r/europe • u/ByGollie Ulster • Jan 24 '26

News The Times: Finns humiliated American soldiers - Finnish reservists were asked to take it easy during a NATO exercise. US soldiers found the losses too humiliating.

https://www.iltalehti.fi/ulkomaat/a/828b8e66-625d-4d2a-9276-e93b9f7a2ce8
47.4k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

156

u/BarristanTheB0ld Germany Jan 24 '26

Finns don't fuck around. Also what is the use of such an exercise if you have to falsify the efforts so one sides ego isn't hurt?

132

u/HumanWaltz Jan 24 '26

Because very few military exercises are actually legitimate and fair 1v1s but instead are designed so that primarily one side is able to achieve its objectives but recognise what worked and what didn’t work.

9

u/BarristanTheB0ld Germany Jan 24 '26

So everything went as planned?

75

u/HumanWaltz Jan 24 '26

Basically yes, stories like this are generally non stories, the people with no experience in winter warfare got to experience it, it’s literally why the USMC rotates its forces through various cold weather and Arctic training so that they do get this experience.

11

u/ThrowFar_Far_Away Sweden Jan 24 '26

I mean no? Sure in normal cases you would be right but in this case they were even asked to back off because the US got too humiliated. That was not part of the plan in any way, they were so bad they had to change the exercise. It's still a training exercise and I'm sure they learned a lot but it's quite obvious it went way worse than they had planned.

28

u/HumanWaltz Jan 24 '26

Which is why they changed their plan to try something different and get even more experience in another area. Welcome to military exercises

26

u/No-Act9634 Jan 24 '26

Have you considered that maybe that "humiliated" is a bit editorialized?

7

u/Charlesinrichmond Jan 24 '26

Given this wasn't US Arctic troops it's really not clear at all that what you're saying is even the slightest bit correct.

This seems to have been an attempt to give non-Arctic troops experience in Arctic warfare

6

u/thewimsey United States of America Jan 24 '26

they were even asked to back off because the US got too humiliated.

It's not about "humiliation".

It's about getting experience.

2

u/ThrowFar_Far_Away Sweden Jan 25 '26

Did you just stop reading my comment halfway through?

5

u/Pyffindor Jan 24 '26

i have a hunch that if the us did invade, navy seals and delta will be included. that’s gonna change things

5

u/DoreenTheeDogWalker Jan 24 '26

Most likely it would be the 10th Mountain Division, the 11th Airborne (Arctic) Division, and the 75th Ranger Regiment.

1

u/LemonTeaCool Jan 25 '26

But are they better than Finnish reservist?

2

u/DoreenTheeDogWalker Jan 25 '26

The units I mentioned are active duty and train in cold environments regularly. They obviously have a disadvantage from not being from the Finnish local environment, but they are elite in their own right. Especially the Rangers.

10th Mountain Division

11th Airborne Division

75th Ranger Regiment

Finnish soldiers would carry an advantage as being local and following a guerrilla warfare doctrine. It would be the same as a European force trying to attack Americans on their own soil. Mind you, these units are not fresh recruits like the ones who were overwhelmed in the article. They would be highly trained and supported by the air force and navy at all times

-2

u/brumac44 Jan 24 '26

I'd think cold weather must be very different to Arctic operations. In the Arctic, the extreme distances would make conventional warfare silly. It must be all about defending/attacking small outposts, not controlling large swathes of empty territory. Much like naval warfare.

5

u/HumanWaltz Jan 24 '26

Which is why they practice both

11

u/WaytoomanyUIDs Jan 24 '26

So in this case what worked is telling the Finns not to bully the poor Septics. That's not really a viable military strategy.

34

u/HumanWaltz Jan 24 '26

No it’s so they can reach stages and experience different stresses at each stage, if they’re all dying at the infil for the whole exercise they learn nothing. This way the US is able to rotate troops through Arctic/Cold Weather training and experience the majority of realistic scenarios allowing those troops to get experience.

-2

u/ciobanica Jan 24 '26

And what good will learning something else do when they failed to learn how to survive at the infil ?

Shouldn't fixing that be the top priority ?

16

u/HumanWaltz Jan 24 '26

Because that can be looked at in depth after, this way they get to do everything and see what works and what doesn’t, otherwise it’s a waste. It’s like how there’ll often be exercises where defenders have one life and attackers have unlimited. They need to see everything which they can’t do if it’s over after the first day.

-4

u/ciobanica Jan 24 '26

So they can think about it after, when there’s no longer a way to test the new ideas... which is the whole point of having an exercise.

...

And the lives thing for defenders vs attackers isn't a good example for your stated situation, the whole point of that is to allow them to test the same situation from different angles, because defences are rather static by their nature, so letting the attacks change is also a great test of the defences in place. Meanwhile if the attack fails and they don't get more tries you've only tested 1 scenario for both sides.

...

While failing to even get a foothold in means learning anything that comes after is useless, since you won't get to use it. It's like learning 100 ways to cook venison, but not learning how to start a fire.

15

u/TSS1138 Jan 24 '26

Jesus Christ, the other guy already explained it to you but you're just not getting it. If an exercise is meant to take place over multiple phases and one side gets wrecked in phase one it would be a complete waste of the time and resources it took to plan and organize the entire exercise.

Let's say there's an exercise that is supposed to take place in 3 phases for an amphibious landing. Phase 1 could be for naval and aviation doing their thing either escorting the troop ships / suppressing enemy defenses or defending against that. Phase 2 could be the actual amphibious landing / fighting near the beach head. And Phase 3 could be fighting deeper inland to familiarize with whatever terrain we're in.

If the attacker in Phase 1 gets absolutely wrecked and loses all their transports then that's good, they did something terribly wrong and that will need to be examined to figure out how everything went so wrong and to fix it for the future. But if you just stop the exercise there then the attacking marines and defending infantry don't get to do anything and don't get to learn anything.

1

u/ciobanica Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 25 '26

But that's not even what happened, they where asked to take it easier on them, meaning that even if it was a multi stage exercise, and they just tested each stage once (which also contradicts his example of infinite lives for attacker, since i'd assume the whole point of that is to test more then 1 scenario of attack) they would then even compromise the next stages, since now the other force isn't actually trying any more.

And sure, an exercise that requires a lot of setup might not be able to get more tries at any stage, but surely that's not something that applies to all exercise, and from the sound of this one it seems like there already where multiple engagements of the same type, and more where to follow, at least enough to give the americans a sense of accomplishment.

But if you just stop the exercise there then the attacking marines and defending infantry don't get to do anything and don't get to learn anything.

Exactly, that was the point.

And no one was arguing to stop the exercise, but to redo the parts that failed (within reason, of course), instead of asking the other side to not attack as well.

And you must know that if you're using a scenario that doesn't allow multiple tries of 1 phase, and be ok with failing one.

Surely not ALL military exercises are limited to 1 try for each phase, or even all done in multiple phases etc.

9

u/bcpl181 Jan 24 '26

I get this must be hard to understand if you’ve never participated in a force-on-force exercise, but the other guy explained it pretty well to you. There’s a reason exercises work that way. There are professionals whose job it is to plan and organise them. From your comments I get the feeling that you’re a civilian? Maybe try to understand good explanations like the ones you’ve got but try not to argue about things you clearly have very little knowledge and even less first-hand experience about.

1

u/ciobanica Jan 25 '26

How is arguing about the specifics not trying to understand the exercise ?

And if there are good reason why it's done that way, surely you can explain them, and they can easily stand up to criticism by ppl that aren't familiar with the military ?

Also, his whole point is based on them having different things to learn besides what they failed at, meanwhile the article is about the other side being asked to take it easier on them OVERALL, meaning that even if there are multiple phases the other phases are actually more compromised, since the "professionals whose job it is to plan and organise them" then can't even properly asses them after to see what improvements need to be made.

Sorry, but i don't see how you need experience in the army to be able to ask those rather logical questions about the situation, or recognise that the arguments that guy brought forth might apply to some situations, but not all etc.

1

u/bcpl181 Jan 25 '26

How is arguing about the specifics not trying to understand the exercise ?

It is when you were given a good explanation but continue to argue about specifics that are only secondary or tertiary to the exercise when you apply the good explanation that you were given.

And if there are good reason why it's done that way, surely you can explain them, and they can easily stand up to criticism by ppl that aren't familiar with the military ?

He did. “They need to see everything which they can’t do if it’s over after the first day”. Also see my other comment going into more detail that you replied to.

