View Single Post
Old 02-10-2013, 01:04 AM   #81
Anjahl
Senior Member
 
Anjahl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 261
Battle Record: 1-0



Rep Power: 1098928
Anjahl has a brilliant futureAnjahl has a brilliant futureAnjahl has a brilliant futureAnjahl has a brilliant futureAnjahl has a brilliant futureAnjahl has a brilliant futureAnjahl has a brilliant futureAnjahl has a brilliant futureAnjahl has a brilliant futureAnjahl has a brilliant futureAnjahl has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rothschild View Post
it's a fact that both the uk and aus spend more money and time training everyone, they adhere to higher standards on most things. us marines are nowhere near as well trained as royal marines, i think they have only 12 weeks of training as opposed to the 32+ weeks the royals do..etc
1. Royal Marines are trained as a commado force. 32 Weeks is including add on training.
2. U.S. Marines do 13 weeks bootcamp, then infantry training/MCT then further training according to MOS. I went through almost 2 years of training.
3. .Compare similar forces w/similar objectives: Force Recon>Royal Marine Commandos.

There is no comparison. It also doesn't matter what the length of training is...it's quality of training, and quality of force. The U.S. Marine Corps is a superior individual force to any on the planet. That is empirical fact. Royal Marines would agree with you.

Australians? Australians fucking salute Marines.

Also, are you really gonna say that Australia and the U.K. spend more money on troops? Really? Fucking Really?
__________________
"When God didn't like what He created, He washed all away in 40 days and 40 nights.
I will do it in three..."
-Max Eisenhart
Anjahl is offline   Reply With Quote