Reserve Training vs. USMC training

[matt22]

The other day on the military channel, i saw a documentary that folllowed a platoon of new marines through marine training. Their 11 week course had a lot of drill, and alot of PT and for the final 3 days of their course, they went on a 3 day field exercise which consisted of them sleeping in tents and firing the m16 for the first time, followed by a march (WITH DAY PACKS) up a hill thye call the crucible. Is it just me or are our Reservists better trained then the United States Marines!?!?!

 

[Horse_Soldier]

It's just you.  A one hour documentary is utterly unable to give you more than a pallid reflection of reality.  From everything I've seen and read about USMC training, I would have no hesitation to say that it is tougher - much tougher - than what we put our reservists through.  This might help dispel some of the misconceptions that documentary may have given you

http://www.usmchq.com/usmcresources/trainingmarch.htm

 

[matt22]

wow, thanks for that link. You were definitly right about the fact that a one hour documentary did not show everything they did. I really have some seep respect for the guys that do that course now.

 

[pbi]

I am somewhat familiar with the Crucible (having visited it in action at MCRD San Diego) and I have a basic familarity with the USMC as a graduate of their Staff College. It sounds to me like the TV program did not do justice to the Crucible program. A few points:

-USMC recruits (and Marines in general) undergo much more demanding physical fitness training than Canadian recruits, either Res or Reg and must meet a stringent annual fitness test regardless of being Res or Reg-one standard;

-the USMC stresses a high standard of weapons handling and marksmanship which our BMQ/SQ/DP1 system for Res simply does not have the time nor the resources to equal;

-the Crucible is only the beginning of a Marine's training: after the Recruit Depot he goes on to the school of his arm, such as Infantry or Artillery, where physical fitness training continues, before he arrives in his battalion;

-all USMC recruits are instilled with the spirit of the Corps that demands every Marine be a "rifleman" (not an "Infantryman-that is a more advanced skill set). While our Army Reserve has a rough equivalency to this in SQ, it is not nearly as well enforced, especially once a person gets into a non-Infantry unit;

-the Crucible was designed to develop the important personal traits of Marines, not to produce robots. One of its roles is the early identification of potential leaders. As far as I know, we have no such intent in our entry-level Army Res training: very little is expected from the recruit in the way of leadership and IIRC we are actually prevented from formalizing things such as "Section Senior" or "Stick man" that were standard parts of recruit training in our past.

Don't judge things by a single TV show.

Cheers

 

[captain_donut]

we are actually prevented from formalizing things such as "Section Senior" or "Stick man" that were standard parts of recruit training in our past.

thats odd, im doing my BMQ and we have the class senior and the others have a section senior

 

[Gouki]

Is it just me or are our Reservists better trained then the United States Marines!?!?!

I still can't believe you said that. After seeing a show that lasted a single hour no less. Talk about the mother of all assumptions.

 

[atticus]

Every experiance I've ever had with an US marine has been a good one. Marine training is harder than US Army training and this is mirrored in the fact that if you switch from the marines to the army you don't have to take "boot camp" again, but if you switch from the army to the marines you do. Thats because the marines have the best training, and they know it (something which most marines will tell you when asking about training differences).

-USMC recruits (and Marines in general) undergo much more demanding physical fitness training than Canadian recruits, either Res or Reg and must meet a stringent annual fitness test regardless of being Res or Reg-one standard;

-the Crucible was designed to develop the important personal traits of Marines, not to produce robots. One of its roles is the early identification of potential leaders. As far as I know, we have no such intent in our entry-level Army Res training: very little is expected from the recruit in the way of leadership and IIRC we are actually prevented from formalizing things such as "Section Senior" or "Stick man" that were standard parts of recruit training in our past.

A surprising amount of marines get the boot from the USMC for not being properly fit and failing their annual fitness test.

When did this start about not being allowed to have "Section Senior"? On every course I've been (all three I might add) one we've had section seniors and course seniors. Some people really stepped up to the task and others did it better after they were a little bit more comfortable with army life, and after they were more comfortable with the people around them.

 

[pbi]

When did this start about not being allowed to have "Section Senior"? On every course I've been (all three  I might add) one we've had section seniors and course seniors.

About a year or so ago I visited a course being run by our Bde in Dundurn. I asked about the Section Senior practice and was told that it was not being done on BMQ/SQ because we are not allowed to assess these new soldiers on leadership. I was quite suprised and somewhat diasppointed, because IMHO we need to be looking for leaders from the moment recruits come in the door. In my experience as a recruit instructor in the Res, Section Senior was always an excellent way to get an indication of leadership potential.

Cheers.

 

[Horse_Soldier]

About a year or so ago I visited a course being run by our Bde in Dundurn. I asked about the Section Senior practice and was told that it was not being done on BMQ/SQ because we are not allowed to assess these new soldiers on leadership. I was quite suprised and somewhat diasppointed, because IMHO we need to be looking for leaders from the moment recruits come in the door. In my experience as a recruit instructor in the Res, Section Senior was always an excellent way to get an indication of leadership potential.

Cheers.

Must be a local quiff.  The BMQ my sqn is running at my unit right now has a course senior - complete with the red slip on to mark him out as the DS' target - er, conduit  ;D

 

[atticus]

Must be a local quiff.  The BMQ my sqn is running at my unit right now has a course senior - complete with the red slip on to mark him out as the DS' target - er, conduit  ;D

He's talking about section senior not course senior. All course seniors did was relay information that the duty NCO would want the course to know, or to organise cleaning duties, not much in the way of leadership. Section Senior was a great way to bring out the potential in recruites. For some, it was their real first time having a position of leadership.

