Naval Brigade / Landing Party Equipment 1890s

For all discussions relating to military uniforms, insignia, equipment and medals of the Victorian period.

Naval Brigade / Landing Party Equipment 1890s

Postby AlexHenry » 29 Dec 2012 12:00

I have a part set of the 1890s leather field equipment for Naval Landing parties armed with the Lee Metford .303 rifle. I would like to either buy or make a replica of the brace set to be able to use for display purposes. If anyone can assist with information it would be much appreciated.

Obviously I am always interested in buying any original items of equipment.

Regards
Ross T
Naval 1896 - P1880 field equip.jpg
Naval 1896 - P1880 field equip.jpg (115.05 KiB) Viewed 2816 times

Naval leather 1890 front - shoulder arms.jpg
Naval leather 1890 front - shoulder arms.jpg (37.98 KiB) Viewed 2816 times
AlexHenry
New Member
 
Posts: 39
Joined: 23 Dec 2012 13:05

Re: Naval Landing Party Equipment - 1890s

Postby Frogsmile » 08 Jan 2013 22:29

AlexHenry wrote:I have a part set of the 1890s leather field equipment for Naval Landing parties armed with the Lee Metford .303 rifle. I would like to either buy or make a replica of the brace set to be able to use for display purposes. If anyone can assist with information it would be much appreciated.

Obviously I am always interested in buying any original items of equipment.

Regards
Ross T
Naval 1896 - P1880 field equip.jpg

Naval leather 1890 front - shoulder arms.jpg


Fascinating to see what appears to be a padded knee support (right knee) for firing in the kneeling position, something that has been revisited in the modern infantryman's equipment in such places as Afghanistan.
sq
Relic of many a siege and sack, it points a moral and adorns the back.
User avatar
Frogsmile
Forum Fellow
 
Posts: 4929
Joined: 25 Jan 2011 20:17
Location: Wiltshire, England

Re: Naval Landing Party Equipment - 1890s

Postby AlexHenry » 13 Jan 2013 11:02

G'day Smiley,
Your observation is correct, its a moulded leather knee protector stapped around the right knee. It permits more comfortable and better shooting in the kneeling supported position.

Similar knee protectors were used by 3-inch mortar crews during WW2, for use by the No 1 who manages the sight and levelling screws.

I was a mortarman with the F2 81mm in the '70s and we would have found something like that as very useful.

Regards
Ross
AlexHenry
New Member
 
Posts: 39
Joined: 23 Dec 2012 13:05

Re: Naval Landing Party Equipment - 1890s

Postby Frogsmile » 15 Jan 2013 10:36

AlexHenry wrote:G'day Smiley,
Your observation is correct, its a moulded leather knee protector stapped around the right knee. It permits more comfortable and better shooting in the kneeling supported position.

Similar knee protectors were used by 3-inch mortar crews during WW2, for use by the No 1 who manages the sight and levelling screws.

I was a mortarman with the F2 81mm in the '70s and we would have found something like that as very useful.

Regards
Ross


Hello Ross, what a coincidence, I too was an 81mm mortarman (British ordnance model with the excellent Canadian C2 sight) from 1974 until 1984 when I transferred to become a full time instructor of that weapon at the School of Infantry (as SASC) until 1990. We too would have found a knee protector useful when later deployed to Iraq.
Last edited by Frogsmile on 15 Jan 2013 21:06, edited 1 time in total.
sq
Relic of many a siege and sack, it points a moral and adorns the back.
User avatar
Frogsmile
Forum Fellow
 
Posts: 4929
Joined: 25 Jan 2011 20:17
Location: Wiltshire, England

Re: Naval Landing Party Equipment - 1890s

Postby rd72 » 15 Jan 2013 17:57

Not to turn this into a Mortar thread,.....

But I'll just quickly add my "me too" in here... In Canada, same mortar, same sight, what was the WP round, L19??? We used our version of the HE round.

Just had to chime in about one of my favorite subjects... Now, back to Naval Landing Equipment....

Rob
Cheers,
Rob
User avatar
rd72
Senior Member
 
Posts: 477
Joined: 28 Mar 2010 17:44

Re: Naval Landing Party Equipment - 1890s

Postby Frogsmile » 15 Jan 2013 21:05

rd72 wrote:Not to turn this into a Mortar thread,.....

But I'll just quickly add my "me too" in here... In Canada, same mortar, same sight, what was the WP round, L19??? We used our version of the HE round.

Just had to chime in about one of my favorite subjects... Now, back to Naval Landing Equipment....

Rob


:) Yes....it was the L19 (our HE was L15). I often wonder if there is still a WP round. There were regular political efforts to make us use a Red Phos as it was 'ecologically sympathetic'. Never could quite get my head around that.

As regards Naval Landing Equipment, it has really surprised me that there were knee pads as early as that. The RN really were ground breaking in their day, what with Ironclad 'Landships' and such like.
sq
Relic of many a siege and sack, it points a moral and adorns the back.
User avatar
Frogsmile
Forum Fellow
 
Posts: 4929
Joined: 25 Jan 2011 20:17
Location: Wiltshire, England

Re: Naval Landing Party Equipment - 1890s

Postby OSCSSW » 03 Mar 2013 16:00

This is just a bit off topic but IMHO, very closely related to Naval Landing Party Equipment - 1890s,
I hope you will humor the "New Guy".

Just a few questions and the thoughts of some contemporary US naval officers on Landing parties.

Since I have some experience in such matters (long after the Victorian Period I assure you) and our modern Navies
are engaged in so many ops similar to those of the Victorian RN, I would appreciate your views as folks who know about such historical matters.

If the last para gets the "Wind up" of any Bootnecks/Lobsters/Cabbage heads (AKA The Royal Marines),
well you can't really blame an old sailor, can you?


What Should the Navy Infantryman Train For?

A sub-theme in the 1880s debate was the question of what kind of warfare should Navy infantrymen train for? Perhaps influenced by Civil War experience, a majority agreed with Ensign William Ledyard Rogers that history shows that “...in almost every war the Navy is called upon to take a more or less active part against the best troops of the enemy.”24 Accordingly, training and tactics should acknowledge this. Lieutenant William F. Fullam argued differently. He asserted, “…mob or street fighting, or service in the streets of cities, is that which naval battalions are most likely to perform, and therefore more attention should be paid to it.”25 Accordingly, Fullam argued for a simple landing party manual and drills optimized to the street fighting/mob control mission. His line of argument would theoretically degrade the usefulness of sailors as infantry. As it turned out, the Navy’s first infantry manual was a relatively simple one that did not emphasize street fighting. During ensuing decades, Navy infantrymen would face the enemies “best” as well as mobs in streets, and an assortment of everything in between.

What Are the Limitations of Sailors As Infantry?
While naval reformers argued the question of what kind of fighting to train for, there was general agreement that naval infantry sustainability was normally limited to 2-3 days and operations were limited geographically.

Who Does Naval Landings? Should Marines Be Embarked On Ships?
In 1889 the Secretary of the Navy appointed a board, headed by Commodore James Greer, to examine shipboard organization and landing party practices. The Greer Board took the position that ships crews should handle all evolutions. It recommended removal of the marine ship guard from naval vessels. The Secretary of the Navy did not accept this recommendation, but Board member Lieutenant Fullam began to lead a campaign over the next decade and a half to remove marines from ships.26 Most of the uniformed US Navy leadership supported Fullam.27 The campaign dragged on until 1908, when President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 969 redefining the Marine Corps duties to exclude ship guard and other on-board duties.28 Congress quickly reversed this decision.
User avatar
OSCSSW
New Member
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 13:52

Re: Naval Landing Party Equipment - 1890s

Postby Frogsmile » 13 Mar 2013 22:10

OSCSSW wrote: This is just a bit off topic but IMHO, very closely related to Naval Landing Party Equipment - 1890s,
I hope you will humor the "New Guy".

Just a few questions and the thoughts of some contemporary US naval officers on Landing parties.

Since I have some experience in such matters (long after the Victorian Period I assure you) and our modern Navies
are engaged in so many ops similar to those of the Victorian RN, I would appreciate your views as folks who know about such historical matters.

If the last para gets the "Wind up" of any Bootnecks/Lobsters/Cabbage heads (AKA The Royal Marines),
well you can't really blame an old sailor, can you?


What Should the Navy Infantryman Train For?

A sub-theme in the 1880s debate was the question of what kind of warfare should Navy infantrymen train for? Perhaps influenced by Civil War experience, a majority agreed with Ensign William Ledyard Rogers that history shows that “...in almost every war the Navy is called upon to take a more or less active part against the best troops of the enemy.”24 Accordingly, training and tactics should acknowledge this. Lieutenant William F. Fullam argued differently. He asserted, “…mob or street fighting, or service in the streets of cities, is that which naval battalions are most likely to perform, and therefore more attention should be paid to it.”25 Accordingly, Fullam argued for a simple landing party manual and drills optimized to the street fighting/mob control mission. His line of argument would theoretically degrade the usefulness of sailors as infantry. As it turned out, the Navy’s first infantry manual was a relatively simple one that did not emphasize street fighting. During ensuing decades, Navy infantrymen would face the enemies “best” as well as mobs in streets, and an assortment of everything in between.

What Are the Limitations of Sailors As Infantry?
While naval reformers argued the question of what kind of fighting to train for, there was general agreement that naval infantry sustainability was normally limited to 2-3 days and operations were limited geographically.

Who Does Naval Landings? Should Marines Be Embarked On Ships?
In 1889 the Secretary of the Navy appointed a board, headed by Commodore James Greer, to examine shipboard organization and landing party practices. The Greer Board took the position that ships crews should handle all evolutions. It recommended removal of the marine ship guard from naval vessels. The Secretary of the Navy did not accept this recommendation, but Board member Lieutenant Fullam began to lead a campaign over the next decade and a half to remove marines from ships.26 Most of the uniformed US Navy leadership supported Fullam.27 The campaign dragged on until 1908, when President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 969 redefining the Marine Corps duties to exclude ship guard and other on-board duties.28 Congress quickly reversed this decision.


A very interesting topic, albeit one that I know little about other than to postulate two thoughts:

1. I have enormous respect for the RN landing parties of the Victorian era, especially those that manned and hauled guns across inhospitable terrain in order to support Army operations on land, something that the RN once had a strong tradition to facilitate as a subsidiary function. This perhaps reached its zenith with the Royal Naval Division (RND) of 1914-18 fame, which fought as a fully integrated infantry division throughout WW1, at which time their infantry skills were very high indeed. These men were (initially at least) all fully trained and experienced naval reservists, who for various reasons exceeded the numbers required to crew ships. Together with Royal Marines and various co-opted soldiers in support functions, they formed a very effective fighting formation indeed.

2. I have much less respect (to put it mildly) for the present day RN, who in in my opinion have been largely emasculated by the last administration's (in particular) focus on social engineering, not least in such matters as gay pride and female crew members (notwithstanding the demographic necessity). I believe that the result of this and its long term effects were amply demonstrated a few years ago, when a RN dinghy crew were seized by the Iranian Republican Guard (Naval element) and, to excruciating embarassment, with focus on such matters as the confiscation of the captive's 'playstations', were paraded in front of the World media. How Nelson must have gyrated in his grave! In this latter matter, I thought that Allan Mallinson (retired Brigadier, contemporary author and media pundit) voiced very well in his book on the history of the British Army, just how he thought that the RN (its commanders not its ratings) had lost its way.

I will be interested to learn what others think regarding the Navy of the Victorian era compared with that of today, as well as its likely capability to fight on land without the tiny RM detachment that a very few ships still carry. Am I being unfair?
Last edited by Frogsmile on 14 Mar 2013 11:54, edited 2 times in total.
sq
Relic of many a siege and sack, it points a moral and adorns the back.
User avatar
Frogsmile
Forum Fellow
 
Posts: 4929
Joined: 25 Jan 2011 20:17
Location: Wiltshire, England

Re: Naval Landing Party Equipment - 1890s

Postby tabony » 14 Mar 2013 11:47

The modern RN doesn't compare well to the Falklands era, never mind the Victorian!!

Martin
tabony
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 971
Joined: 01 Jul 2010 20:46

Re: Naval Landing Party Equipment - 1890s

Postby Frogsmile » 14 Mar 2013 20:47

tabony wrote:The modern RN doesn't compare well to the Falklands era, never mind the Victorian!!

Martin


Yes, I think that in future years that period might be seen as the 'swan song' of the old Royal Navy and its values.
sq
Relic of many a siege and sack, it points a moral and adorns the back.
User avatar
Frogsmile
Forum Fellow
 
Posts: 4929
Joined: 25 Jan 2011 20:17
Location: Wiltshire, England

Re: Naval Landing Party Equipment - 1890s

Postby OSCSSW » 14 Mar 2013 22:55

FROGSMILE wrote:
2. I have much less respect (to put it mildly) for the present day RN, who in in my opinion have been largely emasculated by the last administration's (in particular) focus on social engineering, not least in such matters as gay pride and female crew members (notwithstanding the demographic necessity). I believe that the result of this and its long term effects were amply demonstrated a few years ago, when a RN dinghy crew were seized by the Iranian Republican Guard (Naval element) and, to excruciating embarassment, with focus on such matters as the confiscation of the captive's 'playstations', were paraded in front of the World media. How Nelson must have gyrated in his grave! In this latter matter, I thought that Allan Mallinson (retired Brigadier, contemporary author and media pundit) voiced very well in his book on the history of the British Army, just how he thought that the RN (its commanders not its ratings) had lost its way.

One of the reasons I retired at 26 years from the USN was the Social engineering BS that you described in the RN.
Quite honestly FROGSMILE it was fast becoming NOT MY NAVY.



I will be interested to learn what others think regarding the Navy of the Victorian era compared with that of today, as well as its likely capability to fight on land without the tiny RM detachment that a very few ships still carry. Am I being unfair?
User avatar
OSCSSW
New Member
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 13:52


Return to Uniforms, Insignia, Equipment & Medals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest