Fun Discussion: Outfit the Continental Army


PDA






230therapy
July 5, 2010, 05:56 PM
George Washington has assembled the Continental Army and is getting ready to go to war with the British. You have 15 days to outfit and train them.

You have a time portal that you can drive trucks through. The portal will last for the duration of the war.

Due to a weird quirk of the interaction of "The Butterfly Effect", Mysterious Cosmic Rays, Alien Intelligence, and The Hand of God, you can only outfit the soldiers. No support weapons, cannon, modern vehicles, etc.

Assumptions:

1) Adequate support gear will be provided: parts, clothing, MRE's, gear, boots, ammunition, magazines, etc.

2) The portal moves as needed and is secure at all times. Supplies may be delivered as required.

3) Your budget is sufficient to handle any weapons for all Americans and their allies in the war.

4) The trucks cannot stay. They are only for deliveries. No vehicles will stay behind once the portal closes (it vacuums them up somehow).

5) Anything anyone can think of as an exception is taken care of and you don't have to worry about it. This is The Hand of God intervening on your behalf.

The Questions:

1) What rifle and handgun would you choose?

2) If you could choose three people, what special guns would you give them? Who would you give them to?

If you enjoyed reading about "Fun Discussion: Outfit the Continental Army" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Rail Driver
July 5, 2010, 06:05 PM
I'd outfit the troops with select fire m-16/AR-15s in 5.56 and a few FALs for each unit.

Sidearm would be (surprise, surprise!) a 1911

I'd also supply 2 Barret M82A1's and an M249 SAW. I don't have the first clue who would get the special weapons.

Hand grenades and extra ammo to each soldier as well.

Patriotme
July 5, 2010, 06:12 PM
AK47 - The army lives in the field. There really is no clean rear area as we are used to today. Probably the best that can be hoped for is what we would consider a camping trip. The rifle would need to be run with minimal cleaning. Some of the army would also be illiterate and this is a good weapon for a less technological society. Then there is the dumbass factor. I recently read David McCollough's "1776." It's a great book and worth a read. In one chapter he mentioned that in the early days of the war some soldiers literally had their clothing rotting off of their backs because they were used to having their women do laundry and felt it was beneath them to wash their own clothing. Discipline improved in the following months but I'm not sure I would trust idiots like this with a weapon that needed a fair amount of maintenance.
I would choose a 10mm Glock for the handgun. This would only be a backup weapon for the infantry, officers and NCO's but it would probably be a primary weapon for the Calvary. It would be a large enough caliber to bring down a man and an enemy's horse if needed. It's easier to hit an enemy's horse than it is to hit him.
I would pick some form of sniper rifle for the other 3 people. I'm undecided on what kind. It would probably be something in .338 Lapua Magnum just to cover all bases. Snipers could change the entire battlefield when an army is tightly controlled by officers and NCO's. People are not generally stupid. Sooner or later the enemy would have to learn to take cover and send pickets far enough out to thwart (don't get to use that word much) snipers. A .338 would let the sniper put down fire from waayyyy out there. The sniper may need to be out of the range of cannon as well when putting down fire.
Since half of the losses came from disease it might just be better to take modern antibiotics through and institute modern hygeine standards. Half of the troops fell out from marches so decent shoes and rations would help there.

230therapy
July 5, 2010, 06:34 PM
Rifle: AR-15 in 6.5 Grendel with Trijicon ACOG 4x32 (with appropriate reticle, backup red dot and BUIS). This would give every man 800 yard capability with a 25ish round magazine. Everyone would have cleaning gear and the trucks will always deliver on time.

One could argue that simple bolt actions with 10 round magazines, chambered in 308 Winchester, with ACOGs, would be enough to completely nuke the British.

Given the capabilities of the semi-automatic rifle and the Brown Bess musket, I'm not sure that a machine gun would even be necessary.

Handgun: My handgun choice would be based upon the preferences of the 18th century American handgun shooter. Did they prefer large caliber handguns? Or was a mid-sized caliber more popular? If the shooting enthusiasts preferred a large caliber gun, then I'd chamber it in 45 ACP. 9x19mm would be fine if smaller was preferred.

45 ACP: Give them the benefit of technology. I'd go with the S&W M&P 45 Full size with adjustable grip. HK, FN, 1911...all good too.

9x19mm: Glock 19, Browning Hi-Power...too many to list. I would probably go with the Glock 19.

Either way, the ammunition would be high quality JHPs.


Gifts:

Fully engraved custom 1911. This would be the top line gun made by the best pistolsmiths in the US.

I would give one to George Washington.

Every man who signed the Declaration of Independence would get one too.

Cosmoline
July 5, 2010, 07:03 PM
Actually equipping them with modern AK's or even Garands would have too many negative political ramifications. That war, probably more than most others, was a political struggle where the US needed to prove itself as a nation. The interdiction of a clearly alien technology would likely brand the nascent Republic as the WORK OF SATAN (which many already suspected it was) and give rise to a general opposition to it by all European nations.

So I would take a more subtle approach. Introduce the Civil War era caplock rifle musket and claim it as a new American invention. The technology is similar to then-existing weapons, but considerably more accurate. A soldier who knows how to load a musket can load a rifle-musket. The only additional training would be on how to actually aim using the rear sights.

Mags
July 5, 2010, 07:10 PM
Remmy 700s in 30/06. Our boys were sharpshooters then wait till they had a nice bolt action rifle it would still be faster to load than the Brit's muskets. A nice DA revolver would be my choice of sidearm.

Not eeven close to what I would choose nowadays, I don't even own a revolver.

Blackhawk30
July 5, 2010, 07:20 PM
Since more soldiers died of disease than combat.I would teach basic sanitation and give them a full set of vaccinations.As far as guns go an AK and a Glock 21 should suffice.

Mike OTDP
July 5, 2010, 07:22 PM
Cosmoline brings up an interesting point. You've got an army accustomed to muzzle-loading weapons. Hand them an AK, and you'll need a couple of month to retrain them. Better to hand them a rifle-musket.

But I might take a very small cadre and train them on the use of semi-auto weapons like an AR. (my preference would be for a couple of M249 crews, but that's too much for the parameters)

Balrog
July 5, 2010, 08:17 PM
We won the Revolution using inferior weapons compared to the British, so I don't really see the point. But for fun, I agree with Cosmoline, or maybe even just equip them with the British service weapon of the time for logistical purposes.

killchain
July 5, 2010, 08:20 PM
I'd love to say "Give them all SAWs" but the ramifications on everything, as a previous poster said, wouldn't be good.

I'd give George Washington a trusty lever 30-30 (and of course tell him that I was from the future and not to tell because America is awesome), and make sure all of our boys had enough rations to eat and shoes to wear.

Oh, and remind the writers of the Constitution to make sure the Second Amendment was ratified. Haha.

230therapy
July 5, 2010, 08:23 PM
The magic wand was waved and the political ramifications of "alien" tech go away.

Hatterasguy
July 5, 2010, 08:31 PM
Mosin Nagent. Can't kill them, their natural habitat is mud, and they are plenty of rifle. Put some pig grease on the action once in awhile and call it good.

fireside44
July 5, 2010, 08:46 PM
Actually equipping them with modern AK's or even Garands would have too many negative political ramifications.

Yeah, the brits would've gotten more screwed than they did...lol

and give rise to a general opposition to it by all European nations.

So in other words two hundred years of history would've passed in a much shorter period of time and all of it could have been resolved by 1800.

1) What rifle and handgun would you choose?

Well, in that case, Thompsons with drum mags and Glocks with 33 round mags:)

MistWolf
July 5, 2010, 09:01 PM
Simply giving them Minnie Ball technology would give the Americans a significant edge over the British in long range accuracy and killing power without needing much retraining. For pistols, I'd equip them with the 36 caliber Colt Navy or the 44 caliber Colt Army. If I wanted even better technology, I'd go with Sharps carbines & rifles of the breech loading variety or maybe even as 45-70 cartridge.

However, it was the life or death struggle our country fought that forged us into a great nation

Gouranga
July 5, 2010, 10:01 PM
However, it was the life or death struggle our country fought that forged us into a great nation

Ditto. I would bring a lawn chair, a case of beer (to be replenished as needed), and a good digital camcorder and watch history unfold.

One additional thing though, I WOULD absolutely locate every man who put pen to paper around the bill or rights and videotape an interview on their thoughts around 2A.

Rail Driver
July 5, 2010, 10:27 PM
I can see it now... Soldier fires AR-15, gets out his cleaning rod and starts trying to ram a round in the muzzle and shoots himself...

Can't forget the training manuals!

Guncollector1982
July 5, 2010, 10:38 PM
Just a thought but if victory would of been so easy had we superior weapons and equipment even for that time let alone advanced would anyone appreciate the reward later had victory been so easy?? I think the blood and battles that formed our independence freedom and history are part of what gave the nation strength and a reminder of the cost of freedom. But in the name of fun id take a M1 garand and Wheel gun of somekind for reliabilty and speed of loading :)

yeti
July 5, 2010, 10:43 PM
Hire Von Stuben immediatly at double pay, have him invite a few of his favorite NCO's to come over, then go have a good dinner with General Washington and maybe take a long nap and a hot bath.

opie4386
July 5, 2010, 11:56 PM
i would give them the wonderfull power of COMMO!!!!! Washingtons reinforcments would have gotten to the battles in time to actually fight instead of weeks later lol. i dont know what weapon besides WWI rifles because everything is just too complex for that time frame

2RCO
July 6, 2010, 12:17 AM
I'm thinking keep it simple and outfit them with something like Single Action Revolvers and Mauser 98 Rifles this would be easy enough to train them on and wouldn't require large amounts of upkeep. Anything more modern would be a bit more than the average Continental soldier could grasp. The range on the rifles would be so far superior to the British equipment that the whole war would change. In close quarters the SAA's would be really handy as well.

alohachris
July 6, 2010, 12:19 AM
Any modern weapon and some antibiotic would win the day. I would get Washinton, Jefferson, Adams and Franklin together and tell them to make the 2nd Amendmet language more explicit and warn them of gun grabbing politicians of the future.

2RCO
July 6, 2010, 12:24 AM
Alohachris--I wouldn't tell them too much about how it all turns out though... They might decide they were fighting a useless battle when they find out the situations that their descendants will have to deal with. I still love this country but I'm thinking if the founders were around to watch the goings on in DC that they'd be a little miffed.

UKShooter
July 6, 2010, 04:43 AM
As a Brit, I'm not convinced about this :D

bannockburn
July 6, 2010, 07:38 AM
I think Cosmoline has the right idea; improve upon existing weaponry, but have it pretty much the same technology of the period. This would be keeping in mind the overall mentality of the soldiers we're dealing with in 1776, and how applicable the KISS principal would be here.

On the English side, there was a rather inventive and capable officer by the name of Major Duncan Ferguson. He brought over to the colonies a rifle that easily could have changed the outcome of the war, if it were issued in large enough quantities to the British Army. It was a breech loading rifle that was quick and easy to reload, and was as accurate as our own Kentucky long rifles. Training for our troops with this new weapon could easily be accomplished in 15 days. And with enough powder and shot, the increased firepower, along with a variation in period tactics, should be enough for our army to prevail.

As for special weapons; I would equip some of our rifles with scopes, though nothing too radical or exotic for the time period. Certainly enough to give our snipers an effective edge. Also I would have breech loading artillery brought in; again to give us the added advantage of firepower on the battlefield.

CajunBass
July 6, 2010, 08:13 AM
Unless you're British, why would you want to change anything? They seemed to do ok with what they had.

Ok, maybe some food, clothing and shoes. That's about it.

UKShooter
July 6, 2010, 08:18 AM
Good point Cajun.

If I could go back, I would equip them with cushions and make them all wear roller skates :p

Apple a Day
July 6, 2010, 08:27 AM
M-79 grenade launchers.
Simple and quick to train in basic use. Let the Brits line up in formation then let 'em have a volley. Done and done.

Then again, we could just gift the British with a handfull of battery powered television/DVD players and a collection of Benny Hill and Monty Python episodes. They'd be too busy watching to bother the colonials. ;)

Justin
July 6, 2010, 08:29 AM
What? No Dodge Challengers? (http://vodpod.com/watch/3822541-revolutionary-war-2-0) ;)

pockets
July 6, 2010, 09:07 AM
Outfit them?
Bright blue spandex unitards, with gold piping, and a perky white beret.

youngda9
July 6, 2010, 09:52 AM
Pistol, M&P Full Size .45.

Rifle...FN FAL.
Trench gun...Tommy gun, lightened with aluminum and composite parts. (same caliber as pistol as well)
SAWs for the squad as well.

Sniper rifle to Carlos Hathcock...probably a remington 700 or whatever the heck he wants.

22-rimfire
July 6, 2010, 10:12 AM
Since the "government" had no authority to tax the people at the time, the responsibility fell to the colonies. Funding the war then was no different than now. No success and no funds to buy clothing, food or supplies for the continental army. The politics have not changed.

Hence, I would provide sufficient supplies that would have allowed the continental army to be suitably clothed, fed, and with sufficient powder and lead for balls to fight the war. I would also have hired some good advisors to assist Washington in strategy and the application of force.

I like Cosmo's idea that civil war cap and ball rifles be provided as well. It would be an explainable boost in technology without alarming the world. The British army would not have lasted long under the hail of fire from the continental army. But they would have acquired the technology very quickly and the bloodshed would have been huge. But even as the war was fought, still it was estimated that 1% of the total population lost their lives during the war. That would be the equivalent of 3 million people loosing their lives today in this fight. I don't think Americans have the stomach for a war like this now. Revolutions cost a lot of lives.

UKShooter
July 6, 2010, 11:17 AM
Knowing very little about this war I decided to do some reading. We were never taught about it in school in any depth.

I found this article very interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/rebels_redcoats_01.shtml

It is written from a very British point of view. I am guessing that this is quite different to what is taught in American schools. If anyone has time to read it, it would be interesting to hear your oppinion.

Cosmoline
July 6, 2010, 11:30 AM
It's odd that so little about the Revolutionary War itself is ever taught in US schools. The political and legal outcome are well known, of course. But the war itself remains far less known than the Civil War. Perhaps because so much of it involved tactical withdrawals by Washington in his rope-a-dope strategy with the superior British forces.

Too strong a victory in battle, with too many of the enemy dead, was not the goal. In fact when the Brits managed to really wipe out Continental or militia units, they ended up paying a heavy price in what we would call PR.

amprecon
July 6, 2010, 11:33 AM
Geeze, you people really don't like the British do you? Talk about a massacre, I think just a couple hundred of any modern small arms would've shortened the war by years.
But I'll play, I'd go with some scoped M-14 rifles to take out their officers at distance and AR rifles in 6.8spc sportin' some Aimpoint red dots, Glock 23's and lots of ammo to finish off the rest of those wretched limeys ;)

CajunBass
July 6, 2010, 11:55 AM
It is written from a very British point of view. I am guessing that this is quite different to what is taught in American schools.

