Comments by "ElevenB" (@elevenb6967) on "US Marines vs US Army platoon: Who’d win that fight?" video.
-
4
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hahahahaha!!!
Now, why would heaven have 'streets'? Also, why the hell would heaven, full of spirits, and omnipotent super beings, need to be guarded? Who would invade heaven? LMAO!!!
Stop with the embassy crap, will you? They're fkn sentries in pretty uniforms, standing a post. If anything ever happened, like armed militia, or military, decided to overrun the embassy, what would 10, or 12 marines do? Yup. They would call for backup. Don't act like they're there to quell an uprising. They're not.
Also, you may want to look up the Secret Service, and the Special Police. THEY'RE the ones who ACTUALLY guard the White House/President.
ALSO, also....The president flies in aircraft to carry him around like Morgan Freeman carried Miss Daisy. Don't kid yourself into thinking that it's because "we're the best......rah rah". LOL! Air Force One flies the president from airport to airport. Marine One flies the president to areas like the aftermath of natural disasters, or when he goes on vacation to Camp David. Do you see any airmen bragging about how their branch flies the president from point A to point B? Man, so many of you marines are just fkn straight up weirdos! 🤣
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MG-wk2eh I knew you didn't do your homework. But you took the bait anyway.
You have no idea what you're talking about. This much is certain.
Army officers don't have to be tabbed, and can still be PTLs. You have to have a Bachelor's degree to be an army officer. So I have no idea where this "higher standard" crap you're spewing even comes from.
YOU said:
"The entrance standards to be an Officer are much higher than the standards to enlist.
Educational, fitness, etc."
Whenever I see "etc", that means the person probably knows nothing more.
I asked for SPECIFICS, and YOU give me 'etc'. Pffft.
I compared OC standards for both. And, from what I'M reading, that "MUCH HIGHER" standard you spoke of eludes the $hit out of me. I'm not seeing it.
I swear man, I don't know why so many of you Gomers think you know everything, when you don't know jack.
Take my advice, sir. Do some actual RESEARCH! And make sure you do it BEFORE you post. That way, you won't look like a clueless clod.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@truenreal365
Man, you are a real character, huh?
Maybe "YOU" do, but I have never fought with my brother. That's some $h1t you just don't do.
But, let me take that off the table. You're talking about fighter jets. That ain't no fist fight, chief. I submit to you, that the US Army, and USMC aren't fighting each other in a real combat EVER. So you can toss that crap right out the window.
Now, curiosity is getting the better of me.
So I'll ask just two questions. (Even though I KNOW I'm gonna get a tihsllub answer)....
Question 1, and 1A. - When did soldiers shoot at you by mistake, and where were you?
Question 2. Are you seriously telling me, that the entirety of the marine corps is pissed off at ALL soldiers, because 1, or two of them shot at you accidentally? That's hilarious!
Man, if tihsllub was cheese, you'd be Wisconsin! LMAO!
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hahahahahahahaha!!! I LOVE this quote. Especially because you clowns actually believe it's accurate. I can assure you, my crayon crunching friend....It is not.
Please pay attention, because school is in session....
Your cute little quote by General Vessey read, that there were THREE army regiments being "pinned down".
A regiment consists of 5,000 men. X that by three, and you have around 15,000 troops.
Now, be careful, because I don't want you to hurt yourself.
In TOTAL, there were 1500 enemy troops on the island. Please explain how 15,000 army troops were "pinned down" by 1500 enemy boots, when the TOTAL NUMBER of American boots on the island was just 7000????? The conflict lasted 4 days. Read that again, sir. And slowly.
I'll wait for your response........
1
-
1
-
"The real difference between the Army and the Marine Corps is attitude..."
Actually, the biggest difference is that the marine corps gets the job done, but wants every lifeform that exists on the planet to know about it. The army gets $hit done, but doesn't expect props, and fanfare. We're the silent professionals.
"we are smaller than the Army. We usually get second-hand gear."
Second- hand from who? Is the M27 'second-hand gear'?
"And the Marine Corps trains leaders, with more responsibility and freedom to make decisions at lower ranks than the Army, with a Corporal having more authority in the Marine Corps than an Army Sergeant."
Well, it is clear that you have very little knowledge of the US Army. This is FALSE, sir. A marine corporal does NOT have more 'authority' than an army sergeant. (I think you need to learn the difference between authority, and responsibility) You call it "training leaders", when the truth is, it should be called 'the-overwhelming-majority-of-marine-corps-personnel-RARELY-stay-longer-than-their-initial-four-year-commitment-so-there-are-fewer-prople-to-lead'."
"It stands to reason that it takes longer to run our 3-mile PFT than the Army's 1-1/2 mile."
Actually, it's TWO miles. You're confusing us with the USAF.
"You failed to take into account that Marines are more likely to be in better physical condition as well as being used to carrying more, faster, and for longer periods of time than Army grunts except for maybe Airborne or Special Forces personnel."
LMAO! This is hilarious! A grunt is a grunt, sir. And that's irrespective of branch of service. But now my curiosity is piqued. Please explain what SPECIFICALLY you carry, that is heavier than what army grunts carry. Also, how MUCH faster do you guys run with gear? Did you have a race, or something with army grunts to see who could run longer, and faster?
Man, this is great!!
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrCard031584
"Why don't you ask someone that has stood against the marines in battle. Oh wait they're all dead."
Awwww....That's adorable. But, I asked YOU! Good deflection, though.
"Why don't you look up devil dogs."
I did. A snack cake, with cream filling.
"During I believe the Vietnam War the US had to investigate the marines for the number of head shots they were getting."
Another marine bull$hit story. That never happened. Do you really think the United States would "investigate" the marines for headshots in WAR? Especially when napalm was being used? How about bombs, and rockets that reduce enemy fighters to barbecue beef tips?? And you're talking about headshots??? LMFAO!! You can't be that dumb!
"The government thought they were lining them up and executing them. Turns out they were just giving long range labotomies at a rate the US government didn't previously know was possible."
Oh. I guess you CAN be that dumb. LOL!!
"Normandy, all that needs to be said about the US involvement in that war."
That's pretty vague, man. But, I'm gonna write that off with the rest of the drivel you've written thus far.
"All depends on your definition of winning a war. I think the US has gotten exactly what it's wanted from every war its fought. The rest is just theater."
Yes, because men dying is 'theater'. Either way, you're off topic. Please try and focus.
"Every time the marines are let off of their very short leash, they come back with a new name the enemy has given them."
Ah, yes. Like oft trumpeted teufel hunden? LMAO! My stomach hurts from laughing so hard. You guys need to stop all these embellishments, and straight out lies, man. I lived in Germany for a combined total of 4 years. I've NEVER heard of such lunacy. No confirmation. Zero. You guys love to lie your asses off by making up cute nicknames for yourselves, then have the effrontery to say that enemy combatants actually gave them to you because of your 'fierceness'. Riiiight. Well, we're hep to your game, Gomer. People are smarter now, and information is much easier to get. Nobody's buying your bull$hit anymore. The only time I EVER see crap like this, is in marine rags. No other source has ever been confirmed.
"You tell a marine to get it done and you don't care how, it gets done period."
Pretty sure you haven't cornered the market on that one, Gomer. The same can be said for ALL branches of the US military. You're just too jaded to see it.
"The main problem currently is very restrictive rules of engagement."
^^^^
Literally the only thing you've said that makes any sense whatsoever.
My question goes unanswered. US Marines are good. Just like every other branch of the US military. But you're (marines) no better than any other branch. Full stop.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@T_81535 Sure. Let's dissect your drivel.
"The army gets all the funding so they have a larger force."
ACTUAL percent of the budget allocated to the branches:
Air Force - 30.3
Navy - 29.9
Army - 22.9
"The marines get very little funding so cant recruit as many troops."
WRONG! Marines get little funding, because they're under the Department of the NAVY. Which means they (Navy) have to SHARE it with the USMC.
"Thats why the marines demand only the best because they cant afford to have a bunch of idle hands in there ranks like the army."
It's "THEIR". And what the hell are 'idle hands'? Please don't tell me that you think there are no pogs in the marine corps. LOL!!
"The army has just as many capable troops as the marines do but they also have many that are not as capable."
Capable of WHAT?
"Not as many shit bags in the Marines."
Well, when your size is only a paltry 180 odd thousand vs. over a million, you will probably have fewer 'shit bags'. That's just math. But remember, pogs don't need to be hard chargers. That's not their job. Duh?
But, infantry to infantry, the differences are negligible. Full stop.
"The army believes that even a retard with a pair of hands can be useful in some way where as the marines cant afford said retards because they dont have room in there ranks for them."
Again, it's 'THEIR". And, judging by your post, clearly they do. Also, have you ever heard of Marine Corps Intelligence? What about Marine Corps Corps of Engineers?
No? WAIT, have you ever heard of a Marine Corps doctor, or surgeon? Please! Don't talk to me about retards, son.
"Marines 150,000 strong and the army is 700,000 strong."
Your numbers are slightly off. But, okay. -_-
"They dont call it the army for nothing."
You're damn right they don't. And I suggest that you don't forget it. We will ALWAYS be your big brother. You need to thank whatever deity you worship, that the US Army exists. Because without it, your chances of beating countries like China, Russia, and even NK, are absolute zero.
So, show some respect, Gomer.
"As far as platoon on platoon id put my money on the marines"
yawn. And, let me guess. Stipulations, and governors must be put in place, right?
Yes, we'll fight you (Which, BTW, would NEVER happen.), but you can't bring any of your technology, and overwhelming firepower. GTF outta here! LMAO!
"but if it comes down to force on force the marines have zero chance."
Again, it would never happen. So all you can do is speculate. You Gomers just don't seem to get it. We play for the same team.
The sooner you learn that, the sooner you can put down your ruler, and stop with the silly dick measuring. Because dick measuring is only for guys with small dicks.
Now, how's THAT for 'logic'?!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thagr8121
That's a piss poor example, sir.
The M1 Abrams tank entered service for the US Army in 1980. When the Gulf war started, it was barely 11 years old.
Also, the only real difference between the M1, and the M1A1, was the main cannon went from 105, to 120 mm. It was STILL an M1, which is a damn good tank. Stop bitching.
The size of the army dwarfs the size of the marine corps. Which means, so is your budget. And if the budget can't allocate, then guess what, you ain't gettin' it. You have to share said budget with the navy. So don't blame us. Just be thankful you didn't get the M60. -__-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@achaean7615
"the army gave us tanks in the 90s,"
HUH?? Wait.....Did you expect the DOD to make tanks especially for the USMC? That makes no sense. What tanks did they 'give' you?
"we practically shared the same uniform with the army in the early 1900s up until the 40s,"
Battle uniforms are made for battle. And since there are TWO infantries, what sense does it even make to NOT share battle uniforms, since we're both on the same fkn team? When will you guys get that through your heads? It's not a competition, FFS. -_-
"we only received any newly developed weapons AFTER the army had tested and fielded them consistently in our history,"
I'm trying to make sense out of this.
Did you want the weapons BEFORE they were tested? Still though, A 'newly developed weapon' would NOT constitute a "hand-me-down".
"same goes with new vehicles with the obvious exception of amphibious vehicles and that one f35variant, this includes rifles like the m1, m14, m1 carbine, m4 m16, smaw, saw, m1 Abrams, Chaffee, not to mention kit, like ballistic vests, pouches etc etc"
WHICH new vehicles? Whenever I see 'etc etc', that usually tells me there's nothing else.
1
-
@achaean7615
"firstly, the two uniforms makes a difference, it is a matter of distinction, identity and morale for that fighting force, particularly so for the marine corps bc they take great pride in distinction, furthermore it is also a means of testing different camos, seeing what works and what doesn't. But finally having your branches own uniform actually means something when your the marine corps, a branch the army has been trying to write out of existence due to their own short comings.. failures and envy.."
Unbelievable. What "matter of distinction" will be relevant, when you're trying to obliterate the enemy? Or, better yet, when the enemy is trying to obliterate YOU? Do you really think Russia, China, or NK cares what the American military's uniform looks like? Are you even serious right now? Get outta here with that bull$hit.
Also, you have no idea what you're talking about. This much is certain. You really think the army, which is more than THREE TIMES the size of the marine corps, is trying to get rid of the USMC? When the MC was on the chopping blocks, that was a BUDGETARY concern which, BTW, resided in the purview of the Department of Defense. The army had zero to do with it. Educate yourself.
The fact that you have the lowest budget is not the army's fault. You're part of the NAVY. Which means you have to share their budget. If you don't get state-of-the-art kit first, don't get mad at us, and start throwing 'words like 'failure', and 'envy' around. (LMAO!) That's ridiculous.
"and your point about the Abrams is nonsense,"
Not really, when you're the one who mentioned tanks. But, okay. -_-
"I know the dod wouldn't find a tank just for the marine corps.. except for tye fact that they also funded our osprey and AAVs, which already renders your point null,"
Ospreys, and AAV's are not tanks. So you may want to rethink that 'null' figure.
"but while the army got their new tank, we still rolled with old Vietnam Era equipment."
The army is bigger, has a MUCH bigger budget, and therefore, will get $hit first.
If that's the fly in your milk, punt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1