Why do marines claim superior training when their own brass says the army is more efficient?

I'm not going to give you a legitimate answer, but I will say with the Marine Corps it is pretty much a contest. Marines are trained to the mindset that they are the baddest things alive but when it comes down to it, we are just another branch of service. Do not let them fool you. It looks better on a resume to say you were a Marine than a Soldier because society believes the confidence level is variable. However, they are more cocky than anything and I have met very few with common sense. - Short Timer

Obviously he hasn't seen Army's Leadership Corp. They take just about any failure that gives them a look

That's funny the training they talk about which Royal Marines incorporated in their training, we have the same training in OCS. We not only did combat training skills, we did land navigation, night infiltration, radio and telecommunications and all the other stuff. Don't see how the Army is any more efficient than us.

Also a lot of that has to to do with funding. The funding that Army receives versus the funding MC receives is vastly different. Especially during the time frame this was conducted. Most of the Marine Corps training was done during peace time. As always during peace time there were many budget cuts and reduction of forces which include various different training operations (Chapter 5). Reading the GIST of it, I can tell you that most of those problems faced there were because of relaxation of Peace Time military. Readiness is a big factor. After both branches being in combat for the last 12 years, I would like to see a new study and see how they do. With the recent training I have been through, I have no doubt, the MC will not disappoint.

1. Your take on the paper is flawed. Basic training is just that, the basics. Your real skills are tought at the Schools of Infantry.

2. This paper is based the USMC in the Clinton era & pre 9/11.

3. Efficient? How so? IN money or time spent?

4. What about training afterward? How often are Army units in exercise vs Marine units?

Army training is better for the Army and Marine training is better for the Marines. You can't put hundreds of tanks on an assault ship to make an amphibious assault. What you are doing is taking a few comments out of context without considering the purpose and scope of the paper. The paper was written as a degree requirement, not as an official study or a summation of the opinion of Marine Command.

The author states the Royal Marines have thirty weeks training versus 20 weeks for US Marines. Twenty weeks is what every Marine gets, not infantry. He talks about how the training syllabus was different at MCRD San Diego and MCRD PI and argues that they should be the same. He argues that some training has been moved from boot camp to ITB so that only infantry Marines get that training. He wants all Marines to be trained more in infantry. He expresses concern that the Corps has added morality training to improve the morals yet he complains that more Marines had been involved in heinous acts. Then he expresses the opinion that values training is important.

He shows that training days for ITB were reduced to 30 days in 1999. Note that training days for ITB are now 59. He laments moving several of the training items to SOI without mentioning that they had been moved from SOI to boot camp previously. He makes the assertion that a Marine is not trained in basic combat skills when he graduates boot camp. He ignores the fact that basic combat training is done in SOI. He specifically states that he believe they should be taught in boot camp. Obviously, the Marine Corps disagrees with him. Basic training is meant to form a Marine from a civilian, infantry training takes place in School of Infantry.

All of the things he lists as being taught in OSUT are taught in SOI. Immediately after this he states that OSUT is 9 weeks and Marine boot camp is 12 (page 18). OSUT is NOT 9 weeks. He states the Army teaches more vital tasks in a shorter length of time, after misstating the length of OSUT and ignoring the fact that Marines are trained in all these tasks at SOI. He states the Royal Marines learn more vital tasks in their first 12 weeks without considering the US Marines boot camp is not meant to teach all the skills of combat but to produce a basic Marine, regardless of MOS. I would assert that there is a reason the Army doesn't send all soldiers to OSUT, a fact which is lost to the author.

He talks about the 30 mile hike the Royal Marines do in 8 hours. SOI now has Marines making a 35 mile hump in 8 hours.

He repeatedly makes the claim that more training is worse than less training. As an example, he claims that 13 hours training a day at SOI-West is better than 17 hours a day at SOI-East (page 21).

He argues that the fact that most Marines can far exceed the minimum standards means they should increase the standards (page 22-23). What happened to your claim that the Army is better trained? Shouldn't the Marine Corps REDUCE its standards to match the Army if your claim is correct?

He makes the point that a Marine has only learned the basics when he leaves SOI. Could one make the argument that a soldier has learned more than the basics when he leaves BASIC training? He doesn't mention that advanced infantry training is accomplished in Advanced Infantry training after the infantry Marine has completed ITB.

Following this he makes several recommendations based on his beliefs. Some of these changes have been made over the dozen years which have passed since this paper was written.

He laments that the Marine Corps loses a lot of Marines before they EAS. I suppose that is because the training is too easy.

He also never stated even once that Army training was better or more efficient. He wrote about how he thought the Marines could improve training by moving some aspects to boot camp. I would ask why he thinks we should spend the money to move those training facilities from SOI to MCRD and where he would put them. Parris Island is a finite space surrounded by water. San Diego is also a finite space. A much larger area is needed for good infantry training.

Saying, "The aforementioned data shows that the U.S.Army formally teaches more vital combat tasks than the Marine Corps in a shorter period of time" doesn't say the Marine Corps doesn't teach these skills at SOI, he is referring to boot camp. Marines spend more time on fewer subjects. I would agree with that. It is part of my assertion that Marines have better training. They do spend a lot of time in the first weeks of boot camp teaching Marines to be Marines, not on combat training. Many have argued that this is exactly what makes the Marine Corps different. Whether more or different is better is subjective and you can argue that for the next thousand years without coming to a conclusion.

The Marine Corps proves itself every time it goes into battle. That's the only thing that matters.

i'm not going into "funding *snort* peacetime cuts *snort*" whines..

and focus on a single word in your quote. FORMALLY. formally smells a lot like "on paper" thing. bullets matched, boxes ticked do not mean being truly combat ready.

if not anything else, the text kind of undermines the statement that "all marines are infantry" [or whatever the claim quote is].

the text you linked shows that put simply, the recruit training in USMC at the time focused more on the "general military" knowledge and less on infantry tactics and drills.

add to that ridiculous yet necessary clasroom trainings like "seven army values", "conflict conventions", "sexual harrassment avoidance course" and "equal opportunities"

.. and what you get is exactly that.. teaching FORMALLY more.

What claims of superior training? You have provided no evidence that anyone has made such a claim.