What in the hell are they doing?
Is this another British oddity? Like Cricket!

Jim

Maybe this'll help.

Rather interesting, what is the Royal Navy doing with it's guns on land?
Can't they afford ships to put the guns on?

Jim

If you would spend about 3 min reading the history of this competion you would understand why it is important. But then you are stupid FUCK. If you ever served in military I am sure it was never above the rank of E-2.

Like most navies, historically the RN provided artillery support to land forces. The competition is designed to commemorate the RN's participation in the seige at Ladysmith during the Second Boer War. They used railroad and then oxen to haul the guns as far as possible, but they had to carry them the last few miles.

I can't speak for the RN, but up until the 1930s when the Fleet Marine Force took the lead, Sailors provided the bulk of naval infantry and artillerymen. Then the Marines became the naval infantry. But up until the '70s per the Landing Party Manual ships and their respective squadrons and divisions were still organized and tasked to provide naval infantry units of various sizes and maintain competence in ashore operations.

And like most things, what's old is new again.

I've watched competitions in this and found it thrilling for a yank. It really was fun to watch.

China Fleet Sailor

Very interesting. Thanks for the videos.

As an old Redleg I really enjoyed those videos. Thanks.

Jerry Liles

The M116 pack howitzer 75 mm used by the Army and Marines could be broken down and carried by a few mules. The pertinent part of that sentence is 'Army and Marines'.
Did the US Navy haul rubber wheeled artillery around for use on shore, for the use of the sailors?
If the competition was the Royal Marines or British Army it would make sense to me.
Imagine the US Army having competition climbing the mast and setting sails. Or the US Air Force having competition in tench digging.

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by arkypete:
Did the US Navy haul rubber wheeled artillery around for use on shore, for the use of the sailors?

Rubber wheels? Sure. And also wood and steel wheels. Ever since the country was founded. Study the War of 1812 or the siege at Vera Cruz. Toward the end ot the 19th century the 12 pound Dahlgren boat howitzer was the weapon of choice.

Here it is mounted on its field carriage.



If you look, you can find pics of sailors manning shore based crew-served weapons at Shanghai during the Boxer Rebellion.

Check out this vid of 14" Naval guns mounted on railway cars in France in WWI.



It's sort of a fluke that in the 1930s the Fleet Marine Force was formed. Before that, there just weren't enough marines around. If you look at one of the old landing force manuals, a cruiser division, for example, would be tasked with the responsibility to form 3 rifle companies. One of which would have been filled by Marines. The other two by Sailors. Naval infantry really was naval infantry. And with the establishment of the Naval Expeditionary Combatant Command, what is old is new again.

China
I knew about the rail guns in WWI. Of course the Navy isn't going to give up one of the battleship rifles to the Army to play with. The Navy had all the talent and experience.
It just never dawned on me that the Navy, at least since they gave up sails and wood hulls, would actually have units moving artillry on shore.
Does any Navy have this ability today?

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by arkypete:
Does any Navy have this ability today?

It'd be dangerous to say no, outright.

There are lots of things countries call navies that consist of nothing more than fishing boats armed with whatever weapons you'd expect to find in an army. So, sure, they could offload them and conduct land operations.

I can't think of any blue water navy that maintains that capability. Or of any developed country that counts on its navy to supply it.

There seams to be alot of SEALS out there on land and I would say that they are still Navy. Navy planes bombing inland, not much difference. All I know is that looks like a hell of alot of work, and would be a kick ass drill for teamwork and unity.

quote:

Originally posted by Moorepower:
There seams to be alot of SEALS out there on land and I would say that they are still Navy. Navy planes bombing inland, not much difference. All I know is that looks like a hell of alot of work, and would be a kick ass drill for teamwork and unity.

+

I sort of knew that the Navy had aircraft, otherwise those big expensive, very ugly flat topped ships in Norfolk would be kind of useless. Ugly compared to a battleship that is.
I also knew about the SEALS, I watched 'GI Jane' Demi Moore trying to become one.
I don't think either the flat tops, bird farms nor SEALs have wooden or rubber tired cannons on board.
Although, the idea of a carrier with the flight deck covered with 155s hub to hub, has a certain charm. Sure would be impressive when they went off.

Jim

Now that I think about it, probably the only navy that has the capability to move artillery ashore to support ground forces is the Sri Lankan navy. They arm their larger patrol craft with field guns.

But only because they acquired the boats used & unarmed and just couldn't afford to retrofit them with the automated naval guns they really wanted. Not for any envisioned operational flexibility.

quote:

Originally posted by China Fleet Sailor:
Now that I think about it, probably the only navy that has the capability to move artillery ashore to support ground forces is the Sri Lankan navy. They arm their larger patrol craft with field guns.

But only because they acquired the boats used & unarmed and just couldn't afford to retrofit them with the automated naval guns they really wanted. Not for any envisioned operational flexibility.

A lot of truth there