- 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 10:58 am to Topwater Trout
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:58 am to Topwater Trout
quote:
the ones without horses? what difference would it make? they couldn't keep up with 100 seals on horses.
I promise you, Civil War Ear cavalry would be able to keep up with this force of seals on horseback. Like I said, putting them on horseback would actually make the job of finding and fixing them easier.
quote:
i like 100 seals vs 1000 calvary. The weoponry alone would make for a complete slaughter
Both sides had cavalry that numbers in the thousands. And do not discount the fact that civil war cavalry soldiers were far superior to whatever the SEALS can imagine when it comes to fighting on horseback. The SEALS might be bad-arse, but they'd be totally out of their element trying to fight a civil war era Cavalry Corps on their own terms and own turf. They would have tracked the SEALS on horseback and allowed the infantry to set up blocking positions. Once again, it's the sheer numbers at the disposal of the civil war forces that would be the difference.
1
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:58 am to LasVegasTiger
Your ratio is around 1 seal to every 5000 union troops. The union army was very comfortable with high losses in every battle and operated like that throughout the war. Regardless the technical and tactical advantage the seals would have there is no way they overcome the shear difference in numbers.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 11:02 am to Darth_Vader
100 men with machine guns and ambush training vs. 1000 men trained for civil warfare would be a contest to you?
the seals don't have to kill high numbers...they just have to wound the men.
the seals don't have to kill high numbers...they just have to wound the men.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 11:07 am to Topwater Trout
quote:
the seals don't have to kill high numbers...they just have to wound the men.
The union army was losing KIA not wounded 20K troops average across their major battles. What they would lose in this hypothetical battle before they overwhelm the seals would be a drop in the bucket to them.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 11:08 am to LasVegasTiger
5000 could
Posted on 3/31/14 at 11:09 am to Scream4LSU
quote:
The union army was losing KIA not wounded 20K troops average across their major battles.
why would the seals fight a major battle? They wouldn't fight the way the wars were fought at the time. 100 seals aren't going to face off vs. a force that size.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 11:11 am to Topwater Trout
Even better then. The tracking and encirclement/ flanking of small teams would be easy for Calvary and infantry.
Read up on operation Red Wings in Afghanistan. Seals are definitely absolute bad asses and will inflict unreal casualties on the opposing force but eventually would become exhausted and overwhelmed with that amount of people coming at them. Especially when the opposition doesn't really care how many they lose to do it.
Read up on operation Red Wings in Afghanistan. Seals are definitely absolute bad asses and will inflict unreal casualties on the opposing force but eventually would become exhausted and overwhelmed with that amount of people coming at them. Especially when the opposition doesn't really care how many they lose to do it.
This post was edited on 3/31/14 at 11:14 am
Posted on 3/31/14 at 11:12 am to Topwater Trout
quote:
100 men with machine guns and ambush training vs. 1000 men trained for civil warfare would be a contest to you?
Even if you'r talking just a cavalry engagement, the SEAL would be facing far more than just 1,000 cavalry troopers. The Army of the Potomac's Cavalry Corps had 31 cavalry regiments with 8 horse artillery batteries organized into 9 Cavalry Brigades and 3 cavalry divisions in the summer of 1863.
So it would not be 100 vs. 1000. It would be 100 vs. around 30,000.
ETA; Also, Civil War cavalry was trained to set up and execute ambushes. Of all the forces in the Civil War for the SEALS to try to fight, cavalry troopers would have been the worst for them to try.
This post was edited on 3/31/14 at 11:14 am
Posted on 3/31/14 at 11:16 am to Topwater Trout
Vader is right regarding SEALs on horseback.
I think he's wrong in not using SEALs to hit supply depots, Dept of War, any politician, etc.
But he's right about SEALs on horseback against calvary.
I think he's wrong in not using SEALs to hit supply depots, Dept of War, any politician, etc.
But he's right about SEALs on horseback against calvary.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 11:16 am to LasVegasTiger
(no message)
This post was edited on 9/30/24 at 1:29 pm
Posted on 3/31/14 at 11:18 am to LasVegasTiger
Of course they would win. The numbers don't matter because it's not like they would have to kill everyone.
Night vision alone would make the other side quit.
Night vision alone would make the other side quit.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 11:18 am to Jobu93
quote:
I think he's wrong in not using SEALs to hit supply depots, Dept of War, any politician, etc.
They would be effective here but I think they'd still take losses and would be a spent force before they could effect the war enough to actually make one side sue for peace. That's why I sad the best use of the SEALS would be to have them train more men to be able to to do what they do.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 11:18 am to LasVegasTiger
What Civil War? The United States never had a civil war.
There was a war between the states, known as the War of Northern Aggression, but there was never a civil war.
There was a war between the states, known as the War of Northern Aggression, but there was never a civil war.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 11:20 am to CosmicGas93361
You better be able to carry a shite ton of ammo on those seal teams because those guys were very accepting of losing a few guys to get the job done. There was a total of 620K KIA not wound in the Civil War alone. All the wars combined that came after was 644K. You have to understand the will to win and what they are willing to take for the win.
Gettysburg--51,000 casualties
Chickamauga--34,624 casualties
Spotsylvania--30,000 casualties
The Wilderness--29,800 casualties
Chancellorsville--24,000 casualties
Shiloh--23,746 casualties
Stones River--23,515 casualties
Antietam--22,717 casualties
Second Manassas--22,180 casualties
Vicksburg--19,233 casualties
Gettysburg--51,000 casualties
Chickamauga--34,624 casualties
Spotsylvania--30,000 casualties
The Wilderness--29,800 casualties
Chancellorsville--24,000 casualties
Shiloh--23,746 casualties
Stones River--23,515 casualties
Antietam--22,717 casualties
Second Manassas--22,180 casualties
Vicksburg--19,233 casualties
This post was edited on 3/31/14 at 11:23 am
Posted on 3/31/14 at 11:23 am to Scream4LSU
quote:
Your ratio is around 1 seal to every 5000 union troops. The union army was very comfortable with high losses in every battle and operated like that throughout the war. Regardless the technical and tactical advantage the seals would have there is no way they overcome the shear difference in numbers.
You're looking at it wrong. Look at the number of casualties it took before a loss occurred, not the total troops that were there. In that light the SEALs job is much easier.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 11:23 am to Jobu93
quote:
Vader is right regarding SEALs on horseback.
Not syaing the calvary wasn't effective then....i just don't think they would stand a chance against soldiers trained as seals with the superior weaponry seals would have.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 11:28 am to Azranod
I'm not sure I follow other than I think you are making my point. 100 guys will never be able to overcome the numbers with the losses that both civil war armies are willing to take. The seals would slowly be picked off and overwhelmed. Guerrilla warfare and ambushes were very common tactics in the civil war. Either army would quickly adapt and not line up toe to toe.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 11:29 am to LasVegasTiger
Would Pickett's Charge succeeded if he had close air support?
Posted on 3/31/14 at 11:30 am to Darth_Vader
I think you're overestimating the speed of response.
I suggest that if raids are successful and HVT are destroyed, the SEALs are long gone before any response can be made. Hell, the SEALs do that NOW, and back in the 1860s they would be damn near wizard like in their ability to appear/disappear to the opposing forces.
I suggest that if raids are successful and HVT are destroyed, the SEALs are long gone before any response can be made. Hell, the SEALs do that NOW, and back in the 1860s they would be damn near wizard like in their ability to appear/disappear to the opposing forces.
This post was edited on 3/31/14 at 11:37 am
Posted on 3/31/14 at 11:30 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
What will happen when the batteries die on the SEALS' night vision or AimPoint scopes?
Page 7 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News