AK47 assault rifle designer Kalashnikov dies at 94

[sunshine51]

Seems that there are a few folks here who prefer a weapon that jams constantly in the past & present,

is definitely accurate out to a better distance than 7.62x39 (AK round) but has little stopping power

at that distance, is a bitch to keep clean under combat conditions and was adopted by the US military

over a better weapon due to corporate lobbying. The better weapon was the Stoner.

There's nothing wrong with the AK series of weapon one dam_n bit. The early ones were very inaccurate

but Soviet doctrine back then made it plain that division strength amounts of troops would swarm an

objective and every grunt would have an automatic weapon in his hands. Tactic being to fire and ensure

the enemy would keep their heads down until kills could be accomplished in CQB range...which even the

first AK's could easily do. Tactics change...and Mikhail Klashnikov designed better weapons but stayed

with a familiar, proven design. Take the new AK 102..

it's not just a simple sheet metal stamped out weapon

and it's very accurate out to 800 meters...I know I have fired them on trips into Russia....not from reading

BS on the internet.

The topic isn't about the "new" AK 102. It's about the AK 47 POS.

Another thing...all bullets tumble upon impact with a fleshy target...not just the 5.56mm. Granted the 5.56

has a nasty habit of fragnenting inside a target...even without hitting bone. This is due to two main reasons;

the first is its high velocity while the second is the thin copper outer cladding of the round...as it slows down

upon entrance (looses about 80% of the velocity & energy as all rounds do) the lead antimony filler has more

inertia than the outer bullet cladding can contain and causes the bullet to fragment. A larger & heavier round

auch as the 7.62x39 or the 7.62x51 has the ability to stay intact and "at range" just plow through a target.

What does more damage than just a simple bullet is the physics involved...Terminal Ballistics its called &

I'm not gonna give a lecture here on it either....go and Google the term. It will involve velocities & shock waves

but y'all should be able to understand.

The idea in combat is to wound. Kill isn't necessary. A wounded combatant needs a couple of more people to aid

him, so one good wound takes at least 3 people out of the fight. This is where accuracy comes in and the AK 47 didn't have it.

In the current conflict areas of Afghanistan & Iraq the allies have been bringing back the 7.62 in heaps. Why?

Because it has the range, it has the velocity and it has the stopping that the 5.56 just cannot match.

Agreed, but the 7.62 Nato has far more range than an AK 47 so it isn't apples and apples. The 5.56 certainly has more stopping power

than any AK 47 at 500 yards because it can actually hit something. In Afghanistan for instance, where there are open spaces and long ranges,

the Taliban are severely handicapped with an AK 47 over either the 5.56 or 7.62 Nato cartridges.

This is

also or has also been complicated by bad guys with AK's shooting "good guys" from behind stone or cement

block walls, buildings etc and the 5.56 just can't penetrate that stuff. Sure a .50 will penetrate but not every

one carries that do they...a 7.62 can wreck a wall in short order FYI.

No one will argue that the 7.62 Nato (.308) is an awesome round. I have it in an AR-10 and a Weatherby bolt. But an AK 47 can't carry water for it.

Accurate or not...the old Vietnam era AK's fired a nasty round that killed a lotta good men & women and

wounded countless others. You armchair weapons experts can argue your logic all the time but I highly doubt

any of you have been an active participant in a two way shooting gallery. I have & was hit twice...I know what

that "underpowered" 7.62x39 round can do. You don't.

You were hit twice with an AK 47 and are here to post on an internet forum. 'nuff said.

BTW, Thanks for your service.

Yeah....hit twice...once in the upper right chest, the other in the left thigh...10 months apart.

The chest shot almost killed me while the thigh shot makes me walk with a slight limp today.

No "nuff said" shit regarding stopping power applies. Apparently you've never been shot.

"The topic isn't about the "new" AK 102. It's about the AK 47 POS."

The topic is about neither weapon....It's about Mikhail Kalashnikov.

"The idea in combat is to wound. Kill isn't necessary. A wounded combatant needs a couple

of more people to aid him, so one good wound takes at least 3 people out of the fight.

This is where accuracy comes in and the AK 47 didn't have it."

Can't argue with that statement but when trying to stay alive while getting shot at the

kill or be killed syndrome overrides the " I'm just gonna wound the bastard" mindset.

Mindset my ass. The bad guy shooting at you isn't trying to "wound" you...he or she

is doing his/her damndest best to KILL YOU so you do your best to KILL HIM/HER.

Combat isn't deer or big game hunting...it's raw basic survival and every patrol is

different in every aspect. Combat is also not what Hollywood portrays it to be either.

"Agreed, but the 7.62 Nato has far more range than an AK 47 so it isn't apples and apples.

The 5.56 certainly has more stopping power than any AK 47 at 500 yards because it can

actually hit something. In Afghanistan for instance, where there are open spaces and long

ranges, the Taliban are severely handicapped with an AK 47 over either the 5.56 or 7.62

Nato cartridges."

The 7.62x51 NATO round has more range than the 7.62x39 (AK47 as you state) because

it is a physically larger round with more propellant in the casing. The 5.56 at 500 meters is

a POS. One is likely to only give a target a minor wound unless a head shot if facilitated.

In Afghanistan long shots can be accomplished with old 44-40 Craigs...I have seen the

weapon, Dragunovs, .50 Barretts etc....the bad guys have highly accurate weapons too

mostly handed to them by the US when the Soviets ran Afghanistan. BTW...the AK47

uses the 7.62x39 round...shorter casing than the 7.62x51 NATO hence less propellant

but at short range is deadly.

"No one will argue that the 7.62 Nato (.308) is an awesome round. I have it

in an AR-10 and a Weatherby bolt. But an AK 47 can't carry water for it."

No arguement there at all. But when Mikhail Kalashnikov invented his

namesake he was trying to equip every soldier in the Soviet Army with a

select fire weapon that had a 30 round capacity to give that soldier an edge

in fast paced assault tactics...re-read my bit about Soviet tactics in my post

and you may get an idea...then again maybe not...up to you.

Merry Christmas

Edited December 25, 2013 by sunshine51

[sunshine51]

OK...It's Christmas Day...no more weapons talk.

Here's something else Mikhail Kalashnokov was noted for and since I have

a few bottles of this stuff...I'll hoist a glass and say RIP Mikhail Kalashnikov!

And a link to a website about the stuff...

http://www.internationalbeveragenetwork.com/specialreport/kalashnikovvodka/

Merry Christmas to all.

[Publicus]

OK...It's Christmas Day...no more weapons talk.

Here's something else Mikhail Kalashnokov was noted for and since I have

a few bottles of this stuff...I'll hoist a glass and say RIP Mikhail Kalashnikov!

628x471.jpg

040920_vodka_hmed_8a.hmedium.jpg

And a link to a website about the stuff...

http://www.internationalbeveragenetwork.com/specialreport/kalashnikovvodka/

Merry Christmas to all.

Thanks, Happy Holidays and cheers to you from a deeply grateful nation.

Happy Holidays to each of you.

[NeverSure]

Merry Christmas

[thailiketoo]

I was just wondering what was the average distance of a shot in Vietnam? 800 meters or 80 meters? And how many trees in the jungle were between the end of the gun barrel and the target? 50? The other thing I was wondering was the fighting unit made up of riflemen and a machine gunner and 1 or 2 assistants? And didn't the early M-16's have a problem with something called a hang fire? And the later ones a problem with the firing pin. And wouldn't it make sense given the short distance of the shot and the dense jungle just to put the most lead in the air at one time; cause most shots were not going to hit what they were aimed at anyway?

I would think on the range the M-16 is a winner every time. In Vietnam? 555

[Rust Never Sleeps]

OK...It's Christmas Day...no more weapons talk.

Here's something else Mikhail Kalashnokov was noted for and since I have

a few bottles of this stuff...I'll hoist a glass and say RIP Mikhail Kalashnikov!

628x471.jpg

040920_vodka_hmed_8a.hmedium.jpg

And a link to a website about the stuff...

http://www.internationalbeveragenetwork.com/specialreport/kalashnikovvodka/

Merry Christmas to all.

...and since reading your post , i have hoisted many Singha's and Leo's for your compassion to fellow mankind, may the sun shine on you for many years to come.

[Heng]

He at least deserves some kind of award for being Russian, living to 94 and not dying of liver or lung cancer. On that note, there should be Thai awards for that as well. Liver cancer anyway.

As for a superior weapon... they are both superior. If you have to arm 10 guys and have $1500 in your wallet, you're not going to go for the "better weapon" and choose to arm just 1 guy. If you're only accurate within 300 meters, than you just adjust your game plan.

:-)

[zydeco]

For the one interested, mr kalashnikov created the ak 47 with the help of an german engineer and prisoner, hugo schmeisser, who developped the stg 44, sturmgewehr...ironic or how facts and propaganda don't mix?

...

Help? He copied.

[folium]

For the one interested, mr kalashnikov created the ak 47 with the help of an german engineer and prisoner, hugo schmeisser, who developped the stg 44, sturmgewehr...ironic or how facts and propaganda don't mix?

...

An old chestnut this one. Schmeisser's Stg44 and the AK47 are very different under the skin so to speak in terms of their working mechanisms.

Schmeisser's time in the Soviet Union post WW2 was hardly one of being a willing volunteer, and he was finally returned to the DDR 6 years later a broken man physically, dying a year later.

All designers take ideas from around them and then, for a successful invention, make them better. Israel's Galil rifle owes much to the assault rifle concept of the AK47/AKM and shares much of its working mechanism.

As to the AK/M16 pissing match, it's all somewhat irrelevant. Similar to the Sherman/Panther debate, what it boils down to is having enough weapons with sufficient ammunition in the right place with enough folk who have a reasonable understanding of how best they should be employed. It's very different from a sunny day on the ranges.

[thailiketoo]

The M-16 vs AK 47 pissing match for some of us was an M-16 vs M-14 pissing match.

Like most things, the reality of being armed with an ineffective weapon was of little import to those who were not risking their lives on a daily basis. By the time the problem was finally fixed, many friends and comrades had been awarded "the white cross",

http://jouster.com/saga_of_M16/saga_of_the_m16_part_1.pdf

Edited December 28, 2013 by thailiketoo

[thailiketoo]

My edit time beat me to it but one more thing I wanted to say about the AK-47 that was so inaccurate. 51% of deaths and 16% of wounds were caused by small arms fire in Vietnam.(World War II 32% Korea 33%).

Does that have anything to do with the accuracy of the weapon? Is it just a pissing match? I think it depends on your point of view. If you were there getting shot at you might still be upset about the issue. If you were not there getting shot at it probably wouldn't make much difference at all.

Mr Kalasnikov's weapon for being inaccurate and cheap sure killed a lot of people?

Edited December 28, 2013 by thailiketoo

[folium]

The M-16 vs AK 47 pissing match for some of us was an M-16 vs M-14 pissing match.

Like most things, the reality of being armed with an ineffective weapon was of little import to those who were not risking their lives on a daily basis. By the time the problem was finally fixed, many friends and comrades had been awarded "the white cross",

http://jouster.com/saga_of_M16/saga_of_the_m16_part_1.pdf

Sadly almost every campaign is marked by ineffective or outfaced equipment in some or many angles. My grandfather's regiment was brushed aside and largely destroyed by the Germans in 1940 being equipped with mechanically unreliable, under-armoured and outgunned tanks. My father ended WW2 with him and his troop largely kitted out in "acquired" American and/or German clothing & equipment. The only piece of British kit they adored was their Comets, which finally saw a piece of decent British military hardware arrive on the scene, albeit too late in the day having lost too many friends in Shermans ("tommy-cookers" to the Germans) and Cromwells.

Gulf War 1 saw shelves of electronic stores cleared of civvy GPS devices. The only comfortable Brit troops in the Falklands were those who had equipped themselves with decent, civvy gear and so on. Afghan has ended up with superb kit at hand but early days were as ever a case of going to war in the last conflicts equipment, hence Snatch Land Rovers ideal for narrow streets of Belfast or Londonderry, not great for IEDs.

From my own perspective, spent a couple of years serving in Africa, where the choice was invariably an AKM or AK47, as the alternative FNs were not ideal, nor the weapon/ammunition so ubiquitous being used by all sides. Our issued and ineffectual fragile Mark 1 SA80s stayed firmly locked in the armoury and only saw the light of day for an appearance in their true environment, namely the ranges.

It's always been a case of making the most of what is at hand/what is available....

[jimmybcool]

His AK47 (regardless of who designed what or who copied what) changed the world for certain. it still has an impact.

But I'd hardly blame him for what others do with the weapon. I'll hold the warlords, and evil politicians (Stalin? Mao?) accountable before I blame the inventor who just found a better way to arm his own countryman.

On the age old (well, 50 years) debate M16 vs AK47, funny. Like Ford vs Chevy in the states at one time. For myself, I don't like the com-bloc weapons. Clumsy, poor manufacturing tolerances, inaccurate in general. Course, I feel that way about the FN-FAL also.

But I'm just a dude who blows holes in paper at a range so I have no opinion on which is really better for soldiers. IMO the best weapon for a grunt is called the "duck and radio for an airstrike".

[Publicus]

The M-16 vs AK 47 pissing match for some of us was an M-16 vs M-14 pissing match.

