"First British Bayonet charge in 22 years!" Topic

Army friend who was in this engagement sent me this, unfortunately its from the Sun, but the report is real:

OUTNUMBERED British soldiers killed 35 Iraqi attackers in the Army's first bayonet charge since the Falklands War 22 years ago.
The fearless Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders stormed rebel positions after being ambushed and pinned down. Despite being outnumbered five to one, they suffered only three minor wounds in the hand-to-hand fighting near the city of Amara. The battle erupted after Land Rovers carrying 20 Argylls came under attack on a highway. After radioing for back-up, they fixed bayonets and charged at 100 rebels using tactics learned in drills.
When the fighting ended bodies lay all over the highway - and more were floating in a nearby river. Nine rebels were captured. An Army spokesman said: "This was an intense engagement." The last bayonet charge was by the Scots Guards and the Paras against Argentinian positions.

So good its worth repeating :0)

See "Sometimes the old ways are best " from yesterdays posts

Too bad the major networks would never report that!

The Brits have some fine soldiers no doubt about that.

Check out the Wargames Directory, this was discussed in great detail during the past week. There is some doubt wether all the troops had bayonets, and if they only fixed them or also used them.

http://www.wargamesdirectory.com/html/forum/topic.asp?ID=2693&Page=1&txtSearch=

The Marines issued me a bayonet, though it looked like it had served in 'Nam. We practiced with it a lot, and I wasn't even infantry.

The National Guard issued some of my unit an M16A1, that's right, the first version. And they looked like they had served in 'Nam. But no bayonets.

We were told that in case of war we would be issued a "fighting knife attachment" for our uzi's. Now, that's a weapon with a lot of reach, even with an attached blade. I'm also thankfull to the Dutch government that didn't let us train with the bayonets, possibly out of fear we might get hurt. It's so good to know that somebody cares.

I suspect HM forces have to practise with bayonets so they do not damage themselves when they come to ceremonial duties where they have them on the end of their SA80's.

Never been in the army myself, but I have several friends who are/were and they are all bayonet trained. Apparently the trainers are very insistant on how effective the British bayonet charge is. For good cause I suppose :)

When I was in the Army (and I was Infantry) we practiced with the bayonet quite a bit. It was as much for P.T. and motivation as learning how to "skewer" someone.

Incidently, we cross trained with a British unit once - GREAT guys - and they used our well designed bayonet course, which they seemed to like very much. Although, one guy ended up sticking his bayonet clean through his boot and foot. Although it was one of the worst training accidents I have seen, the guy barely made a whimper.

The Marine Corps put a lot of emphasis on the bayonet in boot camp and while I served in the fleet. I've seen it fixed on Marines rifles during OIF and read about two instances of Marines clearing ambushes out with fixed bayonets. Anyway, in addition to the standard grunt skewering training we did, we were also taught to use it for intimidation during crowd control. I always figured busting out the old '03 Springfield would be better though considering the length of THAT bayonet!
But hey, those Brits are to be commended for conducting a proper immediate action drill for an ambush. The best way to break up an ambush is to get in close with the ambushers. Well done.

"The winner in a bayonet fight is the last man with a round in his magazine." - Erwin Rommel, after making the mistake of bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Whatever the technology has made, theoretically, obsolete, the bayonet is still a potent weapon. Fixing bayonets is a morale boost to the troops using them. And an enemy approaching with fixed bayonets will shatter the morale of a weak-willed unit opposing them.

Does anyone just love the fact they were Highlanders who did this? Bring back the claymore too. For crowd control purposes of course!

Funny how stories like this never make the national news wires (AP, Ruetuers and the like...)

Well done chaps, well done!

I say good show! Hear Hear!

Jolly good!

(fake British accent)

Good for those boys. You should hear the stories US snipers are reporting-they are devastating the enemy. Of course since the press in this country and around the world lets the enemy dictate what is written-you'll never hear it. Keep up the fire...those animals will fold.

And when a knife isn't good enough, try a tomahawk (not the missle):

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/tomahawk_030415.html

Wyatt

Tally ho, old fellows!

...now that´s cojones!

Bravo! Up and at them men! Tally Ho!

(real british accent)

In no sense is the bayonet obsolete. A good bit of cold steel in the right place at the right time will still decide many a fight. Psychologically it will break men and win the day faster and more effectively than any gunfight. This was proved in the Napoleonic wars, the Crimea and even in World War II. More recently their effectiveness was aptly demonstrated in The Falklands and now by the fearsome Highlanders in Iraq. It's just a lot harder to use them right as the use of the bayonet also tends to put your own men in far more danger as well. So "fix bayonet" is probably a last resort sort of order. But when we do resort to it, we're bloody good at it!

There is a reason why the British Army is still trained and equiped with the bayonet, and it isn't just because it looks good! :D It's because "they don't like it up 'em!"

Away the lads! :D

I am Always beaming with Pride when I hear accounts such as these.Good for them! Good for Tradition and good for the bravemen now and in the past !!! Good Show boy's!!!

Ragnar the YANKEE/REB

Even though it comes from the Sun, it's still a great story. But still, the Sun.....those page 3 girls.....hmmm....fix bayonets!

All they needed was some pipe music! Real or CD!

(And Velbor, thanks for noticing. New messages were not being posted to the front page that day.)

I'm not sure I understand the whole appeal of the modern bayonet charge. It sounds cool but I can't imagine any combat situation where I would prefer it over just shooting someone. The bayonet training I've seen is as much for confidence and motivation as it is real practical use.

As has already been pointed out it wouldn't surprise me at all if some reporter built up a story simply because it sounded better told that way.

Crowd control is much more effective with the proper equipment but I guess if a bayonet is all you have it's better than nothing for intimidation.

Oddly enough, I read this article Thursday morning, then went home and lo and behold, what was on TV Thursday night? Zulu. What a great movie, and I could not help but think of the events in Amara when the Brits fixed bayonets and began ADVANCING. Some things, it would seem, remain the same.

Doug

"Bayonets, and some Guts behind it" I think I got that right from the movie.

Bravo, and "Give'im the COLD STEEL!"

My Grand Father told me of an attack in WW II when his company fixed bayonets and went over the top (a la WWI ).To all their great relief the Germans had legged it the night before. He was also wounded with a bayonet and saved by a German medic. Strange thing war !!

The terrorists probably thought they'd just sit back and take pot shots at some soldiers hiding in Land Rovers, maybe kill a few, then slink away and enjoy the headlines later on Al-Jazeera, CNN and The Times... and then their "prey" *charged*! LOL!

I'll bet those thugs had some serious sphincter moments before it was all over...

Here's a solid "atta-boy" to our cousins across the pond! Huzzah!

Good Show Lads! Good Show! Now all they need to do is let you wear the kilts back in combat. God Bless the Scotsmen and those who are on their side and God have mercy on their enemies. They'll need it!

[And when a knife isn't good enough, try a tomahawk (not the missle):]

Thanks for the article, Wyatt!

I love (or don't love...) the part where the reporter interviewing the tomahawk designer says "Don't you think this is viscious?"

?!?!?!?

Geez, like a bullet is kind?

:-P

Yeah, I saw this story buried away on the backpage of the 'Daily Telegraph'. Frontpage, IRRC was all about the abuse (humiliation) of Iraqui prisoners.

Makes you chuckle to see the perverse priorities of our newspaper boys.

As Authur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington once remarked of The Highland Division:

"I don't know what effect these men will have upon the enemy, but, by God, they terrify me."

Bloody good show chaps! I bet they think twice before trying that again!

Yep I'm proud of em all over there. Good Luck and good HUNTING!

I don't know what it is but a highlander charge is so inspiring ... As much as I think the war has in many ways been a total disaster my blood is stirred at the notion of a successful counter attack - a feeling that I can't really generate for the Iraqi's - I'm trying to be as humanitarian and as neutral as I can but damn them highlanders are fun.

A good time to recommend the MacAsuslan novels by George MacDonald Fraser ...

Don't worry about hurting the Iraqi's feelings. They don't like the rebels any more than you do. Violence means foreign workers and rebuilding money stays away. Most of them are just interested in making a buck and improving their lives like the rest of us.

If the news media wasn't so focused on death and destruction and more focused on how 80% of the country is prospering like they haven't done in 30 years you'd might feel a bit different about the war. I've got friends over there and I can tell you the Iraquis don't like us there now but they are damn glad we came.

I suppose that technically those ´terrorists´are actually freedom fighters - since their country has been invaded by a foreign power.

Of course if those had been yanks being ambushed they would have called in a couple of gunships and blown everything up with rockets :-)

Probably the closest english term that actually fits them is gangsters or maybe bandits. They have no where else to turn. Their normal targets are the Iraqi people themselves but that line of work has come to an end.

I know this isn't the right place for this discussion so I'll stop.

*I'm not sure I understand the whole appeal of the modern *bayonet charge. It sounds cool but I can't imagine any *combat situation where I would prefer it over just *shooting someone.

