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.

Given the shock troop nature of Marines, I'm kinda surprised bolters don't come standard with bayonet's.

What are your opinions? Do you think they should have them? Do you think they'd look cool?
Any thoughts on why they don't?

-

The same reason it's not really used on combat rifles in the real world. Even though many modern rifles (heck, even carbines) feature the lug for a bayonet, the original intent/usefulness is gone. Modern bayonets are also more or less combat knives.

The bayonet was originally a stand-in for the slow disappearance of the common spearman in combat. Original bayonets were called "plug bayonets" and literally were jammed into the barrel of a firearm after you'd fired it, transforming you back into a spearman. The idea being you'd fire a couple of volleys and then finish the battle with a charge, where a spear was more useful because reloading your firearm was incredibly slow. For this reason muskets/rifles were long, and bayonets were likewise small swords.

This practice carried on into WW1 when rifles were still longer than current ones, and bayonets often were 18-24" long.



The entire point of a spear being that you were several feet from your threat and you'd poke him full of holes. After WW1 rifles started becoming shorter as ammunition and general firearms tech became better and better. Bayonets still existed and were in moderate use in WW2, but as time continued we saw less and less actual use. When mounted on a carbine (a shortened version of a normal rifle) you're almost to the point where you're better off just stabbing someone with the knife. Holding a knife is more maneuverable and you can wield it easier. It's the same reason we don't mount them on submachine guns, etc.

So a Space Marine with a boltgun (which is between the size of an assault rifle carbine, and a submachine gun) would have little to no use in running a bayonet vs. simply wielding the combat knife in his hand (something he'd have been trained to do anyway).
_________________

In short, as service firearms became shorter, we stopped using them as spears. The only advantage to a bayonet is your stand-off distance (the gap between you and your opponent). Once you close that gap you're better off wielding the knife in your hand.

PS: By the way, yes, many militaries still do a couple of arbitrary days of bayonet practice/drill, you still run around and stab punching bags with them, etc...but as a competent fighting tool it's less and less relied on.

The old Space Crusade space marines had bayonets...

I should put more on my guys. Still have a bunch in the bits box from the RTB01 days.

One of my favorite uses was when I noticed that the HB had a bayonet lug. Dev marines fight just as well as a tac, so he got a chian-bayonet to help with the carnage.

There was also a more conventional bayonet on the sprue, but I’m not sure if I ever used any.

 Galef wrote:
Given the shock troop nature of Marines, I'm kinda surprised bolters don't come standard with bayonet's.

What are your opinions? Do you think they should have them? Do you think they'd look cool?
Any thoughts on why they don't?

-

Because Magazin fed weaponry doesn't really need a Bajonett to be effective.
Infact Bajonetts make guns annoying to use.
Especially if you use faster firing models.

Because for a marine, a mere bayonet is not as effective than just bitchslapping a fool and smashing his skull.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Because for a marine, a mere bayonet is not as effective than just bitchslapping a fool and smashing his skull.

I'd imagine with the bulk, using a bolter as a makeshift Club is also not bad.

Bayonets are an easy bit to get stuck on stuff and break, happens with guardsmen a lot.

Also, with the blocky profile of a bolter, bayonets don't really look quite as cool, they look really awkward to actually fight with. I would however like to see more combat knives and the like.

Really looking forward to getting these guys painted! Still have to make some ammo drums for them before priming.

 Elbows wrote:
_________________

In short, as service firearms became shorter, we stopped using them as spears. The only advantage to a bayonet is your stand-off distance (the gap between you and your opponent). Once you close that gap you're better off wielding the knife in your hand.

PS: By the way, yes, many militaries still do a couple of arbitrary days of bayonet practice/drill, you still run around and stab punching bags with them, etc...but as a competent fighting tool it's less and less relied on.

Everything in this post is true, but...

In 2011, a corporal in the British Army led a bayonet charge against Taliban insurgents attacking his position. And in 2004, his same unit (in Iraq this time) fixed bayonets and engaged in close-quarters combat with insurgents, killing some 27. Note that in both cases, the British personnel were armed with bullpup L85 rifles, which offer only a few more inches of reach than just holding the knife in your hand.

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.

Because in reality, you are never wielding a knife in your off hand while engaging with a firearm held one-handed. Either you have a bayonet attached to your rifle, or you have no knife ready at all. You just don't see them much in the real world because compactness takes priority in room-clearing, but bayonets do see occasional use, primarily in CQB/MOUT.

In a setting like 40K, where melee combat is not only common but sometimes preferred, a bayonet makes perfect sense, and we see them in common use among the Guard. I don't see why Space Marines wouldn't have them too- a Marine-sized bayonet with a Marine's strength behind it would make for one heck of a can-opener.

Edit: Bayonets were also recognized for their psychological impact before WW1. Even if the gun it's attached to is far more lethal, the visibility of a gleaming silver blade on the end of it is a strong deterrent against attempting to engage in melee. On a very visceral level, they're scary to go up against.

Yep, I'm aware of their use in that particular incident, but there's no finer example of "an exception to the rule". Ask any person who's a capable knife wielder if they'd want it on your rifle or in your hand, and they'd say hand (and I don't mean in one hand wielding your rifle like a space marine, I mean slinging the rifle and getting to work with the knife).

That's why I stated "less and less" and it's not something you see in common usage, hardly at all.

 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?

 Galef wrote:
Given the shock troop nature of Marines, I'm kinda surprised bolters don't come standard with bayonet's.

What are your opinions? Do you think they should have them? Do you think they'd look cool?
Any thoughts on why they don't?

-

Because they look like oversized, impractical gak.
There were many, many attempts at them over the years.

A Space Marines doesn't really need a bayonet. Hell Marines proably don't really need a knife, they're super strong individuals with a increased bone desnity, whose fists are shod in heavy metal.

A Space Marine walking around with his fists is effectively carrying a pair of Maces.

BrianDavion wrote:
A Space Marines doesn't really need a bayonet. Hell Marines proably don't really need a knife, they're super strong individuals with a increased bone desnity, whose fists are shod in heavy metal.

A Space Marine walking around with his fists is effectively carrying a pair of Maces.

But when up against ork skulls or tyranid carapaces, sometimes a little extra is needed.

And a good knife is as much a tool as it is a weapon.

(I fully agree that against an un-augmented human anything more than a marine’s fists is overkill. Lots of nastier stuff out and about though...)

 Elbows wrote:
Yep, I'm aware of their use in that particular incident, but there's no finer example of "an exception to the rule". Ask any person who's a capable knife wielder if they'd want it on your rifle or in your hand, and they'd say hand (and I don't mean in one hand wielding your rifle like a space marine, I mean slinging the rifle and getting to work with the knife).

No, they will say they want it on rifle if you're fighting in the open. That's why bayonets exist at all - because they give you reach as opposed to just giving your gunners knives. Guy with a knife not only needs to walk through zone where he can't respond to guy with bayonet, bayonets are used two-handed, meaning your typical kevlar vest (or chainmail, or whatever) which would be knife-proof will offer much less resistance. Good thrust to the head, neck, or heart will kill you, and there is very little guy with a knife can do besides counting on the opponent making some sort of error.

Also, HH models have tons of bayonets, both normal and chain variants, so the premise of the thread is kind of flawed. That square thing under barrel is supposed to be a bayonet lug, and every single bolter, with maybe a tiny handful of exceptions, has it. Why plastic marines don't have them? Dunno, doctrine change, the fact that modern marines nuts enough to want one usually use full blown melee weapons instead, or the need to conserve space on sprue. You pick, I guess.

Gotta disagree. That range advantage on a modern rifle counts for nothing, what does count is wielding the knife effectively and proficiently. I've been stabbed to death in training plenty of times by people who know what they're doing. You avoid one jab and you're back in your zone, where the bayonet then becomes a complete liability (unable to wield it against someone who is close to you).

I understand your train of thought, but the reality is that's not what a knife-fighter would want.

Ya know, all this debate about real world practical (or rather impractical) use of bayonets is good and all, but 40k has rarely ever been about realism.
And as scary as a Marine is supposed to be, having a sharp pointy bit sticking out of thier bolter should make them scarier.

I guess with all the ridiculousness in 40k, I am just surprised bayonets and chain bayonets haven't been more of a thing. I mean, the new Imperial Fist Primaris model has BRASS KNUCKLES on his power fist for crying out loud!

Anyway, I'll be adding some bayonets to at least some of my Chaos Marines and maybe some Primaris.

-

In the real world, the bayonet is (generally speaking) a more effective melee weapon that the sword. It is longer than a sword, so it can strike from further away and it has more surface area with which to block incoming attacks. Since a bayonet is longer, heavier, and easier to grasp with two hands it can also produce more striking power than a sword can. It is also easier to use.

If people are running around with swords in the Imperium they should sure as hell run around with bayonets.

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.

 Saber wrote:
In the real world, the bayonet is (generally speaking) a more effective melee weapon that the sword. It is longer than a sword, so it can strike from further away and it has more surface area with which to block incoming attacks. Since a bayonet is longer, heavier, and easier to grasp with two hands it can also produce more striking power than a sword can. It is also easier to use.

