DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20380
25 March 1965
FOREWORD
1. PURPOSE
FMFM 1-1, MARINE BAYONET TRAINING, is one of a series of Fleet Marine
Force Manuals covering the tactics and techniques to be employed in
operations and training by the operating forces of the Marine Corps. It
is made available to other Services for information and use as desired.
The purposes of FMFM 1-1 are:
a. To introduce and describe the method of bayonet fighting employed
by the Marine Corps.
b. To describe positions and movements used by the bayonet fighter,
and to treat his actions individually and as a member of a group, both
on the offense and the defense.
c. To set forth a program for bayonet training.
2. SCOPE
Beginning with a brief history of bayonet fighting and the evolution
to the present technique employed by the Marine Corps, individual and
group attack and defense are described. Training techniques, use of the
pugil stick, and construction of an assault course are included.
3. SUPERSESSION
This publication supersedes NAVMC 1135-AO3, BAYONET FIGHTING, dated 22
March 1957, copies of which may be destroyed without report.
4. CHANGES
Recommendations for improvements to this manual are invited. Comments
and recommended changes should be forwarded to the Coordinator, Marine
Corps Landing Force Development Activities, Marine Corps Schools,
Quantico, Virginia 22134.
5. CERTIFICATION
Reviewed and approved this date.
[Illustration: L.F. Chapman, Jr.]
L. F. CHAPMAN, JR.
Lieutenant General, U.S. Marine Corps
Chief of Staff
DISTRIBUTION:
2035/6025/6200/6300/6500/6800/7215/ (2)
7506/7525-01 (2)
7255/7352/7508/7600 (less 7636)/7857 (3)
2010/2088/3510/4000 (less 4125)/5000 (5)
(less 5537-09 and 5612)/6600 (5)
7373/7800-03,-04,-05/8145 (5)
1025/3000/3520/3530/6900/6903/6905/ (10)
6910/6965/7000-48 (10)
7530 (less 7539)/7800-14,-15/7950/ (10)
7970/8506/8511-02 (10)
2020/2060/3540/7380/7539 (15)
2030/3550/4125/5612/7636/7800-01, (20)
-02,-06,-09 (20)
2100 (25)
7230-01 (30)
7385/7391/7800-11 (50)
3700 (75)
7800-12,-13 (100)
5537-09 (150)
7315 (200)
7230-04 (4200)
7000-02 (50)
MARINE BAYONET TRAINING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
Paragraph Page
General 101 1
Principles of Bayonet Fighting 102 10
SECTION 2: POSITION AND MOVEMENTS
General 201 13
The Guard Position 202 14
Change of Direction 203 18
Foot Movements 204 18
SECTION 3: INDIVIDUAL ATTACK
General 301 23
The Slash 302 23
The Vertical Butt Stroke 303 27
The Smash 304 31
The Horizontal Butt Stroke 305 34
The Jab 306 38
SECTION 4: INDIVIDUAL DEFENSE
General 401 43
Parry Right 402 43
Parry Left 403 44
Block Against Slash 404 46
Block Against Vertical Butt Stroke 405 48
SECTION 5: COMBINATION MOVEMENTS
General 501 51
List of Movements 502 52
SECTION 6: GROUP ATTACK AND DEFENSE
General 601 53
Group Attack 602 53
Group Defense 603 54
SECTION 7: TRAINING
General 701 59
Demonstration and Application of the Basic Fundamentals 702 60
The Assault Course 703 62
The Pugil Stick 704 73
INDEX 83
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
101. GENERAL
a. Evolution of the Bayonet.—The bayonet is the infantry weapon which
has changed the least during the development and refinement of weapons
of war during the last three hundred years. There are several suggested
origins of the bayonet. Some sources suggest that it derives from the
Baioniers, crossbowmen of the middle ages, who carried a large knife
or dagger to supplement their crossbows. Other sources credit the
smugglers of Basque with using a bayonet-type weapon as a last ditch
defense. Most English literature sources give the credit to Seigneur
Marecal de Puysegur who, in 1647, at Ypres, France, ordered his troops
to insert their daggers into the muzzles of their muskets after firing.
De Puysegur and his unit were from Bayonne, France, a town known for
dagger manufacture, hence the term bayonet.
(1) Early infantry commanders employed a warrior known as a pikeman,
armed with a knife attached to the end of a quarterstaff, to defend
the musketeers from an enemy charge while the musket was reloaded.
Reloading was a time consuming operation and the musketeer was
vulnerable during the time his weapon was empty. The pikeman stationed
himself in front of the musketeer and warded off any enemy assault with
his pike until the musketeer was again ready to fire. De Puysegur’s
development thus enabled the musketeer to assume both functions of
the “medieval fire team.” This so called plug bayonet was used for a
period of forty to fifty years. It consisted of a long dagger with a
tapered shaft which was inserted into the muzzle of the musket. The
taper was necessary since muzzle diameters were not standardized.
The plug bayonet fitted snugly into the muzzle of the musket and was
difficult to remove. This was necessary in order to prevent it being
withdrawn by the enemy. The musket could not be fired with the bayonet
inserted, a significant disadvantage. The plug bayonet lost favor when
it contributed to the defeat of the English at the hands of the Scots
at Killiecrankie, Scotland, in 1689. The English were ordered to fix
bayonets after firing a volley at the Scots. The British commander then
discovered that his troops were further from the Scots than he had
originally thought. He ordered bayonets detached and muskets reloaded.
Before loading could be accomplished the Scots closed with the English
and thoroughly routed them. The English commander, Hugh MacKay, having
noted the disadvantages of the plug bayonet, developed a modification
which came to be known as the ring bayonet. The ring bayonet was
similar to the plug bayonet, but the tapered shaft was inserted between
two rings fastened to the muzzle, allowing the musket to be fired
with the bayonet attached. There is some evidence that a similar
device was being used in France ten years prior to the engagement at
Killiecrankie, indicating that the ring bayonet was not an English
invention.
(2) The ring bayonet still left much to be desired. The lack of
standardization made a secure fit difficult, and the rings had a
tendency to stretch out of shape with use, rendering the bayonet
useless. This led to the next development of a new bayonet, known as
the socket bayonet. The socket bayonet was introduced in the early
1690’s. The lower part of the bayonet was shaped like an elbow, leaving
the blade well out of the line of fire and seating the bayonet firmly
on the barrel. Again, lack of standardization made it impossible to
produce a single model which would fit even a small number of the
weapons of one unit. Also, a sudden tug by an enemy would dislodge the
bayonet from the barrel. These difficulties led to further advancements
in bayonet design, in an attempt to find a rapidly attachable bayonet
which could be held securely to the barrel. One development made the
bayonet part of the musket itself. This was accomplished by splitting
the socket sleeve of the ring lengthwise permitting a wider opening
which could be hammered closed to obtain a snug fit. Experiments with
slots, rings, catches, clasps, springs, and other assorted devices were
made in an attempt to develop a more satisfactory bayonet.
(3) The bayonet as we know it today has its origins at the beginning of
the 19th century. Late in the 18th century a major bayonet modification
appeared, the sword bayonet. This has been the prototype for most
bayonets since that date. The now familiar knife blade bayonet came
into general use about the same time as the introduction of the
magazine rifle, just prior to the Civil War. There were a variety of
shapes and sizes ranging from the sword-like, 24-inch blade down to
the dagger-type, 10-inch blade. Typically, there were a variety of
short-lived variations and multiuse bayonets. There were saw-toothed
blades for use by engineer troops, saber-edged blades for use by the
cavalry, spade-shaped blades to help the infantryman dig in, and
bolo-knife blades for cutting through the jungles. In addition, there
was a ramrod/cleaning rod blade consisting of a long cleaning rod,
sharpened to a point at one end and folding under the barrel like the
old fashioned cleaning rod. None of these modifications were adopted
for long. At this point the rifleman had an instrument with which he
could protect himself as he reloaded his weapon. It served to protect
him and better his morale when rain had soaked his powder or wind had
blown the powder from his pan. He could now defend himself against the
sabre slashes of the cavalry or a charge by the infantry.
b. Development of Bayonet Fighting Techniques.—The bayonet was
developed to protect the musketeer while he reloaded his weapon,
a defensive mission. The tactics employed were an individual or
unit matter; there was no published doctrine for bayonet fighting.
