Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

100 Royal Marines defeat 1500 conventional US troops in exercise

Well done to the Royal Marines, perhaps new tech is the way forward?
Alternatively to option I suggested above, this post suggests that they were playing the insurgent forces.

"Insurgencies can fix and defeat much larger forces" is not quite the same best-of-British, "overturned the principles of war" story for the Sun, however. It is basically the same principle of war we just spent a decade learning.

Honestly, at what point did we accept having such blatant liars as officers that we let one become Chief of the Defence Staff?
 
I think the exercise was very good in proving what the exercise aims were.

But lets not pretend, if 1500 pers of the US Army were also allowed to free play, the bootnecks would've been flattened. Re-reading the lessons learned of Fallujah and Donetsk airport reinforce that.
 
I think the exercise was very good in proving what the exercise aims were.

But lets not pretend, if 1500 pers of the US Army were also allowed to free play, the bootnecks would've been flattened. Re-reading the lessons learned of Fallujah and Donetsk airport reinforce that.
Yes, but still, stuff like this:

“The normal assault rules are completely inverted,” said Dan Cheesman, the chief technology officer with the Royal Navy. “It’s not three or four to one that’s needed, it’s one to four.”

Is dangerous claptrap, because someone might actually listen to him. As, indeed, Donald Rumsfeld did in the late 90s. A bootneck should know better. I presume his stated view is while wearing career contacts.
 
However, how often does the UK exercise against a 'thinking enemy' with proper freedom of movement / action / thought - rather than pre-programmed serials?
Poor form to quote oneself, but I have been wracking my brain to remember if we ever did this in my time [2006-2015].

The only time I remember it was at RMAS itself on the final exercise - one company at a time was given pretty much free reign to act as enemy for one of the others, in the Cypriot hills. We had ID'd their harbour areas and were constantly observing them from about 3 hours in - it helps when instead of moving as a slow platoon, you're in 3-4 man patrols. The rest of the time, even on Herrick MST - nope. Serialised encounters all the way.
 
The only time I remember it was at RMAS itself on the final exercise - one company at a time was given pretty much free reign to act as enemy for one of the others, in the Cypriot hills. We had ID'd their harbour areas and were constantly observing them from about 3 hours in - it helps when instead of moving as a slow platoon, you're in 3-4 man patrols. The rest of the time, even on Herrick MST - nope. Serialised encounters all the way.
Almost exactly the same time period as you, and same recall.

Also that insurgent serial at RMAS, while it was definitely a great improvement and demonstrated the value of such exercise design, was still highly scripted and controlled by DS rather than 'free play'. Probably inevitable at Sandhurst, but at best you got a stray dog, not a wild one.

There has been some improvement across the infantry. The proliferation of killhouses (or whatever the PC term is for them these days) and more widespread use of simunition, are both very positive steps in providing a real enemy. You probably went through the same FIBUA serials as I did at Sandhurst, where clearance drills were rushing in after a grenade, launching yourself through open windows and spraying blanks on full auto, and other embarassing tripe that even at the time was obvious would get you all killed.
 
There has been some improvement across the infantry. The proliferation of killhouses (or whatever the PC term is for them these days) and more widespread use of simunition, are both very positive steps in providing a real enemy. You probably went through the same FIBUA serials as I did at Sandhurst, where clearance drills were rushing in after a grenade, launching yourself through open windows and spraying blanks on full auto, and other embarassing tripe that even at the time was obvious would get you all killed.
Yep - pretty much!

I was fortunate enough to use a fair bit of simunition at one point in service [compared to peers; no idea what the usage is like now], and it really helps in learning the difference between 'cover from fire' and 'cover from view' - as a row of bruises across my right buttcheek attested to.

We had an Afghan Officer Cadet in my company who had come from a unit fully-engaged in the fight against the Taliban. When told to go 'hey diddle-diddle, straight up the middle; bags of smoke' towards a GPMG he effectively told the DS to f*ck off as he didn't fancy getting killed that day even on exercise - and that the last time he had to take a belt-fed gun emplacement like that was in Kandahar province [or wherever] that he certainly didn't charge straight towards it.