If people are running around with swords in the Imperium they should sure as hell run around with bayonets.

In fairness though the only people running around with swords are A: Dedicated Melee infantry units. B: Officers.

Dedicated Melee units are going to have dedicated Melee weapons (which Bayonets are not) and officers tradtionally have swords, swords being a symbol of rank.

 Galef wrote:
Given the shock troop nature of Marines, I'm kinda surprised bolters don't come standard with bayonet's.

What are your opinions? Do you think they should have them? Do you think they'd look cool?
Any thoughts on why they don't?

-

Because bayonet are not flashy enough, from practical point of view chainswords should be totally useless weapon, but from cool miniature prospective




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
Gotta disagree. That range advantage on a modern rifle counts for nothing, what does count is wielding the knife effectively and proficiently. I've been stabbed to death in training plenty of times by people who know what they're doing. You avoid one jab and you're back in your zone, where the bayonet then becomes a complete liability (unable to wield it against someone who is close to you).

I understand your train of thought, but the reality is that's not what a knife-fighter would want.

My father was trained to use bayonet and the training was absurdly hard. Trained soldier can use all the gun as a weapon and i doubt soldiers now are now trained like that.

 Galef wrote:
Do you think they should have them?

Yes. The sprue should have them to give players more modelling options.

Do you think they'd look cool?

I probably wouldn't use them myself, because I think they'd make the weapon look too long.

Any thoughts on why they don't?

Either it never occurred to the design team, or they decided they didn't like the aesthetic.

I've got at least one squad of RT marines armed with chainsaw bayonets.

I imagine they aren't included on the sprue any more for the same reason that ammo packs and grenades aren't - they're extra bits to glue on and paint that most people ignored.

Still, wouldn't mind seeing Rievers wielding bolt weapons with blades/chainsaw bayonets on them. Also would be a nice option for intercessors.

Bayonets might be the perfect way to boost reivers, if they could basicly get their carbine with a combat knife it might actually make them have a place in some lists.

 Elbows wrote:
Yep, I'm aware of their use in that particular incident, but there's no finer example of "an exception to the rule". Ask any person who's a capable knife wielder if they'd want it on your rifle or in your hand, and they'd say hand (and I don't mean in one hand wielding your rifle like a space marine, I mean slinging the rifle and getting to work with the knife).

That's why I stated "less and less" and it's not something you see in common usage, hardly at all.

Since when does war consist of one on one duels on flat mats? And I say this as someone who goes to a sports school. Just because the american army doctrine doesn't assume mass bayonet charges are thing anymore, doesn't mean they are not done. WWII had them, Korea had them, they happened in vietnam and afganistan. there is also such small moments in war time, like being auto of ammo or wanting to preserve ammo, it is better to jam someone with something sharp, then go double taping everything that moves. Specially when dealing with civilians. The Russian military doctrin for infantry and mechanised infantry, still has bayonet charges and mass bayonet use as something not just tought, but used. Same with the China Army.

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.

And on the eastern front, where trench warfare didn't leave troops stuck in same space for years, were used a lot. Even cavalery was used a lot, and not just then, durning the civil war and durning the 1919-20 war too. The defence of places like legionowo or radzymin saw bayonet charges and counter charges going in their teens every day between 12 and 17 of july.

Definitely, bolter bajonettes should be part of the standard equipment for Marines - Tacticals and Primaris troops.

Probably because at present GW has no stomach for potentially getting sued for ripping off Lancers.

3rd party or conversion fodder? Absogoddamnlutely.

BrianDavion wrote:
Bayonets might be the perfect way to boost reivers, if they could basicly get their carbine with a combat knife it might actually make them have a place in some lists.

That's not bad. Not just for Reivers, but select other units as well. Give certain bolter variants a melee profile that gives them +1 attack. (But then make Chainsword -1AP or +1S to make them less pointless)

I just added bayonets to a few of my CSMs and that look alright. Probably wouldn't look great for Loyal Marines sine the bolter is kinda stubby, but Primaris Bolt Rifles otoh....

-

Sterling191 wrote:
Probably because at present GW has no stomach for potentially getting sued for ripping off Lancers.

Would LOVE to see Lancers with Bolter rounds in them. You could just throw away the Chainsword completely on most models that carry any kind of rifle. You have a Bolter/Bolt Rifle and a Chainsword in a single weapon. That wold be SO FREAKIN COOL! Plus, just the sheer satisfaction you get from cutting a Locust in half with a Lancer... nothing else like it in any video game series. Taking that to the tabletop would be great!

SG