---After radioing for back-up, they fixed bayonets and charged at 100 rebels using tactics learned in drills. ---
Very counterintuitive.
/john
Very counterintuitive.
Unless you happen to be a Highlander. It's not widely known, but even when the Scots lost to the English they inflicted massive casualties with kill ratios in double digits in some battles. The most effective weapon the English found in fighting Scots were other Scots.
Nonetheless, it is rather amazing that they charged 100 armed men and only got 3 minor wounds while killing 35 enemy. Amazing.
Yes, a bayonet charge is highly unusual against an enemy armed with AK-47s. I don't think this article tells the whole story of this battle. The Brits would never attempt a bayonet charge into automatic weapons fire, except at very close range (like ten feet.) I'll bet the attackers used up all their ammo firing at the Brit soldiers who had taken cover behind their Land Rovers. The attackers probably "killed" eight Land Rovers but used up their ammunition in the process. When the Brits figured out that their attackers had run out of ammo, that's probably when their commander ordered the bayonet charge. Exactly when the Warrior armored vehicles arrived and what role they played is not discussed in detail here either. It's possible that 30 attackers were shot by the Warriors' machine guns and 5 were bayoneted. Who knows...but it makes a great tabloid story.
I must say too that it's an odd coincidence that just days after Nick Berg felt the cold steel of Al Qaeda in his neck, these insurgents have felt the cold steel of the British army in their guts. One can only hope that those who were bayoneted were also Al Qaeda terrorists.