Should basic training be the same across all Branches of service?

There seems to be an overwhelminly negative response to the question and each make a valid response in that each service has mission specific training they must complete. Perhaps we could ask if there should be SOME commonality between the services in those skills we all need to posess, i.e: small arms, close order drill, CQB both armed and unarmed, military customs/courtesies. I remember going to an Air Force base right after boot and not knowing who to salute because everybody was wearing flight suits with so much crap on them I couldn't spot a rank insignia. Then had a Lt Colonel jump my shit for not saluting. I had to explain that "we don't salute indoors". Maybe we could all benefit.

CW4 (Join to see) Not as far as I am concerned, unless we only have one military... vs. the current military departments. The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines are all different, and there basic training, boot camps, etc. are geared toward their branches. I was not happy we did away with the Center Drill Sergeant Schools, and consolidated at Fort Jackson. I, and I think most, would prefer the major centers have their own Drill Sergeant Schools, so they can give them the right focus for their center. So, no. Unless we combine all for departments...

I'm going to go against the grain here. There are some similar aspects of being a service member that are consistent across the services. Learning some of those things in a common setting could work and then break out from there to service specific training. Some of those things are MOSTLY classroom setting lecture type training. Fundamentals of discipline, small arms familiarization (not marksmanship), and teamwork problem solving.

As we are expecting and demanding more and more from each individual in both service specific and joint environments, we need to learn how to work with our brothers and sisters in arms no matter the color of uniform.

I think that having one basic training across all services would not only fall short of making any of the services more than they are, but would more likely make ALL of the services less than they are.

No each basic,boot is designed specifically for that branch and it serves it's own purposes

NO,, I agree with MSgt James Mullis, they have different missions and different training needs.

That's an interesting question to ponder, but it just wouldn't work, since each branch has different rank structure and core values each trainee has to learn.

In some ways I think it there should be a common core of things that they need to learn, PT , discipline, rifle marksmanship, for the first 6-8 weeks. Then separate out after that.

No- different missions, traditions and I still don't get the rank structure of the Navy. LOL

Mental toughness, physical toughness, team success. All branches have same needs. A soldier needs to be able to fight on the land, sea or in the air.

CW4 (Join to see) NO! Most my boot camp was teaching a bunch of dysfunctional boys how to march so we would not embarrass our visitors at graduation day. The rest of it was spent in class teaching us basic seamanship so we could survive on board naval vessels. Also water survival in case we we were threw overboard because we were an embarrassment to our shipmates.

no need. the differences give us each something to discuss and debate about with members of the sister services. regardless, there will always be an across the board level of military discipline\training instilled in all.

So reading the comments its obviously no. But what if we combined navy with coastguard and army with marine basic training?

Nope... Different Missions...

As a former US Army Drill Sergeant, as are some of the others that may have made posted or served as part of the training chain of command.

I have do agree, NO ... here are some points why:
+ The US Army trainees attend Basic Combat Training (BCT) or One Station Unit Training (OSUT), they start the same, however; at the end of 8 weeks BCT Solider move on to Advanced Individual Training (AIT) to learn their specific Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) to learn their specific job. OSUT Soldiers continue training at the same location and units to learn their specific job. The OSUT Soldiers do learn some, how their MOS differ, as their training is geared to a specific type training for their MOS.
+ Not every Service Member needs training on every weapon systems in the US Arsenal. Everyone should have an assigned weapon, be it pistol or carbine that appropriate to their job. Everyone should be able to protect themselves.
+ As already stated some acronyms / slang are different.
+ During my time as a Drill Sergeant (DS) (2001 - 2004) and during the beginning phases of OIF / OEF; training doctrine was changed almost as frequently as the war did. We no longer trained to (sole) conventional battle, there was no longer a front line followed by support followed by a rear area. We begin training for a 360 battle front, trying to instill that regardless of your MOS you could be instantly part of a direct assault or defend your convoy ... the introduction to IED/VBIED required us to update training as the OIF/OEF continued.

These are just every day reasons, logistics and funding would become a nightmare. Each branch has location that training and teach ... a centralized training would then require the movement of "every" new recruit. Now without exact numbers I would venture to say that 40 - 50% of each branch does not move to a new duty station of skill training.

The only possible advantage to a Multi - Service Training (my opinion) would be that all of the US Military would have core training for weapons and basic tactical defense. I saw USN and USAF augmentees working with with US Army Military Police (MP) EPW operations, I also saw US Army branches augmentee outside their MOS.

To all those service members that have posted on this blog I would like to thank you for your service in the past and present. As a retired Army veteran I have fond memories of working with members from each of the 5 branches at different periods of my active duty service. In regards to the BT topic I found myself in a online debate of the subject with a Colonel from the Marine Corps. I stand by the words I submitted but in hindsight I let the debate get personal and momentarily forgot the professionalism that was instilled in me as a former leader in the United States Army! For that reason only I apologize for losing my military bearing.

As someone who attended Army basic training and Marine Corps boot camp and served on active duty in both services, there will be many extra days (possibly weeks) added to learn the various lingo (e.g. latrine versus head (Navy speak), attention on deck versus attention, mess hall versus DFAC, etc) whether obliques should be continued or removed from D&C, the differences of Marine and Army BRM, PT test changes (would that all change to the 3-mile run test?), uniforms and base re-alignment issues. What would happen to Airborne and Amphibious doctrine and special ops concerns. Since the Air Force is the newest service, they can be assimilated back into the Army. :) The problem with today's military is that they are trying to fix things that are not broke.

There is a reason that a Marine can go to a different branch and is not required to go through boot camp again. If you came to the Marine Corps with prior service you would need to go through Marine Corps boot camp to come up to standard. That is not a coincidence but rather on purpose...and quite a bold statement I might say. OOHRAH!

Yes take the toughest of the four and start there.

I didn't look at the other comments before hand... Fair point but I think that the army at least has lost its edge. Before I got out the Discipline level of the average "New guy" was pretty low and to be honest he/she didn't know squat.

IMHO they should stay the same.