Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

bayonets were proven to poorly affect accuracy of your weapon and they instantly stopped being used. Around the same time side weapons became much more reliable and available. Why try to stab someone when you can hit them with a .45 which leaves a much bigger hole and does it a lot faster.

Realistically for a marine. They cause so much damage with their fist they don't have much need for a small blade. A sword or a hammer though...that is a different story.

 Xenomancers wrote:
bayonets were proven to poorly affect accuracy of your weapon and they instantly stopped being used. Around the same time side weapons became much more reliable and available. Why try to stab someone when you can hit them with a .45 which leaves a much bigger hole and does it a lot faster.

Yeah...no. Bayonets are standard issue for practically every military on the planet. They're rarely used in combat and more often than not used as a multitool for various domestic (and shenanigan related) purposes, but they're absolutely still part of the kit, and their use is till taught.

Their implications for accuracy go all the way back to the days where one couldnt fire a firearm with a fixed bayonet (cause the way said bayonet was attached was by literally shoving it down the barrel), but that didnt for a moment preclude their use.

I was once told by a drill instructor during bayonet training that if you EVER heard "fix bayonets" on the modern battlefield... you're screwed. You're already dead.

Same reason that during unarmed combative training they said: if you ever have to deploy hand-to-hand techniques in the field... the best way to win the fight is to hold out for your buddy to come up with a round and put it in the bad guy's head.

Like we still learned bayonet and unarmed skills... but really... in modern combat (not urban, totally different realm there) there is no need for those weapons when you have a rifle, a combat load of ammunition, and your squadmates all geared to match.

I think even in 40K, close combat would more be an obsession than a means to an end. It even plays out on the tabletop... we all fancy making close combat armies... but always practically deploy ranged ones, maybe with a touch of melee in it to scratch that itch and live the fantasy.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
bayonets were proven to poorly affect accuracy of your weapon and they instantly stopped being used. Around the same time side weapons became much more reliable and available. Why try to stab someone when you can hit them with a .45 which leaves a much bigger hole and does it a lot faster.

Yeah...no. Bayonets are standard issue for practically every military on the planet. They're rarely used in combat and more often than not used as a multitool for various domestic (and shenanigan related) purposes, but they're absolutely still part of the kit, and their use is till taught.

Their implications for accuracy go all the way back to the days where one couldnt fire a firearm with a fixed bayonet (cause the way said bayonet was attached was by literally shoving it down the barrel), but that didnt for a moment preclude their use.

Yeah...No...They are for show. A knife is heavy...so is a loaded weapon. Making your weapon heavier is idiotic. Literally no one would ever use one in combat. Any training done with them is also a complete waste of military resources and doubt anyone actually does that anymore.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Yeah...No...They are for show. A knife is heavy...so is a loaded weapon. Making your weapon heavier is idiotic. Literally no one would ever use one in combat. Any training done with them is also a complete waste of military resources and doubt anyone actually does that anymore.

You would be exquisitely wrong on every single point.

Tygre wrote:In trench warfare in WW1 the entrenching tool was preferred over the bayonet. The entrenching tool could be swung faster than the bayonet could be rethrusted. If you miss with your thrust your dead before you can rethrust. If you hit your dead, as your bayonet gets invariably stuck, and your targets mate kills you.

Also in WWII, by the Red Army.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
I think even in 40K, close combat would more be an obsession than a means to an end. It even plays out on the tabletop... we all fancy making close combat armies... but always practically deploy ranged ones, maybe with a touch of melee in it to scratch that itch and live the fantasy.

Nyet.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Yeah...No...They are for show. A knife is heavy...so is a loaded weapon. Making your weapon heavier is idiotic. Literally no one would ever use one in combat. Any training done with them is also a complete waste of military resources and doubt anyone actually does that anymore.

You would be exquisitely wrong on every single point.

You live in a literal state of delusion. No one uses bayonets. Please look above with people telling stories of WW1 were even when bayonets were common...They were not used because a shovel is literally a better weapon. You must be a Napoleonic wargamer or something. Bayonets have had practically 0 use in combat since ww1. Regardless of whether they trained people how to use them people DID not use them.

