u.s marine training?

[Marine Jackson]

i was just wondering how long dus u.s marine training last..
no disrespect but they dont seem anywer near the level of royal marines

 

[Seedytucker]

it's incorrect to compare RM and USMC they're different types of troops used in different ways- there's 6-7.5k RM & approx 180k USMC. both are professional troops but USMC are not commandos, they are basically amphibious army with more phys in their training (than their US Army counterparts).
http://www.princetonreview.com/cte/articles/military/marineoverview.asp

 

[proudtobebritish]

i think the US marine training is 14 weeks

 

[BradfordBulls]

us = 9 week, uk = 8 month

 

[Seedytucker]

us = 9 week, uk = 8 month

USMC basic is 13 weeks.

 

[Sotiris]

Never compare the USMC to the RMC...they recruit women, asthmatics, epileptics etc etc.

They're not meant to do the same job...they can't.

However the US has a lot of very professional SF's...Navy Seals (tough mothers all!), Rangers (an elite extension of the Marines), Delta Force, Force Recon and a few others....oh! And the Green Berets, hehe like Rambo!!

 

[TheBaker]

Closest equivalent to the RM are the SEAL's, 11 month training.

PS: Army Rangers have nothing to do with the USMC, the USMC elite are the USMC Recon.

 

[Jason_A]

Navy Seals are equivalent to the SAS.

 

[Marine Jackson]

ah ryt *text deleted* often try'd to find out a bit more about the USMC..
i new they had nearly 200k troops n that..
so what do the us have to compare to the royal marines?
because i thought the seals where lyk our SBS?
im probably wrong lyk *text deleted*..?

 

[TheBaker]

This is how I imagined it:

US Army = UK Army
Rangers branch = Royal Marines
Delta Force = SAS

USMC - no equivalent?
Force Recon branch = Royal Marines
Navy SEALs = SBS

That's just a guess but I think i'm pretty close.

Sort of, *text deleted* SEALs are somewhere between elite and special forces. I'd take an SBS guy over a SEAL... I'm sure they probably have specialisations like the RM do to advance their skills. Also SEALs have over 2000, way more than a top line special forces unit which has under 500. So as you can see, they're somewhere between elite-special forces.

SBS training including RM training is somewhere over 2(might be 3) years, SEAL is 11 months go figure, but like I say they probably have more advanced selections.

I consider the USMC to be like our Army even though the job is different, just because of the sheer size and the training I'd put them akin to our Army especially since our Army is very well trained.

Also, Delta Force are recruited from all over the American Forces, so that would be the equivalent to SBS/SAS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_SEALs

 

[USMC 1802]

Comparing numbers is tangential. Keep in mind the US population is just over 400 million. The UK population is just about 65 million. Also, compare defense spending. Furthermore, just because the SEALs number close to 2,000 doesn't mean that they're any less professional (UK and US SF frequently do joint training); I'd hate to have to deal with Spetnaz, regardless of their approximate 30,000.

 

[Marine Jackson]

owell cheers for the usefull info lads.. i posted that second reply after only 2 reply's had been made.. just incase u thought im blind or summet haha

 

[TheBaker]

Yeah but then you've still got the regular US Army. Where would you place them? Bottom of the barrel *text deleted*?

Well....yeah *text deleted*, again the USMC are considered harder than the regular army in America.

But ofcourse you have Rangers, Green Berets etc in the US Army.

Not easy to give direct comparisons since the UK and US forces are structured differently.

 

[Freddo]

the USMC has superior equipment. i spose this is *text deleted* their nation is ridiculously rich and the government backs the military so well.

thats the only thing that lets the Royal Marines down in my opinion - they could be better equipped.

anyone agree?

 

[Seedytucker]

that's always been the case though, that's apart of the reason why since the 20s UK forces have been so well trained, i'd take superior training over equipment anyday ie uk RM training and an SLR over USMC training and an M16.
Though these days it should be noted (*text deleted*) it's not the quality of the equipment thats the problem so much as the quantity of the quality equipment!

 

[Sotiris]

Aye...well...it's difficult to say.

The SA80 used to be *text deleted**text deleted*e but they all say the A2 model rectified all problems.

The Russians and Chinese...tough mother *text deleted**text deleted*ers. Probably the toughest training on earth...the difference between them and us is that they don't have to worry about human rights haha! They are so much more brutal with their recruits.

 

[Seedytucker]

USMC still uses M16? I thought they used the M4A1. Isn't the M16 kinda *text deleted**text deleted*ty? They were using it in Vietnam. I think it's only a couple of versions above the m1 garand used in ww2 *text deleted*.

hmm and we no longer use the SLR...

Most of Russian/Chinese basic training though tough isn't as concise or involved as a lot of NATO training hence although for eg spetznaz are hard as nails, i'd take UKSF any day of the week

 

[TheBaker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DeSyl1CGIQ

There's a short doco on SEAL training.

*text deleted*, slighty OT but did anyone see the Inside the SAS program on Tueday on ITV4, it was an older program played and it showed the training, basically what we know but visualized, twas pretty crazy, I hope someone uploads it to youtube.

 

[Seedytucker]

did anyone see the Inside the SAS program on Tueday on ITV4.

No i didn't, but the SAS down under programmes are pretty interesting- i think it's on nat geo channel on tues at 21:00

 

[MrSkippy]

the USMC has superior equipment. i spose this is *text deleted* their nation is ridiculously rich and the government backs the military so well.

thats the only thing that lets the Royal Marines down in my opinion - they could be better equipped.

anyone agree?

If the UK increased spending by 1.5% more GDP on the armed forces, alot of our equipment problems would vanish (not overnight.. but certainly in time).

Americans are brought up as a majority to respect their countries servicemen and women, complete opposite for the most part of the UK, so nobody wants the money spent on the forces as obviously we have too much.

I wont get into where we are wasting the money, bit of a hot topic, but I do agree we could have far better equipment in the forces, and the guys really deserve to have access to it.