Bayonet/knife poll

[Baff1 0]

Correct, providing physical ability and proficiancy of the user against an unprepared opponent. But then there's also blocked stock and engagement/ ammunition restrains to counter such events. I´ve yet run into a mission where i'll find myself running out of ammuntion. In case of an stalemate/ attrition like scenario, i´m sure there's enough little- or unused weapons being dropped for pickup. If ArmA would feature fast paced fluid CQB dynamics the likes of R6, i would reckon a purpose, but not as it stands.

For me this is one of the stronger arguments for their inclusion. It is precisely because ArmA is so weak in the CQB department that more attention needs to be paid to it.

On a side note, I notced BF 1943 has added bayonets now. Always good to see.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Baff1

[Baff1 0]

Now that would rock the big one.

Impaling someone on your skewer and then headbutting them in the face using TrackIR.

I would be screaming in my chair.

[Daniel 0]

I think Pilfius somehow linked to Direct VOIP should be mandatory with any bayonet addon.

TrackIR headbut as an optional extra.

[Prydain 1]

Who would have guessed... the BF series having an area of realism better than a combat simulator.

To help the people contesting a suggestion like this, I ask; Would you prefer Red Orchestra without bayonets? Right, the only sane answer is no, thus proving that this suggestion has merit in game terms for you too.

So can someone explain why people have opinions other than for the inclusion of bayonets? I have yet to see an answer that makes sence.

[ryan80 10]

knife yes , but i think bayonet is no longer being used in modern millitary.

[Prydain 1]

knife yes , but i think bayonet is no longer being used in modern millitary.

Oh christ...

Look a few posts back, bayonets are a key part of British military doctrine and have a strong place in many of the military services of the world.

[Inkompetent 0]

To help the people contesting a suggestion like this, I ask; Would you prefer Red Orchestra without bayonets? Right, the only sane answer is no, thus proving that this suggestion has merit in game terms for you too.

Worst argument to date. Only reason bayonets are useful in Red Orchestra is because of the limited rate of fire, the hefty recoil and the limited magazine capacity.

Unless you assault a building with a sniper rifle you suffer from none of the above in ArmA2. No point in comparing apples to oranges ;)

[somebloke 0]

bayonets are useful

Full stop.

[Daniel 0]

And soldier C is able to use his rifle and grenades and his pistol/PDW and knows + rely on his buddy/team.

CQB, room clearing and trench fights - only with bayonets? - in Arma2??

These britons are crazy. ;)

Crazy possibly. Not always a handicap in certain situations.

But if you want to play this game, try this:

Squad A has Rifles, Grenades and Bayonets.

Squad B has Rifles, Grenades and Pistols.

Squads A and B occupy a building. Squad A and B lob grenades at each other. Squads A and B run in screaming, empty their mags and kill most of each other. The remainder of Squad A stabs the remainder of Squad B in the face while they either reload or reach for their pistols.

Any clearer?

Oh, and you do realise you can still fire your rifle with a bayonet fitted?

Also, people keep referring to CQB as if you're either fighting at distance or you're fighting in a house, as two distinct areas that never meet. Long range, grab your Barret. Short range, grab your M4.

In real life (not talking from experience but it's to the best of my knowledge), and in ArmA II, one moment you could be engaging at distance, the next you're suddenly literally meters from your foe. It's not always a matter of bad planning or tactics, sometimes circumstances simply take you by surprise. Having a bayonet fitted allows you to deal with the chance that the enemy may close on your position.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Daniel

[TangoRomeo 10]

It is precisely because ArmA is so weak in the CQB department that more attention needs to be paid to it.

In R6 you could literally "dance" around each other. That's just not possible in ArmA. Some time ago i tried setting up some kind of Killhouse in the editor, and it's just horrid steering your character through confined spaces.

[dmakatra 1]

Who would have guessed... the BF series having an area of realism better than a combat simulator.

