Not ripping on the US marines for being "bad", but having an army in an army is a huge expenditure that literally no other country can afford.
The US marines are much more capable than "marine" units in other nations, but they are exponentially more expensive and have pretty big logistical differences from the Army and their own (yet again hugely expensive) procurement system.
How many times have the US marines done something in the past 60 years that the Army couldn't do with some extra sweat? Arguably zero.
>>28881108 >US Marines much more capable than other Marine units I love how it always comes down to numbers and cool toys when people say this shit.
The Royal Marines (and Black Sea Marines, and South Korean Marines, and so on) are generally better trained and better motivated than the gung-ho idiots of the US Marine Corps. In an even battle, the US Marines would get beaten by pretty much all of them.
As pointed out above, what's the point of comparing SOF light infantry with a conventional combine arms group that can do amphibious operations?
The jobs that Royal Marines do are done by SEAL teams/Recon Marines/Rangers. You'd be hard pressed to say that Royal Marines would handily whup them in a fight.
Just because they both have the word "marine" in their names doesn't mean they do the same thing and are comparable. That's like saying you can compare Texas Rangers, Texas Rangers the baseball team, Park Rangers, and 75th Rangers because they all have the word "rangers" in their name.
>>28881292 >equipment isn't part of a force The question wasn't who would be better in a hunger games scenario. Training is great, but force projection and logistics are better. Bongs go for training because it's cheaper and we have the expensive stuff under control.
It's 40 billion dollars not counting the stuff that's technically under the Navy, which is a ton.
That's more than the entire IDF or South Korean defense budget. And the UK defense budget is only 62 billion dollars, or 50% more than the USMC budget.
IMHO the USMC should become more like the Royal Marines; elite light infantry that specialize in Amphibious ops, and hand off all the heavy equipment to the Army. The amount of redundancy between the Marines and Army is frankly wasteful.
>>28881358 >what's the point of comparing SOF light infantry with a conventional combine arms group that can do amphibious operations? It's interesting that noone brought up this question until I and a couple others started talking about how the Royal Marines are a special operations force, when everyone was busy touting the Marine Corps as the greatest.
They were originally supposed to be a scalpel, then mission creep and dick measuring with the Army happened and now they are a second Army with different lots of things that still retains amphibious capability for shits and giggles.
>>28880809 The US Marine corps generally would be better due to the fact they have a much larger structure and are on-par with their military.
Put that aside and simply have a rifle company against a rifle troop the Royal Marines would win, without a doubt. RMs are simply better in every aspect to the USMC, aside the fact that the USMC is another army.
If you factor in all the stages of training for US forces, they're usually similar in length, if not longer than their foreign counterparts.
Besides, the initial training for RM's is closer to around 20 or so weeks, not 32, they have a few week breaks during training, whereas the US military doesn't.
BBC or someone did a story about the Royal Marines and covered the break period.
People give the USMC shit, doing mental gymnastics to try and convince themselves the USMC is wasteful, unneeded, whatever, and say if you believe otherwise, "you've just fallen for USMC propaganda!", when in reality, facts don't lie, and if you turn it around on them, they'll do more gymnastics to convince themselves and you that they aren't buying into RM, and British in general, propaganda.
Britain desperately tries to fool itself into thinking it still rules the world, when in fact, it doesn't. All the little countries always try to shit on America, only to get bitchslapped later and complain how mean America is. This goes for Russia, China, Iran, France, Germany, whoever.
Don't believe me? How many times have you heard the British say they have the "best" of something?
>The SAS is the BEST SF in the world! >The RM's are the BEST Marines in the world! >The Challenger 2 is the BEST protected tank in the world! >British forces have the BEST training in the world!
The list goes on.
Stop fucking deluding yourselves.
America may be fucked up in a lot of ways, especially in the past decade due to (an) incompetent, socialist-influenced leader(s) and whatnot, but it's a hell of a lot better than anywhere else out there. America didn't get to the top by trying to emulate everyone else, we got here by being fucking Americans and believing in our founders.
It's sad when countries like China and India think they're going to be a superpower one day based on a few factors, yet they compare themselves to America when our economy is still shit, they have triple the fucking population, they lie about their numbers, they still have people shitting in the streets, and their "culture" is barely a thing on the world stage, whereas EVERYONE knows at least SOMETHING American.
In short, all you mad non-Americans can get bent, America #1.
The EU, China, and India have many more people than America, but STILL can't compete with our SINGLE country with LESS people.