Not really. It's pretty much the way I remember it being taught. Maybe we got a little more "Ra-Ra Go American's--Boo Redcoats" but not a lot. A lot more "starving patriots at Vally Forge." Since Yorktown isn't too far from here, we did get a bit more detail about that than they might have in other parts of the country. We of course got a large dose of Washington, Jefferson, Henry and Jack Jouett. (Look him up. Interesting story there.)

It's odd that so little about the Revolutionary War itself is ever taught in US schools. The political and legal outcome are well known, of course. But the war itself remains far less known than the Civil War.

The Civil War was taught in depth when I was a kid, but then a large part of it was fought around here. Our teachers taught is as "Then right down the road, where Mary and Bobby live...". My wife, who grew up in the Chicago area said all she learned about it was "There was a Civil War. We won. The slaves got freed." End of story.

NMGonzo
July 6, 2010, 11:55 AM
Bolt action rifles.

It was a long war and money was tight.

Enough to fight the black powder guys.

Cosmoline
July 6, 2010, 12:06 PM
Bright blue spandex unitards, with gold piping, and a perky white beret.

Outstanding!

bigalexe
July 6, 2010, 01:15 PM
My wife, who grew up in the Chicago area said all she learned about it was "There was a Civil War. We won. The slaves got freed." End of story.

I always find it interesting how few people know the real cause of that war. The real cause had to do with changing economics and the differences between the economies of the North and South. This resulted in disputes over tariffs on imported goods which in a nutshell can be summed as the north being Pro-Free Trade and the south being Pro-Made in America. The honest truth is that the entire freeing of the slaves only got added at the end, it almost was something where the North said "Hey we won, so free the slaves too."

Anyway back on the OP:
Given 15 days to train the army and equip them with small arms.

Day 1 is testing, throw rifles at the troops and see what they do.
-Very Good shots (those that shoot well, and adapt well) get an M1 Carbine or M14 with Semi-Automatic Fire only.
-Average shots get the M16 in M4 configuration, these will still out shoot the muskets in range and accuracy. Maybe a few of them who display good presence of mind get an M204 launcher under the barrel.
-Guys that appear nuts (Rambo types) and those that can't hit the broad side of a barn get a mix of Shotguns and M249 SAW Machine Guns.

For non-infantry units
-Artillery soldiers get 1911 Sidearms in .45ACP
-Cavalry units get the Mosin-Nagant with Bayonets.

Day 2 thru 5 is individual training on their own weapons
Day 5 thru 10 is unit training, shooting together
Day 10 thru 15 is army training, multiple units coordinating efforts

Oh and one last thing: We go across the ocean and draft Napoleon to command the artillery units.

Ronsch
July 6, 2010, 01:30 PM
Harry Turtledove did something like this in "Guns Of The South."

Outfitted the CSA with AK-47s.

22-rimfire
July 6, 2010, 03:01 PM
I watched the entire series of episodes on the Revolutionary War on the History Channel over the weekend. I learned a lot. Little is taught about any war these days in schools it seems. I'm not sure that is a good thing, because it reduces kids impression about the cost of freedom.

Rembrandt
July 6, 2010, 03:10 PM
Fantasies about outfitting people from years gone by with current technology have fueled Hollywood for years. Anyone remember "Final Countdown" with Kirk Douglas?......fought off the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor with F-14's and a modern carrier task force.

Mike OTDP
July 6, 2010, 04:35 PM
With the magic wand waved....training time probably takes over. Against muzzle-loading smoothbores, something like a M-1917 Enfield bolt-action rifle would be infinitely superior. A FAL or M1A would be better - IF I had the training time.

Same for sidearms. Issue revolvers, as the manual of arms is a lot simpler than for a self-loader. S&W Model 25s would do nicely.

That being said, my first truckload isn't guns. It's radios. Followed by binoculars. You put a screen of radio-equipped scouts out in front, and all those hair's-breadth escapes of the Continental Army become instances where they just move aside, let the British blow fall on empty ground, and hit them in the flank.

jeepguy
July 6, 2010, 06:30 PM
im thinking arm the cavalry with 1911's & binoculars. which would be a huge advantage. scoped rifles would decimate their officer ranks. also introduce them to camouflage uniforms. picking off their officers from a distance which they wouldnt be able to see, would probably cause their lines to break. espiecially since they wouldnt be able to understand the technology. i would pick off their horses after they were far away from the coast & pick them off all the way back to the coast. losing verry few of us & causing heavy casualties on them. these snipers would also have 1911's for close quarter combat.

otcconan
July 6, 2010, 06:58 PM
Interesting question. One could go overboard and supply them with M-4's and Beretta 92s, or AK's and Hi-Powers,

But let's be reasonable. They'd pretty much wipe the British off the floor with maybe 50 Garands and some 1911's.

GRIZ22
July 6, 2010, 07:18 PM
Threads like this remind of an old skit on Saturday Night Live, guest hosted by KirK Douglas, "What if Spartacus had a Piper Cub".

BLACKHAWKNJ
July 6, 2010, 07:28 PM
Both sides were equally well equipped with state of the art equipment, logistics back then were controlled by factors of weather, limited transport, an often inadequate road network. The British were taken completely by suprise by Washington's daring-and desperate-strike at Trenton, winter campaigns were almost never conducted then. It was Baron Von Steuben's training that transformed the Main Army into a force capable of meeting the British in open battle.
Weapons? M-14 and M-60, they worked for me. Probably M1903s or M1917s
would be better given the unfamiliarity of most individuals with mechanical devices then if only 15 days are available. Likewise I would probably still have the troops fight in the shoulder to shoulder/close order tactics of the day, with modern rifles you can bring the enemy under fire at 500-600 yards, well out of musket range. And a few well placed M-60s with plenty of ammo....
read about the 1st day of the Somme, July 1, 1916.

killchain
July 6, 2010, 07:43 PM
I always find it interesting how few people know the real cause of that war. The real cause had to do with changing economics and the differences between the economies of the North and South. This resulted in disputes over tariffs on imported goods which in a nutshell can be summed as the north being Pro-Free Trade and the south being Pro-Made in America. The honest truth is that the entire freeing of the slaves only got added at the end, it almost was something where the north said "Hey we won, so free the slaves to."

Oh, you mean that revisionist stuff. :P

I always drop the bombshell here:

So what was the Emancipation Proclamation about?

22-rimfire
July 6, 2010, 07:45 PM
Radio would have changed the war. Talk about a guarded secret if one side had them.

Seattleimport
July 6, 2010, 09:45 PM
The Questions:

1) What rifle and handgun would you choose?

If they had any training at all, the soldiers were trained in strategies and tactics of the muzzle-loading era. I'd try to not overly complicate matters by introducing anything over semi-auto fire. So: scoped Springfield M1A with polymer stock and 20-round magazine.

For the pistol, I'd completely ignore the above reasoning and go with a scorpion, mac-10, or uzi. Something fully automatic and terrifying. These would be especially terrible in the hands of the cavalry; if they got behind and amongst enemy lines, they'd just hose down the enemy. And an army equipped with machine pistols, properly trained to hold fire until they see the whites of the enemies eyes, would stop a charge dead.


2) If you could choose three people, what special guns would you give them? Who would you give them to?

I was going to recommend three sniper rifles, but then I thought that it'd take too much time to utilize their full potential. And the scoped M1A would likely suffice. So instead, I'd pick two steady guys and give them M-16s with the under-barrel grenade launcher. One on the right flank, one on the left flank. They're there to lob grenades into massed troops and cavalry (hopefully to initiate a stampede), pop incendiaries into enemy powder depots, and discourage charges with select automatic fire.

Then I'd pick the biggest corn-fed farmboy and give him an M240B (with tracers). He holds the center. And scares the **** out of the Brits. :)

Mike OTDP
July 6, 2010, 09:46 PM
Killchain, since you asked....the Emancipation Proclamation was about depriving the Confederates of about 40% of their labor supply, as well as blocking attempts to get the UK or France to intervene. It was a sound strategic move.

cavman
July 6, 2010, 10:15 PM
It's odd that so little about the Revolutionary War itself is ever taught in US schools. The political and legal outcome are well known, of course.

maybe not "of course" applies equally to everyone :)

Saw this little blurb of Jay Leno asking people on the street exactly what July 4th is all about. Granddad at the end (when schools taught fundamentals perhaps?) was the hero of the segment. (There is even a college "professor" interviewed....good grief.)

http://townhall.com/video/jay-leno-shows-americans-lack-of-basic-historical-concepts

35Rem
July 6, 2010, 10:59 PM
With AK's everyone in Europe would be speaking English (American style) and people today would be asking "What WAS an Indian?".

Geneseo1911
July 6, 2010, 11:29 PM
How do you know there WASN'T a super secret portal through time? Maybe the founding fathers were better at keeping secrets.

That would explain how a bunch of farmers defeated the most powerful military of the day.

GunsBeerFreedom
July 6, 2010, 11:52 PM
Whitworth rifles. Accurate past 800 yards.

For pistols I'd replace them with double barreled shotguns. Same effective range and two shots with each reload.

GunsBeerFreedom
July 6, 2010, 11:58 PM
Saw this little blurb of Jay Leno asking people on the street exactly what July 4th is all about. Granddad at the end (when schools taught fundamentals perhaps?) was the hero of the segment. (There is even a college "professor" interviewed....good grief.)

Segments such as this involve generous editing to show such a large number of ignorant proles.

memphisjim
July 7, 2010, 12:06 AM
i thought the 1911 design predated the revolutionary war

Zoogster
July 7, 2010, 03:37 AM
With AK's everyone in Europe would be speaking English (American style) and people today would be asking "What WAS and Indian?".

