Who would win? - A hypothetical situation

[ChippedHammer]

This is ripped from another forum I visit.

So you have 100 US Marines vs the Entire 1776 British army (60,000)

Landscape : Completely open flat battle field in the middle of a valley, both sides are camped approximately 4km away from each other.
Brits have standard weapons of the era with unlimited ammo as well as standard logistical supply lines of the day.
US Marines have unlimited ammo with similar supply lines.
US Marines have a mixture of Machine gunners, riflemen and snipers.
Brits have cannons and US Marines do not have air support, vehicles or Artillery. US Marines know how many forces are against them, Brits do not.
Both forces act as the would for their era

Both sides have standard issue equipment for their era

Who would win?

Firstly, the British army are useless at any sort of range. They can really only hurt you if they are within 100m. Therefore you have 3.9km to neutralize 60,000 men running as fast as they can at you on foot with a few horses leading the charge.

I would like to think that 100 men manning .50 cal M2's would have a fighting chance, only issue with this would be barrel wear chewing through linked belts like there was no tomorrow, but I think the newer M2's have quick change barrels. I don't know how long they take to change.

The field guns the British would drag to battle would be useless, not only do they have next to no accurate range but by the time they carted the things into range they would be one massive bullet magnet.

Well that's me, what do you think?

[JamieBond]

Firstly, the British army are useless at any sort of range.

Oh dear.. :rolleyes: As opposed to whom? The US?

[ChippedHammer]

Oh dear.. :rolleyes: As opposed to whom? The US?

?

Talking about their weapons, muskets have quite limited range.

[Hirudinea]

Condsidering the amount of firepower 100 modern soldiers have at their disposal I'ed say they could defeat just about any army from before the era of bolt action magazine rifles. (But if 100 of the old soldiers get to the modern soldiers all bets are off.)

[FUTI]

http://www.britishbattles.com/zulu-war/isandlwana.htm

I think that men who doesn't know the history is damned to repeat it.

Brits had similar idea before as you see...look what that gotten to them. Adversary is adversary...an enemy who you must respect and count on...sometimes that is only thing you can count on.

[Cobalt.45]

60K men w/fucking swords could give them a run for their money. Give the 60K muskets AND artillery? You gotta be kidding me!

[iHME]

Isn't a basic combat pack like ~250 rounds of 5,56? ---> ~250000 rounds of 5.56.
Well If the US has snipers and M2's the brits only good option is to bomb the shit out of them.
The longest recorded shot (that caused a enemy casualty, who was targeted) with a handheld smallarm is ~2,5km with a .59BMG Barret rifle, so even with them the brits probably could shell them. Of cource the shelling might occur just after the brits have sacrificed 20k men in a full front human wave attack :)

SO if the British are smart enough to shell the US ones with "unlimited" supplies, they could just bomb the shit out of them.

BTW ChippedHammer, didn't you copy&paste that from /k/ didn't ya?

[Hirudinea]

http://www.britishbattles.com/zulu-war/isandlwana.htm

I think that men who doesn't know the history is damned to repeat it.

Brits had similar idea before as you see...look what that gotten to them. Adversary is adversary...an enemy who you must respect and count on...sometimes that is only thing you can count on.

Yes but a couple of things that should be remembered, at Isandlwana the British were armed with Martini Henry rifles (I believe), single shot rifles that had to be reloaded after every shot (although much faster than a flint lock still slow) and the way the ammunition was disperesed to the troops slowed down their fire rate even further, a modern force could put out far more lead in the same time that the force at Isandlwana. Another thing is that the Zulu used the terrain to their advantage in Isandlwana, while the British tended to bunch up (remember Custer), in 100 modern troop vs. an 18th century army the modren troops would use the terrain to their advantage while the 18th century army would probably follow very static field tactics and get cut apart for all their efforts. By the way I have a couple questions, 1) Whats the terrian like? Rolling field, Forested Hills, Desert, Steel Plate? And 2) Do the modern troops have any man protable anti-armour weapons? Those could negate the 18th century army's cannon advantage.

[Cobalt.45]

...while the British tended to bunch up (remember Custer)...Intresting thing, that. Turns out that Custer's men were not bunched up as had been previously thought.

After battleground forensics and Indian interviews being taken at face value, it's been determined that the troops broke and ran and were slaughtered over a wide area, most notably in a gulch that ran across the battle area. There were several small pockets where there were soldiers bunched in together (two's and three's), but nothing like the heroic "Last Stand" of lore.

[FreeLancer]

I bet ya, that the Brits wouldn't need to run at all, that's 60000 bullets flying everywhere but even at a distance that far I bet you'd kill 'em eventually, plus the use of the artillery

++++++++++++++++

Don't quote whole posts - The_Duke

[James]

I think the marines would 'play dirty' by the rules the British follow and take them down. I remember seeing a show where it mentioned they were ticked off after the revlutionary war because (some?) of the Americans deliberately (and successfully) targeted the officers leaving the cannon fodder with their thumbs up their asses. Not to mention the marines would likely split up and attack from multiple angles.

[crazywhiteguy]

I think it would be a close battle where the 1776 army would come out on top. Compare this to a zombie outbreak. Even with dozens of people with the latest weaponry, They still got eaten in all the movies. I think it would be similar here. they have 30 round magazines as standard, they are trained to shoot at about 500m as a maximum in a battle type situation as far as I know. So you can do the math on that. 100 soldiers, each one can get about two kills per minute if they rarely miss, The max range would possible be say 800m. . At a walking pace that would make the brits take 10 or 20 minutes to get to the marines (hand to hand.) So that is around 4000 kills

That's not counting their ability to rapidly target and kill full auto at close range. So I would guess, while considering reloading, vollies and going back to the command point or supply point for more ammo, They would take a lot of fire and have a large standing army in front of them that would be hailing them with lead during any sort of cease fire.

Even at 2 rounds per minute thats still a lot of bullets flying at you. Even with modern armor you have a damn good chance of hitting a soft spot.

[Hirudinea]

Intresting thing, that. Turns out that Custer's men were not bunched up as had been previously thought.

After battleground forensics and Indian interviews being taken at face value, it's been determined that the troops broke and ran and were slaughtered over a wide area, most notably in a gulch that ran across the battle area. There were several small pockets where there were soldiers bunched in together (two's and three's), but nothing like the heroic "Last Stand" of lore.

Considering that they were surrounded by Indians I'm not supprised they ran! But anyway Custer showed poor tactics. On yea did they mention that the many of the Indians were armed with repeating rifles, while the U.S. Army had only single shot rifles which gave the Indians another advantage, and not 1 Indian had the decency to write a thank you letter to Winchester. :D

That's not counting their ability to rapidly target and kill full auto at close range. So I would guess, while considering reloading, vollies and going back to the command point or supply point for more ammo, They would take a lot of fire and have a large standing army in front of them that would be hailing them with lead during any sort of cease fire.

Even at 2 rounds per minute thats still a lot of bullets flying at you. Even with modern armor you have a damn good chance of hitting a soft spot.

Your only considering individual weapons, your forgetting crew serviced machine guns, they killed thousands in WWI, two machine guns with an interlocking field of fire can get a hit with almost every shot, if the Modern Soldiers dug in WWI style and funneled the 18th Century Army into killing zones with, say claymores set up before hand, then they could handle the superior force I think, and as to the Zombie anology, Zombies don't break and run., Armies have been known to.

I remember seeing a show where it mentioned they were ticked off after the revlutionary war because (some?) of the Americans deliberately (and successfully) targeted the officers leaving the cannon fodder with their thumbs up their asses.

Sounds like Ranger tactics, but the British had American Rangers as well.

[chemdude1999]

Let's say the Brits send out a group in the traditional slow march forward. They would be promptly dispatched. However, just because they followed strict rules of warfare, doesn't mean they were stupid. They would adapt.

The key would be good commanders for the Brits, directing the men appropriately. Adaptive command tactics, so to speak.

Sure, Marines are the best trained general infantry group in the US, but 60,000 is simply too much to overcome. Even though it wasn't super accurate, in the hands of a skilled rifleman, the Brown Bess could reach well beyond 100 meters.

The Marines lose, but only after inflicting a probable 20 to 1 kill ratio (maybe higher). The battle would be over in less than 30 minutes once the distance was covered and engagement proceeded. The M2 positions would be overrun, leaving the Marines with their M16's ... running backwards.

Ironically, medieval long bowmen would stand a better chance. Those bastards could reach out and touch with accuracy.

Now, if ALL the modern men were taught how to properly headspace a M2 .50BMG, the odds would change. ;)

[Hirudinea]

Let's say the Brits send out a group in the traditional slow march forward. They would be promptly dispatched. However, just because they followed strict rules of warfare, doesn't mean they were stupid. They would adapt.

The key would be good commanders for the Brits, directing the men appropriately. Adaptive command tactics, so to speak.

Yes the commander is important, and that would probably be the largest variable for the British, remember although the British did have some great commanders commissions were purchased, not assigned on merit, so you tended to get a mixed bag.

Sure, Marines are the best trained general infantry group in the US, but 60,000 is simply too much to overcome. Even though it wasn't super accurate, in the hands of a skilled rifleman, the Brown Bess could reach well beyond 100 meters.