Like most things, the reality of being armed with an ineffective weapon was of little import to those who were not risking their lives on a daily basis. By the time the problem was finally fixed, many friends and comrades had been awarded "the white cross",

http://jouster.com/saga_of_M16/saga_of_the_m16_part_1.pdf

Exactly - I'd been wondering if this point was going to come up about the M-16. I didn't serve at all in Vietnam so I'd been waiting for someone to make the point.

The army loved this about the M-16 and the army loved that about the M-16 but the army ignored that after some dirt and crap in the weapon it regularly ceased to function. A grunt is in the middle of a firefight and his primary weapon fails. What's a grunt without a functioning weapon? He's a free target to the enemy and he's a loss of firepower to his own unit under enemy fire. When this happens to one or more grunt in your unit, everyone's life is at a greater risk as is the mission itself, the mission being the primary concern of any commander and his troops.

Bad also is the grunt leaving base camp on a mission knowing he has a weapon, the M-16, that coming from the manufacturer fails on the field of battle under normal combat circumstances, i.e,, it collects some dirt or mud, or both, a few leaves etc.

The army did the same kind of thing in Iraq but with the protective vests issued to the troops. The vests had a design flaw that made them too tight for all but a few - some of the smaller grunts using the larger vest sizes of larger grunts. The design flaw constricted your body mobility and the ability to manipulate your weapon, be it a rifle or a tank, so wearing the "protective vest" endangered your life. And here I had thought the US Army was on our side in combat.

So in each instance of two wars over the course of 30-40 years there was all this taxpayer money to defense contractors in the private sector whose ordered up products were known by the Pentagon and its producers to be design defective. For all the abuse heaped on it the AK-47 fired off rounds in the mud, dust, sleet, rain or snow.

Some of my fellow infantry officers in our stateside battalion volunteered for the Nam but I did not, nor did I get shipped over on orders, which was to my good fortune because the whole thing about the Vietnam civil war stunk - it was both a literal and policy jungle rerun of the Korean Conflict made worse by the intervening years.

So it's long past time the high muckety-mucks in Washington finally shaped up.

At least now under the Pentagon's new Air-Sea Battle concept, the emphasis has been shifted away from land engagements - except for Special Ops such as the OBL kill mission - to missiles, stealth aircraft and ships, submarines, carrier battle groups, cyber and space warfare and the Marines.

However, as long as the Pentagon and defense contractors continue to work together I'll still be looking over my shoulder.

[thailiketoo]

51% of American deaths in Vietnam speak to the design of the AK-47. Accurate or not it killed a lot of people. I think when debating rifles there is a time element involved. Troops in Vietnam from 65 to 68 had a chance to use both the M-16 and M-14 in training and sometimes in combat. Lay down in a jungle and shoot both weapons guarantee you will like the M-14 better. Helicopter is going to drop the ammo, so in many cases that weight issue becomes a mute point. M-14 uses the same ammo as M-60 so it's not like it wasn't there. I'm an old fart and I like the 14 because it's wood. But the AK-47 was clearly a better weapon than the M-14 in Vietnam. For Vietnam I didn't like either one. Tommy gun was the gun that would have won the war for the Yanks but too late now. I do know that when I let fly with my Thompson the enemy ran the other way. The Thompson was designed 30 years before Kalashnikov put together the 47.

[mumjokmok]

No American corporation would have let that man die poor. That's disgraceful.

[thailiketoo]

Maxim did OK. He was an American who invented the Maxim gun and then moved to the UK. He was a writer too. He wrote a book about the Chinese who were generally puzzled as to how it was possible for people who are able to build locomotives and steamships to have a religion based on a belief in devils, ghosts, impossible miracles, and all the other absurdities and impossibilities peculiar to the religion taught by the missionaries

He reported wrote "1882 I was in Vienna, where I met an American whom I had known in the States. He said: 'Hang your chemistry and electricity! If you want to make a pile of money, invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each others' throats with greater facility. So he did. Between 1883 and 1885 Maxim patented gas, recoil and blow back methods of operation.

Maxim founded an arms company with financial backing from Edward Vickers to produce his machine gun in Crayford, Kent, which later merged with Nordenfeldt. Subsequently, part of the Barrow Shipbuilding Company purchase by Vickers Corporation in 1897, formed 'Vickers, Son & Maxim'. Their improved development of the Maxim gun design, the Vickers machine gun, after Maxim's resignation from the board in 1911 on his 71st birthday, was the standard British machine gun for many years.

I don't think Kalashnikov could have invented the AK-47 without Maxim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Maxim

[ABCer]

A different perspective.

More people were killed in the world by AK-47 than by any other weapon.

The guy will definitely be debriefed at the entrance gates to RIP.

