Australian army has a new knife.

D

Drop bear

Joined
May 3, 2020
Messages
3,594
Complete waste of taxpayers money IMO. This is about retired generals and politicians in bed with the prime vendors(some individuals are even married to each other lol) loading up on new gear for their own retirement funds. A fighting dagger adding even more weight to our overly encumbered western soldiers during battle or should I say '3rd world policing and resource extration operations'. And likely the reason will be the ''rising threat of Russia and China'', two nuclear capable powers vastly too large for Australia to deal with, let alone get into CQB with an undersized fantasy blade!

Good heavens. I was the army and then worked in the middle east for several years as a contractor and the amount of times I needed a 4" fighting dagger were non existant. Even during the height of operations in Afghanistan ,Australia was only losing 4 people a year and I can guarantee none were in hand to hand combat. heres a better idea, keep the old standard issue M16 bayonet costing "zero dollars" extra- thank me later for less taxes and your kids having a financial future.
 
Last edited:
mickb said:
Complete waste of taxpayers money IMO. This is about retired generals and politicians in bed with the prime vendors(some individuals are even married to each other lol) loading up on new gear for their own retirement funds. A fighting dagger adding even more weight to our overly encumbered western soldiers during battle or should I say '3rd world policing and resource extration operations'. And likely the reason will be the ''rising threat of Russia and China'', two nuclear capable powers vastly too large for Australia to deal with, let alone get into CQB with an undersized fantasy blade!

Good heavens. I was the army and then worked in the middle east for several years as a contractor and the amount of times I needed a 4" fighting dagger were non existant. Even during the height of operations in Afghanistan ,Australia was only losing 4 people a year and I can guarantee none were in hand to hand combat. heres a better idea, keep the old standard issue M16 bayonet costing "zero dollars" extra- thank me later for less taxes and your kids having a financial future.
Click to expand...

Yeah. But on the other side. Cool knife for soldiers is pretty cool. Whether they need them or not

I think combatives are being used a bit like drill. It works as kind of a mindset training.

I imagine the knife is part of that.
 
Drop bear said:
Yeah. But on the other side. Cool knife for soldiers is pretty cool. Whether they need them or not

I think combatives are being used a bit like drill. It works as kind of a mindset training.

I imagine the knife is part of that.
Click to expand...
You dont select military equipment on 'whether soldiers need it or not'. Nor do you spend a lot of taxpayers money on 'something sorta cool' Changes in kit are to handle the changing face of war, usually via lessons learned. Unfortunately sometimes purchases often include keeping up with the joneses(larger armies kit) or piggy backing spends during politically charged times...
 
I think many forget that the raison d'etre of 'the infantry' is 'to close with, and kill the enemy'.
For far too long the infantry, in general, has been restricted by political will to being held in FOBs and not being allowed to dominate the ground (granted it's in a very civilian contested environment) due to a lack of stomach for casualties.
Infantry should be expected to engage in hand to hand combat, and should also be suitably equipped.
The dumbing down of infantry training is concerning. Very little training in using non-issue weapons, lack of hand to hand combat, lack of bayonet and knife training - partly because of the reluctance to have some 'deadly and aggressive' soldiers during peacetime.
If you leave it till a time of war when 90% of your force doesn't have the training or the skills, it's too late.
 
Cool knife.

One of my reasons for getting into internet forums is because I wanted to know how people really used knives. I learned that soldiers are more likely to use the tool that's easiest to get to for the job, than the one that's most appropriate. I hope Zu is making these things plenty durable, because they're going to get rapped against wood and mild steel a ton more than they're going to get used to shank a bad guy.

I have serious doubts about the ring. Seems a flat hilt that can either hammer or get hammered on, would be the more useful shape. I also wonder about the width of the handle, unless they're going to supply these with some paracord to help raise the coefficient of friction. It's a hella sexy dagger, no doubt. It just doesn't seem like the most generally useful piece of kit, and with soldiers carrying some 80 pounds of ruck (last I heard anyway), stuff that serves one specialized purpose, that is not guns or ammo, tends to get stuck in the foot locker.

