/k/ - Weapons

>>536422

Because they are the only branch that trains a recruit to be a hard ass consistently enough, so you'ld downsize because the army has professional sky divers?

>>536422

> Why do we need the marines when we have the army?

They still fulfill their main role of amphibious infantry, they just self contain everything else so they can take care of themselves mostly within that role because the Navy and the Air Force don't want to and the Army has other things they want to do in the combat role.

They're a Corps sized outfit, just like the XVIII Airborne Corps.

The biggest mistake the US Army did was get rid of their Air Corps because they really need it now because the AirForce doesn't want to do what the US Army really needs.

>>536427

Also to be completely honest, having had a former marines drill sergeant as my physics uni professor, even he admitted that the Army's methods were more effective and he adopted them when possible while in the military since a cold, calm, and collected asshole scares the shit out of a recruit a lot more than a bellowing faggot and obtains better results more quickly.

>>536422

>>536428

This is anecdotal, but anyone who has actually lived near all the other branches on one facility (e.i. I lived on Fort Leonardwood) will make the same point that the above video was making.

>>536428

>that thing about using the Marines as a Foreign Legion

not that shit again, he didn't even know the SEALs don't have any infantry training whatsoever on assaulting and only do small unit tactics so they can't fight their way out of anything if the enemy actually want to fight back competently. Which is specifically why they're deployed with Rangers from the 75th nowadays.

>>536438

It's not that SEALs can't fight, it's just that they don't get air or artillery support because they're supposed to kill shit before it comes to that. They're meant to fight without heavy support. In a hypothetical fight without Air, armor, or artillery rangers, or any conventional infantry would get molly whopped by SEALs or any irregular unit.

>>536443

>it's just that they don't get air or artillery support because they're supposed to kill shit before it comes to that.

And Rangers don't? Or Green Berets?

The SEALs aren't meant to fight long battles against infantry, they're meant to disrupt communications, logistics, and perform hit and run raids on important targets and personnel.

They aren't meant to take airbases, or beachheads, or anything like that, that's what Rangers and Marines are for.

Their whole thing is in order, Fuck shit up, Surprise the enemy, Make yourself look bigger than you are while you leave the area.

That's it.

Sure they can be cool snipers and do operator shit, but they don't have basic infantry training, which is why they're backed up by Rangers on SOCOM missions, and Marines in the Maritime Special Purpose Force.

>>536450

I'm not too familiar with Green Berets. Don't they mostly train foreign soldiers? Rangers mostly do conventional shit and rely on air, and artillery support. The SEALs did well in Grenada against forces with heavy weapons. They even merced some Cuban soldiers.

>>536455

Green Berets can fulfill the roles of SEALs and train foreign soldiers while retaining basic Infantry tactics they learned in basic. (OEF was proof of this and it was why they needed Jade Helm because they were fulfilling the role of door kicker rather than their main role).

Rangers are superinfantry and usually do shock and awe raids and assaults in platoon and company sized formations. They are a cut above the rest of the regular infantry and have strict standards but also have basic infantry training and specialize also in reconnaissance in their specialized Regimental Reconnaissance Company.

SEALs however, mainly deal in direct action raids, reconnaissance, sabotage and breeching. They aren't very good at "assaulting" positions like the Green Berets and Rangers because it is not needed for their role. They mainly focus on hit and run attacks. It isn't that they can't fight, it's that they aren't built to do things infantry does. They also work in Platoon sized formations for the most part but can work in larger formations if need be but are spread out to the point that they aren't working in anything larger than a platoon.

It doesn't particularly make them bad, they do well in their role like what they did in Greneda. They make themselves seem like a larger force than they are, use shock and awe to complete and objective and get out of there.

Compare the radio station raid the SEALs did to the Prison Raid and the Port Raid the Rangers did and you'll get an idea of what I'm trying to explain.

A better example is that you think of the SEALs as a force that do things in short bursts and the Rangers can last a bit longer.

All of SOCOM have access to TACP personnel who can call in air support for the group so they aren't exactly left out hanging out to dry.

