"Figures often with fixed bayonets" Topic

I've noticed that musket armed figures nearly always, or certainly often, have their bayonets fixed.

I'm no expert, far from it, but is this a bit strange? Seems to me that figures should have bayonets fixed for a charge, but marching and firing, bayonets not fixed. Am I right? Did they routinely have bayonets fixed, as far as we know? Thanks

You can always snip off the bayonets if you don't want figures in a particular pose to have them fixed.

Well yes, I'm asking what people's thoughts are regarding when a bayonet would be fixed and when not. Seems like firing a musket would be easier without the bayonet 'In'.

So as a follow up, if troops would not routinely have bayonets in, why do manufacturers always have them?

Because it looks cool.

I guess that bayonets would be fixed if the commanding officer wished it!
I think bayonets are moulded on muskets so you have the option of snipping them off if you don't want them.
As 79thPA says, it looks cool having them fixed!

You are right. In reality it takes only seconds to attach a bayonet. Nobody would march with a bayonet attached… and nobody would have a bayonet attached if they had any intention of loading their weapon. It is impossible to "stack arms" without a bayonet attached. As was mentioned it just looks intimidating as a piece of wargaming hardware. Poetic liberties by sculptors is often to blame.

On a different note, I watched 1917 and was convinced that the Tommy in front of the other one had better not stop all of a sudden, because he was going to get stabbed. That happened later, if I recall correctly…….

Nobody would march with a bayonet attached

Unless, of course, he was Russian.

Seriously, do you think the companies should make two versions of each figure, with and without bayonet? Do you want to pay extra for that?

It's easier for a gamer to snip off an unwanted bayonet than for him to add one to a bare musket. So, in accord with what Ross said, sculpting the figure with the bayonet seems the more flexible option.

As for the original question; not sure myself, but I would think the presence of a bayonet on a muzzleloader (18th Century Board after all) might have some effect on pointing the musket and loading it. OTOH, I believe I've seen some period reinactors say the presence of a bayonet didn't make much difference in loading. YMMV.

I have fired my 58 caliber ACW musket with the sword bayonet attached & believe me it pushes the balance point very far forward & made aiming difficult. Didn't try & load with bayonet attached. Marching with bayonet attached would not be easy I think.

Didn't the Prussians some time in the 18th century skip the scabbards althogether, so the bayonets had to be fixed all the time?
I can't check right now, but maybe someone could help …

There were a number of nationalities who did away with scabbards (including, as noted above, the Russians in WW2) so there was no option except to always have them fixed.

You can always clip the bayonets off if you don't like them.

wrt WW1, it was SOP when to fix bayonets to rifles when entering a trench, see e.g. 'Bayonets and Blobsticks' by Miedema. They worked much better then trying to use a bolt action rifle in close combat.

Freddy the Adequate wanted his troops to keep bayonets fixed always when lined up for battle even though it was easier, and a lot safer, for the men when they were loading to NOT have the bayonet inserted. For marching though they probably would not have their bayonets fixed. If they were just on a road march they would probably have their muskets inverted, i.e. pointed downward.

The Russians didn't just keep them fixed, they were actually brazed to the barrel. Interestingly, the US Army also did this in its early years (post-Revolution).

I had read that Fred ordered that bayonets were always attached to the muskets.

because on the battle field they would have had fixed bayonets all the time.

the Prussians had bayonet scabbards – but again on the battle field, the bayonets would be fixed.

Thanks for everyone's input

I remember reading a desciption from 1806 where a Prussian officers specifically notes with consternation that the French were skirmishing without the bayonet – so this was seen as something unusual for the Prussians at that time. So I guess the answer would be "it depends"

@Der Alte Fritz
I had read that Fred ordered that bayonets were always attached to the muskets.

Exactly my point

@von Winterfeldt
because on the battle field they would have had fixed bayonets all the time.

the Prussians had bayonet scabbards – but again on the battle field, the bayonets would be fixed.

;In some regiments it was a point of honor to march with fixed bayonets.

" it takes only seconds to attach a bayonet." the difference between life or death.

Frederick of course did not order that bayonets were always fixed to the musket, for the battle field yes, but otherwise not necessarily.

It may take only seconds to attack a bayonet but it will disrupt unit cohesion and in battle you cannot waste time.

@Sparta, do you have a quote in this? French soldiers also, like the Prussians, should have had fixed bayonets, even skirmishers, there are quite a few contemporary prints showing this.

So wargaming miniatures with fixed bayonets make perfect sense to me, those who dislike could snap them off easily.

@Winterfeldt

I will see if I can find – no promises though – it was someyears ago and quoted either here or on the Napoleon series in a discusiion on the same subject or rather whether skirmishers had fixed bayonets.