Originally Posted by Cyrus

Well, we still train with bayonets, but we feel that if you ever have to use one, you're in deep dookie.

The dookie would be a hell of a lot deeper if you didn't have it, or it wasn't fixed on your rifle.

A triangular wound is much more potent and takes much longer to heal than a line shaped stab. It is harder for scar tissue to form around a triangular wound and because the triangular bayonets have more surface area entering the body they to more damage internally. Triangular bayonets are the only bayonets worth using in such a purpose.

This an unusual interest you have in creating lasting wounds. I would hope that if I or one of my diggers has to use his bayonet that his foe would die cleanly and quickly. Why would you want to make somebody suffer without reason.

As for your comments about "why do we have to follow the geneva convention when our enemy doesn't". Well that's easy: We may be at war with a vicious, vile and horrid enemy who doesn't give a damn about the laws of armed conflict, but by God we are gentlemen, and we will fight as gentlemen. There is nothing brave, or honourable or noble in causing these unnecessary wounds.

Now this may sound like a lot of rhetoric, but it is something we believe in strongly in the Australian army. We always have and always will.

The bayonet still holds an important part of the fighting man's kit. It is still taught in the Australian army, we are taught to use every part of the rifle to fight; from the bayonet to the butt. Even if it may not play a part in the ensuing fire-fight, a bayonet on the end of your barrel will steel the fighting spirit. A 17 inch triangular bayonet is not required. A 7 inch straight edge bayonet will do the job just as well. It will kill a man at a rifle's length away.

It's interesting that the main supporters of unnecassary bayonet wounding seem to have no military background.... at least that I know of.

Originally Posted by diplomatic_means

OK so currently the American bayonet is the M it's a 7 inch long glorified knife. Why don't they make the bayonets more triangular? Triangular wounds take the longest to heal since they aren't easy to close. That is the entire point if the bayonet I thought. Do they still teach soldiers how to use their bayonet effectively in basic training? Oh and by the way did anyone notice that the American Soldier was given Time's Person of the Year award? I wish I could get a copy of it.

In WWl ,I believe the Germans, had Spade Shaped bayonets, cool looking, and heavy as they were, the had one problem. When you look at the ones that soldiers preferred over the Spade, was, that it would puncture your enemy, but, being a normal bayonet, it was easy to pull out, and keeping on fighting.

If you could imagine, having rifle rounds and stocks, flying at you, while you were sitting there, pulling you stuck bayonet out of a fallen soldier, then well, you not in a good situation.

Bayonets have been around for ages, if there was any way a triangular design that works could be successful, then I think some military somewhere would have used it years ago.

Originally Posted by AussieNick

It's interesting that the main supporters of unnecassary bayonet wounding seem to have no military background.... at least that I know of.

Nail, head, on target. Too much Nintendo, not enough rugby.

Wouldn't it be a better idea to issue a sidearm as a backup to soldiers than to rely on a bayonet or a knife.

I happen to like the comic book "The Punisher". Although he is a fictional character he often repeats his belief that "only an idiot or a madman brings a knife into a gunfight".

I'm not a combat expert, but it seems to make sense.

Originally Posted by bulldog

Nail, head, on target. Too much Nintendo, not enough rugby.

True, but, its scary , some armies today, fight war like they are playing Nintendo.

Pretty soon, the modern soldier may have difficulty acknowledging the impacts of their action. (Like blowing real human beings to bits.)

And, I do belive the generel purpose knife, should take the slide of the bayonet. I mean, something sharp, and pointy, is some times all you have, even in gun fights. I mean, you cant say its old, and should be dismissed, but, the gun is old tech to.

All I'm saying is, I rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Wouldn't it be a better idea to issue a sidearm as a backup to soldiers than to rely on a bayonet or a knife.

I happen to like the comic book "The Punisher". Although he is a fictional character he often repeats his belief that "only an idiot or a madman brings a knife into a gunfight".

I'm not a combat expert, but it seems to make sense.

The only trouble with this is that should you need it in an emergency, your sidearm is in it's holster, whereas an infantryman will have his bayonet affixed to the end of his rifle.

Bayonets are perhaps not as "cool" looking as having a pistol on your belt, but they are a lot more practical.

If such a thing was possible, I'd like to see how many have been killed in battle with both weapons. I reckon the bayonet would be so far ahead as to be out of sight.

Let's face it, both weapons are only really any use in a "hand to hand" situation, and I know that I'd feel a lot happier with a bayonet on the end of my rifle than with a pistol in a holster. Unless perhaps I thought I was Wyatt Earp.

in my experience/opinion, nothing fires a digger up like fix bayonets ive seen fellow soldiers go so hard in bayonet training that they have broken wrists, and yes even a rifle (receiver broke away from the butt group) let me assure you fellas, that if it came toe to toe, i WOULD take you down with a bayonet quicker that you could put a hand on your sidearm. maybe firepower is perceived as a 'safer' way of soldiering, but i know what i trust my life with

Originally Posted by SigJohnson

in my experience/opinion, nothing fires a digger up like fix bayonets ive seen fellow soldiers go so hard in bayonet training that they have broken wrists, and yes even a rifle (receiver broke away from the butt group) let me assure you fellas, that if it came toe to toe, i WOULD take you down with a bayonet quicker that you could put a hand on your sidearm. maybe firepower is perceived as a 'safer' way of soldiering, but i know what i trust my life with

There you have it. Another vote for the bayonet from Australia.

Originally Posted by SigJohnson

in my experience/opinion, nothing fires a digger up like fix bayonets ive seen fellow soldiers go so hard in bayonet training that they have broken wrists, and yes even a rifle (receiver broke away from the butt group) let me assure you fellas, that if it came toe to toe, i WOULD take you down with a bayonet quicker that you could put a hand on your sidearm. maybe firepower is perceived as a 'safer' way of soldiering, but i know what i trust my life with

Should check out the Australian made DVD titled "Faces of War: the battle comes home." I believe it has been shown on the History Channel. Produced by Frontrow Studios (2005). Good footage and interviews of Australian experiences in WW2.

There's a WW2 digger who recounts his bayonet assaut on 4 Japanese who try and have a piece of him with their bayonets. By the end of the story its the Aussie 4 Japs 0. I show it to Kapooka recruits and it never fails to either stir the blood or repulse.