DAK sprue comment

[Andy Lilof]

I love converting the plastics. I agree with the concept of providing a sprue with sufficient flexibility. I.e. some with some without.
The all bayonet thing is problematic and despite Dr Dave’s love of all things ‘they don’t like it up em’ they are a pain in the a…. (no pun intended) and affect shooting accuracy ( especially the dirty great big ones of that period)
That having all been said. Our hosts are not about to recut a couple of brand new sprues!
As I said I love plastics for the conversions and let’s be fair the amount of spares you get do mean that any self respecting collector of the armies of one nation will have lots of bits to achieve the look they want.

[Dr Dave]

“The all bayonet thing is problematic and despite Dr Dave’s love of all things ‘they don’t like it up em’ they are a pain in the a…. (no pun intended) and affect shooting accuracy ( especially the dirty great big ones of that period)”

1. All of the evidence shows that British infantry did routinely fix bayonets. That’s what the actual evidence from photos, accounts and interviews with veterans tells us.
2. Fixing a bayonet makes you more accurate, not less, particularly against moving targets. We’ve done the field trials. We had 240 operators pass through the range area over a 2 week period where they aimed at or tracked moving and stationary targets. The weightier the weapon the less prone it is to human “jitter”. The weight steadies the weapon and smoothes the motion when tracking. Though I doubt the soldiers of WW2 had the scientific knowledge to be able to understand this, let alone conduct the experiments. We used IR laser pointers on different weapons and B&W ccd cameras as the targets on moving tracks concealed in figure 11 targets. The targets then crossed the “shooter” at different crossing rates. We literally had 1000s of data runs. We then used matlab code to analyse the video frame by frame to see when the laser “hit” the camera. The heavier the weapon (but it still had to carried) the more accurate / steady the tracking.

If anyone ever tells you that fixing a bayonet makes shooting less accurate they are wrong. It’s a view based on a “feeling”, not measurement, science or facts.

[invisible officer]

Exactly, more weigt at the muzzle is better for accurate shooting.

Wehrmacht had mixed thoughts in later WW II.

Die Kriegserfahrungen haben gezeigt, daß der Nahkampf in den meisten Fällen nicht mit dem Bajonett, sondern in erster Linie durch den schnellen Schuß und die Nahkampfmittel (Handgranaten) entschieden wird. … Der Soldat ist so zu erziehen, daß er mit der Handgranate und vor allem mit seiner Schußwaffe den Gegner niederkämpft.“
OKW – Merkblatt 25/3 –Anleitung für den Nahkampf u. die Handgranatenausbildung vom 15.10.1944

(In short, most close fighting is with Hand grenade or rifle bullet nad men should be trained to do so)

But at same time they started production of a fighting knive. One that could be used as bayonet too.

German reports from wood fights in the east, the Bulge and Reichswald showed that the cold steel, bayonet and dagger had merits there.

Finnish troops used to blame the Germans for to much shooting.
They prefered the puukko dagger.

[Charge The Guns]

Dr. Dave, so you’re absolutely sure? 😉

Very interesting info, IO.

[Dr Dave]

That bayonets were fixed in the British Infantry – yes. Combat photos, accounts, training manuals and pamphlets, veteran interviews. These all reveal bayonets were fixed by order, not on a whim or in response to a polite “if you’d like to”

That the weight of a bayonet makes you more accurate – yes it does. Extensive field trials with military personnel show this to be a fact.

There’s evidence and opinion. The former is always the more reliable. The later is often like peoples backsides: everyone has one, but I don’t necessarily want to hear it! 🙂

[Andy Lilof]

Well if the evidence is there I stand corrected.
Still think Dr Dave has an unhealthy obsession with cold steel though 😉.
I guess the point is it would be nice to have the choice.
It appears that the other commonwealth countries will be covered in a later release ( apparently the mold is designed such that some bits can be swapped!!! ) So while I suspect it’s just the heads….those wishing for bayonet free may have an outside chance.

[Dr Dave]

Andy, choice yes – that’s a fair point.

Do I have an unhealthy obsession with the bayonet? Uhhhhhhh I think it’s more the case that the general public (aka snowflakes) have an unhealthy inability to accept its use – and that we still train young men to use it. If there are snowflakes out there then I hope to be the blowtorch of reality 🙂

[Andy Sykes]

You will also find hundreds of photos of British Soldiers without bayonets fixed.
Since the introduction of Battle Drill circa 1940 and even before, the practice of always having bayonets fixed was unusual.

It would be quite common for a Platoon to have members with Bayonets fixed or not fixed. In actuality manuals only called for Bayonets to be fixed by the Rifle Group of a section as it prepared for the final assault stage in an attack. So at full strength just 7 guys in a Platoon attack. Other reasons for attachment were patrol or sentry duty .)

This stands today, you only fix bayonets as a fireteam for final assault in a modern 4 man team that means one bloke the others cant fix bayonets on their weapons. (They just shoot or grenade the enemy.)

Yes some units may have given a general Fix Bayonets to bolster morale and pep up the unit for a general advance but it was not universal and it was not in the manuals, it was a hangover.

And yes a lot of those photos are propangda.

The practice of adding weight to the end of a barrel to increase accuracy-group tightening is old hat. Ballistic science has been pretty exact for at least 140 years.
When soldiers refer to attaching a bayonet making them inaccurate they mean it affects there MPI: where there bullets impact in relation to the point they are aiming at.
This is dependant on quite a few factors, sighting, sight radius, ammunition ballistics etc..
(Some nations zeroed their SA with bayonets fixed eg WW2 Soviets, they were well aware as was every WW2 army of the accuracy benefit and just as scientific as modern man without the technology. They were also thinking of still facing Cavalry.)
Whether the affixing of a bayonet adversely effects the MPI is dependant on all these factors.
But if we address the subject matter the SMLE with bayonet, and contemporary ammo: MVII Ball. At 200 yards the MPI would be 18 inches above the aim point. Added to the stress of combat- that’s missing a lot. He wouldn’t even be able to adjust his sights to compensate, their lowest setting was 200y, the advice was aim low.
Incidentally the N0.4 with aperture sight was zeroed with the bayonet spike bayonet fixed the difference was negligible. So it depends on the weapon and how its sighted etc..

The thing about attached bayonets is that they add weight to the weapon. Rifles are heavy enough, once you start toting one about, firing it offhand, snap shooting, that little bit of accuracy gained is lost and the extra weight becomes counter productive. And it is only a little bit of accuracy in field terms not worth bothering about. Otherwise military arms would have had muzzle weights for years just like target weapons.
The bayonet gets entangled on everything and is generally a pain in the backside. It does not aid in rapid engagement of targets, however smooth it swings. Modern western armies have generally moved to lighter shorter barrelled weapons because they are better at engaging targets swiftly. (A trend started with the SMLE.) Nobody regularly sticks bayonets on them.
It continued affixed in service by some nations because they hadn’t caught up with changing times. As early as 1917 traditionalists were, in the British Army, complaining that men were making to much use of LMGs, Hand Grenades and shooting the enemy at close quarters instead of relying on the bayonet….
If somebody is contemplating fixing a bayonet to Sniper Rifles, I hope their not doing it with Tax payers money.
There’s plenty the British forces need, a more useless thing I cant imagine.

[Kar98k]

The bayonet gets entangled on everything and is generally a pain in the backside.

This also applies to use on the gaming table, storage (foam or otherwise), and the overall handling of the miniatures.

[invisible officer]

“The practice of adding weight to the end of a barrel to increase accuracy-group tightening is old hat. Ballistic science has been pretty exact for at least 140 years.”

And that old hat made men constructing the Kompensator for best modern single shot weapons to reduce the effect of the muzzle getting up. There is an effect even on the single shot, not just SMG. In an army obsessed with exact target fire and not just spraying the area like …., that is a good idea to add one or just some extra weight.

Try to get a Glock pistol without one, they all have one.

Surely, some men manage to entangle the bayonet with trees, doors or friends. But these are the same that drop the hand grenade in the pit or fire an unwanted SMG burst in the back of the squad.

To go without bayonet is OK in the open with an automatic gun that is loaded (and more reliable than some Sten variants) . But if you have to get a new round in the chamber by hand and you are in an area that prevents sight over a few yards it is very different. You shoot the first but the second ……
I go for 1907 heavy bayonet. Not the pig sticker.

And for the Germans? The sharpened spade. Well used in both world wars. Nothing the Tommy entrenching tool is good for.

[Dr Dave]

A bayonet makes your shooting MORE accurate – not less – MORE. With CCD/CMOS cameras, Matlab analysis of frame by frame video from the target perspective and bore-sighted IR-laser pointers we can and have proved this. I used 240 operators and the results showed that adding weight to the end of the barrel makes you MORE accurate. It just does. Any argument against this fact is not borne out by proper study. That’s not a feeling, it’s experiment and field trials with serving military personnel. This information, though not classified in anyway, is not in the public domain. Physically lighter weapons (i.e. that weigh less) ARE more inaccurate. We proved that too.

Fixing bayonets WAS in the manuals – it’s NOT a hangover:

“Infantry Training, Part VIII: Fieldcraft, Battle Drill, Section and Platoon Tactics 1944”

“Sec. comd. moves to centre of section and rifle group dress out to 5-yard intervals. Fix bayonets”

Fixing bayonets is mentioned as part of the normal drill over and over.

Pvt “ET” and LCpl “SG” both assured me that during battle they were always ordered to fix bayonets. “ET” couldn’t understand why you would not KEEP it fixed all the time. George MacDonald Fraser in “Quartered safe out here” (fighting in Burma) explains that they knew it was a “proper show” because they were ordered to fix bayonets. So that’s from men who did it for real.

There are 100’s of pictures of them not fixed, but of British infantry clearly at the sharp end it is readily apparent that they are fixed in vast majority of examples – no doubt about that at all.

My suggestion would be either have them all fixed bayonets – like in a “proper show”, or all off, eg before the “show”.

Kar98 makes a really valid point against NOT having them on the models – they snap off 🙁

[Author]

Posts