The reasons were that it can be attacked from all sides, contains windpipe, spine and arteries, won't trap the blade when he collapses (unlike the ribs) and the enemy will instinctively try to protect it.
Surely the fact that the enemy will try and protect it would be a good reason not to go for it? Bayonetting someone in the arm - whilst certainly inconvenient - isn't going to kill someone, whereas a bayonet in the chest is really going to cause the enemy problems. Not to mention the fact that it's a much smaller target - it's a little like the arguments for shooting at the centre mass rather than going for a head shot.
Quite so; I suppose that while he's trying to protect himself, he's not trying to kill you. I imagine troops are taught to target the torso because it's bigger. You wouldn't want to miss with your first thrust, either way.
he postings about the action last Friday involving the Argylls and the PWRR; has this knocked on the head the old chestnut that the bayonet is outdated on the 'modern' battlefield (ironic, as I recall reading that it was heavily used in th
Surely the fact that the enemy will try and protect it would be a good reason not to go for it? Bayonetting someone in the arm - whilst certainly inconvenient - isn't going to kill someone, whereas a bayonet in the chest is really going to cause the enemy problems. Not to mention the fact that it's a much smaller target - it's a little like the arguments for shooting at the centre mass rather than going for a head shot.
Exactly wot i was taught, aim for chest. Bigger target than going for groin or neck.
Bookmarks