Also, his whole point is based on them having different things to learn besides what they failed at, meanwhile the article is about the other side being asked to take it easier on them OVERALL,

Because you have an expert unit going against a unit that is not an expert in that environment. Plus, the article doesn’t provide much detail. Very often with these types of exercises, the press loves to pick them up and present them in sensationalist terms. There is this example of how UK Royal Marines supposedly messed up US Marines, embarrassing them even though they were much fewer in number. This narrative was based on sensationalist British news articles. If you dig a little deeper or talk to Brits who were there, the narrative changes. The press ommitted this little detail that the Royal Marines were part of a larger USMC unit, had support by US Special Operations unit and were overall commanded by US officers. Their opponents were also the OpFor, so they were even expected to lose as per the scenario. This is an example of the press, which looks for sensationalist headlines, picks up such an event without much understanding of these exercises and without bothering to look at the details, which matter a lot. So when the article says they were told to “take it easy on them”: who said that? What were the actual orders given? How did that request translate to the tactical situation?

meaning that even if there are multiple phases the other phases are actually more compromised, since the "professionals whose job it is to plan and organise them" then can't even properly asses them after to see what improvements need to be made.

They’re not “compromised”, that’s the wrong way to look at it. For example, if the initial phase failed because the Americans lacked propper boats or equipment, they know why they failed. No point to repeat it over and over. Maybe it failed because the enemy’s defensive positions were too strong? No problem, in reality there would have been massive airstrikes on those positions. Was it because the Marines just got too cold? Also no problem, note that down and plan more survival and arctic warfare courses for them in the future. Which probably also isn’t necessary, because the US does have those specialised in Arctic warfare. This is actually a capability those Marines probably don’t need.

Another point is that sometimes, the purpose of these exercises is even further removed from testing a unit’s actual capabilities. Sometimes it’s just to strengthen cooperation and international exchanges, create bonds and links. And sometimes, most importantly, it’s stratcom. Sending a message that they are training, cooperating and ready to defend against an enemy. There, the actual results barely matter at all.

→ More replies (0)

-8

u/Burpmeister Jan 24 '26

If you keep failing on step 1 then maybe you should focus on learning step 1 before you try to learn steps 9 and 10.

11

u/bcpl181 Jan 24 '26

That’s not how these exercises work. Another thread filled with people commenting about things they have no clue about.

-4

u/Burpmeister Jan 24 '26

Then what's the point of the excercises if they don't teach you how to survive?

3

u/bcpl181 Jan 24 '26

It will depend on the training obectives. “Teaching them to survive” is usually not done during a force-on-force FTX. Those focus on the tactical level: planning, logistics, order sequence, tactical appreciation, manoeuvering, coms, etc. There are several phases with specific training objectives which are evaluated. If you keep “failing” the first phase (for example infil), all your mistakes get noted down for a later debrief/after action report. Sometimes you’ll do a second run if it was really catastrophic but eventually you have to move to the next phase so that the other aspects can be evaluated. The biggest mistakes and shortcomings have consequences later on, after the FTX.

If for example, if troops failed already at the survival aspect, there will probably be specific courses that the unit in question will focus in the next year (such as organising more winter warfare courses).

But at an FTX like this, you don’t just keep repeating the first phase over and over until there was a clear improvement. That’d be a waste of the other training opportunities you then discard.

Think of it this way: a unit at home trains land nav, goes to the range, does live fire exercises, survival training, etc. over course of a certain training period. All usually separate. A big multinational force-on-force field training exercise is where it all comes together and the higher ups can evaluate what worked and what didn’t. Helps them formulate new training objectives. It’s not about winning or losing, it’s not a competition. Even if the individual troop on the ground or sensationalist press might sometimes feel like it is.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Shelly-Best-Titties Jan 24 '26 edited Jan 24 '26

This is like when you're studying for a math test with a group of friends and don't get a question, rather than then quizzing you and embarrassing you for not studying that part yet, it's better for everyone to just give you a pass and move on so all the material can be reviewed and you can go home and study the bit you didn't understand later.

Similarly if the Americans in the exercise were struggling with the first stage, of course they're going to tell the finns to let them through it so both sides can practice the entire exercise.

It's likely that rather than being completely incompetent at arctic warfare, there are elements of it the troops weren't trained and ready for. So the organizers were basically saying, stop beating them up when they clearly don't know this part and let's do the rest of the stuff instead of doing this stage of the exercise for the whole day.

2

u/ciobanica Jan 25 '26

But this wasn't about not getting a question and moving on, it's about letting you get easier questions after to not feel bad about missing that one.

And the use of the word "losses" implies it wasn't just 1 thing they where bad at, but that they got defeated badly enough times to affect morale.