Oh to the contrary, what would have likely happened, as is evidenced in actual history when similar powers faced better technology, is the British would have been temporarily defeated in the thirteen colonies.
England the most industrialized nation in the world at the time would have then taken the technology used against it by the colonies in American, and mass produced it on a scale greater than anything the United States or the rest of Europe could have managed.

The result would have then been that the British Empire would have likely been far more powerful and larger than it ended up being in the 1800s, and the United States would have likely been soundly defeated by the time of the War of 1812, and ceased to exist. Re-absorbed into the British empire.



If you gave the American side any special technology the British with the factories and the industrial capability would have soon fielded that technology in much greater numbers.
Very similar to the Union Army and the Confederate army later in the American Civil War. Where the North had most of the factories, and the South was largely a rural and agricultural economy.

One of the biggest reasons the American Colonists won was the British were also dealing with more local problems in Europe.



Another thing many overlook is that the American Revolutionary War was actually a civil war. And some of the population supported the King. A good 20% by some estimates, and some entire communities and towns. Many of the Native Americans also supported the British, because that was the government they had treaties with and was the favored winner of the conflict.
Many recruits fighting for the 'enemy' were recruited from America as well.
In fact the British were raising local military forces to put down the rebel insurgency.
Fortunately for us and our modern freedoms however the insurgents won that war.

Another interesting thing is many were just fighting on behalf of the British just over a decade before, in the French and Indian war, when the colonies fought France and many native tribes that allied with France against the British.
George Washington himself one of the prime starters of World War 0. Or the Seven Year's War which involved most of the globe, when he led an attack where they sneaked in to stab the sleeping French men with bayonets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jumonville_Glen

The French and Indian War would be the source of most of the insurgent tactics used in the War of Independence, and the birth of the original Rangers, mixing native American stealth and tactics with western fighting. The first "special forces".
The type of tactics that would later be used in the War of Independence, really more of a British civil war in the colonies.

danprkr
July 7, 2010, 07:27 AM
With the advantage of modern arms on only one side it'd be a short war.

Patriotme
July 7, 2010, 08:59 AM
After reading about how much they drank back then I would like to change my AK47 pick to a 03 Springfield. I'll stay with the 10mm Glock for Calvary, officers and NCO's.

35Rem
July 7, 2010, 09:13 AM
Zoogster - The Brits couldn't have come up with the technology in the 1700's to make AK-47's, or, like you say, they would have had them. Plain and simple. They would have been soundly defeated. Probably to a point the French would have taken over England easily, as well.

Ragnar Danneskjold
July 7, 2010, 09:14 AM
I'm gonna echo other users and say that bringing through a few pallets of Motorola radios and some repeaters would be FAR more effective than individual firearms.

Battles might be won by weapons, but wars are won by commo.

mjkten
July 7, 2010, 01:44 PM
After seeing the paintings of the Valley Forge winter, I think Gore-Tex, Thinsulate, and a good camo pattern would be my first items. Then food. Then weapons...of course, some cross country skis would have given them an interesting mobility advantage.

230therapy
July 7, 2010, 01:46 PM
After seeing the paintings of the Valley Forge winter, I think Gore-Tex, Thinsulate, and a good camo pattern would be my first items. Then food. Then weapons...of course, some cross country skis would have given them an interesting mobility advantage.

All this is taken care of.

What firearms would you choose (as described in the first post)?

Zoogster
July 7, 2010, 03:03 PM
Zoogster - The Brits couldn't have come up with the technology in the 1700's to make AK-47's, or, like you say, they would have had them. Plain and simple.

"Coming up with" and copying and applying the new technology are very different things.

Just an example of a round of ammunition from a battlefield would have put the world many steps ahead.
The leap from cartridge ammunition to repeating arms is not very far apart.
Full-auto was invented before semi-auto.

I have little doubt that they could build new firearms based on the AK if they had an example.
Watchmakers alone, the mechanical engineers of the time, most certainly could have understood the mechanical process and copied or made every single component of an AK except the barrel.
Or entirely new weapons that utilized the same or a similar mechanical process.

The Industrial Revolution was just underway, and it would be centered in England, more than anywhere else in the world.
Something compact like small arms that delivered much greater firepower, would have benefited the British more than anyone. A people that ruled the sea, and could have transported such compact arms all over the world far easier than larger support weapons.



There was many traitors on both sides (one of the most famous being General Benedict Arnold of the Continental Army), so in addition to seized arms on the battlefield, you would have had examples of any tech held by one side given to the other side.


The Continental Army was having a horrible time just keeping itself equipped with technology they already had, and keeping what they had in working condition.
Men were walking in the snow with rags on their feet.
New technology would have benefited the British far more, and been manufactured more quickly by the British.


Interestingly enough after the war the primary trading partner that kept the American colonies afloat was the British!
Many of the French who helped the colonists didn't really care a lot about them, but rather were working to divide and conquer their enemy, the British.
To this end they helped the Colonies a great deal, but it was only to weaken their enemy, whose economy depended a great deal on trade with places like America and taxes generated.
The French had great animosity for the colonists, people they just fought a decade before in one of the most bloody global conflicts in the world up to that point, the Seven Years War (French and Indian War on American soil.)
Had their enemy the British actually been soundly defeated, and maybe even invaded at home and conquered, the French would have soon turned on the American colonies.

Things like the Louisiana Purchase would have probably never happened (France sold it because of major conflicts at home at the time, conflicts with the British, and in order to increase the power of an enemy of the British.)
"This accession of territory affirms forever the power of the United States, and I have given England a maritime rival who sooner or later will humble her pride." -Napoleon Bonaparte

Without the Louisiana Purchase, the American colonies would have not likely reached west of them either, to claim the additional land from the Rockies to the West Coast, or South from Texas to California.
Leaving the American Colonies a small entity on the East Coast.
So the United States would have probably never become what it has if it had actually squashed the British, rather than just beating them back.
France would have likely set her eyes back on the American Mainland able to devote a lot more attention to the New World without a British enemy, and the hostilities of the French and Indian War continued.

35Rem
July 7, 2010, 04:06 PM
Um, if we could whip the Brits, the French wouldn't have been a big deal to kick out of the US either.
Technology like coil heat treated springs, centerfire primers, metallic cases, steel alloys, etc. weren't close to being ready. I maintain that it couldn't have been copied.

jeepguy
July 7, 2010, 05:42 PM
i believe that even if they had modern firearms the brits could not duplicate them. i think the metallurgy was not advanced enough to make the steel that is needed to make modern firearms.

kayak-man
July 8, 2010, 06:22 PM
Cosmoline brought up a very good point. That being said:

Everyone would get a blackpowder revolver as a sidearm. This would have the added benefit of giving everyone experiance with how to load and use a cap and ball revolver, especially important because I would be giving almost everyone a "Remington Revolving Carbine" - basicaly a revolver with a 16" barrel and a buttstock.

I saw a sharps rifle one time that I thought was pretty neat: It used a paper cartridge with the powder and ball already in it. You'd open the breach, put your rolled cartridge in, close it, and then its just a matter of putting in a precussion cap. Anyone that was a sharpshooter or wanted a harder hitting rifle than the carbine would be given one of those.

Just for fun, I'd throw a few RPG-7s and Mac-10s into the mix.

rocinante
July 10, 2010, 12:09 PM
This thread is just too ridiculous and fun to ignore. My two cents ante thrown in.

First off I am in total agreement with those who would improve their communications, logistics, and medical capacity first. TWO green berets like those used to train the Huong in Vietnam would be worth a thousand AKs. The guerrilla tactics the colonist learned from the Indians caused the british a lot of grief. Throw in a couple of motorola radios, a gps unit, how to direct artillery and no army existing would stand their ground. Plus if they were secretive they would just be considered uncannily lucky. No modern firepower needed. The greatest advances in warfare have been in precision placement of power.

The British nor the Americans of the late 18th century could mass manufacture an AK or any other modern firearm. They couldn't even master the tolerances needed for a breech loading weapon. Fast forward to the Civil War and they could.

I tend to side with folks who felt a good bolt action rifle would suffice. I prefer my mauser to my nagant though. The rate of fire, the range, the accuracy would decimate massed infantry with brown besses. Mentally it would make sense naturally to those already inclined to sniping and hunting. Our Kentucky rifles had a marked influence on those battlefields as is. If I was an infantry man back then I would rather drag back home an excellent hunting rifle than an AR or AK.

If we go semi auto I would choose an AK over an AR for the same reasons I consider my AK my SHTF weapon of choice. I would make sure I sent them QUALITY ammo, not the Soviet bloc surplus stuff. In my mind the manufacture of the rifle and its usual ammo used is the seed of the AKs inaccuracy reputation, not the weapon itself. All would agree even at its worst an AK stomps a musket range and accuracy wise. If a savage in Afghanistan can keep one running an 18th century American could too. The environment would be totally devoid of the TLC elements needs for an AR.

Handgun? I really dig the image of cavalry outfitted with Uzis. Bedford Forrest and his ilk were devastating with revolvers. He would of been unstoppable with Uzis. Still I think if you gave him the choice between radios and gps and machine pistols he would go for the coordination. Mr Firstest with the Mostest would consider it a no brainer. I don't like Glocks but 40 S&W Glocks would be my choice for the same reasons I would equip troops with AKs.

I'd give them mortars before I gave them heavy machine guns.

Gungnir
July 10, 2010, 01:21 PM
This thread is just too ridiculous and fun to ignore. My two cents ante thrown in.

First off I am in total agreement with those who would improve their communications, logistics, and medical capacity first. TWO green berets like those used to train the Huong in Vietnam would be worth a thousand AKs. The guerrilla tactics the colonist learned from the Indians caused the british a lot of grief. Throw in a couple of motorola radios, a gps unit, how to direct artillery and no army existing would stand their ground. Plus if they were secretive they would just be considered uncannily lucky. No modern firepower needed. The greatest advances in warfare have been in precision placement of power.

The British nor the Americans of the late 18th century could mass manufacture an AK or any other modern firearm. They couldn't even master the tolerances needed for a breech loading weapon. Fast forward to the Civil War and they could.

I tend to side with folks who felt a good bolt action rifle would suffice. I prefer my mauser to my nagant though. The rate of fire, the range, the accuracy would decimate massed infantry with brown besses. Mentally it would make sense naturally to those already inclined to sniping and hunting. Our Kentucky rifles had a marked influence on those battlefields as is. If I was an infantry man back then I would rather drag back home an excellent hunting rifle than an AR or AK.

If we go semi auto I would choose an AK over an AR for the same reasons I consider my AK my SHTF weapon of choice. I would make sure I sent them QUALITY ammo, not the Soviet bloc surplus stuff. In my mind the manufacture of the rifle and its usual ammo used is the seed of the AKs inaccuracy reputation, not the weapon itself. All would agree even at its worst an AK stomps a musket range and accuracy wise. If a savage in Afghanistan can keep one running an 18th century American could too. The environment would be totally devoid of the TLC elements needs for an AR.

Handgun? I really dig the image of cavalry outfitted with Uzis. Bedford Forrest and his ilk were devastating with revolvers. He would of been unstoppable with Uzis. Still I think if you gave him the choice between radios and gps and machine pistols he would go for the coordination. Mr Firstest with the Mostest would consider it a no brainer. I don't like Glocks but 40 S&W Glocks would be my choice for the same reasons I would equip troops with AKs.

I'd give them mortars before I gave them heavy machine guns.
Erm without the constellation of satellites a GPS unit is a paperweight.

Or is the intent to take the constellation and launch vehicles with you and launch that constellation for the GPS to function too?

Rail Driver
July 10, 2010, 01:34 PM
Erm without the constellation of satellites a GPS unit is a paperweight.

Or is the intent to take the constellation and launch vehicles with you and launch that constellation for the GPS to function too?

Of course the GPS will function through the time portal! Didn't you know? :rolleyes:

Really, this is as hypothetical as it gets and we're quibbling over whether or not gps will work? :D Too funny

As far as AR-15/M-16 needing TLC to function properly... anyone that argues that point hasn't been in the military and has only had experience with match grade or low grade rifles. My issue rifle went through just as much mud, dirt, snow, water, sand and whatever else you can think of during basic training alone, much less what the rifles go through when deployed in a warzone... I experienced 1 (ONE) jam during basic training... have never experienced an AR-15 or M-16 jam since then, and I've owned a couple ARs since then with no problems. Where did this "unreliable" reputation come from?

Gungnir
July 10, 2010, 01:48 PM
Really, this is as hypothetical as it gets and we're quibbling over whether or not gps will work? Too funny

Well there's suspension of disbelief, and then there's suspension of disbelief
:D

It just reminded me of some TV show I saw some time ago where people were asked if they could go back in time to meet any historical figure they wanted to what would they take, and someone said Moses, and they'd take their cell phone so they could call their Mom let her speak to him :uhoh:.

Mind you given that supplying the Continental Army with MRE's might be the nail in the coffin of an army that's used to much more meager pickings than the average USGI MRE. The British army might just advance to find the entire Continental army sitting on the john. I guess that it was kind of pointless.

Rail Driver
July 10, 2010, 02:13 PM
It just reminded me of some TV show I saw some time ago where people were asked if they could go back in time to meet any historical figure they wanted to what would they take, and someone said Moses, and they'd take their cell phone so they could call their Mom let her speak to him .

I'd take my cell phone, but it would be so that I could take pictures ;)

Mind you given that supplying the Continental Army with MRE's might be the nail in the coffin of an army that's used to much more meager pickings than the average USGI MRE. The British army might just advance to find the entire Continental army sitting on the john. I guess that it was kind of pointless.

now that's a picture I wouldn't want to see... If that happened I might be speaking with that incomprehensible cockney accent right now. http://c4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/85/m_aa83a3d7823349cc83eee8d997a8bb67.gif

rocinante
July 10, 2010, 09:16 PM
Ok I will admit GPS wouldn't pass muster even through this hypothetical time portal. Besides in this war the local, who most us happen to be rooting for, would know where they are. I read the frustration of our U.S. troops trying to train Afghan commanders. Guys with life long experience doing their tribal warfare that can not read a map or see any need to. Directions are like go to the school, at the big rock formation have lunch and set up an ambush.

If I can't have GPS I would send a couple of RC planes with cameras.

How about wrist watches? IIRC one of the major technological advances that had a bounty on it kind of like the space X prize was a accurate clock useful for navigation. Wrist watches were first used by officers to coordinate their timing. They were expensive marvels during WWI.

I still think I could go to Wal Mart and Barnes and Nobles to pick up everyday stuff that would help them put the British back on their boats in a month. No extra fire power needed.

If you enjoyed reading about "Fun Discussion: Outfit the Continental Army" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!