Тёмный

What Could 50 WW1 Soldiers Accomplish at Bunker Hill? 

Parry This
Подписаться 22 тыс.
Просмотров 134 тыс.
50% 1

If you sent a 50 man platoon of US Army Soldiers from World War 1 back in time to the Battle of Bunker Hill, with the intention of defending it, or defeating the British army, what would they be able to accomplish? In this video, i tackle that exact hypothetical question as best as i possibly can with an analysis of the arms and tactics of the time compared to the same from today. Needless to say, it's not much of a competition, but watch the video so i can explain why.
Other Alternate History Battles: • Alternate History Battles
The Battle of Bunker Hill was fought on June 17, 1775 during the Siege of Boston in the first stage of the American Revolutionary War.[5] The battle is named after Bunker Hill in Charlestown, Massachusetts, which was peripherally involved. It was the original objective of both the colonial and British troops, though the majority of combat took place on the adjacent hill which became known as Breed's Hill.
The British had taken the ground but at a great loss; they had suffered 1,054 casualties (226 dead and 828 wounded), and a disproportionate number of these were officers. The casualty count was the highest suffered by the British in any single encounter during the entire war. General Clinton echoed Pyrrhus of Epirus, remarking in his diary that "A few more such victories would have shortly put an end to British dominion in America." British dead and wounded included 100 commissioned officers, a significant portion of the British officer corps in America. Much of General Howe's field staff was among the casualties. General Gage reported the following officer casualties in his report after the battle (listing lieutenants and above by name):
1 lieutenant colonel killed
2 majors killed, 3 wounded
7 captains killed, 27 wounded
9 lieutenants killed, 32 wounded
15 sergeants killed, 42 wounded
1 drummer killed, 12 wounded
Colonial losses were about 450 in total, of whom 140 were killed. Most of the colonial losses came during the withdrawal. Major Andrew McClary was technically the highest ranking colonial officer to die in the battle; he was hit by cannon fire on Charlestown Neck, the last person to be killed in the battle. He was later commemorated by the dedication of Fort McClary in Kittery, Maine. A serious loss to the Patriot cause, however, was the death of Dr. Joseph Warren. He was the President of Massachusetts' Provincial Congress, and he had been appointed a Major General on June 14. His commission had not yet taken effect when he served as a volunteer private three days later at Bunker Hill. Only 30 men were captured by the British, most of them with grievous wounds; 20 died while held prisoner. The colonials also lost numerous shovels and other entrenching tools, as well as five out of the six cannons that they had brought to the peninsula.

Опубликовано:

 

27 сен 2024

Поделиться:

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист
Посмотреть позже
Комментарии : 683   
@agentallstar7
@agentallstar7 Год назад
The Brits would quickly recognize that rate of fire was insane and they would not try to push after the first wave. The manner in which they would be wiped out would be never before seen.
@dj1NM3
@dj1NM3 Год назад
...also, the guys in the fancy hats and gold-braided coats would have been killed in the first wave, because they wouldn't really haven't expected to be endangered by enemy fire over a hundred yards from the fortification, essentially leaving them leaderless within minutes. Presuming that there was anyone left alive to give the order, the Redcoats would most likely have given up and retreated from the hill.
@sqike001ton
@sqike001ton 11 месяцев назад
So the fact that 30/06 rifles could accurately take out man targets at 5x the distance(for an average soldier) of the Brits and WW1 troops have no qualms targeting officers I could see the idea being to target the officers the issue is I ultimately see the rank and file routing as soon as a large number of the officers are gone and the fact that they went down at rangers where they normally only received artillery hits
@commode7x
@commode7x 11 месяцев назад
The Brits recognized that the rate of fire of the colonial soldiers was already too much for them to handle after the first wave without needing any supernatural help. All the time travelers had to do was supply the colonials with more ammo, then have a picnic with the rest of Charleston as they watched the massacre.
@Clem68W
@Clem68W 11 месяцев назад
@@sqike001ton I think you've hit upon something. "Normally only received artillery hits". Lot of variables, but they would probably treat it as a seige and use their big guns to attack them rather than frontal assaults.
@dj1NM3
@dj1NM3 11 месяцев назад
@@Clem68W While making the rash presumption that *any* Redcoat officers survived first few minutes of their attempted assault, to actually give the orders required to make all that happen. I also suspect that M1917 Springfield rifles might have outranged the portable artillery pieces that the Redcoats would have been able to bring with them, so their artillery crews would most likely have been shot to pieces, just trying to bring and position their guns to bear on the fortification.
@danagray9709
@danagray9709 Год назад
We technically lost bunker hill, but not because of a lack of numbers. We literally ran out of ammo. Just give the soldiers on Bunker hill more ammunition and it would result in an American victory.
@vonbennett8670
@vonbennett8670 11 месяцев назад
Imaging if a wagon or two showed up on the American side with more power and musket balls, hallway through the battle?
@commando4481
@commando4481 11 месяцев назад
Is it really that impressive? it was 2400 against 3000 and the British had to go uphill against fortifications.
@nunyabidness674
@nunyabidness674 11 месяцев назад
A logistics win is still a win, so yeah, I can follow the logic. It's a bit more than just hand out more ball and powder though, at least in my opinion. Fresh rifles / muskets would also be a requirement.
@commode7x
@commode7x 11 месяцев назад
@@nunyabidness674 They didn't have issues with excessive weapon failures during the battle. The primary issue was that they ran out of ammunition.
@nunyabidness674
@nunyabidness674 11 месяцев назад
@@commode7x Flintlocks can only fire so many times before fresh flints at a minimum are needed. That and barrel heating leading to letting it go or getting blistered. Again, in my opinion, fresh set of boomsticks would be needed before the extra ball and powder could be used. Edit: Realize that with a flintlock, the flint hitting the strike plate chips off bits of the strike plate, creating the sparks that hit the powder in the pan to get the thing to go bang in the first place. While a modern battle might involve all of 20-30 troops between both sides, in that modern battle more ammo can be consumed than in an entire battle between a thousand combined troops with flintlocks. Volley fire might indeed burn a couple hundred rounds per salvo, but every salvo the number of rounds fired is reduced by casualties. You might see a 3 day battle consume all of 3000 rounds total. What is more, after a couple hundred rounds (assuming flints get replaced regularly) the strike plate on a flintlock starts getting worn thin. You'd be looking for a blacksmith before you could get through the same amount of ammo as what one modern soldier carries on a patrol.
@mpetersen6
@mpetersen6 Год назад
Marksmen begin engaging the Brits before they even start up Breed's Hill. Targeting noncoms and officers.