The EU just BARELY has a larger GDP and such, no one country has an overall larger amount of arable land than us, nor overall livable land (China and Canada are bigger, but don't have as much inhabitable land), and so on.
Before all this PC, socialist-influenced SJW bullshit happened, America was undoubtedly LEAGUES above anyone else, following our ways and our culture and our system, but now look at us, this is what we get for trying to be un-American and like everyone else. This is how you defeat America, not by war, not by economic means, but by infiltrating our populace, saying we need to be more "respectful" and "understanding", and all that other bullshit.
>>28890098 >Their best against our best then ours for sure >MARSOC are practically SEALS...
While since the Royal Marines' best are the Special Boat Service, the naval service equivalent to the Special Air Service, I'm pretty sure they're better than your best (MARSOC, SEALs, any US SOF unit you care to mention).
>>28890098 SBS beats SEALs. Arguably the SBS beat the SAS.
The SBS don't seem to include creative writing as part of their training so the world knows much less about them. Thereare rumurs (and they are rumours) that SIS (MI6) has shown a preferance towards using them for that reason.
>>28892429 This. The goals each force has are different however.
For the RM's role the RM are a much better force than the USMC. However the RM doesn't have the numbers or heavy equipment to do what the USMC does.
People are comparing apples to oranges here. THey are differnet organisations created for different missions. All they have in common is the name 'Marines' and that they like to play around in boats. (though the RM spends much more time on boats than the USMC seems too)
>>28880955 Beat me to it /k/omrade >US marines will recruit you out the front of Walmart >UK Royal Marines require you to be insanely physically and mentally fit, and if you want in have to go through 32 weeks of training
>>28880809 As a US Marine, I can confidently say that individually, Royal Marines are far superior to US Marines. However remember that there's only ~7,000 Royal Marines, as opposed to ~180,000 US Marines, and a more accurate comparison would be to an American special operations unit.
>>28886727 >>The SAS is the BEST SF in the world! >>The RM's are the BEST Marines in the world! >>The Challenger 2 is the BEST protected tank in the world! >>British forces have the BEST training in the world!
These statements are largely correct.
It seems that this discussion has made you emotional and unreasonable.
>>28895481 The SBS is possibly better and doesn't get much/any media attention. So you could say its the same situation. The SBS is also technically older but few relise that. There are actually other units such as 'The increament', 'E squadron SAS' etc who do stuff comparable to CIA SAD/SOG.
Here is a link to enjoy. Skip to the bit about the 'general support branch' https://wikispooks.com/w/images/e/ed/UK_Intelligence_And_Security_Report%2C_2003.pdf
The SEALs are very good a PR and are willfully looking for attention. Much of the rest of US Special Forces just seem to be less secretive than UK SIS/SF
>>28894275 Bullshit. You are literally pulling this out of your ass. You sound like somebody who doesn't know what they are talking about and just says their countries military is better because of the most random bullshit reason.
>>28900142 Who wins, a ranger battalion or a stryker brigade combat team?
Similar to the comparison being made in this thread. Both the USMC and the RM are good at their jobs, but they do not do the same job. The RM focus on larger scale commando missions, raids, artic/mountin warfare and doing VBSS and force protection stuff tfor the RN. Its an elite, specialised light infantry force.
The USMC is a combined army expeditionary force expected to win wars by itself.
Both units circa 1916 would be very very very similar. The USMC went one way and became almost a 2nd army, the RM another and became a specialised force closer to the Rangers
It depends on what you mean by better. The USMC has far more capabilities but yes an individual RM is of higher quality than an individual Marine, but the individual Marine was never meant to be a commando. A better comparison would be Marine Raiders or Recon vs the RMs
>>28901868 not that fgt that posted but they're actually pretty smart. Through icom we found out that they thought our battalion was SF or something because we were testing new gear and they noticed we had different chest rigs, packs, etc etc than adjacent battalions.
Royals probably get better training since they are much fewer than US Marines. But US Marines have all sorts of assets like tanks, AFVs, AAVs, CAS aircraft, fighter aircraft and all sorts of helos the Royals can only dream of.
>>28904492 USMC: combined arms warfare without assistance from other forces. Tanks battles, flying jets, heavy artillary taking on large scale enemies one on one and expecting to win.
RM: doing raids from the sea during the night, searching pirate vessels, being rapidly deployable to jungles/ artic areas with no pre deployment training required. Acting as a shock force at the tip of an attack, capturing ports, snipers (apparently sas send it's folk to the RM sniper school), acting as support for SBS in large scale attacks
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.