User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:06:16 PM EDT
Would they have needed to defend the Alamo provided with unlimited ammo?
I figure one M16 as a force multiplier has to equal 50 muskets so if Santana had 3,000 men you would need 60 to make it even, say 100 to win easy.  I am totally talking out my ass here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:08:12 PM EDT
[#1]
I think about this kind of sheet all the time - remember that big battle in braveheart - the very 1st one where the kicked the King's arsh with the long poles on the horses....
can you imagine a few well placed snipers and marine rifle company there instead!! lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:09:09 PM EDT
[#2]
More a question of how much ammo.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:09:10 PM EDT
[#3]
You would need only 2 or 3, 20 mags each and a half a dozen people loading from strippers.
edited to add: in addition to the forces already present. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:09:56 PM EDT
[#4]
ditto, I always wonder about what difference modern technology would have made in old, or even ancient battles.... ONE person with an any type of modern military rifle could have won that battle: Here are the circumstances: 1) Unlimited ammo 2) Be out of their range (not difficult with muskets) 3) Sound Surpressor 4) Good hiding area I'm thinking one invisible, inaudible sniper could take out enough men to demoralize them or make them believe in divine intervention. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:11:15 PM EDT
[#5]
There is a book you might like to read. It's titled 1645(or there abouts) and the story is about a large chunk or Pennsylvania being sent back in time. Plenty of gunplay and plenty of OH SHIT by the BGs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:12:14 PM EDT
[#6]
1 M-60 would have done the job
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:14:59 PM EDT
[#7]
5 highly traine men with m16s would of had them running in 10 minutes, throw in a .50 cal sniper 5 minutes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:17:55 PM EDT
[#8]
Better yet, a couple of SAWs... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:18:00 PM EDT
[#9]
One other thing you must consider is the Psychological effect a modern day weapon would have on people from the past... Imagine their line is trying desperately to reload, as you, ONE person is mowing down everyone around them from a distance that your weapon could never reach...If I was one of Santana's men, I'd say f*ck this!
One shot from a handgun in ancient egypt would probably make you the next Pharaoh.... (that almost sounded like an ad from the brady campain  )
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:21:01 PM EDT
[#10]
Yep a couple SAWS would have won many battles very quickly. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:21:03 PM EDT
[#11]
What's the range on the cannons the Mexicans were using? I imagine that an M193 or SS109 might be able to pick off their cannon crews and take out their regular soldier long before they ever got into range to use their muskets.
Hell, they wouldn't have needed M16s even. Semi auto ARs might even have been a better bet since the shooters would likely be making more well aimed shots. (this is assuming you armed the Alamo defenders with ARs, not transported Marines back with the rifles) EDIT: Pangea- Try and find the title of that book. It sounds interesting but Amazon is coming up blank. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:21:05 PM EDT
[#12]
i think 2 would be enough, with a bunch of people loading mags.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:25:42 PM EDT
[#13]
"Did you know Moses and Jesus used guns to defeat the Romans?"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:26:31 PM EDT
[#14]
Go read the book "Guns of the South" by Harry Turtledove. AK47's during the Civil War time.
Also, go read 1632 by Eric Flint. Actually you can read this one on the internet. www.baen.com/library/0671319728/0671319728.htm Deals with a M60 and other 'modern' guns in the year 1632. Too bad a National Guard depot wasn't in Grantville. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:27:15 PM EDT
[#15]
M16s arent magic. Be realistic, I am. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:28:32 PM EDT
[#16]
No but demoralizing the enemy is. When the first wave is cut in half, you think the rest are brave? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:29:05 PM EDT
[#17]
A grenade launcher would do wonders as well...
- BG |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:29:41 PM EDT
[#18]
yeah, 2 or 3. hell 1 might have been able to sway the battle.
FA, 30 round mags, the accuracy vs what they had back then... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:29:44 PM EDT
[#19]
"So remember, Guns don't kill people; Dangerous minorities do" 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:33:01 PM EDT
[#20]
One phrase is applicable here: Mk19. Enough said.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:36:57 PM EDT
[#21]
What if everyone had a Remington 700 ADL with 3x9 in .308 or 30/06?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:40:54 PM EDT
[#22]
I forgot about that!  Even as anti gun as that episode is, I can't help but laugh at it!
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:45:20 PM EDT
[#23]
I dont buy the demoralizing thing as a viable tactic. Waves of people have been sent into sure death by machine gun fire before and its entirely possible here to overwhelm a few rifles in this case. Not to mention you would melt the barrels if you kept up sustained fire on a few rifles.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:55:10 PM EDT
[#24]
2 hbar semis
2 bolt guns with good shooters 1 M60 1 saw the south would have won if they had all that |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 3:56:33 PM EDT
[#25]
1632 by Eric Flint
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 4:01:15 PM EDT
[#26]
A single platoon of modern Infantry soldiers with thier typical load out, and extra ammo would have been able to hold the fort, A full company and they would have routed the Mexicans.
One has to take more than firepower into consideration. The average infantry man of todays Army would be impervious to thier rifle fire, out side of heard and arm wounds thanks to modern Body Armour, they would be able to engage the enemy at much further ranges than the enemy would be able to return fire. Plus the Average modern Infantry man has much more medical expertise than was common in those days. It would be more than modern weapons making the difference, Modern Tactics make a big difference. Even historical tactics say that the Alamo should have been a tough fight, Historically it has been common wisdom that to defeat an well defended fort you should have a ten to one advantage over the defender, The Mexicans had slightly more than that, given a few modern force multipliers such as M16 rifles, and personel communications you would greatly change the dynamic of the battle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 4:22:54 PM EDT
[#27]
ONE Dillon mod. M134 minigun with about a dozen 2000 round cans of 7.62x51 AP, mounted on HMMWVV.
Just for kicks, bring in one of those firetrucks with the spray turret; modify the thing to spray GASOLINE  EDIT: on second throught, an HK Mk.19 and plenty of ammo would suffice just as well
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 4:31:27 PM EDT
[#28]
nah. just post a couple of ins agents 200 yards in front of the alamo.
la migra! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 4:46:12 PM EDT
[#29]
I would think a couple of capable snipers could take out the Mexican leadership and the battle would be over before it even started.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 5:00:44 PM EDT
[#30]
an M1 Abrams or two would have been much more fun.............................
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 5:25:31 PM EDT
[#31]
Ma-Duce(x2) + Sanbagged Tripods + ammo + Good Crews.
Messy!  Tall Shadow |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 5:25:51 PM EDT
[#32]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 9:45:52 PM EDT
[#33]
Don't we have a recent example of this.... where is the "Bad Arse Marine" thread... with the pic of his bullet wound to his upper back...?
Didn't he and a handful (4 I think) of Blackwater contractors repell about 400+ attackers near Falujia? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 9:56:18 PM EDT
[#34]
Another vote for one Dillion Aero Mini-Gun. Let the games begin! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 10:02:40 PM EDT
[#35]
1632, 1633, soon 1634 good book |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 10:07:09 PM EDT
[#36]
Given that the Mexican's never saw any such thing before, it would have overwhelmed them. Besides, enduring heavy casualties and continuing to attack is the exception, not the rule. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 10:10:24 PM EDT
[#37]
1 MOAB
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 10:13:12 PM EDT
[#38]
The Brown Bess muskets that were standard issue with the Mexicans would blow a .75" hole in you. It would be much worse than your typical AK wound. I'm not sure how far the Baker rifles the Mexicans used could shoot accuratly, although my understnding is the quality of their gunpowder was poor. Personally, I would rather see several Browning M1917 water colled MGs, supported by M1903 Springfields and Colt 1911s. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 10:15:50 PM EDT
[#39]
Dude, I think that's reaching a little. You honestly think six guns could have changed the outcome of such a large nations civil war? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 10:22:43 PM EDT
[#40]
Even if it was, we don't store ammo, only weapons. Ammo is drawn from the nearest active Army post as needed.
Don't underestimate the range of 19th century cannon. In comparison to modern artillery, certainly it falls short. In comparison to the max effective range of an M16? The cannon would have had the advantage. I recall that the Mexicans had some fairly large cannon ( for the day) present. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2004 11:00:25 PM EDT
[#41]
I would recommend an 81mm mortar.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2004 10:15:27 AM EDT
[#42]
Thanks tcsd. When I actually sat down and thought about it I realized how wrong I was. All I really had to do was think about the artillery engagments back at Gettysburg on the third day before Picket's charge. Over a mile wasn't it? To Pangea and 7...I am indebted to you sirs. I wasted a good hour or two at work reading the first few chapters of 1632 online, then realized how late I was and went down to Borders and picked up a copy. I think I punched through a good 200 pages last night. The American's and Mackay just liberated Badenburg. Historically I'm having trouble believing King Gustav Adolphus was so much of a forward thinker as Flint has presented him so far. I can't reconcile that a member of the nobility would ever look on the Dutch Republic as a good thing in that time. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2004 10:19:10 AM EDT
[#43]
They would put .75 inch holes in modern body Armour? They would have to measure thier powder by the pound to get enough velocity to do that. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2004 10:22:18 AM EDT
[#44]
(1) 6000 round per minute mini-gun
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2004 10:22:28 AM EDT
[#45]
Off to B&N for 1632.
 Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2004 3:37:42 PM EDT
[#46]
Duh... think about it- crude muskets with an outer range of 75 yards and at best 3 or 4 shots a minute versus rifles with outer ranges of 600++ yards and sustrained firing rates of atleast 60 rpm (plus the demoralizing factor, imagine two guys with M60's going prone in a field 4 or 5 hundred yards from an army and proceding to cut down dozens of men with each short burst (furthermore, remember, those old formations means it's like shooting fish in a barrel where there's little room left for water- plus the fact that a single 7.62 AP bullet could probably pass through atleast a few people). Atop of that, you've got the guys with M16's and the Marksmen up there picking off everyone above the rank of private. Edit to add: I'm beginning to think that a company of modern spec. ops and a decent sized base camp with a sizeable ammo dump would be completely untouchable if sent back prior to 1850 or so (before repeating rifles). Edit to add #2: Imagine all the real gun-nuts of ARFCOM with all their gear and stores sent back to the time of Ancient Rome
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2004 3:40:36 PM EDT
[#47]
absolutely a question of ammo due to the superior range of the 16 over the musket. You could place effective kill shots at 300m....not to mention effective area fire at well over 600m. They would have never gotten close....then factor in if you had NVG's with a PAC-4. Holy geez, you could've done some damage. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2004 3:45:28 PM EDT
[#48]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2004 3:45:31 PM EDT
[#49]
Treadhead+1 M16A1 could've carried the Alamo to victory
 Santa Ana would've had WHOLE companies retreating in the face of my lead-finger and would've thought that Satan Hisself had taken up residence
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2004 3:52:01 PM EDT
[#50]
I think you guys are missing one good point: a pair of good DMR's from a fortified position (with some distance) could easily wipe out the entire command of an entire attacking force as it approaches; what's 5000 guys with nobody in charge going to do BUT retreat (esp. in the face of weapons the likes and power of which they've never even considered before)?
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
