Rif Brig. Posted 6 December , 2014 Share Posted 6 December , 2014 Since there's been some recent posts to do with different types of bayonets, I wondered if anyone else would find this interesting. I have been reading The Soldier's War by Richard Van Emden. The book contains various soldiers' diary entries. One particular entry by Pte Martyn Evans, 1/6th Gloucestershire Rgt, stood out to me: "My platoon was attached to the 2nd Rifle Brigade and immediately on entering the trenches we were told off to be placed with the sentries to see what was going on. I found myself standing on the firing platform near by a lance corporal who told me to remove my pack and fix my sword. The last part of the order rather scared me, but I suddenly remembered there was no such thing as a bayonet in a Rifle Regiment." I know that the 07 pattern bayonet is known as the sword bayonet, but I wonder if this is a tradition stemming from the 95th Rifle Regiments, during the Napoleonic era, which used swords that doubled as bayonets for their Baker Rifles. Has anyone else heard this before? Cheers, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T8HANTS Posted 6 December , 2014 Share Posted 6 December , 2014 Rifle Regiments have always, and hopefully still do, call their bayonets swords, and this supposedly goes back to the beginning of the 19thC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxsapper1915 Posted 6 December , 2014 Share Posted 6 December , 2014 I have hear the command "fix swords" before when attaching bayonets. Baz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerhunter Posted 6 December , 2014 Share Posted 6 December , 2014 The Baker Rifle had a sword bayonet. Hence the "Fix swords" of rifle regiments. The 1907 bayonet is often erroneously called a sword bayonet due to its length but, unlike the bayonet of the Baker rifle, which is a short sword, it is actually just a long bayonet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 6 December , 2014 Share Posted 6 December , 2014 The 1907 bayonet is often erroneously called a sword bayonet due to its length but, unlike the bayonet of the Baker rifle, which is a short sword, it is actually just a long bayonet. No this is incorrect. The British bayonets of the time were/are called Sword Bayonets because that is their proper terminology as used in the List of Changes. Viz, para 14169 dated 30 Jan 1908, Sword-bayonet, pattern 1907 (Mark I), likewise para 11716 dated 19 Dec 1902, Sword-bayonet, pattern 1903, etc & so on. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerhunter Posted 7 December , 2014 Share Posted 7 December , 2014 I'll reiterate my point, which is that unlike that of the Baker Rifle, the 1907 is not a sword, it is a long bayonet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 7 December , 2014 Share Posted 7 December , 2014 But I think S>S's point was it is not "erroneous" to refer to the 1907 Pattern Bayonet as a Sword-bayonet as you claimed because that was indeed the official term. It would be incorrect to call it a sword (outside the context of the rifle-regiments) but not a Sword-bayonet. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 7 December , 2014 Share Posted 7 December , 2014 One of the earliest references to a ' Sword Bayonet ' was the 1800 Baker Sword Bayonet, however, there was a continuous issuing of Sword Bayonets throughout the 19th Century with the 1837 Brunswick Sword Bayonet, the 1858 Naval Sword Bayonet, the 1863 Whitworth Sword bayonet, the 1887 Volunteer Sword Bayonet, through to the Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet. Presumably, those 19th Century Sword Bayonets, were so called due to their have sword attributes or sword applications when not fixed to the musket/rifle. It is interesting that the War Department/Army, who could have changed the definition of the Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet in the List of Changes to just that of Bayonet, continued to describe the P1907 as a Sword Bayonet, and was this because they continued to consider the P1907 as still having sword attributes or sword applications when not fixed to the rifle. It would appear that the criteria used to call a bayonet a ' Sword Bayonet ' back in 1800, still existed in the eyes of the War Department/Army in 1907. LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scalyback Posted 7 December , 2014 Share Posted 7 December , 2014 The original bayonet issued to riflemen be they 60th or 95th men was designed as a small sword for close up combat. Being marksmen they should not of been used in the normal role of line infantry at the time. The issue of the bayonet at the time was a earlier solution of changing musket men into pikemen. The experimental corps