P-Company and All Arms Commando Course

#1
I dont really have any great knowledge concerning these two courses (only what I have taken from the internet) and would like to ask a few questions to those in the know:

1) Is the AACC alot harder and more of a challenge than the P-Company?It seems to me that the AACC final tests are considerably harder than P-company, and also the AACC is alot longer than P-company also.

2)My perception of the AACC from what I have gleamed is that the course has much more field craft elements and actually teaches 'commando' infantry tactics etc whereas P-compant just seems to be a series of beastings and tests with not as much time spent on field/infantry elements. Is that true, or am I way off the mark?

3)Theoretically, would a infantry officer who went through sandhurst, then onto his arms training, then completed AACC be at the same level as RM officer, in reference to infantry elements?

thank you for your time
 
#4
The courses are fundamentally different - pointless rating one as "harder" than the other.

P-Coy is what it is - Pre-Para Selection; a selection course aiming to assess suitability for Airborne Forces. It is brutally direct & very physical; everything is done at a furious pace, and there's considerable emphasis on aggression. It's designed to select out recruits & trained soldiers who lack the necessary physical/ mental attributes; there's little tactical training etc because that's been/ is being dealt with elsewhere.

AACC, however, is partly about selection, but is also a training course which includes a lot of tactical & other instruction: of necessity, therefore, the approach is less overtly aggressive.

Each is very demanding in its own way - generally, however, someone who passes one of these courses probably will not experience major problems with the other.

A Para Reg officer who has done Sandhurst (42 weeks), Platoon Commanders' Battle Course at Brecon (12 weeks), & AAPPS + BPC (at least another 8 weeks) is just as highly trained as a RM officer who's been through their 15 month training package at Lympstone. I'd say they were pretty comparable, although, of course, each has a slightly different primary focus.

From one who knows:

"If the Parachute Regt is the finest airborne infantry in the world - and it is - the Royal Marines are the best amphibious soldiers. This was the first time I'd really come across them, and I have to say I was impressed. They were smart, fit, keen and skilled, just like us."

Pete Scholey, ex Para Reg, & SSM 22 SAS.

(see "The Joker", 1999, ISBN 0 233 99866 7, page 34 of paperback ed, Andre Deutsch publications).
 
#5
geoffgb said:
I dont really have any great knowledge
1) Is the AACC alot harder and more of a challenge than the P-Company?It seems to me that the AACC final tests are considerably harder than P-company, and also the AACC is alot longer than P-company also.

2)My perception of the AACC from what I have gleamed is that the course has much more field craft elements and actually teaches 'commando' infantry tactics etc whereas P-compant

thank you for your time
glean (gln)
v. gleaned, glean·ing, gleans
v.intr.
To gather grain left behind by reapers.
v.tr.
1. To gather (grain) left behind by reapers.
2. To collect bit by bit: "records from which historians glean their knowledge" Kemp Malone. See Synonyms at reap.

Irreverently pedantically chopped by me :wink:
 
#6
Both courses are designed to provide the right people for either the Commando or Parachute role.By and large,they both seem to achieve this.As a poster has said above,someone who can pass one of these course,can probably pass the other.Some unit members have to do both-29 CDO RA FOU.You'll probably get a good steer from someone in this unit.
 
#8
As explained to me on the Cdo course, the two are very different, although if I remember correctly, you don't have to do P-Coy to qual for jumps if you have done AACC as it is arduous enough in it's own right.

AACC takes ALL ARMS (Logistics, REME, Engineers, Signals, Gunners, Navy etc) and gives them the basic skills needed to be able to operate with and in support of Commando Forces. P-Coy prepares you for jumps - the mental aptitude to overcome your fear involved in throwing yourself out of an aircraft at 300feet burdened with kit in the dark - so lots of thrashings (to test mental and physical stamina and robustness). It is also shorter as presumably it doesnt need to be longer, whereas AACC takes the All Arms element from a bare minimum level of skill in some cases, to a higher level by way of a varied program - fieldcraft, amphibious skills, assault courses, physical tests etc.

If, as your question almost alludes to, you are interested in joining the Army as an Infantry Officer instead of the Marines, then there is no guarantee that you will be given the chance to undertake AACC or P-Coy with the capbadge you end up with. IIRC there are very few Infantry attachments to the Cdos and they are not too keen on people doing the course for the sake of an extra badge if you will never support Cdo elements. As for P-Coy, if you dont go Para then again - why take a slot up if your Bn aren't in the Airborne role?
 
#9
muhandis89 said:
Both courses are designed to provide the right people for either the Commando or Parachute role.By and large,they both seem to achieve this.As a poster has said above,someone who can pass one of these course,can probably pass the other.Some unit members have to do both-29 CDO RA FOU.You'll probably get a good steer from someone in this unit.
My bold. Not anymore they don't and haven't for a number of years. Damn shame. Some guys have transferred over from 7 to 148 after completing the AACC but as I understand it these days it's no longer a requirement to do P-Company.
 
#10
Fallschirmjager said:
Both are demanding courses, but of course, a chick has yet to pass P Coy! :wink:
She didn't pass the fcuking cse proper!!! Following the 30 miler she had an extra day off before she had to re-do the Tarzan Assault cse. The rest of the cse who had failed the Tarzan cse up to then, did it the day after their 30 miler (respect), but she had an extra day. For some reason the press weren't allowed passed a certain point, which just happened to be near the 6 foot wall which she hadn't managed to get over in the whole time she'd been there. Day of the test she flew over it. A step there or a DSs back to jump on? From what I heard she did not display Offr qualities during the cse unlike the female RLC offr who was all over the squad during the spead marches, geeing them up. This ETS (Educator - for which there are no posts in 3 Cdo Bde!) Offr was more concerned with staying at the front of the squad so she could pass! She's a fcuking joke!!
 
#11
And another thing! It was her second course that she passed, as her field admin was completely shite on the first course! Her basha area looked like a bomb site. She also missed a lot of the 'beastings' that the course got, due to 'women's problems'. She does not deserve to wear the Green Beret or wear the Cdo Dagger. Thank fcuk I don't have to serve with her - Useless media chasing bint! :x
 
#12
radar260 said:
And another thing! It was her second course that she passed, as her field admin was completely shite on the first course! Her basha area looked like a bomb site. She also missed a lot of the 'beastings' that the course got, due to 'women's problems'. She does not deserve to wear the Green Beret or wear the Cdo Dagger. Thank fcuk I don't have to serve with her - Useless media chasing bint! :x
Me thinks you're not happy about her then?!!
 
#14
An Infantry officer who has completed Sandhurst and PCD should already be at the same level as an RM officer. He should therefore have no need to go on a 'skill course' to bolster his ability in the field.
 
#15
There is normally an officer from the Argylls on attachment to 3 cdo brigade, apart from that I never saw a infantry trained officer with a green lid. Plenty of gunners, loggies and R.E types.
 
#16
From what I remember (she came onto the course that I got injured off of) the only female to pass Cdo course to date did do it in "installments", however not quite as bad as painted above - she was injured off of course 1 (it was the other female candidate who didnt meet the admin standard - she could just about manage herself, let alone other blokes in her section - or so we were told by the DS)

She was then rushed back onto course 2 too early (not recovered from injury) and came off again, returning to finish the course.

Our DS did say that she may have been allocated the maximum "recovery" time between particularly gruelling segments, but it was just that - the PR interest and the Army's desire to advertise her in a GI Jane style meant it was out of her hands - she was not given any extra time that someone else would not have been if they were injured or needed extra recovery.

She may have passed it in a different way and there will be scepticism for it, but there was a CO of a Cdo Regiment that did it in installements so he could go on holiday (or so it was said).

I think the main reason no female has done P-Coy is that none particularly want to. In theory a female could serve in 7 Para RHA - so would be eligible for P-Coy, but to date, despite several expressing an interest at the Phase 2 stage of events, they soon realise it isn't what they want to do.

Incidentally, when I was at Sandhurst, none of the 3 female Platoon's numbers would have wanted to go infantry if it was an option (they were asked) - even the uber fit triathalon types who could outstrip most blokes on PT and presumably could have done P-Coy (milling?).

As for the thread of this topic - if the original poster is asking if an Infantry Officer can do AACC to make himself more like a RM Officer then it has been said above and elsewhere - RM and Army are different and if he is asking to make a career choice (RM Officer or Inf with AACC option) then that isn't a straightforward answer to give.
 
#18
Fallschirmjager said:
Both are demanding courses, but of course, a chick has yet to pass P Coy! :wink:
.... they just pass out the maroon lid to any tart and fat knacker (and their own bandsmen too) around Colchester.... :roll:
 
#20
geoffgb said:
1) Is the AACC alot harder and more of a challenge than the P-Company?It seems to me that the AACC final tests are considerably harder than P-company, and also the AACC is alot longer than P-company also.

2)My perception of the AACC from what I have gleamed is that the course has much more field craft elements and actually teaches 'commando' infantry tactics etc whereas P-compant just seems to be a series of beastings and tests with not as much time spent on field/infantry elements. Is that true, or am I way off the mark?

3)Theoretically, would a infantry officer who went through sandhurst, then onto his arms training, then completed AACC be at the same level as RM officer, in reference to infantry elements?
1)Long course, No sleep
2)Short course, No rest
3)If you feel you must compare yourself with a Bootie Officer then become one.

SK
 

Similar threads

Top