11

US Marines get ‘dominated’ by British colleagues in desert exercise

Posted by freedomforall 2 years, 5 months ago to Government
29 comments | Share | Flag

Excerpt:
"The UK’s Royal Marines have reportedly handed a decisive defeat to their US counterparts during exercises in California’s Mojave Desert, with the Americans losing so badly they asked for a time-out halfway into the mock battle.
A commando of Royal Marines deployed to the US Marine Corps facility in Twentynine Palms last month for Green Dagger 2021 exercises, among other things in order to test a new force structure. After training with Dutch, Emirati and Canadian colleagues, they were pitted against the USMC in a five-day fighting exercise.

The 40 Commando proclaimed on Saturday that they were “victorious,” offering no further details.


According to the Telegraph, however, the Royal Marines “dominated” their USMC counterparts. US forces were so badly mauled after the first two days, they reportedly asked for a “reset.” At one point, the 40 Commando’s “kill board” showed almost every US asset as either destroyed or rendered inoperable.

The exercise area stretched over 3,500 square kilometers (1,350 square miles) of desert and mountains, including urban settings populated by actors playing civilians. The British force began in control of 20% of the area, and ended up commanding 65% at the end of the battle. They reportedly succeeded by targeting the US headquarters and its valuable equipment, “paralyzing” the Americans’ counterattacks. British artillery and fighter jets helped the commandos to advance, and a last-minute USMC counterattack was repelled."
SOURCE URL: https://www.rt.com/usa/539215-british-american-marines-exercise-defeat/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 11
    Posted by Dobrien 2 years, 5 months ago
    “Everything woke turns to shit”
    DJT
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ allosaur 2 years, 5 months ago
      Yeah, I read that somewhere too.
      Nevertheless, based on something else me dino read on what all the US Armed Services are being taught, the US Marines still has the Royal Marines beat about all things CRT.
      When me dino was as Parris Island way back in 1969, we were taught there are no white and black Marines because we were all green.
      Now white Marines are taught they are natural born racists and black Marines are made to think they are inherently oppressed.
      Hey, and you can bet that's how Marines better answer written test questions if they ever want to get off the island as graduated Marines.
      I can just hear them chanting now at PT (physical training): "Who are we? CRT! Racist Corps! Marine Corps!"
      Yep, good ole' CRT. Now is that or is that not a great getting along combination for a spiffy fully coordinated kill or be killed fighting unit?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 2 years, 5 months ago
    I, for one, am glad to hear the Brits are such good fighters. Just the kind of allies the U.S. can use.

    I hear they have pretty decent snipers, as well.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 2 years, 5 months ago
    I had to check that!
    The event is well reported elsewhere with the same news, eg:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021...

    The Telegraph makes a few more points:
    -The UK marines have been doing much reassessment such as do they have role when anti-ship missiles can hit a target hundreds of miles from a coastline, just getting to the fight will soon be problematic.
    -These exercises are taken seriously, close to stresses in real combat,
    mistakes happen, people are hurt – occasionally, tragically, killed – but there are no points for second place in a real war so corners are not cut in training.
    -While the British commandos enjoyed early success, their maxim is “train hard, fight easy” – only the most foolhardy armchair general would disparage the incredible men and women of the US Marine Corps
    .

