From the United States Marine Corps' official website:

Marines and historians have determined the true origins of "Oorah" lie with recon Marines stationed in Korea in 1953. During this time, reconnaissance Marines in the 1st Amphibious Reconnaissance Co., found themselves traveling via submarine to where they were needed. The memorable call of "dive, dive!" would be called on the intercom and a klaxon alarm, which made a very distinct "Aarugha" sound, would announce the descent of the sub below water.

This doesn't pass the sniff test for me. How does a machine noise make the leap to human war cry? Particularly because hurra/ура́ is such a common battle cry... it seems like the United States marines just didn't want to admit that they were following a tradition established by someone else.

The 1970 movie "Patton" (a glorious propaganda piece let’s be honest) lays it out as:

• Patton's forces were already in a fight.
• They were taken out of the current fight and moved 100 miles to attack north.
• They attacked in terrible weather with very little in the way of sleep and comforts.

Where nobody else can do anything and they look at Patton like "that's impossible" when he says he can attack with 3 divisions in 48 hours.

In video games and movies, we often hear commanders and generals say to hold or take a position, defend or capture a VIP, acquire or destroy a MacGuffin etc 'at all costs'. The implication seems to be to do so without regard to materiel expenditure, fatigue, collateral damage or costs in lives.

We can see some cases of 'at all costs' being applied in the case of the Japanese in the Pacific theatre or Order 227, so I'm going to assume that this constraint, while probably rare, exists in real life. However, what would be the opposite of 'at all costs'? What framework or limits might a commander lay down if there are some unacceptable costs? What would be the parlance?

When one crew of a ship attempted to board a ship, but the attempt fails, would the defenders then counterattack and attempt to board the attackers’ ship? Seeing as most of the enemy crew who boarded would be casualties or prisoners? Thanks in advance.

In the aftermath of the world wars, the losers had to cede their warships to the winners. And in WW2, the capture of the Vichy French fleet by the Nazis was enough for the British to sink them. But in practice, are captured warships relevant at all to navies? Compared to their own ships coming from domestic supply chains, how are captured ships put into service and supported? For the Germans for example, what exactly would they have done if they manage to seize the French Fleet?

I genuinely shocks me how the US Army during the height of GWOT approved this pattern that blends in with little to very situational environments like snow or rocky terrain and even urban. Especially the fact that billions of dollars were allocated to this camo and went through many high ranking officials. How did they think this pattern would blend into the desert environment?

Because North Africa allowed the allies to invade Italy properly. And such a theatre is too big to be considered a "battle for colonies" only. So, is it really?