Royal Marines Commandos force US Marine Corps troops to surrender in training exercise

a reply to: murphy22

Ironically I was watching some Dark Doc episodes last night, and your post made me think of this video I was watching.



USMC and USA fulfill different roles. I agree with your point about economic prudence WRT military spending, but as long as there will conflicts near bodies of water (i.e. forever) we will need marines. They train differently, move differently and fulfill different roles.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Not really. In WW2 The Army moved along side Marines. A lot of Marine effort was building a name for themselves and trying to remain relevant in modern wars. Amphibious operations aren't exclusive to the corp. I understand the concept. It's just not a necessary one.

a reply to: murphy22

That's a lesson for everyone who competes in some way. No matter how good you think you are, someone will come along and show you otherwise. It's one of the reasons why the truly elite never stop training, never stop looking improve - they have a target on their backs, and they know it.

Start winning, start being a winner, and you're the one everyone trains to beat.

a reply to: gortex

I agree we have the best marines but we have far less of them and the US Marines are still one of the best fighting forces in the world.

But this could have gone either way and also it is worth noting that at the moment the US military has mostly lost faith in it's leaders and is extremely demoralized after the Biden Administration withdrawal form Afghanistan meant that all the blood they and there brothers had shed in that nation was for nothing.

They were NOT beaten by the Taliban it is worth mentioning but they were BEATEN by very bad leadership.

In that sense all nations have there ups and down's.

And while this is a friendly banter it is worth mentioning that there are graveyards full of US Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen whom lay down there lives for us during WW2 back at a time when they had Excellent leadership.

And besides the spiritual Ancestor of the US Marines is in fact the Royal Marines since not only were many of those that formed the First US marines actually men whom had served in the Royal Marines BUT they were mostly Brits at that time, though there were plenty of people from other nations that had settled there including Swedes and - LATER mostly after independence - German's as well as French.

Also during WW2 it was Fairburn whom also helped to train the US soldiers that later became special units in the US military as well as our own and members of the SOE to fight using his fighting techniques he had created while serving as a police officer in Shanghai.

The only reason the US did not widely adopt the Sykes Fairburn fighting knife was because when they had an American company make some for there own units they used inferior forging and metal that made the knives prone to break so they went back to there own knives but retained the techniques while the British variant was made with proper Sheffield Steel (A mark that is sadly lost these days).

There has always been rivalry between units from different country's but in the UK the greatest rivalry was between the Paratroopers and the Marines with most SAS being drawn from the ranks of the Para's while most SBS are drawn from the rank's of the Marines making these the two premium fighting forces and the best of there members often becoming members of our two premium special forces branches.

On one occasion according to an old Para I knew in a pub that was called the Pegasus that used to be regarded as the Para's pub a Marine entered as part of a bet or challenge since back then they would as likely end up in a scrap with one another as anything else and whipping out his nut's he stapled them to a table in front of a group of paras to prove he was tough enough and then ripped his ball sack off the table and walked out, quite a bloody show, they also used to have friendly fights - that is not to the death - with one another in Germany as they would often take turns at guarding the famous checkpoint there - but mostly they are still brothers in arm's but remember these story's are from the OLD day's before it got all namby-pamby like it is today (compared to how tough they used to be but they are still tough as proverbial hobnails in both the Para's and the Marines).


On a personal note I prefer the Latin motto the US marines often abbreviated to Semper Fi it is actually Semper Fidelis or ALWAYS FAITHFULL while ours is more job like Per Mare Per Terram or BY SEA BY LAND.

We do have some of the best traditions though.

I don't think this is done any more but it should be.


www.royalnavy.mod.uk...

a reply to: LABTECH767

I'd never seen the gun race before.

Here's a documentary about the last one in 1999:

a reply to: LABTECH767

What you say about leadership is worth examining to. Right now, our military is busy drawing more for diversity than ability like everything else woke. Our marines might be able to fight, but bad tactics from an inept or simply subpar leader will help to lessen the effectiveness of ability.

The Royal Marines are an elite light infantry brigade with 7,760 active members and 750 reservists. Many, perhaps most, are commandos (I couldn't find what percentage are). 

The U.S. Marine Corps is more like an army, with 181,000 active members and 38,000 reservists. It's twice the size of the British Army, which has about 82,000 active members and 30,000 reservists. 

Aside from the U.S. Marine Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC) and its 3,000 personnel, most U.S. Marines aren't commando-trained like many (perhaps most?) Royal Marines. The USA doesn't have anything quite like the Royal Marines, who can fight as a brigade while conducting rapid deployments, amphibious raids, mountain and arctic warfare, etc. We'd have to cobble together a task force with units from multiple service branches to get a rough duplicate.

The Royal Marines are lightly equipped for high mobility, with only one type of full-tracked armored vehicle as far as I know, the remarkable BvS 10 Viking, which can operate on snow and mud that would bog down almost any other armored vehicle. They have 105mm towed howitzers and small landing craft for amphibious ops. They have no air arm of their own, relying upon a small number of helicopters operated by 700 personnel of the Fleet Air Arm.

The U.S. Marine Corps is a different beast altogether, with wide-ranging responsibilities and missions, some similar to the Royal Marines, and others quite different, like responding to natural disasters.

The USMC has vastly more firepower and vehicles, including the devastating HIMARS multiple launch rocket system, the superb M777 155mm howitzer (which can fire the Excalibur GPS-guided round), AAV-7 amphibious assault vehicles and hundreds of LAV-25 light armored wheeled vehicles, with multiple variants that can: fire TOW antitank missiles, carry 81mm and 120mm mortars, serve as infantry fighting vehicles or provide air defense, electronic warfare and command and control. 

The USMC has a large air arm of its own, including F/A-18 Hornets, AV-8B Harrier IIs, CH-53E Super Stallion heavy-lift helicopters, AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters and the revolutionary MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor. The Marines will acquire 340 F-35B VSTOL fighter bombers eventually, plus 80 F-35C variants that can operate from aircraft carriers. That'll give them possibly the third-largest force of stealth fighter bombers on Earth, exceeded only by the USAF and U.S. Navy. 

The Marines have unmatched amphibious capabilities courtesy of the Navy, which operates nine amphibious assault ships the size of WWII Essex-class aircraft carriers, 11 San Antonio-class amphibious transport docks and two amphibious command ships. The Navy has 11 nuclear-powered supercarriers to provide air support during amphibious landings, although the Marines can provide awesome support of their own with Harriers, F-35s and AH-1Zs operating from amphibious assault ships. 

Clearly, any comparison of the Royal Marines with the USMC is an apples and oranges excercise. Each has its strengths and weaknesses.

If you want to mount a brigade-size, lightning-fast raid against lightly armed opponents, you can't do better than the Royal Marines.

If you want to seize a heavily defended port or island, or keep China guessing where a large-scale invasion in its own backyard might occur, you can't do much better than the USMC. 

a reply to: gortex

THE US MARINE CORPS DOES NOT HAVE THE BEST EQUIPMENT. The army got new TOW missile systems in like 2001. We used that Vietnam # till like 2010. My rifle in boot camp was close to Vietnam era.

originally posted by: Scapegrace
The Royal Marines are an elite light infantry brigade with 7,760 active members and 750 reservists. Many, perhaps most, are commandos (I couldn't find what percentage are). 

The U.S. Marine Corps is more like an army, with 181,000 active members and 38,000 reservists. It's twice the size of the British Army, which has about 82,000 active members and 30,000 reservists. 

Aside from the U.S. Marine Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC) and its 3,000 personnel, most U.S. Marines aren't commando-trained like many (perhaps most?) Royal Marines. The USA doesn't have anything quite like the Royal Marines, who can fight as a brigade while conducting rapid deployments, amphibious raids, mountain and arctic warfare, etc. We'd have to cobble together a task force with units from multiple service branches to get a rough duplicate.

The Royal Marines are lightly equipped for high mobility, with only one type of full-tracked armored vehicle as far as I know, the remarkable BvS 10 Viking, which can operate on snow and mud that would bog down almost any other armored vehicle. They have 105mm towed howitzers and small landing craft for amphibious ops. They have no air arm of their own, relying upon a small number of helicopters operated by 700 personnel of the Fleet Air Arm.

The U.S. Marine Corps is a different beast altogether, with wide-ranging responsibilities and missions, some similar to the Royal Marines, and others quite different, like responding to natural disasters.