>>536462

>Green Berets can fulfill the roles of SEALs

No. There's a reason why SEALs, and other small units like Delta, began to supplant the Green berets in direct action operations. Other than that you are correct about everything else. All I'm saying is that Rangers need air and artillery, SEALs don't. At least most of the time.

>>536465

SFOD-A does similar roles.

Again, during OEF green berets were doing Direct Action Ops, mainly because of how the structure of the groups they were facing worked.

They'd raid one place, get the information within half an hour, and have to do another raid right after that one. They were so burnt out by OEF that they needed Jade Helm to brush up on the their main role that they almost neglected for the past 10 years.

I'm not saying Green Berets are supposed to be in the Direct Action role, I'm saying they are as proficient as the SEALs in it because they have similar training (that's supposed to mainly be used for defense or sabotage raids if they needed to help the forces they're training).

>All I'm saying is that Rangers need air and artillery, SEALs don't.

SEALs get the same support, but their missions are different so they don't utilize it as much.

Again, they aren't made to fight long battles, they're a get in get out force. But this is a role that can be filled by Delta (who are up for hire by any government organization that needs them) and Green Berets if the SEALs already have too much on their plate.

And again, SEALs, Green Berets, and Rangers can have TACPs assigned to them if need be to call in accurate air support.

Honestly, the best way to fix SEALs is to give them some type of basic infantry training, similar to what they do for the SBS in the UK where it used to be that you had to be a Royal Marine prior to apply (they've changed it recently, but I'm pretty sure you still go through Royal Marine training).

>>536471

During OEF, Delta worked closely with SOG/SAD and the FBI-HRT and did missions along side them for their respective parent agencies. It's the only time they ever really opened up about it since it was such a televised and intimate issue with the US.

Alot of their training instruction as well was performed by the CIA who taught them Tradecraft, the FBI. DEA etc trained them in "Combined Skills" (The FAA even taught them how to fly and Air Traffic Control) Secret Service and Diplomatic Services taught them Executive Personnel Protection etc.

>Should the marines be downsized to the equivalent of the paratroopers?

No. But it should remove the detritus and womyn that only demoralize and distract the Corps. Same goes for the rest of the military: women should only serve in medical and clerical roles, trannies should be kicked out and barred from any sort of military service, and races should be segregated into different units.

>Why do we need the marines when we have the army?

Because the whole point of the Marines nowadays is to serve as stormtroops, while the Army goes in after to mop up.

Marines are needed to take on the entire world.

US Army doesn't even need to take on Canada or Mexico, since the National Guard can do that.

The army has no purpose of existing but to put dumb people in it.

>>536422

Because then the Army needs to field, maintain and train personnel/equipment for amphibious assaults. It would have to also train pilots to operate from carriers in support of naval operations as well as infantry operations. The end result is that you'd have a Marine Corps that was part of the Army instead of the Navy, but is primarily deployed with the Navy. If downsizing was a must, I'd be taking a hard look at the Air Force before anything else. Also maybe asking if we really need 11 aircraft carriers or 40 bases in germany.

>>536434

Stay in your lane, commonwealth cuck.

>>536480

Army is in control of foreign clay. Any military operation is Army’s jurisdiction by default.

>>536542

America doesn't need to be in control of any foreign clay, it doesn't need to be the shield of Europe dying to slow down the Soviet advance, because the Soviets never wanted the trouble the continent would give them in the first place.

And with the army shut down the marines could be twice the size. Enough to wreck any countries ability to do war. Enough to maintain American supremacy for as long as needed.

>>536527

>amphibious assaults.

Never really happens. Doesn't happen enough to warrant the money that we spend on them each year.

>>536422

most american wars in recent history have been overseas with a large need for amphibious equipment and training, it's only natural that a big chunk of us armed personnel would be equipped to that end.

>>536555 (checked)

Marines get killed at higher rates because they don't understand how to wait for support. If you got rid of the Army and promoted the Marines more, you'd just end up with propaganda for your enemies to use to convince the American public to stop invading actually maybe that would be a good thing.

