The golden era of sniping is over

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Tanks: gone
    >Scout Snipers: gone
    >No saying "yes sir, no sir" cuz that's transphobic !
    What the frick next, are they gonna get rid of the Eagle Globe and Anchor because it's old fashion?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Sorry, for now on everything will be DJI drones throwing grenades at each others, everything else is a waste of money

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        They’ll be super tiny and really fast and probably replace grenades too. Any 17 year old can use one now thanks to video games.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Any 17 year old can use one now thanks to video games.
          Just wait for AI drones, I'm sure some defense contractor is already working on that somewhere.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            pretty sure Lockheed Martin already showcased something similar in their youtube channel

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >we want to be highly mobile, stealthy and highly deadly
      >eliminate the stealthiest, most mobile, deadliest force multiplier that takes the most advantage of modern technology (hand-portable ballistics software & spotting, you don't even need a spotter now)
      I don't understand this change at all

      https://i.imgur.com/V7jdEHI.png

      >USMC is so utterly fricking incompetent that they deem tanks, light machine guns, and snipers to be unnecessary because "we're always have air support on call, right, right?"

      America is going to get its ass stomped in the next war, maybe not by Russia, but another player.

      Wow, the marines is going back to being naval infantry than just being a second army? What a shocker. If they want tanks, they can ask the army. If they want snipers, they can ask other groups to do it. The marines purpose is to be a fast amphibious force that can take islands and land. Having snipers/tanks is just extra and a burden to their budget when that money could be used in somewhere else. Combined arms warfare is a thing.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Wow, the marines is going back to being naval infantry than just being a second army? What a shocker. If they want tanks, they can ask the army. If they want snipers, they can ask other groups to do it.

        Yes, because inter-service rivalry totally isn't a thing and outsourcing heavy fire support to another branch of service that is totally not occupied with other mission priorities totally works out 100% of the time.

        Oh wait...

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Yes, because inter-service rivalry totally isn't a thing and outsourcing heavy fire support to another branch of service that is totally not occupied with other mission priorities totally works out 100% of the time.
          Anon, the marines have a limited budget. The marines can ask the army or other branches for support.
          >b-b-but
          Combined arms warfare is important when it comes to war. Which is why every competent military is training for their own roles that they can do along with focusing on cooperation with other branches. During WW2, the Japanese essentially sabotage themselves because they are unable to do combined arms warfare due to internal strife. Russia is the same because they sucked at doing combined arms warfare when they initially invaded Ukraine. The marines are focusing more on their roles. Tanks and snipers are extra burden to their budget that can go to other areas that needs more improvements.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Do Russians really not understand what joint Chiefs of staff does

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Do you not understand that JCS is a purely advisory body to the President with very little in the way of operational power?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              > it's just an advisory role
              Anon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff are advisors, yes, but they are the ones feeding information and problem solving for the POTUS, VPOTUS, and SecDef, along with serving directly under SecArmy/SecNavy/etc.. While it is true that they do not, by law, have operational ability, they are the ones working directly with those holding NCA and are part of the CCMD staff.

              >Actually discussion of military related matters that don't involve people calling each other trannies
              Imagine my shock

              Nobody's schizo'd out yet, kind of surprising.

              >1947
              >Marine Corps is useless we have the Army and Air Force to deal with any threat
              >1950
              >Army gets its shit rocked and Air Force is completely useless
              >Marines were the only expeditionary force ready with regiment level strength
              >Army "expeditionary" force Task Force Smith gets routed with heavy losses
              >USMC Inchon landing saves Busan Perimeter
              >entire debacle is so bad that the SecDef resigns in disgrace
              >2023
              >tHe MaRiN CoRPSE iS UsEleSS
              >2026
              >China invades Taiwan
              >Navy and Air Force get their shit pushed in
              >Army is completely useless, attempted Airborne operations suffer 90+% losses
              >leftist government attempts draft to replace combat losses
              >right wing riots make 2020 look like a legit peaceful protest
              >US is combat ineffective
              >peace treaty includes the US handing over 60% of farmland to China
              >and payment of all debts immediately
              >money printer go brrrrrrrrrrrrr
              >a loaf of bread costs $6000
              >world abandons USD as reserve currency
              >multiple strains of COVID hit
              >combined with coldest winter in record, despite "climate change"
              >food shortages, fuel shortages, and a non stop parade of aircraft fleeing to Israel (israeli people only goyim) means population loss is 30-50 million
              >in the first year
              >2029
              >FSA (Free States of America) forces lay seige to the USA provisional capital of Sacramento
              >further fuel and food shortages and all out civil war has killed 80 million more
              >USA is promising illegal immigrants citizenship and property for enlistment in the Army
              >these units are completely ineffective, only being useful as cannon fodder
              >Navy and Air Forces defect to Europe for a comfy retirement
              >FSA eventually wins
              >FSA is just a regional power

              Doesn't this fantasy rely on the Marine Corps not being good at their one singular job, coastal assaults, which is why we're reforming them in the first place?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Marines not being good
                No, it requires the same mode of thinking that "the new flying things will totally hold the enemy at bay long enough for the Army to show up!" and the Navy getting stripped because "carriers are obsolete to (nuclear bombs/cruise missiles/hypersonic missiles)" which is exactly what happened in Korea. China is investing HEAVILY into ultra efficient diesel submarines and long range SAM's and F-35's are near useless running slick. The only realistic counter will be nuclear, and China would have it's forces on a hair trigger launch readiness. Sure we could glass China, but their countervalue would kill 100 million Americans and turn us into a third world nation overnight.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >No, it requires the same mode of thinking that "the new flying things will totally hold the enemy at bay long enough for the Army to show up!"
                people keep saying this but it's so much goddamn worse, Force Design 2030 called for MORE snipers in the units for reasons that are clear to everyone but schizos like

                [...]
                [...]
                Wow, the marines is going back to being naval infantry than just being a second army? What a shocker. If they want tanks, they can ask the army. If they want snipers, they can ask other groups to do it. The marines purpose is to be a fast amphibious force that can take islands and land. Having snipers/tanks is just extra and a burden to their budget when that money could be used in somewhere else. Combined arms warfare is a thing.

                - SCOUT snipers are a unique and integral feature of a force tasked with littoral/recon operations
                the reason exact they are cutting them and replacing them with bargain bin "marksmen" is stated explicitly in the article no one read
                quoting from yahoo (in case you don't have an account, it bypasses military.com's requirement)
                >"Part of this is a retention problem," said a Marine officer who's involved with current scout sniper training efforts. The Marine said that, because being a sniper is a secondary responsibility, it gets short shrift from higher-ups.
                >"A lot of them want to keep doing their jobs as snipers," the Marine added. "So they get out, and they go to the SEALs, Army Special Forces or MARSOC. I've seen it happen multiple times. They don't want to stay because they're not valued properly."
                yet force design calls for more snipers, not less, so the paper pushers can't just ignore it
                want a solution? blame the training, not fix the problem
                >Scout snipers have faced a serious shortage of numbers in recent years, which some say is due in part to a too-high attrition rate from the scout sniper schoolhouses. Fewer Marines finishing the course means fewer snipers overall.
                >"Snipers can't be mass-produced," he continued. "They're trying to mass-produce capabilities and cutting corners, thinking that numbers on a spreadsheet is what will win wars. But it's not; all it's going to do is fill body bags."
                just make the "marksman training easier and nix the schools, this clearly won't have any ramifications
                in short: shutting down sniper schools in the middle of a sniper shortage while your doctrine calls for more snipers - brilliant stuff

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                classic marines moment

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                There's literally no point in training more snipers if they don't want to stay. You're just creading a feeder program for other branches, which is a waste of budget. You're genuinely better off giving more grunts marksman rifles.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Do you not understand that the Unified Combatant Commands and Joint Task Forces have virtually all of the operational power?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I agree with the Marine Corps getting rid of tanks, and focusing on being a quick, mobile force. But snipers are a cheap force multiplier that don't really add to your logistic footprint, which fits into the theme of a quick mobile reaction force. Kind of a moron move on the surface level, but maybe the Marine Corps has decided traditional sniper roles are on the way out with the advent of drones and FLIR equivalents being in the hands of all conventional enemies.

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

        >DUDE WE'LL JUST HAVE TOTAL AIR SUPERIORITY AND AIR SUPPORT ON CALL LIKE PERSONAL BUTLERS 24/7 LMAO

        The Russians marched into Ukraine with this PRECISE mentality and this is where it got them.

        Well, to be fair, the Russians literally didn't have the actual capability to use this doctrine in the first place, nor do I think this was their plan to begin with. Russian doctrine emphasizes air defense more than anything when it comes to aviation assets.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        > If they want snipers, they can ask other groups to do it. The marines purpose is to be a fast amphibious force that can take islands and land.
        You are unironically moron, and this is coming from someone who agrees with the force redesign. Marines are being redesigned into first line defense troops and have put a heavy emphasis on missiles, movement, and technology to survive and blunt any attack. They aren’t being redesigned into lithe assault troops meant to take back atolls from China but into lithe defense troops that would be capable of defending small atolls from China without much support from the other branches in the opening weeks of a conflict. Maybe you should read about what the force redesigns goals are, moron.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Tanks: gone

      Good riddance.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >tactics changing over time
      >ermugurd that’s le cringe, your supposed to use outdated tactics that get thousands of your men killed like god intended. This is why Russia is le winning

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >No mention of Russia in OP or that post
        >MUH RUSSIA LE EVIL RUSSIA AAAAAAH KILL PUTIN AAAAH RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA

        Seek professional help, that obsession of yours is not healthy

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Obsessed and rent-free pilled.

      I agree with the Marine Corps getting rid of tanks, and focusing on being a quick, mobile force. But snipers are a cheap force multiplier that don't really add to your logistic footprint, which fits into the theme of a quick mobile reaction force. Kind of a moron move on the surface level, but maybe the Marine Corps has decided traditional sniper roles are on the way out with the advent of drones and FLIR equivalents being in the hands of all conventional enemies.
      [...]
      Well, to be fair, the Russians literally didn't have the actual capability to use this doctrine in the first place, nor do I think this was their plan to begin with. Russian doctrine emphasizes air defense more than anything when it comes to aviation assets.

      Getting rid of scout snipers doesn't mean you get rid of snipers or marksmen in general, dummy. The former are a separate thing, a platoon of snipers alone, while the latter an actively integrated element supporting a unit.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >they had to make it about trannies again

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Xir yes Xir!

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >we want to be highly mobile, stealthy and highly deadly
    >eliminate the stealthiest, most mobile, deadliest force multiplier that takes the most advantage of modern technology (hand-portable ballistics software & spotting, you don't even need a spotter now)
    I don't understand this change at all

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Cuz drone technology will improve and they’ll be better. Snipers are needed but just not as many.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I feel like the more drones there are in the field, the more valuable are soldiers that don't sit in a trench waiting to get bombed

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >MUH DRONES
        have a nice day.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      How often are the marines tapped for sniper missions over other sof?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        marines operate as a coherent unit and scout snipers are an important element of many historic marine operations (when they haven't been randomly disbanded, this is the 4th time this has happened iirc)
        several thousand confirmed kills in Vietnam are literally just scout snipers from their brief time operating, a few single snipers from the program exceeding 300 confirmed kills - much more valuably, they serve a key forward role in catching and communicating potential threats
        some of that may erode due to satellite/drones, but a satellite still can't turn around and kill multiple high priority targets upon catching them out, scout snipers can and have in the past
        in terms of non-war/passive use in special operations, I don't think they're as active

        If you think recon and SOF are giving up their snipers you're fricking high.

        having a high-powered rifle and having a trained scout sniper aren't the same thing - they are literally shutting down the core scout sniper schools
        recon and MARSOC have pre-empted this with designated "recon sniper" training but it is both lower quality and lower throughput (~16/yr so far) and mixing a couple of teams of recon snipers in a normal recon unit still doesn't constitute having "specialized unit" - the marines currently do have specialized sniper units, but they are going away, that's the point of the article if you bother to read it

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Never

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        as much as sof is used over marines or conventional army. They do different things

        Marine snipers were extremely effective in Iraq and Afghanistan. On one hand there were ever only around 300 school trained marine snipers in the entire corps at any given time. On the other I dont see how this makes the force more lethal, as regular platoons can "scout", and sometimes shooting people in the fricking head is a nice capability to have.

        Though when I was in afg our STA platoon constantly got cucked in their hides stalking HVTs only having regiment to JDAM or XCAL the frick out of targets, but it was STA that ID'd them meaning they were still doing their job.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >I don't understand this change at all
      Drones have stolen their jobs, because it's cheaper and easier to send a low flying drone with a grenade into a hot spot for assassinations, than a sniper squad. You can also divert blame with a drone. You can't do that with a sniper squad if they are found using american guns, with american gear, and american night vision.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You realize that the Ukrainian Army still has snipers, right?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Ukraine is also using tanks from the 1970s, so your point is what exactly?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Drones can't hold ground. Their buzzing motors can be heard from half a mile away, and they can't take cover in the woods.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Their buzzing motors can be heard from half a mile away
          You are wrong, they are hardly audible when they’re flying right above you with a grenade dangling from them. Just ask the Russians.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Wtf are you talking, mate. I have a dji mini and you can't hear shit when it's just 50m high or even less.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Drones can't hold ground.
          We are talking about SNIPERS in a SNIPER related role right and not soldiers in a defensive role? Why do SNIPERS need to fricking hold ground? Their role as SNIPERS is to SNIPE important or high priority targets. There's no such thing as a SNIPER battalion or SNIPER platoon.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Tanks: gone
      >Scout Snipers: gone
      >No saying "yes sir, no sir" cuz that's transphobic !
      What the frick next, are they gonna get rid of the Eagle Globe and Anchor because it's old fashion?

      Marines are getting put back to their old job of Navy security

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Welcome, traveler from 2002. Much has changed

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      that's not how you spell fisters

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >defang the one service at the on demand disposal to the Executive personally
      Thanks Manchurian Candidates

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >the USMC is speshul and the Executive can't command any other services
        do boomers really...?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The President is the Commander in Chief of the entire armed forces, you utter buffoon. It's literally written in the constitution.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The USMC doesn't need congressional approval for deployment unlike the other branches.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Crayon eater fuddlore.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >"heh heh we dont need that pelosi to send in OUR DEVIL DOGS heh "
              >*sips*
              >"oorah brother"

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >defang the one service at the on demand disposal to the Executive personally
            Thanks Manchurian Candidates

            >allowing the president to wage wars without congressional approval is a good thing
            You are deeply moronic. Stop breathing.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              The US Marines not depending on congressional approval to be deployed doesn't become something false just because you think its moronic, newbie american.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Zero reading comprehension. Stop breathing.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The President is Commander-in-Chief, but war-making, military-funding, and treaty-signing powers belong to Congress. The Democrats abused that power in 1975 to stab South Vietnam in the back. In Afghanistan, they held both branches, so it was a moot point.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Explain to me how dedicated scout sniper platoons are going to help against an invading Chinese amphibious army you fricking idiot. It isn't 1960s Vietnam or 2000’s Iraq or Afghanistan anymore, smoothbrain. Also, the marines are getting rid of all snipers, they are just being refolded back into regular infantry and recon units again.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >I don't understand this change at all
      Everything the U.S. military is doing right now makes perfect sense, but only if you look at it from the perspective of "death to America".

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You’ve noticed that too?

        Try knowing something about logistics.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      our leadership are domestic enemies working to destroy our country on purpose

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Whoever is making these decisions has a wonderful sense of humor.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >"Precision rifle capability will remain within the infantry company, and the Marine Corps will continue to maintain school-trained snipers within Marine Reconnaissance and Marine Special Operations units," said service spokesman Capt. Ryan Bruce.
    Pushing the capability down so that every company commander has a dedicated sniper team in his company.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >All three training locations for the grueling 3-month Scout Sniper course at Camp Pendleton, California; Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; and Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, will stop admitting new students starting in fiscal 2024, according to the message.
      until they can fire them all, you mean "scout platoon" need detachments with proper sniper training, not just designated marksmen
      I wouldn't object to snipers being turned into a single fire-team within a "scout platoon," especially tech enabled ones where every man has a rifle instead of splitting the pool, but that categorically isn't what's happening here - the goal is to devolve to more scouts and 'marksmen' and no snipers despite acknowledging how critical they are

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Cuz muh VCOG on my HK makes it a DMR, LMG, and a Grunt's Rifle!

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Completely underrated post all the dumb brainlets in this thread missed.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    What the actual frick?

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Inside scoop: snipers are archaic caveman tech and their historical framing as such was driving away recruits from new target demographics who aren’t interested in gratuitous unnecessary violence. Target genders were unable (gatekept by misogyny etc) to pass the course. Training cadre refused to cooperate or compromise - insubordinate.

    Ultimately this is good for the corp and the capability will be retained in unit by unit. Scratch one male dominated MOS off the books as we know them - a good thing overall. Drone capability more reliable and sanitary for recruiting goals. Simper fi.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      gay bait

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >USMC is so utterly fricking incompetent that they deem tanks, light machine guns, and snipers to be unnecessary because "we're always have air support on call, right, right?"

    America is going to get its ass stomped in the next war, maybe not by Russia, but another player.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      We all need to accept that the Marines are simply a useless branch of the US military. There are dozens of other special forces units that can fulfill the exact same role that the Marines claim to hold a monopoly over. Naval infantry is not some mysterious concept anymore requiring specialized expertise. Everyone knows how to do it.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The marine corps is the only force in america that has the MEU. That’s a massive capability that no other branch can do. It’s over for your argument

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Over the beach hasn't been relevant since the Pacific. Anything USMC gets tasked to do these days other branches can do better.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You obviously don’t know what a meu is. It’s a self contained digging force deployed globally at all times. They have their own air combat element, ground combat element, and logistical element. The army can’t do it

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >The army can’t do it
              If you gave them the funds, the ships and the aircraft they would do it. It's just a matter of training and committing the assets

              There's ZERO reason why the USMC shouldn't be a sub-branch of either the Army or the Navy

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                If anything, we should be throwing bricks of money at a tooth-heavy expeditionary force like the Marines .

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The jarheads are not tooth heavy, anon
                A Bradley mechanised infantry battalion is tooth heavy

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >zero reason why the USMC shouldn't a sub branch of either the Army or the Navy
                boy do I have news for you

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                USMC falls under department of the navy you utter moron

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The Department of the Navy is an administrative bureau, the USN and USMC are independent service branches.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >a sub-branch of either the Army or the Navy
                Yeah you're a moron talking out your ass if you're typing this. I wonder if you'll ever figure out why.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Don't bother, people who hate the Marine Corps are so moronic they make Ordinance Marines look like PhD holders.
                >Ord Marines
                Marines that load bombs on to aircraft, and said Marines found the concept of "1, 2, 3, lift" too hard so they changed it to "ready, lift".

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >people who hate the Marine Corps
                Anon I'm discovering this is a thing with this thread and I'm appropriately confused. I get the memes and interservice rivalry, but there's frickers with hardcore hateboners for the Marine Corps and I struggle to imagine how or why.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It's because:
                A. The Marines are arrogant and pretend they are the only elite infantry in the entire military, and the only naval infantry as well.
                B. They were extremely useful in WW2, but since Vietnam have been stuck in the role of "the Army 2: Electric Boogaloo"
                C. They are constantly cutting various limbs off themselves in some absurd back to basics attempt for a role that isn't as relevant as it was in 1945.

                homosexuals pretending that riding in on a fricking helicopter or on an amphibious assault vehicle requires the fricking Marine Corps to be its own branch, when it should just get rolled back into the Navy.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Ordinance Marines
                they're called JAG sweaty

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >said Marines found the concept of "1, 2, 3, lift" too hard so they changed it to "ready, lift".
                why wait three before bomb uppies when one wait enough?
                now load more bomb

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                But if you count to 3 you can lift bomb 3 times bigger.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                boom bomb make not get any bigger from bigger lift
                but more bomb mean more booms
                more booms good because many smaller boom like one larger boom
                big boom best boom
                so not lift bigger
                lift faster
                for more bomb

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                bomb 3 times big make boom 3 time big but it only take up 1 hard point so plane has triple the boom per plane.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you know nothing of bomb

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              sure they could, just would be twice as long, cost more and end shittier

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Army alone doesn't have to. There is nowhere in the world combined arms between the branches can't touch within 24 hours if they had to. Just like Airborne don't get combat jumps since its more efficient to just let AF pave the way for traditional transport, the MEUs are an antiquated model from when the world was a bigger place.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >1947
              >Marine Corps is useless we have the Army and Air Force to deal with any threat
              >1950
              >Army gets its shit rocked and Air Force is completely useless
              >Marines were the only expeditionary force ready with regiment level strength
              >Army "expeditionary" force Task Force Smith gets routed with heavy losses
              >USMC Inchon landing saves Busan Perimeter
              >entire debacle is so bad that the SecDef resigns in disgrace
              >2023
              >tHe MaRiN CoRPSE iS UsEleSS
              >2026
              >China invades Taiwan
              >Navy and Air Force get their shit pushed in
              >Army is completely useless, attempted Airborne operations suffer 90+% losses
              >leftist government attempts draft to replace combat losses
              >right wing riots make 2020 look like a legit peaceful protest
              >US is combat ineffective
              >peace treaty includes the US handing over 60% of farmland to China
              >and payment of all debts immediately
              >money printer go brrrrrrrrrrrrr
              >a loaf of bread costs $6000
              >world abandons USD as reserve currency
              >multiple strains of COVID hit
              >combined with coldest winter in record, despite "climate change"
              >food shortages, fuel shortages, and a non stop parade of aircraft fleeing to Israel (israeli people only goyim) means population loss is 30-50 million
              >in the first year
              >2029
              >FSA (Free States of America) forces lay seige to the USA provisional capital of Sacramento
              >further fuel and food shortages and all out civil war has killed 80 million more
              >USA is promising illegal immigrants citizenship and property for enlistment in the Army
              >these units are completely ineffective, only being useful as cannon fodder
              >Navy and Air Forces defect to Europe for a comfy retirement
              >FSA eventually wins
              >FSA is just a regional power

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Navy and Air Force get their shit pushed in
                Anon if the Navy and Air Force have gotten their shit pushed in, what the frick do you expect the Marines to do?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Already be in fricking theater, or forward deployed to counter further Chinese operations.

                Anon, they are not getting rid of the marines. The marines are being prepared to be a fast reaction/moving force that can deploy anywhere. If china invades taiwan, the marines/navy/air force/army will all be ready to do their respective roles if they are being called to action. So that scenario that you got is unrealistic.

                >post historical evidence
                >it won't happen
                I bet you're one of those who thought "Afghanistan won't totally end like Veitnam, it just can't!"

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Already be in fricking theater, or forward deployed to counter further Chinese operations.
                Where they get fricked by the PLAAF and PLAN because they, by your own statement, just lost all their air and naval support?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >not knowing Marines have their own organic air assets
                >naval support
                If Taiwan sinks I think naval support would be the least of the issues.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Muh organic air assets
                The Chinese just pushed in USAFs shit. A USAF that is infinitely better trained and equipped to combat Chinese air assets. Furthermore, without the Navy and local air superiority (which would come from USAF), how are your MEUs getting resupplied?

                So again, what the frick are the Marines going to do?

                >The Chinese just obliterated several wings of F15s, F16s, F22s, and F35s, and removed our only avenues of resupply, but our couple dozen F35s will definitely do better!
                >Well cuz we marines hoorah

                Frick off

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                ?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >post historical evidence
                >it won't happen
                Because you're assuming the marines will be non existent. Nobody at the top thinks the marines are useless. The marines are just focusing on what they do best, which is a rapid assault force capable of being deployed anywhere and make assaults on islands and lands alike. What you're suggesting is assuming the marines will get disbanded.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >I bet you're one of those who thought "Afghanistan won't totally end like Veitnam, it just can't!"
                It was 100% obvious that Afghanistan would just be a repeat of Vietnam by 2003 at the absolute latest, and anyone who denied that was a neocon boomer

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Except it was not a repeat of Vietnam at all. We lost more in a single battle in Vietnam than we lost the entire decade in Afghanistan. We let the NVA have free reign up in the north, that did not exist for the Taliban until the very last 2 years.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The taliban was able to gain grounds because of the doha agreement had america stop bombing the taliban in exchange for anti terrorism commitments.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                This, it was a stupid-ass move on the part of the US. Just because ISIS was the new hotness doesn't mean the talibs suddenly stopped being a problem.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The talibs never were a problem. The US rejected talib offer to put Bin Laden on trial. The US rejected Talib peace offer several times after the initial invasion. The only problems are those that the US created themselves.
                The Taliban atleast wants to be left alone with their own country. ISIS is the one encourging lone wolves because they want a global Caliphate. ISIS is indeed the biggest problem at the moment. Let the taliban have their country, who the frick cares if they take away womens rights and bans drag queen hours?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >take away womens rights

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                sorry, what i meant was, does anyone of importance care

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The US asked the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden. They told the US to get bent, thinking it was just like after the Cole incident. They only changed their mind when a CSG was parked off the coast and at that point it was far too late for them to realize that the US was serious and offer up their asses. The Taliban was a problem because they were allowing terrorist training camps to set up in their country, and that eventually spilled violence into the US instead of just killing more brown people which no one really gives a frick about. Thankfully, after 20 years of occupation and local jihadis getting blown up, the Taliban have issues with said terrorist groups now they're in power, with ISIS-K nibbling at them from one end and the more radical elements of the Taliban bringing the fun to Pakistan as thanks for letting them hop the border during the occupation. Overall, it's pretty fricking hilarious to watch them get their comeuppance while they're also complaining about having office jobs.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                the taliban was a problem that had to be dealt with because they opposed chopping the balls off 8 year old boys and teaching them to dance provocatively for adult men

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Strong argument, champ. Now please return to /misc/ and leave the geopolitics to the people who aren't brown.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                as usual the israelite has no actual argument

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The Taliban? You mean the ones who have a tradition of raping young boys, because they can't get to the girls?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you mean the american backed afghan police? the ones the Taliban were trying to get rid of?

                https://www.npr.org/2018/01/24/580433652/how-the-u-s-military-ignored-child-sexual-abuse-in-afghanistan-for-years

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The taliban were formed in part to oppose this. Also read about the charles martland case.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                yeah that's an ANA thing. just google "kandahar rape"

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >was going to be the same
                That wasn't the case until fricking Biden just said "frick this" and pulled out months ahead of schedule.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >until fricking Biden just said "frick this" and pulled out months ahead of schedule
                the full withdrawal was supposed to be in May as agreed to in Trump's deal with the Taliban to give them Afghanistan...Biden actually extended it longer until August

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Well, yes and no.

                Optically, very much so, and strategically, we made the same mistake in allowing the Taliban safe haven in Pakistan and probably Iran that we did in allowing the NVA free sanctuary in North VietNam, Laos and Cambodia until a few months of 1970 when we knocked their dicks into the dirt in the Parrot’s Beak incursion.

                The mission in Afghanistan was totally different however. We weren’t really there to “nation build”…frick…the US Federal homosexual Government’s bullshit doesn’t sell in Texas or Florida or Flyover…do they think gay Marriage and Taxpayer fu dead Abortion on Demand at any age and at any stage is gonna sell in Kandahar?

                We were there as a punitive expedition, and we stayed to deny the turf to the Taliban who protected and hosted Al-Qaeda.

                Once Bin-Laden supposedly got whacked and Mullah Omar went off to his 72 virgins, much of our reason for being there was mooted.
                Nobody gives a shit about Afghanistan…the Afghans probably least of all.

                This wasn’t the case in Vietnam. Yes, in the early days South Vietnam was a UN fiction run by the Frogs’ pet Catholic asiatics. And nobody took it seriously until Tet 68 when the Communist asiatics who believed and died very much in asiatic Communism showed up in Hue with lists of South Vietnam asiatics to exterminate.
                Only THEN did the South Viets see the wisdom of trying to make a go of South Vietnam, but by then it was maybe just too late for them to get their shit together.
                And the TrotskyiteJoos in the US media and academia had already poisoned the well domestically in the USA against the war.

                Nixon bought them some time with the Cambodian invasion and the air support in the 1972 Easter Offensive, but the South Zipperheads couldn’t overcome their mindset and by 1975 they were not ready for Prime Time.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You're missing the most crucial part: Congress cutting support for South Vietnam despite this being a violation of the agreement that lead to the US to leave Vietnam.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Anon, they are not getting rid of the marines. The marines are being prepared to be a fast reaction/moving force that can deploy anywhere. If china invades taiwan, the marines/navy/air force/army will all be ready to do their respective roles if they are being called to action. So that scenario that you got is unrealistic.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                absolute schizobabble

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >The USMC gets disbanded
                >The US immediately loses World War Three and collapses into one big Paris Commune only less competent and woke.
                /k/'s reached the final boss of Reformer: The Video Game. I heard that if you defeat him, you unlock the Aerogavin in campaign mode.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                i remember that gi joe episode

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                His. Scenario. Stands.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            A MEU doesn’t storm beaches. They have a compliment of f-35s to clear the airspace for marines to be transported via helicopter to whatever hotspot opens up. They’re the fastest fully contained combat unit in the US.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              > Army expands on sniper school because we have decided that snipers need way more education than both the Marine Corps and Army have historically given them
              > Marine Corps goes the moron opposite way and says "lol frick it", axes their literal top tier shooting/stalking/recon school
              Wtf

              Yeah, if only they ever did frick all before the 82nd/101st/173rd/SFGs/Ranger Regiment + Air Force actually got there.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Anon, the army has more funding than the marines. If the marines keep spending money on programs that is already available in other branches, then they will not have enough money to procure actually important stuff that is important for the branch.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Then they're gonna have to suck it the frick up and send Marines to more Army schools.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Or maybe the marines will focus on their own things that they are good at than larping as a second army. The marines spearhead, the army occupies and reinforces while also being the heavy hitters if needed to be.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I don't think the Army is going to be lending snipers any time soon, anon. Assuming wartime, we simply don't have enough to go around that we can lend them to Marines.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't think the Army is going to be lending snipers any time soon, anon. Assuming wartime, we simply don't have enough to go around that we can lend them to Marines.
                Even during WW2, the army was able to lend some of its units to the Pacific while it was focusing on Europe. I don't think there will be a situation where the army is not able to spare a couple of units to the marines.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The largest amphibious operation in the Pacific Theater was done by the Army lmao

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        An argument as old as Captain President Truman's (USANG-Artillery) WW1 butthurt.

