Volunteer Training Corps bayonets - why?

[Nutting]

If the VTC was generally unloved by both the WW1-era government and War Department, and only grudgingly - eventually - provided with equipment, why was a bayonet specifically created and manufactured for that organisation?  If the intention was to provide a bayonet capable of being fitted to old MLM/MLE-type weapons, why not simply provide Patt.'88 or Patt.'03 bayonets, of which there must have been thousands in store?  The likelihood of VTC personnel being faced with enemy cavalry was vanishingly small, hence the requirement for a bayonet the length of the Patt.'07 was effectively nil.  Thoughts?

 

Nigel.

[Dave66]

Hello Nigel,

As they were supplied with shorter martini carbines, a bayonet was manufactured by the gun trade to suit, page 200 of British and commonwealth bayonets has the dimensions.

 

Dave.

 

edit...Royal armouries V.T.C. Martini Carbine...https://collections.royalarmouries.org/first-world-war/type/rac-narrative-154.html

Edited 29 May , 2019 by Dave66

[Nutting]

Dave,

 

Thanks for the info.  So the VTC paid for their own weapons, but were there no existing bayonets to fit the .303 M-H?  Sorry to labour the point, but I can’t see that there wasn’t an existing, usable model of bayonet available without making something completely new.

 

N.

[trajan]

I think it was because the rifle was too short and the dominating doctrine - reinforced by the introduction of the Lebel and the Rosalie bayonet - was the need for a bayonet with sufficient 'reach' for bayonet fighting.

[Nutting]

17 hours ago, trajan said:

I think it was because the rifle was too short and the dominating doctrine - reinforced by the introduction of the Lebel and the Rosalie bayonet - was the need for a bayonet with sufficient 'reach' for bayonet fighting.

Trajan,

 

Many thanks.  Now I’ll have to keep a look out for a VTC bayonet - this game never ends! 🙄

 

Nigel