US ARMY vs 18th Century Army

[TDMVPDPOY]

Whats the "minimum numbers" you think would it take to win against 200,000 soldiers from the 18th century? or how many days it will finish

rules:
unlimited ammo and medical/supplies
no cannons, RPGs, grenades
no planes/drones/tanks/heavy-light vehicles/tanks
no chemical bio-war crap/super weapons bs
terrain = european city or rural farm area take ur pick.

only thing you can use on your side which is out of ur control is weather and climate and surroundings...day or night.

ps. im bored shitless nothing to do.

[z0sa]

the tactics of war are completely different nowadays ... besides the fact 200,000 people in the 1700s was about the population of a city.
eh, honestly, about 25 well trained soldiers, 20 or so to be firing until their barrels were melting while the other 5 kept the group supplied so - if in a good position while constantly being attacked - less than four days or so. That'd be some mightly blood on a handful of men's consciences, besides the amphetamines to keep them rolling full blast the entire period.

[TDMVPDPOY]

i forgot to say, the 18th century army will be using weapons from their era, which is mainly rifles.....

[Cry Havoc]

the tactics of war are completely different nowadays ... besides the fact 200,000 people in the 1700s was about the population of a city.
eh, honestly, about 25 well trained soldiers, 20 or so to be firing until their barrels were melting while the other 5 kept the group supplied so - if in a good position while constantly being attacked - less than four days or so. That'd be some mightly blood on a handful of men's consciences, besides the amphetamines to keep them rolling full blast the entire period.

Fully automatic weapons are the single deadliest invention in the world's history. The 18th century soldiers would have no ability to get close. Line up 20 M60s on tripods with 5 guys running to feed ammo? The modern day troops would have every advantage. Better range, better accuracy, the amount of firepower they could spit out is unreal. There is a more drastic disparity from an old 18th century rifle to a modern day machine gun than there is from a bow and arrow to the 18th century rifle. It's that big of a difference.

There is a famous slaughter in Africa where a massive tribe of 30,000 natives to the land attacks an encampment of 50 soldiers with repeating rifles and gatling guns. It was a slaughter was because the group of 30,000 was almost completely annihilated.

It's incredible and yet so sad that humanity has designed such effective weapons to kill each other.

If the 25 troops could stay awake, that's probably an accurate number, although attrition might eventually take them down. Otherwise, no more than 75 troops would do the job, depending upon the position.

We appear to agree on this topic. :toast

EDIT:

I've actually done a little thinking indirectly related to this topic, as my dad is a gun dealer. I estimate that if we leveled his house and made a bunker out of it (the basement is sloped into a hill), and somehow we lived in the 18th Century, it would take several thousand troops to bring us down (of course given that we would modify our AK-47, SKS, AR-15, FNFAL) to be full-auto with good sightlines for snipers. Eventually numbers wear you down, but the new age of weapons are incredibly accurate. Consider that today's fully automatic weapons are far more accurate than ANY rifle used to be up until the late 1800s, when guns like the Sharps Buffalo rifle effectively tripled accuracy and distance (even then, they were limited to just over 3/5ths of a mile, and that's with a good marksman. Today's modern basic 30/30 with a calibrated scope will easily shoot 1.2 miles and over with relative accuracy, as long as you know what you're doing and don't have a bad wind).

18th century rifles were little more effective than spitting shrapnel everywhere and took so long to reload, you could shoot at someone 200 feet away, and if you missed they would be on you before you could get another bullet in the barrel to line up another shot. Max range was probably in the ~200 feet range, which is less than some quarterbacks can throw a football today.

[TDMVPDPOY]

hey what happens if they 18th century dont fight all at once, but have battles in equal divisions at certain time....

[Cry Havoc]

hey what happens if they 18th century dont fight all at once, but have battles in equal divisions at certain time....

Even worse. Their best bet is to send every troop they have forward at once. That's the ONLY hope they have of overwhelming a line of 15-20 M60s or something similar. 550 rounds/min x 20 = 22000 bullets per minute out of a group of M60s. Crazy.