It is a fact that is true today as it was ages ago. You can plink away at someone all day and never get them to move. So, you have to get out of your holes and close the gap to close combat and drive the enemy out of his positions. At that point you're using grenades, SMGs, Light MGs, bayonets, knives, fists, whatever!

If you look at histories from wars in the last 50 or so years you would be suprised at the number of close combats. Vietnam and Korea where full of them.

As for the bayonet- that weapon is as much a psychlogical (sp) weapon as it is a real one. The sight of a group of grim men running at you with a yell- and the gleam of bayonets at the end of their weapons sends a powerful message- "We are going to kill YOU!" For poorly trained and disciplined that is usually enough!

One guy above quipped that if it were Americans the whole place would have been blasted by arty and missiles. Yes, it the assets were there- but if they weren't, the US military has been more than happy to oblige with close combat:

26 February 1991 Al Mutlaa Police Post, Kuwait- elements from Task Force 3-67 clear out the Al Mutlaa Police Post in Kuwait. The fight was for control over a large three (?) story building. US mech infantry cleared the post in a bitter room to room action that lasted for several hours. When the smoke cleared the GIs had killed 52 Iraqi infantrymen and captured another 28 and suffered only 8 lightly wounded (one sergeant from another unit was killed nearby). The American infantry force numbered only 18 dismounts and had support fires from their Bradleys and a couple of M-1s.

1 April 2003 Ad Diwaniyah, Iraq. 80 Marine riflemen belonging to 3/4 Marines attack an Iraqi infantry position in a woodline near Ad Diwaniyah. With very little vehicle or fire support (these units were engaged else where near the town) the marines rushed the Iraqi irregulars and closed with them in a vicious engagement. The marines cleared the fighters out of their positions with point-blank small arms fire, grenades, rockets, 9mm pistols, and even bayonets. At least 200 Iraqi fighters were killed in the action near the city, although the Marine riflemen only accounted for several dozen of them. Marine losses- 0.

I would give US groundpounders a little credit Captain Darling.

As for freedom fighters... I think 'thugs' is a more accurate description for many, if not most, of them.

Oh, the Sunday Times was the paper that broke the story I believe:

And this article from the Sunday Times:
May 16, 2004

British troops kill 20 in bayonet clash
Stephen Grey, Basra, and Adam Nathan

BRITISH soldiers fixed bayonets and fought hand-to-hand with a Shi'ite militia in southern Iraq in one of their fiercest clashes since the war officially ended last May.
They mounted what were described as "classic infantry assaults" on firing and mortar positions held by more than 100 fighters loyal to the outlawed cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, military sources revealed yesterday.

At least 20 men from al-Sadr's Mehdi army were said to have been killed in more than three hours of fighting — the highest toll reported in any single incident involving British forces in the past 12 months. Three British soldiers were injured, none seriously, and nine fighters were captured.

"It was very bloody and it was difficult to count all their dead," said one source. "There were bodies floating in the river."

Details of the incident emerged as General Sir Michael Walker, chief of the defence staff, told The Sunday Times that British forces would remain in strength at least until Iraq's elections next year.

A further 3,000 troops may also be sent to boost troop strengths around Najaf in the centre of the country, also the scene of violent clashes.

The fighting began when soldiers from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders were ambushed in two Land Rovers on Friday afternoon, about 15 miles south of the city of Amara.

They escaped, only to be ambushed a second time by a larger group armed with machineguns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars. Reinforcements were summoned from the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment at a base nearby.

"There was some pretty fierce hand-to-hand fighting with bayonets fixed," the source said. "There were some classic assaults on mortar positions held by the al-Sadr forces."

Major Ian Clooney, the official spokesman, confirmed that the Mehdi army "took a pretty heavy knocking" but declined to specify the tactics. "This was certainly an intense engagement," he said.

Since their arrival in Amara just under a month ago, the Princess of Wales's regiment had been engaged in a tough struggle with the Mehdi army, which has been launching mortar attacks at night on the British and the coalition civilian headquarters in the city.

Although armed with rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), the militia has found it hard to cope with Britain's heavily armoured Warriors, one of which is reputed to have been struck by seven different RPGs and still managed to continue safely to base.

Walker said that "sufficient superiority" of British forces would be required to deal with unrest in the run-up to 2005 elections.

"There are some incursions that will occur, particularly up to June 30, and during the period up to elections next year," he said. "We will need to have sufficient superiority of force to be able to deal with civil unrest and terrorism.

"We are in discussions with the Americans about putting more people out. If one suddenly had a major reconstruction problem we would need more troops to be able to support that without removing people from their role."

