Bayonets: Looks Cool...but

braindrain · Nov 8, 2016

apdst said:
I know tons about the infantry. I used to be able to quote 7-8. I'm sure you can, too, which is why I compared SF soldiers to light infantry. Sounds to me like you operate quite a bit as an infantry squad.

I simply asked a question. Don't get defensive about it.

No we don't act as an infantry squad as most of SF will almost always be working with a partner force. We are generally spread amount the partner force to lead them. Not together as an infantry squad. Not always but most of the time.

Either way the simple fact that we do conduct some infantry tasks does not make us light infantry as you claimed.

Fledermaus · Nov 8, 2016

apdst said:
No, and I proved it.

No, you didn't.

IRT Powder Horns:

YOUR OWN LINK proved you wrong.

And you refuse to read the link I provided.....

IRT Powder Horns being issued.

I gave a link you refused to learn from.

And you have yet to refute the Marine rifle quals or support YOUR CLAIM I only fired 240 rounds during 6 quals.

Fledermaus · Nov 8, 2016

apdst said:
No, and I proved it.

So, the 40 rounds a year claim YOU MADE.

Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
Rifle qual expends 40 rounds un the Army. Every soldier qualifies once, every year. Cooks, truck driver, intel geeks, clerks, typists, etc. shoot 40 rounds a year.

Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
You claimed you were awarded 6 qual badges. That's 240 rounds. 6 times at the range.

And are you still ignorant of the Marine KD course?

CLUE: FIFTY ROUNDS FIRED ON THE QUALIFICATION PHASE..... AFTER FIFTY ROUNDS ON PRE-QUAL.

After multiple phases of live fire at 50 rounds each during the week.

Show me where you "proved" it.

apdst · Nov 8, 2016

braindrain said:
No we don't act as an infantry squad as most of SF will almost always be working with a partner force. We are generally spread amount the partner force to lead them. Not together as an infantry squad. Not always but most of the time.

Either way the simple fact that we do conduct some infantry tasks does not make us light infantry as you claimed.

If you perform an infantry mission, you're operating as infantry. That's pretty cut-n-dried. I'm guessing you're leading/advising a LIF, but still.

apdst · Nov 8, 2016

Fledermaus said:
No, you didn't.

IRT Powder Horns:

YOUR OWN LINK proved you wrong.

And you refuse to read the link I provided.....

IRT Powder Horns being issued.

I gave a link you refused to learn from.

And you have yet to refute the Marine rifle quals or support YOUR CLAIM I only fired 240 rounds during 6 quals.

I love how you don't want to talk about cavalry tactics any longer...lol

braindrain · Nov 8, 2016

apdst said:
If you perform an infantry mission, you're operating as infantry. That's pretty cut-n-dried. I'm guessing you're leading/advising a LIF, but still.

As I have said already I have seen MPs conduct infantry task. Does that mean they are light infantry. It's a fact that the military along with anyone who knows what they are talking about does not consider SF light infantry. But I am sure you are right.

Fledermaus · Nov 8, 2016

apdst said:
I love how you don't want to talk about cavalry tactics any longer...lol

I love your inability to admit even YOUR links prove you wrong.

Add to that cavalry tactics have zero to do with this portion of the discussion.

Fledermaus · Nov 8, 2016

apdst said:
I love how you don't want to talk about cavalry tactics any longer...lol

So, the 40 rounds a year claim YOU MADE.

Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
Rifle qual expends 40 rounds un the Army. Every soldier qualifies once, every year. Cooks, truck driver, intel geeks, clerks, typists, etc. shoot 40 rounds a year.

Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
You claimed you were awarded 6 qual badges. That's 240 rounds. 6 times at the range.

And are you still ignorant of the Marine KD course?

CLUE: FIFTY ROUNDS FIRED ON THE QUALIFICATION PHASE..... AFTER FIFTY ROUNDS ON PRE-QUAL.

After multiple phases of live fire at 50 rounds each during the week.

Show me where you "proved" it.

Fledermaus · Nov 8, 2016

braindrain said:
As I have said already I have seen MPs conduct infantry task. Does that mean they are light infantry. It's a fact that the military along with anyone who knows what they are talking about does not consider SF light infantry. But I am sure you are right.

Cooks and supply people have served as infantry.... They must be light infantry as well.

apdst · Nov 8, 2016

braindrain said:
As I have said already I have seen MPs conduct infantry task. Does that mean they are light infantry. It's a fact that the military along with anyone who knows what they are talking about does not consider SF light infantry. But I am sure you are right.

If MP's perform an infantry mossion, they're operating as infantrymen. You're getting too hung up on nomenclature.

apdst · Nov 8, 2016

Fledermaus said:
Cooks and supply people have served as infantry.... They must be light infantry as well.

Everybody is a rifleman.

When artillery units were transitioned into infantry units during Iraq, were they operating as infantry? Yes?

Fledermaus · Nov 8, 2016

apdst said:
Everybody is a rifleman.

When artillery units were transitioned into infantry units during Iraq, were they operating as infantry? Yes?

Yep, they be light infantry...

APDST has spoken.

Fledermaus · Nov 8, 2016

apdst said:
---

Hey

Post #508

braindrain · Nov 8, 2016

apdst said:
If MP's perform an infantry mossion, they're operating as infantrymen. You're getting too hung up on nomenclature.

Yes how dare I actually call things what they are. I should just do like you and make up my own definitions

apdst · Nov 8, 2016

braindrain said:
Yes how dare I actually call things what they are. I should just do like you and make up my own definitions

Why aren't you just throwing the details out there? It's like pulling hen's teeth...lol

Fledermaus · Nov 8, 2016

apdst said:
---

Post #508

braindrain · Nov 8, 2016

apdst said:
Why aren't you just throwing the details out there? It's like pulling hen's teeth...lol

Why do I need to provide more details. You know exactly what we are talking about and are just playing games because that's all you got.

jamesrage · Nov 9, 2016

blackjack50 said:
Anyway. We all know they probably aren't the most practical of thing to have on a weapon, but I have been doing some reading on the First World War (shocker). And I saw the Pritchard Bayonet:

And this cool painting:

So it got me thinking. I know that bayonets are a hold over from a long time ago, but I can't help but feel there may still be SOME purpose to them. Even if that is to prevent someone from grabbing the barrel in close quarters. One thing we know is that length was the enemy in the trenches and it certainly is not a nice thing in an urban setting. So what do you think? Should we be getting rid of bayonets? Just issue them as a combat knife? Ditch them all together?

Personally? It makes more sense to have it on a handgun to me (and I say that mainly in jest). What do you think?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In basic training we are taught that bayonets are a basically a last resort weapon for when you run out of ammo. We are taught how to attack with bayonet mounted M16 . I would think that You can apply more force with a bayonet mounted on a rifle than you can a bayonet mounted on a pistol. The M9 Bayonet also works as a wire cutter with hits sheath and also as a saw. So its a multipurpose tool. I don't know how many combat deaths are due to bayonet stabbings. But I would imagine those who had to use it were glad they had it.

blackjack50 · Nov 9, 2016

jamesrage said:
In basic training we are taught that bayonets are a basically a last resort weapon for when you run out of ammo. We are taught how to attack with bayonet mounted M16 . I would think that You can apply more force with a bayonet mounted on a rifle than you can a bayonet mounted on a pistol. The M9 Bayonet also works as a wire cutter with hits sheath and also as a saw. So its a multipurpose tool. I don't know how many combat deaths are due to bayonet stabbings. But I would imagine those who had to use it were glad they had it.

That is how I feel. Rare, but last resort. Bayonets made more sense 100 years ago (sort of). Not as much now.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jamesrage · Nov 9, 2016

blackjack50 said:
That is how I feel. Rare, but last resort. Bayonets made more sense 100 years ago (sort of). Not as much now.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They had machine guns and semiautomatic rifles a hundred years ago. So why would bayonets make more sense back then than today?

braindrain · Nov 9, 2016

jamesrage said:
They had machine guns and semiautomatic rifles a hundred years ago. So why would bayonets make more sense back then than today?

Because the weaponss systems of today are not only much more reliable but more importantly is the fact that your average infantry platoon is capable of sustaining a mich higher rate of effective fire then they were 100 years ago. A bayonet charge that may have been effective 100 years ago would be cut to pieces easily today. That is one of those things learned in WW1 and the amount of time it took to learn that lesson is one of the reasons for the extremely high body count of that war.