I would classify this apples to oranges, because it occurs far outside the parameters of the scenarios. S ing 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.
A few direct cannon blasts from 200,000 ing 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........
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 s 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 re ed and the subject matter is as equally.
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.
I still feel dirty.
I'm gonna go to the troll forum and look at some boobs.
Is Chuck Norris on any of the sides?
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.
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.
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.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.
Unbelievable what goes thru some people's mindsFully 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.
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.
lolll
You can say that again.Unbelievable what goes thru some people's minds
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote