Discussion Sailors in land battles

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

major bill

Colonel
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
16,640
I know that in some later wars sailors received from training in land combat. This is my dad in World War Two and apparently he had some training in land combat or as part of an invasion force as showed by his insignia above his rank. However, sailors in the Civil War did not receive several months of training if fight on land.
my dad.jpg
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
17,407
Location
los angeles ca
When needed sailors would be armed and used in land battles. Still how effective would they be? It would seem like they would be better than green soldiers. Still did sailors have enough training in land combat to be very effective?
If anyone knows or has studied the Second Battle of Ft.Fisher then we would know the answer. Ft. Fisher was if I recall one of the largest use of sailors in land combat in the ACW.
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
17,407
Location
los angeles ca
When needed sailors would be armed and used in land battles. Still how effective would they be? It would seem like they would be better than green soldiers. Still did sailors have enough training in land combat to be very effective?
Based on the Wikipedia article on the Second Battle of Ft.Fisher the sailors were simply sacrificed on an attack on the fort with just revolvers and cutlass. On the other hand they diverted Confederate troops away from the main attack launched by General Ames which succeeded at great cost.
Leftyhunter
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Robin Lesjovitch

Sergeant
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
666
Based on the Wikipedia article on the Second Battle of Ft.Fisher the sailors were simply sacrificed on an attack on the fort with just revolvers and cutlass. On the other hand they diverted Confederate troops away from the main attack launched by General Ames which succeeded at great cost.
Leftyhunter
According to DD Porter, who sent the naval assault force in, it was the failure of the marines to perform their assigned mission that caused FT Fisher not to be taken. By Dixon's reckoning, the sailors would have had the fort had the marines provided the cover fire needed. Porter had ordered the marines to remain in the rear of the assault and provide rifle fire on to the parapets. Porter, observing from shipboard, claimed the marines advanced with the sailors. That seems to be the case, and, Porter might have been correct that covering fire could have turned the fight.
What Porter did not factor was that US Marines rarely fought in tactical units larger than a few men. Those marines had been drawn from ship's complments, had not served together and mostly did not know the officers over them. It was not a mission that could be likely accomplished without practice, and there had been none. Porter was too eager for the Navy to get credit for taking FT. Fisher.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
17,407
Location
los angeles ca
According to DD Porter, who sent the naval assault force in, it was the failure of the marines to perform their assigned mission that caused FT Fisher not to be taken. By Dixon's reckoning, the sailors would have had the fort had the marines provided the cover fire needed. Porter had ordered the marines to remain in the rear of the assault and provide rifle fire on to the parapets. Porter, observing from shipboard, claimed the marines advanced with the sailors. That seems to be the case, and, Porter might have been correct that covering fire could have turned the fight.
What Porter did not factor was that US Marines rarely fought in tactical units larger than a few men. Those marines had been drawn from ship's complments, had not served together and mostly did not know the officers over them. It was not a mission that could be likely accomplished without practice, and there had been none. Porter was too eager for the Navy to get credit for taking FT. Fisher.
Very interesting. It appears lack of training for amphibious assaults had disastrous consequences.
Leftyhunter
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
4,034
Location
Denmark
Based on the Wikipedia article on the Second Battle of Ft.Fisher the sailors were simply sacrificed on an attack on the fort with just revolvers and cutlass. On the other hand they diverted Confederate troops away from the main attack launched by General Ames which succeeded at great cost.
Leftyhunter
(my bold)
If I was to storm a fort, a revolver and a saber for each of my men would actually be my weapons of choise...

That is... If someone else help engage the enemy on the parapet until I and other men with the same arms, gets close.
And If the men get proper training for the use of both arms.

In my opinion Their arms was not the issue... lack of training for the job was.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
6,926
Location
Kingsport, Tennessee
When needed sailors would be armed and used in land battles. Still how effective would they be? It would seem like they would be better than green soldiers. Still did sailors have enough training in land combat to be very effective?
Confederate (Tucker's) Naval Brigade from Drewry's Bluff to Salyer’s Creek, to Appomattox.
 

Robin Lesjovitch

Sergeant
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
666
Very interesting. It appears lack of training for amphibious assaults had disastrous consequences.
Leftyhunter
To be fair, such assaults had never been part of US naval training, The USMC had no standing unit organization and would not for decades to come. The army was better able to accomplish such missions, as companies and regiments could be formed on landing, as the army had those formations. The first piece of land the US Navy ever took and held was Guantanamo during the Spanish-American War. Even then the marine battalion that did it was formed specifically for the purpose, and was not a standing unit.
 

Robin Lesjovitch

Sergeant
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
666
The Dahlgren Boat Howitzers ( 12# & 24#) were developed to be used by sailors and marines during amphibious assaults and raids.View attachment 330426
I'm reasonably sure that marines did not man guns during the Civil War. That would have been the sailors' job. The only US Marine at the start of the Civil War with artillery training was Israel Greene, and he "went south".
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
6,926
Location
Kingsport, Tennessee
How about the other way around? I 've read that the "sailors" who manned the boats during the Battle of Galveston were actually Texas Cavalrymen.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Joined
Aug 2, 2019
Messages
91
The only naval land battle that I know enough to speak on is the largely-forgotten Second Battle of Fort Sumter, which was a fiasco from start to finish.

The plan was to take back Fort Sumter on the night of Sept 8th by having a tug tow a line of small boats manned by sailors and marines under cover of darkness to take back Fort Sumter, under the mistaken impression that there was an entry way in the wall of the fort that had been blasted by Navy shelling (there wasn't). The plan was announced the morning of the attack, and about 400 volunteers from blockading ships manned 20 launch boats. The belief was that there was nothing but a "Yeoman's Guard" at the Fort, and that they could be easily overpowered. In fact, the Confederates were expecting the attack and had brought in reinforcements, including grenadiers.

The first attempt at towing the men failed when the pilot of the tugboat (I think it was the Daffodil) turned back for navigational reasons. A substitute pilot (I think from the USS Ironsides) was put on board in his place, and the assault began a second time, but this time, the line of boats ran afoul of a buoy, and so the line of boats was cut loose prematurely. There was confusion and some boats actually had no one on board who was familiar with the plan.

Less than a fourth of the boats made landfall, and those that did quickly discovered that they had to take shelter against the Fort's outer wall to protect themselves from gunfire, grenades and thrown bricks. They surrendered within about 20 minutes, with about 100-120 casualties, most POWs. About half of the 200-ish sailors and marines at Andersonville were captured at this mostly-forgotten battle. Among them was Frederic Augustus James, the only sailor known to have kept a diary while at Andersonville.

The battle is marked by a single plaque at Fort Sumter, that refers to it as "The Night Attack." The sailors were enthusiastic and willing, but the battle was not win-able.
 

Polloco

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 15, 2018
Messages
2,644
Location
South Texas
The only naval land battle that I know enough to speak on is the largely-forgotten Second Battle of Fort Sumter, which was a fiasco from start to finish.

The plan was to take back Fort Sumter on the night of Sept 8th by having a tug tow a line of small boats manned by sailors and marines under cover of darkness to take back Fort Sumter, under the mistaken impression that there was an entry way in the wall of the fort that had been blasted by Navy shelling (there wasn't). The plan was announced the morning of the attack, and about 400 volunteers from blockading ships manned 20 launch boats. The belief was that there was nothing but a "Yeoman's Guard" at the Fort, and that they could be easily overpowered. In fact, the Confederates were expecting the attack and had brought in reinforcements, including grenadiers.

The first attempt at towing the men failed when the pilot of the tugboat (I think it was the Daffodil) turned back for navigational reasons. A substitute pilot (I think from the USS Ironsides) was put on board in his place, and the assault began a second time, but this time, the line of boats ran afoul of a buoy, and so the line of boats was cut loose prematurely. There was confusion and some boats actually had no one on board who was familiar with the plan.

Less than a fourth of the boats made landfall, and those that did quickly discovered that they had to take shelter against the Fort's outer wall to protect themselves from gunfire, grenades and thrown bricks. They surrendered within about 20 minutes, with about 100-120 casualties, most POWs. About half of the 200-ish sailors and marines at Andersonville were captured at this mostly-forgotten battle. Among them was Frederic Augustus James, the only sailor known to have kept a diary while at Andersonville.

The battle is marked by a single plaque at Fort Sumter, that refers to it as "The Night Attack." The sailors were enthusiastic and willing, but the battle was not win-able.
Thank you Gary, I'm not real familiar with this battle and would like to do a little research. What year did this battle take place?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top