>have all the same shit

>have all the same shit
Is there a point to having separate branches?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    How many times have we had this thread?

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      No idea, what conclusions were drawn in the previous ones?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Specific niches justify separate branches. Also it enables the 90d legal loophole before Congress has to get involved.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          the "uhm akshully the President doesn't need permission to use the Marines but does for the Army" is a myth that Marines LOVE to parrot but when asked to provide statutory language stating this, they never do. The President can, and does, regularly make use of Army assets in short duration combat missions without asking Congress for permission. The statutory differences between the Army and the Marines Corps is that the Army exists to conduct unified land operations, whereas the Marine Corps exists to support naval campaigns. That is the difference, not some magical 90 day loophole USMC propaganda lore.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        conclusions you don't give a shit about because if you wanted the answer you'd have just googled it.

  2. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Literally no. Americans are fricking dumb. Marines are a relic from a time when soldiers had to stay on ships and prevent mutinies.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >prevent mutinies
      That was a brown people thing. The actual purpose of marines and how they were employed by proper navies is as a land going detachment. It hardly made sense to sail everywhere with dozens of transports filled with land armies just in the off chance you'd need them

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        lack of marines was what enabled the mutiny on the bounty to go down. or are the brits not a "proper navy"

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >because it happened once for other reasons, this is why they existed at all
          You have to be fricking moronic to think like this

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            The reason it fricking happened was because there was no marines and no officers to support the captains tyrannical bullshit and make sure no one Mutinies happened

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Muh brown people

  3. 11 months ago
    Yukari

    isn't that the australian army on the left

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      gee did the australian camouflage give it away? or mayb the rifle? Perhaps the word AUSTRALIA on the patch? Frick off tripgay

      https://i.imgur.com/jDmFkVL.jpg

      >have all the same shit
      Is there a point to having separate branches?

      suckstart a 12g for killing a thread to make this monthly newbie post

  4. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    yes you fricking idiot, they get different training because they do missions that are varied and large scale enough from the army to necessitate a separate branch. its the same thing that happened with the advent of aviation, as it grew in size and their missions became more independent and complex from other branches it necessitated their own branch in order to increase efficiency. littoral operations and beach landing are notoriously some of the most complex and logistically demanding operations, it wouldn't make sense to dump that all on the army which has their own problems to worry about

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why did they use the army for normandy then?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Because the entire USMC was occupied in the Pacific with several US Army groups fighting with them?

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >largest most successful amphibious landing in history conducted by the Army
      I think they'll do fine, how do Marines cope with this?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Well it's not true so we dont. Okinawa is the largest amphibious landingb in US history. D-day of course was larger as a whole but getting off ships on a cleared beach after the battle doesn't a landing make.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Most of the pacific war was fought by the Army. They just didnt get the good pr books

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        You realize the army is larger than the usmc? Right? The entire usmc was in the Pacific. It spearheaded every notable amphibious landing, the army would then follow or take less defended beaches. When you say moronic things like the army did most of the fighting that implies there were marines just jerking off somehwere. They were not

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          > literal entire Philippines Campaign
          > Marine infantry not present
          > GUYS WE DID ALL THE LANDING AND HARD FIGHTING!
          Anon lmfao wtf fix your brain, you fell for the Belleau Wood TEUFELHUNDEN bullshit again

          t. 0331 now 11B

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            >0331
            >implying you’re not the morons the morons in 03xx make fun of
            You’re opinion doesn’t matter, doubly so if you were CAAT

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              You are not assigned MOS based on intelligence in SOI. I have a GT score of 127 and an overall 93 on the ASVAB. Lmao, homosexual boot.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                That doesn’t make you not a dumbass, you stupid queer. I bet you never even went to Machine gun leaders, or AMGC since you probably just enlisted yesterday

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              > You're

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >they do missions that are varied
      homie they do exactly the same shit

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      the army did more beach landing and operations than the marines did in ww2 thoughever

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >largest most successful amphibious landing in history conducted by the Army
      I think they'll do fine, how do Marines cope with this?

      morons who know nothing about how military operations or history.
      For one Marines did participate in D-Day and they also did work in North Africa and Italy. Hell they would even pull marine pilots to go fly army planes if they wanted to.
      But that's besides the point, the entire reason why the marines were stuck in the pacific for the most part was because they go where the Navy goes and the Navy was a little mad that the Japanese blew up a bunch of their boats.
      The Army on the other hand were trying to do what the president wanted which was to kill krauts because the british were real sad that they kept being bombed. Except McArthur who let the Philippines live rent free in his head, and since his pipe smoking skillz were too sick everyone let him sent an army to the pacific to "defend Australia"

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >integrate marines into army
      >marines instantly forget everything they know

  5. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    What is the model of that headset on the left?

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Z tac bowman or something.

      They're really fricking uncomfortable, the strap never sits properly

  6. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    No fricking need for them as a seperate branch, either merge them with the army or the navy. They've got their own fricking airforce. What kind of crap is this??!!

  7. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I miss prewar /k/
    >it was just threads like this, twice a week ad neaseum

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      These threads have more soul than mindlessly calling someone a ukrop or vatBlack person

  8. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Its just a social experiment, treat one group like a bunch of animals and see how they react. Treat the other group like a bunch of animals and give them less funding and see how they react.

  9. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Marines are more cost effective with less red tape when you want killing done, you are now up to date.

  10. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    you are right Australia doesn't need an army we should just station the US marines in Australia and make it the 51th state

  11. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    The US Marines are literally American VDV. Sometimes you just need disposable cannon fodder huffed on "esprit de corps" and machismo.

  12. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    itt turdworlders jelly we get 2 armies when they can't even manage to field one.

  13. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    %3D Here is proofs and if you don’t want to use YouTube literally search up History Buffs: The Bounty on odysee.com or any other website that saves israelitetube vids

  14. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    The primary reason to have marines is to make the army have someone body to compete against. Imagine how fricking slovenly the US mil would be if only one service did everything, and their was no competition.

  15. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    unrelated question, how tf do you guys get a good view while prone in a helmet? if you're wearing it low enough to actually protect your brain it's almost fricking impossible to see while prone in them

  16. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Chinese Communist Party has purchased a tremendous amount of influence in Washington DC.
    The United States Marine Corps is especially suited, more so than any other western military, to fight the Chinese in the south Pacific. Amphibious doctrine, supported and integrated with US Navy shipping and logistics and a proud history of fighting amongst the different islands of the Pacific Ocean makes the United States Marine Corps especially well suited to fight the Chinese for control of the Pacific Ocean alongside the US Navy.
    Understand that people that question the United States Marine Corps existence are either Chinese agents or their useful idiots.

  17. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    They don’t have the same equipment though. They also have different missions. I think you may need to do more research on the topic.

  18. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Huh, I always figured that every branch was dictated by it's geography (space, air, land, sea), but that the Marines are dictated by it's combat doctrine.

    I always thought that the other branches focused on long-range indirect firepower to obliterate the enemy from hundreds of miles away, and that the Marines were used for directly assaulting the enemy when simply bombing the crap out of the enemy from a safe distance is not possible or too much collateral damage.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      marines, in theory, are a amphibious landing force able to sustain themselves on naval logistics

      in practice, the same qualities that make them ideal for fighting on beaches and islands like outsized firepower compared to their logistical footprint make them a great fast-reaction force to deploy even on land

  19. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because proper countries don't run conscript armies and can specialize.

  20. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    US Navy needs tops to frick their loose buttholes, hence the US Marines. US Army are all versatile and flip frick so they are self contained.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      I can see your stupid high and tight haircut through the screen

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *