Fantastic content as always guys, Taff I'm probably wrong (as you didn't mention it) but I have also heard that as a lot of high ranking officers were cavalry officers who believed the cavalry would play a heavy part in the war, they wanted a longer bayonet to allow infantry to attack mounted troops, is this just a myth? Thanks so much.
Historically, the bayonet on a musket was the defence - or deterrent - against cavalry, replacing pikes as a separate weapon. I think the design logic was that a shorter rifle needed a longer bayonet to maintain the desired ~6' reach.
The design was always about the furthest reach. Defence against cavalry using bayonets hadn’t changed and there is no indication that generals who were cavalrymen had any particular sway.
An excellent video, as always. Thanks Taff.
Thank you very much indeed, Andy.
Very informative Taff
Thanks very much, Paul.
Fantastic content as always guys, Taff I'm probably wrong (as you didn't mention it) but I have also heard that as a lot of high ranking officers were cavalry officers who believed the cavalry would play a heavy part in the war, they wanted a longer bayonet to allow infantry to attack mounted troops, is this just a myth?
Thanks so much.
Historically, the bayonet on a musket was the defence - or deterrent - against cavalry, replacing pikes as a separate weapon. I think the design logic was that a shorter rifle needed a longer bayonet to maintain the desired ~6' reach.
@@andrewflindall9048 makes total sense, I'd heard this thing about cavalry too, but it all makes sense either way.
The design was always about the furthest reach. Defence against cavalry using bayonets hadn’t changed and there is no indication that generals who were cavalrymen had any particular sway.
I have one of those shorter pointy 1903 bayonets in Australia, stamped R.F.I. on the end of the pommel. Do you know what those letters mean?
Could it be a '1'? As in 1st Battalion Royal Fusiliers?
@Smudger6938 Definitely a I. for infantry probably.