PDA

View Full Version : Sailors as Infantry in the US Navy


airbornelawyer
16 February 2006, 20:41
Sailors as Infantry in the US Navy
Patrick H. Roth (Captain, US Navy, Ret.)
Burke, Virginia
October 2005

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/naval_infantry.htm

Summary

· Up until the 1970s, competency as naval infantry—sailors performing as infantry, and sometimes providing land based artillery support—was an integral part of the Navy’s operations and mission.

· The use of sailors as infantry (and as artillerymen ashore) was common during the 19th century. At sea boarding was a recognized tactic. Likewise, landings and operations ashore were normal. Marines were a minority and landings were generally a ships company evolution, i.e., involving both marines and sailors.

· Use of sailors as infantry was part of the late 19th century great debate by naval reformers over the direction of the Navy. The debate centered on how to best use “our officers and men as efficient infantry and artillerymen,” not around the desirability or utility of use of sailors as infantry. Everyone in the Navy accepted that the use of sailors as infantry was a required Navy’s competency.

· Sailors performed as infantry a lot: at least 66 landings and operations ashore on distant stations during the 19th century; 136 instances in the Caribbean and Central America during the first three decades of the 20th century; numerous times on China Station and elsewhere. Using sailors as infantry ashore was what the Navy’s primarily did during the Seminole Wars and the War with Mexico. It was the Navy’s most valuable contribution during the Philippine Insurrection. Operations ranged from election security, pacification, peacekeeping, land convoy escort, protection of roads and railroads, occupation, and guard duty to large-scale major combat operations against regular Army forces.

· The Navy promulgated infantry tactical doctrine in 1891and continuously refined and updated it until 1965. During the Cold War period naval infantry schools existed. Navy infantry tactics followed U.S. Army, not Marine, tactical doctrine during its formative period reflecting a desire for inter-service interoperability. All fleet units were required to maintain, and train, landing parties.

· It was not until establishment of the Fleet Marine Force in 1933 that the use of Navy landing parties declined. Even then, organized infantry capabilities continued to be required both afloat and ashore until the 1970s.

· During the Cold War practical emphasis shifted to infantry defense of shore installations, although fleet units still maintained infantry capabilities.

· Sustainability has been the Achilles heel of the use of Navy forces as infantry. Logistics and support poor, naval infantry could not sustain itself very long. Future consideration of sailors as infantry must consider combat support services.

ET1/ss nuke
17 February 2006, 13:31
My comments obviously do not include SEALs, who are rather unlike normal US sailors. I am not qualified to speak for them.

There are many sailors who could do supply duty, combat support, military police, or possibly even rear area security. Using them as infantry against even a third-rate professional force would be a very bad idea, though. Physical endurance training, weapons familiarity, and marksmanship are distinct weak points with most sailors. Land navigation, field skills, operating under infantry fire, moving overland in the dark, and what to do versus enemy armor are topics completely unaddressed in sailors' training. I was never an infantryman nor a SEAL, and I've never wanted to be one, but I do appreciate that their skill sets are unique, exclusive, and necessary. For sailors to try to do the infantry's job without those skills would be an exercise in suicide for the sailors and in criminal ineptitude for their commanders.

I have, unfortunately, some experience with the consequences of assigning sailors with specific technical skills to a technical assignment in an environment where some infantry skills would have been useful but instead were wholly lacking. The results were fatal, messy, and potentially embarassing, despite the successful accomplishment of the assigned tasks. Having some competent ground-pounders along for the ride may have saved lives and reputations.