of riflemen was never intended to be used as such! So a weapon designed for hand to hand combat if needed(Forlon hope etc) but at a push could be added to the rifle to allow riflemen to act as line infantry. The sword bayonet was never intended to be used in such a situation as the rilfe was over balanced. The command was still needed to attach sword to rifle in case it was needed. I don't think at any time did the 60th/95th get deployed as line by the way. Hence "Fix Sword" was given as the command. Being the British army the riflemen jumped on the chance to be diffirent! So the tradition carried on down the line of regiments with rifle history, cumiliating in "The Rifles" today. The original Sword bayonet is a sword due to the hand guard I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 7 December , 2014 Share Posted 7 December , 2014 As the Baker Rifle was shorter than the Line Infantry musket, a longer bayonet was produced to give the Rifleman the same reach as the Line Infantryman should they have to form square with such a unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scalyback Posted 7 December , 2014 Share Posted 7 December , 2014 As the Baker Rifle was shorter than the Line Infantry musket, a longer bayonet was produced to give the Rifleman the same reach as the Line Infantryman should they have to form square with such a unit. Did they ever deploy in line/square as a unit(stranded riflemen aside) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerhunter Posted 8 December , 2014 Share Posted 8 December , 2014 But I think S>S's point was it is not "erroneous" to refer to the 1907 Pattern Bayonet as a Sword-bayonet as you claimed because that was indeed the official term. It would be incorrect to call it a sword (outside the context of the rifle-regiments) but not a Sword-bayonet. Chris Thank you Chris. I'll take that point, I have used erroneous sloppily and so I'll alter the word "inaccurate".. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 8 December , 2014 Share Posted 8 December , 2014 Did they ever deploy in line/square as a unit(stranded riflemen aside) Probably not but as they usually operated forward of the "line" infantry in companys, in the event of a withdrawal to the line or a square, especially if enemy cavalry were about, then they could form with them and have the same reach and thus not create an opportunity for the enemy to exploit. What else was the point of having a longer bayonet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 8 December , 2014 Share Posted 8 December , 2014 What else was the point of having a longer bayonet? Perhaps "reach" if encountering an enemy infantryman with a full length musket and bayonet? Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reese williams Posted 9 December , 2014 Share Posted 9 December , 2014 The sword in sword-bayonet is to distinguish the style of bayonet, i.e. one having a sword-like blade from other types of bayonets such as the spike bayonet of the No.4 rifle or the triangular blades of the Brown Bess or Martini-Henry. The longer bayonets were to increase the reach of the infantry soldier against cavalry. The Lee-Enfields of 1888-1902 and the first SMLEs 1902-1907 were issued with short bayonets. In 1907 the SMLE bayonet was extended to provide the foot soldier the ability to better defend himself against a mounted opponent. As the rifles got shorter the bayonets got longer to provide the same reach. At least until everybody figured out that maybe there wasn't that much need to defend against the cavalry charge anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 9 December , 2014 Share Posted 9 December , 2014 As the rifles got shorter the bayonets got longer to provide the same reach. At least until everybody figured out that maybe there wasn't that much need to defend against the cavalry charge anymore. Yes, certainly a connection. The Germans introduced the first knife-bayonet with their S 71/84 in 1884/1885, and many countries quickly followed suit - e.g., working from memory, the UK P.1888, Norwegian 1894, Mannlicher 1895, Swedish 1896, and several others (including USA and Mexico). It was the introduction of the Lebel 1886 and its long bayonet that started a slow reversal of the trend. What is odd, though - well, not really remembering how slow army commitees work - is how the UK, Japan, and USA kept long bayonets after ww1, when it was shown that cavalry charges were essentially redundant and so reach was no longer really needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 9 December , 2014 Share Posted 9 December , 2014 well, not really remembering how slow army commitees work - is how the UK, Japan, and USA kept long bayonets after ww1, when it was