Why have bayonets gotten shorter?

I think this article from the "Load Out Room" was mostly click bait but I bit anyway.  This part of the article (before the vid that actually explains why) got me a bit jaded though...

As late as 1900 the bayonet was thought to be fully one-half of the infantryman’s tactical armament. But of course, that was mistaken: the bolt-action, magazine rifle,  the Maxim machine gun, and the barbed-wire entanglement, were soon to demonstrate that cold steel and élan were no match for 20th-Century defensive arms in prepared positions. This was clear in the siege of Port Arthur in the Russo-Japanese war, although some particularly blockheaded European officers couldn’t learn from foreign experience, and would have to have their own, to the detriment of a generation.

But the bayonet wasn’t obsolete, because of, as we’ve said, what the bayonet is. And what it is, is a psychological weapon. The Argentine draftees around Port Stanley in 1982 faced the horrors of modern war with fatalism, if not exactly equanimity. But two things put them to flight, or surrender: thoughts of Gurkha’s kukris, and thoughts of cold steel bayonets. Likewise, that 2004 British unit in Iraq did not so much increase their combat power when they fixed bayonets, as they increased their psychological dominance of the battlefield. The psychological effect of the bayonet is two-sided: it strikes fear into the enemy at point end, and stirs confidence in the soldier behind the bayonet. Such de minimis subtleties are the foundation stones of many a victory.

Story here. 

I'm gonna nitpick a bit.

They start off by saying that the bayonet has been supplanted in its role because of modern weaponry and defenses but go on to say that as a psychological weapon its still has a role to play.

Does it?

Against trained opponents?

Against opponents with automatic rifles?  Grenade launchers?  RPGs?

I'm just not sold that it was thoughts of Gurkha's swinging their fighting knives (machetes) that made the Argentinians quit.  Not sure that the Brit unit won decisively because they fixed bayonets.

Bayonet charges means an assault thru a fire swept landscape before you can close with the enemy.  If its house to house then that means maneuvering a longer weapon in a confined space.

Perhaps its time to drop the term bayonet and calls these weapons what they've actually become....attachable fighting knives.

NATO has a good story to tell????

via Breaking Defense.

The individual members of the alliance are spending tens of billions more on their defense than was the case just two years ago, and the meeting will reaffirm the creation of two new commands: an Atlantic Command based in Norfolk to support the reborn U.S. Second Fleet, and a Support Command based in Ulm, Germany, which will coordinate forward deployment of forces inside Europe.

The commands, alliance members say, prove Europe is embracing reform to outpace Russian military modernization, to hold the line in the North Atlantic against increasing Russian submarine activity, and prepare for the arrival of Chinese shipping in the Arctic as ice floes melt.

But from the U.S. perspective, the focus will be on spending: specifically, getting allies to spend two percent of their GDP on defense, with 20 percent of that going directly into modernization programs.

“It’s about making sure our partners are living up to what they agreed to at the Wales summit in 2014,” one administration official told me. “No one is expecting allies to go immediately to go to two percent, but what we really want to see now is what is the credible plan to get there? You’ve gotta have a plan.”

As it stands now, not every country has a credible plan to reach the two percent goal by 2024, something that has frustrated American policymakers.

The issue of the 20 percent often gets lost in the larger debate over spending, but its one that U.S. officials, during conversations in the run up to the summit, repeatedly emphasized.

Story here.

The highlighted portion in red is what irks me the most about NATO.  The US creates a new fleet to meet the defense needs of Europe, they create a "support" command and then they claim that because WE have dedicated more forces to protect them that they're committed to the alliance!!

Simply amazing.

Some say (and I can't disagree) that its past time the Europeans start spending money on their own defense.  Credible money.  Additionally the EU countries have a higher population base but if you look at their combined forces we have committed many more forces to their actual defense....most of their troops are in garrison!

The most perplexing part of this is that we've heard these same complaints that Trump is spouting from Bush Jr thru the Obama administration and even from Mattis.

What has the Europeans frightened is that Trump is pounding the table.

That means that the status quo of the US complaining while the Europeans make empty promises is over.

Between Trump's rumblings with regard to NATO and with the SecState making an unannounced visit to Afghanistan I think we're gonna see a couple more campaign promises delivered on.

I really believe that Trump is determined to bring the troops home from the frontier.  The military will howl but this tough medicine is just what the doctor ordered.  For some unknown reason the military leadership has fallen in love with forward deployment.

Penny packets of US troops just begs a modern day Guadalcanal or Wake Island.

Trump might be saving the US and his generals from globalists and a fraudulent strategy.

Blast from the past. Unspeakable agony on a hilltop in Vietnam (Must See)....

Pics via SgtGrunt0331 Tumblr Page.

In this powerful series of photographs, U.S. Navy Corpsman Vernon Wike is captured helping a wounded Marine, during the battle for Hill 881, near Khe Sanh, 1967. In the first photo, Wike is trying to staunch the wound. In the second, he is trying to find a heartbeat. In the third, he has just realized his friend is dead.

Photos courtesy of: Catherine Leroy

NATO..."We must be able to move forces quickly"....

In the event of a crisis, NATO must quickly assemble and deploy forces to defend its Allies - by land, sea or air. What does it take for I defend NATO countries? ________ #NATO #OTAN #defence #security #allies #army #military #troops #soldier #strongertogether

A post shared by NATO (@nato) on Jul 10, 2018 at 2:24am PDT

Hmm.  Pretty damning video.  I'm not sure what they're trying to get to with it. Most of the video was of US troops, ships, aircraft, vehicles, etc....

It's almost like when NATO talks about tactical and strategic mobility they're only talking about the US.

Not a good message to send with Trump heading over there to pound tables at the NATO summit.

Aviation Porn. AV-8B lands aboard the USS Iwo Jima...pic by Cpl. Jon Sosner

Open Comment Post. July 10, 2018

Will Trump's trade war with China give the US military the breathing space it needs?

via National Interest.

The conventional wisdom of the international expert class is that “you can't win a trade war.” What they really mean is that you can't win a trade war in a fair game . If all sides start in balance, the rules are the same for everyone, and no player has coercive power over any other, the winning strategy is for everyone to cooperate. Economics 101.

But if one country starts with a massive trade deficit, the existing rules are written to favor its opponents. And when the country with the trade deficit just happens to be the most powerful country in the world, it's safe to say that there are multiple paths to victory.

Despite being widely ridiculed in the press, the homespun wisdom encapsulated in President Donald Trump's April 4 tweet that “When you’re already $500 Billion DOWN, you can’t lose!” is essentially correct. The only thing incorrect was the figure. The U.S. trade deficit was $568 billion in 2017, and that figure incorporates America's trade surplus in services. America's trade deficit in goods alone was a whopping $811 billion.

Story here.

If you're focused on the Chinese military, the US military and how things are playing out then you can be excused if you see the trade war between the US and China as a good thing.

Fact.

The rise of the Chinese military has been fueled by the unfair trade practices of that regime.

Fact.

China has stolen intellectual property, coerced technology from greedy Western corporations in a SUCCESSFUL bid to cheat its natural development path and to accelerate it beyond what would be considered natural growth.

Theory.

This trade war could starve the Chinese military of much needed funds.  Their war machine could be strangled on its tricycle (we missed the opportunity to strangle it in its crib) and potentially disrupt their long range plans to supplant the US as the dominant military power on the planet.

Theory.

What might be seen as a reckless move by Trump could have a profound effect on the balance of power for generations.  If the Chinese don't yield...If Trump doesn't waiver in the face of blistering criticism from the globalist on both sides of the isle then we could have the breathing space we need to modernize, reequip and God help us --- rest our forces....while at the same time causes so much internal chaos in China that they must turn inward to deal with the unrest caused by laid off workers.

Chaos Theory.

Another outcome is possible and while distasteful must also be considered.  This could cause the Chinese to accelerate their plans.  Where once they might have thought that they had 20 years, a successful trade war could cause them to act more quickly just to focus attention on an outward threat.  In this scenario we could probably kiss Taiwan goodbye.

Summation.

I don't know how this will play out.  This was one of those cans that has been kicked down the road by both political parties for so long that it is essentially a crisis and must be dealt with.  How it plays out is anyone's guess but I just laid out my theories, now I need to know yours.

Side note.

Some will ask why place our allies under these sanctions if the Chinese are the real target.  Blame that on globalization.  China has and will funnel products thru Europe, Mexico, Canada and others to avoid our efforts to reel them in.  As much as it might hurt this needs to be a global reckoning.  That's another chestnut that you can lay at the feet of the fraudulent globalization scheme.

Open Comment Post. July 9, 2018

Type 16 Maneuver Combat Vehicle beach landing via LCAC...

Thanks to Dragon for the pics!

Soccer Team trapped in cave in Thailand. At what point does rescue become cost prohibitive?

This is a mental exercise.

I have no feelings one way or another...I'm just observing things, do a quick cost estimate in my head...factoring in the death of a rescuer and wondering out loud.

At what point does rescue become cost prohibitive?

Let's toss aside paying an "idiot tax" for taking young boys down into a cave system at the start of rainy season in Thailand.  Let's not even dig into the thought process behind that decision.

Let's just look at the battalion or more of rescuers that are lined up to save these guys and their coach.

From the sloppy reporting that I've seen (focused more on the human interest story than the actual mechanics of getting them out) it appears that we see an almost full court press from the Thai military led by their Navy SEALs that have a great reputation, along with a plethora of civilian rescuers all aided by the international community which includes the US and UK just to name a few.

Unfortunately one of the rescuers died from oxygen deprivation and with that being the case I'm sure more than a few have had some close calls.

How much is all this costing?

How many more rescuers will lose their lives in this attempt (even if we don't lose another one questions should be asked) and how do we "balance the books" of those who died with those that were saved?

Does it make sense for society to ignore those that place themselves into disastrous situations?

If we can't ignore those that do stupid stuff at what point does it become cost prohibitive?  When do we say its just not worth it?

Don't throw stones.

I'm just observing this stuff on afternoon news and asking questions that many of you are probably asking too....Consider this a thought exercise only!