User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:00:28 PM EDT
Say you decided to travel back in time to the beginning of the civil war, and for whatever reason, you wanted to see if you could help the South win the civil war.
The only thing you brought back with you was 100 AR-15's and 100k rounds of ammo (thats 1000 rounds per AR-15 for those who aren't good with math). Could that change the outcome 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:01:01 PM EDT
[#1]
yep
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:01:37 PM EDT
[#2]
only if you trained them to use them and as long as they dont stand in lines anymore. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:01:51 PM EDT
[#3]
Yeah, it would have been over after the first decisive battle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:02:13 PM EDT
[#4]
I've often had similar thoughts, but usually they derive around could a company of men in armored Hummers with typical loadout and a supply/maintenance depot win the war.
ETA... and not for Johnny Reb 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:02:26 PM EDT
[#5]
poll?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:02:42 PM EDT
[#6]
I think that some one wrote a book like that but it was AK's
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:03:01 PM EDT
[#7]
I've often thought a hundred scoped 10/22's could have made the Revolutionary war end alot faster.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:03:04 PM EDT
[#8]
Possibly, but I wouldn't want to.
CJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:03:34 PM EDT
[#9]
Can't fight God's will.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:04:16 PM EDT
[#10]
I think a few trained men with ARs and plenty of ammo could do it. They could kill hundreds from 300 yards back with no real danger to themselves.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:04:44 PM EDT
[#11]
I think a change in tactics alone could affect the outcome, period weapons and all.
If they fought like we're trained today, even with muskets it woulda been different. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:05:26 PM EDT
[#12]
How about a pallet of FRS/GMRS radios, rechargeable AA batteries, and solar powered battery chargers?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:05:29 PM EDT
[#13]
No effect whatsoever on the outcome.
Maybe with 100,000 ARs and nearly unlimited ammo, maybe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:05:48 PM EDT
[#14]
How about 1 A-10 with all the ammo and fuel it needs! Even better, show the yanks who the candidates for President were this year, they might just change their mind all together! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:07:12 PM EDT
[#15]
+1 Traitorous Scum. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:07:25 PM EDT
[#16]
blah. that company would be pretty much unstoppable... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:09:00 PM EDT
[#17]
How about 100 Airsoft.........
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:09:43 PM EDT
[#18]
How about 1000 M16 A2's, 1000K rounds per and an Artillery company?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:10:15 PM EDT
[#19]
The Harry Turtledove book "Guns of the South" explores this question in great detail. It was AK's, though. Excellent book...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:10:39 PM EDT
[#20]
Hell, if I could go back in time I could probably change the outcome of the civil war with 1 AR and a standard combat load myself. How many Northern officers were there?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:10:50 PM EDT
[#21]
The Guns of the South By Harry Turtledove http://www.gibsonbooks.com/shop_image/product/47250.jpg I have a copy of the book, I thought it was interesting. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:11:02 PM EDT
[#22]
There is a book about this, I haven't read it, so I have no idea if they are actually successful, but it is called, "Guns of The South".
I think it would be very effective, but personally I would want to bring more than 100 hundred rifles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:11:06 PM EDT
[#23]
Harry Turtledove - Guns of the Souh
South African racists went back in time with AKs and ammo. Interesting book. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:12:18 PM EDT
[#24]
One scoped .50 BMG could have changed the outcome.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:14:29 PM EDT
[#25]
What's stopping you Johnny Rebs from trying it now ? Fear or common sense ? Or no slavery to fight for ? Seriously, try it again or STFU.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:15:50 PM EDT
[#26]
Yeah that kinda would be a heap of suck if they did that. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:16:01 PM EDT
[#27]
I think 100 modern portable mortars would've done it faster.
