Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: TRIANGULAR BAYONET/Lossing

Expand Messages
  • celer_et_audax_7_60th
    ... local ... all ... etc., ... calf), ... immediately ... recommending ... Spike, I asked my missus, who is a family physician, and she says nowadays they
    Message 1 of 16 , Aug 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, spikeyj@c... wrote:
      > On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 16:04:19 -0000
      > "celer_et_audax_7_60th" <fullerfamily@s...> wrote:
      > > In conversation with a friend, an emergency room doctor in a
      local
      > > city who sees the same miscreants coming in all the time with
      all
      > > manner of wounds from knives, gunshots, broken glass, burns,
      etc.,
      > > he says one can sew up or bind up any kind of wound, even in the
      > > worst of situations, sufficiently to stop bleeding. Whether the
      > > patient will survive is another matter, due to sepsis, blood and
      > > tissue loss, etc.
      >
      > When my younger brother went to the doctor to have a bayonet wound
      > sewed up many years ago (he dropped it and it plunged into his
      calf),
      > the doctor was having trouble sewing it up, because each time he'd
      > sew two sides together the third would pop out. So Badger
      immediately
      > began the "triangular bayonet" spiel, stopping short of
      recommending
      > that the doctor cauterize the wound.
      >
      > Spike Y Jones

      Spike, I asked my missus, who is a family physician, and she says
      nowadays they have a lot more options to seal up such wounds, such
      as "butterfly bandages" and even super glue (!) in certain cases.

      That must have been some sharp bayonet!

      RWF
    • spikeyj@crosslink.net
      On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 12:59:54 -0000 ... If I remember correctly (it wasn t *my* leg, so the ending of the story doesn t interest me as much), the doctor might
      Message 2 of 16 , Aug 4, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 12:59:54 -0000
        "celer_et_audax_7_60th" <fullerfamily@...> wrote:
        > Spike, I asked my missus, who is a family physician, and she says
        > nowadays they have a lot more options to seal up such wounds, such
        > as "butterfly bandages" and even super glue (!) in certain cases.

        If I remember correctly (it wasn't *my* leg, so the ending of the
        story doesn't interest me as much), the doctor might have gone with
        the glue option in the end.

        Spike Y Jones
      • Ray Hobbs
        The Geneva Conventions - 1864, 1882, 1929 and 1949 - with several additions, did not address the types of weapons used, but rather concentrated on the ethical
        Message 3 of 16 , Aug 4, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          The Geneva Conventions - 1864, 1882, 1929 and 1949 - with several
          additions, did not address the types of weapons used, but rather
          concentrated on the ethical treatment of sick, wounded and prisoners of
          war. If the triangular bayonet was banned, then the documentation
          would be found in other 'laws of war'. I have never been able to find
          such documentation, only passing references to the practice in
          secondary, and tertiary sources.
          However, the banning of a bayonet of this type at a time when other
          weapons - explosive shells, breech-loading guns etc. were becoming more
          common and inflicted far more serious damage on the body, seems to me
          to be a bit strange. Throughout its life (from 1660 to the present)
          the bayonet has been more of a psychological weapon. While bayonet
          charges were common in our period, the wounds treated by physicians and
          surgeons at the time were predominantly from fire. The ratio is about
          30:1, I believe.
          I think that the wound inflicted on the human body by an ordinary
          musket ball would have been far more ugly, and dangerous than a bayonet
          wound, whatever the shape of the blade.

          An older historical perspective:
          Triangular 'blades' in the form of arrow heads have been known in
          history from the time of the Scythians (ca. 750 BC). Bronze lent
          itself well to the shaping of such weapons into all sorts of ugly
          shapes, including triangular heads with barbs.
          The ancients also had relatively sophisticated forms of medicine and
          surgery to be able to deal with the wounds inflicted (See G. Maino, The
          Healing Hand: Man and the Wound in the Ancient World, Harvard UP:1975).
          These included adhesive tapes to hold wounds together until a measure
          of healing had taken place. This healing was accompanied by liberal
          doses of ointments (made of oil, sour wine and spices) which proved
          remarkably effective in combatting sepsis.
          The multi-sided arrow head reappears with the arrival of the English
          longbow, but by then the level of medicine had dropped.