To help the people contesting a suggestion like this, I ask; Would you prefer Red Orchestra without bayonets? Right, the only sane answer is no, thus proving that this suggestion has merit in game terms for you too.

So can someone explain why people have opinions other than for the inclusion of bayonets? I have yet to see an answer that makes sence.

It's not that anyone is contesting for the sheer fun of it. It's just that the time spent on developing such a rare used feature would be better of spent on other things.

Like, you know, make the bloody game playable.

[Baff1 0]

In R6 you could literally "dance" around each other. That's just not possible in ArmA. Some time ago i tried setting up some kind of Killhouse in the editor, and it's just horrid steering your character through confined spaces.

If you run up a narrow set of stairs, or run through a door in ArmA you will collide with anyone coming the other way. Horrible movement or not, if you had a bayonet equiped, you would gudge them, and if you don't you won't.

If of course you would prefer to be lagging around aiming you gun still at this point, that's up to you. It's not realism, it's not good tactics and it's not much fun, if you ask me.

Killhouse is a little bit too controlled an encouter. Imagine entering the Killhouse, not when you are ready after your team has all got in position as the flashbang just went off, imagine entering the house the way you do in ArmA, at maximum run trying to get out of some enemy fire or put some distance between yourself and the enemy.

ArmA is not R6. The CQB gameplay is not about SWAT teams assaulting one building full of terrorists, it's about a fluid moving urban military encounter where the enemy could be anywhere within a 25 km radius, not behind one of only three doors.

With regards to it's use being rare that's where we all differ on play style.

(I like to get in close. Stalking is the high point of this game. Usin cover to get in close undetected. And using it again to get out).

Personally I consider the use of Anti-Tank weaponry to be far rarer, let alone Anti-Air, and yet I still want the option to model those kinds of engagements in the game.

I can't think of many more pressing things to improve the game above it's CQB. The broken campaign I suppose, but I doubt the same programmers would be working on both.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Baff1

[TangoRomeo 10]

Backpedal and shoot?

[Baff1 0]

Stalking.

[TangoRomeo 10]

ArmA is not R6. The CQB gameplay is not about SWAT teams assaulting one building full of terrorists, it's about a fluid moving urban military encounter where the enemy could be anywhere within a 25 km radius, not behind one of only three doors.

If you look at it this way; fighting inside buildings is as much part of MOUT as is fighting in the streets. Inside buildings, or similar confined spaces, is where i would reckon a purpose, for those who vouch for it. It´s not just about providing the mechanics or environment to facilitate it's use, but also means and meassures other than firearms to counter someone thinking he can stab you with an edged weapon. I´m no programmer, but i would guess this would require quite some programming / time allocation, to have a halfway decent implementation of something that is a rather rare sight in todays conflicts.

[Daniel 0]

Also not a programmer, so I guess it could take a fair allocation of time to get working smoothly. But bare in mind it was implemented quite well by a modder from PUKF way back in OFP's early days, so it's definitely possible, i'd say especially by those with access to the engine.

[Baff1 0]

If you look at it this way; fighting inside buildings is as much part of MOUT as is fighting in the streets. Inside buildings, or similar confined spaces, is where i would reckon a purpose, for those who vouch for it. It´s not just about providing the mechanics or environment to facilitate it's use, but also means and meassures other than firearms to counter someone thinking he can stab you with an edged weapon. I´m no programmer, but i would guess this would require quite some programming / time allocation, to have a halfway decent implementation of something that is a rather rare sight in todays conflicts.

And here once again I disagree, ArmA already calculates the collision of the weapon.

Most of the programming is already in the game and there is an existing mod for OpF that can be used for a programming template.

It's not like they would be inventing the wheel.

As for being rare in todays conflicts, bayonets are equiped in combat daily. House searches are daily routine.

Compound searches are daily routine.

Fighting in cornfields is daily routine.

As far as I know bayonets have been deployed by every army in every war for hundreds of years and every army undergoes training in it's use.

Shooting a Stinger at a helicopter, that's a rare sight in todays conflicts. Shooting a Javelin at a tank, that's a rare sight in todays conflicts. Shooting an SD M4, that's a rare sight in todays conflict. Placing a satchel charge, that's a rare sight in today's conflicts.

But bayonets? Er no. That's a daily occourance.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Baff1

[TangoRomeo 10]

As far as I know bayonets have been deployed by every army in every war for hundreds of years and every army undergoes training in it's use.

No, not every army issues, or does bayonet training.

As for being rare in todays conflicts, bayonets are equiped in combat daily.

Correct me if i´m wrong, but this can be narrowed down mostly to some british units?

In a game, i don't see it as just being a matter of having a oneway mechanic to allow 2 players running with pointy sticks against each other, almost like in an medieval joust. That's not very realistic?

What if i choose a weapon or attachment(s) that wouldn't allow for fixing a bayonet. Does it mean, given a dry weapon and utter surprise, im basically defenseless against a bayonet toting player, unless someone chooses to up the ante on secondary weapon employment? I.e. am i unable to block/ parry/ deflect a bayonet attack with my primary weapon in RL?

[Sulu 10]

What if i choose a weapon or attachment(s) that wouldn't allow for fixing a bayonet. Does it mean, given a dry weapon and utter surprise, im basically defenseless against a bayonet toting player, unless someone chooses to up the ante on secondary weapon employment? I.e. am i unable to block/ parry/ deflect a bayonet attack with my primary weapon in RL?

War isn't meant to be fair. Don't cry if you can't fit a bayonet to a javelin

[TangoRomeo 10]

:D

Somehow I predicted this coming.

[Baff1 0]

No, not every army issues, or does bayonet training.

Correct me if i´m wrong, but this can be narrowed down mostly to some british units?

In a game, i don't see it as just being a matter of having a oneway mechanic to allow 2 players running with pointy sticks against each other, almost like in an medieval joust. That's not very realistic?

What if i choose a weapon or attachment(s) that wouldn't allow for fixing a bayonet. Does it mean, given a dry weapon and utter surprise, im basically defenseless against a bayonet toting player, unless someone chooses to up the ante on secondary weapon employment? I.e. am i unable to block/ parry/ deflect a bayonet attack with my primary weapon in RL?

Which armies don't use bayonet training please?

The 2 main ones featured in the game both do.

I don't know if they used them or even did much urban fighting in Georgia, but the Russians used them in Chechenya, and the USMC at Fallujah.

All U.S. soldiers were equiped with them during the Gulf War. It was common place in Vietnam.

As for being mainly British that use them, that might go hand in hand with who has been doing the lions share of the fighting recently. Just a thought. The Canadians have been in the thick of it, they have all been equiping bayonets. The Aussies equip them.

Obviously soldiers engaged in peacekeeping operations don't have much call for equiping them any more than they really need the bullets in their guns.

The 50 Hondurans in Iraq had a bit of a bayonet moment on one of their deployments.

Show me an army that doesn't still equip bayonets and I'll show you an army that doesn't fight.

I feel no worse about 2 people trying to stab each other at the same time as I do about 2 people shooting eachother at the same time.

But mainly that isn't going to happen since you won't be equiping yours.

I suppose if you really wanted to block it with your rifle you could.

Your rifles collision is calculated by the game.

It seems like a bit of a weak way to carry on though. More aggression son, you want to be the one sticking your bayonet in, not the scared shitless guy trying to block it. That guy = lose.

Typically a shield is used to block attacks by a spear point. I don't really see any need to program in somekind of a beat'em up/swashbuckling mechanic to this game. Just play me an animation if possible or don't bother if not. Red Orchestra and BF 1943 and COD don't have any block mechanic.

I'm really not looking to over complicate the process. There is no need. You use it like a spear not a longsword.

If you choose a weapon with no bayonet attachment, you don't get a bayonet. Seems like a bit of an obvious answer, but there you go.

Considering that weapon is likely to be a machine gun, a sniper rifle or a rifle with a grenade launcher, I would hardly describe you as "defenceless" against a man with a bayonet attached.

Disadvantaged in melee combat, yes, but defenceless? Hardly.

I would of course suggest that if you have that type of support weapon that you might consider taking on more of a fireteam/support role rather than assault.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Baff1

[Whiskey Tango 10]

No, not every army issues, or does bayonet training.

Correct me if i´m wrong, but this can be narrowed down mostly to some british units?

In a game, i don't see it as just being a matter of having a oneway mechanic to allow 2 players running with pointy sticks against each other, almost like in an medieval joust. That's not very realistic?

What if i choose a weapon or attachment(s) that wouldn't allow for fixing a bayonet. Does it mean, given a dry weapon and utter surprise, im basically defenseless against a bayonet toting player, unless someone chooses to up the ante on secondary weapon employment? I.e. am i unable to block/ parry/ deflect a bayonet attack with my primary weapon in RL?

Yeah if you have a dry weapon and no bayonet vs someone with a weapon and bayonet then your screwed and no you can't knock it out of the way with your plastic M4 unless your very lucky. The way you thrust a bayonet into a man's body has been developed since the jacobite rebellion and is very effective. A bayonet thrust is'nt easy to deflect especially if your concentrating on not getting garroted.

This is a several hundred year old technique for killing people at close range.

If you take the wrong weapon and get stuck by a pig sticker without having your own then next time you take your own or take that risk and go for your pistol but remember drawing a pistol takes an age if someones pushing a blade of a 4ft spear into you and thats the point. Their aint no billy the kid pistol draw to save your ass, it's more than likely got a bit of velcro inbetween you and it and that bayonet thrust takes a fraction of a second.

Bleating that you have no defence against it in a game with no defence against being shot or grenaded, bombed, shelled, mortared other than not being shot or blown up is ridiculous and thats the point of having it. There is no defence to getting a big bit of sharp metal and internal organs in such close proximity other than not getting stabbed.

Glib comment about pointy sticks not being realistic when serveral times previously in this thread "real" "modern" examples have been shown is also ridiculous and shows that your really not grasping anything other than the shite that floats between your ears.

And many other armies do use the bayonet. Try an internet search and find out which ones still issue them to troops wether or not they can use them is down the thier own training nco's.

In the U.S. Marine Corps, trainees at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego for instance get their first instruction in using the bayonet as a lethal weapon on their 10th day. The essence of bayonet fighting as taught in the Corps is to spring forward from a modified crouch and thrust the blade into the enemy. Recruits are taught to slash an enemy diagonally from shoulder to hipbone and how to use a bayonet to push aside an enemy's weapon.

The modern sawback U.S. M9 bayonet, officially adopted in 1984, is issued with a special sheath designed to double as a wire cutter

As of 2002, the U.S. Marine Corps is also issuing small quantities of new bayonets of a different design from the M9, with an 8-inch Bowie knife-style blade.A sharper point and serrations near the handle help penetrate body armor that many modern adversaries wear. In one demonstration, a prototype was able to pierce a punching bag covered with aircraft aluminium and a ballistic vest. Also, the handle is more oval than round to prevent repetitive-stress injuries during training.

United States Army

Basic Training Operating Instructions

Rifle Bayonet Training

1. Reference: Basic Combat Training Program of Instruction (BCT POI) 21-114, Annex W.

2. Schedule Rifle Bayonet (RB) training as close as possible to each other to maximize retention of skills and reinforce proper techniques.

3. Schedule RB 1,2,3 on the same day (or conduct RBT 3 with RBT 4 Pugil).

a. Ensure that all soldiers have an M16A2 with bayonet stud and that all bayonets are serviceable with a scabbard.

b. Ensure that demonstrators are in the same uniform as the soldiers and that the instructor has a speaker system; remaining drill sergeants will be in campaign hat. Demonstrators will rehearse their presentation. RBT 1 will begin with reading of a Medal of Honor citation.

c. Phase instruction so that the soldiers are able to progressively master more complex RB skills.

and lots more about the US militaries use of bayonets if you really want?

but ofcourse you have the internet and can do some research of your own instead of talking shit for talking shits sake.

[TangoRomeo 10]

Which armies don't use bayonet training please?

Most notably BW and IDF.

The 2 main ones featured in the game both do.

US Army/ USMC obviously get bayonet training during basic. No debate here. But then again they probably also learn how to identify and use plants for food. Doesn't mean they actually do it during deployment, although this could probably cut deployment costs to some extend and solve some logistics bottleneck.

All U.S. soldiers were equiped with them during the Gulf War. It was common place in Vietnam.

The interesting thing would be the context in which these were used. Being issued a bayonet and equipping it, are 2 different things in my book. If equipped, could it been more likely for it`s utilitarian functions, like wire-cutting or opening beer bottles, for those who couldn't afford a leatherman? Maybe as a deterrent when guarding prisoners, crowd control or ceremonials?

Show me an army that doesn't still equip bayonets and I'll show you an army that doesn't fight.

:rolleyes:

I suppose if you really wanted to block it with your rifle you could.

Your rifles collision is calculated by the game.

I don't know, as i said, i´m no programmer. But the idea behind blocking/ parrying someone in this setup wouldn't be the block itself, just for the sake of blocking, but to unbalance the opponent with this, or a follow up action. I don't see how this could be implemented in a realistic way.

It seems like a bit of a weak way to carry on though. More aggression son, you want to be the one sticking your bayonet in, not the scared shitless guy trying to block it. That guy = lose.

Oh, i don't need a bayonet to play agressive. I didn't miss it in R6, GR, OFP or ArmA. Key to survival in all these games is situational awareness and eliminating a threat as quickly as possible, and it has been found that firearms are best suited for producing quick and definite results.

Edited August 19, 2009 by TangoRomeo

[TmanEd 10]

I don't think knives would be helpful, but bayonets certainly would be. Sometimes you just have to reach out and touch someone.

With a bayonet.

[Baff1 0]

The IDF fight.

Theres a good story about fighting in Gaza, when an officers gun jammed in 2004, he beat his foe to death with his helmet.

What do you think is superior tech, a bayonet or a helmet?

That having been said, bayonets are standard issue items in the IDF. They train for them, they use them.

They even equip bayonets on their Uzi's.

They don't use them on peacekeeping missions in the Palestinian territories however.

Who is BW? Germany?

If so I refer you to part of my post about armies that don't fight.

Not exactly an army one looks to for tactics or combat experience.

The one that has never seen battle.

They don't use bayonets? They don't use any of their weapons. They could save on some logistics too.

Bayonets are used by combat troops.

Your conversation is getting rather dull mate. I'm just repeating myself. The USMC used bayonets in the battle of Fallujah.

Equiped. Deployed. Placed on the ends of their rifles as they fought street to street using standard Marine Corp infantry doctrine for fighting in urban areas. There's probably some photographs of them in action either earlier in this thread, or in the other one I posted, if you wished to have a look for yourself.

The Battle of Hue is another good one for the USMC and bayonet use. The commanding officer cites it as one of the key tactics to his armies success in fighting inside cities in his report to the Pentagon.

Bayonets were equiped in the Gulf War for the invasion. The combat. After the fighting was done they stopped using them.

So for the peacekeeping part the prisoner stuff, no bayonets, just the fighting.

I didn't miss bayonets in R6 either. The scenario's were far to small and controlled to have any requirement for them. It's not really SWAT equipment. But again I'm repeating myself here.

I did miss them in GR. There were numerous occaisons when I physically bumped into people while manouvring for a firing position during multiplayer games. Particularly on those smaller CQB maps in the Island Thunder expansion.

Firearms are truely great at making quick kills.

The Bayonet also has a rather well proven track record itself.

I think I too would encourage you to use Google a bit and brush up on this subject before explaining any more of it to us.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Baff1