Among the 3,000 troops under consideration to boost forces around Najaf is 3 Commando Brigade of the Royal Marines.

Tony Blair will come under pressure from some Labour MPs and the Liberal Democrats to hold a Commons vote before the troops are sent.

Blair is likely to dismiss Labour calls as being from what he will portray as the left of the party. But if the calls gain momentum and key figures such as the former foreign secretary Robin Cook speak out, he may have his hand forced.

Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, said: "Before any further British troops are sent, the government should consult with and listen to parliament about the role they are to undertake."

However, Walker said the plan was gradually to reduce the 12,000 British troop presence in the southeast region of Basra and Amara as soon as local security forces gained control of the area.

"The main task is to continue to ensure that we prepare Iraq for the Iraqi people to be able to take sovereignty on June 30," he said.

"The intention is to draw back the coalition face of the security activities in the southeast so it becomes increasingly Iraqi. When it gets to a stage where they can do it on their own we will reduce our numbers."

British troops in southeast Iraq are already significantly
outnumbered by local Iraqi police and the 5,100-strong Iraqi civil defence corps.

Walker said that British troops would stay in Iraq as long as they were needed. "It is very difficult to say how long we will have to stay but we are committed to stay until we are no longer needed."

TGunner - I don't dispute the need to advance on someone's position. I just see a charge with bayonets gleaming to be a real roll of the dice. What if you don't scare the crap out of them? What if someone opens up with some accurate fire you didn't expect? Instead of the 2 or 3 casualties a coalition action might usually expect, you end up with 10-12 guys dead or seriously wounded and a unit totally out of position and vulnerable to some really bad consequences if help doesn't arrive soon.

Now that I see the rest of the story I see it really wasn't a bayonet charge but a clearing of buildings and fighting positions where some might have used a bayonet. I can buy that. I know I've never been trained to clear buildings that way but I'm not in the British army either.

wargaming modern engagements such as this would best be served as a convention event, Multiple players against several umpires/referrees who would control the bad guys. The player who caused the greatest casualyy rate and had the lowest friendly casualties would be the winner. I wouldn't play anything with friendly coilition forces involved but Soviets and Afgans I would play ( no emotional attachment).

*TGunner - I don't dispute the need to advance on someone's *position. I just see a charge with bayonets gleaming to be *a real roll of the dice.

Indeed. Many actions in war a just that- a roll of the dice! Maybe you get lucky and find that unguarded flank, or heck, you find a well hidden MG team covering that flank and your clever turning maneuver turns into a bloody ambush. I think a quick rush with bayonets can be an effective tactic when used at the right time against the right enemy.

Otherwise...

*What if you don't scare the crap out of them? What if *someone opens up with some accurate fire you didn't *expect? Instead of the 2 or 3 casualties a coalition *action might usually expect, you end up with 10-12 guys *dead or seriously wounded and a unit totally out of *position and vulnerable to some really bad consequences if *help doesn't arrive soon.

Bingo! Remember the 20th Maine at Gettysburg? After several hours of sustained combat the regiment was badly battered and almost out of ammo. However, they had given every bit as good as they had been given and both sides were at the end of their tether. Col. Chamberlin made a very gutsy decision- he ordered his men to fix bayonets and wait until the next Confederate attack, then he gave the order to charge. The resulting bayonet charge, down hill, caught the Confederates (guys from my home state of Alabama by the by) by total suprise. The result was the Alabama regiments were effectively destroyed and the attack on Little Round Top was repulsed, thus saving the Union line from being flanked. Now whether or not Lee could have used that turning maneuver to defeat the Union force is open to argument... but the bayonet charge was perfectly timed against the perfect foe (tierd and unprepared troops in open order). What would have happened if the 20th Maine blew through the tattered Alabama regiments only to hit another Confederate regiment in firing lines?

War is full of risk! The Brits in the SAS have a saying that I love: "He who dares wins".

Now I agree that a flat open bayonet charge against a prepared and disciplined foe is plain stupid (remember the French at the start of WWI?). However, a quick rush against an unprepared or trained/disciplined foe... a totally different matter.

Goes to show you- never toss a tactic out of your book just because it looks dated or stupid. You never know who it might work with :D

I don't disagree with any of your historical examples. War involves risk and aggressiveness is often the difference between life and death. BUT in today's environment those types of risks are inappropriate to take. There is overwhelming power at your command and help almost always pretty close at hand. There's simply no need to take the types of chances that might have been required in the past.

Obviously the situation will determine the appropriate reaction so I won't say it's something I've taken out of the book but it's definitely in the appendix on what to do when you have no other alternative and you're about to be overrun.