The USMC has vastly more firepower and vehicles, including the devastating HIMARS multiple launch rocket system, the superb M777 155mm howitzer (which can fire the Excalibur GPS-guided round), AAV-7 amphibious assault vehicles and hundreds of LAV-25 light armored wheeled vehicles, with multiple variants that can: fire TOW antitank missiles, carry 81mm and 120mm mortars, serve as infantry fighting vehicles or provide air defense, electronic warfare and command and control. 

The USMC has a large air arm of its own, including F/A-18 Hornets, AV-8B Harrier IIs, CH-53E Super Stallion heavy-lift helicopters, AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters and the revolutionary MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor. The Marines will acquire 340 F-35B VSTOL fighter bombers eventually, plus 80 F-35C variants that can operate from aircraft carriers. That'll give them possibly the third-largest force of stealth fighter bombers on Earth, exceeded only by the USAF and U.S. Navy. 

The Marines have unmatched amphibious capabilities courtesy of the Navy, which operates nine amphibious assault ships the size of WWII Essex-class aircraft carriers, 11 San Antonio-class amphibious transport docks and two amphibious command ships. The Navy has 11 nuclear-powered supercarriers to provide air support during amphibious landings, although the Marines can provide awesome support of their own with Harriers, F-35s and AH-1Zs operating from amphibious assault ships. 

Clearly, any comparison of the Royal Marines with the USMC is an apples and oranges excercise. Each has its strengths and weaknesses.

If you want to mount a brigade-size, lightning-fast raid against lightly armed opponents, you can't do better than the Royal Marines.

If you want to seize a heavily defended port or island, or keep China guessing where a large-scale invasion in its own backyard might occur, you can't do much better than the USMC. 

I think you’ve hit the nail squarely on the head. The Royal Marines are a highly elite unit able to think and move faster than the USMC. That’s why they won. However, precisely because they are an elite unit, there can’t be as many of them.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: DAVID64

Sore loser.

poor sport

Well played poms... Better luck next time seppoes.

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: Scapegrace
The Royal Marines are an elite light infantry brigade with 7,760 active members and 750 reservists. Many, perhaps most, are commandos (I couldn't find what percentage are). 

The U.S. Marine Corps is more like an army, with 181,000 active members and 38,000 reservists. It's twice the size of the British Army, which has about 82,000 active members and 30,000 reservists. 

Aside from the U.S. Marine Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC) and its 3,000 personnel, most U.S. Marines aren't commando-trained like many (perhaps most?) Royal Marines. The USA doesn't have anything quite like the Royal Marines, who can fight as a brigade while conducting rapid deployments, amphibious raids, mountain and arctic warfare, etc. We'd have to cobble together a task force with units from multiple service branches to get a rough duplicate.

The Royal Marines are lightly equipped for high mobility, with only one type of full-tracked armored vehicle as far as I know, the remarkable BvS 10 Viking, which can operate on snow and mud that would bog down almost any other armored vehicle. They have 105mm towed howitzers and small landing craft for amphibious ops. They have no air arm of their own, relying upon a small number of helicopters operated by 700 personnel of the Fleet Air Arm.

The U.S. Marine Corps is a different beast altogether, with wide-ranging responsibilities and missions, some similar to the Royal Marines, and others quite different, like responding to natural disasters.

The USMC has vastly more firepower and vehicles, including the devastating HIMARS multiple launch rocket system, the superb M777 155mm howitzer (which can fire the Excalibur GPS-guided round), AAV-7 amphibious assault vehicles and hundreds of LAV-25 light armored wheeled vehicles, with multiple variants that can: fire TOW antitank missiles, carry 81mm and 120mm mortars, serve as infantry fighting vehicles or provide air defense, electronic warfare and command and control. 

The USMC has a large air arm of its own, including F/A-18 Hornets, AV-8B Harrier IIs, CH-53E Super Stallion heavy-lift helicopters, AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters and the revolutionary MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor. The Marines will acquire 340 F-35B VSTOL fighter bombers eventually, plus 80 F-35C variants that can operate from aircraft carriers. That'll give them possibly the third-largest force of stealth fighter bombers on Earth, exceeded only by the USAF and U.S. Navy. 

The Marines have unmatched amphibious capabilities courtesy of the Navy, which operates nine amphibious assault ships the size of WWII Essex-class aircraft carriers, 11 San Antonio-class amphibious transport docks and two amphibious command ships. The Navy has 11 nuclear-powered supercarriers to provide air support during amphibious landings, although the Marines can provide awesome support of their own with Harriers, F-35s and AH-1Zs operating from amphibious assault ships. 

