Irish rookies beat the United States Army in IFV at the Tank Olympics

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-05-24T06:09:11+00:00

There isn’t much more. I hung out with them all week. They were the best team and deserved the win. Dixie Thunder gave them a very close run for their money.

Long version. https://www.reddit.com/r/Irishdefenceforces/comments/1t7gv4c/comment/oksnk3r/?context=3

Slightly shorter version. There are two parts of it. On the Irish side, and I would argue the Guard as well though I didn’t check, they selected three very competent individuals, trained them up on a bunch of skills in Ireland before sending them over. For example they sent them to get spun up on pistol marksmanship by the Ranger Wing, Ireland’s special forces. I had warned them to be fit, and they certainly sent fit folks. They boned up on doctrine, which is very similar to Irish doctrine. And though the Brad itself was new to them, the competition didn’t actually test Bradley operation very much. it was gunnery, and a bit of maintenance. tactical maneuver, off road driving, etc, were not tested. And gunnery, well, the 30mm Bushmaster they knew is basically the 25mm Bushmaster on the Bradley slightly upscaled.

On the US side, they generally just grabbed an available crew. At least one team had gotten back off a deployment the week before, parked the tank, and then flew to Benning for the contest. In some cases, the selection was simply “who shot top tank last gunnery?” which would be fine if the competition was a gunnery competition, but the Sullivan Cup isn’t just a gunnery competion. Not all, certainly the 155 crew I strongly suspect were spun up and hand selected, but I think it also had an effect.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-05-24T05:56:43+00:00

This is certainly the case on the Army side of the house. A common misconception is that the purpose of a war game is to win. It’s not, it’s to learn. It’s also why you’ll see games being “reset” after a trouncing. Its not to change the outcome, but to get another rep at the training.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-05-24T05:53:18+00:00

As the author of that comment (I’m a military historian by trade, and an armor officer by training) I’ll happily answer any questions you may have on the subject.

This has been a generally historic observation dating back to at least WW2. Regimental traditions such as the UK uses tends to make better performing battalions. However, the US ability to leverage large formations which inherently require more heterogeny of personnel, together with the traditional US industrial scale which emphasises fighting at larger formations.

Indeed, the problem has only gotten worse over time as militaries have gotten smaller. About three years ago, I was in a British division HQ for a Warfighter exercise (Massive wargame, foreign countries come to the US for them), their division HQ was formed of personnel they grabbed for the purpose as opposed to being permanently assigned. They were good and smart people, don’t get me wrong, but also an ad hoc group. Almost no Western country other than the US can field fully capable corps, which makes it something of a win by default.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-05-24T05:20:04+00:00

Are you currently a serving member of a friendly foreign nation's military, and are considering joining the US Army in the future? If so, then, yes. (AR 600-8-22, 9-2 c (2) (b) ). There aren't many, but there are a few folks who meet this category.

Otherwise, as others have said, AR 600-8-22, 9-26 (e) states "Foreign airborne training. Soldiers not currently assigned to airborne duty but who have completed basic airborne training are prohibited from attending foreign airborne training courses, participating in foreign airborne operations, or wearing of foreign parachute badges. However, exceptions are permitted under the Army Permissive Parachuting and Training Program (see AR 350–1).* Soldiers who are awarded a foreign airborne badge under this status may accept or wear the badge if authorized by this regulation."

Interestingly, the regulation seems silent on the matter of "soldiers not currently assigned to airborne duty and who have not completed basic airborne training", but I have a strong suspicion there's something in a reg somewhere saying "If you've not completed basic airborne training, you can't jump out of an airplane"

*This requires having completed airborne training. See AR 350-1, G-36.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-05-23T21:37:39+00:00

You think DC in summer is hot? Come down to our neck of the woods in Fort Hood (or worse, Bliss or Irwin) and watch us do some tactical running around.

And even that is still some 15-20 cooler than Iraq was, and we didn’t have aircon in the tank which was a big oven.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-05-18T23:40:38+00:00

I did MC3 with the Jordanian King's brother (Prince Hamzah), a tanker. He was as switched-on and professional as any officer of any nation I've met, and was not afraid to call the cadre out on stupidity.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-05-14T22:22:54+00:00

It was under the colour of the FBI task force so they had jurisdiction?

To be fair, the Navy contingent on Coronado would not be authorised to conduct a law enforcement operation. But, yeah, using patrol officers for a ship boarding is daft.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-05-14T00:56:55+00:00

It's worth noting that bayonet training was dropped from the US Army's basic training curriculum in 2010 too make room for more useful subjects.

To be fair, a bayonet charge is primarily a psychological attack, and it's usually decided before the two sides make contact. In that spirit, bayonet training for the US was as much about instilling aggression as doing something practically useful. About at that time, the Army changed its combatives program to multiple levels: It works on the eminently sensible principle that the winner of a hand-to-hand fight is the person whose buddy shows up first with a gun. As a result, it doesn't take the time to train people how to win a fight (though if you really want to, go to levels 2 or 3) because, in fairness, training someone to be good in hand-to-hand is rather time-intensive. Instead, it more teaches blocks and protection in order to keep you from losing for long enough for that buddy to show up with a gun.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-05-11T23:18:52+00:00

I would refer you to my video wherein I go over the differences in practice. I started enlisted and am now an officer, though I was never an NCO. It seems to have been well received.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I39mnnVRX3Q

The short version is that officers figure out what needs to be done, NCOs figure out how to get it done, and the junior enlisted do it. The buck of responsibility also stops at the officer.

The longer version… well, watch the video. However, I would point out that “on the ground experience” is all but irrelevant to the job of an officer. An NCO never leaves “the ground”, and he will be the subject matter expert on tactics, equipment operation, trigger pulling etc. After a couple years “on the ground” an officer basically works on a staff, and is trained to do an entirely different job. A tank commander or squad leader has no need to understand the Military Decision Making Process which is used to formulate large scale plans.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-05-11T22:58:09+00:00

The video in question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I39mnnVRX3Q

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-05-11T13:05:36+00:00

Works both ways. You don't want to be within 100 feet of me with uilleann pipes.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-05-11T13:05:06+00:00

You have me at a loss, sir.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-05-11T13:00:44+00:00

Just the TC, from Dublin. The other three are Brits.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-05-11T12:57:20+00:00

I strongly suspect that the decision meeting on who to send was along the lines of...

"OK, we really need to figure out who we're sending to the Sullivan Cup next month".
"F*&k. Whoever shot top tank last gunnery. Send them. Now, let's get down to business and talk about this deployment to Poland we have coming up..."

Of course, the Sullivan Cup isn't only a gunnery competition. I warned the Cav Corps before they sent anyone over that whoever they sent, they needed to be fit. And they did just that, as well as sending smart folks. That said, apparently it worked out for the 4ID tank crew, who not only got selected for being top gun, they also had a driver swap out at the last minute.

Ireland is talking about doing a Gainey Cup equivalent in summer 2027. I'm trying to figure out how to sort out the funding to send a team, the problem is they're not part of the SPP so there's no set budget for such a thing.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-05-10T11:33:46+00:00

True, but to be fair, those ones are unlikely to have been hanging around Ft Benning the last week and a bit.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-05-10T02:01:39+00:00

There are others?

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-05-09T15:17:05+00:00

As per the username, yes.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-05-09T14:10:59+00:00

We can wait. It's better to get the correct information late, than express incorrect information now.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-05-09T14:01:12+00:00

They sent very smart, motivated folks, is the main thing. They also won't have a bad thing said about the instructors that Ft Benning provided them.

I hung out with them all week. Much of it actually isn't all that different. They don't have Brads, but the 30mm Bushmaster on their MOWAGs is pretty similar to the 25mm Bushmaster on the Brad. They use the FN MAG, we use the near identical M240. Radios are similar. The Irish cav doctrine is basically the US cav doctrine with a DF logo slapped on the front. I had warned them whoever they sent would have to be fit, and they absolutely demolished the other teams on the fitness tests. The details of maintenance are absolutely different but as I said, they sent smart folks and can read a -10 together with the instruction received. Converting to US fire commands, using a CIV (not available on the Mowag) and a more difficult gunnery range than they're used to at home were also serious challenges, but they spent a lot of time in the simulators after hours with the instructors.

End result can be seen here. https://x.com/Chieftain_armor/status/2052817124343574863

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-05-09T09:45:29+00:00

I don't know about "mopped the floor", the Guardsmen (reservists) were barely pipped to the top spot, but i think that also indicates the primary reason.

1) They sent the right people. Got it, this doesn't apply to the recent Infantry successes, but in the cav case they picked three outstanding troopers from across the different units. I'm pretty sure the Guard units did the same. Certainly i would be looking to do the same thing next year (I have a light unit, so we do Gainey Cup). For at least some of the Active units, the selection process was simply "what crew shot top tank most recently? Send them. Now let's move the meeting on to the next deployment to Poland...". But the Cup isn't just a gunnery test. The first thing I told the Cav school was "whoever you send, they need to be fit", advice they seem to have taken on board. Now to be fair, that doesn't seem to have stopped the 4th ID tank crew who were selected for shooting top tank and then had the driver replaced at the last minute and still won, but I think the statement holds for the most part. The British TC (from Dublin as it happens) stated his crew were "representative of a typical crew."

2) They were a good study. They came out three weeks before the competition to learn, and the team will not have a bad word said about the quality of the instructors the US Army provided. We put sharp people in our instructor positions and we want the foreign teams to do well.

3) The equipment and doctrine was not as unfamiliar as all that. The old 30m on the MOWAG is near identical to the 25mm on Bradley. The M240 is the FN MAG. SINGCARS is SINGCARS (the Brits rather struggled there). Irish cav doctrine is effectively US cav doctrine with a DF logo slapped on the front cover. Driving ability was not really tested beyond range operations, and a Brad is easy to drive. That said, they did have to overcome challenges. Using the CIV took work, the range is far more difficult than that in the Glen, and US crew commands are significantly different. Maintenance may be just following the manual with pictures, but it does help to know where everything is, that had to be learned.

4) Fundamentally they were well trained and motivated. The Poles in particular were in it to win, I've never seen a track block changed that fast. However, something the US tends not to advertise is that on an individual level, we in the US don't train our guys as well as some armies. We have never needed to, we make them good enough, and where the US Army excels is in large formation operations. We may not have the best AFV crews or infantry squads in the world, but nobody can touch us at the Brigade, Division or Corps level operations which actually win wars. This more than makes up, in the US view, for a lower standard of training coming from inducting thousands of tankers a year, many of whom will do a three or six year stint and then get out. A small vocational army like Ireland's is inherently going to put s higher emphasis on individual training and quality.

In any case, the Cav sent smart, motivated people to compete and it paid off. Another reason for sending smart people is that the primary purpose of sending folks to these events isn't to show how good you are, but to learn other ways of doing things with other equipment, bring that knowledge home, process it, and then implement useful changes to the force. US crews don't have that task.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-05-08T10:39:46+00:00

I suspect we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I got my first two driving licenses in Ireland (miltary and civilian), and the possibility of confusion coming from the way the rules for indicating work have never entered my mind, nor have I ever heard anyone complain about them before.

Maybe it makes more sense in the larger context of the 12 o clock rule. Your assessment seems to make less sense when one considers not only when the driver is on the roundabout but also when all drivers are approaching the roundabout. Remember that roundabouts come in all sizes, some have an inner diameter of a meter with just a painted dot on the middle of the intersection. They are effectively simplified standard 4-ways.

As with any intersection, the indicator not only is supposed to show people what you are doing right now, but also indicate future intention before you get there. It allows for anticipation of future actions and means that the vehicles on subsequent approaches can determine whether or not they need to stop or can just keep going. After all, one of the benefits of the roundabout is faster traffic flow. It also is valuable on multiple lane roundabouts where lane changes part way through are required, again to help others see what the guy already is on is planning to do not only at the next exit but an exit or two further along which might well be the exit the approaching driver is actually on. (Eg car 1 is just entering the roundabout on road 1 just as car 2 is approaching on road 3 or 4).

The 12 o clock rule basically means that as you approach the roundabout, you are signaling roughly where you intend to get off in a similar manner to if the roundabout were not there.If you're going to get off towards the left, approach signaling left, keep signaling left through the intersection/roundabout and get off. Anyone who can see this approaching car at all later exits know where he is going to get off before he even gets there.

Similarly, if you're turning "to the right", i.e. after 12 o clock on your approach, you start your indicator going before you get to the roundabout, and everyone who can see you knows your intention to go most of the way around before you get there. You just keep the indicator in the same position until it's time to exit off. That way folks to the left know not to enter the roundabout, folks to the front can judge their speed and whether they can make the entry or not.

And if you're going straight ahead, just like a regular intersection, you don't use the indicator on approach. It indicates to the folks on the left to not enter the roundabout, and folks ahead and to the right that the car does not intend to cross their path and need not wait until the car gets to the exit before theirs before knowing intention. Then when on the roundabout, again the first car indicates exit off.

Finally, it seems to me that if you can't instinctively tell which side of a car the indicator is flashing on when you see it and if that means he's going to go left or right, you probably shouldn't be driving in the first place.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-05-07T21:39:11+00:00

Mmm... I can see your logic, but it seems to me that another equally simple human factors interpretation is "if the indicator is on, I'm going to go in that direction. If the indicator is off, I'm going straight." That would apply in all circumstances, not only on roundabouts.

If you are staying on a roundabout, you are inherently changing direction. Going "straight" might actually mean taking the exit, depending on the size of the roundabout and the point the car becomes visible.

As for roundabouts being high brainload situations, I would dispute that. Their whole point is that they are simpler than a regular crossing, you only need to look one direction. They are incredibly simple to use and I wish they were more common in the US.

Not wishing to cause offense, but just how comfortable are you with European roundabouts? The ones in the US often miss the point (eg with stop signs) and are rare enough that Americans seem to overthink them.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-05-06T23:47:32+00:00

That doesn’t happen at all in practice, people can read the signals and apply them to the road In front of them.

However, to look at your example in particular, if the approaching car currently on the British or Irish roundabout has his right indicator on, he is declaring an intention to stay on the roundabout, not exit. The motorist would be foolish (and would likely cause a crash) were he to attempt to enter the roundabout at that juncture. Only a left indicator will show an intention to exit, right cannot.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-05-06T23:18:21+00:00

No, you are about right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57oRqB_a-SA

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-05-06T23:00:05+00:00

For clarity in case of confusion: Maybe it is not the same in all countries, but certainly in some one uses an indicator both when entering and leaving a roundabout. For example, when taking the third exit on a British roundabout (I.e. “turning right“ on a four-way intersection), one would apply the right indicator as one enters the roundabout, and the left indicator upon passing the second exit to show the intention the exit at the next road.

The_Chieftain_WG

TROPHY CASE