[jman3000]

I think y'all are underestimating how many people 200,000 people really are. 20,000 people is a shit load... 200,000 people would take A LOT more than what y'all are talking.

Those M60's firing at full auto wouldn't have a very good effective range... at that point your just shooting into a never ending crowd. Bodies would soak up multiple rounds and if they were smart they'd use dead bodies as shields...

[TDMVPDPOY]

would it make a difference if you give the 18th century army canons?

its unlimited ammo. so they can just continue to sit back and fire there canons and wait to the 21st century us army get bored with waitin and be on the move?

[TDMVPDPOY]

I think y'all are underestimating how many people 200,000 people really are. 20,000 people is a shit load... 200,000 people would take A LOT more than what y'all are talking.

Those M60's firing at full auto wouldn't have a very good effective range... at that point your just shooting into a never ending crowd. Bodies would soak up multiple rounds and if they were smart they'd use dead bodies as shields...

yeh dead bodies as shields....but whats the chances of them thinkn of that up?

probably forge steel plates as body armor bullet vest etc...18th century army :lmao

[jman3000]

people in the 1700's were intelligent... it's not like they're ancient warriors using stone knives.

[Cry Havoc]

I think y'all are underestimating how many people 200,000 people really are. 20,000 people is a shit load... 200,000 people would take A LOT more than what y'all are talking.

Those M60's firing at full auto wouldn't have a very good effective range... at that point your just shooting into a never ending crowd. Bodies would soak up multiple rounds and if they were smart they'd use dead bodies as shields...

The effective range of an m60 is well over 1000 yards. If you were shooting at one or two people, you might have a point, but a large mass of people would be met by a hail of bullets at around 600-800 yards. This would steadily increase to a full wall in the 100-200 yard range. You cannot fathom the amount of bullets that 20 machine guns lined up next to each other would put out in just a few minutes. One gun alone has the potential to kill thousands of men before they reach the shooter. 20 next to each other would be a wave of death.

[TDMVPDPOY]

18th century rifles were little more effective than spitting shrapnel everywhere and took so long to reload, you could shoot at someone 200 feet away, and if you missed they would be on you before you could get another bullet in the barrel to line up another shot. Max range was probably in the ~200 feet range, which is less than some quarterbacks can throw a football today.

would it make a difference if you remove all semi-automatics for sniper rifles only, would you say thats a fair battle ground since rifles back in those days need time to reload, and sniper rifles today have to reload also...unless they run in cartridges...

[Cry Havoc]

yeh dead bodies as shields....but whats the chances of them thinkn of that up?

probably forge steel plates as body armor bullet vest etc...18th century army :lmao

I'm not sure body shields would be very effective. There is enough penetration power from an m60 that it would likely either go through the dead person into the soldier anyway, or would retain enough power to knock him down. This strategy would also make the soldiers extremely slow getting into firing range, and with bodies piling up around them, it would be impossible to make progress.

[z0sa]

I think y'all are underestimating how many people 200,000 people really are. 20,000 people is a shit load... 200,000 people would take A LOT more than what y'all are talking.

Remember the rules of the scenario - absolute minimum amount of defenders. While I assume you know this, I state again for reinforcement. My initial reaction was <90 men, probably 70-75 is within "safe" parameters. However, we're talking the absolute minimum. So 25, IMO, is the absolute minimum defending a good-great position.

Let me define such a position (all estimates):

First, tactics. It is assumed the 18th century's generals and soldiers will, at least initially, be unaware of the vastly superior technology and how to counter it. Second, location. I imagined the rural farm area, probably a brick farmhouse (not easily caught on fire) that is elevated. Much more open area to work with for snipers to soften up charging hoards.



Those M60's firing at full auto wouldn't have a very good effective range... at that point your just shooting into a never ending crowd. Bodies would soak up multiple rounds and if they were smart they'd use dead bodies as shields...