Again it depends on the territory.

The Marines lose, but only after inflicting a probable 20 to 1 kill ratio (maybe higher). The battle would be over in less than 30 minutes once the distance was covered and engagement proceeded. The M2 positions would be overrun, leaving the Marines with their M16's ... running backwards.

Yea but would the 18th century army take the massive losses without breaking or faultering?

Ironically, medieval long bowmen would stand a better chance. Those bastards could reach out and touch with accuracy.

What was their distance and speed? They were quite deadly, but nobody remembers that anymore, todays kids think the Battle of Agincourt was a gang fight in Scarbrough.

Now, if ALL the modern men were taught how to properly headspace a M2 .50BMG, the odds would change. ;)

[TreverSlyFox]

What was their distance and speed? They were quite deadly, but nobody remembers that anymore, todays kids think the Battle of Agincourt was a gang fight in Scarbrough.


An "experienced" Longbow man could fire 20 arrows per minute with a range of 250 yds - 325 yds. Rate of fire declined over the course of battle due to fatigue. Archers started with about 75 arrows which would last between 3 - 6 minutes. At the 300 -325 yd range it was massed fire not accuracy, at 200 - 250 yds about 25%-30% hit rate, at 150 - 200 yd about 50%, less than 150 yds 80% - 100% as the range declined.

The cost of keeping "Longbow Men" in an army was pretty high as it takes years to master a bow with a "draw weight" over 140 lbs (The bows recovered from the Mary Rose averaged 143 lbs) and required constant practice to keep the body in shape. They averaged from 5' 8" to 6' 11" in length depending on the archer's height and strength and several examples have draw weights of 180 - 185 lbs.

The two "main" battles "won" by the Longbow were the Battle of Crecy (1346) and the Battle of Agincourt (1415) as you mentioned. Though the Battle of Agincourt was won as much by a wet, muddy field as by the bow. The English bowman engaged the French Knights at 300 yds with massed fire, killing almost all their horses by 150 yds. Then picked off the Knights as they slipped and slid across the field in the mud.

At 50 - 75 yds the longbow would put a 30" arrow with a "Bodkin point" through wrought iron plate armor and into the horse the Knight was riding. Though the more expensive "steel plate" could defeat the longbow except at the "joints" at the same range. The average "grunt" didn't have steel plate or even full wrought iron plate, so they were pretty much arrow bait from the 11th - 16th century and bullet bait after that.

[chemdude1999]

Nice synopsis, TreverSlyFox.

As to the question of an 18th century army running for their lives after sustaining massive losses: Yes, they would break up and run for any cover. Even good leaders couldn't stop that. Even if they knew what to expect, I think they still would run. In reality, it depends on what they were fighting for. I can think of two scenarios in which the British might hold up after such losses: (1) They were fighting with nothing else to loose, except their own country. If this is the case, then an intense patriotism or other pride is necessary. (2) Religious zealotry always motivates well.

Just an exercise in the hypothetical, but still interesting.

[FUTI]

Well I don't know the shit about marines tactics. But let us see this issue from unit strength.

Marines: Brits
100 men 60000 men
M16's No. x? musket's No. q?
RPG's No. y? cannon's No. w?
M2's No. z? dragoon's No. p?

You will notice that I added the RPG's to marines which were not mentioned in the post No. 1.

Brits which have the cannons would use them to reach from distance so marines would have to spread if they don't wish to become cannon fodder. That reduce the strength of marine unit and although it creates more job for the Brits as they have multiple points of resistance to chase on the battlefield they have enough men not to be upset by this. To make the things worse Brits also have mobile cavalry units which is ideal for chase of smaller packs of soldiers on the battlefield and cutting them down while they run to regroup.

Marines can use RPG's and M2's to their advantage to a certain point. M2's are only thing that Brits don't have the answer in advance. RPG's aren't weapon of choice for this situation if you ask me and Brits would recognized it as some kind of rockets with which they are familiar as they were used in their time too.

Now will someone be kind enough to fill in the x,y,z,q,w,and p variable so that we know what the hell we try to evaluate? Please fill in the numbers to resemble standard unit sizes/complements of the era. If I'm not mistaken artillery unit of Brits in that era used 30 men per cannon. How many cannons would have 60000 men strong army? How much horseman would Brits have in the 60000 strong army? How many M2's and RPG's 100 marines can really drag around (my guess are 2 and 10)?

Now psychological status of unit is unpredictable element I agree but that goes for both sides. Imagine that you are marine soldier and find yourself surrounded by 60000 enemy soldiers....not comfortable I guess. Anyway if you look closely that site I posted previously you will noticed that Battle of Balaclava is described there. Wrong order to enter the valley which had surrounding sides and second exit of valley packed with enemy artillery was executed and unit didn't break up even under heavy enemy fire. So counting on psychology is like throwing a dice as you can see.

Only advantage I admit is limited number officers Brits have as logic and rules of warfare was different then. Even if marines have better info about battleground that doesn't mean that Brits won't know to use what they see in front of them. Zulu's did use ground to their advantage when the Brits draw their first attack to a halt in the center of the front AKA duck and watch your ass tactical approach. But Brits didn't have enough men to cover whole front at Isandlwana which would be marines problem in this hypothetical battle.

[FreeLancer]

actually I think the Americans would win, because of the philosophical factor added on their side. I meen, how would you feel if someone had the ability to shoot huge amounts of bullets at you and carry an armor you can't pierce on 70% of the body. Hell I'd run because of the fear factor.

[ChippedHammer]

How high can the British climb their dead?
Whats the price of a mile?

Go for the Generals and Officers IMO

I should write to NBK, I'm sure he will respond with a interesting answer :)

[Jacks Complete]

This is completely unknowable.

What is the point of the battle? That is how we can determine who might win. Let us consider that the marines are defending a warp portal, or something. In which case, they would lose, unless they had time to fortify the place. If they dug in, and were allowed concrete and other modern things such as barbed wire, then they would hold out until starved out.

If they tried to stand and fight, they would be killed, eventually. The British troops, along with all others of that time, were trained to stand and take it. They fired from standing, in massed ranks, so they were used to those around them falling down while they reloaded. Don't forget, in WWI, the British plan was to run into the barbed wire and the machineguns. The battle is best remembered for its first day, 1 July 1916, on which the British suffered 57,470 casualties, including 19,240 dead—the bloodiest day in the history of the British Army.Try and get your head around that! And THEY TRIED AGAIN! Same tactics. And again, and again.

Take a look at Pancho Villa, he was wildly successful, winning every contest, until someone used modern tactics against him, and then:Battle of Celaya
Mexican Revolution

The Battle of Celaya, which occurred near Celaya, Guanajuato, on 13 April 1915, was a battle of the Mexican Revolution.

The Conventionist forces under Pancho Villa were badly defeated by forces under the command of Álvaro Obregón, who supported the presidency of Venustiano Carranza. Villa lost around 4,000 men killed in frontal attacks. He also lost 1,000 horses, 5,000 rifles, and 32 cannons. Approximately 6,000 of his men were taken prisoner. Of those captured, 120 of Villa's officers were executed.

In this battle, Obregón developed a defense "in depth" that proved very effective against the offense-heavy cavalry charges and artillery techniques used at that time, and was based on his study of the trench conflict (World War I) then raging in Europe. Although Obregón's lines weakened at times, he had sufficient reserves to bolster it at any point.

Villa had committed all his men to the attack. He was unable to exploit any area of weakness or to protect his flanks which were enveloped by Obregón's cavalry.

The battle was a turning point in the future of Villa, the Revolution and Mexican history in the 20th century. Villa was never able to recover his losses, and with that lost most of his political and social influence.Pancho's men charged the wire and guns 4 times!

So history already tells us the likely answer. The Marines would be effectively unstoppable if they burst out, but they would be overcome by the lack of ammo and then a man with a rapier would stick him, and it would be over. LINEAR (or whatever) would perhaps shock anyone too slow to get their sword out, but after that it would be a short fight, with surrender the only option. But in defense? Well dug in and fortified against masses attacks, they could hold anywhere forever.

Of course, you could bring a country like the 1800's USA to it's knees with a 4 man SAS team using Shoot & Scoot tactics for terrorism. Fatigue would be the only limiting factor. Well, and perhaps ammo supply if they got caught up in a stand and fight too often.

[Jome skanish]

As the Brittish commander, I'd use the following tactic:

1. Set everything on fire to produce a massive amount of smoke, reduce the Marines sighting distance. As muskets and cannons rely on "area fire", this would make things much more even. And if you have unlimited access to ammunition, this means lots of black powder which as we all know produces lots of smoke...

2. Divide your force into many smaller but fast moving ones to force the Marines to either spread out too thin or dig into a fortified position. If they counterattack, smoke along with "bad areas" with pre-positioned cannons firing from a distance would make a bloody mess.

3. Once the Marines have been "locked" in their positions, use 2/10 of your army every time using up, shoot, hide tactics and KEEP AT THEM 24/7 until they go nuts with sleep deprivation.

And once again the king rules supreme.