Clearly, any comparison of the Royal Marines with the USMC is an apples and oranges excercise. Each has its strengths and weaknesses.

If you want to mount a brigade-size, lightning-fast raid against lightly armed opponents, you can't do better than the Royal Marines.

If you want to seize a heavily defended port or island, or keep China guessing where a large-scale invasion in its own backyard might occur, you can't do much better than the USMC. 

I think you’ve hit the nail squarely on the head. The Royal Marines are a highly elite unit able to think and move faster than the USMC. That’s why they won. However, precisely because they are an elite unit, there can’t be as many of them.

Exactly. Everyone in a 180,000-person organization can't be a commando; not even the Royal Marines are 100% commando according to what I've found. You don't need commandos to fly fighter jets and helicopters, or to man artillery batteries. I think it also depends on the situation or scenario which one you'd use. You wouldn't use the Royal Marines to seize Hainan, but you might use them to seize one of the artificial islands the Chinese built in the South China Sea. It depends on the opposition.

The USMC has a substantial number of commandos, too, albeit not as many as the Royal Marines (I think). They can travel to objectives in MV-22 Ospreys flown by Marine pilots, with a combat range of 450 miles and a cruise speed of 300 mph. They can be launched from amphibious assault ships that bring them into range of a target. F-35Bs launched from the same ships can provide close air support and protection from enemy aircraft. F-35s can take out tanks, command and control centers, airfields, ships -- anything necessary. Apples and oranges.

a reply to: Scapegrace

It's certainly an apples to oranges. Completely different entry requirements/standards of fitness/inteligence and depth of training.

A couple of ex-Royal Marine mates were involved in securing Southern Iraq palaces and oilfields prior to 2003 invasion alongside SAS and SBS - US Navy SEALs sometimes worked alongside them but US Marine isn't in the same calibre or have the same purpose. Force Recon are meant to be the US equivalent of standard Royal Marine; US Marines are more comparable to UK Army infantry.

All Royal Marines are trained to Commando level be they pilot, anti-air, sniper, engineer or other specialism on a 64 week training course and multiple ultra-marathon, heavy load bearing races.

The F35-B (at least X35 VTOL STOVL system) was designed by us Brits though to be used alongside royal marine commandos as part of the joint striker fighter initiative in 2000. I was invovled in initial stages design of the jet outlet - the UK Navy buggered up the newer aircraft carrier procurement though by not designing carriers capable of withstanding the heat from the jet outlets so the runway melted whenever they wanted to take off.

a reply to: Gothmogwhy is that because they gonna open up rosters for french foreign legion to british ex commando? cause last i looked they have a legion of mercs and everyone else trains to be multilingual in the phrase we surrender.

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: Scapegrace

It's certainly an apples to oranges. Completely different entry requirements/standards of fitness/inteligence and depth of training.

A couple of ex-Royal Marine mates were involved in securing Southern Iraq palaces and oilfields prior to 2003 invasion alongside SAS and SBS - US Navy SEALs sometimes worked alongside them but US Marine isn't in the same calibre or have the same purpose. Force Recon are meant to be the US equivalent of standard Royal Marine; US Marines are more comparable to UK Army infantry.

All Royal Marines are trained to Commando level be they pilot, anti-air, sniper, engineer or other specialism on a 64 week training course and multiple ultra-marathon, heavy load bearing races.

The F35-B (at least X35 VTOL STOVL system) was designed by us Brits though to be used alongside royal marine commandos as part of the joint striker fighter initiative in 2000. I was invovled in initial stages design of the jet outlet - the UK Navy buggered up the newer aircraft carrier procurement though by not designing carriers capable of withstanding the heat from the jet outlets so the runway melted whenever they wanted to take off.

It must be damn hard to find 7,760 people who can be trained to elite commando standards. It would be impossible, and unnecessary, to train all 180,000 U.S. Marines to such standards, just as it would be for the 82,000 active duty-members of the British Army. The Marines can fight more-or-less as light infantry if the situation demands it, but if fighting anything other than ragtag guerillas, they're organized to fight in combined arms units, with organic armor, artillery, aviation and logistics. You don't need commandos driving vehicles, operating 155mm howitzers and HIMARs, or flying fighter jets and helicopters -- not in a combined arms unit fighting conventional forces.

Any light infantry or special ops unit would be wiped out fighting any Marine combined arms unit bigger than an MEU, and even an MEU would be a tough nut to crack for the entire Royal Marines brigade. I doubt any sane commander of a special ops outfit would take on a well-trained mechanized/motorized opponent blessed with organic aviation support like the Marines. It would be suicide; a waste of good men who require a lot of time, effort and money to train. Anyway, it's not the kind of mission special ops units are organized and trained for.

To get some idea of the mobility and firepower the Marines possess, check out this page on Wikipedia; be sure to keep scrolling down or you'll miss a lot of it. List of vehicles and their numbers in the USMC

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: gortex

You are turning one battle in to a superior fighting force and claiming you are better. The full brunt of our military can turn your little island to ash in a weekend.
Next time a war happens, you go first and don't ask us to save you.

Remind me when was the last time America won a war. Actually I'll extend that when was the last time America won a war alone, no help from any other nation

originally posted by: TomCollin


but you know what? It appears that it just wasn't Royal Marines that stuck in. from your link.

The LRG won decisive battles early on, according to the Royal Navy, but soon found the Marine Corps pushing into allied territory. To counter the advance, the Green Berets and allies carried out raids behind enemy lines, infiltrating the US Marine Corps' position and striking assets critical to the US defence and ability to coordinate their own attacks.

So it appears that they had a little help from there friends,

I think you will find that " The Green Berets " they refer to are The Royal Marine Commandos.

The green beret was the official headdress of the British Commandos of the Second World War. It is still worn by members of the Royal Marines after passing the Commando Course

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: alldaylong

I know that, the point was the word allies.

Here is another article that tells the other side of the story. It turns out that the Royal Marines were attached to a U.S. Marine Corps Regiment along with others against another U.S.Marine Corps Regiment.,not Royal Marines against U.S. Marines.

The truth might be considered less newsworthy for those who prefer to see the U.S. and U.K. militaries as peer competitors rather than allies – but is quite impressive all the same. The exercise which the Telegraph mistakenly calls “Green Dagger” was the Marine Corps’ biannual Marine Air Ground Task Force Warfighting Exercise, or MWX for short. During these events, battalions, regiments and sometimes entire divisions face off against one another in a free-playing force on force exercise that replicates the conditions of warfare against a peer nation. In this particular exercise, the 7th Marine Regiment, playing on home turf, was the adversary force, pitted against the Hawaii-based 3rd Marine Regiment who were the attacking force.

The British 40 Commando was a subordinate unit under the 7th Marines, alongside a Marine Special Operations Company and a Marine infantry battalion (2/5). Opposing them under the 3rd Marines were two battalions of Marine infantry along with various supporting units. There was no part of the exercise in which 40 Commando was pitted alone against a U.S. Marine unit and would have thus had the opportunity to “dominate” them. At no time did a unit surrender during the exercise, nor was any unit almost completely eliminated by 40 Command.

No ‘surrender’ — What really happened between US and British Marines at a training exercise

And from the Navy Times

]During the training, Marines from the 2nd battalion 5th and 7th Marines participated along with British, Canadian, Dutch and United Arab Emirates forces, according to Colvin.

“During this exercise, a U.S. Marine Regiment augmented with subordinate units formed an adversary force to actively challenge and test a peer regiment of U.S. Marines,” Colvin added. “This training opportunity increased warfighting readiness and interoperability of the U.S. Marine Corps with multinational forces. Exercise scenarios are adjusted as needed to assist commanders in meeting training objectives.”

US Marine Corps rebuffs report that Royal Marines ‘dominated’ in training exercise

As i said it was a joint operation and not just Royal Marines that got by with a little help with their friends that they were attached to.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

You can still see it just not at the Royal Tournament

The equally historic Royal Navy Field Gun Tournament continues to be held annually at HMS Collingwood in Fareham, Hampshire, celebrating its centenary last year. 21 crews currently compete, although this is set to increase, representing units of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines as well as the British Army and Royal Air Force, and as such is well supported by senior ranks of all three Services.

Dad used to repair the equipment when the Navy were based out of Whale island. Saw it many times and they are nuts - 1 dropped the pin for holding on the wheels so he used his finger, got it stitched back on afterwards. Saw the flying angel try to out run the dropping pole he made it once but not the second. Fantastic to watch.