On this day (March 13th) in 1922 Captain Everett Brooks, the commander of Company E of the 29th Infantry Division, drafted a report to the Infantry School's Director of Experiment. His company had received 30 experimental short bayonets for field evaluation and comparison against the standard issue 16" m1905 bayonets in use on the m1903 rifle. The experimental bayonets were 8.5 inches long, double edged, and lacked a fuller. Click below to read more! He ultimately concluded that the new bayonet should be given favorable consideration -- stating that it was superior in instructional use, parades and ceremonies, on the march, and (on the whole) in combat. Towards that end, it could be also used as a trench knife to much greater effect than the m1905. He does note the one drawback being the reduced reach when mounted, although he believed that to be offset by the fact that the rifle itself can be easily used to parry incoming blows.
The Boss Weighs In A few days later Colonel Goodale, the commander of the 29th Infantry forwarded the remarks of CPT Brooks and added his own comments. While he believed any advantages derived for drills, parades and ceremonies were "not pertinent", he did state, "The principle advantages are that less weight is carried by the soldier, and that the scabbard interferes less with soldier's movement on the march." He closed his letter by recommending "If there are combat advantages or even if the longer bayonet gives only slight combat advantages the short bayonet should be adopted and thereby materially decrease the load carried by the Infantry soldier." It is heartening to see a senior officer concerned about the combat load schlepped around by the average dog-faced Infantryman. As the years have progressed the weight carried on the backs of the average Soldier have steadily increased. The average WW2 rifleman's load was 82lbs, while an Army study from around 2010 had a rifle squad leader clocking in at almost 95lbs on the approach march. Tool of Terror or Simple Encumberance? The bayonet has historically been an item targeted to reduce weight (either by lightening it, or tossing it altogether), but that has inevitably proven controversial. Contrasting statements from Generals Patton and S.L.A. Marshall sum up the debate nicely I think. Patton is quoted as saying: “Few men are killed by the bayonet, many are scared by it. Bayonets should be fixed when the fire fight starts” WHILE S.L.A. Marshall, writing in "The Soldier's Load" posits: "The bayonet needs now to be re-evaluated by our Army solely on what it represents as an instrument for killing and protection. That should be done in accordance with the record, and without the slightest sentiment So considered, the bayonet will be as difficult to justify as the type of slingshot with which David slew Goliath.” Just like the Movie "Titanic" In the end we all know what happened with the experimental stiletto bayonet -- it was consigned to the dustbin of history. On 7 February 1923 the Infantry Board recommended that "The short stiletto type of bayonet be not adopted for issue to the Service" citing "specialists in bayonet work" at the Infantry School who had determined it was not advantageous in long and mid-range bayonet combat. Who knows though, maybe one of those young 29th Division soldiers who tested the bayonet in 1922 found themselves on a planning committee to adapt the M3 knife into a bayonet, or post war found himself assigned to develop the new M5 pattern for the M1 rifle. All credit for the documents goes to Andrew Stolinski and Archival Research Group, and are used with permission. Make sure to check out ARG for the whole 20 page report which includes the specific tests conducted, as well as the combat test that ultimately doomed the bayonet. ARG also has as a huge and fascinating variety of other WW2 and earlier historic military documents to browse through!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Jon K.Weapons collector, history buff, Army officer, Pug enthusiast. Archives
December 2020
Categories
All
|