Talk:Bayonet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PISTOL BAYONETS[edit]

I would like to open a discussion as to whether or not we should add Pistol Bayonets to this article. Please, present your argument both PRO and CON below.--71.22.156.40 (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Axe" bayonet?[edit]

Picture one Picture two Picture three

Could the axe portion of these rifles be considered a bayonet? They are technically blades, and are technically affixed to the end of a gun/rifle.

No these are combination weapons, meant for cavalry. The axe blade is permanently fixed to the barrel, and besides its an axe, not a knife.203.2.218.132 (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some bayonets outlawed?[edit]

There is a claim (added by WojPob way back in Oct 2002) on this page that some types of bayonet are outlawed by the "Geneva Accords on Humane Warfare", which are mentioned nowhere else on the web. This sounds an awful lot like the similiar myth about shot guns and .50 cal ammo being illegal in war. Can anyone provide a confirmation of this rule, preferably with links to the text of the document? - JanSöderback 13:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is no such prohibition in any of the laws of war. The Hague Conventions explicitly prohibit fragmenting or expanding bullets, poison, and asphyxiating gases. It is also forbidden "To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury." The Geneva Conventions do not ban classes of conventional weapons, to the best of my knowledge. That's it.--ArminTamzarian 02:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think I had read something similar in All Quiet on the Western Front about serrated bayonets. These can arguably be understood as being covered by Art. 22. (e) "To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;" of Chapter I of the Hague Convention of 1907 [1]. If we have strong clues that it is not the case, it would anyway be appropriate to mention it. Rama 13:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, the replacements were advised not to serrate their bayonets because they would be killed if captured with them. It had nothing to do with treaties on war.--ArminTamzarian 22:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ive read about german soldiers using serrated bayonets during world war one and if british forces caught germans with those types of blades they would be executed straight away because of the injuries they would cause. The germans knew what would happen to them if they where caught with the serrated blades so more experienced german soldiers threw them away and got different bayonets. i had to do an exam on this when i was 14. also from what i know about the shotgun it was never banned but the german high command asked for it to be banned at some point.Corustar 01:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC) its sort of like the story of soldiers cutting a cross into there bullets to make them splinter when they hit if that is discovered a soldier can be put up for war crimes and that sort of law.Corustar 02:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sawback bayonets were manufactured that way. Soldiers didn't cut the sawteeth themselves. If you've ever held one in your hand (I own several), there would be no doubt in your mind. The machining of the sawteeth is very intricate and precise. Sawback bayonets served two purposes: 1) they were a traditional German status symbol issued to NCO's and 2) for what everybody uses a saw for, to cut wood (e.g., machinegun crews used them to clear vegetation when emplacing their guns). During WW I, sawback bayonets were the subject of negative press coverage and the German government elected to remove the sawteeth from some bayonets to quell the press attention. However, many sawback bayonets survived the war intact. Switzerland also used sawback bayonets, issuing them to troops well into the 1950's. All of the talk about cruelty, war crimes, and executions is hooey. Regarding use of shotguns in combat, the US used them in combat during WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam, and are using them today in Iraq. No other country has made significant use of shotguns in combat, except the US. Marysdad 04:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely. Sawback bayonets were used by sapper and pioneer regiments as far back as the 1780's. I have seen several examples over the years ranging from highly decorated presentation pieces to modern issue.Benvenuto (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the authorized use of shotguns was for guarding prisoners, with incidental use also in trench and jungle warfare (World War I, the Pacific in World War II, Vietnam) by individuals who found them useful in those conditions.Michael DoroshTalk 04:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shotguns today are employed more as a breaching tool than a weapon. They're used for taking out door locks and hinges. In my unit the Breacher (man with the shotgun) carries both his shotgun and his rifle in combat because the shotgun is limited as a weapon, due to it's short range and small magazine. The Army today uses the Mossberg 500 and also the older M97 shotguns. The Marine Corps uses a Mossberg 590. The bad rap sawback bayonets got was mostly due to clever American propaganda. Serrated or not the fact about a bayonet is that you're going to get stabbed one way or the other. The Army's current issue M9 bayonet features a sawback and the Marines OKC3S is partially serated. Here's a good article on it from [www.firstworldwar.com]
"Notoriously, the German army produced a 'saw-back' blade that, as its name suggests, gave the appearance of a saw with its double row of teeth on the back edge.
Produced chiefly for use by engineering units for specific tasks, the saw-back blade proved a blessing for Allied propaganda purposes. Keen to represent the Germans as ruthless, blood-thirsty 'Huns', the popular press widely propagated the notion that this type of bayonet had been specifically developed as a refinement of German brutality for use in close combat.
Although it could doubtless be put to such use, it was actually designed to be used as a saw when the need arose."
Ultratone85 08:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
see Combat shotgun.Geni 16:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shotguns have seen a massive resurgence in popularity in afghanistan and iraq for CQB in urban environments. In fact, the british just recrntly intrioduced a new shotgun (we havent had one since ww1 officially) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.93.46 (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, we Germans still have a saw in our standard military pocket-knife.--2001:A61:260D:6E01:1165:3A68:7701:3A5 (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fuller =/ blood groove[edit]