However, as weapons improved and rapid fire, longer range weapons were
developed, the troops were more widely dispersed on the battlefield.
The percentage of time spent in close combat with the enemy was
reduced. As a result, the use of the bayonet, a close combat weapon,
was also reduced. There is little said about the use of the bayonet in
the American Civil War and Spanish-American War.
(1) The development of the machinegun and refinements in artillery
reversed the trend toward battlefield mobility and World War I was
a static conflict in which trench warfare was employed. There were
great concentrations of troops, sometimes in close proximity to one
another. The bayonet was extremely important in trench fighting, and
the experience gained in World War I led to the publication of the
first manuals on bayonet fighting doctrine. The bayonet was depicted
as an offensive weapon, used in assaulting enemy troops in trenches.
Many of the principles appearing in these manuals are still valid
today. Early doctrine pictured the bayonet as essential for successful
culmination of the attack. Artillery fire was capable of demolishing
enemy trenches, but this was undesirable since the trenches would have
to be redug to defend against the inevitable counterattack. Therefore
the only way to drive the enemy from his trenches without destroying
the trench and burying him was through the bayonet assault. The
doctrine set forth in these manuals regarding attitude, standardization
of movements, and practice for bayonet fighting was as follows:
(a) The bayonet fighter was given a firm knowledge of the underlying
principles of bayonet combat. The bayonet was regarded as an individual
weapon and each bayonet fighter was taught in such a manner as to take
advantage of his own physical characteristics. No attempt was made to
set down prescribed standards as to the position of feet or hands on
the weapon. Each bayonet fighter was left free to choose positions and
movements most natural to him.
(b) Instructors corrected individual errors, but took advantage of
any particular skill possessed by any individual. Instructors tried
to develop to the fullest degree the proficiency of the individual,
consistent with his physique and degree of development, but guarded
against attempting to make a precise parade or calisthenic drill of
bayonet training.
(c) Assumption of a vicious, aggressive attitude was the “spirit of
the bayonet.” An actual bayonet fight was depicted as lasting only
a few seconds during which time the bayonet fighter was to kill his
opponent or be killed himself. The necessity for aggressive action
was as obvious then as it is today. The enemy was to be forced on
the defensive; the battle was won if this was achieved. The attack
consisted of a succession of thrusts, cuts, feints, and butt strokes
delivered in succession and without pause, so as not to allow the
opponent to recover.
(d) The employment of teamwork in the bayonet assault was emphasized.
The assaulting troops remained on line. An individual who got too
far ahead and was killed before assistance could arrive was not
contributing to a successful assault. Similarly, an individual who
remained behind was useless in the assault.
(2) The individual attack movements described in early manuals closely
resemble those taught and employed today. Today’s system is somewhat
simpler and facilitates better balance of the bayonet fighter and
control of the weapon. Training consisted of individual familiarization
with the movements, the use of dummies, thrusting rings, and practice
in assaulting enemy trenches with troops on line. The latter category
received more emphasis. Dummies were placed in trenches and attacked
by bayonet fighters. The system of bayonet fighting taught to American
fighting men during World War II closely resembled that employed
during World War I. The basics of this system were established in 1905
and changed very little through the conduct of World Wars I and II.
Bayonets were employed during World War I principally in the assault of
enemy trenches, while, in World War II, their employment was extended
to include seizure of key enemy held terrain objectives.
(3) The bayonet fighting system currently taught and employed by the
Marine Corps was developed by Doctor Armond H. Seidler, professor in
the Department of Physical Education at the University of Illinois.