There's some truth, but in a 'never ending' crowd, I'm assuming more bullets are leaving exit wounds and striking the enemies behind them. Additionally, the dead bodies themselves will eventually hamper both attackers and defenders, but mostly attackers unless they built veritable walls from them.

[jman3000]

200,000 people is a shit load of people.

That's the main point.

[Cry Havoc]

would it make a difference if you remove all semi-automatics for sniper rifles only, would you say thats a fair battle ground since rifles back in those days need time to reload, and sniper rifles today have to reload also...unless they run in cartridges...

Why would any modern day troops use a sniper rifle to kill soldiers en masse? Machine gun is the only real option here. There were no great sniper rifles in the 1700s, as this was before rifling. Prior to the late 1800s, no rifle could achieve any kind of consistent shot at range. A modern day fully automatic AK-47 would likely have better range than a gun from the 1700s.

[Cry Havoc]

200,000 people is a shit load of people.

That's the main point.

11,000 rounds per minute is a shit load of bullets, that's my main point.

[TDMVPDPOY]

lets change it a bit...

what happens if the fighting field is a cliff top like gallipoli...where the 18th century army is on the cliff bed all bunkered and shit...

and the 21st usa watever army is coming in from the bay makn there way up....

would it change alot in terms of casualties and being successful to defeat the 18th century army?

[jman3000]

They could encircle any emplacement with ease... and be hundreds deep at every step. If it was at the base of a very steep mountain.... or something along the lines of the movie "300" where you had a small opening and a very large field of vision... then yes you wouldn't need too many people to defend... as long as you could see for maybe half a mile in front of you and it was flat.

The larger the area you have to defend the more defenders you'd need to adequately defend each part... the less you have to defend, the less defenders you need... but the easier it would be to encircle.

[Cry Havoc]

lets change it a bit...

what happens if the fighting field is a cliff top like gallipoli...where the 18th century army is on the cliff bed all bunkered and shit...

and the 21st usa watever army is coming in from the bay makn there way up....

would it change alot in terms of casualties and being successful to defeat the 18th century army?

200,000 bunkered troops? What kind of place is this?

You're still overlooking the fact that the 18th century troops HAVE TO GET CLOSE to the modern troops to even kill ONE of them, unless you're counting the use of cannons. Without cannons, you could kill unlimited people from 600 yards out unless they attacked you.

[z0sa]

200,000 people is a shit load of people.

That's the main point.

the only real problems facing (in this case) large amounts of foes with a tiny amount of defenders are reloads, weapon cooldowns, and ultimately, fatigue.

[jman3000]

11,000 RPM is based on full auto fire... with the recoil of an M-60 you couldn't safely assume that over half those rounds would hit. especially at any real distance... at over 200 yards it's hard to hit a deer accurately with a hunting rifle much less a fully automatic weapon... at that distance you literally have about a centimeter of barrel movement to spare ... after that youre shooting over their heads. if the recoil was horizontal it'd be gravy... but the variables dont paint a picture of using less than 100 defenders to me.

If you're gonna fire in short controlled bursts youre being more accurate but youre not firing fast enough to keep them at bay.

maybe y'all are thinking of a different defensive set up or offensive formation than i am... but i think y'alls estimates of 100 or fewer people are pretty hard to fathom. seeing as how you need loaders/

[TDMVPDPOY]

200,000 bunkered troops? What kind of place is this?

You're still overlooking the fact that the 18th century troops HAVE TO GET CLOSE to the modern troops to even kill ONE of them, unless you're counting the use of cannons. Without cannons, you could kill unlimited people from 600 yards out unless they attacked you.

this place im talkin about is like from that start scene in the movie, saving private ryan. where tom hanks gets of the boat transportation and is on sand and makn his way up the cliff where its garrison by the nazis

[z0sa]

11,000 RPM is based on full auto fire... with the recoil of an M-60 you couldn't safely assume that over half those rounds would hit. especially at any real distance... at over 200 yards it's hard to hit a deer accurately with a hunting rifle much less a fully automatic weapon... at that distance you literally have about a centimeter of barrel movement to spare ... after that youre shooting over their heads. if the recoil was horizontal it'd be gravy... but the variables dont paint a picture of using less than 100 defenders to me.

