- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Civil War time travel question/debate
Posted on 3/31/14 at 12:12 pm to Topwater Trout
Posted on 3/31/14 at 12:12 pm to Topwater Trout
quote:
cannons
quote:
serious question...how effective were they?
Highly effective and far more accuarate than you'd think. The standard field gun was the Parrott Rifle.
quote:
Parrott rifles were manufactured in different sizes, from 10-pounders up to the rare 300-pounder.[3] In the field, the 10- and 20-pounders were used by both armies. The 20-pounder was the largest field gun used during the war, with the barrel alone weighing over 1,800 pounds. The smaller size was much more prevalent; it came in two bore sizes: 2.9 inch (74 mm)and 3.0-in (76 mm). Confederate forces used both bore sizes during the war, which added to the complication of supplying the appropriate ammunition to its batteries. Until 1864, Union batteries used only the 2.9-in. The M1863, with a 3-in bore, had firing characteristics similar to the earlier model; it can be recognized by its straight barrel, without muzzle-swell.quote:[4]
Its range was up to 2,000 yards (1,800 m) with a trained crew.
Now imagine hundreds of those concentrating their fire on a single position held by only 100 men.
But even if the standard field version of the Parrott was not enough the 10" version could sit back at 9,000 yards and hurl a 300 lb. shell into the SEAL's positions.
1
Posted on 3/31/14 at 12:12 pm to Scream4LSU
No.
First battle would be a slaugther by the seals. But, eventually they would be cordoned off and be placed under constant artillery barrage. They would be dead in a week.
First battle would be a slaugther by the seals. But, eventually they would be cordoned off and be placed under constant artillery barrage. They would be dead in a week.
This post was edited on 3/31/14 at 12:14 pm
Posted on 3/31/14 at 12:16 pm to weagle99
What will happen when the batteries die on the SEALS' night vision or AimPoint scopes?
Was just about to post this. The SEALs ability to "own the night" would be extremely short-lived when the batteries run out.
Plus, to coordinate this fluid, guerrilla style warfare would be extremely hindered once the radios die. FTF communication would greatly increase the probability of detection. Once detected, it's over, Johnny.
Was just about to post this. The SEALs ability to "own the night" would be extremely short-lived when the batteries run out.
Plus, to coordinate this fluid, guerrilla style warfare would be extremely hindered once the radios die. FTF communication would greatly increase the probability of detection. Once detected, it's over, Johnny.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 12:16 pm to JOJO Hammer
quote:
Wouldn't the seals have a huge advantage of knowing when and where each battle would take place, also the outcome of each battle?
This^^^. If they are equipped with historical knowledge, knowing which battles were key and why, they could easily turn the war by doing their special ops thing.
This post was edited on 3/31/14 at 12:17 pm
Posted on 3/31/14 at 12:19 pm to 911Moto
quote:
This^^^. If they are equipped with historical knowledge, knowing which battles were key and why, they could easily turn the war by doing their special ops thing.
Their presence would alter the actions of the opposing army. Thus any history book the SEALS had as a "cheat sheet" would be useless after day 1 due to the opposing army reacting to their presence on the battlefield.
Once again, they would not be able to change anything with there being only 100 pf them. They'd be hunted down, fixed in place, and obliterated in a rain of old fashioned lead.
This post was edited on 3/31/14 at 12:20 pm
Posted on 3/31/14 at 12:23 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Their presence would alter the actions of the opposing army. Thus any history book the SEALS had as a "cheat sheet" would be useless after day 1 due to the opposing army reacting to their presence on the battlefield.
According to many here, one battle could have changed the outcome of the war - or even a 20 minute window of one battle. Knowing this, they only have to be active for one day to make a difference.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 12:26 pm to 911Moto
Darth,
You're talking about the majority of howitzers being Napoleanic 12 lb'rs, line of sight cannons using a crude gunner's quadrant with a max eff. range of roughly <1000m with solid shot (1800 max I know, but we're talking LOS).
Why not sit back in a concealed position with multiple sniper teams and take out the Battery CDR's and Chief of Sections? You know how the battle is going to be fought and the location of all FA Batteries/Battalions and Brigades on the battlefield. How fast can you start wiping out gun sections and its leaders? Pretty darned fast IMO.
Artillery is/was the biggest killer on the battlefield. You take that out, the opposing infantry ain't got nuthin' (I know I'm preaching to the choir as you seem incredibly knowledgable)
ETA: just saw your post about after the first battle, things would have changed. And I agree. But what about we drop them off at Gettysburg and see what happens?
I'm an artilleryman by trade.
You're talking about the majority of howitzers being Napoleanic 12 lb'rs, line of sight cannons using a crude gunner's quadrant with a max eff. range of roughly <1000m with solid shot (1800 max I know, but we're talking LOS).
Why not sit back in a concealed position with multiple sniper teams and take out the Battery CDR's and Chief of Sections? You know how the battle is going to be fought and the location of all FA Batteries/Battalions and Brigades on the battlefield. How fast can you start wiping out gun sections and its leaders? Pretty darned fast IMO.
Artillery is/was the biggest killer on the battlefield. You take that out, the opposing infantry ain't got nuthin' (I know I'm preaching to the choir as you seem incredibly knowledgable)
ETA: just saw your post about after the first battle, things would have changed. And I agree. But what about we drop them off at Gettysburg and see what happens?
I'm an artilleryman by trade.
This post was edited on 3/31/14 at 12:30 pm
Posted on 3/31/14 at 12:30 pm to 911Moto
quote:
According to many here, one battle could have changed the outcome of the war - or even a 20 minute window of one battle. Knowing this, they only have to be active for one day to make a difference.
To change the outcome of the war in a day, they'd have had to not just defeat but totally destroy as effective fighting forces the major armies in the east. For the Confederates those was the Army of Northern Virginia for the Union the Army of the Potomac. Either way, they'd have to (one one day as you say) destroy and army of at least 70,000 infantry, hundreds of artillery pieces, and depending on the side, 10,000+ cavalry troopers.
sorry, but that's not going to happen.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 12:32 pm to Darth_Vader
Just think of the damage just one Chuck Norris or one Steven Sagal could doo
Posted on 3/31/14 at 12:32 pm to Darth_Vader
I haven't read the whole thread, but would the constant targeting of officers be an effective strategy?
Posted on 3/31/14 at 12:33 pm to NWarty
Artillery actually wasn't the biggest killer in the civil war but it was and still is the biggest tactical weapon. That's why it's the "king of battle"
Posted on 3/31/14 at 12:35 pm to Scream4LSU
Disease yes ;)
Hell, you could just start shooting the horses pulling the caissons and be pretty effective
Hell, you could just start shooting the horses pulling the caissons and be pretty effective
Posted on 3/31/14 at 12:36 pm to NWarty
quote:
Darth,
You're talking about the majority of howitzers being Napoleanic 12 lb'rs, line of sight cannons using a crude gunner's quadrant with a max eff. range of roughly <1000m with solid shot (1800 max I know, but we're talking LOS).
Why not sit back in a concealed position with multiple sniper teams and take out the Battery CDR's and Chief of Sections? You know how the battle is going to be fought and the location of all FA Batteries/Battalions and Brigades on the battlefield. How fast can you start wiping out gun sections and its leaders? Pretty darned fast IMO.
Artillery is/was the biggest killer on the battlefield. You take that out, the opposing infantry ain't got nuthin' (I know I'm preaching to the choir as you seem incredibly knowledgable)
ETA: just saw your post about after the first battle, things would have changed. And I agree. But what about we drop them off at Gettysburg and see what happens?
I'm an artilleryman by trade.
They could not wipe them out fast enough considering how many cannons would be arrayed on their position. Remember, if we're talking linbe of sight that means that while these sniper teams are trying to kill battery commanders, those batteries (not to mention tens of thousands of infantry in their front) would be sending thousands of hunks of lead at the SEALs per minute.
And like I said, you're not even talking about the artillery that's totally out of range from the SEALs small arms. And on top of that the Civil War forces could site howitzers and mortars on the reverse slopes of hills and and rain down an uninterrupted torrent of shells on the SEALs. Once again, the SEALs would have no answer for this.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 12:37 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
I haven't read the whole thread, but would the constant targeting of officers be an effective strategy?
It was an effective strategy to a point. But not one that either side would be unready for since that tactic was widespread already at that time.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 12:37 pm to Scream4LSU
quote:
The efforts of guerrillas to antagonize the Union army were undeniably successful. In response, Union commanders tried sending out scouting parties to capture the guerrillas. These attempts, however, accomplished little. Guerrillas, who had the advantage of surprise and knowledge of the territory, were nearly impossible to catch and efforts to capture them only distracted soldiers from fighting the Confederate army.
Imagine what the seals would do.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 12:38 pm to Darth_Vader
Since everyone is bound and determined to use SEALs at at battle, name the one you would do and how it would be done.
Mine:
First battle of Bull Run (Manassas). This battle was within spitting distance of DC, and there were fricking viewing public to it
Let the order of battle play out as is. The North gets its head handed to them. Use the SEALs to sneak into DC kill any Cabinet members and anyone at Dept of War.
Without the SEALs, the North was dealt a severe blow. With the SEALs pushing the event into DC, I don't think the North would recover from that.
The Civil War could be won in it's first battle and millions of lives are spared.
Mine:
First battle of Bull Run (Manassas). This battle was within spitting distance of DC, and there were fricking viewing public to it
Let the order of battle play out as is. The North gets its head handed to them. Use the SEALs to sneak into DC kill any Cabinet members and anyone at Dept of War.
Without the SEALs, the North was dealt a severe blow. With the SEALs pushing the event into DC, I don't think the North would recover from that.
The Civil War could be won in it's first battle and millions of lives are spared.
This post was edited on 3/31/14 at 12:42 pm
Posted on 3/31/14 at 12:38 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
They could not wipe them out fast enough considering how many cannons would be arrayed on their position. Remember, if we're talking linbe of sight that means that while these sniper teams are trying to kill battery commanders, those batteries (not to mention tens of thousands of infantry in their front) would be sending thousands of hunks of lead at the SEALs per minute.
And like I said, you're not even talking about the artillery that's totally out of range from the SEALs small arms. And on top of that the Civil War forces could site howitzers and mortars on the reverse slopes of hills and and rain down an uninterrupted torrent of shells on the SEALs. Once again, the SEALs would have no answer for this.
Seems like you're basing this on the premise that the SEALs will be lined up square with the artillery batteries and won't move.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 12:40 pm to LasVegasTiger
quote:
It was actually a pretty decent re-enactment too.
if one side had todays weapons it would have been a slaughter...right?
Posted on 3/31/14 at 12:43 pm to Darth_Vader
But who's to say that you already know the enemy's positions and can bring your own mortars to bear?
I'm not saying you gotta kill everything, but you cause enough confusion on the enemy's artillery positions, the fire support plan for the enemy commander goes out the window.
Counterfire wouldn't even be an issue since your measely 60mm mortars can out-range most stuff on the enemy's side.
I'm not saying you gotta kill everything, but you cause enough confusion on the enemy's artillery positions, the fire support plan for the enemy commander goes out the window.
Counterfire wouldn't even be an issue since your measely 60mm mortars can out-range most stuff on the enemy's side.
This post was edited on 3/31/14 at 12:46 pm
Posted on 3/31/14 at 12:45 pm to Topwater Trout
quote:
Imagine what the seals would do.
Unless they were fighting on the territory they had lived and hunted on since they were born and were fighting a force that did not know the area like they did? Not a lot.
Page 10 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News