Why were we sending billions of dollars worth of equipment to

Because the marines weren't fighting the Germans. The jews prioritized the Germans as the top threat, so everyone fighting the top threat needed the best and most.

>>34226686
Because they preferred them as simple, reliable, proven weapons. They tested Garands and found they did not work when immersed in sand and sea water.

>>34226740
But they had mediocre stuff like BARs and Shermans, few SMGs until the cheap Grease Gun, had to haul a Browning MG and tripod around etc.

>>34226929
Grease was pretty late war. At least after garand was issued to them.

Because at the time (and still somewhat today) Marines are not soldiers. They are a skirmishing/scouting force. Their requisitions come secondary to the primary infantry fighting force. And they did get Grands and grease guns quite shortly after the first battle of the pacific, although quite a few grizzly veterans preferred to keep their '03s.

>>34226949
>Their requisitions come secondary to the primary infantry fighting force
Just can't understand this. Shouldn't the foot to the door guys be well armed?

>>34226740
I remember reading somewhere how SHAEF complained and begged for more resources during the Battle of the Bulge because most resources were going towards the Pacific. Cant be bothered to find the source so i could just be talking rubbish.

Helping prop up the eastern front or maintain the british was a lot more important than making sure a marine could fire X rounds a minute as opposed to Y especially when artillery and machine guns were doing more of the work in the pacific.

>>34226686
We didn't plan on joining in until last minute when we realized "fuck the Germans might get pissed about their enemy using our guns"

>>34227581
>We didn't plan on joining in until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and then the Germans declared war on us

FTFY

>>34227570
That is true. The European theater was starved of quality equipment and, frankly, quality soldiers. The navy in the Pacific ended up with a hundred fucking aircraft carriers and so many ships that new ones fresh off the stocks had to be mothballed immediately as there were not enough men to crew them.

Garand or Springfield, it barely matters. Small arms do not win wars. Logistics, numbers and artillery do.

>>34226686
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_first

Or you can blame the Navy for being a bunch of outdated blowhards when it came to land warfare.

>>34227828
>Small arms do not win wars
This fucking meme

>>34227887

How is it a meme? I'm struggling to think of a major industrial war where the small arms were a major reason for the outcome.

>>34228165
Possibly playing devil's advocate here, but technically, he's correct. Memes don't have to be incorrect.

>>34226686
I read that the Marines didn't really want the Garand until they had faced a few banzi charges,

>>34226740
I knew it was the jews!

Capital D für Deutschland! Die juden don't deserve a capital j!

Marines had Garands after Guadalcanal. The last elements of the 2nd Marine Division landed on Guadalcanal with Garands.

File: c736a6b407fcb0ee68311ac460edbefa.png (775KB, 717x797px) Image search: [Google]

775KB, 717x797px

>>34228165
MGs in WW1
Interchangable parts in guns in the 1800s
WW2 Garands had a massive influence on ground engagements where the enemy was limited to bolt-action rifles. Same with the quicker Enfields desu.

>>34229002
The railroad in WW1 (logistics) on the eastern front destroying an entire nation's army was more decisive than the small arms.

Also in WWII, mechanized supply trucks instead of horses meant a helluva lot as well.

>>34227618
I'm gonna need a source for that

>>34230354
why do you need a source? america was at the time isolationist and having a hard time lifting itself out of the great depression

roosevelt knew guns are just as good as butter so he did what he could to see that america entered the war. the brits were pressing hard for us to do so, but it wasnt until the "surprise" attack at pearl that public tide turned.

this is basic 4th grade history class shit.

>>34226686
Marines are under the Navy. Money given to the Navy mostly went to building ships at the time.

>>34226686
The war against Japan would be won by the Navy, not by Marines, so that wasn't that important.

On the other hand, if we had let England collapse, the logistic challenges associated with retaking Europe would probably have been insurmountable, and if we hadn't bailed out the Soviets, the Germans would have been able to push them back to the Ob or Taz, and then consolidate their positions, ship back machine tools, and reorganize their industrial efforts.

Of course, it's always possible that Hitler would insist on pushing the Soviets all the way to Amur river, and that would have ruined the Germans no matter what, but we can't assume he'd make that mistake, even if it was likely.

>>34227529

No, because as current events show, if you give Marines money they'll blow it on stupid shit like hundred year old pistols and 50 year old rifles anyway. Might as well spend the money somewhere else.

>>34226686

Because Marines are fucking retards and the Soviets were the reason WW2 was an Allied victory.

>>34231264
By in large the Marines have very fuddy elements about them, they want that .45 stoppan power and seem to have an aversion to invention. Though maybe the Osprey is to blame for that.

>>34229002

Artillery and disease did more to win the war than machine guns.

File: Snow.png (2MB, 1690x708px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1690x708px

>>34231234
>if we had let England collapse
Literally unthinkable and completely unfeasible

>Germans would have been able to push them back to the Ob or Taz, and then consolidate their positions, ship back machine tools, and reorganize their industrial efforts
But I mean, even then, the Soviets likely would have pushed back Hitler, but they would have taken less of Europe and lost more men doing so, which would have given us an advantage in the Cold War.

>>34231764
Without Lend Lease, England runs low enough on motor fuels and other industrial materials that she sues for peace. Yes, England's "last 100 fighters" seemed to last forever, because England was replacing fighters faster than they could be shot down, during the height of the Battle of Britain, but they were being made with American materials delivered on American cargo vessels, powered by American petrol delivered on American cargo vessels, and these cargo vessels were guarded in convoy by American destroyers.

Without Lend Lease, Soviet industry doesn't escape to behind the Urals, and the German War Machine crosses them. If isolated from US aid, a USSR that's been pushed back behind the Ob has almost no ability to furnish her armies with modern equipment, her only saving grace is that Germans lack the logistical ability to make war that far east without an extended campaign of preparation.

File: download (41).jpg (5KB, 183x275px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 183x275px

>>34226686
Because they weren't the heros you wanted. They were the heros you needed, the heros you deserved. They put it all on the line. Free men fought battles, and won, taking 90% casualty rating. Even historically, that resolve is almost unheard of.

Talk shit, tell your funny memes. The user base on /k/ is slightly above 2000 people, most of which are memesters. 300+ million Americans, the majority of which enjoy their Marines.

Tl;Dr

Marines do a fine job, and it's not like we cost a lot. Bite my bird.

>>34226686
There's nothing wrong with the Springfield. It's design is much better than that of the M16.

>>34231860
>Lend lease, enacted march 1941

>battle of britain, 10 July – 31 October 1940


Friend, open a history book before you post.

>>34229002

MGs in WW1 weren't exactly small arms (more under the light weapon definition) but regardless, everyone was using Maxim gun derived weapons so it didn't make much difference on the outcome of the war. Yes, it did play a difference in the nature of warfare, but only as one small part of the changes that had happened (railway logistics, telephone communication, indirect fire, aerial observation, barbed wire etc).

The advances in small arms in the 19th century made a big difference to colonial wars, but not to major wars between powers, whose armaments were similar enough that it made little difference.

You could have given every American soldier a Karabiner 98k in WW2 and there would have been little difference in the outcome. By the time US infantry were committed to battle in numbers, the outcome had already been decided by the advantage in manpower & materiel.

>>34227887

When both sides have practically identical small arms, they don't make any difference.

You have to be developmentally disabled to think otherwise.

>>34229002

Machineguns in WW1 did not win the war, they prolonged it.