US: No more bayonet training

[m24]

Source: Snowflakes in Hell to The Christian Science Monitor

When a US Army general made the decision recently to remove bayonet assaults from the array of skills soldiers must learn during basic training, it seemed like a no-brainer.

US troops hadn’t launched a bayonet charge since 1951 during the Korean War. And new soldiers preparing for an increasingly violent war in Afghanistan already need to learn far more skills than the 10 weeks of basic training allows, says Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, head of initial entry training and the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command.

So he made a change, substituting skills drill sergeants reported that they wanted to teach new recruits in favor of dropping the time-honored practice of the bayonet charge.

But in the weeks since that decision, Hertling has heard about it. “Bayonet training is pretty fascinating,” he says. “I’ve been slammed by retirees.”

The objections to ending the training are occasionally practical.

In 2004, with ammunition running low, a British unit launched a bayonet charge toward a trench outside of Basra, Iraq, where some 100 members of the Mahdi Army militia were staging an attack. The British soldiers later said that though some of the insurgents were wounded in the bayonet charge itself, others were simply terrified into surrender.

Instilling such terror is at the heart of the philosophical argument for keeping bayonet training, historians say.

“Traditionally in the 20th century – certainly after World War I – bayonet training was basically designed to develop in soldiers aggressiveness, courage, and preparation for close combat,” says Richard Kohn, professor of military history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Bayonet training is, in short, used to undo socialization – to “basically to try to mitigate or eradicate the reluctance of human beings to kill each other,” Mr. Kohn says. It is one of the challenges in US or Western society “where we have such reverence for the individual, where we socialize our people to believe in the rule of law, and all of that,” he adds. “What you’re doing with young people is trying to get them used to the highly emotional and irrational and adrenaline-filled situations in which they are liable to find themselves whether they are within sight of the enemy or not – and the reluctance to take a life.”

Hertling, for his part, has stood firm. “What’s interesting,” he says, “is if bayonet training is that important and it’s the centerpiece of everything we do, why is it the only place it’s taught is at basic training?

“If it’s that important, you’d think all the operational units would have bayonet assault courses.”

The fact is, there are more important things to teach during a time of war, Hertling adds. In a counterinsurgency fight such as Afghanistan, “You carry an M-4 carbine strapped around your chest,” he says. “You can’t do much with a bayonet.”

Regards

[fantumfan2003]

m24

Agree completely with whats in the para below. A bayonet fighters charge with the accompanied shouting will scare away many.

In 2004, with ammunition running low, a British unit launched a bayonet charge toward a trench outside of Basra, Iraq, where some 100 members of the Mahdi Army militia were staging an attack. The British soldiers later said that though some of the insurgents were wounded in the bayonet charge itself, others were simply terrified into surrender.

In our NCC days they made out a lot of this bayonet fighting business. Only a certain type of cadets were taken in for bayonet fighting practice, it was a tremendous drain on strength and strain on the vocal chords

And they told us a bayonet fighter was "bekhouf" (fearless) "bereham" (ruthless) and I don't remember the third "beparwah" (Did not care of consequence) I think but not sure.....

On the M4 bit in the last part, you can't do much with an M4 either. The US service men discovered in Somalia 1993 that standard issue M4 ammo was effective only if it connected with the heart or spine and it rarely did. Thats why SF operators carried 7.62 NATO weapons.

M.

Instilling such terror is at the heart of the philosophical argument for keeping bayonet training, historians say.

“Traditionally in the 20th century – certainly after World War I – bayonet training was basically designed to develop in soldiers aggressiveness, courage, and preparation for close combat,” says Richard Kohn, professor of military history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Bayonet training is, in short, used to undo socialization – to “basically to try to mitigate or eradicate the reluctance of human beings to kill each other,” Mr. Kohn says. It is one of the challenges in US or Western society “where we have such reverence for the individual, where we socialize our people to believe in the rule of law, and all of that,” he adds. “What you’re doing with young people is trying to get them used to the highly emotional and irrational and adrenaline-filled situations in which they are liable to find themselves whether they are within sight of the enemy or not – and the reluctance to take a life.”

Hertling, for his part, has stood firm. “What’s interesting,” he says, “is if bayonet training is that important and it’s the centerpiece of everything we do, why is it the only place it’s taught is at basic training?

“If it’s that important, you’d think all the operational units would have bayonet assault courses.”

The fact is, there are more important things to teach during a time of war, Hertling adds. In a counterinsurgency fight such as Afghanistan, “You carry an M-4 carbine strapped around your chest,” he says. “You can’t do much with a bayonet.”

Regards

[Subal das]

during Russians 10 years in Afghanistan they were losing every single close combat fight. Consider the amount of stoppages in US army's small arms, bayonet maybe a good thing to have. NATO for example are having bayonet.

[prashantsingh]

Not surprised to expect it from the most Techno Savvy Army in the world ....... where the ground for the infantry soldier is cleared well in advance by heavy Arillery and Armoured fire and (whatever else remains is raised to the ground) by Air Strikes. ( Like we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

For lesser armies like ours where the foot soldier has to still fight his way for every inch of land (eg IPKF in Sri Lanka and the Kargil War) the bayonet will continue to play a very important role .

The fearsome battle cries of the foot soldiers will always live on.

[Subal das]

Knives and bayonets in skilled hands can be very demoralizing factor for opponents, for example during Falklands war Argentine forces fled at rumor of gurkhas with kukris were on their way.

[nagarifle]

give em cold steel Captain Mannering, the Brits used cold steel during the falkand saga, it worked.

since the yanks are not fighting to keep ground it does not matter. let them loose what they gained.

[captrakshitsharma]

Another battle of schools of thought....Tradition and Practicality....
Id rather have a bayonet but if u look closely the way US Army/ Rangers/ Marine Corps soldier works and operate it pretty much is redundant... but like i said rather have something than a rifle without ammo. Cold steel sure sends shivers down the spine... Its scarier being stabbed and slashed than being shot.