Are Naval Infantry considered Marines?
- Thread starter kerr1775
- Start date
Hi, welcome to the forum.
Here is what a quick search got me.
http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/naval_infantry.htm#era
Normally I'd say yes Marines and Naval Infantry are historically the same, but my grandfather has a 1919 ed of the US Navy Bluejackets Manuel and it has a couple chapters on Naval Infantry as well as Marines.
Here is what a quick search got me.
http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/naval_infantry.htm#era
Normally I'd say yes Marines and Naval Infantry are historically the same, but my grandfather has a 1919 ed of the US Navy Bluejackets Manuel and it has a couple chapters on Naval Infantry as well as Marines.
Which term is used has no particular significance, in general. They are often interchangeable, & when their usages differ, it is dependent on the time, place & particular armed forces.
"Naval infantry" is sometimes used for marines, e.g. when it is a direct translation from a language where it is the term for marines - e.g. "Infantería de Marina del Perú". Sometimes it has been used for sailors serving as infantry, e.g. in the USA - http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/naval_infantry.htm
So the answer is "it all depends". I think that a different question should be asked.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #5
Thanks for the link!
I think the question I am trying to ask is, would you consider countries that have amphibious trained infantry to be Marines - such as Australia's Royal Australia Reg (2nd Bn.) and Singapore's Guards (1st Guards), or Nigeria's 82 Division (1x brigade)?
Australia and Singapore have amphibious ship capabilities and these unit's have amphibious trained infantry but......I believe they are not dedicated specifically to amphibious landings.
I think the question I am trying to ask is, would you consider countries that have amphibious trained infantry to be Marines - such as Australia's Royal Australia Reg (2nd Bn.) and Singapore's Guards (1st Guards), or Nigeria's 82 Division (1x brigade)?
Australia and Singapore have amphibious ship capabilities and these unit's have amphibious trained infantry but......I believe they are not dedicated specifically to amphibious landings.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
The Australian Troops are not Marines or Naval Infantry, they are Army. During the Falklands war the Para's, Gurkha's and one of the Guard battalions landed during an Amphibious assault that does not make them Marines.
Training infantry to embark and disembark from amphibious vessels isn’t rocket science, just look at the number of army units, which operated from landing craft / ships that went ashore on D-Day in 1944 and landed on the Falklands in 1982.
The first Marines in the age of gun-powder were generally army units posted on board ships to fulfill a number of roles, including, but not limited to: offensive and defensive action against boarding parties, ship-security (discipline, brig guards, general security), alongside protection and finally manning ship-to-shore raiding parties along side their blue-jacketed comrades. Later on Navies decided to set-up there own permanent ‘Marine’ infantry units within the Navy hierarchy, rather than draw piecemeal from army battalions. WWII witnessed the arrival of Marine-Commando’s who received more specialized training in seaborne operations and coastal raiding. These were drawn from both Army and Navy units on a volunteer basis. Applicants underwent a rigorous selection and training process before focusing on small unit tactics against enemy coastlines from the sea. Later on both Marine and Marine Commandos operated at battalion strength in more traditional infantry roles storming ashore at battalion or brigade strength. Dedicated marines on ships have also historically carried out roles traditionally associated with sailors, such as manning at least one turret on a battleship when at action stations.
Looking at the UK 3-Commdo brigade today, they have three Royal Marine Commando’s (40, 42 & 45) who belong to and are paid for by the Navy plus one ‘Marine Infantry’ Battalion drawn from the Rifles Regiment. The latter are being pushed through the commando course, and those who pass will become Army Commando’s entitled to wear the dagger and green army commando flash. They will not however be transferred across to the Navy budget, but will remain an army cap-badge similar to the engineers and artillery units currently assigned to support the marines.
Some countries, due to the size of their military and available military budgets may not have the resources to maintain a dedicated marine unit and therefore have to train an army infantry battalion to take up a maritime role when and where required.
The first Marines in the age of gun-powder were generally army units posted on board ships to fulfill a number of roles, including, but not limited to: offensive and defensive action against boarding parties, ship-security (discipline, brig guards, general security), alongside protection and finally manning ship-to-shore raiding parties along side their blue-jacketed comrades. Later on Navies decided to set-up there own permanent ‘Marine’ infantry units within the Navy hierarchy, rather than draw piecemeal from army battalions. WWII witnessed the arrival of Marine-Commando’s who received more specialized training in seaborne operations and coastal raiding. These were drawn from both Army and Navy units on a volunteer basis. Applicants underwent a rigorous selection and training process before focusing on small unit tactics against enemy coastlines from the sea. Later on both Marine and Marine Commandos operated at battalion strength in more traditional infantry roles storming ashore at battalion or brigade strength. Dedicated marines on ships have also historically carried out roles traditionally associated with sailors, such as manning at least one turret on a battleship when at action stations.
Looking at the UK 3-Commdo brigade today, they have three Royal Marine Commando’s (40, 42 & 45) who belong to and are paid for by the Navy plus one ‘Marine Infantry’ Battalion drawn from the Rifles Regiment. The latter are being pushed through the commando course, and those who pass will become Army Commando’s entitled to wear the dagger and green army commando flash. They will not however be transferred across to the Navy budget, but will remain an army cap-badge similar to the engineers and artillery units currently assigned to support the marines.
Some countries, due to the size of their military and available military budgets may not have the resources to maintain a dedicated marine unit and therefore have to train an army infantry battalion to take up a maritime role when and where required.
Super Nimrod
New Member
Rik, Interesting about the new army commandos, I wasn't aware of that, thanks
:soldier
:soldier
Marine (military), a soldier in a force under the authority of a navy, or in several cases (e.g. USMC), a soldier belonging to a force which was formerly under the authority of a navy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine
Marine:
- serving on shipboard, as soldiers
- of or belonging to the marines
- a member of the (U.S.) Marine Corps
- one of a class of naval troops serving both on shipboard and on land
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine
Marine:
- serving on shipboard, as soldiers
- of or belonging to the marines
- a member of the (U.S.) Marine Corps
- one of a class of naval troops serving both on shipboard and on land
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marine
To further confuse the answers, many of the US embassies abroad have marine detachments for security. Nothing whatsoever to do with amphibious operations. Those nations that don't have marines use army soldiers to do the same missions.
These sharp marines have impressive dress uniforms, they look great at our embassies abroad. The army dress uniforms don't measure up to the marines dress uniforms.
These sharp marines have impressive dress uniforms, they look great at our embassies abroad. The army dress uniforms don't measure up to the marines dress uniforms.
The Marine Security Detachments (MSD) found at the US Embassies and US Consulates are actually in the US Department of State (DoS) organization and not a part of the Department of Defense (DoD) operating forces. MSD are for internal security only and AFAIK they are not allowed to even show weapons outside of Embassy/Consulate grounds. Security is chiefly provided by a local hire contract security organization. In the case of Brazil there are no more than 7 members assigned to each of the MSD in country. These soldiers (both men and women) are truly some very sharp individuals.
winnyfield
New Member
'Naval infantry' and 'marines' I would consider to be interchangeable. But to be considered as such, they'd have to be permanently organized as apart of a larger sea power force - good indicator would be whether or not they do sea tours.
Actually, it's a rather complicated and not really new problem.
Quite often, the tasks of Naval Infantry were what the later Marine Corps of various nations were created for*; the amphibious component and land fighting only slowly developed later on with the creation of colonies. Traditionally, the name was "naval infantry", or some variant thereof. Of course, in proper languages such as French, that is the "Regiment de Marines".
Few countries really have both, and hence the problem. Those that do often attached the Marines to the Army earlier on, or otherwise made them "independant" of the Navy, and then noticed that there are some tasks that the Navy needs infantry for too.
In the US, it's really one of the later mixes, as they have a rather young military anyway. The USMC didn't do that semi-split until 1947 even; before that, they were the Marine Corps of the Navy, and hence the Naval Infantry.
Traditionally, it's not naval infantry that are marines; it's marines that are naval infantry.
*- Naval Infantry were created typically for ship detachments and later overseas port garrisons in the 17th century, when the colonial empires slowly expanded.
Quite often, the tasks of Naval Infantry were what the later Marine Corps of various nations were created for*; the amphibious component and land fighting only slowly developed later on with the creation of colonies. Traditionally, the name was "naval infantry", or some variant thereof. Of course, in proper languages such as French, that is the "Regiment de Marines".
Few countries really have both, and hence the problem. Those that do often attached the Marines to the Army earlier on, or otherwise made them "independant" of the Navy, and then noticed that there are some tasks that the Navy needs infantry for too.
In the US, it's really one of the later mixes, as they have a rather young military anyway. The USMC didn't do that semi-split until 1947 even; before that, they were the Marine Corps of the Navy, and hence the Naval Infantry.
Traditionally, it's not naval infantry that are marines; it's marines that are naval infantry.
*- Naval Infantry were created typically for ship detachments and later overseas port garrisons in the 17th century, when the colonial empires slowly expanded.
Absolutely not! We're not talking about maritime safety, catching smugglers, pollution control, fisheries protection or any of the other coastguard roles. These blokes are soldiers - for fighting - to defend navy shore establishments from land attack. And also for rounding up unruly sailors. Both of these are traditional roles of marines.
My undestsanding is that the US Marines are more than just "Naval Infantry"- they operate their own organic aircraft, tanks & artillery. At the same time, organizationaly the USMC is part of the US Navy. Some Marine pilots become "Naval Aviators".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marines#Organization
Interestingly, the Soviet/Russian VDV adopted the Naval Infantry striped shirt!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marines#Organization
Interestingly, the Soviet/Russian VDV adopted the Naval Infantry striped shirt!
Not really. More like offshore police (though often paramilitary police) in most countries, though the allocation of responsibilities & view of roles varies from country to country. For example, French coastguards are part of the navy, & also carry out a police-like role within the navy. They use Gendarmerie (police) ranks. they do have a security role in naval shore bases, but it's a police-like role, rather than military one, fulfilling the same role as the Ministry of Defence police (who I once spent a while showing my pass to every day when I went to work in the Portsmouth naval base) do in this country. They aren't equipped to defend bases against a military attack. The British coastguard is purely civil, but controls the operations of military search & rescue helicopters as well as civilian rescue assets - including its own.
I've seen coastguard patrol boats in several countries (e.g. Spain, Turkey, Italy, Greece, Japan, Argentina), & you wouldn't confuse them with warships. Usually painted in a conspicuous colour scheme, with the commonest being white with a diagonal contrasting stripe.
The bigger ships of the German Coastguard (civilian, police role) look rather suspicious. As if someone took a warship, removed all armament, and repainted it in blue/black with go-fast stripes to look inconspicuous.
Which is actually mostly because up until 1994, there were gun turrets stored ashore for mounting on these vessels, and the vessels formed the reserves of the Navy. But even with the newer vessels it's still rather obvious. In fact, the German Coastguard uses two vessels of the same class as the Polish Orkan class FACs - just without missiles and guns.
Which is actually mostly because up until 1994, there were gun turrets stored ashore for mounting on these vessels, and the vessels formed the reserves of the Navy. But even with the newer vessels it's still rather obvious. In fact, the German Coastguard uses two vessels of the same class as the Polish Orkan class FACs - just without missiles and guns.