          By 1812 military medicine was hardly something to boast about - others
          can speak more authoritatively on this than I. My suspicion is that
          the average surgeon found as much difficulty dealing with the
          triangular bayonet wound as he did with a musket ball which had
          shattered a bone. Radical surgery like amputation did not lend itself
          to the former kind of wound.
          In spite of some arguments about humanity in warfare, I think that the
          aversion to bayonet wounds had more to do with the professional
          incompetence of the surgeon than with any thoughts of compassion for
          the wounded victim.

          Back to the original question - I would certainly like to see the
          proper documentation regarding the banning of the triangular bayonet.
          The rationale might have more to do with obsolescence than anything
          else.

          Ray Hobbs, Sgt
          CO 41st Regiment of Foot
          HQ Hamilton, Ontario

          The Canadas 1799-1815

          http://fortyfirst.tripod.com/

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • BritcomHMP@aol.com
          In a message dated 8/3/2003 11:05:21 AM Central Daylight Time, ... Quite true, and I admit that here I am repeating only what I was told when I asked this very
          Message 4 of 16 , Aug 4, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 8/3/2003 11:05:21 AM Central Daylight Time,
            fullerfamily@... writes:

            > But Tim, following that assertion, that would necessitate the
            > outlawing of artillery shells and grenades, the fragments of which
            > produce uneven, jagged wounds which are, using this standard,
            > difficult to sew up and make heal as well.
            >
            > In conversation with a friend, an emergency room doctor in a local
            > city who sees the same miscreants coming in all the time with all
            > manner of wounds from knives, gunshots, broken glass, burns, etc.,
            > he says one can sew up or bind up any kind of wound, even in the
            > worst of situations, sufficiently to stop bleeding. Whether the
            > patient will survive is another matter, due to sepsis, blood and
            > tissue loss, etc.
            >
            >

            Quite true, and I admit that here I am repeating only what I was told when I
            asked this very same question several years ago. The person who told me this
            was Professor Ruth Bowden, a surgeon and at the time in charge of the Museum of
            the Royal College of Surgeons in London where they have those great (but
            gory) sketches of the wounded at Waterloo. Unfortunatly my friend Ruth was killed
            in a car accident in London Christmass before last so I can't check back with
            her.

            Cheers,

            Tim


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • John-Paul Johnson
            You should probably ready the documents again. The Geneva Convention of 1949 (and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 on which much of the conventions are
            Message 5 of 16 , Aug 4, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              You should probably ready the documents again. The Geneva Convention of
              1949 (and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 on which much of the
              conventions are based) specifically mention types of weapons and
              munitions that can be used and which are specifically banned, such as
              expanding bullets, projectiles dropped from balloons, etc, and the 1977
              protocols DO mention bayonets but not triangular ones. SHOTGUNS are
              even mentioned as a controversial weapon as it depends on which kind of
              ammunition is used that determines if it is a banned weapon or not.

              J-P Johnson
              Royal NFLand Reg't
              Bulger's Coy

              Ray Hobbs wrote:

              >The Geneva Conventions - 1864, 1882, 1929 and 1949 - with several
              >additions, did not address the types of weapons used, but rather
              >concentrated on the ethical treatment of sick, wounded and prisoners of
              >war. If the triangular bayonet was banned, then the documentation
              >would be found in other 'laws of war'. I have never been able to find
              >such documentation, only passing references to the practice in
              >secondary, and tertiary sources.
              >However, the banning of a bayonet of this type at a time when other
              >weapons - explosive shells, breech-loading guns etc. were becoming more
              >common and inflicted far more serious damage on the body, seems to me
              >to be a bit strange. Throughout its life (from 1660 to the present)
              >the bayonet has been more of a psychological weapon. While bayonet
              >charges were common in our period, the wounds treated by physicians and
              >surgeons at the time were predominantly from fire. The ratio is about
              >30:1, I believe.
              >I think that the wound inflicted on the human body by an ordinary
              >musket ball would have been far more ugly, and dangerous than a bayonet
              >wound, whatever the shape of the blade.
              >
              >An older historical perspective:
              >Triangular 'blades' in the form of arrow heads have been known in
              >history from the time of the Scythians (ca. 750 BC). Bronze lent
              >itself well to the shaping of such weapons into all sorts of ugly
              >shapes, including triangular heads with barbs.
              >The ancients also had relatively sophisticated forms of medicine and
              >surgery to be able to deal with the wounds inflicted (See G. Maino, The
              >Healing Hand: Man and the Wound in the Ancient World, Harvard UP:1975).
              > These included adhesive tapes to hold wounds together until a measure
              >of healing had taken place. This healing was accompanied by liberal
              >doses of ointments (made of oil, sour wine and spices) which proved
              >remarkably effective in combatting sepsis.
              >The multi-sided arrow head reappears with the arrival of the English
              >longbow, but by then the level of medicine had dropped.
              >
              >By 1812 military medicine was hardly something to boast about - others
              >can speak more authoritatively on this than I. My suspicion is that
              >the average surgeon found as much difficulty dealing with the
              >triangular bayonet wound as he did with a musket ball which had
              >shattered a bone. Radical surgery like amputation did not lend itself
              >to the former kind of wound.
              >In spite of some arguments about humanity in warfare, I think that the
              >aversion to bayonet wounds had more to do with the professional
              >incompetence of the surgeon than with any thoughts of compassion for
              >the wounded victim.
              >
              >Back to the original question - I would certainly like to see the
              >proper documentation regarding the banning of the triangular bayonet.
              >The rationale might have more to do with obsolescence than anything
              >else.
              >
              >Ray Hobbs, Sgt
              >CO 41st Regiment of Foot
              >
              >
              Sorry to be anal but shouldn't that be NCO i/c?