@iansneddon2956
@iansneddon2956 Год назад
Yes, the British experience during the Boer War provides some good examples of this and the effect on troops who have been drilled to stay in formation and wait for instructions. Letting them approach to around 150-200 yards before taking out their leadership and then hitting them with bursts of machinegun fire would be a slaughter followed by a complete rout.
@timothyterrell1658
@timothyterrell1658 11 месяцев назад
The American enfeald rifle was amazingly accurate and effective in the defensive role , though being a bit heavy. Laughably comparable to a brown bess musket,in weaght. 30 of those rifleman would have a devastating effect on massed troops in the open ,then the mgs would fire and it would be over. And yes 200 would be about right.
@jameslawson3876
@jameslawson3876 11 месяцев назад
I would imagine that all that would be needed would be the two machine-guns, supplied with more ammo. The other 40-odd soldiers with rifles would not be needed.
@djrmarketing598
@djrmarketing598 11 месяцев назад
​@@jameslawson3876 You would think so, but in terms of the forces realizing they were up against a massive threat from 2 positions, they could have attacked them from a different side or all sides at once. I don't want to make this political, but look at Israel and Ukraine. Despite massive air defense systems, getting overwhelmed is still a major threat.
@DemitriVladMaximov
@DemitriVladMaximov 11 месяцев назад
Imagine being the WW1 America Soldier who presents George Washington with his weapons? How would General Washington react to shooting a .45 1911?
@AAFBNC
@AAFBNC 11 месяцев назад
“WHERE IS THE KICK?!” (I know a 1911 has kick, but compared to a musket pistol…)
@ACE_1923
@ACE_1923 10 месяцев назад
“What the devil?! this pistol has almost no kick and actually hits it target! I hereby order these pistols of the future to be commissioned to every soldier at once!”
@sundai4486
@sundai4486 8 месяцев назад
That would be a great T-shirt! Washington wielding God’s pistol! M-1911 .45 acp!!!!
@Railhog2102
@Railhog2102 8 месяцев назад
​@sundai4486 Same, Never fired a 1911 but I heard it kicks back because .45 ACP is a man stopper
@scottanno8861
@scottanno8861 11 месяцев назад
Not to mention the arms race that would begin to understand repeating rifles, cartridges, etc. The butterfly effect here would be insane.
@commode7x
@commode7x 11 месяцев назад
Repeating rifles and revolvers were developed more than a century before this battle. The arms race would only exist if the French or another colonial power beat back the British. The American colonies beating back the British with futuristic weapons would be a slap in the face, but unless the nascent United States decided to invade other British possessions, Britain would still just pack up and leave.
@smuganimeface6247
@smuganimeface6247 11 месяцев назад
The smokeless powder alone would be a massive boon.
@MagicMan508
@MagicMan508 11 месяцев назад
The only way Britain could start an arms race is if the reversed engineered our weapons. Which they would never have because we would never lose.
@commode7x
@commode7x 11 месяцев назад
@@smuganimeface6247 Smokeless powder would've been expensive to make. America's major enemies were the British, a series of stone-age tribes, and highly exploited Spanish colonies that oftentimes barely had enough food due to Spain constantly draining them for all they were worth. Obsolete flintlocks were used all the way up until the American Civil War despite repeater rifles having been developed two centuries previous because of cost. When your second biggest threat is literally a large number of tribal warriors, there's no reason to develop and field advanced and expensive technology like repeater rifles or bullet cartridges.
@Sporkmaker5150
@Sporkmaker5150 11 месяцев назад
@@smuganimeface6247 American gunsmiths would have likely reverse engineered the Enfield rifles using blackpowder cartridges. Developing smokeless powder wouldn't be necessary, just the initial hurdle of creating primers.
@HenryKobyla1407
@HenryKobyla1407 Год назад
I think a devastating victory for the Americans here would have either made the Brits consider suing for peace, or would at least convince France earlier to ally with America.
@ParryThis
@ParryThis Год назад
I think it would have huge historical consequences.
@tomjackson4374
@tomjackson4374 11 месяцев назад
@@ParryThis After the Battle of Bunker Hill the Brits just stayed in New York, so a defeat there might have meant they took the war a lot more seriously.
@firestrikerii810
@firestrikerii810 11 месяцев назад
@@tomjackson4374 No it wouldn’t. They would’ve lost and sued for peace
@benthecartoonist3518
@benthecartoonist3518 11 месяцев назад
​@@ParryThiswhen word gets back to the founding fathers of the use of bolt actions and machine guns we very well could have plasma rifles present day as they rapidly would try to advance and make bolt actions and machine guns back then after seeing the effectiveness
@scottmad8563
@scottmad8563 11 месяцев назад
​@@benthecartoonist3518no... reverse engineering those guns wouldn't lead to massive advances in physics and other sciences to make that even remotely possible. Plasma guns are even remotely considered possible currently
@Tracer_Krieg
@Tracer_Krieg Год назад
I've actually got an interesting one for you: the Potomac Army under Grant versus the Grand Armee under Napoleon, perhaps at Austerlitz. While Napoleon is the better tactician, Grant is easily close enough in terms of strategic and logistics planning and it would be interesting to see how much of a difference 50+ years of weapons development has on this engagement.
@ParryThis
@ParryThis Год назад
Not bad. Grant is actually an exceptional tactician. It's important to remember that by the time of the American Civil War, all of Napolean's tactics were being taught at West Point. I might do a video like this, but it would almost certainly be extremely one sided.
@bthorn5035
@bthorn5035 Год назад
I'd watch that video. I'm always hungry for napoleon content.
@poil8351
@poil8351 Год назад
depends on which napoelon your talking about the tired old man(yes i know he was not that old, but for a general he was past his peak) at waterloo who was seriously ill or the young upstart general in italy who was running circles around the austrians or the more more experienced emperor at austerlitz. i would argue grant would win if it was against 1815 napoelon napeolon would win if it was 1805 austerlitz napoelon in my view because he has the well developed tactics and a very large well disciplined army. but not sure if it was 1790s army of italy napleon where he was able to beat bigger more opponents one after another, but he had less resources and a far smaller force than grant would have.
@LauchlanMcdonald
@LauchlanMcdonald Год назад
​@ParryThis I don't think it would be that one side the grande armee out numbered the army of the potomac 4 to 1 but the union has a technological edge.
@LostDisciple24
@LostDisciple24 Год назад
@@LauchlanMcdonald uh, what are you talking about? Grant's army was 125,000 or more. Napoleon had 75,000 (at Waterloo and Austerlitz). So Grant had the bigger army AND with a technological edge.
@MrRdvs87
@MrRdvs87 Год назад
I’m glad you said it: officers are getting taken out first. The threat bubbles of the standard arms compared against each other would make it too easy to reach out and takedown anyone without a brown Bess.
@Swindle1984
@Swindle1984 11 месяцев назад
Standard loads for the M1911 were three magazines, including one in the pistol, and one extra round in the chamber, for a total of 22 rounds. Some holsters had an additional pouch for a fourth magazine, so 29 rounds. Carrying pistols with a full magazine and a round in the chamber wasn't common practice at the time, but a lot of soldiers did it just to have that one extra round and we can assume people sent back in time would be the sort to do that kind of thing. Pistols also weren't issued to most soldiers, instead prioritized on officers, NCO's, and the Allied equivalent of stormtroopers, but we can expect that a force specifically sent back in time to alter history would be equipped as well as possible. The Mk 2 hand grenade wasn't widely available until after WW1, in 1920; although officially adopted in 1918 as a replacement for the Mk 1 hand grenade, very few actually reached the troops before the war ended. So Mk 1 grenades or British Mills bombs would be more likely, but if this group is specifically being sent back in time with the best weapons available in 1918, I'll give this a pass. In this instance though, it would be strange that none of them had M1918 BAR's, considering the portability and effectiveness of automatic rifles/light machine guns at the time and the BAR being cutting edge technology that they would certainly equip troops with if they wanted to give them the best chance of success. Also, some of those Maxim gunners would still have rifles, even if acting as riflemen wasn't their primary role. We would also expect to see one or two soldiers in this 50 man squad equipped with VB rifle grenade dischargers.
@MikeB128
@MikeB128 11 месяцев назад
The guy who made this video literally knows jack-shit about WW1 AEF equipment.
@Richie_the_Fixer
@Richie_the_Fixer 11 месяцев назад
Ignore the M1911 , the S&W side-ejector (later known as the M&P , the Victory Model , and the Combat Masterpiece) , adopted by the military in 1899 , in the hands of 50 men would be devastating .
@rmdlgarcia
@rmdlgarcia 11 месяцев назад
@@Richie_the_Fixer Try reloading that during hand to hand combat. I'll take the 45 semiauto over a little .38 special revolver.
@SantaClaus-kk8zr
@SantaClaus-kk8zr 11 месяцев назад
@@rmdlgarciaNice so long as you have magazines, revolver is more consistent with less downtime given you have the rounds handy or even better in speedloaders
@rmdlgarcia
@rmdlgarcia 11 месяцев назад
@@SantaClaus-kk8zr Glock 21 - 3X 13 round mag plus on in the chamber for 40 rounds and 28,000 joules of energy. Great for hand to hand if hearing loss is not you biggest concern.
@carinasmirnoff1780
@carinasmirnoff1780 Год назад
You could do American Horse Soldiers, from the American-Indian Wars, going up against Brits in the War of 1812. Would be pretty dang close, but i still think would be a huge tactical advantage.
@ParryThis
@ParryThis Год назад
That's true. The firearm difference would be huge, but we're talking less than 100 years difference. Revolvers, Repeaters, and Probably a Gattling Gun or two.
@rons4297
@rons4297 Год назад
Do one with a battalion of Marines in the final battle in the Lord of the Rings.
@romanfields7900
@romanfields7900 11 месяцев назад
🤯
@martinwalker9386
@martinwalker9386 Год назад
I see one possible negative effect from an American victory, at that point the Americans had NOT declared independence. Would they have done so after such a victory? Or would they have demanded representation in parliament.
@wulfthofengaming457
@wulfthofengaming457 11 месяцев назад
the opening shot of the battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, which sparked the American Revolutionary War and led to the creation of the United States. Battle of bunker hill was June 17, 1775 so bunker hill was almost 2 months after the start of the war.
@curlyfries2956
@curlyfries2956 11 месяцев назад
@@wulfthofengaming457at that point in the war, the aims of the revolutionaries were unclear. There was still some debate about what they wanted from this, being representation in parliament, autonomy, etc. Independence was on the table, but was still considered a last resort. Once the war spiraled out of control however, causing the Declaration of Independence in 1776, all other options were officially out of the question
@jonnyd9351
@jonnyd9351 11 месяцев назад
Exactly. A majority of people at the second continental congress wanted to reconcile with the British and drafted the olive branch petition a month after bunker hill. Even George Washington didn’t think the colonies could win a war against the British until after bunker hill which made him realise it was possible.
@danielsaenz23
@danielsaenz23 11 месяцев назад
The difference between musket balls and bullets going through rifled barrels is insane
@Richie_the_Fixer
@Richie_the_Fixer 11 месяцев назад
Which is why , one of the real great American advantages in the Revolutionary War was the Pennsylvania Rifle's range advantage over the British Brown Bess Musket .
@bastianrattler1392
@bastianrattler1392 11 месяцев назад
My great great (several greats) grandfather fought at Bunker Hill under the Patriot flag. Although records say he perished in the battle, our family records show him buying land in Ohio in 1812. Despite research and proof given, the federal government won't remove him as a casualty of the battle, which is honestly really funny
@bastianrattler1392
@bastianrattler1392 11 месяцев назад
Private Willaim Miller Served in Abbot's company and Stark's regiment
@gennymikel4296
@gennymikel4296 11 месяцев назад
As a casualty of war he probably got a great deal on real estate.
@bostonrailfan2427
@bostonrailfan2427 11 месяцев назад
was wounded in battle but survived? he would be listed as a casualty as wounded-in-action vs. killed-in-action thus has to be on the list
@sparta2705
@sparta2705 10 месяцев назад
​@@bastianrattler1392stark? Was he at Bennington or saratoga?
@jeffreytinacanine5026
@jeffreytinacanine5026 11 месяцев назад
Thank you for using the Enfield, most folks assume the M1903 was the most used American rifle.
@Monkeywrench542
@Monkeywrench542 11 месяцев назад
My grandfather was in WWI on the American side. He had told me that it was was common for each soldier in the company to be carrying extra cartridges for the machine gunner in order to have more firepower for the company.
@danielbeck9191
@danielbeck9191 11 месяцев назад
In WW I the machine gun ruled the battlefield from the early days of the war. This lead to the extensive use of trenches on both sides, with a resultant change in strategy and tactics. In this time-travel battle, the Redcoats advancing up the hill in the open would have been annihilated.
@mackenziemcinnis1879
@mackenziemcinnis1879 11 месяцев назад
Put one Marine Scout Sniper team in to cover the French Knights charge at Agincourt.
@alessiodecarolis
@alessiodecarolis Год назад
As for Alamo 's video, this would be an one -sided massacre, probabilly no British soldiers would've reached less than 500 m. from the patriots' lines. Without either officers and NCOs alive, the few survivors would've routed away from such a terrible ordeal, imagine seeing your comrades killed by a literal avalanche of bullets, without ANY possibility to defend themselves.
@sham_shielded
@sham_shielded 11 месяцев назад
When I was young and The Patriot came out I had the thought of what would it be like if one modern day US Army infantry squad was sent back in time and fought a battle against the British.
@nickmiller5685
@nickmiller5685 11 месяцев назад
I need a million more videos like this. I’ve always thought up scenarios like this in my head and it’s really cool to see someone put it together in a quality video. There are endless fascinating matchups that you could do and I’m very excited for more of this kind of content
@tomjackson4374
@tomjackson4374 Год назад
1453, the siege of Constantinople by Mehmet II. This was the first time gunpowder was used to breach the, until them, impenetrable walls of what was left of the Byzantine Empire. Constantine XI hired mercenaries as well as any men capable of fighting along the walls to put up a desperate, last ditch defense. So time travel all the French forces at Dien Bien Phu, who faced a similar siege by the Viet Minh, and place them behind those great walls. This is possibly one of the most important battles in world history whose effects are still felt today. That would be my suggestion.
@mstevens94
@mstevens94 11 месяцев назад
Even then, the French would win because they had automatic, if not bolt-action weapons, while the Ottomans probably had single-fire gunpowder weapons. It would be lopsided. A better example would be the Union Army under Grant from Shiloh from the American Civil War at Austerlitz against Napoleon's Grand Armee. Both had single-fire weapons, and although the Union had rifled muskets as well as artillery and single-action revolvers (the revolvers were largely ineffective), the forces were relatively equal, with about 65,000 on both sides and about 30-50 years of technological progress. The edge would be to the Union Army. Still, Napoleon used the weather to his advantage, seeing Grant was a capable commander, probably staying on the high ground like the Russians did, possibly fortifying the position. It would be interesting how two commanders with two wholly different beliefs in warfare would cope and strategize in such a fight.
@tomjackson4374
@tomjackson4374 11 месяцев назад
@@mstevens94 What do you think 50 WW I soldiers with WW I weapons would do to advancing troops marching inline? The entire premise is lopsided. Mehmed II had as many as 200,000 troops, an artillery train of over seventy large field pieces, some firing stones weighing hundreds of pounds and a navy of 320 vessels. The French had 11,000 troops at Dien Bien Phu. But what you are talking about, a battle between Grant and Napoleon, wouldn't have been that different from the battle that was fought. West Point before the Civil War taught Napoleonic tactics.
@Domjot5569
@Domjot5569 11 месяцев назад
​@tomjackson4374 yeah it would have been just a battle between two napoleonic commanders with one just having better technology Also I'd be down for that Constantinople battle
@mstevens94
@mstevens94 11 месяцев назад
@@tomjackson4374 Not really, though. Grant went to West Point and learned how to fight like Napoleon, but the common adage was to take the battle and take a few months to recover and have another set-piece decisive battle. Grant would have kept hammering that weakened enemy force until they surrendered...unconditionally. He was a different kind of general. Grant fought a different style of warfare that Napoleon would have never seen. Grant was the first modern American general who utilized proto-WWI trench warfare, using the North's advantages to win the Civil War. Compared to Robert E. Lee, Grant actually had fewer casualties than Lee, who was basically the old-style Napoleonic general who put the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia into engagements like Antietam and Gettysburg, where they lost manpower they could not get back, UNLESS they started employing enslaved people as combat soldiers, which the government of the Confederacy was not going to do. The technological gap between 1805 and 1862 is less compared to 1775 to 1917, nearly 60 years to just over 140, 82-year difference. As you said, the generals went to West Point to learn Napoleonic warfare. I chose 1862 because the idea of Union cavalry and other elements having repeatable arms, like the Spencer rifle,e did not make its way into their hands until 1863 and 1864. Rifled muskets and artillery would be one of the Grant Army's only advantages. Napoleon attacked Austerlitz more as a surprise from a fog attack because the Russians GAVE UP the high ground. Grant probably fortified the high ground instead. Grant from Shiloh made a gallant yet bloody defense amidst such a similar surprise Confederate attack from PGT Beaureguard, only to be reinforced by other Union corps that evening so Grant could defeat the Confederate force the next day. I did not try to make it lopsided. In the 142 years between 1775 and 1917, any force engaging would be entirely lopsided and ridiculous to make a video on because the gap technologically is too far. This battle is like having a party armed with a bow and arrow, and the other party has a crossbow.
@tomjackson4374
@tomjackson4374 11 месяцев назад
@@mstevens94 The first trench style warfare was Crimea not the Civil War and Grant was on the verge of defeat if he had not been reinforced at the last minute. Even Beaureguard was commander because A. S. Johnston had been killed. In fact Napoleon hadn't lost a battle until Waterloo. The Russian loss was during the retreat after the Russians refused to destroy their army fighting him as he wanted. So Napoleon was just as flexible as Grant and like you said, the technology wasn't that different. You keep saying Grant fought differently than the Russians but Boney could have just as easily adapted his strategy because his talent was his ability to adapt to conditions. Wasn't it Napoleon who said plans go out the window after the first shot?
@hardcharging
@hardcharging 11 месяцев назад
Another consideration: even if the British Naval fleet retaliated by attempting to bombard the American position the American WWI soldiers who are used to engaging targets farther than 600 yards would probably attempt to fire back and actually hit some of the ships and crew.
@sharkybate7115
@sharkybate7115 11 месяцев назад
Especially considering that the ships were wooden, and if the Americans had enough ammo (and maybe mortars), I wonder if some powder stores wouldn't catch a round or two
@Horologist-zu5vq
@Horologist-zu5vq 11 месяцев назад
​@sharkybate7115 Ships Hull would be too thick. Plus they kept the powder storage below the water line. It definitely keep the people on deck pinned down.
@sharkybate7115
@sharkybate7115 11 месяцев назад
@@Horologist-zu5vq that and they could probably waste enough of the crew that the ship became combat ineffective/force them to get more people to operate the ship Edit: To add to what I just posted: They could also try and shred the sails with some incendiary munitions (if they had enough after the British assault got beat back), and then board and capture/sink the ship. They might not have enough ammo at that point, but they can cost the Brits a few ships in addition to killing their landing forces (or at least enough of them that the British are repelled)
@hardcharging
@hardcharging 11 месяцев назад
There's also the psychological factor of the British realizing that they can be reached despite being on ships through the overall range and rate of fire of small arms they've never encountered before.
@firestrikerii810
@firestrikerii810 11 месяцев назад
@@Horologist-zu5vqit wouldn’t be too thick
@Friel23
@Friel23 11 месяцев назад
Cliff notes: It'd be a GD turkey shoot
@SpookyBC09
@SpookyBC09 11 месяцев назад
You know whats actually crazy is that none of our boys had a single trench clearing kit with a pump action 1897 shotgun though i do like you adding two 30-06 machine gunner squads
@pogonator1
@pogonator1 11 месяцев назад
Have ever considered how a simple set of radios could change every major battle of the American Revolution or the Civil War?
@dongilleo9743
@dongilleo9743 11 месяцев назад
Or accurate maps. As a history/military geek, I don't think maps get enough(if any) credit as a major evolution of military "technology". Before maps, a Commander had to rely on only what he could see of the terrain, or reports by scouts, and trying to coordinate with sub commanders on where to go, what to do, was a guessing game.
@Lexi-vl5eh
@Lexi-vl5eh Год назад
This was a very entertaining video. This series is quickly becoming my favorite one that you do.
@ParryThis
@ParryThis Год назад
Glad you enjoy it!
@chaoticwj1772
@chaoticwj1772 11 месяцев назад
Agreed
@blackhorse-wm6oc
@blackhorse-wm6oc 11 месяцев назад
I think this would be more interesting if you sent the 50 man WW1 platoon back to a battle that was significantly larger than Bunker Hill. Something more in the scale of say the Battle of Waterloo where the terrain of the battle itself covered much more area and involved significantly more troops than the platoon feasibly has the ammo to wipe out. Likewise perhaps sending them to Gettysburg or another major Civil War battlefield would also be a good one. Alternatively sending a Union Army brigade equipped with Model 1861 and miniball ammunition somewhere would also be interesting as such a unit going to something like the Alamo or the Battle of Brandywine would provide needed extra troops while not skewing things with ridiculous rate of fire advantages but could still have a huge impact providing a full line formation of men to a key area with a greater reach and accuracy.
@decimated550
@decimated550 11 месяцев назад
There is a book series called The Lost regiment about this fanciful idea, a union regiment and a artillery battery go back in time through an electrical storm to a alien planet. Don't even read the Wikipedia because it'll give the plot away like it. Just unfortunately happened to me while researching this. Very comment. Maybe just get the first book. Don't read ahead for spoilers and enjoy it. What you are imagining has already been done so it's there just for you to find
@jollyroger822
@jollyroger822 11 месяцев назад
Would absolutely love to see a video done on "the Battle of Long Island", also known as the Battle of Brooklyn and the Battle of Brooklyn Heights 1776 with a modern light INF BN lets say from the 10th MTN DIV of similar. Love the video's and hope to see more soon. Or how about some modern troops at The Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC.
@bensonfang1868
@bensonfang1868 11 месяцев назад
The 50 ww1 troops can also use the sights on their rifles to help the 1700s Americans aim their cannons
@EngineeringWizard11
@EngineeringWizard11 Год назад
The machine guns could probably start peppering the ships in the harbor below after the assault with whatever ammo they have leftover. A WWI Maxim gun would probably have a similar range to a late 18th-century cannon.
@jonathanbair523
@jonathanbair523 11 месяцев назад
Aww man they would chew the ships up... Well maybe not ships of the line, but the frigates for sure.
@michaelayers3998
@michaelayers3998 11 месяцев назад
Yeah, the Brits wouldn’t reach the base of the slope. It’s possible the Doughboys would be able to pick them off either still in the ships or in the boats coming from the ships. Certainly the Maxim guns could do that. (In fact, the Maxim guns could probably win the battle by themselves.) I agree that they’d never get close enough for the Minutemen to fire.
@supergoodadvice853
@supergoodadvice853 11 месяцев назад
@@michaelayers3998 Yeah, the Maxim guns, with enough ammo, can fire for such an absurdly long time, the record has yet to be beaten by even modern machine guns. Just a constant stream of .303, with little to no end if needed.
@robertl8270
@robertl8270 11 месяцев назад
I think the soldiers from 1918 would likely recognize their fire superiority & try to use the element of surprise to their advantage. In true WW1 fashion, they would probably entrench themselves and wait for the British to get well within range of their guns before firing. The British have no idea what's awaiting them, because why would they, and they lose nearly all but those who retreat in the initial wave. There would be no second wave.
@jamalwilburn228
@jamalwilburn228 11 месяцев назад
The AEF woukd target their officers cause they know the British rely heavily on direct command and supervision
@ssocar96
@ssocar96 Год назад
Sidearms are not issued to riflemen
@gew1898
@gew1898 11 месяцев назад
A surprising number of WW1 doughboys were issued pistols, both 1911s and Model 1917 revolvers. This was due to their effectiveness in Trench warfare. This is how a rifleman named Alvin York found himself with a 1911 that was instrumental in the action for which he won a Congressional Medal of Honor. Since, in this scenario , the British never get within pistol range it is really a moot point.
@ben10mama
@ben10mama 11 месяцев назад
I'd like to see a revolutionary War battle with maybe a hundred or 200 civil war troops with sharps rifles, would the more minor advantages in equipment have any significant ramifications
@demomanchaos
@demomanchaos 11 месяцев назад
Being able to put far more accurate fire at far longer ranges would absolutely make a massive difference in whatever sector of the battlefield the ACW era troops (Even just grunts) were in.
@Royalmerc
@Royalmerc 11 месяцев назад
Man, the moment machine guns where added was the moment this became a one sided battle. I really do love these hypotheticals though so this video was great. Maybe you could do one on the battle of Wake Island, or one on Task Force Faith in Korea.
@jameswatson5011
@jameswatson5011 11 месяцев назад
One water cooled MG would have sent the Brits realling immediately. With liner wall of Brits they would have been mowed down before they even got close as like you said the overlapping fields of fire channeling effect. Hell they could probably have gone on the offensive!
@jonathanbair523
@jonathanbair523 11 месяцев назад
That would be a sight to see... WWI troops charging the Red Coats and the few that where alive from the first wave would be saying something like "The devils are coming!"
@RedCharLang
@RedCharLang 11 месяцев назад
I feel as though its irony since the image at 0:57 is of British troops (you can tell due to ammunition belt on the dude on the right) and yet they are fighting against the British forces during the Battle of Bunker Hill.
@Jakethesnake2007
@Jakethesnake2007 11 месяцев назад
It looks like a mix because those are american tunics on the men at the bottom you can tell because of the collar standing up and the 1903 springfield with the two men in the bottom
@OtherThanIntendedPurpose
@OtherThanIntendedPurpose 11 месяцев назад
a key piece of kit you did not include, but would have certainly been available to a unit that size and elite status was the Stokes mortar with an 800 yard range, and a cyclical rate of 25 per minute. even 1 4 man team with a Stokes tube, and 40 rounds ( 10 per man was not uncommon load out) also, the members of a mortar team would have still carried their rifle and a full load out of rounds for the rifle, as well as a side arm, and grenades. in WW 1, and well into modern times ( well, the 1980;s and 90's when i served) if you were issued a 1911, you carried 3 2 magazine belt pouches, plus the loaded magazine in your weapon, and a pre-set 1 in the chamber, or 50 rounds of .45APC. the pouches were carried 2 on your belt, and one on the strap on your field pack ( in 1918 ) later the third was carried in the front pouch on your ruck. it was also not uncommon to carry extra ammo in your ruck. the U.S. ARMY learned in the Spanish/American war that running out of ammo was a bad plan. for reference, I served as a paratrooper in the U.S. ARMY for 10 years, and was deployed on several occasions.
@schrodingersgat4344
@schrodingersgat4344 Год назад
Imagine being on the deck of a ship, in the harbor, and without the elevation to help.
@jonathanbair523
@jonathanbair523 11 месяцев назад
*inserts Mr. T* "I piddy the fool."... I think the WWI troops could shoot at the crews stuck on them ships. If they where Marines then they might as well been snipers in the view of the troops on both sides as most the shots would be kills. The ships cannon fire was not really much help for the Red Coats ground troops. The ships officers would see how they where failing and the sailors they would be losing... Brown alert time!
@schrodingersgat4344
@schrodingersgat4344 11 месяцев назад
@@jonathanbair523 Pretty much. They couldn't get sufficient elevation on tje guns to support the ground troops. The superior position of the hilltop would have made it certain death to be exposed on those decks.
@ElyanMC
@ElyanMC Год назад
Please, please, please make a video explaining the history of Arthur's knight, Sir Elyan The White he's the most underrated knight along with major roles played in it's history
@engineer12v
@engineer12v Год назад
Hey how about a singular troop with a UTV loaded with ammo in magazines with a singular m16?
@SilverSpike_Gaming
@SilverSpike_Gaming Год назад
Could you send a squad of Winter War Finnish soldiers to the eastern front during ww1 at the Battle of Osowiec Fortress?
@Dare_To_Game
@Dare_To_Game Год назад
Could do the Army of Northern Virginia vs the Brittish in the Revolutionary War.
@ParryThis
@ParryThis Год назад
If i did that, it would have to be instead of the entire Revolutionary Continental Army. the Tech/Strategic/Number advantage would be huge.
@Ken19700
@Ken19700 Год назад
How many old battles could be won by one sniper?
@tomjackson4374
@tomjackson4374 Год назад
How about one well placed sniper to eliminate the Commander in Chief of an invading army right before the eminent defeat of the other side. I dunno, maybe in a theater on April 14, or there abouts.
@Jakethesnake2007
@Jakethesnake2007 11 месяцев назад
What about a squad of modern day American marines at the battle of Okinawa?
@dragonelite2725
@dragonelite2725 11 месяцев назад
What if you used early ww2 marines
@texpatlee
@texpatlee 11 месяцев назад
@ParryThis, first the rifles carried by us Infantrymen was yhe M1903 Springfield, the bayonet they carried was the M1917, (they only carried 80-100 rounds on the web gear), some also carried the M1918 BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) with 150-200 rounds generally, the M1897 Trench Guns (a.k.a. the Winchester shotgun cut down, with a heat shield and bayonet lug for the M1917 bayonet) with 80 rounds. A full platoon would have had 2 machine guns, 3 squads with 1 BAR each, and at least 1-2 Trench Guns per squad. You also said that the MG teams didn't have rifles, they actually would have. Love the content!! Keep them coming!
@ZanXpeacemaker0989
@ZanXpeacemaker0989 7 месяцев назад
M1917 rifle was far more common in WW1 than the M1903 that was the official adopted rifle.
@kenfox22
@kenfox22 Год назад
You want the defensive positions. Can inflict great casualties on the charging enemy
@njesperson7760
@njesperson7760 Год назад
Please do this with Rangers or Regular Infanty complete with company heavy weapons
@jonathanbair523
@jonathanbair523 11 месяцев назад
company heavy weapons vs wooden ships = splinters in the harbor, or lots of new coral reefs.
@cameronmolt5649
@cameronmolt5649 11 месяцев назад
So glad someone makes a video about the stuff that goes through my head when watching a movie.
@cosmic-cat6315
@cosmic-cat6315 Год назад
I really like this series
@ParryThis
@ParryThis Год назад
Thanks. I am glad you enjoy it.
@DeutzFarmer96
@DeutzFarmer96 Год назад
Mustard Gas....just hope the wind doesn't change.
@ParryThis
@ParryThis Год назад
Yeah, that one could depend. Might totally defeat the Americans with zero British casualties.
@samabraham6440
@samabraham6440 11 месяцев назад
I got one for you for and Idea a U.S. Navy Seal Squad imbedded with the army of the Potomac during the peninsula campaign.
@jonaspete
@jonaspete Год назад
Whoa sir!! I need more ammunition!!!
@CMDRFandragon
@CMDRFandragon Год назад
Next battle: 2 Maxim machinegun teams go back to the Battle of Thermopolyae
@Bane_Cat
@Bane_Cat Год назад
Do a squad of modern Army Rangers
@ParryThis
@ParryThis Год назад
Lol, i did that for the Alamo.
@ssfbob456
@ssfbob456 11 месяцев назад
Bolt action rifles would be like machine guns to the British at the time, and they also would have had at least one actual machine gun. The sheer psychological effect of that kind of firepower alone would likely win the fight.
@lamoe4175
@lamoe4175 11 месяцев назад
Correction concerning the WWI grenade - KILL radius is 5 M but effective wounding radius is 15 M - wounding an enemy is often times more effective on destroying moral and troop strength than killing (stopping to aid wounded). The "blast" radius typically was greater then the throwing distance. Which is why we were taught to "get down / stay down" until after the "boom"
@firestrikerii810
@firestrikerii810 11 месяцев назад
No
@lamoe1777
@lamoe1777 11 месяцев назад
?
@shadowangel3995
@shadowangel3995 11 месяцев назад
The future soldiers could potentially kill more than one enemy combatant per shot fired. My reasoning for this is, like you said in the video, the weapons are much more powerful so the British soldiers would not have any body armor which means the higher powered weapons could go through the human body more easily while still doing significant damage to each target. I have a suggestion that I actually saw in a movie where a single carrier battle group was sent back in time to Pearl Harbor.
@trevornekuda3101
@trevornekuda3101 11 месяцев назад
Grim reaper on RU-vid does stuff like that all the time
@christinepearson5788
@christinepearson5788 5 месяцев назад
The ammunition for M1903/ M1917 came on 5 round stripper clips, not 6. The M1917 magazine was carried over from P1914, the 303 rims took up more space. So a five round 303 mag became six round mag in 30-06.
@Speeeneer
@Speeeneer 11 месяцев назад
You should do D-day with a modern US MEU invading.
@jonathanbair523
@jonathanbair523 11 месяцев назад
Well most of the bombers missed there marks on the beach and dropped inland.. So just changing that fact would help the landing drastically.
@Codevil.
@Codevil. 11 месяцев назад
Awesome concept, I'm 99% sure I'll be subbing ...I'm only one minute in
@civilwarreenactor6374
@civilwarreenactor6374 11 месяцев назад
the battle of the little bighorn send in the ww1 attachment
@anatolib.suvarov6621
@anatolib.suvarov6621 9 месяцев назад
I find this an interesting concept. Battles from antiquity, with a more modern twist.
@thomasmeagher8941
@thomasmeagher8941 11 месяцев назад
Next video: "What would the effectiveness of the door gunner from Full Metal Jacket at the battle of Missionary Ridge be?"
@joehess7149
@joehess7149 11 месяцев назад
Tom Clancy once wrote a book where most of the military was quarantined because Iran had figured out how to weaponize Ebola, and so a single division (maybe wrong unit size?) and a Natuonal Guard regiment, who were not affected because they were doing training maneuvers together when the bioattack occurred, were sent to the middle east and had to take on a ten division Iranian army. So, what about taking a national guard unit, and sending them to a major, fairly recent conflict, like the Battle of the Bulge? Or maybe a modern Marine division in China to defend against the Imperial Japanese Army during WW2?
@DarkHorseSki
@DarkHorseSki 11 месяцев назад
Replace the marines at Wake Island on Dec 8, 1941 (in WWII) with a comparable quantity of marines and equipment that they would have had come the end of WWII. (I.e. upgrade the planes, guns, artillery, etc...) How long can they hold out?
@whiteboyplays6940
@whiteboyplays6940 11 месяцев назад
You just got a new subscriber buddy great video ima go look at your others now😮
@cardiacbob
@cardiacbob 11 месяцев назад
If I were deliberately sending troops back to fight the Bunker Hill/Breeds Hill battle, their rucks would be filled to capacity with Ammo, realizing they can't re-load back then.
@trevorfuller1078
@trevorfuller1078 11 месяцев назад
Let’s play this game another way! From the same era, the Great War, 1914-18, take one Royal 🇬🇧Artillery (1917-18 pattern) Howitzer Battery (Usually made up of eight guns per Battery) & one heavy-Vickers machine gun platoon (Also 1917-18 pattern), that would consist of about four machine guns with seven-man crew, each gun allotted with a then standard 4,000 rounds issue. There would be an initial 30 minutes preliminary bombardment from the Howitzer Battery, discharging a steady three to four artillery rounds per minute, equalling 3.5 x 30 minutes = 105 shells per gun fired x 8 guns = 840 Total Howitzer Shells of sustained, concentrated fire on the Rebel Colonists’ Positions on Bunker & Breeds’ Hills over the whole 30 minutes period. Next some 30 to 60 seconds after the artillery bombardment had concluded this would be followed up by a high-trajectory machine guns firing in a steeply arced angle (Each gun positioned at between a 10 to 45 degrees angle of fire, targeted specifically & solely onto Rebel positions), this effect would be similar to a highly-concentrated, light-artillery barrage, designed to keep the defenders pinned down & unable to offer any effective resistance or else risk exposure to raking fire of a constant hail of .303 machine gun bullets & certain death or serious wounding! Simultaneously, while the ongoing machine gun enfilade was keeping the Rebels on both hills under severe fire & pinned down, the British Redcoats Infantry would be advancing up the hill with bayonets fixed, but without any serious risk of being hit by enemy/rebel cannon shot or musket/rifle fire, as effectively all rebel resistance would either have been killed or still pinned down & effectively incapacitated, until the first, second & third lines of redcoat infantry capture the rebel positions probably without having to have fired a single volley, & then in time to have received the complete surrender of the “dazed & shell-shocked,” rebel commander & of all rebel forces in Boston, assuming that they had all or at least a few had survived the ordeal, & were still alive &/or ‘compos-mentis,’ that is, to recount their story?!! Total Estimated Time of Military Operations: 45 to 55 minutes. Result Total British Victory & an effective end of all resistance in the colonies against the Crown. ‘God Save The King’ would still be sung there & the Union Jack still proudly flown over New York City, NY Colony, the then colonial capital, & furthermore, also in all the remaining, other 12 King’s American Colonies too, probably even upto this day!! Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah! For King George & His Generals & Admirals!! 🇬🇧🤝🇺🇸👍👍😂😂🤣🤣🍻🍻
@schrodingersgat4344
@schrodingersgat4344 Год назад
Custer's, 7th US Cavalry finds a Mongol horde
@Grimpy970
@Grimpy970 10 месяцев назад
As unconventional as it may be, I think putting the victory results *before* the hypothetical scenario(s) is a wise way to structure these sorts of videos!
@nighthunter3130
@nighthunter3130 11 месяцев назад
10 A10 warthogs in the battle of Dday.
@dunnallen6773
@dunnallen6773 11 месяцев назад
“Aye ye rebellious colonist! Ye have simply no chance and must surrender!” “I got a first gen machine gun and 15 ammo cans that say otherwise fella.”
@otf7466
@otf7466 11 месяцев назад
I got an idea. What if one Iowa class BB was on the French/Spanish Alliance side of The Battle of Trafalgar?
@Deuce02339
@Deuce02339 11 месяцев назад
1 modern company from 20th SF, unknowingly travels in time from an ongoing combat mission to Shiloh, TN on April 5th 1862. Of the gaurd company, most are from the nearby area, and familiar with what is soon to transpire, they introduce themselves to Gen Wood, and decide and with no time to spare over night, set up a defensive position near Fraley's field, awaiting the inevitable skirmish to be had the following morning, Praying to buy time for the hopefully now rushed reinforcements to arrive from Corinth as they find themselves trapped in a fight they know all to well from history.
@TSD4027
@TSD4027 11 месяцев назад
I don't even need to watch the video to know it would be a fiasco for the British. 50 guys with accurate bolt action rifles and 50 rounds each on stripper clips would have demolished the Brits. Nearly impossible to miss against those line formations. They could also shoot from way outside of effective musket range. WW1 guys might not even take a casualty before the redcoats break.
@sqike001ton
@sqike001ton 11 месяцев назад
So i got one seal team 12 guys at the battle of gettysburgh on th confederate side (i get the bad guys getting the americans but they did the attacking and spreding the fight over 3 days adds to the fun) also when dealing with more current day dont frogot the importance of the radio coms how may things could change by having a simple wakie talkie in battles of past days
@bprw12
@bprw12 11 месяцев назад
The WWI soldiers would only have a rail fence for cover if they were stationed on the flanks. It would make more sense to keep them behind the cover of the breeds hill fortifications and put the minutemen on the flanks
@BrickDaniels-qu7bz
@BrickDaniels-qu7bz 11 месяцев назад
Perfect. I was looking for something kinda stupid, but not really.
@gew1898
@gew1898 11 месяцев назад
Australian Light Horse troops, ca. WWI, at Little Big Horn would also be fun.
@Grandizer8989
@Grandizer8989 11 месяцев назад
Didn’t the British troops pretty much just cross the ocean and marched into battle? Imagine fighting a battle and jet lag at the same time!
@edwardbirdsall6580
@edwardbirdsall6580 11 месяцев назад
Well the battle of Bunker Hill was actually fought on Breed Hill. So the soldiers in question would first need to relocate...
@Eidolon1andOnly
@Eidolon1andOnly 11 месяцев назад
Guessing you made this comment based on the video title alone.
@demomanchaos
@demomanchaos 11 месяцев назад
Honestly just the two Maxims would be enough, and the British losses would be rather modest. They'd break off the attack rather quickly once they started taking bursts from the Maxim, because it would be a completely alien weapon unleashing staggering amounts of damage AND an incredible noise (Full-auto fire is a very distinct and unique sound).
@carlbirtles4518
@carlbirtles4518 10 месяцев назад
If only there was a simulation, this video would have been fun.
@primus482
@primus482 11 месяцев назад
Sir, I don't think I have room for that in my rucksack
@pogveteranar9415
@pogveteranar9415 11 месяцев назад
I’ve wondered what would happen if you dropped a company of OIF era American troops on foot to assist Picketts charge at Gettysburg.
@gabrielnichols9522
@gabrielnichols9522 11 месяцев назад
Why on earth would a company of modern American infantrymen join forces with treason in defense of slavery?
@edwinchapple7224
@edwinchapple7224 10 месяцев назад
The original title doesn’t specify which side the WW1 soldiers would fight on. 50 British veterans would have a similarly significant impact.
@pgandy1
@pgandy1 11 месяцев назад
A correction in your narration. I was expecting you to say the M1903 Springfield as that is the one most commonly photographed, but you got that correct it was the M1917 Enfield and did have a 6 round capacity due the original British manufacture in calibre .303 British. When the Americans took over the reduced diameter of the .30-06 allowed for 6 rounds. However, the stripper clips were 5 rounds, not 6. And I suspect that rifle was most commonly used with 5 rounds rather than the soldier fishing around for that one extra round to top the magazine off. If I understand correctly, you said the infantryman was given a M1911 as well. Not so in WWI or any other time as standard issue. The pistol photographed is not a M1911 but the M1911A1.
@daaa3932
@daaa3932 11 месяцев назад
Standard Platoon Organization (which this size would be) includes two Rifle Squads, a Rifle Grenade Launcher squad with 6 Cup Dischargers, an Automatic Rifle Squad with 4 Automatic Rifles, and no Machine Gun Squads. If using the best equipment available of the time period, giving each man a 1911 is acceptable, but also issuing the Springfield 1903 instead of the Enfield 1917. BARs would be available instead of the awful Chauchat or bulky Lewis guns. Then there's the Maxim... The Browning 1917 was available and (in my opinion) superior. Battle Order has great info on task organization and period equipment.
@titanlord9267
@titanlord9267 11 месяцев назад
A platoon of the US 1st Cavalry division from the Vietnam war with their helicopters, that fight alongside William Hull's forces in the war of 1812
@basketcase289
@basketcase289 11 месяцев назад
Maybe try something closer in time period like getting 1918 WWI Brit soldiers to Rorke's Drift? No clue how many you'd want to choose though
@raptorex_i
@raptorex_i 11 месяцев назад
honestly, even just the two machine gun squads would cause havoc on british forces, probably driving them into a retreat either directly by leadership or soldiers fleeing after seeing so many around them die
@victorfinberg8595
@victorfinberg8595 11 месяцев назад
it would be highly reckless to send troops back in time to change history
@jasonjason8783
@jasonjason8783 11 месяцев назад
Brit’s withdrawal but stand in a defensive position while waiting for fleet for shore bombardment
@roguerifter9724
@roguerifter9724 10 месяцев назад
Out of curiosity why were the WW I infantry armed only with Rifles instead of a mix of Rifles and Shotguns? The Shotgun has a shorter range, at least with buckshot but once that range is reached it will devastate a tightly packed formation.
@Briselance
@Briselance 11 месяцев назад
All of the 50 soldiers being equipped with sidearms? Even standard riflemen? 🤔🤔
@chrislouden7329
@chrislouden7329 8 месяцев назад
British would realize they're out gunned and panic into a retreat
@evernewb2073
@evernewb2073 11 месяцев назад
honestly the "target enemy officers" part is a much MUCH bigger divergence point than it sounds like and would likely drastically change the behavior of the british forces. aside from that here's an obligatory "okay, the anachronistic fighting force matters but one side or the other getting their hands on the anachronistic TECH will matter far more soon enough" comment. it's kinda besides the point when this is specifically about 1 battle and not one of those "what if you replaced the American fleet with 1 aircraft carrier and a couple of it's support ships after pearl harbor" setups where they are asking if a fractured carrier group would be capable of taking all comers but the actual answer is that the US would go full bunker-mode then rapidly start coming out with anachronistic tech for their entire *_everything_* within a couple weeks, and I do not just mean tech for the military. most militaries tend to leave everything as outdated as they think they can get away with but even assuming a 2020 carrier is using mostly 1980 tech that would mean that even the god damned paperwork structure is transformatively valuable let alone everything from the various synthetics to the aircraft to the nuclear reactors or, y'know, *all of the various databases on the ship* 1 random crewman's laptop would be fairly likely to hold enough value to be worth loosing the entire fleet over.
@bluelionsage99
@bluelionsage99 11 месяцев назад
Yeah, unless the Brits managed to locate the two MGs and take them out with artillery (kind of iffey considering the cannons of the day) - the Brits would probably retreat after they got trashed in the first wave attack.
@hkiller57
@hkiller57 11 месяцев назад
the riflemen will take out the artillery men long before they could locate the MGs
@windwalker5765
@windwalker5765 11 месяцев назад
Honestly, I feel like the Maxims are just overkill here. It's not just the rate of fire of a bolt-action, it's the range of the smokeless cartridges. Fired at elevation with volley sights, it not only vastly out-ranges the British muskets, but it would be able to hit British artillery.
Далее
Was Cavalry Useless in the First World War?
20:31
Просмотров 277 тыс.
CORTE DE CABELO RADICAL
00:59
Просмотров 1,7 млн
The Most Underrated Era in History (In My Opinion)
16:38
The Biggest Misconceptions About Historical Warfare
13:14
Why Postmen Fought the SS
14:04
Просмотров 2,3 млн
America's Wars 1754-1945: Animated Battle Map
58:13
Просмотров 1,6 млн
What Could 50 US Army Rangers Accomplish at the Alamo?
15:22