shown that cavalry charges were essentially redundant and so reach was no longer really needed. I don't really think this is odd. If there are millions of "long" bayonets in existence at the end for the war and their armies are going to keep using the same rifle, and bayonets have been seen to play a decreasing role.... why would you make the effort/spend the time and money to design and produce a new one? When the UK introduced its next service rifle (the No4) in the late 1930s it had a 9" nail as a bayonet When the US introduced its next rifle (the Garand M1) they cut down the long M1903 bayonets to make them shorter.... The French also cut down the Rosalie bayonets in the 30s India - who continued to use and produce the No1 Rifle (SMLE) also cut down or produced shorter version of the P1907 (and they had wanted to keep the 1903 anyway and had experimented with shorter P1907 versions in WWI) Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 9 December , 2014 Share Posted 9 December , 2014 I don't really think this is odd. If there are millions of "long" bayonets in existence at the end for the war and their armies are going to keep using the same rifle, and bayonets have been seen to play a decreasing role.... why would you make the effort/spend the time and money to design and produce a new one? Well yes and no... Granted, existing P.1907 stocks could be distributed and used by new troops post WW1 (think of those 5000+ that the RAF Regiment received!), but nobody liked the pig-sticker. But it still escapes me why, that If the Indians and the US etc., had the nous to shorten their long ones post WW1, why not the UK? By WW2 the Germans of course already had their 84/98, which in their pre-1933 form are (in my opinion) one of the aesthetically nicest and by all accounts most efficient knife-bayonets ever designed pre-1918 (well, I do also rate the S71/94, Mannlicher 95 1st type, Swedish 96, and P.1888!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 9 December , 2014 Share Posted 9 December , 2014 But it still escapes me why, that If the Indians and the US etc., had the nous to shorten their long ones post WW1, why not the UK? Because they were introducing a new rifle type which it did not fit and which had a short bayonet specially designed for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 9 December , 2014 Share Posted 9 December , 2014 Because they were introducing a new rifle type which it did not fit and which had a short bayonet specially designed for it? 'Yeah but no but' - designing a rifle from 1918/1919 to the 1930's and they still couldn't decide on making a shorter bayonet for the existing stocks of rifles which continued to be used in WW2? But yes, I see what you mean - even though, as you noted earlier, the result was more of a nail useful as I understand it for opening cans of condensed milk only, rather than a bayonet - and it would never have (to paraphrase) 'penetrated a Russian soldier's greatcoat'! Bayonet developments are indeed a weird thing... One thinks of that wonderfully-designed German late WW2 (1942?) multi-purpose bayonet, which took so many ideas from the WW1 Ottoman multi-tool trench knife, and slowly but surely we end up with what is in effect today in GB with a modified socket bayonet! Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reese williams Posted 13 December , 2014 Share Posted 13 December , 2014 Trajan, I think you missed Chris's point. The No.1 Mk III rifle wasn't intended to be used in WWII so it wouldn't make sense to spend time and money on reworking an obsolete bayonet into a shorter version. You also need to remember that most all the countries involved in WWI, but especially Britain and the US cut military budgets to the bone. There wasn't any money being spent on anything that was not absolutely essential, and damn little on the essentials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scalyback Posted 13 December , 2014 Share Posted 13 December , 2014 Probably not but as they usually operated forward of the "line" infantry in companys, in the event of a withdrawal to the line or a square, especially if enemy cavalry were about, then they could form with them and have the same reach and thus not create an opportunity for the enemy to exploit. What else was the point of having a longer bayonet? It was not a bayonet but a small sword. It happened to fit onto the rifle to adopt line infantry tactics, i did ask the question as I have not found an instance of the 60th/95th forming a formal company/battalion formation in line tactics. The original bayonet was designed to replicate pikemen, indeed the original bayonet plugged into the musket/matchloc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now