              >HQ Hamilton, Ontario
              >
              >
              >
            • BritcomHMP@aol.com
              In a message dated 8/3/2003 1:15:56 PM Central Daylight Time, ... It makes the bayonette both lighter and stronger. Cheers Tim [Non-text portions of this
              Message 6 of 16 , Aug 4, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 8/3/2003 1:15:56 PM Central Daylight Time,
                fullerfamily@... writes:

                > But anybody with any knowledge of
                > metallurgy would know that for some reason cutting grooves in the
                > sides of a blade makes the blade stronger in relation to flexing or
                > bending.
                >

                It makes the bayonette both lighter and stronger.

                Cheers

                Tim


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • PEGGY MATHEWS
                Indeed. I had always heard that the reason for the triangular shape was not for inflicting a nasty(ier) wound, but that it gave the greatest strength for the
                Message 7 of 16 , Aug 4, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Indeed. I had always heard that the reason for the triangular shape was not for inflicting a nasty(ier) wound, but that it gave the greatest strength for the least steel. So economics were partly the driving force.

                  Michael
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: BritcomHMP@...
                  To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 9:48 AM
                  Subject: Re: [WarOf1812] Re: TRIANGULAR BAYONET/"blood gutters"


                  (snip)
                  It makes the bayonette both lighter and stronger.

                  Cheers

                  Tim


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                  The War of 1812: In Europe, thousands fought over the fate of hundreds of square miles: in North America, hundreds determined the fate of THOUSANDS of square miles...

                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • colsjtjones2000
                  I believe Boy Jones - Kevin s - bayonet was mine. I have it in front of me now. The point is not particularly sharp - nor is it rounded. But it does
                  Message 8 of 16 , Aug 7, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I believe Boy Jones' - Kevin's - bayonet was mine. I have it in
                    front of me now. The point is not particularly sharp - nor is it
                    rounded. But it does have a heft/weight. I don't think Kev could
                    tell us exactly how it happened. Perhaps the lesson is that we
                    should always be careful of the way we handle our toys. Doug Jones


                    --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, spikeyj@c... wrote:
                    > On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 16:04:19 -0000
                    > "celer_et_audax_7_60th" <fullerfamily@s...> wrote:
                    > > In conversation with a friend, an emergency room doctor in a
                    local
                    > > city who sees the same miscreants coming in all the time with all
                    > > manner of wounds from knives, gunshots, broken glass, burns,
                    etc.,
                    > > he says one can sew up or bind up any kind of wound, even in the
                    > > worst of situations, sufficiently to stop bleeding. Whether the
                    > > patient will survive is another matter, due to sepsis, blood and
                    > > tissue loss, etc.
                    >
                    > When my younger brother went to the doctor to have a bayonet wound
                    > sewed up many years ago (he dropped it and it plunged into his
                    calf),
                    > the doctor was having trouble sewing it up, because each time he'd
                    > sew two sides together the third would pop out. So Badger
                    immediately
                    > began the "triangular bayonet" spiel, stopping short of recommending
                    > that the doctor cauterize the wound.
                    >
                    > Spike Y Jones
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.