I wasn't there for the DS answer, but his point was spot on.
 
Last edited:
Couldn't see this posted anywhere else as a topic so thought I'd add it.



At an urban warfare exercise last year in California, the British say, nearly 100 marine commandos defeated 1,500 of their US counterparts because of help from the situational awareness technology.


“The normal assault rules are completely inverted,” said Dan Cheesman, the chief technology officer with the Royal Navy. “It’s not three or four to one that’s needed, it’s one to four.

Other military technology he highlighted included a DefendTex “flying grenade”, a drone carrying an explosive he described as having the mobility of a “snitch” from the Harry Potter books, and a larger Malloy drone used to dump supplies and possibly one day ferry wounded soldiers from a battlefield. There are also plans to test jetpacks in Portsmouth harbour later this year. - Guardian


Our Future Commando Force attacked in the urban warfare exercise. Conventional tactics suggest they would need to heavily outnumber the defending Americans.

But working in eight teams of 12, they outmanoeuvred their rivals and used helicopter drones linked to screens on their chests to pinpoint weak spots.

The £400million drill in California had to be cut short because the British victory was so swift and unexpected. - The Sun



Well done to the Royal Marines, perhaps new tech is the way forward?

This horseshit is the epitome of self delusion.

The real problem is that too many people who matter buy into it.
 
Swing the lantern, pull up a sandbag... there is a historical precedent.

In '89 EX CALTROP FORCE was held in California with Aussies, Canucks Kiwis, Yanks and Brits all playing. The British component was 1PARA BG with a troop of 7 RHA and another of 9 Sqn RE attached. The Ex was a multinational expeditionary effort with Paras dropping in to secure air head and act as a defending screen whilst heavier units flew in / assaulted from the sea. The game plan of the Ex was for the Paras to lob in, defend the hills to the east of the airhead (where I as an attached craphat was nominally landing - in a Truckules of course) and fall back under heavy contact from the enemy Orange force (a US armoured Bde IIRC), holding the line for 48 hours until the Blue force (US Marines, US light Infantry Regt, a composite ANZAC Bn and the good old PPCLI) came to our rescue,and then a 2 week choreographed barney would ensue. Everybody was equipped with MILES kit (just like Heartbreak Ridge ;) ) provided by the Yanks, including TOW launchers and Stinger AAMs, plus kit for all our own weapon systems up to and including 105 Light guns - really impressive stuff, and cutting edge for the late 80s.

Come the great day, 1 PARA duly lobs in, and scuttles off to the east with the whole toyshop on their backs, to set up the defensive line. About 12 hours in I "land" at the airhead in my Truckules, and transfer to a 1 Ton Landy (yes it was that long ago). We head east in convoy packets and start to set up A2 echelon, when we're all told to STOP!

Apparently the forward screen of Paras hadn't read the script, decided attack was the best form of defence and had proceeded to kill every element of Orange forces, especially their armour using the MILES TOWs and then mortaring the crap out of supporting infantry. To cut a long story short, EXCON had to stop the EX as there wasn't any effective enemy left after the first 24 hours - an airborne battlegroup had wiped out an armoured brigade. So we had a 24 hour non-tac hold in place, whilst the Orange Yanks sorted their shit out, and got re-lifed (and presumably got a new Bde commander, the US Army being somewhat more ruthless about failure than us), and 1 PARA was told to play nicely now and not kill everyone just because they could - it wasn't fair on the other mobs who'd come all this way to play soldiers.

The rejigged exercise was good fun (it was California in the spring, and it didn't rain once that I remember) - even 1PARA QM Dept took prisoners (a very lost platoon of yanks who were introduced to the joys of sandbags, stress positions and zip ties - we didn't know it was against the rules back then) and shot down a Blackhawk! On the parade at the ENDEX some Yank General was full of praise for the Paras "fighting spirit" and "can do attitood",making a very big deal of the need to reset the Ex because they were just too damned effective.

Edit to get my eastings all in the same direction
 
Last edited:
I wonder when it will dawn on the morons involved in pushing this story that promoting the RM at the expense of a key ally while testing new concepts might not be the best way to encourage future collaboration, innovation and the development of, and experimentation with, new ideas in a free-form environment - and all to generate a page of fishwrap.

Hopefully someone senior in the RM has had the gumption to pick up the phone to his oppo in the USMC and apologise for RM Media Ops drinking seawater and the usual over-excitable tw@ts in the MOD over-heating their shared braincell.
 
I wonder when it will dawn on the morons involved in pushing this story that promoting the RM at the expense of a key ally while testing new concepts might not be the best way to encourage future collaboration, innovation and the development of, and experimentation with, new ideas in a free-form environment - and all to generate a page of fishwrap.

Hopefully someone senior in the RM has had the gumption to pick up the phone to his oppo in the USMC and apologise for RM Media Ops drinking seawater and the usual over-excitable tw@ts in the MOD over-heating their shared braincell.

It's the same everywhere.

We regularly get stories such as "French submarine sinks US carrier" or "Rafale shoots down F-22". It's pure jingoistic crap and taking things out of context.

Only fools are fooled by such stories.
 
I wonder when it will dawn on the morons involved in pushing this story that promoting the RM at the expense of a key ally while testing new concepts might not be the best way to encourage future collaboration, innovation and the development of, and experimentation with, new ideas in a free-form environment - and all to generate a page of fishwrap.

Hopefully someone senior in the RM has had the gumption to pick up the phone to his oppo in the USMC and apologise for RM Media Ops drinking seawater and the usual over-excitable tw@ts in the MOD over-heating their shared braincell.
I don't imagine it will ruffle many feathers over the pond. Without wishing to denigrate RM, they're basically a light Brigade; the USMC is bigger than our entire armed forces,and AFAIK the only things we have that they don't is nukes and submarines. A hundred Booties being touted as Rambo is not exactly going to upset them IMHO.
 
This saga reminds me of the comment made by American historian James Sheehan in a lecture about WW2 - military history is full of cruel disappointments and tragic ironies. He was talking about the ideas popular in the 1920s and 30s that airpower and tanks had revolutionised the battlefield. As a result there could be no return to the indutrialised attrition of the Great War.

The British led the way with its independent RAF a champion of the deterrent power of strategic bombing. The Experimental mobile brigade demonstrated the effectiveness of a mechanised army. This was wonderful news as all we would need is a small mechanised professional army - smaller and better. As the history of WW2 demonstrated the enemy could never catch up this technological lead, everything worked as expected and Britain never face an enemy with equal or superior numbers of comparable aircraft or tanks....

AI drones and robots may well have revolutionised warfare, but any "near peer" enemy is likely to have exactly the same stuff.

The point about the relative value from free versus controlled enemy is well made. Before the First World War the big field exercises tended to be free play within boundaries. In the manouvres of 1912 Grierson's Corps beat Haig through imaginative use of recce airrcaft. During WW2 FTXs allowed for a lot of free play. Some of Montgomery's corps exercises pitted one division against the other. Ex Bumper 1941 (two corps on each side) tested how the armoured divisions might work - and Spartan demonstrated that the mixed divisons did not work. They also made and broke reputations. McNaughton's poor performance on Ex Spartan led to his removal as commander of the Canadians.
 
I don't imagine it will ruffle many feathers over the pond. Without wishing to denigrate RM, they're basically a light Brigade; the USMC is bigger than our entire armed forces,and AFAIK the only things we have that they don't is nukes and submarines. A hundred Booties being touted as Rambo is not exactly going to upset them IMHO.

I agree but if people are prepared to take professional risks to explore new concepts, they should be allowed to do so without the threat of meaningless public cheap shots from people who should know better.

It's about encouraging the behaviours we want and the willingness to innovate during training must surely count as one of those. The article reflects a culture we can do without.
 
Top