[thailiketoo]

A different perspective.

More people were killed in the world by AK-47 than by any other weapon.

The guy will definitely be debriefed at the entrance gates to RIP.

I don't think the AK-47 killed that many people. I think you will find on investigation it was the 7.62 round that did most of the killing.

[watcharacters]

The AK 47 is a POS used because it is cheap to make. It is used by underfunded 3rd world countries.

It wasn't revolutionary. It wasn't put into production until after WWII when there we already awesome automatic rifles in use including the Browning and others.

Yes the gun is cheap and reliable. It's also woefully underpowered and inaccurate, and lacking in distance. But for poor countries needing some kind of weapon, it was stamped out with poor tolerances in great numbers because that's all they had.

Yes, he would have been better off designing a lawn mower.

RIP

.

I always preferred a lawn mower that could make its way through taller grass.

.

[folium]

A different perspective.

More people were killed in the world by AK-47 than by any other weapon.

The guy will definitely be debriefed at the entrance gates to RIP.

I don't think the AK-47 killed that many people. I think you will find on investigation it was the 7.62 round that did most of the killing.

The AK's bayonet is also a particularly nasty piece of kit. While many of the guys I worked with struggled to hit the proverbial barn door (never helps to close your eyes while firing from the hip on full auto!), they were very proficient in the use of the bayonet.

[thailiketoo]

A different perspective.

More people were killed in the world by AK-47 than by any other weapon.

The guy will definitely be debriefed at the entrance gates to RIP.

I don't think the AK-47 killed that many people. I think you will find on investigation it was the 7.62 round that did most of the killing.

The AK's bayonet is also a particularly nasty piece of kit. While many of the guys I worked with struggled to hit the proverbial barn door (never helps to close your eyes while firing from the hip on full auto!), they were very proficient in the use of the bayonet.

Realistically speaking except for one small charge in 1951, the last bayonet charge was in 1862 I believe.

[folium]

A different perspective.

More people were killed in the world by AK-47 than by any other weapon.

The guy will definitely be debriefed at the entrance gates to RIP.

I don't think the AK-47 killed that many people. I think you will find on investigation it was the 7.62 round that did most of the killing.

The AK's bayonet is also a particularly nasty piece of kit. While many of the guys I worked with struggled to hit the proverbial barn door (never helps to close your eyes while firing from the hip on full auto!), they were very proficient in the use of the bayonet.

Realistically speaking except for one small charge in 1951, the last bayonet charge was in 1862 I believe.

Extra homework required. The bayonet has been used in conflicts across the world, eg WW2, Korea, Falklands, Iraq and Afghan. Not pretty but very effective when called upon.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mount_Tumbledown

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-famous-bayonet-charge-of-modern-conflict-2012-10

The role of the infantry soldier is to close with and destroy the enemy. The bayonet is a helpful aid in this process and certainly scares the heck out of the opposition. Hence the bayonet being the badge of the infantry. A friend of mine picked up an MC in the First Gulf War for proficient use of grenades and bayonet in clearing Iarqi positions.

In Africa it was more a case of ammunition being in short supply and often being expended too quickly, and the close quarter nature of most fighting.

Edited January 1, 2014 by folium

[thailiketoo]

The AK's bayonet is also a particularly nasty piece of kit. While many of the guys I worked with struggled to hit the proverbial barn door (never helps to close your eyes while firing from the hip on full auto!), they were very proficient in the use of the bayonet.

Realistically speaking except for one small charge in 1951, the last bayonet charge was in 1862 I believe.

Extra homework required. The bayonet has been used in conflicts across the world, eg WW2, Korea, Falklands, Iraq and Afghan. Not pretty but very effective when called upon.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mount_Tumbledown

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-famous-bayonet-charge-of-modern-conflict-2012-10

The role of the infantry soldier is to close with and destroy the enemy. The bayonet is a helpful aid in this process and certainly scares the heck out of the opposition. Hence the bayonet being the badge of the infantry. A friend of mine picked up an MC in the First Gulf War for proficient use of grenades and bayonet in clearing Iarqi positions.

In Africa it was more a case of ammunition being in short supply and often being expended too quickly, and the close quarter nature of most fighting.

Not trying to start a fight but

March 17, 2010: Bayonet Drill Dies Of Boredom

The U.S. Army has finally eliminated bayonet drills from basic training. While the bayonet, and the bayonet charge, have a firm place in military history, the reality is rather different. Bayonets are still carried, but rarely attached to the front of a rifle. Most modern bayonets are simply knives, which are handy for all sorts of things on the battlefield. Sticking them in the enemy is rarely one of them. So training new recruits in the battlefield use of the bayonet is misleading and a waste of time.

In 2004, British troops reportedly fixed bayonets when they warded off Shiite militiamen in Iraq, but that has been an isolated case.

U.S. Army units have not issued soldiers bayonets for deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, said Matt Larsen, the former director of the Army’s combatives program.

The reason they don’t is because the training had nothing to do with the realities of the battlefield,” Larsen said.

Mostly, he said, soldiers used the knives as tools.

“And [when] they’re confronted with an enemy in hand-to-hand struggle, they have forgotten about it being a weapon, but the bad guy sees it on them and grabs and pulls it out and stabs them with it,” he said.

[folium]

The AK's bayonet is also a particularly nasty piece of kit. While many of the guys I worked with struggled to hit the proverbial barn door (never helps to close your eyes while firing from the hip on full auto!), they were very proficient in the use of the bayonet.

Realistically speaking except for one small charge in 1951, the last bayonet charge was in 1862 I believe.

Extra homework required. The bayonet has been used in conflicts across the world, eg WW2, Korea, Falklands, Iraq and Afghan. Not pretty but very effective when called upon.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mount_Tumbledown

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-famous-bayonet-charge-of-modern-conflict-2012-10

The role of the infantry soldier is to close with and destroy the enemy. The bayonet is a helpful aid in this process and certainly scares the heck out of the opposition. Hence the bayonet being the badge of the infantry. A friend of mine picked up an MC in the First Gulf War for proficient use of grenades and bayonet in clearing Iarqi positions.

In Africa it was more a case of ammunition being in short supply and often being expended too quickly, and the close quarter nature of most fighting.

Not trying to start a fight but

March 17, 2010: Bayonet Drill Dies Of Boredom

The U.S. Army has finally eliminated bayonet drills from basic training. While the bayonet, and the bayonet charge, have a firm place in military history, the reality is rather different. Bayonets are still carried, but rarely attached to the front of a rifle. Most modern bayonets are simply knives, which are handy for all sorts of things on the battlefield. Sticking them in the enemy is rarely one of them. So training new recruits in the battlefield use of the bayonet is misleading and a waste of time.

In 2004, British troops reportedly fixed bayonets when they warded off Shiite militiamen in Iraq, but that has been an isolated case.

U.S. Army units have not issued soldiers bayonets for deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, said Matt Larsen, the former director of the Army’s combatives program.

The reason they don’t is because the training had nothing to do with the realities of the battlefield,” Larsen said.

Mostly, he said, soldiers used the knives as tools.

“And [when] they’re confronted with an enemy in hand-to-hand struggle, they have forgotten about it being a weapon, but the bad guy sees it on them and grabs and pulls it out and stabs them with it,” he said.

You are quite right, the bayonet has often been the centre for controversy, see Obama's disparaging comments about the horse and the bayonet having no role to play in modern warfare.

Some nations have dropped the bayonet altogether and many modern rifles are not well suited to having one fixed. Indeed the bayonet is a multifunctional tool, as it always has been, and it is regarded by some armies as more of a Swiss Army penknife device than a weapon of war. About the only good thing about the Mark 1 SA80 issued to the British Army, off the ranges, was that its bayonet had a built in bottle opener, very handy for a bottle of beer at the end of the day!

Ultimately a soldier will fight with whatever comes to hand, be it gun, bayonet, rock or fists. Bill Speakman won a thoroughly deserved VC in Korea, where as a private soldier he led a successful defence of his unit's position against overwhelming odds and one of their most potent weapons was a dozen cases of empty beer bottles. As his unit was the KOSB (King's Own Scottish Borderers), the Scottish soldiers were well experienced in the art and craft of using such "weapons"!! At what stage the bottles were emptied of their contents is still somewhat unclear!

A classic image was that recalled by a friend who served in the Falklands. His Commando had moved at night behind the Argentinian positions on one of the hills above Port Stanley. His company was in the lead and at the given time rose up from the FUP in extended lines, bayonets fixed and advanced at a walking pace towards the base of the hill. Looking around him in the darkness, his first thought was that this was something straight out of WW1. Indeed, but it certainly put the fear of god into the Argentinians.

[thailiketoo]

Realistically speaking except for one small charge in 1951, the last bayonet charge was in 1862 I believe.

