Is it just me, or did the United States Marine Corps of WWII

File: a0155ec3ad72d859380ea3a423153f1910846d30e4f99010f4676ff6354e0374.jpg (51KB, 564x240px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 564x240px

Are the US marines just a meme force? The army was able to take beaches on D-Day no problem

>>3108595
The Marines under Thomas Jefferson fighting the muslim Barbary pirates say Hi.

>>3108595

It's not just America at all Britain is exactly the same but the Royal Marines are commandos. US marines are just regular soldiers.

>>3108630
USMC has their own variant of Rangers called LRRP, or Long Range Reconnaissance Patrols, done by Force Recon.

Rangers got nothin' on Marine Corps Force Recon 'cept their little raspberry berets.

>>3108643
Regular soldiers do not drill for amphibious assaults, jackass.

>>3108652

Marine soldiers do, US marines are no better trained than the army in comparison to Britains marines.

>>3108664
There are no Marine soldiers, you half-wit.

>>3108734

Not useful to insist semantics to someone outside the US.

Anyhow, for non-burgers, members of the US military are pretty autistic about being called the right title.

In all honestly, the USMC is in a Waffen SS like situation where they are a second, duplicate army that has it's own procurement, chain of command, and bureaucracy. However, it doesn't do many things that big army can't do, or can't do with a bit of preparation.

It's a tremendously wasteful state of affairs that only the US with it's bloated budget can maintain.

A better arrangement would be like the Royal Marines, where the Marine Corps focuses on their core competency of amphibious assault with an elite group of light infantry with rotary wing/light armor, and leave heavy armor and fixed wing to the Army/Navy.

>>3108648
The kind you find in a secondhand store?

>>3108595

>did the United States Marine Corps of WWII to the Modern Period redifined what a marine force was?

The answer is a resounding "YES." The Pacific theater was a renaissance for the art of conducting amphibious operations.

>>3108664
As a US Marine who did co-op with British soldiers I can tell you that the Brits are pretty bad at the whole military thing. Although their officers are top notch.

And for some reason the Danes just party everywhere they go. And the Italians just built a base and then left.

>>3108648
The Rangers have the highest kill/captures of HVTs and the lowest casualty rates of all SOF. Even more than the SEALs. That's their job. Force Recon isn't SOF and they don't try to be. They're more like the Army's LRS than Rangers. The Marine Raiders, the SOF arm of the Marines, are kind of in a bad place right now and are lacking a niche. Not through any fault of their rank and file but their godawful leadership. Any marine can attest to the awful state of Marine Corps leadership.

>>3109078
Marines still like to meme about the Pacific theatre? The Army also did more landings and combat there. Had more success too.

File: marine-squad.jpg (17KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 400x300px

>>3108595
No. Marines have historically

What the USMC did first was literally to be an army within the army. Basically an expedition force where each division has its own armor and even aircraft. In contrast to the army where armor have their own entirely different division, and with the only thing flying within the army are helicopters and attack helos ever since the Air Corps was separated to form the USAF branch

>>3109030

Untrue. If anything the US needs a third army.

There Trumpstaffel will form as a paramilitary group for crushing leftists. They will become experts in counterinsurgency, torture, terror, and urban combat.

Once Trumpist control is solidified, they will become an established military corps, loyal to the ruling family instead of the nation.

>>3110890
It's adorable that you think that Congress would pass any of that when the Republicans are too autistic to repeal a fucking healthcare bill. Like watching an animal struggle with its head stuck in a jar or something.

File: Alt-Knight leading Union Army Battle of Cold Harbor.png (2MB, 958x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 958x720px

>>3110890
>There Trumpstaffel will form as a paramilitary group for crushing leftists. They will become experts in counterinsurgency, torture, terror, and urban combat.

A more accurate historical analog would be President Lincoln and the Union Army Tbh. A temporary force of volunteers raised to augment the smaller professional army in putting down an insurrection. Many of whom's recruits enlist because of their devotion to the ideals of the Union and its leader (dozens of Union Army war songs literally sing Lincoln's praises).

The Union Army actually pioneered modern urban combat techniques at battles such as Fredericksburg and in the West had to contend with Confederate bushwhackers and Indian tribes taking advantage of the conflict to raid in the West.

>>3109030
Again, the Corps is not a fucking Army.

The Corps is a fighting force, highly mobile.

The Army is boots on the ground, hold territory, stay in place. The Army has special ops that attempt to do what the Marine Corps naturally does.

Two entirely different fighting forces.

And it's not a matter of semantics.

You are in the Army.
You are in the Navy.
You are in the Air Force.
You are in the Coast Guard.
You are in the National Guard.

v

You are a Marine.

>>3109100
My experience as well. Although we did steal their MOPP gear as it was better than ours.

>>3112043

> The Corps is a fighting force, highly mobile.

Less mobile than 82nd, 75th, or 173rd. Those units can deploy far faster than a MEU. Army units capable of rapid deployment exist and do a better job of it.

When conducting maneuver warfare, ABCTs do a better job of it than Marine Divisions, because ABCTs have their infantry in more heavily armed Bradleys rather than AAV's.