        I disagree. The Marines, being a smaller force, were inherently more flexible and were the only sizeable force able to pioneer new doctrines that later were adopted by the Army.
        Amphibious operations were pioneered and developed by the Corps, as was tactical helicopter operations in Korea.

        For the Army to do this would have required literal decades of bureaucratic infighting to accomplish. The Marines just did it, and when the various Army bureaucracies were faced with the success of the concept, they merely had to read the manuals written by Marines to have the basis for implementing the foundation and adding their own improvements.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Smaller military branches aren't "more flexible", just don't deploy as many battalions and you get the same flexibility.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >smaller groups aren't more flexible
            Look up "institutional inertia" and get back here.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Ah yes, because most of the inertia that the military faces is related to the size of the branch and not the giant mess of bureaucrats that are attached to them all equally.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >smaller organization has the same amount of bureaucrats as larger ones do
                Anon...

                Right, what we need to fix insitutional inertia is to have an entirely separate branch dedicated to naval infantry (a role it doesn't preform any more) that copes along by pretending it is somehow the only elite infantry force in the entire US military. Please ignore all the others.

                >lol let's just remove our only regimental qrf and roll it in to branches that require congressional approval to deploy!
                YOU ARE moronic

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >lol let's just remove our only regimental qrf and roll it in to branches that require congressional approval to deploy!
                Yes. Congress SHOULD approve expeditionary forces. Do you believe in a rogue lawless military that doesn't answer to the legislative branch?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >remove a constitutionally mandated force
                >make a QUICK reaction force reliant on congressional approval, costing valuable time
                Jesus fricking Christ you're so moronic that your mother should pull the fricking plug on your life support because there's no way you breathe on your own.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Seethe. I prefer a regulated military to one run out of the White House.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >a constitutionally mandated force
                What?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Please cite the article, section, and clause of the constitution that says the marine corps has to exist.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Right, what we need to fix insitutional inertia is to have an entirely separate branch dedicated to naval infantry (a role it doesn't preform any more) that copes along by pretending it is somehow the only elite infantry force in the entire US military. Please ignore all the others.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >For the Army to do this would have required literal decades of bureaucratic infighting to accomplish.
          Yeah, or the 3 months the Howze Board took.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        This really. If the Marines are just going to shuttle between islands on car ferrys and call in the occasional air strike, just let the Army do it.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        No. Peak GWOT, the USMC was the most capable conventional army in human history. That was their niche, spec ops are different, and it's sad to see it go.

        marines operate as a coherent unit and scout snipers are an important element of many historic marine operations (when they haven't been randomly disbanded, this is the 4th time this has happened iirc)
        several thousand confirmed kills in Vietnam are literally just scout snipers from their brief time operating, a few single snipers from the program exceeding 300 confirmed kills - much more valuably, they serve a key forward role in catching and communicating potential threats
        some of that may erode due to satellite/drones, but a satellite still can't turn around and kill multiple high priority targets upon catching them out, scout snipers can and have in the past
        in terms of non-war/passive use in special operations, I don't think they're as active

        [...]
        having a high-powered rifle and having a trained scout sniper aren't the same thing - they are literally shutting down the core scout sniper schools
        recon and MARSOC have pre-empted this with designated "recon sniper" training but it is both lower quality and lower throughput (~16/yr so far) and mixing a couple of teams of recon snipers in a normal recon unit still doesn't constitute having "specialized unit" - the marines currently do have specialized sniper units, but they are going away, that's the point of the article if you bother to read it

        He gets it

        Every moron marine and boomer is throwing a tantrum that GWOT is over and the USMC is being expected to get back to doing their fricking job instead of larping as mini army

        Implying we weren't the best army ever

        Wait..hold up.
        Scout Snipers were not reconnaissance...they were snipers first and foremost.
        They got held by battalion in H&S Company or attached to line companies as situations warranted.
        I was in Weapons Company. Our 81mm Mortar platoon was almost always the Battalion Commander's personal "artillery". Heavy Machine guns Platoon were doled out as needed, as were we Dragon Platoon missile gunners.

        Snipers were not Recon. Recon were not Snipers. Different skill sets that did overlap in some areas, but different missions entirely.

        From where I sit, it looks like the Corps is going to a high-speed, low-drag mode of being more traditional of what they were founded to be...the Navy's shoreside leg breakers and head thumpers to seize and hold ports and landing zones.
        No more massive tank and me h infantry assaults on fricking inland cities like Najaf or Baghdad.
        No more patrolling the mountains of Afghanufrickingstan...leave that shit to the Army to occupy and subdue.
        Marines are an Assault Force.

        If you think scout snipers aren't mainly used for recon, you really don't know what you're talking about. Full stop.
        t. 1/6 Charlie

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          > If you think scout snipers aren't mainly used for recon, you really don't know what you're talking about. Full stop.
          t. 1/6 Charlie<

          My man, no sniper anywhere ever said:

          “Hey! I want to do snoop and poop, but not bring my rifle and zap someone!”

          What the duck do we have Recon Battalions and Force Recon FOR, again?

          And if you were a Line Company grunt, you would know that you don’t send snipers out sniping alone. They task 0311s like you to be Security for them. Usually two maybe three fireteams…so they’re a squad right there just to support one shooter and one spotter so that they don’t get blindsided.

          Tell me the Platoon or Company commander happy about detaching a squad plus for some reason.

          Hell, they were all generally irritated and annoyed having us Dragon gunners attached to them.
          My section was literally abandoned by C 1/4 on an operation when they all got in trucks and fricked off somewhere.
          Suited us swell, since we got that Charlie Company commander didn’t want to be bothered with us.
          We woke up the next morning when a battery of 8” SP howitzers opened up about a klick away.
          We saw they had a water bull in their position, so we delegated a few lads to go mooch some water from them.

          Their battery commander lost his shit when he learned that we were in his rounds’ flight path down range, and made a Very Big Deal about it to Regiment and Brigade.

          I don’t think Charlie Company’s CO got selected for promotion behind that caper.
          Again, this didn’t bother us. It was a low stress operation for us, and the Gun Bunnies were good people. We were neighbors at 29 Palms on Mainside, so we knew a few of those boys and they us.

          We got our water, and we’re left alone…what more could we ask? It was a very 1980s California kind of operation…”you do YOU, and we’ll do US!”…very chill.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Just a post script about that operation.

            It turned out to be a very educational opportunity us Dragons because we got to see the Log train on the move, with the tank companies providing security out front and the A-4 s and Harriers flying cover.

            Shit we usually wouldn’t see if attached to a Line Company.

            Since we had been marooned on a comfy hillside, we got to watch the whole show…and the point was that this is EXACTLY the view that you would WANT to see as a Dragon missile gunner,(although of the OTHER team’s shit)…SP Howitzers and MBTs toddling about within our range.

            Now what would happen AFTER we zapped them would be likely kinda hairy for us, but that’s why they manufacture Bronze and Silver Stars and Navy Crosses, right?

            I mean as long as we slowed down their parade, and maybe called in some help, (although Charlie didn’t bother leaving us a fricking radio, and all of us had been detailed to TACP and LFTC mortar shoots being that 81mm Mortar Platoon were our Weapons Company Bros), we’d have done OUR bit for the War Effort, right?

            Anyway…don’t be INTENSE. Maintain MELLOW, okay? You’ll live just as long and you’ll enjoy what you’ve got more, man.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >the USMC was the most capable conventional army in human history
          Marines actually believe this.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Absolutely. Pound for pound, no question. If you were in, you would know how heavily the Marines had to be held back because something something the war crime games aren't what the US was going for.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Doing war crimes isn't competence. Drunk Russians can do that.

              After the USMC's casualty ratios in Fallujah and Mosul because they refused to use combined arms like the Army, there's not much left to say.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I see you don't know what you're talking about. Have a bad day, pog.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Fundamentally impossible for the US marines not to do combined arms. You don't know what you're saying.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Peak GWOT, the USMC was the most capable conventional army in human history
          which is why in 2006 the Army had to step in and fix Anbar after the Marines completely fricked everything up

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Who are the other contestants? Every other military on earth is basically a joke, even the EU would’ve let Ukraine get steamrolled as we’ve seen America has done 90% of the work.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Tanks: gone
      >Scout Snipers: gone
      >No saying "yes sir, no sir" cuz that's transphobic !
      What the frick next, are they gonna get rid of the Eagle Globe and Anchor because it's old fashion?

      >muh tanks
      The marines is focusing on being a fast assault group focus on amphibious action. But they aren't fully removing snipers.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >The marines is focusing on being a fast assault group focus on amphibious action.

        Because tanks have never been necessary for clearing out bunkers on Pacific islands, right? Right?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Back then we didn't have PGM with pin point accuracy designed specifically to penetrate and obliterate bunkers

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >DUDE WE'LL JUST HAVE TOTAL AIR SUPERIORITY AND AIR SUPPORT ON CALL LIKE PERSONAL BUTLERS 24/7 LMAO

            The Russians marched into Ukraine with this PRECISE mentality and this is where it got them.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Russia has never dreamed of having air superiority even over Ukraine, reformer-bro, and if the US is incapable of conducting air ops, there are many bigger holes in the doctrine that need to be fixed first.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >DUDE WE'LL JUST HAVE TOTAL AIR SUPERIORITY AND AIR SUPPORT ON CALL LIKE PERSONAL BUTLERS 24/7 LMAO
              Yes

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Are you fricking moronic? That's literally the entire US Doctrine and why they take months to pick apart an air defense network before starting a land invasion

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          It's the 21st century, gramps
          There are now shoulder-fired anti-structure munitions, precision-guided missile artillery, and laser-guided bunker-busting bombs

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >It's the 21st century, gramps
            >There are now shoulder-fired anti-structure munitions, precision-guided missile artillery, and laser-guided bunker-busting bombs

            IFVs can do the same job or the navy/air force can do precision targeting on heavily fortified positions with bunker busters. Tanks like the abrams are not fitted to be mobile like an IFV. If the marines want armor, they can ask the army to peel off their units to the marines.

