They were triangular for ease of manufacture, they were also stronger that way. They didn’t need to be particularly slicey, they were pretty much just for pointy stabbies. So a triangular blade would do.
3 things. First it’s a myth that triangular bayonets are banned under the geneva conventions. Only serrated bayonets are illegal. Secondly it wouldn’t make sense to ban something in war because it’s “more lethal”. That’s like the whole point of war. Serrated blades are banned because they cause undue suffering. Third, the geneva conventions only apply to humanitarian treatment at war. Governments are free to do what they want to their citizens according to international law. It’s why tear gas is banned for warfare via the geneva conventions yet police can gas the shit out of protestors.
Nitpick: the Geneva conventions apply for all kinds of conflicts, including domestic ones. However, tear gas is allowed for riot control in policing.
The reason it’s banned in war is because if the other side sees you using chemical weapons, they might respond with their own, but the bad ones, like nerve gas. In riot control, that isn’t going to happen.
Yes, it was the “undue suffering” component that I was thinking of. Thanks for the clarification. What was the reason to do away with them then? They went to flat blades, didn’t they? Not sure if bayonets are even current issue for armies any longer. Are they?
Do it just like the Founding Fathers intended:
TIL bayonet wounds are triangle shaped.
They were triangular for ease of manufacture, they were also stronger that way. They didn’t need to be particularly slicey, they were pretty much just for pointy stabbies. So a triangular blade would do.
I believe the triangular bayonets are against the Geneva Convention rules of war now chiefly because of their lethality.
3 things. First it’s a myth that triangular bayonets are banned under the geneva conventions. Only serrated bayonets are illegal. Secondly it wouldn’t make sense to ban something in war because it’s “more lethal”. That’s like the whole point of war. Serrated blades are banned because they cause undue suffering. Third, the geneva conventions only apply to humanitarian treatment at war. Governments are free to do what they want to their citizens according to international law. It’s why tear gas is banned for warfare via the geneva conventions yet police can gas the shit out of protestors.
Nitpick: the Geneva conventions apply for all kinds of conflicts, including domestic ones. However, tear gas is allowed for riot control in policing.
The reason it’s banned in war is because if the other side sees you using chemical weapons, they might respond with their own, but the bad ones, like nerve gas. In riot control, that isn’t going to happen.
Yes, it was the “undue suffering” component that I was thinking of. Thanks for the clarification. What was the reason to do away with them then? They went to flat blades, didn’t they? Not sure if bayonets are even current issue for armies any longer. Are they?
You’ve run into the answer here: bayonets simply aren’t a big deal in warfare anymore, so it doesn’t overly matter what they’re shaped like.
The US aren’t concerned with conventions, are they? I mean they use cluster ammunition, depleted uranium ammunition etc…
Good thing we aren’t an army.