"it also allows air into the wound it produces, breaking the vacuum and making the bayonet easier to withdraw after a stabbing attack with it and less prone to getting stuck in the wound." Actually the above is partially false. There is no "vacuum" effect. A fuller serves to lighten and stiffen the blade but has no effect on the ease with which is can be removed from a body. See http://www.agrussell.com/knife_information/knife_encyclopedia/articles/blood_groove.html for a more detailed discussion. Hopefully someone with more Wikipedia savvy than I will clean this up and put the link in an appropriate external links section. --4.19.249.110, 19:38, 30 Dec 2004 (copied from article & history)

I've made the requested changes.--Polyparadigm 03:53, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dissadvantages.[edit]

someone needs to add the dissadvantages of bayonets, such as the loss of zero. I would , but I would probbably butcher it in the process. Kudos to whoever put up a pic of the new marine bayonet. --Knife Knut 05:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its worth mentioning that they are not good on modern weapons. The british army SA80 (L85) virtually useless in actual combat when used with a bayonet, because its bullpup. Hard to get enough force behind it, and your hand is really exposed. One wouldnt have a chance against someeone with a full length conventional rifle with a bayonet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.50.232 (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Length of muskets[edit]

At time of writing, the article includes the following text:

A foot long bayonet, extending to a regulation 17 inches (approx 43 centimetres) during the Napoleonic period, on a 6 foot (almost 2 metre) tall musket achieved a reach similar to the infantry spear, and later halberd, of earlier times.

Aside from the awkward phrasing, were any regular army muskets actually 6 feet long?The Charleville musket is said to have been five feet long, but a 6-footer would be really slow to load. Can anybody provide a cite.

As you say, a six-foot musket would have been a bugger to load, and I'm satisfied that no such arm existed in a regular army. The only possibility would be the muskets traded with native people in North America, where the going rate was a stack of skins as tall as the weapon and so the weapons got longer to get a better price. On the other hand, I don't know exactly how long a napoleonic musket would have been, and it's not crucial to the meaning of the sentence, so I'll leave it for now. PeteVerdon 12:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Infantry muskets of around 1720 when they started to become standardised usually had a 46-48 inch barrel and 12-14 inch LOP so 5 feet long plus 18 inches of socket bayonet equals aprox. 6 feet 6 inches total. As the 18th century progressed the length of barrels on british and french muskets shrank to 38-42 inches. HOWEVER, much longer guns, long fowlers or for the french, fusils de Boucanier did exist. The minimum length was about 48 inches ranging to 60 inches (averaging around 54-56 inches) and the Boucanier muskets were often ordered with the stock cut back for a bayonet, as dual purpose weapons used for both hunting and defense. The story about the stack of skins is a myth, but long Boucanier guns were prefered by native americans as is seen from period illustrationsBenvenuto (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Infantry spears could easily exceed eight feet. Infantry pikes, which were common at the time, could exceed sixteen feet. 96.231.17.143 (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bayonet against body armor in modern warfare[edit]

