Knights Vs G.Is


PDA

kannonfyre
April 7, 2003, 04:18 AM
I was having a BS session with my reservist platoon mates last night and we talked about how much medieval a** a present day infantry platoon could kick if both opposing forces were placed on level field with nothing but 400 yards of open ground between them.

The assumption is that the 1200 AD - 1400 AD force would have 1 archer to every 10 axe/sword/spear wielding infantry, and 1 horse mounted lance/sword carrying knight for every 5 ancient infantry. The knights would have platemail and everyone else would have chainmail. Total force = 1000 men.

The modern force would comprise 30 G.Is. The T.O.E would be as such:

3 7.62mm M240s, 6 5.56mm M249s, 3 M-21 sniper rifles, 6 M-16s with M203 grenade launchers, 12 M-16s, 30 M-9 pistols and as much ammo for their weapons as the troops can carry.

We came to the conclusion that the G.Is would kill about 450 - 800 enemy troops before being trampled to death. Any comments?
Do you think the platoon could deal with a larger force?

If you enjoyed reading about "Knights Vs G.Is" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ZekeLuvs1911
April 7, 2003, 06:41 AM
Well sure......once I call in the Apache Attack Helicopter I got behind that hill over there.....:D

foghornl
April 7, 2003, 08:00 AM
I was thinking of a flight squad of A-10's, but to each his own:neener:

H Romberg
April 7, 2003, 08:29 AM
I think after the real determinant is how much linked ammo they have.

nualle
April 7, 2003, 10:08 AM
both opposing forces were placed on level field with nothing but 400 yards of open ground between them.
30 well-armed, modern infantrymen vs. a high medieval army of 1000 whose complement breaks down to:
769 infantry (spearmen, most likely)
77 archers
154 mounted knights

on an open, level field. Seems to me that the 30 modern guys are toast.

The medievals have more than 2.5x the modern infantry's number in missile-throwers alone. They can protect their archers behind the infantry while they send their knights and a troop or two of infantry for the moderns to busy themselves mowing down.

The modern officer involved ought never to have accepted battle under those conditions. Now if there were some trees... even a bit of high ground, maybe a few big rocks for cover. These change the scenario.

Wilhelm
April 7, 2003, 10:26 AM
The cavalry would be almost useless. They would get mowed by the slug thrower before ever become a threat. Then it depends on if the horses are used to gunpowder or not. As long as the modern soldiers use basic tactics I dont think they would even have go last mand standing against the medievel guys.



Wilhelm

scotjute
April 7, 2003, 10:39 AM
They would probably not be inclined to get caught in the open like that.
However, assuming they were caught in the open, the horses would probably be mowed down as they were not as heavily armored as the knights.
IF horses are not used to the noise of gunfire and explosions, wouldn't they be rather hard to control?
Once the medieval army began to experience horrible casulties at a distance, they would normally break and run.

natedog
April 7, 2003, 10:47 AM
I think the medieval army would run. It would be their first and first-hand experience with guns!

DragonRider
April 7, 2003, 11:25 AM
Also, are the knights European or Arabic or Oriental??? Which are easier to control saying its easier to Martyr? I think religous backing would play a large roll on if they keep charging or cut and run. Look at the TV with a single pickup charging a column of tanks.

I'd say most likely the GI's would win, but with the Arabic or Oriental knights, they would suffer some casulties. Luckily the European are with the longer range bows.:D

John

gun-fucious
April 7, 2003, 12:08 PM
OK, now lets give the Knights Ceramic and Kevlar Armor and have them form up in the Spartan Phalanx

I still think M203 fire is gonna destroy the toad stickers

A crew served 40mm weapon platform is going to mow the field

bogie
April 7, 2003, 12:22 PM
Okay - what's the max range on a longbow? Not just the max effective range, but the max range for lobbin' 'em in. I suspect that 400 yards is a bit far for it.

I suspect that after the first magazine change, there'd be a buncha folks getting trampled by whichever horses were still standing as they retreat...

Chris Rhines
April 7, 2003, 12:24 PM
I doubt that modern personal weaponry could offset a 34-to-1 numerical disadvantage, in a stand-up, open-field fight. Do it that way, the modern troops would be slaughtered.

If I were the commander of the primitive forces, here's what I would do:

- Rank up the infantry to provide cover for the archers. Hold the cav in reserve.
- Spread the archers out and let them start suppressing the battlefield. Every trooper that gets taken out signifigantly curtails their ability to fight, while the primitives can lose dozens of men without their combat effectiveness being reduced.
- Once the troops are pinned down, maybe have taken a few casualties, send in a hardcore cavalry charge, preferably from the flank. Since the troopers don't have pikemen, they're very vulnerable to a cav charge. I doubt the troopers would be able to stop a cavalry charge with gunfire (it didn't work for archers during the Hundred Years War.) A good horse can cover four hundred yards in thirty or forty seconds from a dead standstill. That's not alot of time to break a charge, especally when there are a bunch of archers trying to turn you into a human pincushion.

Note - I posted this before reading Bogie's post - 400 yards is long range for a medieval archer (I'm assuming Welsh longbows rather than crossbows.) It could be done, though. There are reports of longbowmen bringing down mounted targets during the Hundred Years War at over two-hundred and fifty paces.

If the medieval force closed up the distance it would be worse for the modern troops (less time for them to break the charge.) They would take some casualties in doing so. On the other hand, most of the modern guys are shooting M16s, which wouldn't exactly be my choice for a 400-yard fight either.

The only way for the modern troops to win such a fight would be to go into a fighting withdrawl, get to some cover, and use their mobility advantage to whittle down the medievals.

- Chris

dude
April 7, 2003, 12:40 PM
well, if the poorly trained G.I.s had Aimpoints................

bogie
April 7, 2003, 01:38 PM
Think of it this way - The first "charge" is likely to be broken before the horses make it to within 100 yards of the troops. Even at 400 yards, a .223 slug will go through medieval armor. And those horses generally weren't all that armored. A rider and a horse is a big target for an M249. Figure that the gunners will be able to acquire 'em fairly easily, and figure 20 rounds each. That's 30 of 'em down in the first hundred rounds x 6 gunners.

Add in at least a half-dozen rounds (likely more) of assorted rounds outta the blooper tubes, and the horse mounted troops will be _rapidly_ ineffective.

I'd have my snipers concentrate on the archers. They're the real danger. Everyone else just should pick clustered targets.

tommytrauma
April 7, 2003, 02:10 PM
Wow I haven't been in a discussion like this since I stopped playing D&D in middle school :D

Has anyone here read '1632' by Eric Flynt? Similar scenerio.

cslinger
April 7, 2003, 02:28 PM
I really cannot believe I am going to reply to this but everybody is looking at things purely academically.

Lets add in the human factor shall we.