When it come to rotary wing, the Marine's AH-1 and UH-1 are less capable than AH-64 and UH-60, but they need their own procurement and supply chain.

The one thing the Marines are overwhelmingly better at is amphibious warfare, at everything else they are somewhat worse than Army and Air Force, but still take up a ton of resources.

If the Marines become and elite light infantry force that focuses on amphibious operations, then they would justify some of their ego. As it stands, Marines using their own snowflake equipment and logistics 600 miles away from the ocean, in the middle of Kandahar, doing the exact same job as big Army, is a waste of their amphibious training.

>>3112043
>Again, the Corps is not a fucking Army.

Right, it's part of an army.

The marines are a beefed up force of cannon fodder

>>3112192
No

>>3111041

>Implying Trump doesn't turn Congress into a rump rubber stamp committee.

That's if he doesn't choose to disband it.

File: LVT storming a beach.jpg (180KB, 732x584px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 732x584px

>>3108630
The Army were just as capable of conducting amphibious assaults but the Marine Corps were the ones to get it down to a T during the Pacific War.

That being said, the Army actually conducted more amphibious assaults than the Marine Corps did with the Pacific Theater and European Theater combined, remember that the Philippine Campaign, one of the most important campaigns of the Pacific War, was all Army. I'm not trying to downplay the Marine Corps role in the Pacific, they were the ones who did all the hard learning in Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Peleliu and Iwo Jima so that the US as a whole can perfect amphibious warfare.

File: Amtracker.jpg (1008KB, 3072x2048px) Image search: [Google]

1008KB, 3072x2048px

>>3112144
While the Navy has LCACs and the Army air transport, the Marine Corps is the only branch that still has assault landing crafts (AAVs). Now are they still as effective or relevant as they were back in the day? I don't really think so, the AAV is a great supplement to an infantry unit, serving as a ship-to-shore connector, troop transport being able to traverse harsher terrain on land if the driver is experienced and also capable of laying down fire support with its .50 cal machine gun and 40mm Grenade launcher. It could use some updating but it fits perfectly the Marine Corps expeditionary and amphibious mission.

>>3112144

It's not like there is a whose lot of amphibious landings now-a-days. Maybe if we go to war with a country like Iran or China or North Korea you would see a lot less Marines being used in ways that have no relation to their namesake.

There is actually very few things less-marine-like than being in the middle of Afghanistan.

>>3112832
>there is a whose lot

Fucked this sentence up. I meant 'a whole lot'.

>>3112836
I doubt we'll ever see an amphibious assault like the ones during WWII with landing vehicles, it'll probably done with helicopters and Ospreys. If I remember correctly, the AAV can only go about 8 miles per hour in the water before it starts to submarine, you can't use the guns effectively until you hit land. Does anyone know how much beachhead defenses have evolved since WWII? The only thing we'd have going for us is the pre-invasion bombardment and air support, that alone could rake a defending force but one should never underestimate.

>>3112861

Well, I'd imagine an actual for-realzies and serious war where there is a naval landing, and the opponent has some time to prepare, they would have a nice selection of tank-traps, land-mines, barbed wire, and old-fashioned trap holes with sharpened wooden/bamboo sticks covered in poop. So it wouldn't be a cakewalk making a beachhead even if all the artillery and enemy encampments on the beach are taken out. With American air superiority and not enough anti-air capabilities, the enemy would probably retreat to mountains forests, and mega-cities. It's why an Iran invasion would suck all kinds of balls, let alone China.

>>3111041

>He doesn't know that Congress is literally authorizing another military branch as we speak

File: 1493722965850.png (128KB, 540x670px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 540x670px

>>3112944
>He doesn't know that Congress is literally authorizing another military branch as we speak

Explain.

File: Marines Landing.jpg (110KB, 736x980px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 736x980px

>>3112909
Yea, in a Iran scenario you'd want to send in the Marines to secure the beachhead and land the Army after so that they can conduct operations inland. Meanwhile you'd pull the Marines out and send them somewhere else where they can harass the enemy, maybe a another beach landing like Operation Cobra during WWII. Too keep it /his/ related, the Marine Corps today needs to go back to its Raider roots, they've become an Army that gets a ride of boats at this point

File: image.jpg (158KB, 1024x640px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1024x640px

>>3112955
Space Corps, pal

>>3112861

Americans are over-reliant on air/artillery support. They don't know how to function without it.

In the book Flags of our Fathers I read that the war in the Pacific the Marines basically fought to justify their existence. It basically saced them.

>>3112955

Homeland Security under Trump is getting literally army sized.

>>3108595
The USMC is an overhyped meme that is filled with homoerotic degenerates who just want to kill brown people. They joined the Marines because they're incapable of finishing high school, but have the simple proficiency of shooting basic firearms. Then, when they retire, and someone calls them an ex-Marine, they start to REEEE. Absolute bunch of arrogant faggots that are just as simple as child soldiers.

>>3114027
>butthurt haji lover detected

File: 1490921484106.jpg (346KB, 756x1158px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 756x1158px

>US Marines