Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/11/2004 6:13:29 AM EST
I was thinking last night that if a modern military soldiers, equipment and tactics (but not modern artillery, I'm talking infantry) were inserted into a crucial battle in the past how many soldiers, or how large a force would be necessary to turn the tide of the battle?

To mention a fairly modern battle, suppose you could insert these future warriors into the battle of Gettysburg. How many men would it take to produce a critical salient in the union lines? I would think not that many given the firepower a modern soldier brings to the field. And despite the fact that this battle was so huge in terms of overall manpower, I would think that the number would be small. My theory would be that one fully equipped platoon could make such a difference. A company would be an overwhelming force inserted into such a historic battle.

Flame away! I will comment, if not obvious already, that I am neither ex or future military.

Link Posted: 10/11/2004 6:17:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 6:18:59 AM EST by Brisk322]


IBTLotR.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 6:33:21 AM EST
1
ok 2 thats how many. Give me one sniper team. Think about it a modern sniper at Gettysburg with a 308 at the least, and a 338 or 50BMG and enough ammo and somones artilary would be non exsistant. Or you'd have a lot of dead generals and other brass.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 9:21:33 AM EST
Some A-10's at the Battle of the Bulge. Tomcats at Midway,
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 9:31:12 AM EST
Machine guns turned the tide in infantry battles.

A couple of MG-42s or Ma-Dueces at Gettysburg and the right side would have won.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 9:35:34 AM EST
Yes machine guns redefined infantry warfare, even more than the rifle did.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 9:38:45 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 9:40:50 AM EST by mac130]
Well, I certainly wouldn't mind the enemy lining up and marching straight at me. Hell we would have been out of Iraq in a week if they still used those tactics.

ETA: Send a modern day SF troop, and just the change in tactics would change history
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 9:52:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By TWIRE:
I was thinking last night that if a modern military soldiers, equipment and tactics (but not modern artillery, I'm talking infantry) were inserted into a crucial battle in the past how many soldiers, or how large a force would be necessary to turn the tide of the battle?

To mention a fairly modern battle, suppose you could insert these future warriors into the battle of Gettysburg. How many men would it take to produce a critical salient in the union lines? I would think not that many given the firepower a modern soldier brings to the field. And despite the fact that this battle was so huge in terms of overall manpower, I would think that the number would be small. My theory would be that one fully equipped platoon could make such a difference. A company would be an overwhelming force inserted into such a historic battle.

Flame away! I will comment, if not obvious already, that I am neither ex or future military.




Yup...it wouldn't take too many...a platoon armed with some M-16s, SAWs, a Ma Deuce, and a couple of snipers with .308s or .50s in the right places, and you could devastate a Civil War era battlefield. Remember, too, that the modern soldiers would have NVGs, and helmets and body armor which would easily stop the low-velocity lead balls from blackpowder muzzleloaders, as well as radios to coordinate combat actions. Suffice it to say that it would be an ass kicking...
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 9:58:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By five-star:
Some A-10's at the Battle of the Bulge. Tomcats at Midway,



Holy God, I never even considered those two scenarios. That would have been a slaughter.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 10:03:22 AM EST
My frist chance to use this...

Link Posted: 10/11/2004 10:04:48 AM EST
The night vision aspect alone would have redefined world history
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 10:07:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
Machine guns turned the tide in infantry battles.

A couple of MG-42s or Ma-Dueces at Gettysburg and the right side would have won.




Ask any Black man of the right side won or not.

I'd like to see the White Russians with AKM's, the world would be a different place.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 10:38:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By TimJ:

Ask any Black man of the right side won or not.

I'd like to see the White Russians with AKM's, the world would be a different place.



What are you attempting to say?
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 10:47:22 AM EST
The White Russians fought the counter revolution against the Soviets, they were a mix of democrats, imperialist/monarchist and nationalists.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 10:53:29 AM EST
I got that. I meant the first statement.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 11:01:46 AM EST
One TO&E Infantry platoon at Helms Deep. No need for, "On the fith day, look to the east."(OK, I know this is not history, but think of the fun they could have)

One TO&E Infantry platoon at the Alamo. Reverse massacre.

Where else?

Bilster
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 11:05:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
A couple of MG-42s or Ma-Dueces at Gettysburg and the right side would have won.




That's what I meant.


And it would be interesting to see a world where Lenin and Stalin were put against a wall and shot rather than taking over Russia. (yeah, i know what happened to Lenin after.....)
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 11:15:29 AM EST
I can't say anything about which modern weapons would have swayed victory in an older battle, but I've always wondered about what it was like to be part of a ground crew for a biplane during War I.

