Marine Corps. vs Army

[WI Crippler]

I'm speaking from personal experience as of 1981. It may have changed. Please cite your source(s).

Females do not do a dead hang pullup. They do the flexed arm hang for time. They do crunches however as well as the 3 mile run.

Marine males do the dead hang pullup, 3 mile run and crunches.

 

[1069]

The Marine boot camp is about twice as long as that of the Army.

Army boot camp is 6 weeks long, about a month and a half. The Marines on the other hand train for just over 3 months. And from everything I have both experienced and been told, it is much more intense as well.

Army Basic Training is nine weeks long (make that eleven weeks, after you get done sitting in reception for two weeks waiting to start :roll.
After Basic, there's AIT, where the soldier trains for his/ her MOS.
This is a few more months, depending on the MOS. Usually about ten to twelve weeks.

Infantry soldiers usually do the "one base training" thing where, after Basic, they just stay at the same base and learn infantry stuff. Their "AIT" is just a more intense version of Basic, from what I understand.

Don't know anything about the marines, but I do know a bit about the army.

 

[Jerry]

From the Marine Corps itself: MCO P6100.12 MARINE CORPS PHYSICAL FITNESS TEST AND BODY COMPOSITION PROGRAM(MCPFTBCP)

a) Pullup
b) Flexed-Arm Hang
c) Abdominal Crunch
d) 3.0 Mile Run

See? No push-ups.

 

[bhkad]

Your source is on males, not females(re; flex arm hang), and does show that there is no push-up test. Crunches, pull-ups, and a 3 mile, but not push-ups.

Here you see that for women, the pull-up test is replaced with the flexed arm hang:
Marine Corps Physical Fitness Test Chart - Female

I would still like to see the Army standards increase, however.

Why do the Marines test pull-ups and not push-ups? How does that test better show upper body strength than a push-up test?

It's harder to do a pull up than a push up.

 

[WI Crippler]

See? No push-ups.

Go do a max set of pushups and then see if you can even do half as many pullups.

 

[Jerry]

It's harder to do a pull up than a push up.

I agree, but the exorcise, while a compound movement, emphasizes different muscle groups.

I was thinking the pull-up more resembles typical infantry body movements than a push-up does? Idk.

I guess I'm looking at it from an ergonomic perspective....over thinking it, perhaps.

 

[Jerry]

Go do a max set of pushups and then see if you can even do half as many pullups.

Now see Ethereal, that's how you need to respond to me.

Forget all the crying, go directly to the personal challenge.

I love it.

 

[Redress]

I agree, but the exorcise, while a compound movement, emphasizes different muscle groups.

I was thinking the pull-up more resembles typical infantry body movements than a push-up does? Idk.

I guess I'm looking at it from an ergonomic perspective....lover thinking it, perhaps.

Read more from the link I provided. The test is designed to test general physical fitness, not for the ability to do any particular job. I tend to think that either pushups or pullups would be fine, but both would be a bit rough.

 

[Jerry]

Read more from the link I provided. The test is designed to test general physical fitness, not for the ability to do any particular job. I tend to think that either pushups or pullups would be fine, but both would be a bit rough.

This may be a good example of "better" training...something as simple as pull-ups over push-ups.

 

[WI Crippler]

I agree, but the exorcise, while a compound movement, emphasizes different muscle groups.

I was thinking the pull-up more resembles typical infantry body movements than a push-up does? Idk.

I guess I'm looking at it from an ergonomic perspective....lover thinking it, perhaps.

The pullup(particularly the dead hang pullup, not the ipping/halfway down crap you see at the gym) emphasizes back strength, with limited secondary assistance from the biceps( depending on what style and width of pullup you do, varies which muscles work and how much they work ). I am not sure as to any specific, official reasons it is used by the USMC, but I know SEALs use the pullup as part of their fitness tests, and I think Rangers do as well(not sure though), so it obviously has merit.

Besides, its not as if we don't do pushups in the Marines. You will get all you can handle with pushups in the Corps, and then some. We just don't test on it.

 

[MSgt]

Of course the average Marine is better than the average Soldier, the Marine has had more and better training.

And this is exactly what I have issue with. There is absolutely no reason why the Army institution continues to deny its soldiers the training they deserve and need. If they treated every soldier as if they are soldiers instead of people in "other type" units, then there would be far less convoy ambushes and prisoners.

 

[1069]

And this is exactly what I have issue with. There is absolutely no reason why the Army institution continues to deny its soldiers the training they deserve and need. If they treated every soldier as if they are soldiers instead of people in "other type" units, then there would be far less convoy ambushes and prisoners.

But wait; aren't there more marine casualties than army casualties, per capita? Statistically speaking?

 

[MSgt]

Marines women do not have a pull-up test, they have a flexed arm hang test. Marine women also do not have a crunch test whereas Army women do, and Marines do not have a push-up test at all.

Marines:

Males ~ Timed 3 Mile run, Timed crunches (100 max), Pull ups (20 max)

Females ~ Timed 3 mile run, Timed crunches (100 max), Flexed-arm hang.


Marines do Marine Corps Push Ups (2 = 1) for PT warm up.

 

[MSgt]

But wait; aren't there more marine casualties than army casualties, per capita? Statistically speaking?

I don't know. Marine losses in the assault are a little different than Army losses due to ambush.

Marine losses outnumbered Army losses during WWII, but then the Army only raided one beach.

 

[MSgt]

After Basic, there's AIT, where the soldier trains for his/ her MOS.

After Basic and before MOS, they should be receiving an extensive infantry training package, which is followed up on annually for the rest of their career. After being trained as a "rifleman" he then should be viewed as a box kicker.

 

[hiswoman]

And this is exactly what I have issue with. There is absolutely no reason why the Army institution continues to deny its soldiers the training they deserve and need. If they treated every soldier as if they are soldiers instead of people in "other type" units, then there would be far less convoy ambushes and prisoners.

If I were ever able to serve in the military, I'd want to be in the branch that equipped me with the best possible tools for survival, in this case, superior infantry training. Every brave man and woman who dons a uniform deserves nothing less.

 

[bhkad]

Marines:

Males ~ Timed 3 Mile run, Timed crunches (100 max), Pull ups (20 max)

Females ~ Timed 3 mile run, Timed crunches (100 max), Flexed-arm hang.


Marines do Marine Corps Push Ups (2 = 1) for PT warm up.

My best PFT score was 24:50 run, 100 sit-ups and 3 pull-ups.

 

[Jerry]

I don't know. Marine losses in the assault are a little different than Army losses due to ambush.

Marine losses outnumbered Army losses during WWII, but then the Army only raided one beach.

A couple years ago you gave data comparing fatality among the services -vs- fatalities as a citizen in the US. If I recall correctly, Marines had 3X the fatality rate, Army was about equal to civilians in the states, and the Air force and Navy were actually 2X safer than the average Joe walking down the street.

The cause was simple: exposure to combat.

 

[1069]

I've done the math; according to my calculations, a soldier in Iraq has about a 1 in 200 chance of dying (and about a 1 in 35 chance of sustaining a serious injury).
Although of course this changes all the time; that's an average throughout the war. Now Iraq is very safe, and Afghanistan has become much more dangerous.

I also don't know what MOSs most of the casualties were, because none of the military or government websites make that information public, at least not that I've found.

:shrug:

 

[bhkad]

I've done the math; according to my calculations, a soldier in Iraq has about a 1 in 200 chance of dying (and about a 1 in 35 chance of sustaining a serious injury).
Although of course this changes all the time; that's an average throughout the war. Now Iraq is very safe, and Afghanistan has become much more dangerous.

I also don't know what MOSs most of the casualties were, because none of the military or government websites make that information public, at least not that I've found.

:shrug:

What job (MOS) did your son sign up for?

 

[1069]

What job (MOS) did your son sign up for?

I'll PM you with it.

 

[MSgt]

If I were ever able to serve in the military, I'd want to be in the branch that equipped me with the best possible tools for survival, in this case, superior infantry training. Every brave man and woman who dons a uniform deserves nothing less.

Yes, I absolutely agree. It bothers me to no end when I hear on the news that another soldier was taken prisoner. In the push to Baghdad, it was non-infantry soldiers untrained for combat that were ambushed. Lynch had to be rescued by "teamed" special forces and the Marines had to rescue the rest of them in Tikrit. For the entire unit to state that their "weapons jammed due to the desert sands" is an attrocity to what they are supposed to be. It was if they had a legitimate excuse for dirty weapons.

"Black Hawk Down" was a tactical error partly because of the Clinton administration, but mostly because the Army didn't follow their own doctrines. It was a disaster because the entire unit was dedicated to the primary mission. There was no reinforcements, contingency planning, and no TRAP missions prepared. And that was all infantry!

I keep hearing the excuse from soldiers (when I was stationed near NATO headquarters in Virginia) that it is their size that makes it "impossible" to train their soldiers like the Marines train. But this is a copout. They also have an enormous amount of funds. "Tradition" is the only reason an initial combat training echelon is not instituted for all soldiers. And it doesn't take much money to re-inforce said training on a regular basis. In the end, all Marines can jump on a gun and operate it. A huge percentage of soldiers cannot. This is a lack of training and concern for the "other type" units in the Army.

 

[MSgt]

A couple years ago you gave data comparing fatality among the services -vs- fatalities as a citizen in the US. If I recall correctly, Marines had 3X the fatality rate, Army was about equal to civilians in the states, and the Air force and Navy were actually 2X safer than the average Joe walking down the street.

The cause was simple: exposure to combat.

I remeber this. I showed where there are more marines in danger of combat deaths than the Army and showed where the overwhleming awards for bravery were going to the Army.

But dying in an active combat role vice dying because you are untrained for convoy conduct or because you don't see the sense in a proper defensive position are two seperate things. I compare it to driving in a crash derby. Most in the red jerseys are driving in the thick of it and are involved in most of the crashes. But the ones in the blue jerseys are driving outside the crowd, but some choose not to wear their seat belts.....or even know they are supposed to. The red jerseys are in a more dangerous situation, but the blue jerseys are making their situations more dangerous still by virtue of not doing what they are supposed to do.

 

[celticlord]

I keep hearing the excuse from soldiers (when I was stationed near NATO headquarters in Virginia) that it is their size that makes it "impossible" to train their soldiers like the Marines train. But this is a copout. They also have an enormous amount of funds. "Tradition" is the only reason an initial combat training echelon is not instituted for all soldiers. And it doesn't take much money to re-inforce said training on a regular basis. In the end, all Marines can jump on a gun and operate it. A huge percentage of soldiers cannot. This is a lack of training and concern for the "other type" units in the Army.

I have heard folk say the same thing. My response has always been that Marius trained the Roman Legions that way, and Rome had more Legions than the US has Marines--and he did it without the benefit of a Pentagon-size budget (of course, he also had the advantage of not having a Pentagon-size bureaucracy, which may have had something to do with it! )

The mantra is (and should be the same), whether you are training military personnel or teaching basic self defense: You had better train as you fight, because you will fight as you train.

What amazes me about the Army is that, with figures like Patton in their pantheon of heroes, they don't get that.

 

[Redress]

If I were ever able to serve in the military, I'd want to be in the branch that equipped me with the best possible tools for survival, in this case, superior infantry training. Every brave man and woman who dons a uniform deserves nothing less.

In that case, join the navy. We sat in the ocean away from al the trigger happy people and IED's and crap.