Fun Discussion: Outfit the Continental Army

Cosmoline said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

With AK's everyone in Europe would be speaking English (American style) and people today would be asking "What WAS an Indian?".

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.

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.

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.)

Click to expand...

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

i thought the 1911 design predated the revolutionary war

With AK's everyone in Europe would be speaking English (American style) and people today would be asking "What WAS and Indian?".

Click to expand...

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.

With the advantage of modern arms on only one side it'd be a short war.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

rocinante said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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

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

FuzzyTGF said:

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

Click to expand...

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


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 .

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.

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 .

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.