If you're gonna fire in short controlled bursts youre being more accurate but youre not firing fast enough to keep them at bay.

maybe y'all are thinking of a different defensive set up or offensive formation than i am... but i think y'alls estimates of 100 or fewer people are pretty hard to fathom. seeing as how you need loaders/

I think you're still within the "safe" parameters. 25 soldiers probably couldn't hold it. But we're talking the absolute minimum amount. Additionally, experience in warfare is huuuuge. Just look at ww1 - on the western front, it was a scaled down version of this very scenario, simply because the generals were stuck in the past and had no clue how to combat heavy machine guns. Now go backwards 125-150 years and imagine how clueless they'd be - and against TODAY's weaponry, not 1915's.

[Cry Havoc]

this place im talkin about is like from that start scene in the movie, saving private ryan. where tom hanks gets of the boat transportation and is on sand and makn his way up the cliff where its garrison by the nazis

If you're going to shrink the battlefield like that, you're removing a huge proportion of what gives modern day weapons the advantage.


11,000 RPM is based on full auto fire... with the recoil of an M-60 you couldn't safely assume that over half those rounds would hit. especially at any real distance... at over 200 yards it's hard to hit a deer accurately with a hunting rifle much less a fully automatic weapon... at that distance you literally have about a centimeter of barrel movement to spare ... after that youre shooting over their heads. if the recoil was horizontal it'd be gravy... but the variables dont paint a picture of using less than 100 defenders to me.

If you're gonna fire in short controlled bursts youre being more accurate but youre not firing fast enough to keep them at bay.

maybe y'all are thinking of a different defensive set up or offensive formation than i am... but i think y'alls estimates of 100 or fewer people are pretty hard to fathom. seeing as how you need loaders/

Your analogy is absolutely incorrect.

The size of a deer is perhaps 4 feet across.

The size of 200,000 men, even in columns 1000 deep, would be staggering. Let me say this again. An experienced soldier with an M60 -would- -not- -miss- a target that's thousands of feet across and that deep. So what, he shoots over the front of the first line of troops and it hits the 80th guy back? He's still dead or incapacitated.

Besides, you give me a 30.06 and put a deer 200 yards away from me, and you have a dead deer every time unless he's in full sprint, in which case he's moving laterally to my field of vision at 10-15 mph. There would be no way for such a massive group of men to move like that. That centimeter of barrel movement just means you aren't going to kill the first guy right away until you bring the barrel back down, and the closer the attackers got, the faster and more easily they would die. Your thoughts on accuracy only apply if you're trying to hit an extremely small target.

[z0sa]

this place im talkin about is like from that start scene in the movie, saving private ryan. where tom hanks gets of the boat transportation and is on sand and makn his way up the cliff where its garrison by the nazis

I would classify this apples to oranges, because it occurs far outside the parameters of the scenarios. Shelling and bombing were key in dislodging the defenders, first and foremost.

[TDMVPDPOY]

I would classify this apples to oranges, because it occurs far outside the parameters of the scenarios. Shelling and bombing were key in dislodging the defenders, first and foremost.

dude the 21st army have no line of site wtf is happenin on top of the cliff besides what they can see thats hiding in the bunkers of the cliffs face. who knows the 1800 army has 20k soldiers with bows and arrows shooting into the air haling down on soldiers who are makn there over the sand pit.

ps. i dunno whats the max distance a arrow can cover...but looking at that battle scene the bay was not a long distance to the edge of cliff.

[Brutalis]

A few direct cannon blasts from 200,000 fucking soldiers calls for more than 25 people, PEOPLE. You better have a back stock of M80s and your standard turrets. a'Cause once they go down my friend, that swarm of 200,000 will be damn close........