            >IFVs can do the same job or the navy/air force can do precision targeting on heavily fortified positions with bunker busters.

            Yeah except you hit an IFV with an ATGM and the whole fricking thing explodes. They also don't possess anywhere near the same level of firepower as an Abrams with its 105mm gun.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >you hit an IFV with an ATGM and the whole fricking thing explodes
              They've also invented infantry crew-served non-line-of-sight missiles. Shocker, I know.
              >Abrams with its 105mm gun
              Gramps...

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Yeah except you hit an IFV with an ATGM and the whole fricking thing explodes. They also don't possess anywhere near the same level of firepower as an Abrams with its 105mm gun.
              Which is why you have to have infantry support for an IFV along with them having longer range missiles. IFVs are fast and mobile that can also provide infantry support. Good for the marines since they are a spearheading group.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              https://i.imgur.com/JPaXkH0.jpg

              >The marines is focusing on being a fast assault group focus on amphibious action.

              Because tanks have never been necessary for clearing out bunkers on Pacific islands, right? Right?

              They should just give the marines the new light tanks the army now will have.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          IFVs can do the same job or the navy/air force can do precision targeting on heavily fortified positions with bunker busters. Tanks like the abrams are not fitted to be mobile like an IFV. If the marines want armor, they can ask the army to peel off their units to the marines.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          they still ahve the Griffin

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The M3/M5 Stuart didn't weight 71 tons.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The Marines have other, more capable options than the M1 for any kind of amphibious assault. The M1 is a heavy b***h that needs a lot of logistics to get them into the fight and you're effectively cutting down your landing opportunities by lugging it with you. Besides, the IFVs and other lighter AFVs will have done the job while the M1s are still coming ashore.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      They always do the exact same mistake. Read any book about sniping, it always comes down to the burger military being so overconfident in peace time, it ditches doctrines they learned during wartime, that come wartime again, they have to learn everything anew, from canadians, bongs and whoever.
      WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, sanbox wars, they always forget and then throw a pikachu face

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Ah, I see someone addressed the issue already.

        American Revolution
        >Colonials find that expert marksmen and rangers perform exceptionally well against the British and Indians
        >After the war, disband the lot of them and only retain the American legion.

        American Civil War
        >The Union fields the elite Berdan Sharpshooters and Confederates field a exceptional force of marksmen. Both sides use light infantry extensively and they are highly praised.
        >Union sharpshooters are literally fielded until attrition wipes most of them out, the confederates similarly wittle away. War ends, no light infantry is incorporated into the peacetime army.

        WW1
        >German snipers incur huge losses on fresh GIs.
        >Americans train under British and Canadians, pick up their fieldcraft and sniping techniques, apply it within the AEF.
        >discarded entirely postwar.

        WW2
        >Same as the first, but with US Rangers in the Western theater, Marine Raiders in the Pacific Theater.
        >Any expertise discarded after the war, no sniping programs survive demobilization.

        I can't say I'm surprised they got axed. Its a lesson relearned during almost every American conflict.

        >inb4 Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm
        I know, that is when the Marines had it's shit together.

        I wouldnt full agree the jungle conflicts had "their shit together", they still used what were basically just hunting rifles with wooden stocks that warped in the jungle, but they were surely better off and kept "some" doctrine.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        America always gets its cheeks clapped in the beginning of the next war. It's like when they thought dogfighting was dead because guided missiles became a thing, then got their shit slapped in Vietnam.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Tell me you know nothing about air combat history without telling me.

          US air doctrine was notoriously rigid in Nam and its training was shit. When they were finally allowed to break from it and re-train they scored some great victories.

          And the Navy’s fighters never got guns installed on them and yet they had a performance increase at the same time the Air Force did. Strange.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      the only other player is china and they are worse. being a doomer doesn't make you wise.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    so, basically, we're going with the Russian method of lots of DM's and a few real snipers in specialized units?

    When the frick has copying russia EVER been a good idea?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      they're shoving all the real snipers currently in the service into the new scout platoons (26-man), and then killing the sniper schools to be replaced with a 2-week "designated marksman" course
      for comparison: PRE-sniper training is 2 weeks

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, so they're doing exactly what russia and china do. That's what I said.

        https://i.imgur.com/V7jdEHI.png

        >USMC is so utterly fricking incompetent that they deem tanks, light machine guns, and snipers to be unnecessary because "we're always have air support on call, right, right?"

        America is going to get its ass stomped in the next war, maybe not by Russia, but another player.

        >America is copying Russia/China
        >This is a huge leap backwards and why they will lose to Russia/China
        homie what?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          no you fricking moron you said
          >and a few real snipers in specialized units?
          there will be no "real snipers in specialized units," once the current "real snipers" are gone they're gone for good
          the only reason they're not going sooner is the can't just fire them or current staff in educational roles - they're cutting the program 2024 - but once that's settled the marines will be exclusively army-style poorly trained designated marksmen for squad activities, not snipers doing sniper things
          "scout platoons" of 26 men are not in any way specialized, it's a large and core part of the new marine force design
          you can see this in 2030:
          >Snipers. Our initial re-organization of the
          infantry battalion disaggregated the sniper
          platoon and added one sniper team per company.
          except that's not what they're doing, they're nuking scout snipers training and replacing them with army-style "designated marksmen" who spend 1/4th the time (or less) learning the role
          in some ways you could argue Russia's approach is better because at least they keep some specialists on hand somewhere

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            If you think recon and SOF are giving up their snipers you're fricking high.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >exclusively army-style poorly trained designated marksmen for squad activities, not snipers doing sniper things
            You know literally nothing about the Army sniper structure. Every infantry battalion has a scout/sniper platoon. The snipers in them are trained on 8 week courses with long range shooting and sniper field craft. It's not just designated marksman.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              this EXACT FRICKING THREAD is about that structure being axed you stupid homosexual homosexual Black person

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It's the MARINES axing snipers, not the Army. Please try to keep up.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >, and then killing the sniper schools
        exact same mistake in between wars every time

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Taking away a valuable Battalion reconnaissance asset is a terrible idea, the better way is to add a Special Purpose Platoon to each rifle company consisting of internal reconnaissance assets as well as keeping the battalion level asset active.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Wait..hold up.
      Scout Snipers were not reconnaissance...they were snipers first and foremost.
      They got held by battalion in H&S Company or attached to line companies as situations warranted.
      I was in Weapons Company. Our 81mm Mortar platoon was almost always the Battalion Commander's personal "artillery". Heavy Machine guns Platoon were doled out as needed, as were we Dragon Platoon missile gunners.

      Snipers were not Recon. Recon were not Snipers. Different skill sets that did overlap in some areas, but different missions entirely.

      From where I sit, it looks like the Corps is going to a high-speed, low-drag mode of being more traditional of what they were founded to be...the Navy's shoreside leg breakers and head thumpers to seize and hold ports and landing zones.
      No more massive tank and me h infantry assaults on fricking inland cities like Najaf or Baghdad.
      No more patrolling the mountains of Afghanufrickingstan...leave that shit to the Army to occupy and subdue.
      Marines are an Assault Force.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >From where I sit, it looks like
        >No more
        >No more
        so... is that good?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The next war will tell if it's good or not.

          If you read not too far between the lines, this tells me that Marines are focusing back in the Pacific once more.

          A lot of this will depend on what the Navy does...and that is a question even the Navy can't answer, since between Flat-top gays, Bubblegays,(both fast attack and Boomers, which is a whole sub domestic dispute), the Destroyer and Frigategays, the Gator Navy has to fight tooth and nail for every new toy it gets in the Swabbie Frickapalooza...and this all has an impact on the Corps and it's tasking.

          Everyone's crystal ball is scratched and cracked, so nobody sees the future perfectly.

          The thing the Corps has going for it is flexibility. It traditionally has been able to moroh itself into a half-assed version of what was needed at the moment, and with enough drag to be credible.

          The first tanks in northern Saudi to deter the Iraqis after they mogged Kuwait were Marine tankers of the MPS Force.

          I guess the Corps did as good a job at COIN in the Sandbox as anyone else did.

          That's a feature that the Corps shouldn't lose.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This image reminds me of the time I did a bug assignment for biology in uni and took pictures of trees while pretending there was a bug camouflaged in the bark. My professor didn't notice.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I've seen people speculating that their doing this to make Recon look good.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    THERMALS, GUYS

    THERMALS ARE WHY THEY AXED IT

    YOU CANT HIDE ANYMORE

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Our adversaries' thermal gear is junk. And that's the stuff that HASN'T been sold off on the black market.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Our adversaries' thermal gear is junk
        you couldnt be more wrong.

        chinese thermals are excellent and rival FLIR. the era of hiding in bushes is over. especially when every drone has one.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Their cooled thermals for emplaced/vehicle use in particular are spectacular and for the commercial uncooled market they are offering the highest resolution sensor civvie bucks can buy. People forget that China is an industrial juggernaut and thermal sensors are used in industry applications they need to produce better higher quality products so they put a lot into r&d in the space.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            china makes better thermals than the US does. where can i go buy a 1280x1024 flir scope? I cant. but I can order an iray right now. which is chinese.

            i think the Marines are realizing this, especially after all the ukraine combat footage using thermals. which are mostly chinese drones. You cant hide as a sniper anymore. modern warfare is electronic, whoever has the best SigInt and signature reduction wins.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >confusing consooomer shit with military shit.
              Yikes.

              >confusing pixel density (matters far less) with cooled and bandwidth (way, way more)
              Double yikes.

              Reminder they use uncooled thermals on their not javelin.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Commercial high spec thermals aren't much worse than military ones these days, pretending otherwise is just delusional.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              This obsession with drones is comical. All you have to do is tamper with the signal it receives.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >All you have to do is tamper with the signal it receives.
                And all you have to do is blow up the signal jammer. The Ukrainians have been doing it for a while now.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >This obsession with drones is comical.
                It's like boomers when missiles came along
                >"Sheeit, who needs guns anymore?"

                >Their buzzing motors can be heard from half a mile away
                You are wrong, they are hardly audible when they’re flying right above you with a grenade dangling from them. Just ask the Russians.

                And that means drones can hold ground?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                nta but area denial is holding ground
                if you can't take an area because there's a bunch of drones loitering above at all hours, it's held

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >YOU CANT HIDE ANYMORE
      Yeah that's what we want you to think

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    the future is now
    bad news: fewer snipers
    good news: more opportunities to hop off of boats and frick people up

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    American Revolution
    >Colonials find that expert marksmen and rangers perform exceptionally well against the British and Indians
    >After the war, disband the lot of them and only retain the American legion.

    American Civil War
    >The Union fields the elite Berdan Sharpshooters and Confederates field a exceptional force of marksmen. Both sides use light infantry extensively and they are highly praised.
    >Union sharpshooters are literally fielded until attrition wipes most of them out, the confederates similarly wittle away. War ends, no light infantry is incorporated into the peacetime army.

    WW1
    >German snipers incur huge losses on fresh GIs.
    >Americans train under British and Canadians, pick up their fieldcraft and sniping techniques, apply it within the AEF.
    >discarded entirely postwar.

    WW2
    >Same as the first, but with US Rangers in the Western theater, Marine Raiders in the Pacific Theater.
    >Any expertise discarded after the war, no sniping programs survive demobilization.

    I can't say I'm surprised they got axed. Its a lesson relearned during almost every American conflict.

    >inb4 Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm
    I know, that is when the Marines had it's shit together.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It's not like it matters, all snipers learn marksmanship shooting deer, not in boot camp. As long as the USA has a hunting and rifle shooting culture, they will have a cadre of elite light infantry ready to go.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I am absolutely loving the amount of salt and seething coming from Marines now that they've been told to get back doing their jobs, which is seizing small islands with airfields to plant missile systems for the Air Force.

    >Muh tanks
    >Muh MEUs
    Frick off, we have the Army for a reason

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >we have the Army for a reason
      jobs?

  17. 1 year ago
    RC-135 Rivet Joint

    https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/142/Docs/CMC38%20Force%20Design%202030%20Report%20Phase%20I%20and%20II.pdf?ver=2020-03-26-121328-460

    It would appear the Marines are cutting down in size in most places (except for drones and long range rockets) in order to save 12 billion dollars so they can spend that on converting BACK into a littoral combat force doing ship to shore expeditionary warfare. They don't want tanks, too heavy and resource demanding, they have to be mobile and stealthy. They want smaller units too, so they can cram them into anything that floats and be combat effective.

    The USMC wants hypersonic weapons and said bye bye to tanks?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >The USMC wants hypersonic weapons
      this is as moronic as cutting scout snipers because the school is "too hard" while trying to become stealthier, so I guarantee it'll happen
      RIP marine budget - enjoy boondoggle

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Long-range anti-shipping missiles are useless for defending islands in the Pacific
        >Wars are won with two guys hiding in a bush

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Wars are won with two guys hiding in a bush
          >>>>>What is the Taliban?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >What is the Taliban?
            How is this relevant to fighting China in the western Pacific?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            What is this constant need to compare COIN to conventional war

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The war was far more complex than that and tardacious reductionist thinking is not useful. The Taliban didn't snipe their way to success and their intel was mostly gotten by being indistinguishable from other locals who supported them.

            Afghanistan did not want the US way of life and Afghans chose accordingly. US clients were the usual shitbags, same as the USSRs clients were the reason Russia left though they did hang on longer.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >same as the USSRs clients were the reason Russia left though they did hang on longer.
              The only reason Commiestan fell was due to a massive Saudi/Paki early-90s moneyhatting campaign, which managed to bring all the different proto-talib shitfricks together. Previously, the afgommies managed to fend off several assaults by uncoordinated islamist warlords.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Taliban fail for 20 YEARS to liberate their country.
            >Only "win" because the big bad doesn't want opium anymore and leaves under a white peace.
            >"We did guys! We beat the big bad! Look at them leave unmolested, with all their strategic assets, and informants! We sure showed them!"

            Let me guess... You think the French Resistance could have won the Western Front of WW2 by themselves?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              if germany decided to leave. yeah.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Every moron marine and boomer is throwing a tantrum that GWOT is over and the USMC is being expected to get back to doing their fricking job instead of larping as mini army

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        And what do you imagine "their job" to be?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          See

          https://i.imgur.com/HXpYoGI.png

          https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/142/Docs/CMC38%20Force%20Design%202030%20Report%20Phase%20I%20and%20II.pdf?ver=2020-03-26-121328-460

          It would appear the Marines are cutting down in size in most places (except for drones and long range rockets) in order to save 12 billion dollars so they can spend that on converting BACK into a littoral combat force doing ship to shore expeditionary warfare. They don't want tanks, too heavy and resource demanding, they have to be mobile and stealthy. They want smaller units too, so they can cram them into anything that floats and be combat effective.

          The USMC wants hypersonic weapons and said bye bye to tanks?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Would a hypersonic missile loaded on a truck / track be lighter than an M1A2?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Just give them light tanks lmao

      Also laughing at these morons thinking scout-snipers and snipers have nothing to do with amphibious operations.

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Marines going back to being actual naval infantry, and not just Army with a chip on their shoulder.

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    clearly you haven't played Battlebit remastered yet, past 700m sniper bullet damage goes UP rewarding those really long distance hits with one-hit body-shot kills, extremes satisfying especially with Cheytac M200

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    How much could this actually save? I highly doubt it's in the billions of dollars.

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Based, frick the marines. Shoehorn them back to their original rule and get the army to do what they did like what should have happened.

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Actually discussion of military related matters that don't involve people calling each other trannies
    Imagine my shock

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I don’t care that much if the Marines lose the sniper school — but ONLY if those skills aren’t lost. If the skills are being maintained by other branches then ultimately I’m okay with it. It’s just, why eliminate the school? Why through out even the option of organic sniper team support for the Marines?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >If the skills are being maintained by other branches
      are SEALS and ASF now forward deploying as an integrated part of the new scout platoon model? if not, shut the frick up about "maintained skills," the littoral infiltration/recon units will be dead long before the rest of the force arrives to provide their "skills"
      >It’s just, why eliminate the school?
      > Why through out even the option of organic sniper team support for the Marines?
      their idea of "organic sniper team support" is dumbing down the scout sniper program into a marksman program because too many people fail the schools, the schools have to close because the goal is to meet a quota and not to actually provide good sniper support or they'd simply requisition more of the budget and do both initiatives at the same time
      unlike most things in the military, snipers have very little congressional support/pork since they remain a cheap and effective option with a unique role (even though modern high tech money-sinks certainly help up performance)
      it is also possible that Marine higher staff are simply so out of touch or anti-sniper they think that doing a 3 month training program with a wide range of scout and recon skills integrated provides no unique advantages over
      >spending 2 weeks learning to aim
      regardless, this seems like a huge misstep in a way that past divestments by for Force Design 2030 haven't

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Honestly Force Design 2030 has been one massive mistake after another. Unlike what other anon's have claimed, the Corps wasn't some mini Army, it was a fricking mini Military capable of conducting operations almost entirely independently. All of that is gone. Tanks and arty are disbanded, who knows how long the remaining fighter squadrons will survive, and for what? Missiles? Targeting what? Any missiles capable of being towed somewhere were obseleted decades ago.

        This whole fricking thing sounds like the kind of thing that appeals to people who unironically use the word "synergy"

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Missiles? Targeting what?
          I don't know, what could missiles possibly target in the Pacific
          >obseleted decades ago
          "we'll never make new missiles ever again, always prepare to fight the last war"

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >prepare to fight the last war
            Honestly this whole thing is looking more and more to be the first time America gets itself into stupidity during the opening of a war because it tried to be too clever by a half while preparing to fight the next war.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              That would be WW2 actually
              >prepare to fight next war by building 18 carriers
              >forget to upgrade fleet base early warning
              >lose all battleships to surprise attack

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Skills only last one generation if not passed down. It's as good as gone.

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >year 200+23
    >sniping with musket
    >loooool

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Epic decision made by diversity officers.

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Are they just getting rid of it to stop these morons getting SS rune tattoos and making the Corps look bad?

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Army sniper here.
    This move is widely seen by snipers of all branches as moronic and shortsighted, mirroring the similar moves across the previous century where sniper schools were shut down to save funding or because of a force restructuring. In every case it resulted in the loss of generational experience and skill which had to be relearned anew at the start of the next conflict.
    My branch's sniper course isn't nearly as thorough as the SS course was, and I worry that some general will decide to do away with it and tell battalions to run their own unit-level "sniper" course due to the USASC's historically high attrition rate. Sniper sections getting shut down for one dumb reason or another is sadly relatively common, and I fear that the mindset which drives battalion commanders to do so has made its way to higher levels.

    It is true that technological advancements have changed the role and employment of a sniper team, but that doesn't make them obsolete or useless - the Ukrainians still use them despite fighting with mini drones, satellite intel, et cetera. Hell, a russian 2 star general got his ticket punched by one last year.

    There are workarounds and counters to thermals. I don't want to go into detail here but thermal technology isn't a magic bullet.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >There are workarounds and counters to thermals. I don't want to go into detail here but thermal technology isn't a magic bullet.
      Thank God someone says it. Whenever you mention that thermals or stealth aircraft or drones can all be countered, they act like you're some sort of reformer instead of someone who actually knows what the technology does and what it cannot do.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It's not any crazy voodoo, it's just masking or matching emissivity to background. However, people don't like to think about how they can hide from something, they just want to be told how.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >thermal technology isn't a magic bullet.
      Yes it is.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Believe what you want to believe.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          That's not a counter. SWIR is out now. It's over for sniper boys dangling like unprotected pawns.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Uh huh. Whatever you say.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >thermal technology isn't a magic bullet.
      Uh, not so fast, Mr. Sniper Man. I've been reliably informed by children who only started paying attention to warfare over the past 12 months that tanks are obsolete, drones are the king of battle, infantry is useless because of artillery, and that thermal is insta-kill on everything everywhere all at once.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Finally a good fricking post. What's the mindset of battalion commanders that makes them shut down or misuse snipers though?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Misuse:
        >lack of knowledge on sniper capabilities, caused by section leaders failing to communicate with their S2/S3/command team and failing to give accurate capability briefs to the company commanders
        >unrealistic expectations, such as believing that ghillies make snipers invisible or that sniper rifles can hit targets 4 miles away, causing commanders to become frustrated when faced by reality
        >lack of understanding of employment methods for snipers in a combined arms environment, caused by commanders too focused on the mechanized part of their force
        >the Sniper Employment Course for officers was axed a few years ago and was never replaced
        Disband:
        >the above factors cause sections to lose command support for critical but expensive/nonstandard training events (shooting without body armor on, stalks, patterns of life recognition in real cities, etc) until they're seen as a glorifed line squad and done away with
        >the section is only ever stood up as a place for SSG Snuffy, the BN command's favorite, and his buddies to pretend to be cool guys, and a new battalion commander sees it as frivolous or SSG Snuffy leaves and the whole thing falls apart (this happened to my unit's section a few years ago)
        >commanders become afraid to take the risks inherent in sniper work (troops beyond the FLOT, troops without much immediate support, troops without an officer physically with them) and decide not to bother
        >section is axed to save money (match grade ammo, Kestrels, tripods, LRFs, sniper weapons, PVS30s, and so on are not cheap)
        >the section never really existed at all because the MTOE'd slots are used as a way to bring extra people from the line to the 3 shop

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          What's 3 shop?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            S3, the operations staff section. While it does perform an important role in the battalion in generating orders and processing tasks from higher, typically officers with shit ratings and useless soldiers from the line companies get sent there, where they often do b***h work and slave away making powerpoints or setting up tents for the battalion S3 and XO (typically both Majors).

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Hell, a russian 2 star general got his ticket punched by one last year.
      That only happened because the Russians are too poor/corrupt/moronic to apply their own doctrine, and have reverted to WW2-tier "commanding from the front" shit. So you end up with stuff like major-generals commanding battalions from the frontline.

  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Don't really need snipers so much when you can just fly a drone around.
    Snipers themselves are probably rather vulnerable to drones with infrared cameras too.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      See I would say it's good if this is the going wisdom among foreign civilians and/or the uninformed, but this type of shit's clearly made its way up the chain of command and now the moronation is effecting too much real shit.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I'm not saying snipers are obsolete, just that they are perhaps needed less than they once were. Hard to beat a flying camera at rapid scouting.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Snipers aren't for fricking scouting, they're for long range precision elimination. And you need a sniper school to maintain the skillset or it just disappears as those proficient in it retire without passing the skills on.

          If you want to see how fast a military can roll over and die from generational rot, just look at what is happening in Ukraine right now.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Snipers aren't for fricking scouting, they're for long range precision elimination.
            Drones do that better too.
            Just get with the times Grandpa.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Hard to beat a flying camera at rapid scouting.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            did we ever find out what happened to that thing?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Trained boots-on-ground continuous reconnaissance asset capable of recognizing patterns and breaks in thr baseline > flying camera.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Good thing they have never heard of unattended ground sensor networks or modern battlefield radar and think that their drones are something fancy and new. The only thing that is new is the large amount of footage from drone feeds.
            I do not know enough about the scout sniper program to comment on whether removing the school makes sense or not. Are they building up the reconnaissance part of the force differently?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Are they building up the reconnaissance part of the force differently?
              You could say that. From what I understand they're creating a scout platoon at the battalion level which won't have a dedicated scout/recon course or MOS or anything, just whatever the BN comes up with to train them.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Depends on how they are going to switch up their overall training evolution. As I understand, the force 2030 reforms call for a major change in the way Marines are trained and what common skills will be developed.
                Within the current training and organization regime, the recon changes seem like a bad idea. When it comes to the future force, we cannot really tell.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Looking at combat videos:
            GoPro videos from boots on the ground are total shit, see nothing only chaos and some obscuring terrain.
            Drone videos: Russians roasted in HD, clearly crips like toy soldiers fighting on your table top.
            Drones won.
            Fact.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Damn that's crazy haha

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >comparing go pros to 4K drone cameras or thermal imagers
              Just wait until you see what man portable thermals can do anon.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Anon, you have no understanding of the subject you are talking about. Please do some research into what modern sensors are capable of and where quadcopter footage from Twitter feeds ranks performance wise. There are devices individual soldiers can carry and employ that have significantly higher performance than what you see on video and they are more than a decade old.

  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    inb4 next commandant undoes FD 2030 which every general hates except for him

  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The roll of the Marines is as ship to ship combatants, security for ships and in extreme cases taking a naval fortification until a regular army force and arrive to take over the fort.

    But because of strange laws the Marines turned into the 2nd or 3rd army of the US military, the 3rd or 4th air force.

  31. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    why do we need snipers if frontline troops are all going to have accurate battle rifles with smart optics?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Many reasons
      >the average grunt is not making 800m+ shots no matter how many gizmos he has
      >a sniper can provide continuous reconnaissance and surveillance and information about enemy patterns which aren't obvious from a satellite or drone
      >a sniper can provide first round impact, discriminate, precision fire on key targets and targets of opportunity, capable of inflicting devastating damage to morale and operations
      >a sniper's fieldcraft skills are far beyond what a grunt is capable of and enable him to infiltrate denied areas in order to provide unique types of intel, call for fire on sensitive targets, and make shots on high value targets
      >every major conflict has seen the need for snipers regardless of the level of technology in use, from WWI to Ukraine
      >ligma

  32. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    What /k/ won't tell you is that marine scout snipers suck at sniping and are generally unprofessional. The Big Corps gave them the chance to reform and they didn't so they're getting the axe.

    Yeah, scout sniper teams make less sense in a world of thermals, smart scopes, quadcopters and competent infantry who do the scouting themselves but those are the justifications and not the root reason.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Details on them being unprofessional and not being good at sniping? And no, being morons about SS runes isn't being generally unprofessional or being bad at sniping.

  33. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    as far as I'm aware armed forces still have to shoot things and people, and those people are located far away typically. I'm not a marine though, so maybe I don't know anything

  34. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Snipers are clearly white supremacist, so it's gotta go.

  35. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I'm just wondering where all the camp pendleton sniper school class pictures and instructor gifts are going to end up. sad.

  36. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Did they disband the SS?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      THIS is the exact real reason why they are getting rid of the Scout Snipers

  37. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >SNI-
    >oh wait let my fat ass lift this drone real quick
    >nice, look at the IR signature of the cuck trying blend in with the foliage
    >lol I bet he has been crawling in the mud for days now after years of dedicated training
    >me? I bought the drone and read the wikihow on how to fly it, it's all in the toy anyway
    >welp there you go, ripped to shreds by a 1,000 retail store drone while I sipped my strawberry smoothie
    This is why. War has changed, get over it.

  38. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know much about the military. Can some vets enlighten me on this move? I imagine there is sound logic behind this from the decision makers.
    Also, if the armed forces are in the process of modernising and adapting itself to a more modern battlefield, do you think that the airborne are next on the chopping block? Since the Ukraine war and DVD has shown the perils of dropping paratroopers behind enemy lines, they'll get rid of them? And maybe scale back jump school to a shorter course for SOF?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Can some vets enlighten me on this move?
      the vets literally know nothing more about this than the average layman as this decision is based solely on the very recent designs of a madman who wants to use the USMC to sink Chinese ships and for nothing else. Look up Force Design 2030 for more info, of find the other thread discussing it in the catalog.
      >I imagine there is sound logic behind this from the decision makers.
      in a way

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        from reading above responses and researching the Marine Corps, isn't that exactly their mission? Being a branch of the navy that either protects ships and performs amphibious assaults, port seizures etc?

        https://i.imgur.com/ItP8pHK.png

        Parachuting airborne is more or less dead anyway. Only 1 division still more or less does it, the 82nd Airborne, and I'm not sure how much even. The US just keeps the capability around like a "just in case" kind of thing when realistically air assault - ie by helicopter - is going to be the method of insertion by air 99% of the time. It's just so much safer and when you're the USA, you don't have a shortage of vertical lift obviously. Which is the 101st is called "Air Assault" now, not Airborne.

        And even then there's a lot of doubt about how useful vertical lift is anyway. I know we all loved Band of Brothers, but honestly, if you look at the massive losses paratroopers took in all their major WW2 battles and how they weren't really used all that much, you kind of wonder whether most of the "special sauce" is really just being elite infantry, regardless of how they got to the battlefield.

        >so what about the scout snipers
        It could be what we British refer to as a "capability gap" - for budgetary reasons, stop doing something for a whlie and pick it up later. The US is pivoting hard to the kind of high-tech, long-range Pacific War.

        Put yourself in the shoes of WW2 generals. Imagine it's 1935 and you tell everyone, hey, we need to cut all these battleships and cruisers and even some land combat Army divisions, and what we're going to do is buy a frickton of carriers, invest in developing really good carrier aircraft, and buy ten thousand of those too. Trust me, this is the way. Forget the big gun ships and the tanks, we need this.

        That's kind of what's going on now. Except without the certainty of hindsight built into the above scenario.

        since the US military is coming up short in their recruitment goals, plus in the future if they suffer budget cuts, do you think they'll end up permanently axing the paratroopers?

        https://i.imgur.com/ItP8pHK.png

        Parachuting airborne is more or less dead anyway. Only 1 division still more or less does it, the 82nd Airborne, and I'm not sure how much even. The US just keeps the capability around like a "just in case" kind of thing when realistically air assault - ie by helicopter - is going to be the method of insertion by air 99% of the time. It's just so much safer and when you're the USA, you don't have a shortage of vertical lift obviously. Which is the 101st is called "Air Assault" now, not Airborne.

        And even then there's a lot of doubt about how useful vertical lift is anyway. I know we all loved Band of Brothers, but honestly, if you look at the massive losses paratroopers took in all their major WW2 battles and how they weren't really used all that much, you kind of wonder whether most of the "special sauce" is really just being elite infantry, regardless of how they got to the battlefield.

        >so what about the scout snipers
        It could be what we British refer to as a "capability gap" - for budgetary reasons, stop doing something for a whlie and pick it up later. The US is pivoting hard to the kind of high-tech, long-range Pacific War.