The problem with absolute statements is that it only requires a single instance to disprove them.

A single instance like either of the ones mentioned earlier.

Space Marines are highly trained and armored super humans which to me seems like it would be better to give them actual melee weapons than trying to turn their bolter into a spear weapon via a bayonet. Bolt Pistol + Chainsword makes sense in 40k because they can slice and dice with their sword while still rapidly engaging targets with the pistol (see Space Marine the video game). A Space Marine with a bayonet bolter is just stabbing mostly and its not well suited for rapid engagement of chopping through loads of enemies. A Nid or Ork stabbed with a bayonet probably wouldn't care if its stuck in them and would start clobbering the marine where as something more brutal like a chainsword is (in the lore anyways) able to rip them to shreds quickly. Even the combat knife is able to inflict multiple wounds in rapid succession where as doing the same with a bayonet isn't as practical, especially against durable threats that need an extreme amount of punishment to bring down. A chainsaw bayonet would fit 40k nicely but I'm sure that would stir up a lot of drama about stealing Gears of War's iconic thing.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
The problem with absolute statements is that it only requires a single instance to disprove them.

A single instance like either of the ones mentioned earlier.

No it doesn't - only if you are just trying to be argumentative.

All true statements about bayonets.
They reduce accuracy of the rifle whilst making it heavier.
Soldiers prefered secondary CC weapons over a bayonet.
As a result they stopped being used.

A statement that boynetes aren't used is accurate. A statement that they are used is not. No one cares about 1 instance if they are a million instances of the opposite.

On the original topic, the previous CSM and terminator kits came with bayonet options. Some look good some look wonky. I never saw very many used either way. There’s also less need for a bayonet when you can fire your rifle with one hand and stab effectively with the other.

Also anyone advocating for the use of the bayonet in modern warfare where most rifles are down to carbine size and the battlefield is moving towards more and more urban engagements is clearly an infantry zealot. The time to deliberately train on its use is not worth the effect in combat. Yes some brits pulled it off on some insurgents, but those guys will run from their own shadow. Trying that against any trained opponent would have les to a very different outcome.

 Xenomancers wrote:

You live in a literal state of delusion. No one uses bayonets. Please look above with people telling stories of WW1 were even when bayonets were common...They were not used because a shovel is literally a better weapon. You must be a Napoleonic wargamer or something. Bayonets have had practically 0 use in combat since ww1. Regardless of whether they trained people how to use them people DID not use them.

"Common use" and "use" are two fundamentally different things, and you know that.

 Xenomancers wrote:
No it doesn't - only if you are just trying to be argumentative.

Coming from the person slinging around absolute statements that you know are wrong, this is delicious.

 Xenomancers wrote:

All true statements about bayonets.
They reduce accuracy of the rifle whilst making it heavier.
Soldiers prefered secondary CC weapons over a bayonet.
As a result they stopped being used.

I guess you should tell the last three hundred plus years of armed warfare that theyve been doing it wrong.

Xenomancers wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
The problem with absolute statements is that it only requires a single instance to disprove them.

A single instance like either of the ones mentioned earlier.

No it doesn't - only if you are just trying to be argumentative.

All true statements about bayonets.
They reduce accuracy of the rifle whilst making it heavier.
Soldiers prefered secondary CC weapons over a bayonet.
As a result they stopped being used.

A statement that boynetes aren't used is accurate. A statement that they are used is not. No one cares about 1 instance if they are a million instances of the opposite.

Coolbeans.

There's two instances of them being used recently in this thread, but of course your crazily hyperbolic statements about "no one" using them in combat still stand. I'm just being "argumentative" by pointing out that you put forward a really, really, really weak argument that was proven incorrect before you even wrote it.

Space Marines having a knife makes sense, as it's a useful tool. Space Marines in close combat makes sense, because they're brutes, nigh impervious to fire, and sometimes fight against hordes of lesser opponents who do not have any guns. They are often expected to be on long campaigns, potentially where resupply is difficult, so CC as a way of conserving ammunition also makes sense.

If they can affix the knife to their Bolter, just in case. . . sure, why not? Little extra reach, and it might be better in confined spaces where swinging an arm is more difficult than a simple forward stab, plus it means they still have their Bolter at the ready.

CSM still have Bayonets, Plague Marines at least. Terminators recently lost them, but they always have a CC arm so it's probably not as necessary

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
CSM still have Bayonets, Plague Marines at least. Terminators recently lost them, but they always have a CC arm so it's probably not as necessary

Iirc, Chaos Terminators used to get an extra attack because of the bayonet+spikes.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Around the same time side weapons became much more reliable and available. Why try to stab someone when you can hit them with a .45 which leaves a much bigger hole and does it a lot faster.

No country routinely issues sidearms, .45 or not, to regular infantry. Handguns are overwhelmingly issued to officers and specialists. If you are armed with a rifle, and aren't some flavor of special forces, you aren't getting a sidearm.

Sidearms are expensive, don't serve double duty as a utility tool, and cannot be kept at the ready while using your primary weapon. They do not provide any deterrent to manipulation of your primary weapon in MOUT, and lack the psychological impact of a visible blade. Bayonets don't jam, they don't require maintenance, they don't run out of ammo, and they have minimal logistical burden. They're not directly comparable, either in purpose or allocation.

 Xenomancers wrote:
No it doesn't - only if you are just trying to be argumentative.

All true statements about bayonets.
They reduce accuracy of the rifle whilst making it heavier.
Soldiers prefered secondary CC weapons over a bayonet.
As a result they stopped being used.

A statement that boynetes aren't used is accurate. A statement that they are used is not. No one cares about 1 instance if they are a million instances of the opposite.

This is nonsense. Bayonets do not reduce accuracy, but they do change barrel harmonics, which can affect point of impact. The Soviets zeroed their weapons in WW2 with bayonets deployed to counter this. The Mosin-Nagant rifle was expected to be carried with bayonet always fixed.

Nobody on a modern battlefield carries dedicated close combat weapons. Historically, even in post-WW1 conflicts, bayonets were the primary form of melee weapon in actual use. Yes, other weapons were also used in trench warfare in WW1. That didn't stop US Marines from fixing Enfield sword bayonets on their M1897 shotguns in both world wars, or the Japanese employing bayonet charges in WW2, or the issue (and use) of bayonets on Garands in Normandy, all the way up to M7 bayonets used in combat in Vietnam. No M16-armed GI was carrying a shovel as a 'secondary CC weapon' in Vietnam.

And they are still used. I gave two examples on the last page- one in Afghanistan, one in Iraq- of honest-to-god bayonet charges. The Chinese (in Korea) and North Vietnamese both made extensive use of bayonet charges as a military tactic. Bayonets were used in both Rhodesia and the Balkans. Like they are certainly not commonly used, but that's simply a side effect of close combat being extremely rare in the real world. If there were some crazy reason for hand-to-hand combat to return in real life, we would absolutely see a resurgence of the bayonet as a practical fighting arm. In 40K it's perfectly fitting.

Where does your knowledge of military TTP come from?

Bayonet charges have been conducted as recently as the fighting in Afghanistan, so regardless of what small percentage of soldiers actually end up sticking someone with the pointy end, the few that are called upon to do so are probably glad that they have one and were instructed in using it, which probably wholly justifies the almost trivial expense of making your knife and rifle to be able to be stuck together into a pointy stick. Appreciably, you can still use your rifle while fitted with a bayonet, but you can't use your rifle while wielding a knife, hatchet, or entrenching tool [and can more easily go back to using your gun once the guy you stabbed with the pointy end has been stabbed], and the rifle is a far more important weapon than any of the potential melee weapons you could have outside of the immediate moment when somebody has to be stabbed, so I can see it definitely making sense to continue to use bayonets.

In addition, close assault by infantry is a very effective way to take a position, if not the most effective way. Beyond the elevated probability of encountering a situation that might call for stabbing someone during a infantry close assault, the bayonet inspires confidence and aggression in attacking soldiers so that they're more willing to get up there and drive the enemy out in the face of danger. That's why bayonet training focuses of doing things like screaming and being angry, to create a pavlovian association between the bayonet and aggression.


As for bolters not having bayonets: the bolters do have bayonet lugs, so presumably Marines and Sisters can fix bayonets like Guardsmen if they want. On the other hand, they're highly conditioned and brainwashed shock troops who are sufficiently fear inducing in the first place that they don't have to stick a pointy piece of metal on their gun to feel brave or make the enemy question their chances.

I have a whole squad of Tacs converted with box mags and bayonets as a close assault specialist look. Rule of cool. Oddly, I dislike them on lasguns, go figure.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/9571522/Soldier-who-led-Afghanistan-bayonet-charge-into-hail-of-bullets-honoured.html

Are you guys serious? 260 feet of open ground? Against accurate fire?

Soldier runs up a building with grenade but decides not to use it and then realizes the enemies inside ran away...Man...those friggin bayonets dude. So scary. Lets just ignore the fact they took out the previous position with a rocket. This is what we call click bait gentleman. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even actually have bayonets. This is propaganda.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also use your brain...what is easier to control and 8 lb rifle? or a 10 lb rifle? That is where the loss of accuracy comes from.

Everything I Don't Like Is Propaganda.

Although, to be fair, the Torygraph is little more than thinly-veiled agitprop.

In addition, close assault by infantry is a very effective way to take a position, if not the most effective way. Beyond the elevated probability of encountering a situation that might call for stabbing someone during a infantry close assault, the bayonet inspires confidence and aggression in attacking soldiers so that they're more willing to get up there and drive the enemy out in the face of danger. That's why bayonet training focuses of doing things like screaming and being angry, to create a pavlovian association between the bayonet and aggression.

Errmmmmm hahahahahhajahahajahha.
.
First, cqc infantry combat is only effective if you have troops actually trained for that. Most rifleman are not. Otoh if you talk grenadiers or other dedicated assault troops it might be effective with support and Intel advantage.
Secondly. If you are close enough for shanking you are close enough for secondary weapons,which will not have an issue with something like a Flak vest. Alternativly feldspaten is just as effective, as is using the Butt of a rifle and or the helmet.
Thirdly, if the Intel and support are lacking your efficient method of claiming a position has turned into a deathtrap.

However caveat beeing that terrain is average.
If you sit in a jungle or City or dense forrest cqc becomes more feasable but still a high risk of getting to intimately know the firerate of automatic weaponry.

 Xenomancers wrote:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/9571522/Soldier-who-led-Afghanistan-bayonet-charge-into-hail-of-bullets-honoured.html

Are you guys serious? 260 feet of open ground? Against accurate fire?

Soldier runs up a building with grenade but decides not to use it and then realizes the enemies inside ran away...Man...those friggin bayonets dude. So scary. Lets just ignore the fact they took out the previous position with a rocket. This is what we call click bait gentleman. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even actually have bayonets. This is propaganda.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also use your brain...what is easier to control and 8 lb rifle? or a 10 lb rifle? That is where the loss of accuracy comes from.

Maybe someone who knows more about actual firearms can comment, but in my experience with paintball guns (limited) more weight meant more accuracy (from stability) not less. If it was so much weight you couldn't operate it effectively, that'd be different - but that's not the weight level we're talking about.

So does anyone have a good source on weight's impact on accuracy for firearms?

From Personal experimenting in rs, it depends, the stgw 90gets noticably more barrel heavy. F.e
And that feths atleast for me, my accuracy on the range.
Granted i am just what is a rifleman equivalent but it is noticable.

Not Online!!! wrote:

In addition, close assault by infantry is a very effective way to take a position, if not the most effective way. Beyond the elevated probability of encountering a situation that might call for stabbing someone during a infantry close assault, the bayonet inspires confidence and aggression in attacking soldiers so that they're more willing to get up there and drive the enemy out in the face of danger. That's why bayonet training focuses of doing things like screaming and being angry, to create a pavlovian association between the bayonet and aggression.

Errmmmmm hahahahahhajahahajahha.
.
First, cqc infantry combat is only effective if you have troops actually trained for that. Most rifleman are not. Otoh if you talk grenadiers or other dedicated assault troops it might be effective with support and Intel advantage.
Secondly. If you are close enough for shanking you are close enough for secondary weapons,which will not have an issue with something like a Flak vest. Alternativly feldspaten is just as effective, as is using the Butt of a rifle and or the helmet.
Thirdly, if the Intel and support are lacking your efficient method of claiming a position has turned into a deathtrap.

However caveat beeing that terrain is average.
If you sit in a jungle or City or dense forrest cqc becomes more feasable but still a high risk of getting to intimately know the firerate of automatic weaponry.

I'm not saying CQC is ideal for that situation, but a couple nitpicks:
-Do most riflemen carry a secondary weapon? Upthread they suggest otherwise
-Are Flak vests now better vs knives (/bayonettes) than firearms? Historically, "bullet proof" vests would do very little versus a cutting/stabbing implement.
-Do you really think the butt of a rifle (or, much less, a helmet) would make nearly as ideal a close combat weapon as an improvised club as a designed-for-purpose bladed spear?

Back on topic; I think a bayonette might have use for a Marine, but it's a lot less important for a guy who can spit acid and punch through walls.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Everything I Don't Like Is Propaganda.

Although, to be fair, the Torygraph is little more than thinly-veiled agitprop.

There are contemporaneous accounts in other media, as well as several other first hand accounts of action available from far more reliable outlets. The MoD statements are also available with a few moments googling.

Not Online!!! wrote:
From Personal experimenting in rs, it depends, the stgw 90gets noticably more barrel heavy. F.e
And that feths atleast for me, my accuracy on the range.
Granted i am just what is a rifleman equivalent but it is noticable.

Thank you for the additional data.

A little googling, and this was the best result:
https://www.quora.com/Do-bayonets-decrease-the-accuracy-of-rifles

So no, bayonettes don't make a weapon less accurate. The firer may have a harder time hitting if they're not used to the bayonette, though.

I also found some references to some competitors add additional weight to their weapons to improve stability, but that didn't seem authoritative or widely-accepted.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Also use your brain...what is easier to control and 8 lb rifle? or a 10 lb rifle? That is where the loss of accuracy comes from.

The 10lb rifle. Weight, particularly muzzle weight, combats muzzle climb in repeated fire and makes for a more stable shooting platform. This is why competition pistols often have counterweights added to the end, and this is part of why the early AR-10 was a military failure. Also, FWIW, an M9 bayonet weighs under a pound.

While I've never gutted someone with a bayonet, I have qualified Marksman on a US Army range while serving in a deployed civilian role, and subsequently achieved Expert through the Appleseed program with a 12lb H-BAR FAL variant.

We have enough real-world references not to need thought experiments and speculation here. If you don't like the 2011 example in Afghanistan, feel free to look up the 2004 MOUT operation in Iraq. Or the last US bayonet charge during the Korean war. Or the grisly details of jungle fighting in Vietnam. I don't know where you got the idea that nobody's used bayonets in combat post-WW1, let alone that sidearms have taken over their role, but it's just not true.

The modern day plate carrier has ceramic plates inserted into the vest. You would need two or three bayonet strikes to actually get through that section.

Again, there were bayonet charges against insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Said insurgents will also run anytime they hear a propeller or anytime you hang an illumination round nearby. A bayonet charge against a peer fighting unit will end badly.

I absolutely would not recommend the bayonet for CQC. You'll end up making your rifle that much more unweildly. Look at photos and videos from Fallujah or Mosul. How many bayonets do you see on the professional soldiers?

It could work for space marines but anything could work as a weapon for them

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

The bayonet is not a spear. That was the original intent, and its usage in Napoleonic conflicts, but the modern usage- as far as bayonets are still used, from mid-WW1 onwards- is a lethal deterrent against physical manipulation of your weapon. A bayonet not only makes attempting to grab the muzzle inadvisable, but it allows the wielder to respond immediately.

So you are saying that Shas'O Me'el Wau'Nera here in the spoiler would have fared much better with a bayonet on his pulse blaster?

Spoiler:

Is it wrong that I find that image funny?
Its as if the Reiver is saying to the Tau "NO! Bad Tau! No gun for you!"