promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted
Essex
Lv 4
Essex asked in Politics & GovernmentMilitary · 9 years ago

Why is British Army training longer than US Army training?

I've read that US Army infantry training is 15-17 weeks. On the other hand i've heard that British Army Infantry training is 24-26 weeks. I'm not trying to debate who is better as I realize that all soldiers continue training after their initial training. I'm just curious. What is taught by the British Army that isn't taught by the US Army?

16 Answers

Relevance
  • Steve
    Lv 7
    9 years ago
    Favourite answer

    As far as i am aware the U.S. Infantry will do around 10 weeks basic ( boot camp) and then do a further 16 weeks Infantry training at their school of Infantry before they qualify as Infantry ( i may be slightly wrong with the specific number of weeks)

    Our basic Infantry training is 28 weeks straight through but includes basic plus Infantry training after which we are Qualified Infantry.

    So if you total the U.S. training weeks to become a basic qualified Infantryman is around 26- 28 weeks, pretty much the same time as it takes us to become basic qualified infantrymen.

    So technically we have pretty similar amount of time taken for basic training for this particular trade.

    Edit. The British have built working towns and cities for Urban fighting for well over 30 Years due to Northern Ireland Specialist training being needed so that is not exclusive to the U.S. by any means.

    And to say one country needs more training as they are not as aggressive as another or that we spend needless weeks learning things we don't need to learn is utter rubbish.

    As i said both countries Infantry spend roughly the same time training,this is a fact. So i guess the argument is pretty irrelevant anyways.

    Source(s): British Para
    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 9 years ago

    The british Army just gets trained less in basic training and spends most of the time on weapon handling and drill however with the US army once they complete the training that is it you are in but with the British you train all the time even after you finish you entry training

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Ray
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    I would guess it has to do with doctrine and equipment. The US Army has several different types of Infantry (light, light/airborne, light/air assault, stryker, bradley) and only has one MOS to fill a variety of duty positions (11B) for Infantrymen that could range from a weapons company, to a bradley crewmember, to a light rifleman, etc. We just do a VERY basic amount of training to get people oriented on the fundamentals and then leave the specialized training at the unit level. There's no point training a kid 26 weeks on weapons and vehicles he isn't going to use and will forget about at his first duty station. It's more efficient to stick to the essentials for Initial Entry Training.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 9 years ago

    The pupulation of the USA is higher there for it's going to have a larger army then the UK. With such a large army they are not going to be able to afford the time or cost to train all these soldiers to such a standard as the British army where the number of soldiers not as large but better quality.

    American army = Quantity

    British army = Quality

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 9 years ago

    god knows where jeepers gets his figures from, i could list a load more incidents of ground to ground friendly kills, we had on a few months back where americans threw a fragmentation grenade during a hostage rescue killing the hostage!

    As for british training there a few things need clearing up, I went through it in 96, i did 4 weeks army foundation company then 13 weeks common military syllabus recruits CS MR, then you go on to your trade training whether that be infantry, engineer, chef etc

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 9 years ago

    The answer's simple: more time spent training equals a better-trained soldier. The average British soldier (and that includes Gurkhas, Fijians and other nationalities trained in Her Majesty's Armed Forces) is one of the best-trained in the world and is therefore better-prepared for any combat situation. Some clown on here claimed that they train soldiers in skills that are never used. Rubbish! They wouldn't waste time training recruits if they didn't think it was useful. Trust me on this one - the training is there for a reason and it is effective.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 9 years ago

    The British Army focused more on formality. There is more formality, and traditional training, than Americas Army. Also, the Army wants to move its soldiers on after infantry. To more advanced stages. We want to move our soldiers on to what they want. So if they want to continue in Infantry, they can take longer courses, and if not, our short mandatory infantry time speeds that process up.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 9 years ago

    Smaller force=harder training.

    For instance:

    US Army=9 weeks

    US Marines=12 weeks

    British Royal Army=25 weeks

    British Royal Marine Commandos=32 weeks.

    EDIT:Nevermind me, or anyone else, Steve is right.

    • Paul6 days agoReport

      junior soldiers spend 52 weeks in training and then do a battle camp before passing out.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    The US Army tends to only focus on training that will actually be useful. The US Army focuses much less on drill and history than many other forces around the world. Instead focusing more on things that will actually help you on the battlefield. For example. US Marines like to brag that they are better marksmen and what not because they shoot at longer distances and practice more often during basic. Although the reality is that this doesn't really make a difference. Almost all engagements in a real war take place at much shorter distances than the ones that the Marine Corps trains at. In the US Army you learn to fire and hit targets at distances that might actually exist on a real battlefield. The US Army doesn't teach people things that they'll most likely never use. It's a waste of time and money. The US Army also doesn't teach you to swim outside of certain jobs. Why? Because it's most likely never going to be used. The British Army on the other hand does require you to learn how to swim. The British Army also has an entire week dedicated to LMGs. Little things like that add up.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    I can think of 2 reasons off hand:

    -They don't have as many troops so maybe they focus on quality instead of quantity

    -They could actually have the same amount of training as their American counterparts, they just have more training in basic than Americans do.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.