SMLE and the bayonet

[Jim K.]

Watching film of training for the D-Day invasion, I noticed that British troops armed with the SMLE trained with the bayonet in what to me was a rather odd manner. As the soldier approached the dummy "enemy", he moved his left hand forward to just behind the front sight, then brought his right hand up to about the band. In other words, both hands were forward of the rear sight. He would then thrust with the bayonet, pull back, grip the rifle normally, and move forward. This was not an individual thing, all the soldiers did it the same way.

In U.S. bayonet training with the M1, the hold on the rifle was basically the normal firing position except that the left hand was more forward. The same was true with the M1903 and M1917. Also, I have long understood that the "hook" in the SMLE (and P-14/M1917) pistol grip was to help in extracting the bayonet. All of that leads me to wonder why the training was (to me) unusual and its purpose or advantage over holding the rifle in the normal manner.

Jim

[Sunray]

British troopies weren't using the SMLE on D-Day. They used the No. 4 Rifle. A No. 4 Rifle is not an SMLE.

[John Sukey]

The "hook" on the early bayonets was intended to "catch" the blade on the other guy's bayonet. Keep in mind the P07 bayonet was based on the Arisaka bayonet.
If the bayonet got stuck, you simply pulled the trigger and shot it out!:eek:

[Thunderbox]

Its possibly just a training method intended to reduce the wear and tear on the rifle and bayonet by removing most of the force the soldier can apply - obviously the "front" grip is far less powerful than the normal grip. I expect a lot of bayonets got bent during training (to say nothing of the effect on the rifle), so they probably sent an instruction around to minimise the damage.

Same sort of thing happens today; until Iraq and Afghanistan kicked off, bayonet training had more or less stopped in the British Army because so many SA80 bayonets were snapping off.....

[John Sukey]

Makes one wonder if the metal in the SA80 bayonets was up to the job.

I KNOW the bayonet was designed by Heath Robinson.;)

[Jim K.]

Hi, John,

I was not referring to the hooked quillion, which was obsolete long before WWII, but to the forward pointing "hook" at the rear of the pistol grip, which I was told was to allow the soldier a good grip when pulling the bayonet out with the rifle covered with blood.
We also were taught to fire the rifle to help extract the bayonet. I thought that was silly as I couldn't imagine using the pig sticker at all as long as I had ammunition (or could run away).

Hi, Sunray,

Are you sure of that? I believe I have seen D-Day pictures of British troops with both SMLE's (Rifle No. 1 Mk III) and No. 4's on the same landing craft.

Hi, Thunderbox,

I doubt they would train the troops one way and then expect them to do things another way in combat. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

Jim

[John Sukey]

Then you actualy meant the pommel. Just about all bayonets have that "hook" I should think the reason is you got to have somewhere to fit the catch on the bayonet. As for pulling it out, i should think the rifle it was attqached to would offer a much better grip.;)

[Jim K.]

Nope, John, not on the bayonet, on the rifle stock behind the trigger guard. All the Enfields, including the P-14 and M 1917, have a stock pistol grip with a sort of retro curve at the back, unlike the pistol grip of the M1903 or the M1. I was told that was to provide a purchase for the hand when pulling the rifle backward to extract the bayonet from its victim.

Jim

[Sunray]

"...British troops with both..." There'd never be both rifles issued in the same unit. Logistics was bad enough without Regimental armourers needing parts for two rifles.

[Jim K.]

Hi, Sunray,

I will recheck those pics, but do you know that for a fact? What you say makes sense, but both rifles used the same ammo and the same clips and I doubt a parts supply would have been of major concern in that attack as there were, unfortunately, many spare rifles lying about the beaches that day.

Jim

[JB White]

"...British troops with both..." There'd never be both rifles issued in the same unit. Logistics was bad enough without Regimental armourers needing parts for two rifles.

Not so. They did in fact use anything in 303.

1943. No #4's but there are a mix of SMLE's and P-14's in use in this photo.
P-14's....on active duty with the RM's mid-war. So much for the Home Guard only theory.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/JBWhite/RoyalMarines2.jpg

[bonnie]

Jim K.

Reference your comments on the British "odd" bayonet training you observed.

I have a 1917 dated, Manual of Military Training, authored by a Major Jas. M. Moss, USA. He states during the melee on the trench parapet "There are two attacks used by European troops which we might learn with profit. They are the "Short point" (or "Short thrust") and the "Jab"

The short point illustration shows a soldier holding a 1903 Springfield with bayonet. The right hand grasping the stock grip in the normal postion and the left arm extended, grasping the rifle barrel/bayonet grip. Bayonet pointed throat high.

The "Jab" illustration is as you have discribed. The jab being taken from the short point postion "slipping the right hand up to the left as the rifle is drawn back to make the "Short thrust."

He states the attacks should be to the stomach or throat, not the chest as there could be difficulty in withdrawing it. He also cautions,"in the excitement and confusion of this melee the greatest possible care must be taken not to stab some of your own men in the back".

A long time ago and an upclose war!

hth

[Bruce-in-Oz]

I think it is part of the "spirit of the pike" thing.

The butt and fore-end of Lee Enfields (and p-14s) are pupose built for grasping in the manner of a long fighting stick: quarterstaff or pike etc. Anyone who has trained with a staff will tell you that if you do not have at least one hand at all times grasping the staff with a full grip, an opponent can knock it cleanly out of your hands. Even during "fancy" manouvers like spinning the staff like a propellor, there is always one hand with a full grip.

That the bayonet was seen as the PRIMARY infantry tool was painfully evident in the tactics of waves of cannon fodder walking across bullet-swept wasteland to get "up close and personal" with their opponents. Hence also magazine cut-offs etc. It cost millions of lives to reinvent "skirmishing" as "fire and movement".

The bayonet has considerable psychological power as a weapon. Compared to a bullet, its action is incredibly slow and utterly personal. With a bullet, it is a "THUMP" out of nowhere and you are on the ground, dead, dying or waiting for the medic. With a bayonet, the recipient gets to experience the whole thing in relative slo-mo and glorious colour and sensurround. Real "mano a mano" stuff. The old doctrine writers became obsessed with that very personal psychological point and were incapable of comprehending that aimed rifle fire, machine guns and quick-firing artillery had relegated the bayonet to the "fiddly-bits" end of the battlefield, away from the "splendour" that was once its own.