Kill the leadership with indirect fire coming from out of nowhere, then aim for the enemy's cannon crews. Do this at night when they're in their tents and scoot on outta there until the next night. They hear nothing until mortar rounds start landing on their heads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:17:55 PM EDT
[#28]
  
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:18:47 PM EDT
[#29]
They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist... 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:19:21 PM EDT
[#30]
10 well trained snipers. Take out key high value targets and it is over before it gets started good. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:19:45 PM EDT
[#31]
I'd say you'd need a little more guns and ammo...I mean, 100k rounds is only 1k per person...that might be expended in one battle while totally annihilating the entire enemy force.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:20:21 PM EDT
[#32]
Yep. Excellent book. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:20:30 PM EDT
[#33]
You sir must have opted out of any .mil service. 300 yards is nothing for an AR, especially when the targets are standing in a line marching at you. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:21:06 PM EDT
[#34]
IBTCWWAS (in before the civil war wasn't about slavery) Consequently, southern consensus here was that it wasn't. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:22:46 PM EDT
[#35]
Because States Rights is no longer something that has any real meaning. You wouldn't need 100 guns either. You could do it with 10. You just have to pick your times and places. Of course, knowing what we know now, you could go back and 'win' the war with a butter knife. Shane |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:23:18 PM EDT
[#36]
You would probably have to change the industrial output of the North also. The South had better Generals on a one for one basis, but the North had more men and the means to keep them supplied better. Fort Pulaski in Savannah was defeated because the Union had rifled cannon barrels for example and the defenders did not.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:23:23 PM EDT
[#37]
no
100,000 rounds of ammo? Fuck thats maybe one field army. BFD, you either cause the south to loose sooner, or delay the union from beating the south by a few years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:23:55 PM EDT
[#38]
and it only took two pages before the slavery/ states right argument begins... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:24:15 PM EDT
[#39]
They would have won the battle but still would have lost the war if they kept their pro-slavery policies.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:25:18 PM EDT
[#40]
Read the rebellion states secession ordinances and get back to me counselor.  States rights = right to own slaves. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:25:37 PM EDT
[#41]
Yep, no way can an AR shoot accurately and kill at 300 yards. What are these guys smoking. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:25:38 PM EDT
[#42]
Not a chance, unlesss the mission was spec ops type work, or assassination. On the field of battle, there's a lot more to winning a battle than just being able to fire quickly; an army of 50,000 men with muzzleloaders can lay down a whole lot more fire than 100 men with semi autos. Also remember that civil war artillery could easily shoot farther than an AR, so range is no advantage either. Add in terrain restrictions (forests, hills, etc), and the smoke screen created by firing thousands of blackpower rifles at once, and a few semi auto guns probably wouldn't even be noticed.
More useful on the battlefield would be a battery of modern artillery. VT rounds on large formations of closely packed personnel = 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:26:05 PM EDT
[#43]
Probably not of the war, but it could have certainly changed several major battles.
The South just didn't have the production capability, the economy, or the numbers to be able to win. The AR's would certainly help whichever side held them to slaughter the enemy; but they wouldn't do squat as far as ensuring supply routes and manufacturing capabilities for a sustained conflict. 1,000 rounds goes fast in combat, especially since to achieve the drastic smack down we're picturing, each man would have to have fire a lot of rounds per battle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:27:11 PM EDT
[#44]
Combined with modern tactics and engaging at range, hell yes. A unit armed with AR15's would have a clear fire superiority advantage over a comparable-sized unit armed with percussion rifles and other single-shot weapons.
The only iffy part would be the training, and I'd have to hope we don't run out of ammo.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:27:15 PM EDT
[#45]
there you go, bringing facts into it. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:27:34 PM EDT
[#46]
620,000 KIA in the civil war on both sides.
Union troops totaled: ~2.5+ million men Confederate troops totaled: ~750k - ~1.2 million men Even if every 556 hit is a kill, it is a drop int he bucket for the number of men involved. Bolded for the math tards. 100,000 rounds will not do shit. Now maybe 10,000 rifles and 500 rounds per weapon - maybe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:28:25 PM EDT
[#47]
Night vision and the ability to tactically wield it would have made a bigger difference.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:28:45 PM EDT
[#48]
Got him in the neck IIRC. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:29:19 PM EDT
[#49]
Hell YEA .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:29:25 PM EDT
[#50]
It depends on which men are killed. |
|
|
|
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.
