Marines?

[Christoph Awender]

the only "marines" i heard of where the special "dönitz contribution" and the surplus of sailors that were sent in as ersatz infantry. the actual landings like norway and all those were simply normal ss or heer or any other infantry type units that went ashore in landing craft but werent really specially trained for amphibious landings like traditional marines.

Uffz_Tyler, it would be good if you read the other contributions to a thread you comment. Especially if the comments you make contain wrong information.

As me and other stated before there WERE special units for naval landing operations. The unit was called Marinestoßtruppkompanie and was specially trained and equipped for naval landings.
They assaulted the Westerplatte on 1.September 1939 and several installations during operation Weserübung.
As a sidenote... no SS landed in Norway.

regards,
Christoph

[Edward L. Hsiao]

Gentlemen!

I'm pretty sure there were plenty of panzerknackers in some of these Marine Divisions. Unfortunately there were no known names of these sailors to come out of. I'm also sure that there were a few Knight's Cross holders in these divisions but documentations and files of personnals of them were mainly lost during the last months chaos of the War. I'm not sure if these divisions have any heavy weapons or not. These sailors may be poorly trained but they don't lack determination and bravery to fight against the enemy and his panzers!

Sincerely,

Edward

[Dare Furor]

Gentlemen!

I'm pretty sure there were plenty of panzerknackers in some of these Marine Divisions. Unfortunately there were no known names of these sailors to come out of. I'm also sure that there were a few Knight's Cross holders in these divisions but documentations and files of personnals of them were mainly lost during the last months chaos of the War.

[Pax Melmacia]

I vaguely remember a colored photo of what claimed to be Marines boarding landing barges for Norway. I think the caption even pointed out that the uniforms, while similar to the Army's in cut, was blue. (Which would make it different from the Feldgrau used by Army and KM.) Of course, that was a long time ago . . .

BTW, if 'Seelöwe' (invasion of Britain) had materialized, would these Marines have had a special role as compared to regular Army landing with them? (I assume there were not enough Marines for an operation of that magnitude.)

[Hoover]

As I am working in the infantzry units of the Kriegsmarine for a few years now, what are you thinking about when talking about "Marines"??

The Kriegsmarine never had any infantry units with special landing equipment or training for it. All Kriegsmarine infanrry units were conventionally trained for land battle.

There were no units like the USMC or the British Royal Marines in the Wehrmacht. The SS also never had any Marines. The Heer had some special trained units, like the Küstenjäger for landing tasks.

Also Weserübung wasn´t a seaborne landing operation like the normandy, it was just an operation of seatransported units which landing in already captured harbours or harbours without any noticable defence.

Every ship of the Germany Kriegsmarine hat landing parties, but those didn´t were special infantry units, too.

Due to this the term "marines" is a little bit irritating, I think.

[Dare Furor]

Salutations:

Many English-speaking peoples do not understand that "Marine" means sea, or ocean (from Latin or Greek?), as in marine life, marine biology, or "Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner." "Marine Regiments" and divisions were Naval regiments. Since Norway was a "landing" operation, I do not find landing in England that far out of the realm of possibility. Blue-water sailors who went ashore for amphibious operations were "landing parties." Maybe better questions are: what is the difference between "landing parties" and "naval infantry?" Or "what is the difference between "naval infantry" and a "Marine regiment?"

I have seen photos of landing parties on Norway in blue service uniforms, but I have not yet seen a blue version of the Fieldblouse. If the photo is indeed a blue Feldbluse rather than a pea-coat, I am very interested in seeing it. That would be worth some research!

Dare Furor
<uuuUkuuu>

[Hoover]

Hi Dare!

Sorry, but I don´t agree with your Norway opinion.
It wasn´t an assault landing like Normandy or on the pacific islands. It was just a seaborne landing.

Most people talking about "Marines" thinking of a USMC-style unit, especially equipped and trained for assault landings on fortified coasts. And that the Kriegsmarine couldn´t do. Even the landings on the Aegian islands 1943 were mostly done by Army units.

The German term "Marine-Infanterie" translated in English would be Naval-Infantry, I think. And the Marine-Infanterie-Divisonen of the last months of the 2WW were no really good tranied units, they were mock up infantry formations, made from "anging around" navy personnel.

Maybe better questions are: what is the difference between "landing parties" and "naval infantry?" Or "what is the difference between "naval infantry" and a "Marine regiment?"

Landing parties and marine regiments in the common sense are special trained and equipped for seaborne assaults. Naval-infantry are regular infantry formed from navy personnel. Or not? :roll:

Bye
Frank

[Dare Furor]

...Landing parties and marine regiments in the common sense are special trained and equipped for seaborne assaults. Naval-infantry are regular infantry formed from navy personnel. Or not? ...

I concede your observation regarding Norway vs. amphibious assault.

I can agree with you regarding "Naval Infantry," but I believe the Marine Regiments (Zapp, Badermann) were not trained for amphibious landings/assaults. My point is that terms such as "Marine Division" and "Naval Infantry" were interchangeable. I can also agree that the Wehrmacht had no "Marines" or troops trained for such warfare as a matter of doctrine in the vis-a-vis the USMC or Royal Marines.