 

[Pikache]

He's talking about section senior not course senior. All course seniors did was relay information that the duty NCO would want the course to know, or to organise cleaning duties, not much in the way of leadership. Section Senior was a great way to bring out the potential in recruites. For some, it was their real first time having a position of leadership.

I dunno. I'd think being a course senior is more of a test in leadership, trying to control a whole platoon to listen to you while you try to convey information in precise manner.

Also, being a fireteam leader puts you in position where you have to exercise a bit of leadership, even during SQ and BIQ... I guess that's why initiative is part of leadership trait.

 

[Horse_Soldier]

He's talking about section senior not course senior. All course seniors did was relay information that the duty NCO would want the course to know, or to organise cleaning duties, not much in the way of leadership. Section Senior was a great way to bring out the potential in recruites. For some, it was their real first time having a position of leadership.

Uh - I think you're looking at that one back-a$$wards.  Perhaps a tad more TI before making sweeping declarations would be a good idea.  Course senior is actually that much more difficult than section senior. And just to keep matters on the up and up - our BMQ is small enough that all we have is a course senior.

 

[winchable]

up a hill thye call the crucible

haha, the crucible isn't a hill, sorry I know it's been mentioned that the documentary was the smallest taste but I had to respond to that.
It's 54 hour straight excersize at the very end of the basic training.
The US Army has "Victory Forge" I believe.
The US Navy has "Battle Stations" (something like that)
The Royal Marines have the "Commando Course"

What are the Canadian Regs doing right now as a "cap off" to BMQ? (Or their respective environmental training) Out of curiosity.

 

[atticus]

Uh - I think you're looking at that one back-a$$wards.  Perhaps a tad more TI before making sweeping declarations would be a good idea.  Course senior is actually that much more difficult than section senior. And just to keep matters on the up and up - our BMQ is small enough that all we have is a course senior.

Sorry, but that was just my veiw on it. On the courses I've been on everybody found that course senior wasn't very stressfull at all, but section senior was (unless you find counting troops hard, say what section cleans what area and carring around a binder that says whats going on for the next few weeks). If a section job wasn't done properly it fell on the heads of the section senior, if a Pte had something wrong with their webbing/combats it fell first onto the fireteam partner and then the section leader. The section senior had to walk through the section with the section IC writing everything down that went wrong and basically take the blunt of everything that happened. If you're course senior and you're trying to relay info the the platoon, the best way to do it would be to call together the section seniors and tell them. The section seniors would then try to get all the info and relay it to their section, having to take the blunt end for any of the complaints for their section, and all of the questions from about 10 people. The only time on my BMQ that the course senior had a stressful job would be when the course CO was comming for an inspection and he had to greet him and give him a short speal. Preparing for that inspection basically everybody (minus one guy who kept loosing his stuff and another whose stuff seemed to blow up every night) knew what they were doing, and how to do it.

By the way, whats TI?

How do the crucible and the victory forge differ from each other? I'm pretty sure the last section of training for the USArmy is three days and spent out doors, and I remember seeing on a documentary about US army training, the troops being in the middle of a forest, with a little pond and a bunch of fire and some crying (u know, tears of joy mixed with pain ) but I don't remember much else. I also remember them marching along and there were signs on the side of the path they were on that had stuff on it saying what it meant to be a soldier, and a bunch of patriotic sayings and what-not.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Being Course Senior on my RESO 1 was quite stressful in my recollection and was definatley the toughest part of the course (and you will not find it in the CTS/CTP).  I actually found command appointments in the field doing tactics easier than trying to get 40 fellow OCdts to trade rooms on Day 2 (no idea why we did that), get up for PT at 0530, shower, get changed and march 1 km to breakfast, return and pass inspection (or fail it miserably in my case).  Talk about herding cats or the blind leading the blind.  I recall that I got four Red chits (all for Intellect) and as the recipient of our course's first adverse chit it was presented on parade.  Oh well, at least my name was "seared into the memory" of the Course WO.      My next two go-arounds were still disasters but I survived long enough to get into the field.  Leading a section attack was nothing!  :warstory:

Having "section/course seniors" on a recruit course (as opposed to a leadership course like BOTP or PLQ) is, however, somewhat debateable.  The section commanders IMHO should not be "directing staff" but should be section commanders.  It is they, not the recruits, who should be the ones leading and organizing.  Still, I guess that is useful to instill and test organizational and leadership from the get-go.

Cheers,

2B

 

[Lost_Warrior]

IIRC we are actually prevented from formalizing things such as "Section Senior" or "Stick man" that were standard parts of recruit training in our past.

I got off my BMQ/SQ/DP1 last year and all 3 courses had section senior and course seniors....

 

[McGowan]

You have to remeber that or Basic Training is made for everyone! Everyone in the military has to have it (clerks, LOG) so, it's not going to be as hard a a force such as the marines which is a much more physical/mental military profession

 

[pbi]

You have to remeber that or Basic Training is made for everyone! Everyone in the military has to have it (clerks, LOG) so, it's not going to be as hard a a force such as the marines which is a much more physical/mental military profession

You're missing my point. The USMC also has all the support MOCs (cooks, clerks, veh techs, wpn techs, etc) that we do. They could not function as a modern combat force if they did not. The difference is that the USMC holds ALL Marines, regardless of MOC, to common standards of training and fitness so as to ensure that all Marines can fight and survive in combat while still doing their other functions. Our "purple" support training system cannot really do this because the requirements of the Army, Navy and Air Force are quite different, so it tends to focus on the support training as a priority and defaults to the lowest common denominator on the "soldier" training.

Cheers