If I could be transported back in time for a war scenario I think I'd like to check that out.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 11:20:15 AM EST
Anybody read this book?



Here's a link: Remember the Alamo!

Synopsis: A wealthy oil tycoon sends a heavily armed band of mercenaries back in time to aid in defending the Alamo from General Santa Ana's 5,000 plus man army hoping to gain prime, oil rich real estate in the present. Action is never in short supply as thousands of Mexican Army regulars hopelessly assault the fort with black powder rifles and bayonettes only to be met with automatic weapon fire, claymore mines, and seasoned 20th century soldiers. The setting is historically very accurate, and the ending is both a surprise and a moral wrapped into one.

I read it back in 1987 or so. Great book.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 11:20:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By Brisk322:
img.photobucket.com/albums/v157/brisk322/gunsotsouth.jpg

IBTLotR.



If only!
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 11:23:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By Blackjack272:

Originally Posted By five-star:
Some A-10's at the Battle of the Bulge. Tomcats at Midway,



Holy God, I never even considered those two scenarios. That would have been a slaughter.



What, you never saw this?

Link Posted: 10/11/2004 11:25:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By TimJ:
Ask any Black man of the right side won or not.



Considering how much they bitch about everything, I'd have to conclude the answer is "no".

Back to the topic of the thread, before this gets ugly....
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 11:27:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By TimJ:
Ask any Black man of the right side won or not.



Considering how much they bitch about everything, I'd have to conclude the answer is "no".

Back to the topic of the thread, before this gets ugly....




Yeah, you should know better

AGNTSA!
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 11:27:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By TimJ:
And it would be interesting to see a world where Lenin and Stalin were put against a wall and shot rather than taking over Russia. (yeah, i know what happened to Lenin after.....)



No doubt about that.

I remember in High School, my history teacher mentioned the name of a woman who, if she had not lived, there wouldn't have been a Germany, or a Hitler, etc.

It was a clasic example of how one person CAN change everything.

Remember, it only took one dork with a bad pistol to ignite WWI and all the hell that followed for the next 30 years.

It's also why "City On The Edge Of Forever" is one of the favorite Star Trek episodes around.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 11:30:06 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 11:30:33 AM EST by Currahee]
Had I a good 20 inch AR with an ACOG at helms deep + a rucksack full of ammo I would have beaten Legolas' score!

I wonder how many good head shots it would have taken to bring down the cave troll?

As for the original question, we're talking dismounted right? Consider the fact that the modern unit's advantage would be much better in the defense, would have been an advantage in the offense as well (body armor, M-203s, AT4s, NVGs & longer range small arms). But they would have been devistating against the period infantry attack in the defense from prepaired possitions (or even hasty)

Link Posted: 10/11/2004 1:25:05 PM EST
Hell just give me a couple bricks of ammo and my 10/22 and I'll take care of anything before the 1900'shug.gif
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 1:29:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By jmboom:
Hell just give me a couple bricks of ammo and my 10/22 and I'll take care of anything before the 1900's



Balls out!
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 1:41:26 PM EST
I think I would like to go back in time as a body gaurd for a high risk target, like Abe Lincoln or Jesus
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 1:43:17 PM EST
Where's that picture of Aww Geez not this sh-t again?
In terms of armys, a handful of personal weapons aren't going to be that big advantage.

Originally Posted By Hokie:
The night vision aspect alone would have redefined world history


FLIR would be a bigger advantage than simple night vision. It might help a commander cut through the gunsmoke and have a better view of the terrain.



Originally Posted By mac130:
Well, I certainly wouldn't mind the enemy lining up and marching straight at me. Hell we would have been out of Iraq in a week if they still used those tactics.


How much different is getting the shit shot out of you by a heavy MG, than heavy cannon. They didnt' always just stand and take it. Wellington ordered his men down at Waterloo to avoid Napoleans cannon. And even so, some units stood up to the fire all day rather than yield their position. They had no choice, a few would die, or all would di.


ETA: Send a modern day SF troop, and just the change in tactics would change history


The tactics were based on the weapons available at the time.
If the SF could bring enough weapons to arm them.
Ever heard of Roger's Rangers. The SF take a lot from them. What about the English Riflemen? They didn't just stand out in the open either.
There's much more happening on a 19th century battlefield than guys standing in the open trading volleys.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 1:49:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By jmboom:
Hell just give me a couple bricks of ammo and my 10/22 and I'll take care of anything before the 1900's



Exactly what we used to contemplate. Forget about all the "modern" equipment. the question goes..."What if the defenders of the Alamo had one .22 semi-automatic rifle -- AND plenty of rounds?"