Has the thread question been answered?

Cheers,

Dare Furor
<uuuUkuuu>

[Sewer King]

Many English-speaking peoples do not understand that "Marine" means sea, or ocean (from Latin or Greek?), as in marine life, marine biology, or "Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner." "Marine Regiments" and divisions were Naval regiments.

The sea itself is Mare in Latin. "Marine" is from the Latin marinus, which was applied to seagoing soldiers (plural marini). Such troops served on board ancient Roman warships, and the term's modern usage likely revived with the rise of British sea power from Elizabethan times. (Colonel Robert Rankin USMC, Uniforms of the Sea Services [US Naval Institute Press, 1962]; also Webster's Dictionary}.

Blue-water sailors who went ashore for amphibious operations were "landing parties." Maybe better questions are: what is the difference between "landing parties" and "naval infantry?" Or "what is the difference between "naval infantry" and a "Marine regiment?"

A "landing party" is a unit of sailors under arms formed from a particular ship's crew, detailed ad hoc for a particular mission ashore on the captain's orders. The US Navy generally referred to "Landing Force" operations (see wartime Bluejacket's Manuals) and had a specific Landing Force Manual as late as the 1960s, for units up to battalion strength.

In practice, landing parties typically ranged in size from section to platoon (see Admiral Kemp Tolley's Yangtze Patrol, US Naval Institute Press, 1971). Less usual companies and battalions might form in emergencies from large numbers of ships' crewmen or shore station complements (US and Soviet sailors early in the war; German and Japanese ones later on).

The matter of permanent establishment might be another dividing line between marines and naval infantry. Royal Marines and US Marines (along with similar forces they fostered) are standing, full-time professional forces with other duties and traditions besides those of amphibious landing.

I for one tend to associate the term "naval infantry" with continental powers that fought more upon the land than the sea, and were thus not preeminent on the oceans, whatever sea power they had. This would include Imperial Germany and Russia, Nazi Germany, the USSR, and modern-day People's Republic of China. The seaborne troops they fielded were for direct support of greater land campaigns rather than control of the seas. Even a regional land power like Israel fielded some sea-landed army forces along these lines in the Lebanon in 1982.

On the other hand, this would not be so true of Imperial Japanese Special Naval Landing Forces (SNLF), remarkably so since the IJN modeled itself on the British Royal Navy. And permanent marine forces may have had mainly colonial roles like the Dutch Marines, or littoral ones like the South Korean and Argentine marines

Due to this the term "marines" is a little bit irritating, I think.

It tends to be a natural shorthand, even in applied military writing. The Kaiser's Seebatalionen and Japanese SNLF are sometimes referred to as marines with a small "m", even by those who know the distinctions. The photo of German sailors in full infantry equipment at Norway was captioned in Signal magazine as "Marines to the front!"

I don't have this reference to hand, but German naval infantry date back to the mid-19th century. And the German navy sailor traditionally had more army-style drill and infantry training behind him than men in other navies.

-- Alan

[Dare Furor]

Maybe better questions are: what is the difference between "landing parties" and "naval infantry?" Or "what is the difference [in German] between "naval infantry" and a "Marine regiment?"

I hope this clarifies....

Dare Furor
<uuuUkuuu>

[Sewer King]

Ach. ist klar. Then the question is answered.

But keeping the matter German, I haven't looked enough at the German Marinenkorps in Flanders during WW1 to compare it to the German naval infantry in early or late WW2 campaigns. Incidentally how do Germans refer to the large marine forces of other countries?

-- Alan

[Simon Orchard]

I vaguely remember a colored photo of what claimed to be Marines boarding landing barges for Norway. I think the caption even pointed out that the uniforms, while similar to the Army's in cut, was blue. (Which would make it different from the Feldgrau used by Army and KM.) Of course, that was a long time ago . . .

Ironically it was the allies and not the Germans that used proper landing craft during the Norwegian campaign. The German forces that were sea lifted used regular naval and merchant vessels and without exception were landed at harbour facilities. The allies on the other hand made use of landing craft (Royal Navy) during a true opposed amphibious assault at Narvik carried out by French and Norwegian troops which led to the recapture of the town.

[tyskaorden]

Ach. ist klar. Then the question is answered.

But keeping the matter German, I haven't looked enough at the German Marinenkorps in Flanders during WW1 to compare it to the German naval infantry in early or late WW2 campaigns. Incidentally how do Germans refer to the large marine forces of other countries?

-- Alan

Well the main difference should be that the WW I Marinenkorps was formed out of the dedicated infantry See-bataillone, but the WW 2 units brought together redundat sailors from far and near lacking this backbone.

[Alaric]

Gentlemen,

Perhaps I can add to the discussion with something I found in the book Kommando--German Special Forces of World War Two by James Lucas (copyright 1985 by Arms and Armour Press, first St. Martins Press mass publication Dec 1986). I have the paperback edition from St. Martins Press; ISBN 0-312-90497-5. In Part Two: The Navy's Special Forces (page 213 of the paperback edition) is chapter 1, "The K Men". It talks about how "(d)uring the early years of the war there had been attempts by the Kriegsmarine to imitate the raids of the British Commandos." It then mentions a failed attempt to attack Allied weather stations in the Arctic due to improper training of the men and lack of suitable vessels. This temporarily de-railed the case for special naval units, but in 1943 the case for them was re-examined and was accepted.

"It was decided to train, along the British lines, units of submariners in small craft to form amphibious assault detachments along the lines of the British Commandos."..."Doenitz entrusted to Konteradmiral Helmuth Heye the task of forming small units (Klein Kampf Verbande) to use ideas, tactics and techniques suitable for employment against Germanys' enemies."..."The 'K' units were needed urgently. The sudden and pressing need allowed for none of the usual routine of designing, testing, refining and developing of new craft before they were taken into service. Speed was vital and while the naval constructors toiled with the problems of designing and building the special naval weapons, those seamen who had volunteered for unspecified but risky duties were being interviewed, selected and trained. The men had been recruited by word of mouth and by invitation. The approaches had been confidential yet news had spread and the response to the discreet call had been wildly entusiastic. From the many hundreds of volunteers, thirty officers and men were finally chosen and it was around this small cadre that the German Navy's special forces were built. It was no time for the German Navy to stand on ceremony or to be insular in its approach to the problems of the new type of warfare. The leaders of the special force were prepared to accept advice from any source. The Italians were the princiapl authority and, specifically the detachments led by Prince Borghese which had attacked British ships in the harbor at Alexandria and at Gibralter. The only other force which had the required disciplines was the Royal Navy. The K-men and their officers studied captured British handbooks and copies of operations orders picked up at Dieppe. These, together with the information gained from the skillful interrogation of prisoners, provided the new German organisation with a great deal of knowledge. Then came a singular piece of good fortune for Admiral Heye and his men. A sunken 'X' craft" (a type of underwater sled) " was recovered and repaired, and its qualities evaluated. At the end of 1943 the first group of thirty officers and men of the K units were assembled in a barracks in the Baltic port of Heilingenhafen, where the unit was officially designated Marine Einsatz Abteilung (Naval Assault Detachment). More volunteers arrived until, with a unit strength of of four officers, four ensigns and one hundred and fifty other ranks, the first training sessions began. Life for the crews was almost monastic. There were to be no contacts with civilians and, therefore, no shore leave was given. Total exclusion from the world would ensure that the new and secret unit remained secret. The one outing per month to the civilian cinema was made by the K-men under such heavy guard that the local population thought them to be naval criminals of the worst sort. Commando-type training was given by Army veterans of the war on the Eastern Front, specialising in close-combat fighting and survival. Submarine specialists taught the use of escape apparatus and the K-men underwent a short but intensive course in naval engineering. There was instruction in foreign languages, particularly English. Various types of navigation were studied long and intesely. In short, there was no aspect of seamanship or military training that was not taught and practised until its use became a second nature. The courses were hard and brutally demanding. Failure in any subject usually meant being returned to unit and with it the sober warning never to speak of the MEA or its activities, under pain of death. Now the training stepped up. At Halling in Pomerania, Army instructors demonstrated the use of hollow-charge grenades, similar to those placed on the turrets ofthe fortress at Eben Emael, but modified for use on the hull of a ship. The Army instructors drove the sailors hard. Forced marches across sand were the norm; and the recruits were made to fight their way through dense forests in an effort to toughen them. There were night alarms which roused the men from their sleep into the icy conditions of late winter along the Baltic coast. It was no place for weaklings. One of these night alarms tested the courage of recruits who were ordered to leap over a cliff whose height was unknown to them. More and more men dropped out untl only those remained who, in Admiral Heye's words, would, 'with a few members and with less means still be able to cause the enemy great loss'".

I hope that is not too much to post and held the readers' interest. I have not indented where paragraphs are in the text. It is obvious from what Mr. Lucas is describing that these men are not part of a USMC or Royal Marines type force, but are rather undergoing the type of training that UDT/SEAL (Underwater Demoltion Team/Sea Air Land) teams under go today and probably an even harsher training than their contemporaries in 1943, the U.S. Navy's UDT teams of the Second World War, the SEAL predecessors.

Hopefully this is of some help to the group.

[Robert Rojas]

Greetings to both brother Alaric and the community as a whole. Well sir, in light of your quite informative posting of Friday - March 28, 2008 - 4:08am, old Uncle Bob was curious if the training regimen conducted at the municipality of Halling in Pomerania fell under the operational control of the Regular German Army or did that operational control utlimately fall under the operational control of the Brandenburger organization? Given that the Brandenburger organization was the Wehrmacht's principal special forces outfit, one would think that the Brandenburger organization would have had a distinctive role with regards to the unique training of the German Navy's Special Forces organization. Old yours truly thought I would toss this into the mix for additional discussion. Well, that's my latest two cents worth on this now vintage topic gravitating on the German Navy's flirtation with ground warfare - for now anyway. In anycase, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in your neck of the woods.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob