Politicians hide themselves away, they only started the war

[venta]

This morning, on the Today programme, I heard various people talking about the NATO troops' actions in Afghanistan. Someone, I forget who, commented that the fighting in the South was "at close quarters, bayonets fitted

Comments

[ewx]

If your enemy can call in air strikes, or is merely much better equipped with long-distance weapons than you, then you have a pressing incentive to get close in before revealing your attack...

[zotz]

Bayonets are still issued, yes, and used too. Some fighting's at very close range, especially inside buildings. The same applies to gunfights more widely - I saw an FBI figure for the average range of a gunfight in the US. Less than three feet, I think.

Personally I'm very happy to be in an area without many guns.

[venta]

The same applies to gunfights more widely - I saw an FBI figure for the average range of a gunfight in the US. Less than three feet, I think.

This is exactly why I was surprised at the use of bayonets. I'd have thought guns at three feet inside a building were a liability[*], but given that that's how they are used I'd have expected the US army (which is mostly who's fighting in South Afghanistan) would choose guns for everything in preference to pointy bits of metal.

[*] like there's a way in which a gun isn't.

[zotz]

Some guns are designed to be used inside, and not just pistols either.

In my limited understanding, a bayonet is still good if you need to reload, and has a strong psychological effect on the poor sucker the weilder is bearing down on.

[bateleur]

There's an economics element to it all, of course.

If you wanted to kit a soldier out to be optimally effective for close fighting of this kind there'd be no bayonets to be seen. If, on the other hand, you want to give each soldier one set of cheap-as-possible equipment to cover every scenario whilst keeping your logistics as simple as possible then bayonets make a lot of sense. ("Take two weapons into combat instead of one? Not me. I just want to stab and go!")

[undyingking]

Maybe too soldiers are happier having a length of pointed steel to which they can resort if their guns jam, ammo runs out, etc. Even if they never actually have to use it.

[onebyone]

I don't think it's really about cheap - soldiers carry a vast quantity of stuff around them, so weight and bulk are serious limiting factors on equipment. Unless you can design a lightweight telescoping spear, bayonets surely aren't far off best-of-breed...

[bateleur]

Good use of "surely"! ;-)

If it was me I'd hate to use a bayonet. The resulting composite weapon is heavy, too long for close fighting and the opponent can safely grab it along most of its length. (Possibly soldiers feel differently due to having the option of unarmed fighting as a followup, at which I suck irretrievably!)