30 Aug, 2008, Conner wrote in the 41st comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
Conner said:
Again, the tour I previously mentioned really helps one understand that the standard strategy of the time actually involved quite a bit more than that, they dug their own culverts and trenches and created embankments and full battlements on their field of choice and established cannon ranks, messenger routes, supply trains, and so on far before the actual fight begun (on both sides).

But that's still the thing, right – choose a field, build your stuff there, and then everybody meets up and shoots each other. Obviously it's not as simple as a bunch of dudes in lines and nothing else, but it's pretty good as far as simplifications go…

That's essentially true in the overall decisive battles, but the tact of getting everyone there involved a bunch of smaller much more impromptu skirmishes to lead the enemy to your chosen field. On a related note, you might find that you've conceived of these battles as confined to MUCH smaller areas than they were. The site at Yorktown where the final decisive battle took place was HUGE. For the period, it was a matter of finding a field to wage the battle in that could contain what amounted to three full armies (I believe that I recall there being five Generals involved and all the military units under them..), but as was pointed out at the beginning of this thread the British numbered roughly 112,000 as their entire force - compare that what we consider a modern army.. or even the units within one…
31 Aug, 2008, Zenn wrote in the 42nd comment:
Votes: 0
Well, if you really THINK about it –

Colonial bullets still caused damage. It's not like the brits would be shooting ping pong balls at the Marines. :thinking:

If they lined up by 500 in rows, first row fires, moves off, drops to the back, reloads, followed by the second, third, fourth, etc, there'd be so many bullets flying at the marines that no matter how many Brits they killed, the Marines would be cut down anyway.
31 Aug, 2008, Guest wrote in the 43rd comment:
Votes: 0
And if the Brits lined up in rows of 500 the marines would see that coming and cut them down like weeds from beyond musket range with modern firepower. And if by some chance they were getting their asses beat, I'm sure they've got some nice surprises to even things up in a hurry.
31 Aug, 2008, Lobotomy wrote in the 44th comment:
Votes: 0
I think one point still being overlooked in all of this is the method of time travel used. Personally, I'd find it interesting to see the situation from a Terminator point of view, in that the Marines in question are only able to go back in time as mere flesh and blood - any mechanical stuff wouldn't be able to go back (although I wonder if you could jam a gun inside a corpse of some sort and have that slide by as a loophole; such as how the Terminators are able to go back by becoming a hotpocket).

So it could end up being that the Marines face the Brittish with only as much knowledge and experience as they are able to bring back with them and nothing more. Although, considering the differences, it may end up being more than enough anyways.
31 Aug, 2008, Davion wrote in the 45th comment:
Votes: 0
Lobotomy said:
I think one point still being overlooked in all of this is the method of time travel used.


If you're going to bring that up, it might also be that the british soldiers are ancestors of the marines. The marines could snarf themselves out of existence before they're even born! Beat themselves by beating the enemy :P
31 Aug, 2008, Guest wrote in the 46th comment:
Votes: 0
Assuming time travel once again, post #4. The paradox theory applies.
31 Aug, 2008, Lobotomy wrote in the 47th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
Assuming time travel once again, post #4. The paradox theory applies.

The ability for the paradox to occur depends on what the truth of quantum physics really is. Assuming the Many-Worlds interpretation, a paradox is impossible as the result would simply be a universe where all things that are occuring are already factored into the timeline of that universe. I.e, killing the Brittish soldiers wouldn't actually affect the Marines already there since the Marines came from another universe - rather, only the future inhabitants of that particular branch of realities would be affected by it.
31 Aug, 2008, Conner wrote in the 48th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm not sure that I want to go into all the possible time travel related issues on this one, the original conjecture was more than enough for me, thanks.. :lol:

But, I did want to point out to Zenn that in my very first post to this thread I had mentioned the fact that modern Marines wear (or at least, are issued) body armor which would basically make them all but impervious to the bullets that the British were using at the time so even should the British troopers manage to get close enough to waste their bullets (how they'd survive all the automatic fire and explosions being hurled at them by the Marines is beyond me, but maybe luck plays a factor) they'd get laughed off anyway, though it is possible that a shot might take out a Marine's foot or hand/arm since I believe that even the body armor they're issued doesn't cover those parts of them, but I'm not certain of that because I do know that police sometimes make use of kevlar gloves and boots too… I suppose an extremely lucky shot (let's not forget that the rifles used at that time were ridiculously inaccurate and the British soldiers were not exactly well trained to begin with either) might catch a throat…
31 Aug, 2008, Kayle wrote in the 49th comment:
Votes: 0
Conner said:
[…]since I believe that even the body armor they're issued doesn't cover those parts of them, but I'm not certain of that because I do know that police sometimes make use of kevlar gloves and boots too… […]


The body armor the standard Marine battalion is issued is typically just a Kevlar vest, although there is a set of full body lightweight kevlar armor under development I believe.
31 Aug, 2008, Conner wrote in the 50th comment:
Votes: 0
The Marines these days aren't getting the leggings and helmets (with the clear visors) or the boots and gloves? What sort of silliness is that? It's what we (as taxpayers) paid for the military to develop that degree of body armor for in the first place. :sad: Maybe it's time to write a congressman (congressperson?) and complain….
31 Aug, 2008, Kayle wrote in the 51st comment:
Votes: 0
Conner said:
The Marines these days aren't getting the leggings and helmets (with the clear visors) or the boots and gloves? What sort of silliness is that? It's what we (as taxpayers) paid for the military to develop that degree of body armor for in the first place. :sad: Maybe it's time to write a congressman (congressperson?) and complain….