But I'm just a civ, so what do I know?
 
I would have thought a knife of similar shape and balance could have been configured in a format that facilitated utility and combat. I would think something with a more utility-based grip could be married to a blade profile that suits the fighting style they are being trained. It just seems a little one-note.

Grain of salt/two cents worth: if I were going to be potentially in hand to hand combat, I think I would want something with a bit more reach and punch OR more cutting potential. I suppose has to ask ones self who I am apt to be fighting hand to hand: A lightly dressed combatant in a middle eastern setting or are we now talking a colder environment where the other guy is wearing soviet-era combat gear?
 
Sort of like the Australian version of the Benchmade SOCP.

4I6KJiL.jpg
 
Hand to hand fighting is a bit of the past for major armed forces. The weaponry we use today are way too lethal, long range explosive, high accuracy, grenade to clear trenches, etc. If the enemy is under 300m from you, you are already dead. The heavy gear, ammunition and plates really show you down and not great for hand to hand situation. Even regular trained soldiers are expensive, you don't want them to get to melee range.

Knives and bayonet in the military are now more of utility tool than a weapon.
 
Elgatodeacero said:
That knife is ridiculous, and choosing .300 Blackout for their standard rifle caliber is a very poor decision.

Australia is lost.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t tell from the article if .300 blk was intended to be the standard infantry caliber or application specific. Or maybe I just found it a bit incredulous.

In the correct situation, a very good choice; as a standard infantry caliber, hmmm, IDK……Maybe it suggests what the ADF sees as its future field of engagement.
 
Deino said:
Hand to hand fighting is a bit of the past for major armed forces. The weaponry we use today are way too lethal, long range explosive, high accuracy, grenade to clear trenches, etc. If the enemy is under 300m from you, you are already dead. The heavy gear, ammunition and plates really show you down and not great for hand to hand situation. Even regular trained soldiers are expensive, you don't want them to get to melee range.

Knives and bayonet in the military are now more of utility tool than a weapon.
Click to expand...
You arent dead within 300m of the enemy but I would agree about soldier encumberance. The wars we fight now we have air and sea superiority and unbroken supply chains, also almost unrestricted transport. This because the NATO war machine is now built around 3rd world occupations, not fighting other 1st world armies. Soldiers have the luxurty of being giant encumbered tortoises who's greatest task is not to get themselves killed and looked bad statistically for politicians, while they are driven to battle, where they patrol or waddle about in chest rigs and armor holding ground and letting the supplementary forces( local armies) push the hard fighting and have hot dinners dropped off afterwards.

Were we to face another advanced foe you'd find soldiers go back to a mode favoring mobility again. Fairly unlikely as always with the threat of nukes.
 
The military has generally insisted on a guard for fighting knives for a reason. It's a neat knife but human error will prove that some guys are getting cut using this. It's not idiot proof. Opening cans, whatever, somebody's hand is bound to slip and not everybody is going to bother using the ring. I could see private purchase but as an issue knife? No.
 
mickb said:
You arent dead within 300m of the enemy but I would agree about soldier encumberance. The wars we fight now we have air and sea superiority and unbroken supply chains, also almost unrestricted transport. This because the NATO war machine is now built around 3rd world occupations, not fighting other 1st world armies. Soldiers have the luxurty of being giant encumbered tortoises who's greatest task is not to get themselves killed and looked bad statistically for politicians, while they are driven to battle, where they patrol or waddle about in chest rigs and armor holding ground and letting the supplementary forces( local armies) push the hard fighting and have hot dinners dropped off afterwards.

Were we to face another advanced foe you'd find soldiers go back to a mode favoring mobility again. Fairly unlikely as always with the threat of nukes.
Click to expand...
It is an extreme example, but I don't think it is an exaggeration. Though, if NATO is going to fight another strong army, I don't think removing the plates will help since mechanized weaponry are insanely powerful nowadays that the human body can barely keep up. Though to be fair, here in Canada, I don't have the same experience as my US friends, the doctrine seems to be different despite both are Nato forces, so take as a grain of salt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top