Extra homework required. The bayonet has been used in conflicts across the world, eg WW2, Korea, Falklands, Iraq and Afghan. Not pretty but very effective when called upon.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mount_Tumbledown

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-famous-bayonet-charge-of-modern-conflict-2012-10

The role of the infantry soldier is to close with and destroy the enemy. The bayonet is a helpful aid in this process and certainly scares the heck out of the opposition. Hence the bayonet being the badge of the infantry. A friend of mine picked up an MC in the First Gulf War for proficient use of grenades and bayonet in clearing Iarqi positions.

In Africa it was more a case of ammunition being in short supply and often being expended too quickly, and the close quarter nature of most fighting.

Not trying to start a fight but

March 17, 2010: Bayonet Drill Dies Of Boredom

The U.S. Army has finally eliminated bayonet drills from basic training. While the bayonet, and the bayonet charge, have a firm place in military history, the reality is rather different. Bayonets are still carried, but rarely attached to the front of a rifle. Most modern bayonets are simply knives, which are handy for all sorts of things on the battlefield. Sticking them in the enemy is rarely one of them. So training new recruits in the battlefield use of the bayonet is misleading and a waste of time.

In 2004, British troops reportedly fixed bayonets when they warded off Shiite militiamen in Iraq, but that has been an isolated case.

U.S. Army units have not issued soldiers bayonets for deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, said Matt Larsen, the former director of the Army’s combatives program.

The reason they don’t is because the training had nothing to do with the realities of the battlefield,” Larsen said.

Mostly, he said, soldiers used the knives as tools.

“And [when] they’re confronted with an enemy in hand-to-hand struggle, they have forgotten about it being a weapon, but the bad guy sees it on them and grabs and pulls it out and stabs them with it,” he said.

You are quite right, the bayonet has often been the centre for controversy, see Obama's disparaging comments about the horse and the bayonet having no role to play in modern warfare.

Some nations have dropped the bayonet altogether and many modern rifles are not well suited to having one fixed. Indeed the bayonet is a multifunctional tool, as it always has been, and it is regarded by some armies as more of a Swiss Army penknife device than a weapon of war. About the only good thing about the Mark 1 SA80 issued to the British Army, off the ranges, was that its bayonet had a built in bottle opener, very handy for a bottle of beer at the end of the day!

Ultimately a soldier will fight with whatever comes to hand, be it gun, bayonet, rock or fists. Bill Speakman won a thoroughly deserved VC in Korea, where as a private soldier he led a successful defence of his unit's position against overwhelming odds and one of their most potent weapons was a dozen cases of empty beer bottles. As his unit was the KOSB (King's Own Scottish Borderers), the Scottish soldiers were well experienced in the art and craft of using such "weapons"!! At what stage the bottles were emptied of their contents is still somewhat unclear!

A classic image was that recalled by a friend who served in the Falklands. His Commando had moved at night behind the Argentinian positions on one of the hills above Port Stanley. His company was in the lead and at the given time rose up from the FUP in extended lines, bayonets fixed and advanced at a walking pace towards the base of the hill. Looking around him in the darkness, his first thought was that this was something straight out of WW1. Indeed, but it certainly put the fear of god into the Argentinians.

Yes I think the bayonet has killed about 12 people out of the 123 million that have been killed in the last few wars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pzxb2sxbDU

[folium]

@Thailiketoo

Sorry, but wrong again. Not sure quite what the the point is of belittling the role of the bayonet.

Read up on how Left Flank 2SG cleared Mt Tumbledown in June 1982. Not pretty, but got the job done. 2 MCs, 2 DCMs and 2 MMs won by men of a unit all carrying and using their bayonets. Your figure of 12 was probably notched up that night alone.

[thailiketoo]

@Thailiketoo

Sorry, but wrong again. Not sure quite what the the point is of belittling the role of the bayonet.

Read up on how Left Flank 2SG cleared Mt Tumbledown in June 1982. Not pretty, but got the job done. 2 MCs, 2 DCMs and 2 MMs won by men of a unit all carrying and using their bayonets. Your figure of 12 was probably notched up that night alone.

Training with a bayonet is a waste of time. The US army when I was in spent a few days doing it and it was a waste of time. Last charge in 1951, that was 60 years ago. Would you carry a weapon that the last time your army used it was 60 years ago? No of course not. Everything has weight and a bayonet has weight and the rifle has to be made to accommodate it both a waste of time. If the bayonet weighs the same as a handful of ammo or a hand grenade better to have the ammunition or hand grenade.

You remind me of the cavalry guys who fought giving up a sword. I'm sure the sword was used a bit but for the most part nonsense in a combat situation with automatic weapons.

I gotta tell you if I'm out of ammo I'm running and not looking back. And I'm not going to charge a guy with an AK-47 with a bayonet.

My point belittling the bayonet would be the same as belittling the sword or pike. They are weapons of a past age and have no place on the modern battlefield and only are extra useless weight and can hurt the user more than help. I fought other soldiers with pugil sticks. What a dumb silly waste of time that actually hurt a couple of guys. I knew the army was dumb but the pugil stick thing was over the top stupid.

Edited January 1, 2014 by thailiketoo

[jimmybcool]

The army loved this about the M-16 and the army loved that about the M-16 but the army ignored that after some dirt and crap in the weapon it regularly ceased to function. A grunt is in the middle of a firefight and his primary weapon fails. What's a grunt without a functioning weapon? He's a free target to the enemy and he's a loss of firepower to his own unit under enemy fire. When this happens to one or more grunt in your unit, everyone's life is at a greater risk as is the mission itself, the mission being the primary concern of any commander and his troops.

Bad also is the grunt leaving base camp on a mission knowing he has a weapon, the M-16, that coming from the manufacturer fails on the field of battle under normal combat circumstances, i.e,, it collects some dirt or mud, or both, a few leaves etc.

Wasn't this more of a factor of improper ammunition with the initial use of M16s in VN? I "heard" they tested the M16 with a clean burning powder in the states and then ordered cheaper ammunition which fouled the chamber causing the jams. Plus, since it supposedly didn't need cleaning most of them didn't even have cleaning kits. A total screw up for sure.

I have an early M16 in the A1 form issued to the grunts in VN. When using quality military ammo I have zero functional issues. Of course my rifle, which is worth about $15,000 on the open market, doesn't get dropped in the mud nor exposed to crummy weather. I don't shoot in crummy weather. Plus it is cleaned after each trip to the range.

Having fired some commbloc weapons like AKMs and AK47s at the range I prefer the M16 platform. The commbloc stuff is inelegant and inaccurate in my experience, No idea how I would feel if i had to carry one and depend on it. Perhaps if they had made the gas-piston version M16 which is available today and doesn't spit exhaust gas back into the chamber they would have worked better,

[folium]

@Thailiketoo

Sorry, but wrong again. Not sure quite what the the point is of belittling the role of the bayonet.

Read up on how Left Flank 2SG cleared Mt Tumbledown in June 1982. Not pretty, but got the job done. 2 MCs, 2 DCMs and 2 MMs won by men of a unit all carrying and using their bayonets. Your figure of 12 was probably notched up that night alone.

Training with a bayonet is a waste of time. The US army when I was in spent a few days doing it and it was a waste of time. Last charge in 1951, that was 60 years ago. Would you carry a weapon that the last time your army used it was 60 years ago? No of course not. Everything has weight and a bayonet has weight and the rifle has to be made to accommodate it both a waste of time. If the bayonet weighs the same as a handful of ammo or a hand grenade better to have the ammunition or hand grenade.

You remind me of the cavalry guys who fought giving up a sword. I'm sure the sword was used a bit but for the most part nonsense in a combat situation with automatic weapons.

I gotta tell you if I'm out of ammo I'm running and not looking back. And I'm not going to charge a guy with an AK-47 with a bayonet.

My point belittling the bayonet would be the same as belittling the sword or pike. They are weapons of a past age and have no place on the modern battlefield and only are extra useless weight and can hurt the user more than help. I fought other soldiers with pugil sticks. What a dumb silly waste of time that actually hurt a couple of guys. I knew the army was dumb but the pugil stick thing was over the top stupid.

Seems like your time in the US military was a waste of everyone's time. Classic example of why "national service", conscription etc are totally counterproductive. Wasting the time, energy and professionalism of experts on those who cannot fathom out, or need, or deserve to be there.

Have a think about what pugil sticks, milling or whatever you want to call it are all about. If you really can't work it out, the military is obviously no place for you. Without wishing to be unduly cruel or unpleasant your comments speak volumes.

I had a great uncle brought up on the swashbuckling films starring Errol Flynn of the 1930's who developed a life-long desire to board an enemy vessel cutlass in hand. This was achieved in the North Sea in late 1943 and the German crew could not surrender quick enough.

The moral of this tale and that of the bayonet (or the broken beer bottle or whatever), is that it is not the weapon that counts but the desire to use it. It is very apparent to all involved. Applied outright violence wins the day and it is obvious intent that trumps all else, at least at close quarters. People brought up on video games and remote killing fail to grasp this brutal point. Hence the symbol of the bayonet for the infantry; it's all about generating the will, ability and desire to close with and destroy the enemy with whatever is at hand. Very "inhuman" but war is an unpleasant business.