What's the point of the marine corps existing? Is it just to keep the tradition around?
They're always underfunded and the XVIII airborne corps can rapidly deploy more people and more equipment plus better trained infantrymen
>>30458578
This thread. Again.
Marine corps are shock troops. They are sent in to take an area, and the army move in to occupy.
How did I do, sempai?
>>30458586
No no. We get rid of Marines, then we put army on navy ships.
So umm, we have naval infantry but we call them sea soldiers
>>30458612
Or just teach Navy faggots how to shoot a weapon other than an M9 so they don't get kidnapped by Iranians
>>30458586
>Marine corps are shock troops. They are sent in to take an area
That's literally what light infantry units in the Army are for though
Please respond
>>30458624
Holy shit. I fucking laughed so hard at this.
>>30458586
Except that isn't how it actually works out in practice
Marines are used when u want to save money
>>30458578
Because they're written into the Constitution
>>30458578
personally we should have 3 marine corps and no army.
>>30458578
>he questions the point of an amphibious fighting force on a planet made of 75% water.
>>30459780
The US Army has been more than capable of fulfilling the amphibious role for well over a century. Hell, it was the Army; not the Marines, which performed the greatest amphibious landing of all time.
>>30459597
/thread
>>30459845
>Getting obliterated while doing it
Just because you do something, doesn't mean you're good at it.
>Normandy
One landing versus the entire Pacific theater and the landing on Inchon.
>be former Marine
>Click thread to read typical marine hate thread and snicker
>It's surprisingly pro Marines
Wtf is it /bizzaro k/ tonight?
>>30460189
>One landing versus the entire Pacific theater and the landing on Inchon
>implying the Army didn't have troops in the pacific
I don't hate the Marines, but at the moment I fail to see their relevancy in modern combat. Their original purpose as ship security and support in battle has kinda fallen by the way side now that ships can BTFO one another from 20 miles away (longer with aircraft). Amphibious ops can be conducted by the army, I'm not even gonna comment on WW2 since the army was involved plenty in those landings as well. It seems that the Marines have been relegated to COD fags (and themselves tbqh) beating off over how amazing they are and opening the door for the president.
>>30460345
It's like a liberal saying do you NEED an AR15 baby killer?
No, but the Constitution says you can and you WANT one because it's your right. America doesn't NEED the Marines, America WANTS Marines. Also like other anon said also in Constitution.
>>30458578
So that the Armed forces are under different commanders. If one general decides on a coup d'etat, he doesn't hold all the cards. Some say the Marines are supposed to act as a sort of praetorian guard to the president.
>>30460312
>army did more in the Pacific theatre than the Marines
>marines literally take credit for army victories
>>30460312
>implying
If the army was so good at landings why werent they the ones to pull off the largest one in the Pacific during Okinawa?
>>30460430
A fair point, but want and need are two different things. Sure I want an AR-15, but I don't need one, nor can I afford one at the moment (granted I just got back from NTC so I've got some spare change). The US could probably save a lot of money by disbanding the Corps, keep guys in the army if they want to stay and if they don't they can ETS early.
Don't fuck with the marines faggot.
>>30460473
>Army did more
Not more fighting. So whatd they do more of?
Because every man has his job to do faggot. You can't have one branch doing everything and expect any of it to be good let alone the best.
>What's the point of the marine corps existing?
Jobs program for sexual deviants.
http://www.unz.com/isteve/obama-admin-marine-corps-will-now-pay-for-transgender-surgery/
>>30460492
>but want and need are two different things
That's why I chose two different words.
Also it wouldn't save money. DOD loves Marines for being cost efficient. Around 5% of budget yet accounts for almost 1/3 of boots on the ground.
>>30460526
I'll concede the cost point, seems reasonable. I have to wonder if it's more about they being efficient or Admirals caring more about their ships than their infantry.
>>30460473
What did they do other than get beat at the Philippines and occupy Guadalcanal after the Marines left?
>>30460157
blame the navy and air corps on that one
>>30460157
>underfed and isolated nipponese soldiers in dirt bunkers with shit equipment, most of whom were hiding innajungle to fight gorilla warfare
>in any way comparable to a massively fortified and trapped coastline, with sheer cliffs, and bunkers manned by the men that conquered the other professional armies of Europe
>>30460500
Try Google next time. Or go to Wikipedia and tally up all of the land battles and fighting forces involved.
>>30460622
I recommend you do that..
Army did some, but not more. Usually less defended and smaller forces also. Think the most was 7000 Japs on one Island.
>>30460611
>battle hardened veteran Japanese who were experts at jungle warfare in perfectly designed and concealed positions
>in anyway comparable to clear and reaserched positions manned by conscripts, POWs, and penal battalions stationed in the West while the real Wermacht was in the East.
It works both ways.
>>30460493
>deep sigh
article 15 here I come
>I hope this whole fucking place gets ripped apart.
>>30460587
Killed hundreds of thousands of mainlanders, including 250000 Japanese in just 3 days.
>>30460622
http://www.history.army.mil/html/reference/army_flag/ww2_ap.html
>Army
>relevant in the Pacific
>>30460659
>POWs
>at Omaha
Laughable. There were very few positions reported manned by POWs, and those were nearly all at British sites. Any from Omaha or Point du Hoc were little more than powder monkeys
>>30460587
>get beat at the Philippines
The 4th Marines were there when the japs invaded though so it's a mix bag of army and marines.