        Put yourself in the shoes of WW2 generals. Imagine it's 1935 and you tell everyone, hey, we need to cut all these battleships and cruisers and even some land combat Army divisions, and what we're going to do is buy a frickton of carriers, invest in developing really good carrier aircraft, and buy ten thousand of those too. Trust me, this is the way. Forget the big gun ships and the tanks, we need this.

        That's kind of what's going on now. Except without the certainty of hindsight built into the above scenario.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Being a branch of the navy

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            aren't they? am I moronic? I seem to recall the marines started out as basically ship infantry or whatever you call naval security guards. Are they not under the navy now?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              They are, Marines just don't like to be reminded that they get their paychecks from the Department of Navy but unfortunately for them My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment isn't just a meme.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment
                I heard once that most of their equipment is actually Army hand-me-downs. Is that true?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Maybe decades ago it was. Not really the case now and it wasn't even the case not too long after the initial Iraq invasion.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                calling them part of the Navy is technically correct, but not really, as they are a separate uniformed service. in practice this means when it suits the Black folk they'll say they're part of the Navy; when it doesn't suit them they'll brag that they're a separate force

                What exactly made the Marines rise so much in importance that they get special assignments like guarding embassies and protecting the president? It mean, once the age of sail and boarding and taking over ships was over, I'd have assumed the marines would be cut out and whatever their roles are would get filled in by the Army.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Good marketing and they're nominally faster to deploy then the Army because they're light infantry. Of course, in the twenty years of GWOT, they've managed to mission creep themselves into being the Army but wearing different camo, which is part of the big course correction to get them back to being a quick and mobile force that paves the way for the Army to land and do it's thing once it gets it's ass into gear. However, even if the Marines disappeared overnight, you'd end up with sailors taking over the Marine's role in guarding ships and such instead of trying to deal with the chain of command headache that would be having small parts of the army scattered all over the various ships and bases.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Picrel was the original reason: the units assigned are indicative, but basically the USMC could send an amphibious MEU battalion task force anywhere in the world within days, back that up with a full Marine Division within weeks, and during the GWOT era it could send helicopters and an infantry platoon anywhere wihthin hours. All because of its forward deployed expeditionary nature.

                Also, the USMC has higher recruitment and training standards than the regular Army, so they got these more difficult and more sensitive jobs.

                >once the age of sail and boarding and taking over ships was over, I'd have assumed the marines would be cut out and whatever their roles are would get filled in by the Army
                Heck, even in WW2 Army divisions landed alongside Marine divisions across the Pacific, and Operation Overlord was all Army.

                Post-WW2 the USMC billed themselves as the premier self-contained amphibious task force of the US Armed Forces. That's important, because amphibious operations are one of the most difficult of all military operations and needs extremely specialised knowledge, training and equipment.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It isn't just the US Marines who guard embassies. The Brazilian Naval Riflemen also do it and so do several other marine forces around the world.

                The Marines have other, more capable options than the M1 for any kind of amphibious assault. The M1 is a heavy b***h that needs a lot of logistics to get them into the fight and you're effectively cutting down your landing opportunities by lugging it with you. Besides, the IFVs and other lighter AFVs will have done the job while the M1s are still coming ashore.

                Again, they should just give the new light tanks to them.

                The talibs never were a problem. The US rejected talib offer to put Bin Laden on trial. The US rejected Talib peace offer several times after the initial invasion. The only problems are those that the US created themselves.
                The Taliban atleast wants to be left alone with their own country. ISIS is the one encourging lone wolves because they want a global Caliphate. ISIS is indeed the biggest problem at the moment. Let the taliban have their country, who the frick cares if they take away womens rights and bans drag queen hours?

                The Taliban didn't want to put Bin Laden on trial, dumb american. They wanted to send Bin Laden over to Switzerland for him to do whatver he wanted so that the US could "capture him" even though he likely would have just escaped.

                Believe it or not American, but not everything that happens in the world is caused by the United States. I bet you're one of the dumb gringos who thinks Iran and Cuba have officially militant anti-american dictatorships because they are under sanctions and not that they're under sanctions because of being anti-american dictatorships.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                That gets into PrepHole stuff.

                1) Warships have carried a complement of dedicated warriors since pretty much the first naval skirmish, ever. Navies retained some of these men even after cannons took over as the primary means of naval combat. These men came to be called "marines". Since each ship already had a complement of trained infantrymen aboard, they were the easiest source to draw guards from with the introduction and evolution of the modern foreign embassy over the course of the Renaissance and Industrial Revolution. Rather than spend months raising and transporting an army unit for that purpose, you just assign a detail from one of your warships when you deliver the ambassador.

                2) Specifically in the US, the Constitution authorizes the federal government to "raise" armies but to "provide for" a navy. This was because armies at the time could be raised in time of war and then disbanded at the conclusion, with only a cadre remaining during peacetime. The Founders were concerned that a large peacetime army could follow in the footsteps of armies in the final centuries of Roman power. Navies, on the other hand... simply couldn't be raised on an as-needed basis. Ships had to be paid for and built years, even decades in advance, and sailing could not be learned from scratch within a few years--you needed decades, even centuries, to build up a proper navy. So, the Founders gave the USN a lot more leeway, and it wasn't until the Cold War when the Army (and the new Air Force) gained full funding in peacetime.

                As a result, until the Cold War, the USN had the only infantry force that was readily available for embassies on the far side of the planet without a declaration of war. That made them the only real choice for the defense of American embassies, and once ensconced, they defended their prestigious positions with great alacrity.

                That's the US's story, at least.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Technically the ships are ours, but they're crewed by Navy personnel. Its fricking weird.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                To be fair, that joke is rather old and technically Marines are also Navy personnel even if they're not sailors, so I'm not sure if the Navy folk that taught me it were just rubbing the Marine's faces in it or if it was more of a joke about Marines doing shipboard security and other things aboard actual Navy vessels.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Oh sure, I even smirk at that one when I hear, but its actually an interesting subject because it deals with "interservice" rivalry and funding, and how convoluted and bureaucratic things get behind scenes.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It's also one of the most good-natured jokes about interservice rivalries since it doesn't actually compare the members of the two branches and instead is about the dumb bureacracies behind everything. It can even be flipped around by the Marines making the joke about how they don't have to deal with anything except go along for the ride unlike the sailors who have to work the whole time, even if the officers know better then to let the Marines be bored for the duration of the travel lest terrible things occur.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Ain't Readt to be a Marine Yet

                You know why Marines have nametapes on their trousers? To give Navy officers sometging to read

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              calling them part of the Navy is technically correct, but not really, as they are a separate uniformed service. in practice this means when it suits the Black folk they'll say they're part of the Navy; when it doesn't suit them they'll brag that they're a separate force

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              They are, Marines just don't like to be reminded that they get their paychecks from the Department of Navy but unfortunately for them My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment isn't just a meme.

              calling them part of the Navy is technically correct, but not really, as they are a separate uniformed service. in practice this means when it suits the Black folk they'll say they're part of the Navy; when it doesn't suit them they'll brag that they're a separate force

              The US Marines are officially a branch of the US Armed Forces just like the Coast Guard. They're only under the Department of the Navy for administration reasons at the government/state level.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Uhhh, Anon, the Coast Guard are in Department of Homeland Security.
                Before that, they were in Department of Transportation, and before THAT, they were in Treasury.

                They only LARP as Navy sailors in wartime doing shit the Navy doesn’t want to be bothered with.,

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Since I believe in being forgiving I'll spoonfeed you, my child.

                Directly from the US code:
                https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/101#a_4

                "10 U.S. Code § 101"

                "(4)The term “armed forces” means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, and Coast Guard.
                (5)The term “uniformed services” means—
                (A)the armed forces;
                (B)the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and
                (C)the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service."

                Disagree? Change the US code.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Parachuting airborne is more or less dead anyway. Only 1 division still more or less does it, the 82nd Airborne, and I'm not sure how much even. The US just keeps the capability around like a "just in case" kind of thing when realistically air assault - ie by helicopter - is going to be the method of insertion by air 99% of the time. It's just so much safer and when you're the USA, you don't have a shortage of vertical lift obviously. Which is the 101st is called "Air Assault" now, not Airborne.

      And even then there's a lot of doubt about how useful vertical lift is anyway. I know we all loved Band of Brothers, but honestly, if you look at the massive losses paratroopers took in all their major WW2 battles and how they weren't really used all that much, you kind of wonder whether most of the "special sauce" is really just being elite infantry, regardless of how they got to the battlefield.

      >so what about the scout snipers
      It could be what we British refer to as a "capability gap" - for budgetary reasons, stop doing something for a whlie and pick it up later. The US is pivoting hard to the kind of high-tech, long-range Pacific War.

      Put yourself in the shoes of WW2 generals. Imagine it's 1935 and you tell everyone, hey, we need to cut all these battleships and cruisers and even some land combat Army divisions, and what we're going to do is buy a frickton of carriers, invest in developing really good carrier aircraft, and buy ten thousand of those too. Trust me, this is the way. Forget the big gun ships and the tanks, we need this.

      That's kind of what's going on now. Except without the certainty of hindsight built into the above scenario.

  39. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Snipers are over when a cheap My Little Drony with thermals can pretty much detect them anytime, anywhere.

  40. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    ha ha drone go brrr

  41. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    That money is better spent on diversity officers anyway

  42. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The marines are a branch with ENORMOUS civil participation and civil loyalties, thats why the marines are being split across doctrine and policy until theyre finally reduced go nothing and sent to die. Any attsck on the corps should be viewed as an attack on the people.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      i don't care

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      okay jarhead, who took your crayons?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >the marines are a branch which isn't, realistically, needed. that's why they are the best at shilling propaganda about themselves to unsuspecting civilians.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The Marines are useful and necessary, but NOT as another Army with a different camo pattern. They're not supposed to trundle around in some bumfrickistani desert 500 miles away from the nearest coastline.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Isn't needed
        That's the Army.
        >reeeee
        The Army has absolutely no right to exist, the only purpose of a army is to enact Imperialism or oppress the People, something that it has done over and over.

  43. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    oh sweet a chang thread.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

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