Real, or movie physics?

[Kalindras]

Hey, everyone, I just finished watching Jet Li in the 'The Defender' (western marketing for his earlier 'The Bodyguard from Beijing'), which, while being entertaining in its own right, got me wondering...and I don't know if I should post this here, or over in tactical--let me know if I need to go there for this thread...

The villain used a really nasty stiletto--it's described as a "...Red Army bayonet..."--as his signature weapon. Now, I'm familiar with the Chinese spike bayonets for the AK and it's cousins, but I was wondering more about the blade geometry.

While viewing several of his victims, the coroner describes to Jet Li how they all, "...died of blood loss." This, of course, despite that the wounds themselves would have been fatal nonetheless (one guy takes it through the neck, several have sucking chest wounds, and at least one took a good, solid center-of-mass shot COMPLETELY THROUGH HIM. Jet Li takes this in stride, attributing it to the triangular, epee-like cross-section of the bayonet. I also seem to remember something about this type of bayonet being against the Geneva Conventions of War, on the account of it causing wounds that didn't close of their own accord. Am I remembering right, or is this just more movie hype that's polluting my brain? If it IS true, what is it about that particular cross-section, as opposed to, say, a cruciform, that lends this particular effect? Wouldn't a sawtooth back be just as nasty? Or does it have to be a more three-dimesional section?

Anyone have any clarification on this one? Just wondering, since it seems like it would be the type of thing that our Boys in Black would be ripe to carry, for any nastiness that they might come across.

 

[Razoredj]

Most of what you've mentioned is movie hype and junk science. Just using common sense, though, I think it's obvious that a triangular hole in your person causes more blood to flow than would the linear cut produced by a stab from a flat blade.

 

[Crayola]

One of the virtues of the chisel ground Tanto is the wound channel it makes. If you take a dagger and stab someone, the wound closes up quite nicely. A chisel ground tanto punches a triangular hole in someone, and the hole is less likely to close in on itself.

This doesn't mean, though, that epees are "better". I guarantee you if you stab someone with a dagger and comma cut your way out, you'll do some nasty damage!

 

[not2sharp]

epee-like cross-section of the bayonet. I also seem to remember something about this type of bayonet being against the Geneva Conventions of War

The only bayonet that I know of that was challenged under the Geneva convention was the German model 98-05 sawback butcher bladed bayonet. It was a propaganda move taken by the allies during the First World War. The allies claimed that the sawbak bayonets caused excessively cruel wounds (vrs. the other non-cruel wounds? ) and offered to shoot any German prisoners captured with one of these bayonets. Only, about 10% of the 98-05 bayonets had sawbacks, and these had been issued to engineering units for use during battlefield construction. Apparently the allies had forgotten that they had issued similar bayonets only 10 years earlier.

There haven't been many triangular bayonets issued during the 20th century. The US did have triangular trench knives during the First World War, but these were found to be fragile. There have been cruciform blades, but (except for a few rare examples) traingular blades were abandoned along with the socket bayonet during the second half of the 19th century.

N2S

 

[pjenkins00]

i'm not really sure how to answer the question you asked, but i remember reading in John Juranich's book stuff about cuts and bleeding to death in the section on arrow sharpening. if you have it handy, you might take a look at it. hope this was any help whatsoever

- Pete

 

[allenC]

I am not 100% sure about this but...
I believe the cruciform chinese-style bayonet is outlawed by the Gen. Convention laws of war.
The reason, as I understand it, is that the puncture-wound damages organs, stomach, and intestines and such but DOES NOT cause massive blood-loss. This leads to a slower cruel death of infection and internal bleeding that is very difficult to treat without surgery.

I cannot recall where I heard this, maybe it was during Army Basic.

Good luck,
Allen.

 

[Kisu]

This has nothing to do with the triangular bayonet per se but I believe that spike bayonets may be classified illegal under the Geneva Convention. (just wanted to hear myself type)

 

[LJU]

Whats the difference between the wound channel created by a triangular bayonet vs one caused by a plain old flat ground knife(depending on the spine thickness and taper of the knife of course)? Ill be the first one to admit Im not that bright, but wouldnt they be very similar? I have to agree with Razor on this one, Hollywood Bs indeed.

 

[Kalindras]

Well, it seems that the bayonet in question makes 'holes' as opposed to 'cuts'. Basically, if I understand my friends in Residency properly, instead of making a simple, two-dimensional slit, the bayonet with the triangular or cruciform cross-section makes a larger wound channel, and is less likely to close naturally and remain closed with anything less than total immobility. Pretty nasty situation, if you happen to take one in the chest in a combat zone, neh?

Still, all Hollywoodisms aside, I figure there has to be SOMETHING to it, since it seems unlikely that a military establishment would adopt such a tool without some redeeming quality. I mean, you can't use it for anything else (maybe as a tent stake or a meat skewer for cooking), so it must be a heckuva useful weapon, don't'cha think?

But enough theorization. I say we pick a volunteer and run some tests. Any takers? Come on, now...don't be bashful...this is for SCIENCE, after all...

 

[not2sharp]

The edgeless bayonets Spikes, Cruciform, T-backs and other Epee like bayonets were adopted for three reasons:

1) There was a school of though which felt, rightly so, that a thrusting attack was far more lethal than a cutting. This was particularly important when the bayonets were used as hand weapons. So commencing with the French model 1874 bayonet for the Gras rifle (a T-back) France, and some others started to issue edgeless bayonets.

2) The epee-like edgeless bayonets had a narrower profile. This, it was felt, would decrease the amount of weight loaded on the end of the rifle when attached. It also decrease the amount of wind resistence, which help to reduced fatigue when the cold steel was sitting on the end of your rifle, and you're trying to toe the line to recieve a charge. I also suspect that the reduced weight and profile allowed the troops to move faster. This was important in the later half of the 19th century since the bayonet targets were getting smaller and more agile (from man on horse to man on foot).

3) Bayonets were primarily issued as weapons, and they were part of the regulation dress for the troops. The story of the evolution of edgeless French bayonets was that a general visited his troops and personally withness them using their issued bayonets for routine cutting tasks. The general was so infuriated that, his troops were using their weapons for field work, that he set out to find a bayonet design which could not be abused.

Wounds, other than the cutting vrs. thrusting arguements, did figure into the calculation.

BTW, before anyone volunteers for testing, have you notice how massive the 19th century sword bayonets really were? I doubt the wound channel grew any more leathal with the introdution of edgeless bayonets.