What are the main differences between the US training and British training methods?

I know that the USMC break down their recruits and build them all up again so that they're all very similar, and read that the British Royal Marines don't do this. What other differences are there?

To respond to your thread, one would have to have experience in both militaries, and not many do.

How about you post the differences you think there may be and we can discuss how our nations/services do things.

I don't know about basic training. One thing the Brits had which Americans didn't in their training, however, was Northern Ireland. Many British "first call" infantry units did time in Northern Ireland as part of their training, and thus have more experience at counterinsurgency and counterterror operations than their US counterparts. This isn't to say one is "better" than the other generally. My friends in the Royal Army tell me that their experience meeting US Marines is that they are much more patriotic than they are, but they weren't Royal Marines themselves, just normal Army. (I have no experience in either, although I've spent some time on US military bases in the UK, and have been involved in general conversations between the two.)

[edit on 19-12-2005 by koji_K]

[edit on 19-12-2005 by koji_K]

I think that the British armed forces are more disciplined, and the emphasis is more on fieldcraft, compared to the building of the brotherhood found in the US military. That isn't to say that in the UK's armed forces they all don't know each other, but it's built through the hardship of the training.

With special forces, there is obviously a huge difference. If the Navy SEALS and SAS are compared, SEALS concentrate on fitness, while SAS do that in the cold of the Welsh mountains. For instance, while the SEALS run on the beach and do sit ups with logs as a group, the SAS have to hike with a heavy load of kit by themselves. This is purely so you can push yourself, which will weed out the weak people while the SEALS will help build up the team. But then with the SAS they want people who have served in the army for 3 three years or been in the SAS reserve squadron (I think).


I'm not trying to say which military is better or worse. I prefer the British for different reasons (such as being British myself).

Anyone else know other differences?

Originally posted by mashup
For instance, while the SEALS run on the beach and do sit ups with logs as a group, the SAS have to hike with a heavy load of kit by themselves. This is purely so you can push yourself, which will weed out the weak people while the SEALS will help build up the team. But then with the SAS they want people who have served in the army for 3 three years or been in the SAS reserve squadron (I think).

The SAS tends to prefer to weed out the weak ones mentally. However the SEALs also do that too, but also make SEALs physically tough as well as mentally. Thats what the bell is for in the SEALs method when one who decides to give in.

Originally posted by mashup
Anyone else know other differences?

SAS are army and the SEALS are navy.....so theres no use in comparing them....

Koji...as a little bit of info btw, the british army isnt royal. It lost its "royal" status when it rebbelled against the queen....some time ago that I cant remember when..

One difference I noticed is this...the US seems to focus on patriatism (note see marines and thier love for "the red white and blue" ) where as the UK troops seem to focus on "Thats you oppo , you watch his back and he will watch yours." , more team building than "round the flag" , just a little note and opinion...if its wrong well heh..



[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Originally posted by devilwasp
One difference I noticed is this...the US seems to focus on patriatism (note see marines and thier love for "the red white and blue" ) where as the UK troops seem to focus on "Thats you oppo , you watch his back and he will watch yours." , more team building than "round the flag" , just a little note and opinion...if its wrong well heh..

Having served, what you indicate is wrong, devilwasp.




seekerof

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by mashup
Anyone else know other differences?

SAS are army and the SEALS are navy.....so theres no use in comparing them....

Koji...as a little bit of info btw, the british army isnt royal. It lost its "royal" status when it rebbelled against the queen....some time ago that I cant remember when..

One difference I noticed is this...the US seems to focus on patriatism (note see marines and thier love for "the red white and blue" ) where as the UK troops seem to focus on "Thats you oppo , you watch his back and he will watch yours." , more team building than "round the flag" , just a little note and opinion...if its wrong well heh..



[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

I would have to say you are wrong as well. One of the things I didn’t like very much about combat arms Army was a tendency to "forget" what you were supposed to be fighting for. You were really fighting for the Army, for your unit, and for your platoon. It is sort of like a gang mentality. Of course, when someone starts to badmouth the military it will become all about patriotism and how "the only reason you are free to badmouth us is because of what we do."


So far as the posters who say that we focus more on teambuilding and less on tactical proficiency, I would probably agree, to a limited extent. We fight in numbers and with technology. The style we fight in is irrelevant, however. You can the “best trained” soldiers in the world and my country can still own yours.

That said, we did train. We trained a lot. My job in the Army, in case you didn’t guess, was Cavalry Scout, 19DELTA Reconnaissance Specialist. Most people think we just ride around in Bradley Fighting Vehicles, however I never saw one after basic. For my job alone we had to be able to operate and fix Bradley as well as Abrams every now and then, and hummers. We did a little more hand-to-hand than most MOSs, qualified with riffle, MK-19, .50 cal., 240B, bayonet, hand grenades, demolitions, field expedient explosives (IED), various land mines, AT missiles, TOW missiles, called for fire from artillery, route zone and area reconnaissance, commo, combat life saver and about 100 other combat skill tasks, and that is just in our 4 month long basic training. We were jacks of all trades, we knew a little about everything and a lot about nothing. I think we had like 180+ combat skill tasks we had to learn.

Because we were trained on so much, no one person became an expert at anything (with the exception of weapons) however with two or three of us working together, there was nothing we could not accomplish.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Having served, what you indicate is wrong, devilwasp.

Is it?
Ah well then sorry mate, I was wrong...