Re: Bayonets ?
-
While we're doing the wanton cut-and-paste thing, here's a little gem in response to the Argyll report (http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/06/292709.html):
FLEET STREET'S armchair warriors thrilled to the news last week that soldiers of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders had defeated a large force of Shia militiamen in Iraq in an action involving bayonet charges - the first by British troops since the Falklands war. No one loves the flash of cold steel more than a tabloid sub-editor, and the hacks had a field day. "Bayonet Brits kill 35 rebels" drooled the Sun. "Our boys' victory in brave charge", said the Daily Star. The Daily Mail reminded readers that the Argylls formed the Thin Red Line at Balaclava, while the Grauniad's Stephen Moss mused upon the "psychosexual effect on the user" of fixing a bayonet to one's weapon. Among all the lovingly-reported detail of Iraqi bodies strewn across the highway and floating in the river, no one stopped to ask why the Argylls had used bayonets. The Eye has learned that the soldiers involved are furious at the gung-ho press coverage because it ignored the actual reason - that the ill-supplied Argylls were so short of ammunition that they had no choice but to resort to the bayonet or be killed.
Nice to see that not everybody gets caught up in a testosterone tornado.
Doesn't this rather suggest that the people that were killed might have been unarmed?
-
And on that we're agreed.Originally posted by Fatum:yeah, i know .... i was trying to be scarcastic too ...
... but you get my point don't you .... i just hope that we don't degenerate into a "button pressing" army ...
A combat soldier is next to bloody useless if he can't get the aggressiveness up when the situation calls for it. If the bugger's aggressive enough, and if he's got the ammo, what need is there for him to use the bayonet?
I see your point, but of course by this time you'd have realised that bayonet fighting is only a manifestation fo the issue, which is that if you're going to send the bugger out into the battlefield, you'd jolly well make sure he's aggressive enough to perform his task.
Now, taking into consideration that we've now effectively got a 2-year, 9-to-5 army, would it not make more sense to build that aggressiveness into tasks that soldier is more likely to use in actual combat? -
wats published in the sun is probably exaggeratedOriginally posted by Gedanken:While we're doing the wanton cut-and-paste thing, here's a little gem in response to the Argyll report (http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/06/292709.html):
Nice to see that not everybody gets caught up in a testosterone tornado. -
Hello it's Mr "fantasy commando" Gedanken again.Originally posted by Gedanken:Oh, bravo - that article from that pinnacle of journalisitc responsibility, The Sun.
No, Fatum, somehow I don't think MINDEF is on The Sun's mailing list.
The stated number of 35 killed was never debated. And the bayonet charge occurred. So...? -
Now Ged is no fantasy commando.Originally posted by tvdog:Hello it's Mr "fantasy commando" Gedanken again.
The stated number of 35 killed was never debated. And the bayonet charge occurred. So...?
But the Argyll Highlanders' bayonet charge might have happened after the majority of the rebels were doing some form of reloading AFAIK. -
Aw, boo hoo - still can't deal with the fact that I'm the real thing and ... you're not?Originally posted by tvdog:Hello it's Mr "fantasy commando" Gedanken again.
The stated number of 35 killed was never debated. And the bayonet charge occurred. So...? Look, if my reservist booklet clearly stating "CDO FTR I" wasn't enough to convince you, it's just proof that you're just the sort of guy who'll swear that black is white to avoid losing face.
Back to the topic. I'm not at all surprised that you didn't bother to check your sources. What's next? The Gospel according to the New Paper? Authoritative facts and figures from the Herald Sun? Or, dare we imagine it, highly confidential government imagery from Page 3?
You're only reinforcing your useless reputation by trying to present gonzo journalism as an argument - staying under your rock seems to be the best thing for your image. -
Double-post.
-
Double-post.
-
SHHH! Things that don't fit into tvdog's warped imagination upset him!Originally posted by crazy monkey:wats published in the sun is probably exaggerated 
-
Triple-post. Damn - tvdog's crap must have broken the forum.
-
Well, LL, you've got sense that our rabid cathode-ray-chihuahua obviously doesn't. Hell, he's even proven it by asking "So?".Originally posted by LazerLordz:But the Argyll Highlanders' bayonet charge might have happened after the majority of the rebels were doing some form of reloading AFAIK.
You've got 100 guys with firearms aiming at 20 guys doing a bayonet charge, and only three of the Argylls get lightly wounded. Nothing against the Argylls, but that says even more loudly that the Iraqis were plain firggin' imcompetent.
Also, as mentioned in the article I quoted, if the Argylls were properly supplied with ammo in the first place, they'd never have to have carried out the bayonet cherge, and hell, they were furious about it.
The whole incident's quite simply a black comedy of errors, but of course, someone like tvdog would be so impressed he'd put that tripe up as an argument, wouldn't he? That he missed the blindingly obvious in itself testifies that he's the one in dreamland. -
You must be trembling with rage and hammering the keyboard so badly you are double, triple posting. Are you frothing at the mouth also?
You are so full of yourself you even want to discredit a widely acknowledged act of bravery. Of course, in your fantastic pretend world of being a commando, a bayonet charge by real life soldiers fighting a real life war is small change.
The internet is full of reports of this action.
Those who are interested please go google it.
Just to irritate you further, here's another piece of news report on this great act of courage under fire!
Enjoy
Scottish Bayonet Charge in Iraq
How interesting would taped footage of this fight be?
Argylls fight hand to hand in Iraq
BRIAN BRADY
WESTMINSTER EDITOR
SCOTTISH troops fixed bayonets and fought hand to hand with a ShiÂ’ite militia in southern Iraq in one of their fiercest clashes since the war was declared more than a year ago, it was reported last night.
Soldiers from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders mounted what were described as "classic infantry assaults" on firing and mortar positions held by more than 100 fighters loyal to the outlawed cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, according to military sources.
At least 20 men from al-SadrÂ’s army were believed killed in more than three hours of fighting - the highest toll reported in any single incident involving British forces in the past 12 months.
Nine fighters were captured and three British soldiers injured, none seriously.
"It was very bloody and it was difficult to count all their dead," one source was quoted as saying. "There were bodies floating in the river."
The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders were drawn into the fighting when soldiers in two Land-Rovers were ambushed on Friday afternoon about 15 miles east of the city of Amara. The soldiers escaped, only to be ambushed a second time by a larger group of militia, armed with machine-guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars.
Reinforcements were summoned from the Princess of WalesÂ’s Royal Regiment at a base nearby. "There was some pretty fierce hand-to-hand fighting with bayonets fixed," the source added. "There were some classic assaults on mortar positions held by the al-Sadr forces."
Official spokesman Major Ian Clooney confirmed the Mehdi army "took a pretty heavy knocking", but refused to specify tactics. "This was certainly an intense engagement," he added. -
at least bayonets fighting skill is still a must even in todays war.
-
The real problem is that if you want to be good at bayonet fighting, you need to spend time on it. If you want to spend time on it, time must be taken away from elsewhere in the training programme. So what do you want to cut to incorporate bayonet training?
I think bayonet training is fairly useless. It is far better to ensure that our soldiers simply don't run out of ammo or know how to disengage effectively with their last ammo, instead of wasting time running up and down a field with bayonets fixed. The Argylls were very lucky -- even half-competent opponents would have massacred them -- indicating the Iraqis were simply incompetent. I would not trust the lives of our soldiers to the incompetence of the enemy. Whatever time would have been used on bayonet training should be spent at the range or performing combat drills. -
in war or in battlefield, take for granted resources always run out.
it can be trapped behind enemy lines, whole company over run and so on.
no soldiers will want to fight in close battle. reenforcement not fast enough.
sometimes weather or terrain can slow things down.
same thing as sleep, there is no sleep during engaging situations.
surrounded firefight is common and thus bullets will round out and sometimes close battle face to face, it is much effective to thrust bayonet into enemies chest than to reload magazine.
a close proximity air strike can result in heavy caualties.
if no proper bayonet training and madness, how to be the agrressor to charge and thrust.
it is an skill that keeps many soldiers alive even in todays close battle situations. -
No, acutally, you haven't written anything worth quoting.Originally posted by tvdog:
Yes guys, please do Google for the incident, and then do something tvdog doesn't - analyse the information in the report. All the reports are virtual copies of the original Sun report, and thin on details of what actually happened. If this was a big a deal as what tvdog would so desperately love to believe, say something like Goose Green, there'd be a lot more news on it, answering a couple of questions like:
- why were the Argylls out of ammo in the first place?
- how could 100 guys shoot at 20 on a bayonet charge and only lightly injure 3?
- were the Iraqi weapons so inaccurate?
- were the Iraqi shooters incompetent?
- were the Iraqi shooters out of ammo themselves?
These are questions that anybody who knows anything about combat would be asking upon reading that report, and these are questions that have not been addressed in the carbon-copy reports. The volume of the reports says absolutely nothing because they all just cover the same basic and inadequate set of points. Once again, tvdog, by being distracted by irrelevancies such as the simple number of reports available and not realising that they're all the same, you've provided damning proof of your being nothing nothing more than a paper soldier. By the way, according to Psychoanalytic theory, your questioning of my credentials is called Projection - go Google that.
In the meantime, read dkhoo's post - you just might be able to learn something about common sense. -
By your post, you are implying that bayonet fighting and unarmed combat lessons are justified, aren't you?Originally posted by AF2005:in war or in battlefield, take for granted resources always run out.
it can be trapped behind enemy lines, whole company over run and so on.
no soldiers will want to fight in close battle. reenforcement not fast enough.
sometimes weather or terrain can slow things down.
same thing as sleep, there is no sleep during engaging situations.
surrounded firefight is common and thus bullets will round out and sometimes close battle face to face, it is much effective to thrust bayonet into enemies chest than to reload magazine.
a close proximity air strike can result in heavy caualties.
if no proper bayonet training and madness, how to be the agrressor to charge and thrust.
it is an skill that keeps many soldiers alive even in todays close battle situations. -
I'm sorry, what are you questioning here? The credibility of the fact that this action took place?Originally posted by Gedanken:- why were the Argylls out of ammo in the first place?
- how could 100 guys shoot at 20 on a bayonet charge and only lightly injure 3?
- were the Iraqi weapons so inaccurate?
- were the Iraqi shooters incompetent?
- were the Iraqi shooters out of ammo themselves?
Or are you questioning the bravery of this action?
Gedanken, you pretend you're a SAF Commando, living in Australia looking after orphans. You also kicked down the fence of an evil neighbour who threatened your orphans. THis evil neighbout also happened to be a former Foreign Legion. But he is so useless he ran away and called the police.
In further exchanges you spoke lowly of the Legionnaires.
And now you rubbish this action of the Argylls.
It would appear that, not only are you living in an imaginary world, you also have a serious ego problem. And you have been watching too many Hollywood movies. Wah, fighting evil and protecting the weak in Australia... Are you also one of the Superfriends or X-men?
Many real SAF Commandos out there would be highly embarrassed by your rubbishing the reputation and actions of other fighting forces while in the safety of your little apartment in And Mo Kio.
What you appear very proficient at is typing a lot of sarcastic comments on the keyboard. Commando - you're not. Canteen hawker at the Commando camp, maybe. -
Oh me, oh my - you've really gone out to town with your little theories this time. Why don't you ask True_Xerion and the_Don if I stay in Ang Mo Kio? I must have whipped up one hell of a facsimilie of the Great Ocean Road to have fooled them. One difference between you and me is that while you spend your time trembling behind your keyboard, people on this forum know me in person, have met up with me not only in Singapore but in Australia, and are laughing at your little postulations about me.
You just go on saying that I'm not this and not that - the only thing you're showing is that you're so much living in denial that you may as well have an Egyptian passport.
Anyway, that's all irrelevant to this thread. if you're so thick as to be unable to understand the simple points I'm making here, I suppose I shall have to spoonfeed you.
Okay, let's get the basics out of the way first. First, I'm not disputing that it happened. Second, as I said, it's nothing against the Argylls. We clear on that so far?
What I am saying is that there's something seriously wrong with this picture. If you have a half-mag of ammo in your M-16 and someone comes charging at you with a bayonet, what would you do?
The guy's charging, not running and evading, so you've got all the time in the world to get a good bead on him, and you've got 15 rounds to make sure you got the job done right. In fact, since it's 5-to-1, assuming that everybody's got a half-mag each, so one round out of 75 hitting the enemy in the right spot's pretty damned good odds.
Under normal circumstances, and all things being equal, the Argylls' bayonet charge would have been their last stand, glorious though it may be.
Okay, now pay attention, here's the important part: it's obvious that the circumstances were not normal and not everything was equal, but there's not enough detail to describe what actually happened, and nobody's said a whole lot more than what was reported in the original article.
What facts do we have on hand here?
- 20 Argylls performed a bayonet charge
- 35 enemy bodies were found, and 9 were captured
How were those 35 killed? Were they bayoneted or shot before the bayonet charge? The article doesn't say.
The article alleges that there were 100 enemy fighters. Simple mathematics - what happened to the other 56 enemies? The article doesn't say.
Why are these questions relevant? Because the answers will allow us to develop a clear picture of what happened.
For all you know, the 35 dead enemies were all shot before the charge, the remaining 56 ran off because they were out of ammo, and the 9 captured were stragglers who were left behind. We'll never know with the information on hand, will we?
Now, once again to be clear, I'm not saying this as any attempt to discredit the Argylls. They got ambushed and they did more than well enough to produce the result that they did.
In light of the theme of this thread, the key question about the incident would be, "Was the result of 35 killed and 9 captured specifically the result of the bayonet charge?". The fact is that the information is so thin that you cannot reasonably conclude that the result was due to the bayonet charge, because there are a number of other plausible factors involved. Ragsheets such as The Sun are known for being thin on facts and heavy on hyperbole, and that in itself is reason enough to question the article.
There's the debate if you want one. If you want to take things personally, hey, you're welcome to do so and make yourself look dumb. Up till the point you showed up, this was a proper discussion, so it's up to you to decide to behave yourself. I'm very amused by your little theories about me, and if you want to continue with that, why not start a thread flaming me? We've got other things to discuss here. -
Maybe Tvdog is the one who is living in Ang Mo Kio and typing out of a smuggled laptop in Hendon.
-
If you feel details are not enough for you, why don't you stop speculating yourself as to what happen. You think you know?
C'mon.
Yah, right. Fascimilie blah blah you have met people from the forum etc. Of course you have. Of course you exist, it's not some stupid machine who's typing under the name of Gedanken, is it? So you're a real person. But not a commando. So wake up from your fantasy. Nothing you've said so far gives anyone the impression of one.
For one, you're a little too bi.tchy to be a commando, all talk and nothing else. You've probably sucked a few of your commando boyfriends off but that doesn't qualify you as a Commando.
Seems we have a another little bi.tch in heat yapping here by the name of LaserLordz. Be still. -
Well, other people on this forum and I know better, and I'm not going to complain about you doing all the work of making yourself look stupid. At this point in time, we're discussing the issue of the utility of bayonets here, so I'm going to stop bothering with your flamebaiting.
You still haven't addressed the point of your putting that article up. As I've said, nobody knows what actually happened, and the people who can say something are being tight-lipped about it. Therefore, the article that you posted doesn't do anything for the consideration of the use of bayonets in modern-day fighting, either for or against it.
Now, since this is the point of this thread, why don't you address it? Anything else you say is irrelevant. -
LL and Ged are humans. Do they call themselves "Dogs" in their nicks at all?
But some there is one goggle box-addicted (possibly female) canine around. -
Please be objective in posting. Do not go down to personal attacks.
-
Hey man...this is degenerating into a free for all. Just cool it yeah? The point here is the merits of having a bayonet equipped weapon in combat.Lets not all be petty and let this degenerate into a free for all and all end up pissed...Its just not what we military fanatics wanna be viewed by other forumnites who view our forum right?
Like i have posted earlier on, I would definitely love to go into combat with one more weapon then one less weapon.How bout you?