Say you are a member of your 1000 strong army feeling pretty good about yourself and your chances. You are big, bad and been working out and ready to kick some butt on the little peasant uprising to your north.

Before the charge is called you suddenly have a few hundred of your buddies litterally get cut down like magic. Explosions are going off, horse guts everywhere and then you hear the charge order.

Mmmm don't know about you but I myself am kicking silver into high gear and going the other way. The moral would disintegrate in no time at all.

In short it wouldn't be pretty.

The modern guys would probably take some wounded by the archers and maybe even some dead but I would think it would be route only rivaled by the Iraqi Army.

Chris

Chris Rhines
April 7, 2003, 02:35 PM
Bogie -

Okay, we'll make it forty seconds, give the modern troops the benefit of the doubt. The cavalry are being held in reserve while the archers are picking targets. Keep in mind that a 14th-century Welsh archer could let go five to eight arrows every minute, which would do quite a nice job of keeping the modern troops heads down. Conversely, covering fire, even with 240Bs and 203s (pretty much a small cannon, less deadly against massed troops) won't work well against archers spread out behind/among 700+ pikemen. So now both sides have taken some casualties, but only the primitives have the manpower to soak them up. Now while the, say, 50 or so archers are keeping the modern troops occupied, the 150 mounted heavy cavalry make an oblique charge. Forty seconds for, say, twenty to twenty-five troops to take down 150 rapidly-moving targets closing the distance from 400 yards to nose-biting distance? While under fire? I wouldn't want to play those odds...

If I wanted to be really nasty, I'd prep for a mass infantry charge while the modern troops were reforming to deal with the cavalry.

- Chris

srschick
April 7, 2003, 03:02 PM
don't forget, you have a means to take out a lot of them with one 40mm grenade launcher (point target range ~500 ft).
Have the snipers pick off archers. that is their long distant weapon. How accurate would you be if you knew your fellow archers are being picked off?

One thing to consider is the playing field. Is it flat, or hilly, or high/low ground?

Also consider how the medieval forces attack. They start with vollies from archers, then attack. Usualy spread on a straight line.

And.. what kind of modern infantry are you talking about?
Army... maybe have a chance, unless special forces/rangers involved.

USMC? do I/you really need to answer that? :evil:

Zundfolge
April 7, 2003, 03:22 PM
You also have to take into consideration the ethnicity of your GIs. I mean, how many of your guys are just going to disappear when one of their ancestors is gunned down?

Or just the change in history this battle would cause could effect the procreation habits of the survivors and others in the area thus erasing even more of your GIs.

Tons of paradox to consider here. :)



But do away with the human factor (ancients being frightened by their "magic" opfor) and the paradox factor and I'd love to see a computer simulation done of this from a tactical standpoint.

bogie
April 7, 2003, 03:27 PM
Archers gotta stand up, and stay still, to shoot. Assuming that the M21 gunners average two rounds/archer, and are shooting 20 round mags, that's 30 archers right there. Add in .223 and 7.62 fire going around/through the peasants/cavalry, and you're gonna get some more.

At this distance, armor only means more fragments of crap in a wound.

400 yards is virtually point blank range for modern weapons, but it'd be on the FAR edge for medieval archery.

The peasants are not going to close to within hand to hand for upwards of a minute, or even two minutes - maybe not even three or four... How fast could YOU run a 400 yard "dash" when burdened with weapons and/or armor, with folks shooting at you?

I'd spread my folks out to avoid giving cluster targets to volley fire from archers. Do I get time to dig in?

Oh, and do my folks have tracers? What are the peasants gonna do when a bunch of light balls float toward 'em, and then folks start exploding around 'em?

It'd be over in 10 seconds, before the cavalry covers 200 yards.

Earlier, I forgot to figure in the heavy machine guns. Those horses are dogfood. The danger is the archers, and considering that our troops can fire 15 (rifle troops) x 30 (2 seconds/shot) accurate shots per minute, they're gonna be hurtin'. That's not counting the psyops from the 249s and 203s...

Chris Rhines
April 7, 2003, 03:58 PM
Archers gotta stand up, and stay still, to shoot. If the archers were out in the open, they'd be in trouble. But they wouldn't be, they'd be back behind the infantry lines. Lots of cover, lots of concealment, tough shots to make. Especally when they're switching positions every so often, and keeping up a steady five arrows/min rate of fire. You can move while drawing a bow quite well. And if they return fire and take out a few of your snipers... well, like I said. The medievals can afford to lose some men. The modern troops cannot.

400 yards is virtually point blank range for modern weapons, but it'd be on the FAR edge for medieval archery. 400 yards is also beyond the effective range of a .223 M855 (reference innumerable TFL discussions.) Until the infantry lines close with the modern guys, they've got only the 240Bs, the M21s, and the M203s to depend on. And all this while 70+ archers are dumping arrows on 30 dog soldiers. Again, all the primititives have to do is kill a few modern troops for the battle to become totally hopeless.

The peasants are not going to close to within hand to hand for upwards of a minute, or even two minutes...[quote] Doesn't matter. The infantry (we're talking trained foot soldiers, not peasants) only is here to screen the archers until they get close enough for hand-to-hand.

[quote]Oh, and do my folks have tracers? What are the peasants gonna do when a bunch of light balls float toward 'em, and then folks start exploding around 'em? I deliberately left out any consideration of psywar effects, just as being too hard to manage. But if the medievals have faced connon fire before, I doubt tracers will affect them too badly (again, assuming trained and blooded troops.) One could also ask how the modern troops would react to having a buddy getting skewered by a sheaf arrow, or dismembered by some big barbarian-lookin' mutha with a sword...

It'd be over in 10 seconds, before the cavalry covers 200 yards. Again, the cavalry is moving erratically at upwards of 15mph, charging in from 400+ yards, and the defenders are getting pelted with arrows. Making hits under those conditions would be tougher than you seem to think. I won't even mention whether a .223 is enough gun to drop a charging warhorse in its tracks... :D

- Chris

srschick
April 7, 2003, 04:19 PM
400 yards is also beyond the effective range of a .223 M855 (reference innumerable TFL discussions.

umm... you (and the rest who refute this) better tell the Marines to drop the 500 meter (547yds) line from the qualification course.
I had no problem hitting COM from 500 yards with an M16A2.
And if you think the bullet has lost all of it's energy by then, would you want to test that out? I've heard of plenty of BG's being taken out at that range with a 5.56.



I won't even mention whether a .223 is enough gun to drop a charging warhorse in its tracks...

Last time I checked, It's hard to get a horse do sh*t without a rider. That horse is just as dangerous to them without someone controlling it.

they've got only the 240Bs, the M21s, and the M203s to depend on.

ONLY!!! that's a crapload of only!

Just tell a platoon of Marines to "fire for effect" (how many of you have seen something like that?)

bogie
April 7, 2003, 04:34 PM
I _rarely_ shoot with open sights.

That said, I can hit a man-sized target at least 50% of the time at 400 yards using an M-16 and single aimed shots. Guys, that's essentially point blank range for that weapon. You use the little aperture, and put the front sight at the top of the head. No problem.

A .223 might not be optimal at 400 yards, but it'll still have the ballistic capability of penetrating any armor that a medieval soldier could field. 400 yards is at the outer limit of the cartridge for prairie dogs. They're a LOT smaller than peasant troops...

The "effective range" stuff is hooey. If you can see it, you can shoot it. It may not be optimal, but you can shoot it.

If you shoot a horse (missing the rider) with a FMJ .223, you're gonna have a hurtin' horse. You may get lucky and hit the rider.

Selfdfenz
April 7, 2003, 04:44 PM
The movie "Zulu" comes to mind.
The 240 cranks at about 600 to 800 per min and you have 3 of them grinding on a massed group. Almost impossible to miss hitting something in the first minute of the charge and the deeper you stack them the more you help the gunners.

How much of the 400 yards could be covered in the first 4 minutes with 8 or 9000 rounds trying to occupy the same area just from the 240s alone. Horses in front, horses in back, makes nor diff. The archers start to become "naked" and hit before they get within range to fire arrow one. Unless the primitives are on opium they would realize thing were going badly and stop before they got half way there.

It would not surprise me with the moderns sustained no losses save their underpants.

S-

cslinger
April 7, 2003, 04:46 PM
"This is my booom Stick!!!"

Comes to mind.

Chris:D

Chris Rhines
April 7, 2003, 04:53 PM
Bogie, and others...

I agree that it is certainly possible to hit a man-sized target at 500 yards with a rifle of moderate accuracy. I can do that myself, just fine, on a square range, against a highly visible, stationary target. I cannot, however, hit an erratic, rapidly moving, man-sized target that is returning fire. Can you?

I think that you guys are seriously estimating the advantage that modern weaponry would grant in this scenario. That an advantage exists is undeniable. I do not think that such an advantage will allow 30 infantry to stand up against one thousand medieval soldiers. The manpower imbalance is simply too great.

- Chris

Pappy John
April 7, 2003, 05:01 PM
Well gents, I shoot long bows. Arrows lose speed very quickly once they leave the string, and even with my fastest bow, a Black Widow LAG, 400 yards is WAY, way, way out of my range. I'm not talking about hitting anything...I'm just talking about getting the arrow that far. I think the only determinant in this fight is the cavalry. If they immediately start thier charge when the shooting starts they might just barely have enough hooves left to crush 30 troopers before they're all done. But I really don't think that they would make it that far in the face of massed auto weapons fire. Horse cavalry in the post Maxim era? Nah.

srschick
April 7, 2003, 05:05 PM
Wouldn't it be ultra-cool if someone could come out with a video game.... call it "What If"... that you could input any kind of scenario, then allow it to be networkable, possibly online?

Untill that happens, or untill that Time Tunnel gets invented or dug-up, we'll just have to give our opinions, whether educated, experienced, or just thought up.

bogie
April 7, 2003, 05:18 PM
Until the targets are within 200 or so yards, they're essentially not returning fire. At least not effective aimed fire. And you don't have to worry about the peasants until they're within 20 or so yards. Remember that just because an archer made a shot once doesn't mean that any archer can make it all the time.

The technological advantage is there. Your soldiers may not hit the targets on the first round, but they're using semi-autos (except for the machine gunners) with confirmed antipersonnel capability to beyond 600 yards.

The M21s are fully capable of hitting 50% of rounds fired, to a distance beyond 800 yards.

Even if an M-16 is only going to hit on 25% of rounds fired at 400, that's still a sizable number. And odds of hits get better as the environment becomes denser.

Add in losses from the 203 gunners aiming for clusters (and do the 203s have flechette rounds available?) Plus, they've got the .223 capability - they can load the blooper, wait until they've got a target while firing the .223, then target the blooper when they've acquire something worth it.

Say each soldier is carrying an average of 500 rounds of assorted ammo. Personally, I'd be carrying more... SAWs, etc., could literally start at one end of the line, and mow to the other, with truly nasty consequences to the medieval troops. If a round would miss the first rank, it's still a danger to the next - and the next. Remember that at these distances, the trajectories are essentially flat; +/- a torso. Not so with the archers.

Any bow hunters out there? I wonder just what the actual max for a bow is?

bogie
April 7, 2003, 05:21 PM
Oh yeah - How many arrows can those archers carry? What % of hits is probable?

With ammo, weight is a limiting factor, but with arrows, I suspect that bulk would be - Would 24-36 likely be a maximum?

gryphon
April 7, 2003, 05:32 PM
As stated previous, modern soldiers would be stupid to sit in the middle of an open field and given the fact that each side would follow the tactics of their time, as this is all they know, the modern infantry would utterly destroy the medieval soldiers, IMHO.

Not saying that the medieval soldiers lack courage or cunning, but their combat tactics involve skirmish lines and charges. We see how well that worked out in the revolutionary war and the civil war. It's no wonder we don't fight like that anymore.

ahenry
April 7, 2003, 05:34 PM
Any bow hunters out there? I wonder just what the actual max for a bow is? I can shoot my 80lbs compound 100 yards, not at animals but at targets. With practice I think I could be consistent at 100 yards. Of course that is with modern arrows and a compound. Medieval archers didn’t even use recurves so they lost a lot of energy that modern bows transmit to the arrow. Adjust for old arrows (which I’m not all that familiar with) and figure that the archer is a super stud then toss in some bonus yardage and I figure the max effective range of the archers was less than 200 yards. Not what one or two was able to do, but what all of them are capable of. To be honest, I really don’t think archers would have been effective beyond about 100 yards. Within that range though, I think they would have been devastating.

Chris Rhines
April 7, 2003, 05:34 PM
Bogie -

Generally an professional longbowman would carry an arrow case with maybe two dozen shafts. Some carried more, although during wartime good shafts were often scarce. Archers in the HYW were taught not to use volley fire unless they could not pick a target. I don't know what their hit percentage was, but I suspect that it was pretty high. We're talking guys who spend ten years just learning the basics of the skill.

203's do have flechette rounds avaialable, but they wouldn't be useful in this battle. They're out of gas by 75 yards. Kind of like a big, low-velocity shotgun. I'm not sure if they're even issued anymore.

500 rounds of ammo each? That sounds high. 800 for a SAW gunner, maybe around 4-500 for a 240B, 210 for a -16 (not counting the ammo carried in stripper clips; either way the battle will be over before those come into play.) Dunno about the M21s, but I doubt they carry more than 200 rounds ready to go.

Raking fire with a machinegun isn't a viable technique that I've ever heard of. You pick a cluster of targets and walk bursts of fire into it. The modern troops can inflict some casualties with that technique, but I doubt that it would be enough to offset the manpower disadvantage.

As for the -21s and -16s, they may be capable of 50% or 25% hits, but that leaves out the human factor. In a battle, the hit percentage is always a whole lot lower.

Still, it would be interesting to write a simulation for this scenario. Maybe in Operation Flashpoint? Anyone have a computer capable of handling 1030 seperate AIs?

- Chris

bogie
April 7, 2003, 05:56 PM
Well, taking into account the above info, assuming that the cavalry can be taken out relatively easily (horses are big, and generally don't dodge about...), you're going to have at least 30 seconds where the modern M-16 troops can fire unopposed (assuming that the archers can move at olympic-sprinter speeds... but they not likely to move ahead of their protecting peasants). During those 30 seconds, if they can unload a total of 450 aimed shots (15x30), they should be taking out at least 100 enemy. Odds are, they'll get a body count greater than that, since I expect that the archers, etc., wouldnt' be able to close within striking distance for upwards of two minutes. Likely _way_ upwards.

Then, assuming an average rate of fire of one round/second, with 25% hits (at under 400 yards, without appreciable return fire, it's a trigger pulling contest that gets easier as the ranks approach 200 and then 100 yards), that's half the enemy force gone. Add in 3 x 10 x 2 (50% hits for the 3 M21 riflemen x 2 magazines) on selected targets, and things are becoming a LOT more manageable. And we're not even considering the bloopers.

Also consider that it'd be a simple thing for the M21 riflemen to discern, target, and remove the medieval leadership.

So, the medieval force will likely lose 50% of its capability, including much of the cavalry and archers, by the time it closes to where the archers can actually hit. Also, take into account that after the cavalry is removed, the 7.62 and .223 machine guns will then be brought into play against what's left of the archers.

Chris Rhines
April 7, 2003, 06:08 PM
Again, Bogie, you're assuming a hit percentage for the modern troops that is at best, unlikely.

- Chris

Chris Rhines
April 7, 2003, 06:10 PM
Something else I just thought of. While it would be easy to pick out the cavalry (assuming they were in range), how do you identify an archer? They wear roughly the same gear. How easy is it to tell a longbow and a spear apart at 400 yards?

- Chris

bogie
April 7, 2003, 06:15 PM
Thing is, it isn't a battle until the other side can shoot back. Up until then, it's a trigger pulling contest. I _know_ that I can fire a magazine, aimed, in under a minute, with darn good hit results. And remember that ANY hit will likely work. Leg, arm, whatever. Any place where they're massed, you miss your target, the bullet keeps going until it finds another. If the fellows at Roarke's Drift could hold off 3000 Zulu with single-shot rifles, imagine what a third of their number could do with 10x (conservative) the firepower.

And someone oughta tell the folks who withstood human wave assaults in WWII and Korea that raking fire is ineffective...

Lord Grey Boots
April 7, 2003, 06:24 PM
Uh folks, there are some pretty equivalent real life examples that be examined.

Polish Calvary vs the German Wehrmacht, 1939?

Various WWI Calvary actions?



My thought is that the Modern unit will see the mounted armor with enough notice that they will be ready to shoot well before the archers can, or before the horses can get up to speed.


My vote is that the middle ages folks are dog food, with some horses crashing to the ground within 25 yards of the GIs.

voilsb
April 7, 2003, 06:41 PM
the GIs would never get trampeled. one HE round from a 203 would scatter the entire enemy line, and they'd run for the hills. it's got a range of 400 meters. now, say *each* 203 gunner is going at it while the knights/etc are still clustered, and the 240 gunners and saw gunners are going at it, and the riflemen are attacking *area* targets.

by the time the first 30 seconds are up, there'd be so many dead that the remaining would scatter anywhere they could to avoid the fiery death from the wizards on the other side of the hill.

geekWithA.45
April 7, 2003, 06:47 PM
1) I'm glad someone brought up Africa. Basically, it was conquered by relatively small troop formations with single shot rifles and only a few machine guns per formation.

For the sake of argument, can we agree that metal armor is irrelevant to modern gunfire? If so, then it only serves to bog down the medievals.

2) I'm not under the impression that the longbow was generally an aimed weapon, so for all intents and purposes, you've got a relatively static formation ballistically lobbing arrows perhaps 200 yards into kevlar clad troops. Now I know that kevlar isn't especially knife proof, but I'll bet the ballistic plates and the helmets are.

3) The marine manual of machine gunning calls for a number of techniques, including traversing fire. http://www.biggerhammer.net/manuals/mcwp3151.pdf


4) Basically, you've got a situation where the medievals are being severely depleted at an increasing rate before they can even get into range where they can employ their weapons, against troops who are suitably armored against them.

5) Either the cavalry leads, or they don't play, and if they do play, the medieval footmen will have to climb over all the dead horses, which will slow them down. This then forms a natural ridge and barrier, as the bodies pile higher and higher.

6) Another truism learned from another war: Bonzai charges against rifle companies just don't work. ;)

7) There is a REASON cavalry, plate armor, archery and pikemen no longer have a place on the modern battlefield, and it's name is RIFLE.

CWL
April 7, 2003, 08:41 PM
Heck I'll play.

First of all, knights of this period would have been wearing chainmail, not platemail (plate came into dominance as a result of firearms). Any penetration by a modern bullet would have sent shards of chain into the body in addition to the bullet itself. Bad stuff.

Longbows probably wouldn't have been shot farther than 200 yards. Archery is most effective when volleyed from formed ranks -something aimed riflefire can break up.

Medieval horse wouldn't go near the sound of the guns. Unless trained, horses do not like loud noises. FACT- Mongols used firecrackers in the 1300's to disrupt Hungarian cavalry when they invaded Europe.

Dying to the last man is stupid, troops are expensive.
Few formed hand-to-hand units would have stayed cohesive after 10-15% causalties. This is called brittleness . Medieval chivalry ran away all the time.

Prior to the introduction of firearms, the majority of battlefield fatalities were caused after one unit has broken and run away. Deaths were caused mostly by the victors as they caught up and killed the losers from behind.

Soldiers of any age won't accept huge casualties before running away.

Modern infantry can pick off targets starting at 300yards with some regularity.

You do understand that firearms were the principal reason cavalry lost dominance on the battlefield? Firearms were also the reason why bowcraft ended.

kannonfyre
April 7, 2003, 09:45 PM
To clear up the situational and terrain background, I'm assuming that a platoon of G.Is get lost on manouvers and stumble into a trans-dimentional portal. They get transported to a parrellel dimention which is still stuck in the 1200 - 1300s.

Baron whateverhisnameis is on his way to quell a rebellion by the highland clans with his 1000 troops when our G.Is appear as if by magic some 400 yards in front of them. Due to their strange appearance, the Baron assumes that they are "demon spawn from the plains" and attacks with all this men.

The Baron adopts the same tactics that English lords would use in 1250AD.

Selfdfenz
April 7, 2003, 09:57 PM
"Raking fire with a machinegun isn't a viable technique that I've ever heard of. "

All involved racked up a considerable body count on many occassions during WWI using that very technique. I assume you are I are defining racking fire in the same manner.


S-

nualle
April 8, 2003, 01:23 AM
The info about weapon capacities and all is fascinating and good to know. The input about the human element is also well taken.

Here's another human element: No one said anything about the moderns having (or having the time to create) an entrenched, defensible position (making the comparison to Roarke's Drift like apples to xylophones). The moderns got caught out in the open. This already implies that they're poorly commanded.

Feanaro
April 8, 2003, 02:26 AM
Four hundred yards. The best English archers, with the finest weapons of the time MIGHT make it that far. Might make it, if there was a miracle. Your average archer wasn't well paid or fed and wasn't likely to have the hundred pound pull strength for the best bows. Even if they were the best archers of the day, a dispersed unit of G.I.s would be hard to hit at any range other than two hundred yards or less.

In the time it took the bowmen (and their screens) to move into effective range, the machine guns and grenades would have devistated many of their troops, they would be scared to DEATH and the horses would be hard to control. The armor would not help, at all. If it did, we'd still have it. That's why it died out, guns penetrated it easily. The troops, other than the knights, would be peasants with a few units of mercenaries to strengthen them out. Devil machines are dropping your friends and comrades all around, fire is blasting out of the ground(M203) and you might be next. It's looking grim for the knights...

Sprig
April 8, 2003, 05:58 AM
Hello All,

Use some math?

30 kill/stop 1000.
Every 3 kill/stop 100.
or!!!
1000 kill/stop 30?
Every 100/kill stop 3?

That is THREE modern/100 medieval;
OR
ONE modern to 34 medieval.

At first I after reading this thread I thought the medieval troops would win for superior numbers. I was going to show here why. However, I realize how wrong I was.

After doing the math, each GI with ONE 30 round magazine (and all kill shots) is going to mean even numbers of loss!!!!!!! BUT !!! BUT!!! BUT!!! the GI can project causulties further out (AND carrry more then ONE 30rnd M-16 magazine).

The same reason the Gulf War was one sided for the USA tank crews. The USA tank crews could inflict damage at a greater range.

IF each GI has 4 30 round magazines in there M-16A2, and can shoot worth a hoot, then its no contest. Each GI shoots 30 of the medieval troups (900 inflicted wounds) before the GI's even come under fire themselves.

And! That is with the M16, in .223, if some of the GI's are allowed to use other modern weapons, the defeat of the medieval is even more certain.

Sad to say, the medieval guys need closer range, or more numbers.

Sprig

rms/pa
April 8, 2003, 06:36 AM
only surviors of the maedevile forces will be those who fall down behind the windrows of dead or dying.
three heavy machine guns at 400 yards will easily kill the
attacking force.

the m16s and grenade launchers would be just langnappe.

battle of the somme anyone?

rms/pa

illuminatus99
April 8, 2003, 09:19 AM
saw a show a while back where they were talking about the effective range of siege weapons, they said the trebuchet maxed out at about 200 yds and were wondering if the long bow from a castle wall would be a danger for a siege crew, to demonstrate a guy took a longbow and fired from 200 yards, the arrow alsmost went clean through an armored dummy but the fletching caught on the way out the back. the guy who shot the arrow didn't look like he was really even trying.


personally I think that if the medieval forces didn't run from the sound of gunfire they'd probably use volley fire at long range to distract the GIs while the cavalry tramples them. of course if the archers are using alternating volleys they can advance to range and start really shooting.

MrAcheson
April 8, 2003, 10:04 AM
This is all a question of the tactics used by either side. There are tactics which would allow either to win. The question then becomes how contrived is this situation going to be? Is one group going to withdraw immediately? If so there may not be a fight. Does either side understand how the other fights?

The GI reaction to this would probably be to withdraw (using covering fire if necessary) to defensible ground. Then entrench and find out what the heck is going on. How the heck did we end up in a renfaire?

The medeival reaction would be huh? Are they angels or demons? Foriegn invaders? Don't see any insignia or heraldric emblems so how can we tell? Perhaps we should run up a white flag and parley before the battle like civilized men?

bogie
April 8, 2003, 11:50 AM
Oh yeah, if the GIs fall back in staggered sequence, they can delay closure even more.

I'd venture 50% of the opfor, including most of the archers and cavalry, will be out of the battle before there is a chance of a hit on a GI.

Numbers would be higher if the opfor was clustered together in any sort of "fighting formation."

For instance, this "lost platoon" would also stand a VERY good chance in the opening scene of "Gladiator." One light SAW would be more than enough for a phalanx, leaving the rest of the group to concentrate on siege weapons, archers and mounted troops.

MrAcheson
April 8, 2003, 03:01 PM
My guess is if the GIs gave ground to the cavalry they would be dead men. It would not significantly increase the amount of closing time but it would potentially cut their firepower in half or more. The horse cavalry is much much more mobile than the GIs. For that matter the standard infantry is probably as or more mobile than the GIs.

Plus a modern GI has no defense against a cavalry attack. No bayonets of suitable length, etc. Standard GI defense is a skirmish line which is the worst possible thing to do against sword cavalry.

The big question here is, how smart are the knights. If they are smart enough to use anti-archery and anti-artillery tactics (even medeival versions of the same) against the GIs then the GIs will be doomed. If the medievals scatter and flank them, the GIs will not be able to kill them all before the medievals close. The problem is that some of these tactics might be considered unchivalrous by medeival standards. Doesn't mean a good commander won't use them though.

srschick
April 8, 2003, 03:35 PM
AHA! But you have forgotten about The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch! That could put the advantage in the medievals court.

http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~pparker/images/hhg5.gif

Frohickey
April 8, 2003, 03:57 PM
And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then, lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.' (http://www.stone-dead.asn.au/movies/holy-grail/ra/21-13.ra)

bogie
April 8, 2003, 04:22 PM
Plus a modern GI has no defense against a cavalry attack. No bayonets of suitable length, etc. Standard GI defense is a skirmish line which is the worst possible thing to do against sword cavalry.

Huh?

Tell ya what... You let me line up three 7.62 heavy machine guns, a half dozen SAWs, and a few bloopers, and you can charge your hundred or so horse cavalry toward me from 400 yards, and we'll see if any of 'em make it to within bayonet length...

PaladinX13
April 8, 2003, 05:30 PM
Real quick, the medievals figure out the effective range of the 30 (they have the people to test it out, after all). They withdraw, encircle, and seige. It won't take much for them to realize bullets are finite. If the 30 want food or water, they're going to have to move. Your calvary can dog them constantly, forcing them to waste ammo, lose sleep, and are a serious threat. Your thousand kill any animals and slash and burn any possible food source. If it drags out long enough, they'll figure out that enough metal is "bullet proof" or build stone "fox holes" at key positions. Finally, fire and smoke (launched from the archer platforms) can be used for concealment, confusion, and to waste futher ammo.

Frohickey
April 8, 2003, 05:31 PM
Okay, are these Knights vs GIs in the Middle Ages, or Knights vs GI in the Modern Era? Knights/GIs transported via a dimensional gate into the other's territory...

Knights vs GIs in the Middle Ages, the first skirmish would have the GIs win, but soon, they will lose because there is no resupply coming in.

Knights vs GIs in the Modern Era, the first skirmish would have the Knights win, because the GIs would not be given any ammo, just blank adapters, and MILES gear. Second and subsequent skirmishes though, would have the Knights lose as they get pummelled by PETA supporters about their use of animals in warfare.

Now, if we can figure out a way to send all the PETA supporters back to the Middle Ages... :D

MrAcheson
April 8, 2003, 05:35 PM
They will. It happened a few times at the begining of WWI. A unit of germans held their fire as the horse cavalry closed knowing that cavalry always dismounts to fight in this day and age (and dismounted make for better targets too). Once the cavalry got to within a few hundred yards they charged. The germans could not kill them fast enough and the cavalry broke through. Keep in mind this was WWI and the germans had machine guns, etc.

A skirmish line is the worst formation against cavalry, especially sword wielding cavalry. The cavalry will dart back and forth in between the soldiers, cutting or riding them down as fast as they can. If the GIs run it gets even better. Back in the 1700s and 1800s was to use infantry and artillery to break the unit formation so the cavalry could come in and do <i>real</i> damage.

bogie
April 8, 2003, 06:50 PM
Well, if I see a guy on a horse with a big ol' pigsticker coming at me, I'm not gonna wait for him to get off the horse...

Shalako
April 8, 2003, 08:01 PM
Well, lets just say that the medievals are Mongols. This article here (http://www.coldsiberia.org/monbow.htm) says the Mongol archers could score hits out to 350 yards and beyond. These were also some extremly tough dudes (and dudettes apparently) that would probably take a few hits to bring down.

Now, if your GIs included a guy on a Mark 19.....
things could get interesting.

voilsb
April 8, 2003, 08:44 PM
Shalako said:
Well, lets just say that the medievals are Mongols. This article here (http://www.coldsiberia.org/monbow.htm) says the Mongol archers could score hits out to 350 yards and beyond. These were also some extremly tough dudes (and dudettes apparently) that would probably take a few hits to bring down. sure, let's say they're mongols. so yes, some of them can take shots at 320m and might be pretty tough. just like the english who could hit up to 228m. unfortunately, that's using the bows as an indirect fire instrument, which is inherently inaccurate when using something that easily affected by wind, and therefore only useful in huge volleys. which means they'd have to close in a good 75-100m before they could effectively engage the USGIs. that's plenty of time for the 203s and 240s to wreak some pretty serious havoc on the mongols.

so that means the USGIs would waste a bunch of mongols, and might actually sustain a casualty or two instead of coming out completely unscathed like against european medievals.

CWL
April 8, 2003, 08:56 PM
After taking a few casualties, the Mongols would have ridden away giving full impression that they routed.

Then they would ride several days around to the back of the GI unit and struck again out of ambush when the GIs were least expecting it.

Mongols don't charge from the front if there is a chance of taking an objective by surprise.

The Mongols, Early Imperial Romans and Alexandrian Macedonians were as professional and trained as modern US soldiers.

PaladinX13
April 8, 2003, 09:42 PM
How much does wind affect arrow range and smokescreen effectiveness?

voilsb
April 8, 2003, 10:50 PM
good thing the GIs maintain 360 degree security. not saying it's impossible to sneak up on them, but it's not easy, either.

and just because you're well trained and professional doesn't mean you won't panic if all of a sudden, completely out of your sphere of experience, people start falling down bleeding badly and the ground starts exploding, and all you hear is loud noises from the other side of the field and "zip" noises around you.

an intelligent commander would probably decide that somone who is that deadly at such a range is probably best left alone.

nualle
April 8, 2003, 10:50 PM
If the medievals are Mongols, the percentage who are archers goes way up and the percentage of spearmen falls. That increases the range, the mobility, and the absolute numbers of the missiles the GIs stand to take.

556A2
April 8, 2003, 11:16 PM
I'd put my money on the GIs

Andrew Wyatt
April 9, 2003, 12:35 AM
I'd put my money on the gi's as well.

Tamara
April 9, 2003, 01:04 AM
We came to the conclusion that the G.Is would kill about 450 - 800 enemy troops before being trampled to death. Any comments?

A force that would trample anything other than a hasty path to the rear after taking 45-80% casualties would be a rare force indeed.



It's fun to pontificate on, but if you want to see what happens to people who try and cross 400 yards of open ground into the teeth of even a handful of crew-served and/or automatic weapons, read up on the Somme, Ypres, "The Corpse-Fields of Loos", et al

Feanaro
April 9, 2003, 01:24 AM
The human element is always present but that arguement could go on forever. So for a moment, assume the knights march forward using whatever tactics were common for the period.

Think about the fire you can bring to bear with all that equipment. Taking the average sustained ROF for the MGs, a guesstimated fifty RPM for the M21(just a guess as to how many aimed shots you can make into a crowd of knights :) ) and the M16A2s semiauto ROF, we come up with one thousand, seven hundred and seventy rounds per minute. Even if we throw in reloads, misses and such the knights are looking at a wall of bullets. They be would hard pressed to close the four hundred yards before they had been blasted all to hell. If you bring in good commanders, than it gets interesting.

kannonfyre
April 9, 2003, 03:21 AM
.....if William Wallace and his men had M-14 rifles instead of hand weapons?

It'll be great to see what would have happened in "Braveheart" if during the first battle scene with the cavalry charge, WW and his guys wipped out semi-auto .308 guns instead of replying on pikes?

Heck, with 1 FAL and 1 M-1 for every 5 men I think they would be able to march straight to London and make Longshanks eat his own S$%^.

Wilhelm
April 9, 2003, 09:52 AM
I hate to tell you this but in reality that battle was fought on a bridge and if memory serves he burned the bridge with the english still on it.


Wilhelm

Frohickey
April 9, 2003, 04:06 PM
That must have been a heck of a big bridge. :eek:

What about GIs vs Lord Sauron of Middle Earth, equipped with the One Ring (my precioussssssssss)? :D

Or GIs vs Knights plus Merlin the Magician/Wizard. :evil:

VNgo
April 10, 2003, 03:07 AM
*raises an eyebrow*

Magic is a wild card; its capabilities can't be quantified well enough for any kind of battlefield simulation.


Something people seem to be forgetting: an infantry or cavalry formation is an area target, not a point target. That means every single weapon the moderns have (except for the M9 pistols) can engage right away; against area targets, an M-203 is good to 400 meters, an M-16 to 800 meters against area targets, an M249 to 1000 meters and an M240 to 3725 meters.

It'll be a turkey shoot, with the snipers picking off knights one by one, the grenadiers breaking up the infantry ranks with HE or incendiary rounds, and everyone else pouring a storm of lead into whoever's unfortunate enough to be in front.

illuminatus99
April 10, 2003, 07:44 AM
it also depends on when and where, in a big field during the summer you could cook out the GIs by setting the field on fire, while the GIs are trying to keep their ammo from cooking off and keep from getting burned the archers close and volley.

PaladinX13
April 10, 2003, 03:56 PM
Right, fire and smoke remove the sniper advantage (can't make aimed shots). Coming from the archers, fire and smoke closes the charging range from 400 to 200, since the 30 can't see anything meaningful until then.

Navy joe
April 10, 2003, 04:40 PM
We're forgetting that any knight capable of fighting after losing both arms and legs is going to be merely annoyed by 5.56 hits. "Tis but a scratch, I've had worse" ;)

Marko Kloos
April 10, 2003, 06:12 PM
The Medievals would get slaughtered....they'd break and run after suffering 50% casualties before they even get 200 yards.

Folks, 30 infantrymen makes three rifle squads. Each rifle squad consists of two four-man fire teams. Each fire team has three automatic rifles (M-16A2), one 40mm grenade launcher (M203), and one belt-fed light machine gun (M249 SAW). Two fire teams, a squad leader and a GPMG makes a rifle squad. That's two LMGs, one GPMG, seven or eight automatic rifles, and two grenade launchers. Now triple that number of hardware:

24 M-16A2 rifles
3 M240 GPMGs
6 M249 LMGs
6 M203 grenade launchers

Add a handful of anti-personnel grenades per trooper for good measure. That's nine belt-fed machine guns and two dozen automatic rifles, in addition to a half-dozen grenade launchers. All of these weapons would be immediately effective out to the full range of the engagement, which is more than can be said for medieval weaponry. The 1000 Medievals would get mowed down immediately, and no unit on the planet is brave enough to press a charge in the face of 50-80% losses before they even make half the range.

VNgo
April 10, 2003, 06:49 PM
Fire goes both ways. Given that medieval archers normally did *not* carry fire arrows except for siege operations, I'd say the modern force with its incendiary hand and 40mm grenades would have the advantage in that respect.

There are any number of devious things either side could pull off, but the standard response of knights to an unknown threat is a direct charge -- they're not trained for advanced strategy the way modern troops are.

Vladimir Berkov
April 11, 2003, 04:28 AM
This is very interesting, although first I want to clear a few things up.


First of all, knights of this period would have been wearing chainmail, not platemail (plate came into dominance as a result of firearms).

Not exactly. Plate began to be introduced long before actual personally portable firearms came into battlefield use. The primary purpose of plate was protection from pole-arms such as spears, and bows of various sorts, especially the longbow.

Firearms were sort of an afterthought. When firearms became more widespread as individual weapons, you would see plate being proofed against firearms sometimes.

Any penetration by a modern bullet would have sent shards of chain into the body in addition to the bullet itself. Bad stuff.

Not likely. Rings of mail are fairly large compared to the diameter of a bullet. In fact, it is quite probable that a .223 would go right through without touching any mail rings at all. And even if they did, they would simply be broken. Any one bullet is only going to break at most 4 rings, and most likely one or two if any. and since even the broken rings are still attached to others, it is unlikely that they would be detached and driven into the wound.


Longbows probably wouldn't have been shot farther than 200 yards. Archery is most effective when volleyed from formed ranks -something aimed riflefire can break up.

Some say that period longbows could be shot somewhat farther, but you also have to remember that period crossbows could be shot a LOT farther.


Medieval horse wouldn't go near the sound of the guns. Unless trained, horses do not like loud noises. FACT- Mongols used firecrackers in the 1300's to disrupt Hungarian cavalry when they invaded Europe.

Of course, remember that firearms were not unknown in medieval Europe. Guns were available, mainly as artillery. I find it doubtful that horses would react to small arms when they wouldn't to artillery.

Lastly, I think there is too little information to make any judgement either way. The terrain, the exact year (1200-1400)covers a LOT of different tactics, armor, weapons, etc) the leadership, and morale would decide it.

However, in truth, all the medieval force needs to do is get a fairly small group mixed in with the modern force and they have won. Modern soldiers are not equipped to deal with that type of combat, and will be slaughtered.

The goal of the medieval force would have to be to distract or occupy the modern force in some way in order to get enough men into their ranks.

Also, remember that the medieval force is going to set the place of battle, and will have all the intel. Aside from the larger number of men, they are mobile where the modern force is not. They could effectively encircle the modern force and attack them at will from any direction (or all directions.)

Don't discount the effect of casulaties on the modern force either. Even a couple of key casualties could reduce their fighting ability exponentially. This is not true of the medieval force.

telewinz
April 11, 2003, 05:34 AM
The Knights would be destroyed with few to no survivors. The explosions and gunfire would terrify the horses and knights who might believe they were fighting dark angels or something like that. Plate or chain mail would offer little protection for the knights once they were within 300 meters and then the volumn of fire would only increase. Its not just the sound of the guns but the sound of there rapid fire and also the ground exploding upon demand. Psych-ops at work, our only concern would be the archers, so we open ranks and deploy just inside the tree-line and pick-off the archers first. The type of warfare isn't all that different than what happened at WW1, the machine guns would mow them down.

PaladinX13
April 11, 2003, 12:40 PM
What people often preach is man's greatest weapon is his mind and despite a few hundred years worth of knowledge (which isn't the same as wisdom, intelligence, or speed of thought) you're pitting 1000 humans versus 30. That's a lot of mental potential.

telewinz
April 11, 2003, 04:21 PM
The archers would turn and run also....never overestimate the human capacity for ignorance, panic, disunity, and stupidity. The British and Roman Empires got away with it for centuries, with the help of vastly superior technology and knowing the weakness of their enemies. Don't forget what a few hundred British troops did with the single shot Martini Henry rifle against 4000 ignorant/primitive Zulu warriors. Again, I doubt that the 1000 "knights" would remain on the battlefield for long, except for the dead and dieing

Feanaro
April 11, 2003, 05:22 PM
While I am not too brushed up on my Medieval history, I thought crossbows had a SHORTER range than bows? More power but not as much range.

CWL
April 11, 2003, 06:38 PM
Crossbows, namely steel Arbalests cold be shot like a rifle out to 400 yards.

Longbows, while maximum range could be similar, wouldn't be regularly fired out to beyond 200 yards. Bowfire was was delivered from packed formations utilizing overhead volleyfire. The idea was to rain arrows down upon the heads of the enemy.

Crossbows were fired by the front rank only and then rotated to the rear in order to reload. These bolts had trajectories similiar to modern bullets.

Feanaro
April 11, 2003, 07:30 PM
So wouldn't crossbows expose the archers to more fire than bows? It wouldn't be much of an advantage, I would think, if you were exposed to nine machine guns.

VNgo
April 12, 2003, 05:29 PM
At that range, it would be nine machine guns, eighteen full-auto assault rifles and six grenade launchers.

tex_n_cal
April 13, 2003, 04:31 PM
The medievals need a effective distance weapon to succeed, and if the archers are hiding behind infantry, how are they going to spot the arrow flight and correct for range and wind drift? At that range the arrows will have a high arching trajectory, and a little wind will blow them yards off target. A few G.I.'s may get stuck, but I'd bet the automatic weapons will rapidly prevail.

I suspect after the battle the moderns will marvel about the "target rich" environment!

Frohickey
April 13, 2003, 05:46 PM
target rich, maybe, but they are very far/long away from resupply.

of course, the locals might just decide that the 30 GIs are the saviors for beating the King's/local Lord's army, that the locals would support them. Still, I doubt a medieval blacksmith and apocathary would be able to make M249/M16 magazines, 5.56Nato brass, Boxer small rifle primers, 55 grain copper jacketted bullets, and smokeless powder just for starters.

BHP9
April 13, 2003, 06:19 PM
I think a much fairer test would be to pit them as close as 60 or 70 yards. The medieval people would be armed with bows AND CROSS BOWS and siege machines just as they were back then and the modern force would have assault rifles and perhaps some rocket propelled grenades.


I would put my money on the medieval force anyday because they would win QUICKLY AND WITHOUT QUESTION and here is why.

TRAINING, TRAINING AND TRAINING. ANCIENT PEOPLES THAT WERE SOLDIERS LIVED THEIR LIVES AS SOLDIERS AND THERE TRAINING FAR SURPASED ANYTHING THAT IS GIVEN TO TODAYS SOLDIERS NO MATTER WHAT ARMY WE ARE SPEAKING OF. NO ARMY TODAY COULD EVEN BEGIN TO SPEND EVEN HALF THE MONEY OR TIME THAT WAS SPENT ON TRAINING OF THE ANCIENT WARRIORS.

Vladimir Berkov
April 13, 2003, 07:10 PM
Agreed. I don't know of any modern soldiers who start their military training in childhood, and continue in it for the rest of their lives, constantly honing their skills in life-or-death combat.

Tamara
April 13, 2003, 07:30 PM
That's why born, bred and trained knights and men-at-arms massacred the conscript archers at Agincourt, bushido-inspired Japanese swamped the Marine defenders at Edson's Ridge and drove us off Guadalcanal, and the Zulu warriors overran Rourke's drift.

Bravery and warrior spirit are fine things, but they mean precisely squat in the face of belt-fed automatic weapons fire.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana, The Life Of Reason, Volume One, P.284.

Vladimir Berkov
April 13, 2003, 07:43 PM
The English longbowmen at Agincourtwere far from ill-trained conscripts.

Plus, you have to factor in hubris. During the medieval period, there are several examples of stupid attacks by heavy cavalry against infantry with pole-arms, mass longbowmen, etc.

But this does not mean that this was the rule.

280PLUS
April 13, 2003, 07:50 PM
maybe i read a little too much but all else aside, if your platoon guys, in their excitement, forgot to lower their sights continously as the charge progressed, they would soon be shooting over the heads of the enemy as they galloped in UNDER the hail of lead and routed your position.

and it wouldn't be the first time THAT ever happened...

:what:

Tamara
April 13, 2003, 08:01 PM
"Skilled archers" and "conscripts" are not mutually exclusive terms. Think about it for a moment. ;)

(Most of those guys were farmers, woodcutters, hunters, tradesmen, with a leavening of professional retinue bowmen. Soldiering was far from their way of life, unlike their noble targe... er, opponents. :cool: )

telewinz
April 13, 2003, 08:02 PM
Admiral Perry brought the primitive country of Japan to their knees with just a few muzzle loading cannon. The modern platoon would win hands down and go on to defeat the castle and become the new warlords. You can train with weapons your whole life but if they are the wrong weapons at the wrong time, its useless.

Vladimir Berkov
April 13, 2003, 09:15 PM
(Most of those guys were farmers, woodcutters, hunters, tradesmen, with a leavening of professional retinue bowmen. Soldiering was far from their way of life, unlike their noble targe... er, opponents. )

Of course, but practice with the longbow was an integral part of daily life. You couldn't just conscript a guy, hand him the bow and expect him to use it. It required great skill to use effectively, as well as the proper strength.

Vladimir Berkov
April 13, 2003, 09:18 PM
Admiral Perry brought the primitive country of Japan to their knees with just a few muzzle loading cannon. The modern platoon would win hands down and go on to defeat the castle and become the new warlords. You can train with weapons your whole life but if they are the wrong weapons at the wrong time, its useless.

Remember, that these 30 men have no artillery of any kind. They have no skill with period seige equipment, they cannot speak the language, etc. How on earth are they going to lay seige to a well-fortified castle?

Where are these people going to be supplied? Both in terms of ammunition, food, medical supplies, etc. Even if they win an initial engagement, they are toast in the long run as fatigue, hunger, and lack of ammunition lead to them getting killed off one by one.

Andrew Wyatt
April 13, 2003, 10:04 PM
THe modern infantrymen have it all over the medievals.

something no one has stopped to consider yet is the effectiveness of the american's armor.

the interceptor body armor has hard insert plates int it, and will certainly stop arrows in flight, their K-pots are also capable of stopping arrows.


you've reduced the effect of the archers by a good margin right there.

what about the american camouflage? I'm thinking that'd make the americans hard enough to see that there might not be a fight at all.

Frohickey
April 13, 2003, 10:45 PM
That would be body armor against individual arrows, but such is not the tactic. The tactic is to used massed archers, and that is bound to hit unprotected areas of the 30 GIs. Unless they dig in, and hunker down. If they do, they sure wouldn't be able to mow down the 100 or so knights charging in behind the hail of arrows. Same goes for the 300 or so footmen behind the knights.

If you enjoyed reading about "Knights Vs G.Is" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!