I've been watching the History Channel's show Basic Training, and I watched Discovery/TLC(I forget which) show Making Marines and after watching both shows, I found that I saw a number of things that occurred in Army Basic training that bothered me. This might be due to the fact that there are differences between the focus of the Army vs. Marines(Sgt. Stryker goes into some of the differences between the various armed services). However, I am afraid that isn't the case. What I think instead has happened is that the Army has gotten so caught up in PC that troop training has taken a massive hit. Even taking into account that the Marines are considered a more elite arm of the military than the Army, the difference is too great to be simply explained away as a matter of increased training tempo for Marines, and the extra 3 to 4 weeks of basic training in the Marines' program.
The first thing I noticed is that the Marines segregate male and female recruits in Basic, and the Army doesn't. This is just wrong on so many levels. First of all, there is the problem that 18 year old's hormones are working in overdrive, and that can't be good for instilling esprit de corps, preventing fraternization, or various and sundry other bad things. The second issue, and this is as bad as the first, is that the difference in physical ability between male recruits and female recruits lowers the training thresholds for both sexes. Male recruits aren't being pushed, and it is patently obvious that female recruits can't keep up in a sexually integrated environment.
This is something that doesn't occur in Marine training. The sexes are segregated immediately, and women DIs train female recruits, and men train male recruits. The difference in the quality of the training is readily apparent. Women DIs are far less likely to cut female soldiers a break than male DIs are. Both women and men are pushed far harder in basic training than they would be if they were integrated. Sadly, this became most readily apparent during bayonet drill. The Marines showed far more motivation during bayonet drill than the Army did. Male recruits were not pushed very hard in comparison, and female recruits were basically not pushed at all. Marine recruits, male and female, were pushed harder, and there was no real or apparent lack of motivation apparent. It did not appear as if anyone was cut a break or allowed to loaf during the drill. Recruits were pushed hard, and the payoff was readily apparent.
Another difference was in rifle training. There were some aspects of Army rifle training which I thought were just plain goofy. First of all, they had recruits place a full canteen on the muzzle of the rifle then sight the rifle(in order to get them used to the weight). Then they had them balance a dime on the edge of the muzzle(using a special plastic dime balancing thing) , then the recruit would take a shot at a simulated target using a laser. The recruit did all this before ever setting foot on a range. Some of it seemed a bit over the top. First of all, I didn't see how having recruits holding a rifle by hanging a canteen on the end of it will do more to improve accuracy than actually firing at a real target will. Secondly, an M-16 is not exactly a big heavy weapon. It is a light caliber weapon, and it has a plastic stock. Compared to the M-1 and the M-14, it is featherweight in comparison. One would think that the physical training that occurs in Army basic would give them good enough conditioning to hold a rifle properly. Also, the balancing act and the laser tag drill seemed like the Army was engaging in some gee whiz technogeeking when it would probably be far more effective just to simply put the recruits on a range with a rifle right away.(Of course after being taught proper range safety).
Overall, from my admittedly civilian perspective, I found a lot I that bothered me about Army basic training, at least as I have seen it portrayed. I found that the training didn't do enough to instill discipline, didn't push soldiers enough physically, and left them unprepared. Watching it, I wondered how much extra time had to be spent in later training to make up for what was not achieved in Basic.
:read:
The first thing I noticed is that the Marines segregate male and female recruits in Basic, and the Army doesn't. This is just wrong on so many levels. First of all, there is the problem that 18 year old's hormones are working in overdrive, and that can't be good for instilling esprit de corps, preventing fraternization, or various and sundry other bad things. The second issue, and this is as bad as the first, is that the difference in physical ability between male recruits and female recruits lowers the training thresholds for both sexes. Male recruits aren't being pushed, and it is patently obvious that female recruits can't keep up in a sexually integrated environment.
This is something that doesn't occur in Marine training. The sexes are segregated immediately, and women DIs train female recruits, and men train male recruits. The difference in the quality of the training is readily apparent. Women DIs are far less likely to cut female soldiers a break than male DIs are. Both women and men are pushed far harder in basic training than they would be if they were integrated. Sadly, this became most readily apparent during bayonet drill. The Marines showed far more motivation during bayonet drill than the Army did. Male recruits were not pushed very hard in comparison, and female recruits were basically not pushed at all. Marine recruits, male and female, were pushed harder, and there was no real or apparent lack of motivation apparent. It did not appear as if anyone was cut a break or allowed to loaf during the drill. Recruits were pushed hard, and the payoff was readily apparent.
Another difference was in rifle training. There were some aspects of Army rifle training which I thought were just plain goofy. First of all, they had recruits place a full canteen on the muzzle of the rifle then sight the rifle(in order to get them used to the weight). Then they had them balance a dime on the edge of the muzzle(using a special plastic dime balancing thing) , then the recruit would take a shot at a simulated target using a laser. The recruit did all this before ever setting foot on a range. Some of it seemed a bit over the top. First of all, I didn't see how having recruits holding a rifle by hanging a canteen on the end of it will do more to improve accuracy than actually firing at a real target will. Secondly, an M-16 is not exactly a big heavy weapon. It is a light caliber weapon, and it has a plastic stock. Compared to the M-1 and the M-14, it is featherweight in comparison. One would think that the physical training that occurs in Army basic would give them good enough conditioning to hold a rifle properly. Also, the balancing act and the laser tag drill seemed like the Army was engaging in some gee whiz technogeeking when it would probably be far more effective just to simply put the recruits on a range with a rifle right away.(Of course after being taught proper range safety).
Overall, from my admittedly civilian perspective, I found a lot I that bothered me about Army basic training, at least as I have seen it portrayed. I found that the training didn't do enough to instill discipline, didn't push soldiers enough physically, and left them unprepared. Watching it, I wondered how much extra time had to be spent in later training to make up for what was not achieved in Basic.
:read:
