"Naval Infantry in general, how well trained?" Topic

Naval infantry seem to be used by virtually all nations of the time, as the navy, by definition, could pretty much get anywhere faster than the army could.

But how well trained were they, and did this vary by nation to a great extent? Were they drilled in infantry tactics, or just handed rifles and told, "You lot follow the ensign and do what he says."?

Well, I would say they were'nt great marchers'.

And a smart ensign would just wave and say, "There's rum on the other side of that hill, mateys -- let's go get it!"

OK … let's get started:

Marines are trained infantry often with amphibious focussed specialised capabilities. The Royal Marines, of course, are pre-eminent amongst all nations & are the model for all nations. The RM and USMC are based on an all-arms concept with their own organic infantry, engineers, artillery, air & aviation plus logistics.

Naval Infantry, quite simply are sailors with guns and usually more dangerous to friendly forces. Why would a Bootneck want to give Jack a loaded weapon in the first place?

Hmm. Maybe detecting a slight bit of inter-service rivalry there.

Are you essentially just kidding, or serious? Certainly different nations have taken different views. Soviet Naval Infantry, for example, were considered elites.

From what I have read about the Victorian era Royal Navy, they were highly respected as soldiers- although more because they were insanely brave (even foolishly so) rather than any training they might have received.

I've not encountered anything that suggested they were a liability.

Marines of most nations seemed to be considered a cut above the average

Well I was slightly tongue in cheek above. In general the training of "Naval" Troops has varied greatly throughout history. Typically Marines were very well trained in their individual skills with shooting and bayonet as they were often given the role of snipers or boarding troops when engaged at close quarters.

The main point of discussion comes between the distinction of EMBARKED FORCES and SHIPS COMPANY. When acting in the former they were trained to fight as units (companies, battalions etc) as they where embarked for a specific task ashore and so their land based skills were good which provided quality troops who often had a very good morale and ethos plus associated organic support such as artillery and engineers.

Ships Company often lacked the combined skills when fighting as a cohesive organisation and so could be a liability ashore but were excellent on board the shipping.

Not up to the standards of Marines by any means but from what I have read rifle and marching drill was more common for naval troops at that time. They were expected to go ashore and fight on occasion.

Its also worth noting Naval landing troops supplied artillery and MGs on occasion for landing forces.

On a side note not related to the 19th century. When my father was in the Navy he recieved rifle and bayonet training. When I was in the Navy I was handed a "loaded" Colt.45 and told to fire it at a barrel from five paces.

On my ship we had M14s and to qualify we fired them at the 25 meter line. I was appaled at how many people could not shoot. Bullets were kicking up dirt and flying all over the place. They would have been better off with shotguns.

It probably depends on which country you are talking about.

For the French there are 3 different things :

- the "Infanterie Coloniale" (today "Infanterie de Marine") is infantry, well trained as infantry, and supposed to fight overseas, but does not belong to the Navy. For example when the French did build small ships in Bamako to patrol the Niger river in the 1880s the ships were manned by Navy personal, not them.

- the "Fusiliers Marins" belong to the Navy and have high training.

- armed Navy sailors were apparently quite effective in some colonial actions in the 19th century, but certainly less trained for infantry fighting.

In Peking in 1900 while the Legations were under siege, the Pei T'ang Cathedral was defended by 30 French *fusiliers marins* and 10 Italian sailors plus 2 officers. They held out, driving off Boxer attacks that numbered as high as 2,000 and held the cathedral. So I'd give a high rating to French and Italian sailors.