Bolt actions, bolt actions everywhere.

That aside, I didn't notice the Lee-Enfield's bayonet was rather small.

ezekill said:

Bolt actions, bolt actions everywhere.

That aside, I didn't notice the Lee-Enfield's bayonet was rather small.

I think that Japan (and Soviets?) had fetish for large bayonets. Other countries bayonets were useful for other knifely purposes as well.

Baneslave said:

I think that Japan (and Soviets?) had fetish for large bayonets. Other countries bayonets were useful for other knifely purposes as well.

Yup. In those times, ammunition was far less plentiful than current loadouts and soldiers were actually expected to aim hit something with every round they fired. Now, most armed forces are more well funded and the safer but costly technique of "covering fire" can be used. It should be noted that the richer a armed force became, the shorter its bayonets evolved, becoming more of a burden than a lifeline. Anyways, back then those who had longer bayonets were likely to win the outcome in close quarters, all else being equal. The 1942 edition of kill or be killed showed various techniques for M1 Garand users to counter the ridiculously long arisaka bayonets. Of course, the tactics of bayonets became much less effective in many cases outside of night time, and jungle conflicts. In the streets of urban warfare, the submachine gun if one was lucky to have, or the semi auto carbine of your countries flavor was the go to weapon. And of course, a machine gun properly placed beat all of those weapons, but was rare due to ammunition requirements and low mobility (partial reason the US BAR was designed).

79248cm/s said:

Yup. In those times, ammunition was far less plentiful than current loadouts and soldiers were actually expected to aim hit something with every round they fired. Now, most armed forces are more well funded and the safer but costly technique of "covering fire" can be used. It should be noted that the richer a armed force became, the shorter its bayonets evolved, becoming more of a burden than a lifeline. Anyways, back then those who had longer bayonets were likely to win the outcome in close quarters, all else being equal. The 1942 edition of kill or be killed showed various techniques for M1 Garand users to counter the ridiculously long arisaka bayonets. Of course, the tactics of bayonets became much less effective in many cases outside of night time, and jungle conflicts. In the streets of urban warfare, the submachine gun if one was lucky to have, or the semi auto carbine of your countries flavor was the go to weapon. And of course, a machine gun properly placed beat all of those weapons, but was rare due to ammunition requirements and low mobility (partial reason the US BAR was designed).

It was also a matter of training (or lack thereof) as well. Forced conscription and/or shorter training time meant soldiers could be sent to the front with a fraction of training under their belt, in which case long bayonets turned rifles into impromptu spears. Overwhelming lack of ammunition towards the end of the war also turned some soldiers into ammo-less spearmen.

MMaestro said:

It was also a matter of training (or lack thereof) as well. Forced conscription and/or shorter training time meant soldiers could be sent to the front with a fraction of training under their belt, in which case long bayonets turned rifles into impromptu spears. Overwhelming lack of ammunition towards the end of the war also turned some soldiers into ammo-less spearmen.

It's also a hold over from late 19th century military doctrine. Many rifles of the late 19th, early 20th century had magazine cutoffs, were the rifle would be loaded single shot, with the rounds in the magazine held in emergency reserve. Battlefield tactics also still relied upon line formations and synchronized volleys. A unit would advance, firing, until the enemy was killed, retreated or both sides met in hand to hand combat. At the time, there was a veritable bayonet arms race, with Britain, France and Germany introducing longer rifles and bayonets to give their soldiers a longer reach than their opponent. The Mauser Gew98, itself 49.2" long, was issued originally with a sword bayonet with a 19.7" blade, IIRC the total length of the bayonet was around 26".

79248cm/s said:

Yup. In those times, ammunition was far less plentiful than current loadouts and soldiers were actually expected to aim hit something with every round they fired. Now, most armed forces are more well funded and the safer but costly technique of "covering fire" can be used. It should be noted that the richer a armed force became, the shorter its bayonets evolved, becoming more of a burden than a lifeline. Anyways, back then those who had longer bayonets were likely to win the outcome in close quarters, all else being equal. The 1942 edition of kill or be killed showed various techniques for M1 Garand users to counter the ridiculously long arisaka bayonets. Of course, the tactics of bayonets became much less effective in many cases outside of night time, and jungle conflicts. In the streets of urban warfare, the submachine gun if one was lucky to have, or the semi auto carbine of your countries flavor was the go to weapon. And of course, a machine gun properly placed beat all of those weapons, but was rare due to ammunition requirements and low mobility (partial reason the US BAR was designed).

>Now, most armed forces are more well funded and the safer but costly technique of "covering fire" can be used. It should be noted that the richer a armed force became, the shorter its bayonets evolved, becoming more of a burden than a lifeline.

No. Funding had nothing to do with bayonet lengths. For instance, the Indians adopted shorter bayonets before the British did.

They were shortened in order to make them more usable for utilitarian purposes and actual warfare, since the idea of two wannabe-spearmen duking it out seldom, just not to say never, materialized outside of training. Furthermore, cavalry (the other big, if not main, reason why bayonets and rifles were that long) was basically dead on the water by the end of WW1. Yes, they had gallant show-offs here and there (notably the Bulgarians as a whole in WW1), but for the most part, advances in technology and warfare had rendered them obsolete, and substituted by either tanks in the role of heavy cavalry, or APC's/Trucks/etc for transport and basically Dragoon replacement.

MMaestro said:

It was also a matter of training (or lack thereof) as well. Forced conscription and/or shorter training time meant soldiers could be sent to the front with a fraction of training under their belt, in which case long bayonets turned rifles into impromptu spears. Overwhelming lack of ammunition towards the end of the war also turned some soldiers into ammo-less spearmen.

No. You aren't throwing out men with (relatively) expensive rifles just so they can act as spearmen right off the bat. If you are that desperate, you can just make a very crude spear out of bamboo or a wooden shaft.

Not even the garrison at Iwo Jima was at that point. And if you know something about Iwo Jima's defenses, is that they were lacking in everything other than ordnance being thrown at them. Their final banzai charge was likewise not done out of the typical 'death before surrender' spirit, but rather, it was done with tangible military objectives in mind, in which they were capable of pulling off to some extent.

If your point is that they ran outta ammo, ergo spearman, that's going to overwhelmingly be a case of siege that has held out for long enough to where they depleted their ammo and can't resupply. If that's the case, it is a matter of tactical lack and not a strategic undersupply.

shoujo-ai_otaku said:

It's also a hold over from late 19th century military doctrine. Many rifles of the late 19th, early 20th century had magazine cutoffs, were the rifle would be loaded single shot, with the rounds in the magazine held in emergency reserve. Battlefield tactics also still relied upon line formations and synchronized volleys. A unit would advance, firing, until the enemy was killed, retreated or both sides met in hand to hand combat. At the time, there was a veritable bayonet arms race, with Britain, France and Germany introducing longer rifles and bayonets to give their soldiers a longer reach than their opponent. The Mauser Gew98, itself 49.2" long, was issued originally with a sword bayonet with a 19.7" blade, IIRC the total length of the bayonet was around 26".

Yes and no. Yes, people at the time expected soldiers to operate in line formations. That's part of the reason why the rifles were that long too, as it was meant to keep you from blowing the front guy's head off. However, the long rifles and bayonets to make for an extra long spear was primarily aimed at defeating cavalry if they got too close.