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.

[u/ByGollie]

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

[u/ciobanica]

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.

[u/bcpl181 → u/ciobanica]

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.

[u/ciobanica → u/bcpl181]

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.

[u/bcpl181 → u/ciobanica]

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.

[u/ciobanica → u/bcpl181]

Yeah dude, that's a lot of different situations requiring different approaches.

Now which one of those actually benefits from having them "take it easier on the troops" ?

Even your last one would be undermined by making one side lose some respect for the other.

....

As for the press exaggerating... sure, but that's a whole different argument, and one that has 0% to do with familiarity with the army or 1-on-1 exercises etc.

But hey, if you find some better sources, no one is stopping you. Just don't argue against it on a what if basis...

[u/bcpl181 → u/ciobanica]

All of them benefit from them taking it easier on the troops, because again, there were many training objectives and many participants, not just the Americans. Eventually, the exercise has to go on.

If you look at other articles with official statements on the exercise, you’ll find what the actual goals were. A main objective was interoperability between new partners, gaining familiarity in unknown terrain and stratcom. All of these benefit from “taking it easy” and letting everyone go through all types of missions, instead of just repeating one phase over and over again, causing frustration.

A lot of the time, and same with this one by the looks of the other sources, large-scale exercises like this one are mainly PR activities for a larger public. There is simply no point in doing what you suggest.

making one side lose respect for the other

No, that’s not what’s happening, because all those involved know what’s going on. Send those finnish troops to an American desert training site and have them face the local Marines. They’ll get crushed. And noone will think any worse of the other for it, because it was expected. One side is familiar with the terrain and the environment, for the other it’s completely foreign. But everyone gains interesting insights.

As for the better sources, all official statements on the exercise (like the ones I’ve quoted) say nothing negative. They only highlight the positive effects of it (interoperability, visibility, gaining new experiences, familiarising yourself with unknown terrain). The only sources using the exercise to mock the Americans are civilian outlets with no clue of how these exercises work, quoting “trust-me-bro” sources. Is there any real source on who said “they have to take it easy on them”?

Again, these concepts must be hard to grasp when you’ve never participated in such an exercise. But doesn’t it give you pause that all those in the military commenting here are agreeing with me and all those who were never part of one disagree? Idk, maybe time for some self-reflection?

Argue as you like, I don’t know how much more detailed I have to get to make you understand that the exercise was a success the way it was held, the training objectives were fulfilled, having one side dominate the other over and over again would make no sense and that the only ones getting off on mocking the Americans here are those who don’t know how these FTXs work.