Some Interesting Military Data

[Sturn]

There are modern examples of the bayonet still being used.

I recalled hearing about a bayonet charge during the Falkland Islands campaign. I found it detailed below (skip down to "Left Flank"):

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

Googling I found this:

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

Both were British examples, I'm not sure if that means anything? When I was in the US Army bayonet training was still being practiced. Perhaps it is stressed more in the British Army?

I think someone mentioned a bayonet charge during the Korean War. This is the one I recalled being told about while I was in the US Army (skip down to "Korean War"):

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

 

[Timerover51]

Sorry if I sounded critical, it wasn't intended that way. You are quite right about it's use in bygone days. The first bayonet actually fit inside to muzzles of early long arms. Basically early slow loading troops became pole armed troops. Made a lot of sense back then.

My personal library on weaponry runs from the Sumerians to the present day, although I could use more on Chinese, having only one good source there, and Asian Indian, again having only one good source for periods when not in conflict with either the forces of Alexander the Great or European forces. It also encompasses naval forces (from the Greeks and Romans forward) and air forces as well. I have about 1,000 books on various aspects of military history and weapons. That does not include several filing cabinets full of photocopies, primarily of material from the National Archives dealing with weapon effects, terminal ballistics, and naval wargaming.

I am well aware of the development of the bayonet from the plug bayonet through the modern bayonet, along with the conversion from combined pike and shot units to strictly musket-armed units.

There was also a study done by the US government in the late 1960s that determined for crowd control purposes in riot situations, the use by US National Guard troops of rifles without bayonets fixed was a useless exercise.

 

[Hemdian]

I recalled hearing about a bayonet charge during the Falkland Islands campaign.

That may have been from my post (#6 on this thread). o:

 

[Timerover51]

There are modern examples of the bayonet still being used.

I recalled hearing about a bayonet charge during the Falkland Islands campaign. I found it detailed below (skip down to "Left Flank"):

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

Googling I found this:

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

Both were British examples, I'm not sure if that means anything? When I was in the US Army bayonet training was still being practiced. Perhaps it is stressed more in the British Army?

I think someone mentioned a bayonet charge during the Korean War. This is the one I recalled being told about while I was in the US Army (skip down to "Korean War"):

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

Millet's bayonet charge in Korea was what I was thinking of. The account of the charge is in S. L. A. Marshall's book, Battle at Best.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

As I understood his point, it was that the bayonet was underrated based on the examples given vs "conventional wisdom". Overwhelmingly conventional wisdom is correct.

Yes, he was. And, he is right in saying so.

I did basic in 1979 at Fort Knox (admittedly an armor post) and bayonet training was not given.

Perhaps not, but I received it in 1984.

If getting it right, and fast, is important to you, use a firearm.

Unless, of course, you want it quiet.

I seem to recall a night bayonet attack in modern history. It was used so as not to alert the enemy until they had penetrated their defenses. (I could be wrong.) I seem to recall BlackFive (a military group blog) reacting with examples when bayonets were derisively dismissed in the most recent US presidential election (in one of the debates).

 

[rancke]

If getting it right, and fast, is important to you, use a firearm.

Unless, of course, you want it quiet.

More likely because bayonets don't run out of ammunition.



Hans

 

[Timerover51]

I seem to recall a night bayonet attack in modern history. It was used so as not to alert the enemy until they had penetrated their defenses. (I could be wrong.) I seem to recall BlackFive (a military group blog) reacting with examples when bayonets were derisively dismissed in the most recent US presidential election (in one of the debates).

The 1st Ranger Battalion, a.k.a. Darby's Rangers, pulled it off a couple of times in the Tunisian Campaign in early 1943. James Altieri, in his book, The Spearheaders, talks about bayoneting an Italian soldier in the stomach and getting his target's blood all over his uniform. For information on those operations, I would recommend the Altieri book, and also the Leavenworth Combat Study done on Rangers: Selected Combat
Operations in World War 2, which can be downloaded in PDF format from the Combat Studies Institute website. There is quite a lot of good information on the Combat Studies Institute site, covering a wide range of military history. There is a very good study on the Russo-Japanese border action at Nomonhan in 1939.

 

[Timerover51]

If getting it right, and fast, is important to you, use a firearm.

Depends on the situation. If I need to take out one sentry, in a position where I cannot get at him with a knife/bayonet, I would take a very throughly silenced single shot carbine firing sub-sonic ammunition, preferably the .45 ACP hardball round. Otherwise, a knife/bayonet is a reasonable alternative.

 

[madmike]

Your father was certainly correct about the difficulty of extracting a bayonet from a human body. as an aside, cavalry sabers used to be straight bladed. It was soon found that a pronounced curve was needed to extract the blade as well as preventing broken arms of the wielder.

The German army issued saw backed bayonets during WW1 which resulted in German prisoners being killed on the spot by allied soldiers, if found to be equipped with one.

Light cavalry sabres were even popular with Royal Navy officers during the late 18th and early 19th centuries, though they were more robust (hangers). In regards to cavalry edged weapons, British and KGL heavy cavalry used straight bladed heavy swords (1796 pattern) which were far more effective at cutting through enemy soldiers defenses. They were heavy and brutal weapons, but very effective.

Not sure when the heavy cavalry sword was replaced by the lighter curved sabre.

Navy officers in my campaign, train with hangers (naval sabres) rather than a cutlass.

 

[Vladika]

Misquoted

If you've got to do it quiet, use a bladed weapon. Whatever you do, get proper training and forget what you saw in the movies. If getting it right, and fast, is important to you, use a firearm.

For those of you who shortened my original statement, and then seemingly took me to task for it, please note the first sentence of that paragraph reads:

If you've got to do it quiet, use a bladed weapon.

I do concur with timerover in the choice of a suppressed weapon and taking a head shot. Most of the time you "cannot get at him with a knife/bayonet".
You wouldn't be likely to get near an alert sentry.

Depends on the situation. If I need to take out one sentry, in a position where I cannot get at him with a knife/bayonet, I would take a very throughly silenced single shot carbine firing sub-sonic ammunition, preferably the .45 ACP hardball round. Otherwise, a knife/bayonet is a reasonable alternative.

The problem here is the average soldier doesn't have any suppressed weapon system. Most "silent kills" are best left to the movies, or special units. The average soldier will not have the training, equipment, or the chance of circumstances necessary.

 

[Dragoner]

Perhaps not, but I received it in 1984.

As a 3rd and 4th year ROTC at Knox in the late 80's I never saw it taught there, though I was there for Armored Warfare training (the big AWS school is at Irwin) as that was my career branch.

 

[DangerousThing]

I've lived in two of the 4 worst neighborhoods in Anchorage... a jo to the gut puts the average mugger out of action. Following up with the KO-Blow (butt-stroke to head) and wrist break (stomp wrist) and very quickly the muggers spread word you're too dangerous. :devil:

This is why I like staves and think that they will still be useful in the far future. They are (mostly) non-lethal and they can take a target out quickly. And typically one gets into less trouble with the cops hitting somebody with a stick as opposed to using a knife or firearm in self-defense.

 

[aramis]

This is why I like staves and think that they will still be useful in the far future. They are (mostly) non-lethal and they can take a target out quickly. And typically one gets into less trouble with the cops hitting somebody with a stick as opposed to using a knife or firearm in self-defense.

The trouble level varies. If the aggressor remains alive, he can lie and claim HE's the victim. But, when non-lethality is important, the staff is no better than the sword. And swords have been my weapon of choice for home defense, because the wankers likely to invade my home typically have great fear of swords, reinforced by TV and movies (Esp. Hilander and 3 Musketeers)....

 

[flykiller]

... but to point out that at Tech Level 4 and lower, the use of the bayonet is much more common, and that at Tech Level 5, there are circumstances, primarily under conditions of reduced visibility, when it can also be used effectively.

given the lethality and range of traveller naval weapons I envision infantry combat taking place in very close-quarters situations within high-value targets. room to room action with targets perhaps five feet away would seem a typical environment. pgmp and fgmp seem inadvisable here, combat armor will be tough to defeat otherwise, and the quickest way to deal with a shooter will be to close within the effective operating space of his weapon. so. what will tech 13-15 close-in weapons be?

 

[Vladika]

what will tech 13-15 close-in weapons be?

I absence of Battle Dress, I'm going for WWI German storm trooper weapons with modifications and extras thrown in.

Grenades will be a favorite for clearing a room, whether stun, gas or blast. Pistols, sub machine guns and short barreled shotguns certainly are going to be handy.

From a defensive standpoint built in claymore type mines will please a crowd in clearing areas as well as passageways. Gas in the air system is canon.

Bladed weapons such as daggers, fighting knives and trench knives with brass knuckle hand guards. Travellers infamous cutlass is right on the money if you think about it.

At close range and close quarters differing weapons will be needed depending on the overall objective. If you want the ship intact then energy weapons will be foolish.

 

[Timerover51]

WW2 Radar

Changing the subject a bit, as this thread is for interesting military data, and not just about bayonets, here is some information on World War 2 radar performance, taken from the US Army Green Book covering the Signal Corps, which controlled radar development for the Army in World War 2. The entire Green Book series, The US Army in World War 2, is available online and is a document in the public domain. By the way, I have a fair number of hard copies to go with my complete downloaded set on my computer. There is an IMMENSE AMOUNT of useful information in that series.

In Italy the SCR-584 met the test of combat at Anzio, where older longwave British and American radars were being reduced to ineffectiveness by German jamming. On 24 February 1944 the first 584's, together with an SCR-545, arrived on an LST from Naples. One of the 584's was at once put to work supplementing a British 10-centimeter GCI radar, the Ames (Air Ministry experimental set) 14, which suffered from land echoes at ranges within twenty miles. The SCR-584, on the other hand, "gave automatic tracking on low flying aircraft out to 27 miles with an early warning range of 56 miles. Height accuracy up to 18 miles (away) was 200 feet and beyond this range the height readings were accurate within 1,000 feet. The two sets operating together gave an exceedingly effective GCI control, the SCR-584 taking care of interceptions from 0-20 miles and the British set from 20-60 miles."

"When I first arrived at the Beachhead," wrote Maj. Harris T. Richards, a Signal Corps radar officer from the Allied Force Headquarters, "the enemy was doing formation bombing of the Anzio-Nettuno Port Area. The SCR-268 was so effectively jammed by 'Window' and land jamming stations that the enemy had no worries from AA fire." But the 584's changed all that (by April the 68th and 216th AAA Battalions were completely equipped with 584's and the 108th AAA Battalion with 545's). "After three SCR-584's were put in action," Richards reported, "and five E/A [enemy airplanes] out of a formation of twelve were shot down, the enemy did no more formation flying over the area."

Finally, when it was found possible to step up its range to 96,000 yards, the SCR-584 became a good medium-range warning radar as well. Such are the unpredictables that may arise in the research and development of military equipment.

In looking through this, it did make me wonder if there is any provision for something as simple as "Window" in the rules, as a radar countermeasure?Also, I cannot remember seeing anything covering anti-aircraft or anti-flying vehicle fire. Now, I do have Striker and Mercenary, I just have never been terribly enthused with them.

 

[Piper]

In looking through this, it did make me wonder if there is any provision for something as simple as "Window" in the rules, as a radar countermeasure?Also, I cannot remember seeing anything covering anti-aircraft or anti-flying vehicle fire.

Striker covers chaff rounds (window) and has rules for anti-aircraft fire.

 

[Timerover51]

Striker covers chaff rounds (window) and has rules for anti-aircraft fire.

So, if you do not have Striker, you have nothing to work from?

And for "window", I was not thinking chaff rounds, but aircraft or aerial vehicles dropping it, both as a continuous stream and as discrete bundles. Anti-aircraft fire does not merely require weapons, but a detection system to provide initial targeting information and a fire control system capable of handling a 3-dimensional targeting problem that is also moving at a high rate of speed. I will have to look at Striker to see if any of that is taken into account.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Yes, timerover, Traveller doesn't really handle the sort of detail you are looking at unless you get Striker. I believe there are counter-measures in the regular rules, but they are abstract.

 

[atpollard]

MegaTraveller at least contains ECM in the computer/sensors section of starship design ... so its use is probably reflected in the combat rules (sorry, but I never ran a MegaTraveller vehicle combat to know for sure). That would be the abstract combat equivalent of a historic detail like this.

Beyond that, the 2D6 roll must (by the nature of the mechanics) reflect a multitude of small differences below the resolution of the game mechanics.

TNE, with its much finer granularity, may also have rules to accommodate a detail like basic vs enhanced radar [ultimately a form of counter-ECM].

Within the basic Classic Traveller rules framework, I might suggest an IMTU rule for a 'bis'-like upgrade to vehicular computers (which also reflects sensors in most interpretations of CT) that allows the computer to perform at one level higher for combat purposes rather than for Jump purposes.
So at TL 5 the Allies upgraded the Model 1 Battle Computers with the new Model 1-eccm Battle Computers to defeat the German Model 1 Battle Computers running an ECM program. [ ... or something like that].