    Reading between the lines, the US marine people are good but maybe there is a lack of serious strategic and capability planning at high level.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 years, 5 months ago
      Following and issuing illegal orders is not leadership.
      Many front line troops know the difference and recognize when the 'leaders' are liars.
      I wouldn't put my life on the line for the current 'leaders'.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 years, 5 months ago
        I was in the Navy as a 4-by-10 Reservist. (Discharged for epilepsy.) Learned about the UCMJ. It does not say that one is supposed to obey illegal orders. One is to obey "lawful orders".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 25n56il4 2 years, 5 months ago
    Let the Brits brag and claim they were victorious over our young marines. I can recall a phrase heard round the world in my early years...'Save us America;. Now who said that? A bunch of battered Englishmen and women that's who. And we didn't hesitate to help.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 years, 5 months ago
      That was a long time ago, wasn't it? Perhaps it is a good thing that the United States military is learning a lesson. Maybe it will learn not to do all that "woke" stuff, and to get the servicemembers combat-ready.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bobsprinkle 2 years, 5 months ago
    I served '65 to '70 in Army. I did not see combat. Was in communications. I cannot comment on general state of troops. But from what I have seen of military leadership at upper levels I am not surprised. The Marine Lt.Col. is an obvious exception.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LarryHeart 2 years, 5 months ago
    It's from the Russian Communist's News Network. Russians are making fun of the WOKE US military. So WOKE that they are asleep. .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 years, 5 months ago
      In this case the rt is repeating a report published by the Brits (probably a less reliable source than rt.) ;^)

      Unfortunately, the rt publishes more truth than all the US media 'news' sources put together.

      I really wish that more Americans could critically and rationally read the news reports and make conclusions based on the evidence instead of allowing the media to think for them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by mhubb 2 years, 5 months ago
      we owned them one for
      1776
      War of 1812
      WW!
      WW2
      Falklands (no US equipment/information, they would have likely lost)

      and it was likely only 3 Marines, with M16s, vs British Marines with Lee Endfield 303s, fighting at 1,000 years only, no closer
      (303 British vs 5.56 at 1,000 yards, ask someone that know about how pathetic 5.56 is)
      /s
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 2 years, 5 months ago
        The lighter mass of the 5.56 works against it at extremely long range. I wouldn't want to try one at much more than 400 yards though I knew a Belgian army guy who claimed he could pick off targets at 1000 rounds using a standard 5.56... The 7.62 is much better suited for long distances, which is probably why it's a favorite of pretty much every other military. The drawback is that it's a much heavier round to lug around all day (can't carry as much ammo) and it doesn't have the nice recoil reduction present in your typical AR-style rifle. (They're also really loud. Don't fire one without ear protection.)

        If you want a rifle round with a nice, flat trajectory, my brother built one around the Grendel platform. Though a much pricier round than the 7.62 or Winmag .308, you can almost use iron sights with almost no elevation adjustment on that out to 300 yards (if - unlike me - you can actually see that far). It doesn't kick any worse than a .308.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 2 years, 5 months ago
          I wonder if part of the rationale for the 5.56/.223 is that a wounded enemy soldier who must be cared for is often more damaging to the enemy than a dead enemy soldier. (That may be a 'western' attitude that doesn't apply to some enemies.) How often do front line soldiers benefot from 400 yard range compared to the frequency that having more of a lighter round is a benefit? Not being a soldier, I do not know the answer.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 2 years, 5 months ago
            That's possible. Personally, I think it's more a weight issue. Despite all their training, I think the average is like 200 rounds expended per enemy wounded. Now that's not for snipers or SEALs, who are heavily trained for precision shooting. But a lot of a firefight is "suppression" fire - its sending rounds near the target just to get them to keep their heads down while you re-position to the flanks (or rear) for a better angle. From an economic standpoint, makes sense.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by mhubb 2 years, 5 months ago
            wounding the enemy is a failed idea
            Soviets did not care about wounded
            North Koreans did not care wounded
            Chinese did not care...
            Taliban did not care...

            they might come back and get survivors, but when wounded, they would not stop to get them

            we SHOULD have learned that in Korea
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 2 years, 5 months ago
              There is certainly a psychological/cultural aspect to it, no question. But I would note that we're not trying to emulate any of the groups on your list. One of the reasons Americans have historically been successful on the battlefield is that their higher morals have also led to higher heroics. (I seriously question whether or not I can say this now.)

              You don't get too many from those on your list who risk themselves in any way. They have to be ordered to attack in human waves because their leaders don't care about the mounting casualties they have to endure to take an objective. It's callous and insensitive and an economically disastrous way to wage war.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo