.
Yeah you’re really a professional on that topic aren’t you 😂
because how modern warfare is, the bayonet has evolved from something meant to only be stuck up someone's butt to be a on-field multi-purpose tool.
Went from being stuck up horse buts to being stuck into troaths and cans in trenches to being stuck into very shitty situations and "kitchen use"
Bayonets were used for digging firepits during the American Revolution