Bayonets used as Swords

[Stoppage Drill]

Whilst perusing my shelves t'other day I came across an account of 4 ALH in Egypt/Palestine

It seems that they were not issued with the cavalry sword until 1918, and that prior to this in advances to contact (charge, if you like) they simply carried their 1907 bayonets in hand.

For all I know it may be a well known tactic, but it surprises me; I really can't imagine that a bayonet would be a handy or useful weapon for a man on horseback to use. Too short, no cutting edge, no balance, no hand protection. Quite a lot must simply have been dropped.

[centurion]

There used to be a type of bayonet called a sword bayonet that had a proper hilt and quillions. The longest of this type was the Artillery Sword bayonet of 1879 which had a blade length of 2ft 1⅔ inches, a narrow hand guard, a good cutting edge and a saw back. As Corporal Jones would put it "they don't like it ...."

The 1907 bayonet was designated as a sword bayonet which meant it had the necessary balance etc to be used as a short sword. However some were modified in 1913 by sawing off one of the quillions which may have destroyed the balance See Arms and Armament by Charles ffoulkes Master of the Tower Armouries 1913- 1938

[Steven Broomfield]

Mr Drill: this has been discussed before. The only comment I would add is that the cavalry sword of the time (the 1908) was not a cutting weapon, but a thrusting one. In combat, after much discussion and research, it was flet the thrust worked better than the hack. At Balaklava, for example, the Charge of the Heavy Brigade resulted ina melee of British and Russian cavalry hacking away - it was found the thick Russian greatcoatds and shakos were night on impervious to the British swords, and at the same time the Russian swords made no impact on the Britsh heavies.

Indeed, I think the Brigade suffered more fatalities while sitting watching their Light colleagues in action than they did in their own Charge.

Extended at arm's length with the rider leaning well forward in the saddle the reach of the sword was little less than the lance.

[Stoppage Drill]

Mr Drill: this has been discussed before.

'twas ever thus.

The mechanics don't seem right to me: to thrust with a rigid arm with all the momentum of a charging horse seems to be a good way of dislocating ones shoulder, and/or losing the weapon. At least lances were properly couched and retained to the wrist by loops.

The account I have been reading indicates that the Australians just used the bayonets in the charge for the effect, then on reaching the objective they dismounted and set at the Turks on foot.

[centurion]

Mr Drill: this has been discussed before. The only comment I would add is that the cavalry sword of the time (the 1908) was not a cutting weapon, but a thrusting one. In combat, after much discussion and research, it was flet the thrust worked better than the hack. At Balaklava, for example, the Charge of the Heavy Brigade resulted ina melee of British and Russian cavalry hacking away - it was found the thick Russian greatcoatds and shakos were night on impervious to the British swords, and at the same time the Russian swords made no impact on the Britsh heavies.

Indeed, I think the Brigade suffered more fatalities while sitting watching their Light colleagues in action than they did in their own Charge.

Extended at arm's length with the rider leaning well forward in the saddle the reach of the sword was little less than the lance.

And there was less chance of cutting your own horse's ear off - a not infrequent occurrence

[T8HANTS]

Are you are thinking of the 'Charge' of the 4th Australian light horse during the battle of Beersheba, which has become the stuff of legend?

Then you should remember their proper role was as mounted infantry, not cavalry, so no swords would have been carried at that time. It was part of the rather desperate plan that General Chauvel came up with to crack open the Turkish lines because the battle for the town was stalling that the 4th ALH were ordered to charge the Turkish positions. To create maximum shock effect and using the advantage of failing light the Light horsemen drew their bayonets and deliberately waved them about in order to give the impression of cavalrymen as they charged the Turkish positions. Because of the failing light and the Turks being unable to compensate for the rapidly decreasing ranges most of their fire was ineffective, and the charge was successful with Beersheba being cracked wide open. The first wave of horsemen jumped over the Turkish trenches and entered the town the second wave mopped up the defenders, taking 1200 POW's

The Light Horsemen were used in a role for which they were never intended.

G

[Stoppage Drill]

. The only comment I would add is that the cavalry sword of the time (the 1908)

The account I was reading (in "Charge for Glory" written by a 16/5th office called James Lunt whilst not doing anything else in 1 Div in 1959) mentions that the British (but not ALH) Yeomanry were equipped with what he calls the "old cavalry sabre." He quotes Brigadier Gen Wilson of 3 ALH Bde as writing (in 1922) that "the division had received a fair amount of training in the use of the bayonet as a sword for shock action. The bayonet was not, however, satisfactory."

[Stoppage Drill]

Are you are thinking of the 'Charge' of the 4th Australian light horse during the battle of Beersheba, which has become the stuff of legend?

Yup. My post #7 sent before I read your #6

[SiegeGunner]

The '4th ALH' that charged the Turkish positions at Beersheba with sharpened bayonets in hand was, I believe, the 4th ALH Brigade, comprising the 4th and 12th ALH regiments. The Wiki entry re Beersheba states (footnoted to the war diary of the 4th ALH Brigade, so presumably reliably) that the possibility of a mounted charge by the ALH was first countenanced on 26 October and armourers were instructed to sharpen bayonets immediately.

[T8HANTS]

He quotes Brigadier Gen Wilson of 3 ALH Bde as writing (in 1922) that "the division had received a fair amount of training in the use of the bayonet as a sword for shock action. The bayonet was not, however, satisfactory."

Thats interesting, I had always thought the charge at Beresheba was a spur of the moment idea. Clearly it had been considerd as a tatic beforehand, and there had been prior training for it, so not quite such a spontaneous stunt after all.

G

[michaeldr]

interesting reprint here of a January 1914 article on this subject

http://alh-research.tripod.com/Light_Horse/index.blog/1973541/the-australian-light-horse-the-bayonet-for-mounted-riflemen-by-gga/

[stevenbecker]

Mates,

Your correct, training in sword work useing bayonets had been going on for some time in the ALH regts, while not part of there training, it was used as a back up weapon during mounted actions when that happened.

But the bayonet was not the first weapon to go to only a second, the rifle was his main weapon and more Turks were shot then bayoneted at Beersheba.

Many ALH men had served with the Composite LH Regt in 1915/16 during the Senssi campaige where the British had equipted them with Rifle buckets and Swords as per a Yeomanry Regt. but the ALH never took up these weapons untill late 1918 and only one of the two Mounted Divisions were so equipted, the Anzac Mounted Div and its LH Horse regts didn't take up the sword.

But Beersheba did see the 4th LH and the 12th LH Regts charge, but the use of the sword was only to give the Turks the impression that the Cavalry were useing swords, once in contact with the Turks, bayonets were droped or put on Rifles and used that way.

S.B