27 Aug, 2008, Cratylus wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
Roughly as useless as the melted rat thread, but still
more fun than the iron velvet thread…


Who wins?

-Crat
27 Aug, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
Considering the bullets per minute of modern guns as compared to those from the 18th century, in addition to other infantry weapons like grenades, 100 modern soldiers would be equivalent to an awful lot of colonial soldiers. I guess they'd need to have enough ammo and cover, though. :wink:
27 Aug, 2008, Kayle wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
I'm going to have to place my money on the Marines. Especially if in that contingent of marines are a few Scout-Snipers. ;)
27 Aug, 2008, Guest wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Neither. A paradox in the space time continuum caused both sides to vanish and never be seen again. Or were they…. that melted rat had to come from somewhere….
27 Aug, 2008, Zenn wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Well. You know. Heck, the 100,000 soldiers or whatever could storm the 100 marines and bayonet them. High price, but I think the colonial guys would win.
27 Aug, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Well, I feel kind of silly discussing this wacky topic, but… :biggrin: That's assuming that all 100k were in the same place, and the marines were out in the open, and were all clumped together, and weren't being terribly organized about it all.
27 Aug, 2008, Zenn wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
With 100,000 guys, sheer weight of numbers can outweigh superior technology and training and tactics. Unless the marines had, like, APCs. Then the 100,000 guys might have a tiny problem.
27 Aug, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Well, yes, but wouldn't that apply to the revolutionaries just as well, if the whole armies were brought to bear all at one time? I was trying to say that if the marines behaved like the revolutionaries did, engaging only in small skirmishes, they'd have a very good shot at victory.
27 Aug, 2008, Conner wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Ok, forget the rate of fire, how about the fact that modern weapons have (accurate) ranges far exceeding the best of the ranged weapons for the time so the marines wouldn't ever have to get close enough to the Brits to even be fired upon.. and should they accidentally happen to find themselves close enough for the Brits to bother returning fire, then the mere fact that modern marines wear body armor capable of more than sufficiently stopping anything the Brits had back then (even at point blank range) would eliminate that threat too. I, therefore, fully expect that it really wouldn't be a contest. As for the silliness of the entire British forces being massed against them while they completely disregard their training and thus entirely fail to enact any form of reconnaissance or perimeter watch or tactics in general… you were joking, weren't you?
27 Aug, 2008, Guest wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm sticking to the paradox theory.
27 Aug, 2008, Lobotomy wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Unintentional biological warfare is also a possibility, considering the genetic, exposure, and immunization differences between the Humans of both periods. It's possible that the British might eliminate the Marines via a mere cough, and vice versa.
27 Aug, 2008, Vladaar wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
The marines would win, because they would not stand toe to toe in open country against the brittish, but retrograde into the woods, and then dispatch them in such large numbers, that the brittish would retreat. If the brittish would not come into the woods, the Marines would come out at night and harry them in the cities. Ambush patrols, it would be bad for the brittish. Tactics of the brittish at the time stand no chance whatsoever against modern warefare today. Heh, even our hand to hand combat skills would just make them crap their britches.

Vladaar
27 Aug, 2008, Sandi wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
Lessee… each Marine would have to carry 1,000 bullets, and never miss…

Any of you know what happened in the Korean War?

I think Lobotomy is on track, given enough time it would be War of the Worlds. The Brits would die of the Asian flu.
27 Aug, 2008, Shigs wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
As a ratio of 1:1120 I reckon the brits have it.

I'm not saying a Marine win isn't possible. But as a Gambling man, I'd go with the figures.
27 Aug, 2008, Conner wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Well, the accidental biological implications are certainly considerable as a factor, but even without that one, who ever said that the marines would need a single bullet for each Brit?? Unlike the soldiers of the period, we now have nifty things called grenades, and mortars.. and even in the period in question they had carts and wagons to transport their ammunition and supplies.
27 Aug, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
Sounds like the parameters of the experiment need to be made much clearer before anything "conclusive" can come of this wildly speculative discussion. :wink:
27 Aug, 2008, Mabus wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Vladaar said:
The marines would win, because they would not stand toe to toe in open country against the brittish, but retrograde into the woods, and then dispatch them in such large numbers, that the brittish would retreat. If the brittish would not come into the woods, the Marines would come out at night and harry them in the cities. Ambush patrols, it would be bad for the brittish. Tactics of the brittish at the time stand no chance whatsoever against modern warefare today. Heh, even our hand to hand combat skills would just make them crap their britches.

Tactics and cover would provide an advantage. We would take out command and control (which our revolutionary forces often did) by killing the officers, leaving the foot soldiers in chaos.

An example of a far outnumbered, but technologically superior, force is the Battle of Blood River. Though the difference in numbers is greater in the presented example this battle does show that numbers alone are not the sole determiner in battle outcome.

The "time paradox" is also a fun theory. What if a marine killed his ancestor?
27 Aug, 2008, The_Fury wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
We could also take the Philosophical approach and mention that there are no real winners in war, only losers. That a lot of money will be spent on the exercise that could have been put to better use in schools and hospitals which would benefit the whole population.
27 Aug, 2008, Kayle wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
I'd like to point out, that generally, in a combat situation, an equipped small arms soldier carries ~20 extra clips for their weapon in their ammo belt, plus two to three additional for their side arm. Depending on the model of the weapon, Typically they have M16-A4's nowadays, I believe that's 30 rounds per clip, so 30 rounds in the weapon, 20 x 30 is 600, So each Marine would have 630 rounds, not counting sidearm. Most of them have a Beretta M9 as a side arm, which I believe has 15 round clips, so that's an additional 60 rounds.

This is all assuming that every marine is carrying an M16. There are also typically at least 2 marines per squad that carry the M-249 SAW, which has a very large clip, and even they carry additional clips, two or three if I remember correctly. The SAW typically uses a 200 round side fed clip, with a 750 rounds/min fire rate.

There's also, as Conner mentioned, grenades, both hand, and the barrel mounted M203 40mm grenade launche... for the M16. And there's mortar, but most Marine contingents don't carry around a mortar so this is less likely.

There's also training to consider. The marines would have a field day with British troops from the Revolutionary era. British troops from that era used the firing line, where they all stand together and fire in volleys while one line reloads. Marines would take cover outside the effective range of the old muzzle loader rifles the British would have, and wreak havoc without ever really getting in range. And even if they were to get in range, the body armor we have now would stop the shot unless fire at point blank range, then it might get through. There is also the night vision goggles, which would enable the marines to strike at night with minimal threat of retaliation, because they British wouldn't be able to see.

Another thing I haven't even touched on yet is the possibility of a Marine Corps Scout-Sniper being embedded with the contingent. If there's one of them there, the British really don't stand a chance. the M40A3, or the M82/M107 Barrett .50 Caliber rifles would wreak absolute havok, especially with a well trained Marine Sniper behind it.

The overwhelming advantages given to Marines through their training, equipment, and arsenal is enough to completely crush the Revolutionary British forces.

This poses the question, does said contingent of 100 Marines possess a support column of Hummers or Armor?

[Edit:] My bad, the Marines only carry 6-8 extra clips in the quick retrieve ammo belt with the new armor style, the rest are now stored in their supply packs.
27 Aug, 2008, The_Fury wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
Kayle makes a point that got me thinking, and that we do have some relatively modern wars in which small numbers of modern soldiers of the time fought vastly larger forces, The Zulu wars come to mind, where 40,000+ spear throwing zulu warriors fought 1200 well armed modern British soldiers and gave them a real run for their money. I think the marines would likely win the war, but the British soldiers would give them one hell of a fight and certainly be victors in some of the battles, in the same way that the Zulu's won some battles and lost the war.
0.0/59