Naval Infantry

C

CO5060.20

Active member
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20051019234745.asp

http://www.specialoperations.com/Foreign/Ecuador/Naval_Infantry.htm

Recently my Commander informed me that the United States is creating a Naval Infantry. Apparently, they would share missions with the Navy SEALS; however, they would not be trained at nearly the same level. This seems like an utter waste of money and man power as the Marine Corps IS the Navy's infantry. Above, I posted some sites that go into more detail, but I'd like to know what you all think about it.
 
Honestly, I have no clue. In one of the articles, it states that, and I quote, "The U.S. Navy recently announced that they are creating a Naval Infantry branch, to provide the fleet with some special operations type ground combat capability for missions along the coasts. The navy can no longer depend on the independent minded marines for this" (1). Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that one of the primary responsibilities of the Marine Expiditionary Unit (SOC)? And where is the United States Navy going to get the man power and capital to create such a force?
 
You yanks crack me up sometimes. Don't you guys allready have a 'naval infantry' the Marines?
 
What irritates me the most about their reasoning for the Naval Infantry is when they talk about how the cannot depend on the independent minded Marines. I challenge you all to find one point in history where the Navy asked the Marines for help and they said, "No, we only help fellow Marines... you're on your own! God's speed!" I mean, the Marine Corps' motto is Semper Fidelis (Always Faithful), that would completely counter that. Well, any how, I wish the new Naval Infantry the best of luck; however, they better be ready to compete with the Marines because they do not take kindly to being second string...
 
This is a typical friggin pentagon turf war. One four star is afraid another four star has a bigger :cen: .
 
Honestly, they need to be spending more money on recruiting and training the old school way. If its not broke, don't fix it....
 
I honestly don't see the point of naval infantry. that was why the marines were founded, to be the navy's infantry.
 
The Naval Infantry if it comes to pass will not be an arm of NSW. From what I can gather it's being floated as an idea for several reasons some of them valid.

A large majority of the USMC is involved in actual ground combat, refitting or retraining.

The old Ships Detachments of Marines have been curtailed to the FAST elements and other smaller elements at the Navy's disposal.

Historically the Navy has formed landing teams of sailors so this is really not a new thing.

They will not replace or flow over to the Marine Corps mission. They will not have the training, the support elements etc.

I've got no heartburn if the Navy wants to form their own little security force for the fleet.
 
Those are definitely some valid points. I'm sure my interpretation of the articles I found was skewed due to my views of the Corps' mission. I think I need to re-read the primary missions of the Marine Corps. Thanks guys for your replies!
 
Leave it to the Navy to try and come up with something this dumb, just like their "tactical nukes" idea that carrier born fighters could deliver nuclear weapons with precision and accuracy, the only problem was that they had to be in a vertical climb when they released the bomb but hey, it got them a piece of all that nuclear spending money in the 60's and 70's. Which is exactly what this is, a gimmick to try and get more money out of the DOD's budget. The Navy already has its own infantry, most people call it the Marine Corps.

Also, I think the name is a little misleading. Seems to me like this "Naval Infantry" will be a security force first and for most, I think the "Infantry" implies that they will be their own stand alone fighting force. In other words a second Marine Corps.

Also, I believe that Army toyed with this idea quite a few years ago, they wanted to set up a rapid assault force that could attack anywhere in the world in less than 48 hours. The problem is that the Airborne can basically hit any inland target in less than 48 hours and the Marines can hit any beach in the same amount of time. It was in time magazine and it was a rather old one at that. For some reason the year 1992 comes into mind when I think about that article.
 
It is quite similar to our concept, KJK (Coastal Ranger Command).

These guys are regular infantry units trained especially for warfare in coastal waters, being highly manouverable with SB90 fast moving vessels and bring a lot of amphibious support to the Navy as well as they work within the ISTAR concept. Although the original concept was a mobile coastal artillery unit with Hellfire missiles, which they still are, but evolution is always present.
 
Well, the idea of Naval Infantry has it's good points and bad points. When the term Naval Infantry is heard, most people think of the Soviet use of that word. It was what they called their Marines. Also many other nations call their Marine Force Naval Infantry.

If the Navy wants to build a ground force that can protect it's bases, ships, and sailors of shore. I'm for it. Also, the US Marnine Corps have branched off into becoming their own branch. I think that soon there will be a Department of the Marnine Corps.

The US Army doesn't have any fighter aircraft to to law. And in the early 50s and 60s. The Army tried getting aorund that by building a half helicopter half jet type thing. And the US Army also fought for the right to control nuclear weapons due to the fact that Missiles under there logic falled under artillery.

As they say. The more things change, the more they stay the same. I think that he Navy and Airforce needs some sort of group troop. The Germans back in WWII had Infantry divisions that fell under the Luftwaffe. So maybe this is for the better. People join the Navy, so why not get some of these folks in the fight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top