[jman3000]

If you're going to shrink the battlefield like that, you're removing a huge proportion of what gives modern day weapons the advantage.



Your analogy is absolutely incorrect.

The size of a deer is perhaps 4 feet across.

The size of 200,000 men, even in columns 1000 deep, would be staggering. Let me say this again. An experienced soldier with an M60 -would- -not- -miss- a target that's thousands of feet across and that deep. So what, he shoots over the front of the first line of troops and it hits the 80th guy back? He's still dead or incapacitated.

Besides, you give me a 30.06 and put a deer 200 yards away from me, and you have a dead deer every time unless he's in full sprint, in which case he's moving laterally to my field of vision at 10-15 mph. There would be no way for such a massive group of men to move like that. That centimeter of barrel movement just means you aren't going to kill the first guy right away until you bring the barrel back down, and the closer the attackers got, the faster and more easily they would die. Your thoughts on accuracy only apply if you're trying to hit an extremely small target.

at that range and beyond everything is an extremely small target.

If they are all gathered on the downward slope of a hill where basically everything you shoot is gonna hit then yes... but if it's a flat surface and > than a certain distance then you're gonna hit no doubt... but you're not gonna hit with great accuracy... even if it's a huge amount of people... because ur still aiming at a very small target that fully automatic machine guns just aren't designed to fire at. It's a suppression weapon not a sniper rifle. A large portion of those rounds are gonna sail overhead and land behind the ranks somewhere.

Not to mention that with so many people dieing there would actually be smalls walls of dead bodies that could be used as temporary defilade.

If they used Napoleonic codes of engagement then this is all moot... because they'd be marching forward slowly like a bunch of tards and getting mowed down. The 200,000 would have to be in balls to the wall mode.

I've come to the conclusion that this argument is beyond retarded and the subject matter is as equally.

[jman3000]

I can't believe I posted more than once in a "who would win US army or 1700's army"

I deserve an enema of epic proportions.

[z0sa]

I can't believe I posted more than once in a "who would win US army or 1700's army"

I deserve an enema of epic proportions.

why? it wasn't who would win, its minimum numbers to kill all attackers. Hypothetical Scenarios like these exist to work your brain and have a little fun.

[jman3000]

I still feel dirty.

I'm gonna go to the troll forum and look at some boobs.

[TwAnKiEs]

Whats the "minimum numbers" you think would it take to win against 200,000 soldiers from the 18th century? or how many days it will finish

rules:
unlimited ammo and medical/supplies
no cannons, RPGs, grenades
no planes/drones/tanks/heavy-light vehicles/tanks
no chemical bio-war crap/super weapons bs
terrain = european city or rural farm area take ur pick.

only thing you can use on your side which is out of ur control is weather and climate and surroundings...day or night.

ps. im bored shitless nothing to do.


Is Chuck Norris on any of the sides?

[Borosai]

Here's an idea: 10 elite snipers armed with M107 .50 caliber sniper rifles, 1000-2000 yards away, picking off soldiers one at a time. I'm sure the 18th century army would surrender after a few days. If not, continue to move the snipers around (retreat if necessary), and repeat every day, taking out the ranking officers if possible. It's easier to move 10 men than thousands, so they'll always be at a safe distance and out of musket range.

If the 18th century army recovers from the shock of seeing hundreds or thousands of their soldiers' heads and/or torsos burst, and they mobilize and attack the flashes on the horizon, then the snipers would have to be smart and move away very quickly to avoid being surrounded (can they have buggies?). I'm betting on a surrender though.

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/rifle/M107/M107_2.jpg

[sabar]

The attacking army wins by simple math.

200,000 people deploy at 1000 yards. They need to get to ~100 yards to ensure they kill the defenders. If they break into a full charge, it takes about 3.5 minutes to reach the defenders. Whoever is defending needs to kill 952 attackers per second. 25 defenders need to kill 38 people per second each -- impossible. As the attackers thin out the defenders will need to actually traverse the gun and aim, lowering killing speed.

You need 400-600 defenders to win -- each killing about 2 people per second, a generous estimate. A better number is about 1400-1600 defenders, killing a person every 2 seconds.

The attackers aren't going to be shooting, they will have to go into a full charge to get in range of rifle or bayonet.

So you need 400 people minimum for this to be feasible. 200,000 people is a LOT and requires to you kill a LOT of people per second to avoid being totally over-run.

Even if the defenders used tanks or howitzers, they would need a ridiculous firing rate to kill the attackers before they were totally swarmed.

Hasn't anyone played zombie games where even though you have much more firepower, you get overrun and killed by weak opponents? You just can't shoot and reload fast enough.

[sabar]

Here's an idea: 10 elite snipers armed with M107 .50 caliber sniper rifles, 1000-2000 yards away, picking off soldiers one at a time. I'm sure the 18th century army would surrender after a few days. If not, continue to move the snipers around (retreat if necessary), and repeat every day, taking out the ranking officers if possible. It's easier to move 10 men than thousands, so they'll always be at a safe distance and out of musket range.

If the 18th century army recovers from the shock of seeing hundreds or thousands of their soldiers' heads and/or torsos burst, and they mobilize and attack the flashes on the horizon, then the snipers would have to be smart and move away very quickly to avoid being surrounded (can they have buggies?). I'm betting on a surrender though.

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/rifle/M107/M107_2.jpg

I'd guess the snipers fingers/back/arms would be totally locked up after shooting 20,000 shots back-to-back for hours on end.

[Bukefal]

Fully automatic weapons are the single deadliest invention in the world's history. The 18th century soldiers would have no ability to get close. Line up 20 M60s on tripods with 5 guys running to feed ammo? The modern day troops would have every advantage. Better range, better accuracy, the amount of firepower they could spit out is unreal. There is a more drastic disparity from an old 18th century rifle to a modern day machine gun than there is from a bow and arrow to the 18th century rifle. It's that big of a difference.

There is a famous slaughter in Africa where a massive tribe of 30,000 natives to the land attacks an encampment of 50 soldiers with repeating rifles and gatling guns. It was a slaughter was because the group of 30,000 was almost completely annihilated.

It's incredible and yet so sad that humanity has designed such effective weapons to kill each other.

If the 25 troops could stay awake, that's probably an accurate number, although attrition might eventually take them down. Otherwise, no more than 75 troops would do the job, depending upon the position.

We appear to agree on this topic. :toast

EDIT:

I've actually done a little thinking indirectly related to this topic, as my dad is a gun dealer. I estimate that if we leveled his house and made a bunker out of it (the basement is sloped into a hill), and somehow we lived in the 18th Century, it would take several thousand troops to bring us down (of course given that we would modify our AK-47, SKS, AR-15, FNFAL) to be full-auto with good sightlines for snipers. Eventually numbers wear you down, but the new age of weapons are incredibly accurate. Consider that today's fully automatic weapons are far more accurate than ANY rifle used to be up until the late 1800s, when guns like the Sharps Buffalo rifle effectively tripled accuracy and distance (even then, they were limited to just over 3/5ths of a mile, and that's with a good marksman. Today's modern basic 30/30 with a calibrated scope will easily shoot 1.2 miles and over with relative accuracy, as long as you know what you're doing and don't have a bad wind).

18th century rifles were little more effective than spitting shrapnel everywhere and took so long to reload, you could shoot at someone 200 feet away, and if you missed they would be on you before you could get another bullet in the barrel to line up another shot. Max range was probably in the ~200 feet range, which is less than some quarterbacks can throw a football today.

Unbelievable what goes thru some people's minds :lol :nope :p: :( lolll

[Cry Havoc]

Unbelievable what goes thru some people's minds :lol :nope :p: :( lolll

You can say that again. :toast :rollin