Its not nationalistic at all.  But your trying to compare the British Army against the US Marine.  A unit w/ an unparalleled combat history and capabilities well beyond the British Army.

The USMC is large but it is designed to operate small, quick offensively.  It can act in the capacity of an Army if the mission requires.  But it doesn't act in that capacity, even when on that type of mission, it doesnt operate like an Army.  It still disperses into small independent units.  Operating not by orders but by the commanders intent.  But thats another long conversation about tactics.

 

I wouldn't go that far either. The British Army dominated the world for a few hundred years no too long ago, and has an extremely long list of major victories...so history has to go with the British I'm afraid. 

 

“who's in charge of PT in each unit? Is there a set guideline?”           Anybody, as a Pvt part of your progression as a Ldr will be to take Charge and led a unit in PT. But usually the NCOs lead PT. SNCOs & Offs fall in the rear and roll w/it or give the NCOs a list of what the want done.

 

If you look at the 231yr history of the Corps it unparalleled during that time.  I'm goin to giv a brief HIS but I really want to go into detail.  I'm not knocking the Brit Army history at all, but the Corps legend wasn't built off how tough training is or the drop out rate like so many other units that are talked about, it was made on the Battlefield.

 If we’re going to go that far back into time. The Brits have paid the Corps some of its best accolades out of respect. 

Like in the War of 1812 when the burned the whole city of Wash, DC to the ground. They burned every building to the ground in the city, even the White House out of spite. Every building except 2, the Commandant of the Marine Corps house, and the Marine Barracks. There were 114 Marines in the City when the Brits landed. Those 114 men fought of the Brits 6,000 man Army for 3 days so that the Presidents family and the rest of the city could evacuate. Then they were ordered to fall back to protect the Pres’s flank. The Commander didn’t burn it out of respect b/c they were on the verge of turning back b4 the Marines were ordered out.

 

Then there was the Bahamas.  At the Declaration of the Independence War in 1776 the US had guns but not enough gunpowder or big cannons, and there wasn’t enough time or material readily available to make in time for a serious Brit invasion. So the Commandant hatched a plan to take some.

The British’s largest arsenal in the Western Hemisphere was in a fortress in the Bahamas. So 300 Marines sailed there and under the cover of night attacked and captured the Fort stripping it bare taking the supplies back to Gen Washington. Then Kidnapped the Gov. of the Bahamas and Ransomed his *ss back to the Brits for more guns and Ammo.

The stories go on and on for 231 yrs, that’s just the tip of the Iceberg. That’s why I say if you don’t know what the Corps is or does pick up a book, its history is unparalleled.

For those of you who seem to like to dwelve into history, The USMC in it's 231 years has NEVER been defeated on the battlefield, Yes ther where battles with heavy losses, but the Corps has never been defeated in Battle, I know that the Brits, the French Foriegn Legion and even the US Army can not say that.

If you don’t like to run now you better get used to it. 3mi is a PFT so to get good at a PFT you have to run further. I’ve done 6 & 7mi Indian runs in Boot and Utes, Flak, Helmet, and the Indian runner is carrying a full ammo can. That’s PAIN.

I really couldn’t tell you if it were a good move to go to the Corps first or not. All I could say is if you go to the Corps Infantry and excel you’ll leave w/ at least these 3 things.

1. You’ll be well trained and well lead.
   
2. You’ll be Disciplined to push yourself well beyond your limits.
   
3. You’ll be Hard and tactically proficient.
   

If you go to a Line unit you’ll also be well traveled and experience. There’s also other opportunities I haven’t talked about.

That Indian run sounds killer, holy crap.  Yeah, basically I've pretty much just tried to maintain my distance running and do alot more anaerobic work and PLing for MMA, I'm hoping to compete soon and sport specific conditioning will help me alot.  The SEAL PST is 1.5 miles,  but I'll be running something like 12 miles throughout the day (you literally run everywhere), so when I'm in college I plan on focusing 100% on military prep. If it was gauranteed that I could transfer from the USMC to the Navy, then I'd do it in a second, but the odds aren't high so I'll stick to my same plan (College then the Navy).

 

As far as the history, that's great, but the British Army has an extremely solid history aswell. I was just trying to get you to realize that a major generalization like that will get you into arguments on this forum.

BadNews    Just a little tad more on this   2/16/2007 4:49:51 PM

For those of you who seem to like to dwelve into history, The USMC in it's 231 years has NEVER been defeated on the battlefield, Yes ther where battles with heavy losses, but the Corps has never been defeated in Battle, I know that the Brits, the French Foriegn Legion and even the US Army can not say that.

VOLUME I: PEARL HARBOR TO GUADALCANAL

This volume covers Marine Corps participation through the first precarious year of World War II, when disaster piled on disaster and there seemed no way to check Japanese gains. Advanced bases and garrisons were isolated  and destroyed: Guam, Wake, and the Philippines. The attack on Pearl Harbor seriously crippled the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

Hmm.. the Marines really are a special force of the army which joined the Navy for amphibious special ops, no pun intended, and they became their own corps... So general Infantry vs. Marines is really not a fair comparison, like Apple with Oranges, which does not mean they may have similar missions.

 

The Marines according to a Japanese general are the only viable corp which would sustain discipline during a very violent event like land tactical nuclear warfare. I dunno, but the US army has special corps of its own that are pretty darn good and capable of doing the same. That being said, the army infantry is more morale dependent than the Marines, and that is the factor in this war on terror when the enemy tactics can be demoralizing.

 

Coming back from the Falkland War, many British Infantry soldiers came back home sick from stress disorders, something the Marines have been pre-tested from in training. It's a mindset which directs the viability of the soldier, because a soldier loss is not necessarily its death for the army, but an injury, a willingness to fight on, and the ability to deal with stress. Marines are supposed to excel at that and I do not know what Black Watch is capable in those terms, but I do know British Infantry in general would suffer more and be lost at a greater rate to injury and psychological stress than would US Marines, as per the Falkland stuff I have read and reports from the Japanese.

 

Now, in terms of training, as far as I know US Marines, physicaly, are more muscle punch oriented, whereas the general US infantry is orientated towards marching far and fighting on. These are different mission requirements. However, in today's peacekeeping world of pinko politicians, we see Marines do SWAT cop nurse work instead. Go figure, a Marine is supposed to handle anything and go on. In certain missions the Infantry might be more proficient, but the Marine core principles, I believe, are that of doing what needs to be done with less dependency on the situation morale, and this results in general in greater reliability in the long run. The Marines look at resilience, not at production or motivating production.

 

Thus, at the beginning of a war, when all is gung ho, an infantry guy might do a better job than a Marine, but when things go bad, usualy the Marine is the one who is supposed to remain, really, a pure jar head, basicaly.