They might be issued them, but no one ever wears them. They're more of a hindrance then anything. The leggings reduce your mobility, and the helmet is just awkward. I do remember having to carry kevlar leggings over there though, never wore them, but I do recall taking them now.
31 Aug, 2008, Conner wrote in the 52nd comment:
Votes: 0
Ah, so at least they're issued and available then, never mind about that letter in that case. :wink:
On the other hand, is that sentiment at least in part because the current action is taking place in the desert? Would the likelihood of everyone of those 100 marines to decide to wear their full body armor be significantly higher if they were fighting in the colonial portions of forested pre-America against a foe they knew the body armor would be 100% effective against? (Obviously, I'm guessing that it would be, especially if it were during one of those winter battles they always talk about in… *pictures the famous scene of Washington's crossing the Potomac in the snow* where the body armor wouldn't even feel excessively hot.)
31 Aug, 2008, Kayle wrote in the 53rd comment:
Votes: 0
I doubt it. The leggings are just not flexible enough for most things, you can walk around in it, but in a combat situation, they just slow you down too much. Running in them is a pain, and while heat might not be a factor in Colonial America, it certainly is in the desert. :P But that doesn't change the fact that it's all rather bulky and ungiving in a flexibility view.

For instance, Marine A is outside Bunker A where Marine B is. We'll say they're wearing the full armor, and the Brits open fire, Marine A's training is going to dictate his actions of yelling for cover fire from Marine B and sprinting for the Bunker. Well, Marine B gives cover fire, but Marine A can't really sprint to anything because the Kevlar pants are not that "bendy" and really prevent much of anything past a slow jog.
31 Aug, 2008, lspiderl wrote in the 54th comment:
Votes: 0
as someone who has fired and had experince with MANY types of weapons INCLUDING black powder rifles

let me clarify
A musket could NOT penetrate modern body armor or kevlar helmets

a musket has a lethal range thats about 1/th that of a standard m16

a simple 9 mil pistol is better penitrating and has a longer lethal fire range than a musket



they would literaly be able to line up int he same fashion as the brittish and mow them down b4 the brittish could even get into lethal range and then once any sruvivers of the brittish got into range it still would be deflected by the armor and done so even more easly than deflecting modern amor as moskets fired round balls that wernt designed for penetration
31 Aug, 2008, Kayle wrote in the 55th comment:
Votes: 0
Assuming they could get close enough, the only way an colonial period musket could maybe penetrate military grade kevlar is a contact shot. And that's a really big maybe.

Although the distinction between civilian and military grade kevlar vests is quickly becoming blurred. I think the difference now is maybe 2 extra layers of the kevlar weave on the military grade?
31 Aug, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 56th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
a musket has a lethal range thats about 1/th that of a standard m16

Wow, those muskets must have been pretty spiffy, then. :wink:
01 Sep, 2008, Cratylus wrote in the 57th comment:
Votes: 0
Heh wow, I didn't realize the sheer power
of this thought exercise.

Kayle wrote:
Quote
body armor which would basically make them all but impervious to the bullets that the British were using at the time


Yeah, in a stand-up fight, a black powder ball would
likely not penetrate the jacket. I don't, however,
recall receiving much training that emphasized
standing up and firing from an unprotected position.
My training involved presenting as small a target
profile as possible, and unfortunately, my unarmored
face was always a fair percentage of that profile.

A .68 cal ball hit in the face *might* not be fatal
(it's a pretty bony structure), but I'd be pretty
much "out" at that point.

I don't think the marines would allow themselves to
get in range though. It's just dumb, considering it's
not necessary, with the possible exception of special
operations, which is something not yet discussed:

While at the time, night operations and nerve-center
strikes were so impractical as to be extremely
rare, modern warfare has as an important facet
showing up where the enemy expects it least and at
the least convenient time for them, rain or shine,
day or night. Consider the havoc and ruin of
a night raid on a British garrison…even *without*
NV equipment, Americans are trained to do this
sort of thing. *With* NV equipment it would be like
shooting fish in a barrel, almost literally.

Then follow that up with the standard practice of
finding and eliminating the command-and-control
facilities and personnel…wherever they operate
and wherever they *sleep*.

Add to these godly smitings the constant, lethally
accurate fire from ranges the British cannot match,
and I think that the Demon Soldiers would very swiftly
force military collapse and withdrawal without
having to actually kill the entire British host. The
demoralization alone would be totally devastating.

Re time travel, this is one of my favorite rantings
on the subject:

http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/chron...

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

PS But yeah, imagine the terror of it…

"Sir! I saw him stagger when hit by my musket ball…and he just straightened up and kept firing!"
01 Sep, 2008, Kayle wrote in the 58th comment:
Votes: 0
I didn't say that, But yeah, it'd be sheer havoc.
01 Sep, 2008, Conner wrote in the 59th comment:
Votes: 0
Nope, that quote was mine, but it's not that big a deal. Either way, all very valid points. Despite lspiderl's ommission of part of his fraction, I think the point has been repeatedly, and rather graphically, made now. It'd be so far beyond a rout that the marines would probably end up having to make an effort to ensure a few survivors on the British side to allow the spread of rumors among the potential reinforcements. :wink:
40.0/59