As far as Gettysburg goes, Chamberlain was basically out of ammo in the end so just about anything that gave the South an advantage in one of the charges up that hill would have (or possibly could have) changed the face of History. Remember, however, the North had tons of men and equipment so even if the South would have turned the Left, it still might not have made a difference -- other than more good men (on both sides) would have died.

To answer your question, I think that a properly equipped Company of today's military could have changed the outcome of any battle prior to 1980. Certainly any battle fought in Korea or before.

Of course, if they were Marines, it wouldn't take near that many.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 1:54:48 PM EST
Think of the outcome of the ships in Pearl Harbor had they had Phalanx weapons systems installed.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 2:08:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By 19suburban96:
Think of the outcome of the ships in Pearl Harbor had they had Phalanx weapons systems installed.



How 'bout just 1 RAM launcher and some reloads?
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 2:14:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 2:15:01 PM EST by ASUsax]

Originally Posted By jmboom:
Hell just give me a couple bricks of ammo and my 10/22 and I'll take care of anything before the 1900's



Ok, Here's your SITREP:

The year is 1805. The location: Trafalgar.

You are aboard a French Frigate, and you must help them defeat the British fleet.

You have a 10/22 with 10,000 rounds.

Go.

NOTE: This does not violate the Rules of Warfare, since it is clear that France CAN win a war, as long as the US does most of the fighting.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 2:44:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By Wolf_Warrior:
As far as Gettysburg goes, Chamberlain was basically out of ammo in the end so just about anything that gave the South an advantage in one of the charges up that hill would have (or possibly could have) changed the face of History. Remember, however, the North had tons of men and equipment so even if the South would have turned the Left, it still might not have made a difference -- other than more good men (on both sides) would have died.


Give them anything they want, if he was unarmed, they should've been able to roust him with bayonets, and yet they didn't.
Men are men regardless of the weapons you give them.
Modern marines armed as the confederates were might've made a difference, but would the confederates armed as modern Marines been able to carry the day?

I'll take good troops over good weapons any day.
And a squad of period rifleman over a platoon of Arfcom armchair Generals.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 2:46:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By 19suburban96:
Think of the outcome of the ships in Pearl Harbor had they had Phalanx weapons systems installed.


What difference would it make, the ammo would've been locked up anyway.
They could've tracked the bomb as it fell on them?
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 2:54:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 2:58:33 PM EST by bblake00]

Originally Posted By Blackjack272:

Originally Posted By five-star:
Some A-10's at the Battle of the Bulge. Tomcats at Midway,



Holy God, I never even considered those two scenarios. That would have been a slaughter.



Abrams instead of the A-10.

A modern day Carrier Battle Group Off the coast of Our 50th state just as the Japs started to take flight.


I for got the name of the movie that had this as a theme.


ETA: Answered before I read further.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 2:58:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 2:59:11 PM EST by Stryfe]

Originally Posted By bblake00:

Originally Posted By Blackjack272:

Originally Posted By five-star:
Some A-10's at the Battle of the Bulge. Tomcats at Midway,



Holy God, I never even considered those two scenarios. That would have been a slaughter.



Abrams instead of the A-10.


Yup, the A10 wouldn't have fared much better than it's namesake in the weather.
But the Abrams would've been huge, except for one thing, the red ball express couldn't have kept up with it.
Logistics, logistics, logistics.



A modern day Carrier Battle Group Off the coast of Our 50th state just as the Japs started to take flight.


I for got the name of the movie that had this as a theme.


From page 1,
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 4:32:08 PM EST
That Major Wiltsie (I forget his exact name) in The Lost Batalion would have kicked some serious Kraut ass if all of a sudden a modern US Army infantry company had showed up out of nowhere.

M16s, SAWs, and modern comms against K98s, Maxims, and field phones/runners/carrier pigeons. It would have been ugly for Fritz.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:16:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:
That Major Wiltsie (I forget his exact name) in The Lost Batalion would have kicked some serious Kraut ass if all of a sudden a modern US Army infantry company had showed up out of nowhere.

M16s, SAWs, and modern comms against K98s, Maxims, and field phones/runners/carrier pigeons. It would have been ugly for Fritz.


Just imagine if he'd had a BAR instead of the Chau-Chaut.
Top Top