someone said in a diferent post that Marine Corps P.T. was harder than the ARMY's...Based on what...Lets see


AGE 17-21
Army= 42pushups in two min.
USMC= 3pullups
Army= 52situps
USMC= 42crunches
Army= 2 mile run 15min56sec or 7min58sec per mile
USMC= 3 mile run 28min or 9min20sec per mile

I know thease are the basics and both in the Army and in the USMC the scores would let you pass but you might not make "UNIT" standards but to say one is harder than the other is kinda pushing it dont you think.

What Im saying is if you can do 42 pushups you can probably do 3 pull ups and visa/versa same goes for the run and the situps/crunches it just depends on your workout diferent muscle groups are used for different events except the run. on the run yes the extra mile can kill you but you have an additional 3mins to do it in.

Whats the difference between a Sit-Up and a Crunch?  They work the same muscles, right?  They're very similar, but I'd rather go 2 miles with 8 min per mile than 3 miles at 9min per mile.  

Rember though, thats just Boot Camp.  The real test comes when you go to advanced training.  


Example - ARmy Airborne requires mandatory daily jogs of 3-5 miles nonstop at a 9min/mile pace...every week day...for three full weeks....

From this perspective boot camp standards are pretty irrelevant.  

The PT that really matters is which branch racks up the best [b]P[/b]rostitute [b]T[/b]ally.
When it comes to patronizing prostitutes, the Marines hold primacy. (Just a joke, jarheads, don't get your pretty pink panties in a bunch...)

[b]Here's a good test[/b]

I will volunteer to go through both Marine boot camp and Army boot camp, and then decide which is more difficult.  

... and then take sniper training and go to Afghanstan.

sit ups and crunches are diferent they use different muscle groups.

In a sit up your hands are interlaced behind your head and you must sit up so your upper back breaks the plain of your lower back.

a crunch your arms are in front and you only have to tuch your knees with your arms..(I think im not sure of th actual USMC standard)

------------------------------------------------ the point I was making was that there is not that much differnce in TESTING standards. and your right Im a red leg and we would run 3-6 miles at 8-9min mile pace at least 3 times a week.

I am an Officer of US Marines, I have attended army schools, (FAOBC and FACCC).  While at FACCC I took the APFT (and my Army counter parts in my Plt took the Marine PFT), I normally do around a 245-250 on the Marine PFT, I got a 298 on the Army PFT.  Most of my army friends that get in 300+ on the extended scale were in the 275 range on our PFT.  

The pull ups are actually a bit tougher to do than the push ups, 20 pulls ups (max score) is a lot harder than the 70 something in my age group for 100 points.  The Army sit ups were harder to do than the old Marine sit ups, but a lot easier than doing the 100 crunches.  AS long as it wasn't your first time to do the Army sit up you would not have any real problems.  All the Marines thought the 2 mile run was a breeze.  It is more a test of ability to endure pain than of cardio vascular endurance.

One of the things that really makes the Marine PFT harder is that is it is not adjusted for age, to max the test a 40 year old has to be able to do everything as well as a 18 year old.

Just like in the army you can make all the minimum as fail the PFT.  If all you can do is 3, 42 and 28+ you will still fail.

burn... the USMC requirements you list are minimum requirements... those listings barely make the grade and aren't competitive at all...

Please.

Actually crunches utilize the abdomial muscles, while situps utilize the hip flexors (while the abs just stabilize the torso).

Actually that's one of the changes in the army PT scoring criteria that I am impressed with.  The fact that 18 years old is no longer considered the height of physical fitness, and the standard actually gets harder (for sit-ups and pushups) up until the 27-31 age category.  
This helps ensure that the experienced people who are likely to be critical on the battlefield are in the best shape.

Of course, holding everyone to the same standard is one solution to keep everyone in fighting shape, and I respect that.  However the Army and Marines are two entirely different outfits with different design principles.  The Marines are a relatively elite, and relatively small unit.  The Army is a HUGE machine, and in order to maintain the kind of numbers it needs the Army has to be more flexible.

Of course, that's just my opinion...

Why is nobody talking about the hard-core Airforce PT?
[;)]

Viper Out

Viper
The reason for the change was a little different than the performance potential of the relative age groups.  It was found that a large part of those coming into the army was in much worse shape than many years ago (I wondered why a large potion of the general population are in piss poor shape?).  So the in order to keep the scores at a respectable level, they lowered the entry requirements.  It is anticipated that after several years in, you will be in better shape than when they entered.

Having done both....

[i]IN GENERAL[/i]Army "PT" and USMC "PT" are not even close.

If you want to compare the actual fitness tests, you need to compare the MAX scores not the minimum.

Pull ups are MUCH more difficult than push ups.
(again the max, not the minimum)

Last comment; Chaingun, if you were to make it through Marine Basic Training, you would not have to go thru Army Basic.
The reverse is not the same however. I went thru "boot-camp" with a former soldier. He was 100% squared away, but, he was hating having to go thru basic again. He freely told us that Army basic, and Army PT was nothing compared to what we were going thru at the time.

Semper Fi!
Lew