"Brits trounce USMC in training - normal or troubling?" Topic

Not knowing how often the USMC wins such training exercises, is this a bad thing or just something that happens? Was it especially bad if it made the media, or routine and someone just made noise on a slow news day?

Trounced on home turf: British Royal Marine commandos force US Marines into humiliating surrender halfway through five-day war training exercise in Mojave desert

*British forces took part in a five-day mock battle at the US Marine Corps' Twentynine Palms base in California

*Combatants used training ammunition along with hi-tech simulators for heavier firepower like artillery

*Seeing no opportunity for victory, American combatants asked for the exercise to be 'reset' halfway through

link

No humiliation there! Someone has to win and depends on scenario. Slow news day!

Congrads to the Royal Commandos.

I wouldn't view it as "troubling". The whole point of training is to learn.

This type of training is VERY expensive, so it is important to take positives from the experience.

The British and Allies learned what worked and should be kept in their "toolbox" for later operations.

The Marines learned what did NOT work and should be refined/discarded before actual operations to enhance success of the mission and limit loss of life.

That is why you train.

My OLD job (so happy to be out) did away with almost all physical training and relied upon computer lessons that were watched.

This included "active shooter building clearing". Ya, we individually watched a training video on how to clear a building as a team, but received NO practice as a team actually clearing a building.

Too expensive, so the video will be good enough. Then if something goes wrong, officers (aka "The Circle of Gold") can say, "Well, we showed them a training video, that they did something wrong in the field is on them. My pension and position is protected".

Great leadership.

Here's another bit of clear "leadership" from the "circle of gold".

Although not written down, it was common knowledge that command staff (read ANY officers) did NOT want you to engage criminal activity you witnessed off duty. You were allowed to by law, but "leadership" would say, "Don't get involved, be a good witness and observe".

Except if it was an active shooter, then they said you WILL get involved.

So fearless leaders, at what point is it OK to get involved? Obviously not when a person has just pulled a gun and is threatening people, just be a witness.

Do I get involved AFTER the first person is shot? Is that an "active" shooter if only 1 person is hit?

Do I have to wait until more than one person is shot? What if the two people shot are from obviously the same group, then maybe it is a targeted shooting and not an "active" shooter. Should I wait til the third person is hit?

When these issues up, command staff told me to use my "common sense". Again, instead of saying to your guys on the front line, we will back you, the command staff position is how can I cover my own butt, position and pension. The guy making the split second call, you are on your own.

I would tell you about our "Anti-Terrorist / Suicide Bomber" training, but it was even more of a joke.

The Commandos were trialling their new force structure (Littoral Support Group) and were pitched against US Marine force in a five-day exercise. It appears that the Commandos and the US Marines learned useful lessons that will no doubt be used to ensure they will be able to perform even better in the future.

I'm rather unhappy about the way some parts of the UK media have covered the story, portraying it as a British ‘victory'. I understand that the Commandos were able to infiltrate troops into the US Marine force's rear areas and HQ, and that the artillery that form part of the Commando force performed exceptionally well. No doubt the US Marines will learn from this experience, and that if the exercise were repeated in the future, the results would be somewhat different.

It is better to fail in a wargame/exercise that in a real war fighting situation.

Basically the same thing happend in Sweden about a year or two ago on Gotland. The USMC has trouble getting used to the weather, cold, sleet rain and wind. Exercises had to be cut short and repeated as the troopers needed warm buildings to get warm and dry uniforms. Lots of good lessons were learned how to survive in a cold wet and windy environment for more than a few hours.

A great result for the Commandos, and no great shame for the USMC, special ops and raids are the Commandos bread and butter. But really if you had to take a bunch of islands from a dug in ruthless suicidal army, like what happened with the Japanese Islands in WWII, who ya gonna call!

Exercises are designed to show weaknesses and teach lessons. The British and other members of NATO learned that in Norway, 2018, the Wiesal operated by the Germans was a right ard little blighter that caused mayhem,

Tally Ho!

I wonder if the Marine Corps higher-ups will look at as just a training exercise to learn lessons from, especially when it comes to the Marine officers and NCOs who participated in the exercise.

So what?
That is what training is for.

A five day exercise gets one sided pretty fast,,,ok then.
Rather than get frustrated for another two and a half days, stop, figure out what happened and why and what you can do about it. Try again.

If nothing was learned from it,,,then yeha it would be a problem. Given that they stopped and did a hard think of what to do shows the reasoning process.

