Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by DZAG Wright
And that photo of U.S. troops doesn't look like a deployed unit too me. They appear to still be in training.
Use the slider under the pic. The Marines in the photo are training on the flight deck of a ship. Ships are used to deploy Marines. Whether or not they are going on a deployment or not, I can not say for certain, but your phrase 'Still in training' causes me to wonder what familiarity you have with the military. Training is a never ending thing in the military.
I was trained to use a bayonet - now you are acting out of DESPERATION because you are losing
the argument!!! - are calling me a liar (standard liberal tactic btw) by implying that I was not in the US Army? ..The United States had 108,399 soldiers and 10,601 Marines in 1916, according to data published by the Census Bureau in 1975 and retrieved for The Times by Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. By 1917, there were 421,467 soldiers and 27,749 Marines. That’s a total of 449,216 soldiers and Marines in 1917. Even if each of them was issued a bayonet, today’s military -- which has 561,979 men and women in the Army and 202,612 Marines -- likely owns more.
Originally posted by DZAG Wright
Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Originally posted by illuminated0ne
reply to post by SrWingCommander
President Obama never claimed anyone stopped using bayonets. He said we use less bayonets, which is true.
Bayonets are generally for close quarters fighting. War has changed, and tactics have changed, weapons have changed, and fighting from a distance has become the norm. So there is less and less close quarters fighting, and less need for a bayonet.
I love all the armchair military out there...........
I mean is this the real issue? The real issue should be how we are implementing our military in the first place.....
That being said......
there is still PLENTY of close quarters fighting, I suppose everyone who loves Obamas response on this has completely forgot about all the urban fighting and house clearing we (yes i said we cause i was one of the many who had to do it) had to, and still have to do?
Having a large knife at arms length you can use while being able to stay out of striking range is def preferable....
Not to mention the stop and go gun battles that happen quite often, ammo starts to run scare.....guess what happens then?
How bout we keep the speculation and b.s. to a minimum and actually listen to people who were in the service, instead of pretending to be experts eh?edit on 23-10-2012 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)
So servicemember to servicemember...when was the last time you fixed your bayonet?
Originally posted by Vitruvian
Originally posted by DZAG Wright
reply to post by Vitruvian
Who know's if the Chinese use bayonets...we don't.
And that photo of U.S. troops doesn't look like a deployed unit too me. They appear to still be in training.
WE DON'T USE BAYONET'S!!!
As someone else said, when was the last time the order "Fix Bayonet's" was given?
I never heard it...
Looking at the photo again...actually the Chinese bayonets do appear to be decoration. They appear to be at some ceremony. Those are not their battle weapons...edit on 24-10-2012 by DZAG Wright because: To add on
LINK TO PHOTO - VA: Virginians joust with Obama over bayonets, horses, ships
1996 DEPLOYMENT OFFICIAL PHOTO
BTW - I am a disabled veteran and we used bayonets!!! We trained with them and we carried them at all times - either fixed on in the scabbard!!!edit on 24-10-2012 by Vitruvian because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by butcherguy
The United States had 108,399 soldiers and 10,601 Marines in 1916, according to data published by the Census Bureau in 1975 and retrieved for The Times by Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. By 1917, there were 421,467 soldiers and 27,749 Marines. That’s a total of 449,216 soldiers and Marines in 1917. Even if each of them was issued a bayonet, today’s military -- which has 561,979 men and women in the Army and 202,612 Marines -- likely owns more.
read up, folks. The source for this, the Los Angeles Times did some fact checking.
The President was wrong.
So you can quit posting the blurb about the President saying that we USE less of them. We own and THEREFORE, purchase more of them now, than we did in 1916.
Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by DZAG Wright
And that photo of U.S. troops doesn't look like a deployed unit too me. They appear to still be in training.
Use the slider under the pic. The Marines in the photo are training on the flight deck of a ship. Ships are used to deploy Marines. Whether or not they are going on a deployment or not, I can not say for certain, but your phrase 'Still in training' causes me to wonder what familiarity you have with the military. Training is a never ending thing in the military.
Originally posted by butcherguy
The United States had 108,399 soldiers and 10,601 Marines in 1916, according to data published by the Census Bureau in 1975 and retrieved for The Times by Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. By 1917, there were 421,467 soldiers and 27,749 Marines. That’s a total of 449,216 soldiers and Marines in 1917. Even if each of them was issued a bayonet, today’s military -- which has 561,979 men and women in the Army and 202,612 Marines -- likely owns more.
read up, folks. The source for this, the Los Angeles Times did some fact checking.
The President was wrong.
So you can quit posting the blurb about the President saying that we USE less of them. We own and THEREFORE, purchase more of them now, than we did in 1916.
Originally posted by butcherguy
The United States had 108,399 soldiers and 10,601 Marines in 1916, according to data published by the Census Bureau in 1975 and retrieved for The Times by Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. By 1917, there were 421,467 soldiers and 27,749 Marines. That’s a total of 449,216 soldiers and Marines in 1917. Even if each of them was issued a bayonet, today’s military -- which has 561,979 men and women in the Army and 202,612 Marines -- likely owns more.
read up, folks. The source for this, the Los Angeles Times did some fact checking.
The President was wrong.
So you can quit posting the blurb about the President saying that we USE less of them. We own and THEREFORE, purchase more of them now, than we did in 1916.
Originally posted by DZAG Wright
reply to post by Vitruvian
Your frothing at the mouth has you replying to the wrong person....
Originally posted by butcherguy
The United States had 108,399 soldiers and 10,601 Marines in 1916, according to data published by the Census Bureau in 1975 and retrieved for The Times by Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. By 1917, there were 421,467 soldiers and 27,749 Marines. That’s a total of 449,216 soldiers and Marines in 1917. Even if each of them was issued a bayonet, today’s military -- which has 561,979 men and women in the Army and 202,612 Marines -- likely owns more.
read up, folks. The source for this, the Los Angeles Times did some fact checking.
The President was wrong.
So you can quit posting the blurb about the President saying that we USE less of them. We own and THEREFORE, purchase more of them now, than we did in 1916.
WE DON'T USE BAYONET'S IN THE 21ST CENTURY!
Indeed, many Army soldiers are issued bayonets, and the Marine Corps includes bayonet training in boot camp for close-quarter combat and knife fighting. All Marines deployed in combat zones are issued bayonets.
The Army has 419,155 bayonets in its current inventory, Army spokesman Wayne V. Hall said Tuesday. The Marine Corps plans to buy 175,061 bayonets this year, in addition to the 195,334 bayonets it bought in 2004, said Captain Kendra N. Motz, a Marine spokeswoman. Even assuming some were lost or damaged in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military probably has more than 600,000 bayonets on hand.
It is unknown how many bayonets the military owned in 1916 or 1917, but it’s likely that almost all soldiers and Marines were issued bayonets back then, historians say.
“At that point in time, in 1916, we didn’t have tanks on the battlefield, we didn’t have helicopters on the battlefield,” said Hall, the Army spokesman. Today, “members of a tank crew would have no reason to be issued bayonets.”
So one way to guess how many bayonets the military owned back then is to consider the size of the forces -- and to note that the U.S. military grew considerably in 1916 and 1917 as the nation ramped up for World War I.
