- 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
0
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:13 am to Topwater Trout
quote:
earlier it was 500,000...its grown 6x since then?
what was the largest group in one place for a battle?
the 100 men would not need to stand and fight...take out a few officers at a times would be the strategy.
I gave the numbers of the entire Union and Confederate armies. Seeing how the notion of this thread was they could win the whole war, that means they'd have to defeat the entire force of whatever side they were fighting against, not just one of their field armies.
quote:
what was the largest group in one place for a battle?
Gettysburg saw a little under 95,000 Union troops face a little about 75,000 Confederates. The Union had about 230 cannons organized into 28 Artillery Batteries that in turn were organized into 5 artillery brigades. The Confederates had about 150 cannons organized into 22 Artillery batteries further organized into 4 Artillery Battalions.
That's a helluva lot of shot and shell on top of the tens of thousands of Minie balls that would be flying in a constant downpour of fire onto the SEALS positions. And don't think for a minute the SEALS would be able to maneuver. Yest the individual solider in the Civil War had a relevantly slow rate of fire, but when you've got anywhere from 75,000 to 95,000 of them and all they have to do is concentrate on an area with 100 men in it, the outcome would both be swift and never in doubt.
quote:
the 100 men would not need to stand and fight...take out a few officers at a times would be the strategy.
They'd have no choice but stand and fight. A force of tens of thousands would surround and corral them in a manner that would take away their freedom of movement.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:18 am to LasVegasTiger
You should read "Guns of the South" if you think about things like this.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:21 am to LasVegasTiger
Has it been mentioned yet that these SEALS would probably end up killing someone that wasnt supposed to die and led to them being born. So many of those SEALS would be killing themselves.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:22 am to Jobu93
quote:
The accurate range of todays rifles would mean that these guys could just stand off out of range and mow down company after company. Add in the snipers popping officer melons and you have full scale calamity on the receiving end.
The Model 1861 had a maximum range of 900 to 1,000 yards with a max effective range of up to 300 yards.
The M4 carbine has a max effective range of up to 500 meters (546 yards). This is what most SEALS would be armed with, yes? That beign the case, their ability to "out range" Civil War soldiers would not be that great. And when you consider there would be 100 SEALS facing literally thousands of Civil War Solders there is no way for them to "pick off" enough of them before they are cut to shreds.
Hell, they Civil War Soldiers could just fix bayonets and while hundreds would be mowed down in minutes there would still be a sea of well armed men to overwhelm the seals.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:24 am to ClydeFrog
quote:
You should read "Guns of the South" if you think about things like this.
I mentioned earlier a series from Harry Turtledove that started with "How Few Remain" which deals with a a war between the north and south in the 1870's following the South's victory in the Civil War a decade earlier. The series goes from there to WWI, inter-war years, and concludes with WWII. Pretty fascinating.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:25 am to Darth_Vader
Luck would be against the SEALs en mass.
See my second post about none of us using SEALs correctly.
If they infiltrate NY, Boston, Washington, any armory making weapons, logical points, they can really cause more problems than just on a battle field.
See my second post about none of us using SEALs correctly.
If they infiltrate NY, Boston, Washington, any armory making weapons, logical points, they can really cause more problems than just on a battle field.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:30 am to Jobu93
quote:
uck would be against the SEALs en mass.
See my second post about none of us using SEALs correctly.
If they infiltrate NY, Boston, Washington, any armory making weapons, logical points, they can really cause more problems than just on a battle field.
Actually, the best use of the SEALs would be to not employ them in combat. They're too valuable of a resource. Instead whichever side was lucky enough to have a SEAL team suddenly fall into their lap should send them into their training encampments to train whole regiments in their war fighting skills. Arm those regiments with repeating rifles and carbines (think Spencer or Winchester here)and then unleash them on the enemy.
If you want to win the Civil War with 100 SEALS, that's the only way to do it.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:35 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Gettysburg saw a little under 95,000 Union troops
I doubt seals are trained to stand toe to toe when heavily outnumbered. Strike and retreat would be their strategy...I would think.
No way they could catch the seals. If 200- 500 were calvary the seals could easily take them out with machine guns. I don't think the cannon fire would work since the seals would not me making their position known.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:36 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Have you read his alternate North & South series that Stated with How Few Remain and concludes with Settling Accounts: In At The Death? I've never been a big alternate history fan, but this series of books that spans from the 1870's through WWI & WWII is fascinating.
I actually have that entire series in Hardback, and his Aliens come and wreck shite during WW2 so the Allies team up with the Axis series, that went 15 books also in Hardback.
I liked the creation of the radical Freedom party out of Charleston. There was no struggle in Europe as the US ally Germany ran shite in WW1, which was fought mostly in the US.
Though it followed almost too closely with the Hitler story-line. I just like turtledove's style of setting multiple characters. The two-part Peral Harbor Invasion series was good too. What if the US lost control of Hawaii at Pearl Harbor?
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:40 am to LasVegasTiger
quote:
I've thought about this too. Except in my scenario, it's just me with an AK and I'm running things in ancient Rome
quote:
Alright you Primitive Screwheads, listen up! You see this? This... is my boomstick! The twelve-gauge double-barreled Remington. S-Mart's top of the line. You can find this in the sporting goods department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retails for about a hundred and nine, ninety five. It's got a walnut stock, cobalt blue steel, and a hair trigger. That's right. Shop smart. Shop S-Mart. You got that?
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:42 am to Napoleon
quote:
actually have that entire series in Hardback, and his Aliens come and wreck shite during WW2 so the Allies team up with the Axis series, that went 15 books also in Hardback.
I've never read any of his books that deal with aliens.
quote:
I liked the creation of the radical Freedom party out of Charleston. There was no struggle in Europe as the US ally Germany ran shite in WW1, which was fought mostly in the US.
I was worried the middle of the series between the wars would be boring but each book in the series was really fascinating.
quote:
Though it followed almost too closely with the Hitler story-line.
I had similar thoughts as well. It also seemed to me that even as early as the WWI "American Front" series he started "rooting" for the north in that he went off track from a historical standpoint in favor of the north. The advent of tanks is the big on I remember.
quote:
I just like turtledove's style of setting multiple characters.
This is something he excelled at.
quote:
The two-part Peral Harbor Invasion series was good too. What if the US lost control of Hawaii at Pearl Harbor?
I never read those. What's the name of the series?
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:43 am to Darth_Vader
Agree on training, but that training is going to be blunted by available technology.
I still think you use them off the battlefield, assassinating high value targets. Hit the armories and any place making powder and you have a major headache on the target's hands.
Use a good amount in Washington DC and turn the town into a melting pot of chaos.
I still think you use them off the battlefield, assassinating high value targets. Hit the armories and any place making powder and you have a major headache on the target's hands.
Use a good amount in Washington DC and turn the town into a melting pot of chaos.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:46 am to Jobu93
With the limited amount of personal protection awarded to high value targets back then, they could've taken down either sides president and war cabinet within the first week on the ground.
SEAL team assassinates the entire presidential cabinet, as well as all generals/admirals and the war ends in a month.
SEAL team assassinates the entire presidential cabinet, as well as all generals/admirals and the war ends in a month.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:46 am to LasVegasTiger
They would lose and huge. They would take a shitload with them. but how much ammo do you think an average SF operator packs in with him? Lee's Army of Northern Virginia at it's height was 90,000+ around the time of Gettysburg.
Do you think a SEAL humps around 9Gs of ammo?
Do you think a SEAL humps around 9Gs of ammo?
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:47 am to Jobu93
The south had roughly 1 million people to fight in the Civil War, the north probably 2x as many.
No way in hell 100 SEALS are winning that fight.
Against the north, we are talking a 20,000 to 1 kill ratio for these SEALS. Then it's not even taken into consideration that you actually have to occupy land once you've defeated whatever army that day on the field.
Either side would win the war against 100 SEALS.
No way in hell 100 SEALS are winning that fight.
Against the north, we are talking a 20,000 to 1 kill ratio for these SEALS. Then it's not even taken into consideration that you actually have to occupy land once you've defeated whatever army that day on the field.
Either side would win the war against 100 SEALS.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:48 am to Topwater Trout
quote:
I doubt seals are trained to stand toe to toe when heavily outnumbered. Strike and retreat would be their strategy...I would think.
That will not work when they're surrounded by 90,000 plus with more than twice the number cannons than the the SEALS have men.
quote:
No way they could catch the seals.
Do you know how much ground Civil War era soldiers could cover easily in a day?
quote:
If 200- 500 were calvary the seals could easily take them out with machine guns.
The thousands of confederate or union cavalry would easily track any force of 100 men that were on horseback. If anything, putting the SEALS on horses would hasten them being cornered.
quote:
don't think the cannon fire would work since the seals would not me making their position known.
The SEALs would have to open fire at some point. Any Civil War force would "throw out skirmishers" to find the SEALS position. It would not take long to find and surround that position with tens of thousands of men. They would keep a steady wall of lead pouring into the SEALS while hundreds of cannons rained down shot and shell from outside the SEALS range. The SEALS would have no answer to the artillery.
This post was edited on 3/31/14 at 10:50 am
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:49 am to Darth_Vader
They would have to be used in clandestine roles.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:51 am to DirtyMikeandtheBoys
quote:
They would have to be used in clandestine roles.
Both sides, especially the South, used irregular forces in "clandestine" missions. They played a role but did not decide the way.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:51 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Do you know how much ground Civil War era soldiers could cover easily in a day?
the ones without horses? what difference would it make? they couldn't keep up with 100 seals on horses.
quote:
The thousands of confederate or union cavalry would easily track any force of 100 men that were on horseback. If anything, putting the SEALS on horses would hasten them being cornered.
i like 100 seals vs 1000 calvary. The weoponry alone would make for a complete slaughter
Page 6 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News