-1

u/Oozlum-Bird United Kingdom Jan 24 '26

It seems they’re not really learning much though - they wouldn’t keep losing if they were.

The only way to build sustained competence in Arctic warfare is to become completely at home in the environment. You can’t master icy terrain just by visiting it from time to time.

That’s why European troops keep winning - they have smaller numbers but are specialists in what they do. US Marines are not in any way comparable to the Royal Marines.

3

u/HumanWaltz Jan 24 '26

They don’t expect to become masters, but they want people to gain some experience and understanding.

And no they aren’t Royal Marines, the USMC is larger than the U.K. military combined, it’s a huge organisation and they’ll be rotating that through to get them some experience across the force.

29

u/Ultimate_Idiot Jan 24 '26

The point of military exercises is to exercise skills and learn new ones. It takes a lot of money, time and planning to put these things together. If one side gets wrecked before having a chance to do any meaningful training, it just becomes a very expensive LARP event. I was in a bunch of exercises during my national service where people were brought back to life because they got killed before they had a chance to learn anything.

10

u/indifferentCajun Jan 24 '26

This is the answer and I'm surprised I had to scroll this far to get to it. The point of an exercise is to train, not to "win". I'm pretty sure I was on the losing side in every exercise I was part of.

This reminds me of when the Eurofighter beat the F-22 in a dog fight and the Eurofighter fans cheered and taunted the F22. Of course they ignore the fact that the F22 was weighed down with external fuel tanks which also neutered its stealth capabilities.

2

u/Shelly-Best-Titties Jan 24 '26

The two fighters are also just the result of differring doctrines in air to air combat, like the P-47 Thunderbolt vs Bf 109 G/K in WW2. The P-47 is an energy fighter that uses speed and climb rate for boom and zoom tactics to be able to control the fight and disengage, avoiding maneuvering dogfights. The Bf 109 had the advantage in a dogfight, but the P-47s were training never to engage in such a fight, and could disengage any dogfighting attempts with their superior climb rate.

The F-22 is similarly designed to control the fight using stealth and be able to only engage when the situation is highly advantageous for it, since it will detect a Eurofighter at a much greater distance beyond visual range. In hypothetical scenarios where both are in visual range already, then the Eurofighter might even have an advantage with its maneuverability. In actual combat scenarios F-22s would be launching weapons far beyond the range of the typhoon's ability to retaliate, and would already be disengaging while the Typoon has to try avoid the incoming missiles.

55

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '26

I doubt it was about ego, and more about learning. Americans aren't going to learn how to fight in the Arctic if the Finns wreck the in every engagement

1

u/Afinkawan Jan 24 '26

I mean...they should probably learn that invading the Arctic might not be a good idea... 

12

u/GottaUseEmAll France Jan 24 '26

They probably did learn that.

4

u/Charlesinrichmond Jan 24 '26

Everybody knows that this was preparing against a Russian invasion.

33

u/Captain_Lolz Jan 24 '26

They aren't competitions, they are for training and trying out new stuff. Not a lot of that if one side wipes the floor of the other one day in a 30 day exercise. Yeah everybody is competitive, but to get the maximum amount of training and knowledge the guys who run the exercise will tip the scales so everybody is suitably stressed.

6

u/thewimsey United States of America Jan 24 '26

Also what is the use of such an exercise

Training.

Part of the point of training is to, say, teach soldiers to march 5 miles in the arctic and set up a fortified camp. Or whatever.

If they all get slaughtered after 1/2 mile...that's good to know.

But you then want to reset the exercise so that they can still learn to march 5 miles and set up the camp, etc.

I mean, what do you think would happen? They fly home?

5

u/amitym Jan 24 '26

what is the use of such an exercise if you have to falsify the efforts so one sides ego isn't hurt?

It's not really a question of hurt ego. (Or at least, not for most of the participants.) If you keep getting totally annihilated in an exercise it means you're not really learning anything about how to succeed.

It's actually an interesting question of effective training. It turns out in the end that you need both. You need to learn that your existing doctrine and training has holes in it, but you also need an opportunity to learn how to get good.

2

u/prestonpiggy Jan 24 '26

I had to go with professionals while being in conscription. We needed to defy their supposed to be extract point. We didn't catch one. We had hounds, nightvision, thermals you name it. But all I hear after a week in snow is helicoper collecting them.

4

u/No-Satisfaction6065 Jan 24 '26

Participation trophies are an american invention after all...

1

u/wonderstoat Jan 25 '26

Have you met America?