In modern warfare, when body armor is so important in combat, wouldn't it be hard for soldiers to engage in hand-to-hand combat using bayonets when considering that the body armor both sides are likely wearing are built to stop even bullets? Taken this in to account, I don't see how bayonets are still useful as hand-to-hand combat weapons.--Ryz05 02:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all pats of the body are armored, nor are all fighters armored. The bullet proof vest is exactly that, a vest - something that only covers the chest. Helmets dont cover the entire face. If one can manage to bayonett someone in the arms, throat, face, legs or the crotch, you can badly hurt or even kill someone. Does anyone know how much more usefull a bayonett would be rather then just useing the knife? Eds01 03:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, most soft body armor provides almost no protection against a stiff blade, such as a bayonet or large fighting knife. Surprising, I know, but aramid fibers like kevlar or dyneema work by "catching" a bullet with a network of fibers of very high tensile strength, which then allows the bullet to deform without passing through the armor. (Of course, this does nothing for the effects of blunt trauma, which is the impetus for so-called "trauma plates") A stiff blade point, in contrast to a cylindro-conical bullet, travels at an immensely slower speed and tends to spread apart fibers and slip through, or, alternatively it may cut through the fibers owing to: first, the fibers' much lower strength in shear, and the incredibly small surface area of the blade, leading to incredibly high PSI. Even if you doubt my explanation, simply look at the warning label on practically any piece of body armor; while it may well give, say a NIJ ballistic threat rating, it invariably warns that it is inneffective against blades and other sharp objects. Prison gurds, for example, wear vests that are entirely different than ballistic armoer for this very reason--they see a lot of shanks, but very few pistols. (Also, note that this explanation neglects hard inserts to body armor, which do offer significant protection against bladed weapons over their small surface areas.Reimelt 06:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK police forces have taken to wearing stab proof vests as a part of their uniforms.Corustar 13:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falklands and Iraq - Modern british use[edit]

Under modern use maybe add this?

There was a british guy in the falklands war who got pinned down and bayoneted like 8 argies before being shot in the head by a sniper. He was in the papers a lot at the time because he got brain damage and the army hardly gave him any money for it... should be easy to find a reference. With relation to the section above he said its policy to go for the face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.93.46 (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, read this

"Falklands campaign - 3rd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment on the night of June 11-12 and 2nd Battalion, Scots Guards on the night of June 13-14 1982, when night allowed them to close with the enemy at Mt Longdon and Mt Tumbledown without being seen.

After hand-to-hand and bayonet fighting with the 7th Infantry Regiment the 3rd batallion suffered 23 killed. The Argentinians suffered over 50. The 2nd Scots Guards pushed the 5th Marine Infantry Battalion off the summit with rifle fire and a bayonet charge shortly before the surrender of Argentine forces. 8 british wee killed, compared to 40 argentinians.

After the Falklands, the british infantry began to train in the use of the bayonet again.

On May 16, 2004 British troops (Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders) in Iraq perform their first bayonet charge since the Falklands War. 35 insurgents were killed, while only 3 British troops were wounded in what were described as "classic infantry assaults" on firing and mortar positions held by more than 100 fighters loyal to the outlawed cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, according to military sources. "There was some pretty fierce hand-to-hand fighting with bayonets fixed," the source added

86.16.153.191 (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph badly interuping flow of the article[edit]

"In former times bayonets were sometimes used in sport shooting to finish off wounded animals: one old German word for "bayonet" meant "deer-knife"." I'm removing it for now, but leaving it here so if another editor can find a better place in the article for this, have at it. 64.241.37.140 23:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rate of fire of muskets[edit]

The article currently says (under "History") that: "The early muskets fired at a slow rate (about a round per minute when loading with loose powder and ball), and were unreliable.". This may be true if loading with loose powder from a powder flask, measuring the powder, wrapping bullet in wadding etc, but certainly by the 18th military musket drill relied upon the paper cartridge, with the correct amount of powder measured, easy to obtain with the ball and the cartridge paper used as wadding. The wikipedia article "musket" itself says that trained soldiers could fire around 3 shots a minute this way, 4 if they were very well trained and experienced. Its only a minor quibble, and the point of the section - that muskets were slow-firing enough that a bayonet charge was possible, whereas a bayonet charge over any distance against an enemy armed with breech loading or repeating rifles became suicidal- is still true, but i feel we should probably alter the sentence to conform to whats said elsewhere about musket firing rates.

Have gone ahead and altered the article very slightly as there has been no response to this for more than a month.

82.20.244.207 20:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Ian, 08.10.06[reply]

Bayoneteers[edit]

What are Bayoneteers? -- 172.182.10.5 09:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AK bayonet ideas in US bayonet[edit]

Wire cutter in the US bayonets is copy of USSR AK bayonet. Should that be in this text?

(I mean this idea, picture is bad, blade is upside down:) http://www.chicom47.net/Pics/RareRed.jpg

some bayonet information via britannica: http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/BAR_BEC/BAYONET.html

Removal of biased section[edit]

I'm removing "The Bayonets were also used by the Jewish military organization Hagana against the defenseless Arab villagers in Palestine in the early 1930's. This technique was transferred to the Hagana by the British sergeant Amatziya Cohen." from the article on the grounds that it is unsighted and appeared prejudiced/biased in nature.

Well, have Haganah militants used bayonets against Arab villagers, or not? If they had, I dont see why this could not be included in the history section. I will re-introduce it if I find a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.50.81 (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly should not be included. Not only is the information unsourced, the language employed unduly emotive (ie defenseless), but to single out Jewish soldiers for the use of the bayonet against civilians is plainly ridiculous. By that logic, we should include every reference of bayonet-enabled war crimes possible in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grarap (talk • contribs) 14:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

origins of Bayonet[edit]

As far as I know the origins of the Bayonet are somewhat obscure. The term bayonet dates back to the late 16th century though it is unclear if the term is refering to the bayonet as is known today or some other type of knife. There is a legend, mentioned at the start of the article, that the bayonet was invented by accident in the early 1600's but there is no evidence to confirm this. The article might need to look at the origins in more depth.

Inchiquin (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found some additional information on this.
source: http://www.cnrtl.fr/lexicographie/ba%C3%AFonnette
check the end of the page.
First occurence of the term in 1572 "arme blanche que l'on fixe au bout du fusil" literally "Melee weapon that can be fixed to the tip of a rifle", by Étienne Tabourot, in "Des Accords, Les Bigarures, Rébus de Picardie"
Also states:"Ainsi que l'on dit bayonnettes de Bayonne", "as is said bayonets, from bayonne".
from what I gathered: Bayonne had several weapons manufacture, including one that made bayonets, hence the name. 1572 predates current published information, I suggest this is updated, at least concerning the origin of the name. Unfortunate the etymolgy does not give historical indication as to the source / creation of the tool.

Turkish bayonet charges in Korean War[edit]

Turks used bayonets with great effectiveness in many occasions in Korean War. There is not a lot of mention of it in Turkish sources, but Korean War memoirs by American soldiers are full of this. I will include this in the history section when I collect some references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.50.81 (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hilt, handle, or ?[edit]

The page at present is equivocal on the term for the part above the blade. A sword or dagger has a hilt rather than a handle. What of a bayonet? -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe bayonets have a hilt- they are, after all, just a dagger (or short sword) which can be mounted onto the end of the rifle. Commander Zulu (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I more or less agree. Hilt refers to the entire handling apparatus of a sword - the grip, the pommel, etc. - in some cases even the guard. So, handle isn't the proper term for the sword grip - and it seems even less appropriate for a bayonet, which is often not "handled" directly at all, but rather used while still attached to the rifle. If anything, the question should be down to the use of hilt or grip. I don't know which is technically correct, but grip feels more correct to me because the other features of a "proper" hilt are often missing. Matt Deres (talk)

"Frog" ?[edit]

The term "frog" is often used on eBay describing something which goes with the sheath or scabbard of a bayonet. Is it some sort of fastener? Should "frog" be cited and linked and disambiguated? Dr.Bastedo (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "frog" is a (usually) leather contraption that connects to the sheath of a bayonet and allows it to be worn on a belt. It can be removed from the scabbard or sheath. I am not sure why it is done this way, since most knives have a loop built into the sheath. Possibly because bayonet sheaths are so often metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.14.154 (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link invalid/outdated, sentence seems preposterous[edit]

"The British Army performed bayonet charges during the Falklands War, the Second Gulf War, and the war in Afghanistan.[6]"

Not sure if this is accurate...--Agamemnus (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on another comment above, it would seem to be true for at least the Falklands and Afghanistan.
"Falklands campaign - 3rd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment on the night of June 11-12 and 2nd Battalion, Scots Guards on the night of June 13-14 1982, when night allowed them to close with the enemy at Mt Longdon and Mt Tumbledown without being seen.
After hand-to-hand and bayonet fighting with the 7th Infantry Regiment the 3rd batallion suffered 23 killed. The Argentinians suffered over 50. The 2nd Scots Guards pushed the 5th Marine Infantry Battalion off the summit with rifle fire and a bayonet charge shortly before the surrender of Argentine forces. 8 british wee killed, compared to 40 argentinians.
After the Falklands, the british infantry began to train in the use of the bayonet again.
On May 16, 2004 British troops (Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders) in Iraq perform their first bayonet charge since the Falklands War. 35 insurgents were killed, while only 3 British troops were wounded in what were described as "classic infantry assaults" on firing and mortar positions held by more than 100 fighters loyal to the outlawed cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, according to military sources. "There was some pretty fierce hand-to-hand fighting with bayonets fixed," the source added"
I have heard anecdotally of both incidents, and I am sure I could find sources. I will endevour to do so. I don't think it is especially preposterous, although perhaps the term 'bayonet charge' may be a little misleading. --Korruski (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Reference[edit]

  • The first source in this article - which is cited multiple times - is an editable article on the BBC website and not, as the footnote states, attributable to "BBC News." Here is a disclaimer from the source which should help to clear things up: "Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of any external sites referenced." (Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/dontpanic-tour). I recommend removing this source, as it is open to be edited by the public (without verification). See: Wikipedia:SOURCES. With the above in mind, I have added the "unreliable sources" template to the article, and I request that it not be removed until the source in question is replaced. bwmcmaste (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World War I and Bayonet 'Reach'[edit]

The book Scientific American War Book: the mechanism and technique of warfare (1915) by Albert Allis Hopkins, p. 141 contains an interesting prewar-oriented discussion of the supposed advantages of extremely long bayonets and the necessity of achieving a 'reach' advantage over one's opponent - all written prior to the realities of trench warfare, of course. Dellant (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"effectively turning the gun into a spear"[edit]

Technically it is only a spear if it features a symmetrical shape and a double (dagger) or multi (spike) edged configuration designed solely for stabbing or throwing. These blade shapes are optimal for these purposes but have little weight or stiffness for slashing and break easily if blocked by a thicker blade.

Most of the newer knife-type bayonets are single edged and designed to slash, stab and parry in equal measure. A single-edged polearm that's meant for 50% slashing/50% stabbing is called a glaive, not a spear. Just a point of reference. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USA has more bayonets now than in 1917[edit]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-horses-and-bayonets-fact-check-20121023,0,7526260.story

Worth a mention? Hcobb (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, an IP user said that the actual scope of usage was off-topic somehow. Hcobb (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who him ?[edit]

This rather confusing extract appears in the 'Early history' section, para four "... that the younger Puységur invented a socket bayonet in 1678...".
I think it should read something like: "...[christian name] Puységur, a young French/German/Italian/Chinese inventor, procured a socket bayonet in 1678..."
Who is or was he? RASAM (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japan[edit]

I was reading recently that the Empire of Japan placed heavy emphasis on bayonet use, giving recruits extensive training based on Kendo and other martial arts. Right now, there's no mention of their use in WWII, so a paragraph or so might be appropriate. Rezin (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See link to jukendo. Kortoso (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Has me in our Mauser bayonet produced in the city bought. That's one thing Antik. Good stable, excellent quality. However, it can not be sharp. So, I can not even easily cut a sheet of writing paper sharpen after three days. Possibly, the factory - sharpening is lost Same as IE with modern Saw - knives. If, perhaps, the possible products to supplement the data on bayonet sharpening? Or Explain in discussion page a little.Goldlauter (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bayonet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First picture[edit]

The first picture shows a soldier wearing what appears to me to be WW2 equipment, not WW1 as stated in the caption.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The caption is meant to note the very long bayonet and gas-mask are reminiscent of WWI, despite being early WWII equipment. If you have a better way of stating this, be my guest. --A D Monroe III(talk) 03:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my best at a new caption, though I have to say I am not totally satisfied with the result. If I had a good source I would be so bold as to identify this as the 1907 pattern bayonet.
On another subject, I do not spot anywhere in the article anything about the problems caused by a large bayonet with the accuracy of the rifle to which it is attached. Again, I do not have a reference for this - just a recollection of an extensive explanation, in about 1970, on the suitability of various bayonets from an NCO with a long service history. The short story is that fitting a bayonet of any size to a rifle makes the weapon unbalanced and it becomes less easy to hit anything. The bigger the bayonet the worse the effect.
Nor do I spot the modern attitude to bayonet training in the British Army - it is still included in basic training (though interestingly the army strictly ban any photography of this training) and it is suggested that its sole purpose is to teach an understanding of aggression and the intent to kill one's opponent in battle. I believe that the last instance of a bayonet charge in the British army was in the Falklands War [2]. Those involved do speak about the highlighted sense of the process of killing one's opponent - as opposed to the more distant (but still massive) effect of shooting someone.
Not sure if my remarks are helpful - I am really trying to concentrate my editing efforts on other subjects, otherwise I would dig out some decent sources.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Triangular blades causing wounds that are harder to treat[edit]

The first section of this article states that "A triangular blade was introduced around 1715... creating wounds which were harder to treat due to the propensity of healing scar tissue to pull apart the triangular incision." This paragraph has no reference of its own, but the next paragraph references a web encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone, in the manner of Wikipedia itself. This has been noted elsewhere on this talk page as an unreliable source. Furthermore, the source no longer makes any mention of the wounding effects of triangular blades.

Although this proposition (that triangular bayonets cause more grievous or more difficult to treat wounds than other kinds of bayonet) seems to be commonly stated on message boards and blogs, I can find no reliable source for it. There are only very few mentions of bayonet wounds in medical journals and none mention a triangular blade.

The idea seems to go hand-in-hand with a myth that the Geneva or Hague conventions banned the use of triangular bayonets (already discussed elsewhere on this talk page), so I expect it is itself a myth. In any case, since there is no reliable reference (unless someone else can find one?), I suggest this part of the sentence be removed.Cloudspert (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I have followed the myth of the hard-to-heal triangular bayonet wound for some time now. Personally I could find no evidence for this statement. On the contrary, there is only anecdotal evidence being shared and shared again on the web. Furthermore, I found a statement (on a medical webpage) explaining that triangular wounds are not impossible nor harder to stitch than any other wound. (https://medicalsciences.stackexchange.com/questions/11268/dealing-with-triangle-puncture-wounds)

But first and foremost - there is no source supporting the prior statement in this article, and without any comment to Cloudspert's suggestion for half a year, I have taken the liberty of removing the statement from the article. --Lalucre (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Chekov claims that China invented the bayonet?[edit]

User:Nebakin seems to be a Chinese Chekov who claims that China invented everything. To him a spear with a roman candle attached means that China invented the bayonet. This goes against common knowledge, and the references already in the article. He also added the following meaningless unverifiable references.

  • Needham, Volume 5, Part 7, 229 230.
  • Huolongjing 《火龍經》, Part 2, Chapter 2, 24a.
  • H. Blackmore, Hunting Weapons, p. 50
  • Needham, Volume 5, Part 7, 456.
  • Binglu 《兵錄》, Scroll 12.

Therefore, I recommend that the additions be removed.--RAF910 (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:RAF910 Please refrain from personal insults as in accordance to this excerpt from No personal attacks: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans." You have already touched on racial/ethnic lines and ad hominem in your post. Please provide proof that I have actually "claimed that China invented everything" or else retract that slander against me before I report you to the admins. This is your final warning after the vandalism one.
Common knowledge is not a rule of law, it can and will be updated all the time as evidence is uncovered, just because there are references in the article, doesn't mean new ones cannot supplement or even overrule them.
Moreover, if you were to even read my edit, you would realise it comes in 2 parts; the first describing how the first firearms were attached to spears to make the spear a partial firearm, which is a clear predecessor to firearms having a bayonet attached to make it a spear. The first line of the page already said: "A bayonet (from French baïonnette) is a knife, sword, or spike-shaped weapon designed to fit on the end of a rifle's muzzle, allowing it to be used as a spear." So if the purpose of the bayonet is to make a firearm a spear, then wouldn't a firearm attached to a spear be conceptually the same and be worthy of mention? The second part in the section "earliest recorded bayonet" is than the one that claims the bayonet was invented in China and with irrefutable proof, it is in fact the earliest recorded bayonet we know as of now, find refuting evidence and I will move that portion to be under "Plug bayonets" instead.
Finally, your claims of "meaningless unverifiable references" is erroneous, these are in fact both the actual, original sources and a compendium about ancient Chinese firearms by a world renown Sinologist. All sources are easily accessible through the internet/libraries, thus verifiable easily. Like I have mentioned, a personal lack of knowledge in another language doesn't render any references meaningless, much less when an English source that actually uses those military treatise is provided together. Attached below are the Wiki links to the sources (Note: H. Blackmore, Hunting Weapons was not from me, so please check the history first before attributing it to me): Needham, Volume 5, Part 7 Huolongjing 《火龍經》 Binglu 《兵錄》.
Therefore there is no reason to remove such an important addition to the article. Nebakin (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? Everything that you presented above is original research based on different WIKIPEDIA pages. Needham, Volume 5, Part 7 Huolongjing 《火龍經》 Binglu 《兵錄》(Chinese language WIKI). You have violated multiple WIKI policies, including...
No where in this book [3]](I presume this is the book your referring to, as the source you provided is so vague) does it say that "The first clearly recorded instance of a bayonet proper is found in the Chinese military treatise Binglu published in 1606, meaning the firearms documented in the treatise would have to exist even before the publication date." The only one saying these things is you.
The following is the passage in question and the only mention of "bayonet" is in FIG. 182...
"Another breech-loading musket was the 'sons-and-mother gun' (tzu mu chhung2 ) described in the Ping Lu of + 1606 (Fig. I82).a The barrel (the 'mother') was 4 ft 2 in. long, while the chamber (the 'son') was but 7 in. long. The bore of the two was carefully made identical, and then one 'son' after another could be inserted at the breech and fired off. The number of chambers carried by each musketeer was the same as in the previous case. Since, as we saw on p. 442, Chao Shih-Chen claimed to have invented breech-loading muskets himself, this one of Ho J u-Pin's would seem to be derivative--but of course there may well have been many such inventors....(The caption to fig. 182 reads as follow) Fig. 182. Another breech-loading musket, from PL, ch. 12, p. 12b. One of the chambers is seen below on the right, and a bayonet for fixing in the muzzle is to the right above."--RAF910 (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I've presented above is presented to you in Wikipedia page because those pages actually have the links and references to the original documents which you have been refusing to look up on your own. Original research would imply the research did not have any other sources but my own personal ones, which is entirely untrue. Sources I have provided are not personal ones and frankly you still could only use the English reference, proving I was right that your personal lack of knowledge in another language is impeding your objectiveness. The Binglu is indeed published in 1606, that fact was clearly mentioned in it's own introduction and it is common knowledge and common sense that if you were to publish a book compiling weapons, it is not surprising that they were invented before that. And like I have said, find me an earlier example of a bayonet being so clearly recorded and I will move my entry into plug bayonets instead.
Also, your removing of my post is nothing lack of vandalism, you are contending with the claim that the bayonet is invented in China, which is it as I've provided sufficient evidence for, not the fact that a Chinese firearm once used bayonet. Moreover, you still refuse to apologise and remove your racist insults as well as slander towards me. Nebakin (talk) 06:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly after the Peace of Ryswick (1697), the English and Germans?=[edit]

Germany wouldn't be a definable political entity until 1815 or 1871 depending on how you count. Should this refer to England and the Holy Roman Empire? Neonchameleon (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uselessness of bayonet attacks[edit]

I am moving this discussion from my talk page to here, as it's about article content. It concerns my revert of assertion that bayonet attacks by themselves where useless. --A D Monroe III(talk) 02:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds was my edit deleted Bayonet? Do you consider yourself more competent in this matter? Then bring the battle where the troops were able to overturn the enemy without the use of firearms. I think this was only possible as an exception. In most battles, a bayonet attack was always accompanied by infantry fire. This means that a successful bayonet attack is impossible without a preliminary shootout. Otherwise, a logical error occurs. Why were soldiers armed with muskets? It is enough to arm them with spears, so that it would be easy to overturn the enemy. TooLRF (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on my edit summary, see WP:SYNTH. Any editor using "I think" and their own "logic" cannot reach any conclusion that other editors can validate via WP:Reliable sources; this is the whole foundation of Wikipedia -- an encyclopedia which can be fact-checked by anyone. Plus, as noted in the article itself, there were many successful bayonet charges, even up to WWI. Standing and exchanging shots with defenders, who have positional advantage and fire first, is unlikely to achieve a decisive victory of taking the defenders' position.
Also as noted in my edit summary, if you have sources that support bayonet-only infantry charges didn't happen or were never successful, please present them here. Until then, I will remove this unsourced claim that is contradictory to the rest of the article. Per WP:BRD, repeating disputed changes to the article that are currently under discussion is considered disruptive. --A D Monroe III(talk) 02:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the article did not have a single example of a battle in which a bayonet attack without the use of firearms was successful. In Battle of Killiekranki, the Jacobites launched a bayonet attack with a preliminary firefight, after which the British troops immediately fled without resistance (this is an example of incredible cowardice, not the effectiveness of a bayonet attack). If you have examples of successful bayonet attacks without the use of firearms, I want to see them. In European battles, this is difficult to find, but in colonial wars, attempts at "bayonet attacks" with only edged weapons were quite frequent. For example, the Battle of Blood River, where 12000 Zulu warriors tried to attack 400 Boer farmers. But all their attacks were repulsed by musket fire. The advent of muskets in New Zealand radically changed the tactics of the battles of the natives. Baton attacks are no longer effective against warriors armed with firearms. I am talking about Musket Wars. TooLRF (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finding examples of failed bayonet attacks cannot be used to assert they were all useless. Again, that would be WP:SYNTH. This is why the article doesn't rely on giving examples of how there were successful; instead, it uses reliable secondary sources from authorities that studied all significant battles. By this means the article attests to the usefulness of bayonet attacks, at least until WWI. Again, asserting they weren't is incorrect according to current sources.
Again, if you have reliable secondary sources stating bayonet attacks were useless, please present them. Anything else is a waste of our time. --A D Monroe III(talk) 23:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Give a quote from a secondary (reliable) source stating that bayonet attacks were successful without preliminary firing. TooLRF (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Please follow talk discussion indentation guidelines per WP:THREAD.)
The article currently makes no definite claims on the effectiveness of bayonet attacks. No source is needed to make no claim. The addition being discussed makes a definite claim that they were useless. That requires a source. --A D Monroe III(talk) 21:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article claims that soldiers were afraid of bayonets, more than bullets. But this information is not confirmed by sources and misleads readers. Therefore, this article needs to be edited. The fact is that massive fire could put the enemy on the run, and bayonets without shooting could never force the enemy to flee. Conclusion: the bayonets were useless as an independent type of weapon, and bayonet attacks were always accompanied by shooting. The famous French surgeon Larrey studied the place of one bayonet attack, according to him 95% of the soldiers were injured by bullets, only 5% from the bayonets. TooLRF (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An editor's conclusion is the definition of WP:SYNTH. If the claim is true, it should be easy to find such a source. Again, per WP policy, lacking a source, we cannot add this claim to the article. --A D Monroe III(talk) 02:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last Hurrahs[edit]

Should we change the name of this section? It seems a bit biased against the bayonet, and somewhat inaccurate considering the fact that it implies bayonet charges no longer happen despite the fact that they keep happening every so often, as stated within the section 2607:FEA8:9540:2A00:D1DA:BBE2:2FE5:715B (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of bayonets in New Mexico 1970[edit]

I have added a paragraph about a bayonet charge on anti-war protestors in 1970. Usually I make only brief edits, like copy editing, so this is a new step for me. I welcome any suggestions.

I have also found a photo to go with this paragraph that is permitted under Creative Commons. However, I don't know how to add it to this article. If someone can point me to an instructional article on how to do that, it would be appreciated. Dgndenver (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

spear-like weapon[edit]

Since a bayonet attached to a firearm is used for thrusting rather than throwing, and is not normally used on a horse, it is more correctly a pike. There is an article on the subject, Pike (weapon). I would edit accordingly but that would risk hijacking the reference. Would someone who can check the reference please do so and replace the word spear. Humpster (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bayonet&oldid=1200343976"