Talked about this here : TMP link

TMP link

The media underplays that it wasn't just Royal Marines, it was Canadians, Dutch, UAE and other US units.

Well it looks like a bunch of Colonels, Majors and Captains need to go back to school. We aren't fighting a bunch of savages anymore and chances are we will be fighting other armies who have had real training with real support services and air power.

Congrats to the Brits.

The REAL question though is how do/did the British perform in the new, woke, PC environment compared to American units?

The current US SecDef and his boss want to know the answer to that.

Unless you have access to the exercise parameters, starting positions, support levels, etc., it's really hard to know what really happened. I've read all kinds of stories over the years about the armor and mech training exercises out there and it's hard to really know what's going on and/or why.

Aegiscg47 agree 100%

The article is basically click bait.

Better to be beaten by British commandoes in a practice exercise than to be beaten by the Chinese in a real war. If this helps keep our forces up to date, then we should say thank you to our allies.

Completely independently, Task & Purpose had an article on the 75% lower rank turnover and new recruitment that seems to be USMC standard. I suspect the English don't have that.

Apparently, what seemed to really cause the whole debacle is US General Milley's perplexing strategy to call the Prime Minister in advance and let the Royal Marines know that it was a good moment to attack

Or, another theory Ive heard is theyre blaming it on myocarditis…

Don't worry the British military have spontaneously developed superpowers with Brexit – that and the re-issuing of red coats and muskets and the enforcement of proper discipline! It was written on the back of a bus or something the Farage said after a couple of pints….

Most of the jingoistic noise seems to be being generated by the UK media. In reality things aren't terribly rosy at the MoD. The Minister has been forced in to giving the Staff a stiff talking to. The Public Accounts Committee who are usually one of the benchmarks of sanity and professionalism at Westminster (I know its a low bar) have been very harsh over the MoD woeful project delivery.
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59200698

And let's not forget the British Army got its butt handed to it by Mahdi insurgents back in 2008.

The Army is in dire straights – manpower issues, equipment issues and a near worthless force structure – one understrength "armoured" division that's about to lose more tanks and all IFVs and is lacking in air defence, and then a second "division" that has 20 odd infantry battalions in 4 "brigades" and no artillery, air defence, electronic warfare and very limited reconnaissance (3 regiments equipped with Jackal utility vehicles – "armoured" but open topped).

The Navy is struggling to keep anything operational and is withdrawing 2 more frigates early due to lack of funds and manpower.

The Royal Marines might be awesome but the rest of the force is increasingly questionable.

What about the SAS & Paras …? They are very good at what they do.

What about the SAS & Paras …? They are very good at what they do.

Yes they are, but do not an army make…
Basic problem with the British Military is probably the MoD, which seems to embody all the worst aspects of any hierarchical and bureaucratic organisation you care to mention. And seems utterly unable to successfully procure anything, unwilling to accept responsibility for anything or change. You can add to that a political establishment who tend to view the military as either a necessary evil or a useful policy embellishment, but little else since the end of the Cold War. They have all the usual recruitment problems of a modern western military as well being expected to do jobs that would probably be better suited to some kind of paramilitary police than a war fighting military. And the officer corp probably isn't what it was – quite a number have been found to have had their fingers in the expenses tin.
I also have the suspicion that the UK militaries worst problem has been its ability to cobble together a successful operation (dating back to the Falklands), despite all the above, seemingly out of sticky back plastic, empty toilet rolls and string. Basically the political establishment has come to expect that they can just keep the military in the cupboard, feed it on said craft materials and it will perform when taken out. I'd also accept some politicians probably think with a nuclear arsenal we don't need anything else.

I understand that … they are only a small part of the total force. Like US Spec Ops units e.g. Rangers, Airborne, Green Berets, Delta, SEALs, USMC Raiders, etc. …

Too bad the UK Army is only a shadow of itself, in numbers and capabilities. Guess they are betting they won't need to fight another ground conflict. Wishful thinking …IMO …

ROUWetPatchBehindTheSofa The US estabilishment made the same mistake in the yrs after WWII…then arrived the war in Korea

I understand that … they are only a small part of the total force.

Personally, not entirely convinced some our politicians understand that!

alexpainter – yes the USA was not ready for the Korean War, and even WWI & WWII in the early days. For that matter … And IMO the US is not ready today, again …

Personally, not entirely convinced some our politicians understand that!

Agree totally, fortunately there are more new younger Vets in Congress. So that may help … but some of the old school types puts politics before anything else, IMO.

Kyle Rittenhouse could have taken La Jolla singlehandedly against them woke leathernecks