>>536569

Also this. Not sure how Marines in the middle of the fucking desert and North Africa, or embassy personnel are an "amphibious assault."

>>536591

Why do we need all of these expensive f35s when we don't fight fighter jets, and when we're using bombers built in the 60s and 70s as bomb trucks?

>>536593

jews

>>536593

>Why do we need all of these expensive f35s

We don't.

>>536598

What would have happened if trump shut down the f35 program and made lockmart pay back every last penny?

>>536631

They could shut down the program, but they couldn't get their money back since it was a contract and the US government would be breaking it along with a bunch of international contracts (it would still be the correct action and would free up a lot of money for the military budget).

Also the military would assassinate him/you'd have an Airforce Coup when they have to explain where all the money they were funneling away from the f-35 into other pork projects was. The F35 only continues to exist because we're in too deep between the Airforce funneling off money from it into other projects, everyone and their dead dog having contracts to receive F35s, and all the money already wasted on it that would be considered a flop to end the project. Best we can hope for is a "hard deadline" to finish up the project once and for all to meet our foreign obligations.

>>536650

It would be irrelevant as the program it self.

>>536569

>Never really happens.

If there's a war with China the USMC will be useful for that type of mission, with all those Islands and whatnot to amphibiously assault.

They also did it in Vietnam and surprisingly Iraq if you want a recent example.

>>536680

If there's a war with China I'll be trying to wrap my head around how the president wasn't impeached and how a civil war in China didn't break out first. If there's a need for Marines instead of getting the Nips and Gooks involved, I'll consider it dick waving and America will deserve whatever casualties they get.

>>536683

Again, They did Amphibious operations as recent as 2003.

It's not that it never really happens, it's that noone's interested in reading about it.

>>536687

2003 was 14 years ago. I was in like 2nd grade then. People involved with that would be 6 years from military retirement assuming they didn't already hit it or quit.

Admittedly they've been doing amphibious training at least as recent as 2014, but I'm still in agreement with >>536569 and any sort of infantry confrontation with the Chinks not involving mostly tank warfare/artillery or Airforce/Navy involvement is a suicide mission if only because of sheer numbers.

>>536688

See >>535338 for how that should go down.

It shouldn't even involve tanks and Artillery and the Air Force, You shouldn't touch mainland China but blockade them and starve them till Collapse which will happen pretty easily.

>>536478

The US Military branches are communist in nature because they let women into combat roles.

Only group I know that hasn't wuss pussed out like that is the French Foreign Legion.

>>536688

Speaking about military retirement. Why are high ranking generals forced into retirement after so many years in service, but feinstein will be over 90 years of age once she finishes her current term?

>>536680

>They also did it in Vietnam and surprisingly Iraq if you want a recent example.

No they didn't.

There hasn't been any amphibious assault since WWII.

There have been amphibious landings which are an entirely different beast.

Amphibious assault: You park your ships off the coast and send waves after waves of marines hoping they manage to secure the beach-head you've designated because it's your main (and probably only) access point for your main force which the enemy is actively trying to stop you from doing to not have to fight you on the ground.

Amphibious landing: You use your ships to outmaneuver the enemy and land your marines on the rear or flanks of the enemy.

For example the USSR and Germany did numerous amphibious landings in WWII. They've never done an amphibious assault (AFAIK).

The US, the UK and the Japanese are the ones who did numerous amphibious assaults (and therefore ended the war with a non-negligible amount of marines units).

But given how small everyone military are, what the fuck is the point of having 300k marines?

Except to be able to make a beach-head in China (a nuclear power), but then the regular US army will never be able to destroy the Chinese army so…

Not reducing it to paratrooper levels, but reducing it to 60k is probably more than enough.

>>536706

They're communist in nature because they've been full of communists since the 50's. McCarthy was right and always had been right.

>>536905

Higher taxes are a major symptoms of one of two things: public spending for the good of all, or massive corruption within a government. Of course, our welfare system is generally a detriment to our society, allowing the niggercattle to breed and further worsen our society, and there's no doubt that our government is amazingly corrupt.

>>536909

>One of two

>Implying they aren't the same thing