Soviet Naval Infantry

[Olefin]

Keep in mind for improvised units that they would have most likely taken very heavy casualties as they learned to be infantry (i.e. excess ship personnel, maintenance and support units, etc. turned into infantry). All depends on if the Soviets would have had time to train them properly. The Soviets learned that lesson the hard way in WWII when they had to use personnel like that at Riga and Leningrad and Sevastopol.

[chico20854]

Keep in mind for improvised units that they would have most likely taken very heavy casualties as they learned to be infantry (i.e. excess ship personnel, maintenance and support units, etc. turned into infantry). All depends on if the Soviets would have had time to train them properly. The Soviets learned that lesson the hard way in WWII when they had to use personnel like that at Riga and Leningrad and Sevastopol.

Absolutely! The NATO troops were at the end of a very long supply line and had advanced over 1000km in a matter of weeks through the Arctic night after halting a mechanized invasion while having a naval infantry brigade sitting on the sole overland supply route, so they were far from fresh and full strength themselves. Nonetheless, yes the improvised units took horrendous casualties on par with the improvised/hastily formed units of 50+ years prior!

[pmulcahy11b]

Then there is also the Naval Infantry formed from port side personnel and sailors without ships.

Soviets did it in Odessa, Sevastopol, and would have done so again in Murmansk with NATO came closer to them during their offensive.

Probably the first example of this in Russia were the sailors from the St Petersburg base who came to the aid of the rebellion that later produced the Soviet Union. Not exactly the same thing, I'll grant you, but along the same lines.