Knights Vs G.Is

[Marko Kloos]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I agree with Paladin....

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]

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]

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]

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]

At that range, it would be nine machine guns, eighteen full-auto assault rifles and six grenade launchers.

 

[tex_n_cal]

It all depends on the archers...

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]

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]

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]

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]

Since when is combat "fair"?

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]

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]

ya know...

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...

 

[Tamara]

Vladimir,

"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. )

 

[telewinz]

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]

(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]

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]

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]

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.