Dr. Seidler was a bayonet instructor in the U.S. Army during World War
II when the Biddle system was taught. He felt the movements of the old
system were awkward and difficult to execute, and often caused the
bayonet fighter to lose his balance. If the bayonet fighter failed to
disable his opponent with the first blow he was then frequently left
at the enemy’s mercy. Dr. Seidler was convinced that the movements
of the Biddle system were unnatural and this would result in their
being discarded in an actual bayonet fight, and the bayonet fighter
resorting to a disorganized attack on his enemy. Under the Seidler
system the guard position remains the basic position. All movements
begin from the guard position and each movement consists of an attack
and a recovery. The recovery is a return to the guard position. In
the execution of a movement, the two phases follow without deliberate
pause. This makes the entire movement a uniformly smooth action. The
attack may be continued without returning to the guard position, either
by repeating the same movement or utilizing another followup movement.
Followup movements are designed so that a blocked initial movement
sets the opponent up for the delivery of another killing blow without
the bayonet fighter having to return to the guard position and without
loss of balance.
c. The Importance of the Bayonet.—The importance of the bayonet cannot
be measured by the frequency of its use or the number of casualties for
which it accounts. It is indispensable because of the confidence it
breeds in the individual fighting man, and the willingness instilled
in him to close with the enemy and destroy him. Closing with and
destroying the enemy is the mission of the infantry, and the major
importance of the bayonet is that it allows the individual Marine to
accomplish this mission under a wide variety of conditions. The bayonet
is always loaded and always operative.
(1) The importance of assuming the offense as a principle of war
cannot be questioned. The bayonet is a symbol of the offense; of
aggressiveness. It gives the infantryman courage and confidence,
provided he is properly trained in its use. It gives individual
infantrymen a more offensive attitude, and better enables them to
accomplish their mission in the final assault. It gives them a means
of personal protection, contributing to their security and safety. In
addition to its offensive roles, the bayonet can serve as a last ditch
protective measure.
(2) In situations where friendly and enemy troops are mingled in
hand-to-hand combat, rifle fire may hit friendly personnel. However,
the bayonet is more selective and kills only the person into which
it is thrust. As long as the infantry closes with the enemy this
capability remains important. In situations of reduced visibility
the presence of the bayonet may discourage premature firing and the
tragedy which can result from it. For a discussion of the employment of
bayonets in the control of riots and civil disturbances, see FMFM 6-4,
Marine Rifle Company/Platoon.
(3) When stealth is required the bayonet is irreplaceable. It is
flexible, capable of being fixed to the end of the rifle or held as a
knife, silent and deadly. It gives the riflemen two capacities, bullets
and blade. Bayonet drill is an excellent physical conditioner. The
bayonet assault course is strenuous exercise and develops a combination
of fitness and skill that contributes to the creation of total military
fitness.
102. PRINCIPLES OF BAYONET FIGHTING
The bayonet fighter should be aggressive, ruthless, savage, and
vicious. Herein lies the key to success with the bayonet. He must never
pause in his attack until he has killed his enemy. He must follow
each vicious attack with another, remembering that if he does not
kill his opponent, his opponent will kill him. Hesitation, delay, and
excess maneuvering may result in death. The primary aim of the bayonet
fighter is to get his blade into the enemy. All defensive moves, butt
strokes, and footwork drive towards this end. They are actions taken
to enable the bayonet fighter to sink his blade, for it is the blade
that kills. He aims for the vital areas of the enemy. The throat is
the best target, but the belly and chest are also vulnerable. When the
enemy seeks to protect one vital area, he attacks another. He hacks,
cuts, and slashes the face, arms, and hands in order to get to the
vital areas. He makes maximum use of the rifle butt to open up vital
areas. He delivers the butt strokes hard and close in, then kills with
the blade. If the opponent gives no opening, he makes one by parrying
his weapon. If required, the bayonet fighter protects himself through
blocks and parries. The rifle and bayonet make a good shield. The
best defense is not to allow the opponent to take the offensive. The
successful bayonet fighter strikes the first blow and follows up with
the kill. Training and practice are the only way to attain proper
form, accuracy, agility, and speed with the rifle and feet. Practice
and training in these traits lead to coordination, balance, speed,
and endurance. The bayonet fighter must continue to practice these
movements until they become second nature, and his attack as natural as
running.