Modern weapons in classic battles

[lonegunman]

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Omdurman



This battle was the introduction of the Maxim machinegun and rapid fire artillery to the battle field. Basically the early 1800's met the future of warfare and got schooled.

 

[jason10mm]

Bah, land war stuff is silly. Imagine what it would be like with a single coal fired dreadnought back in the age of sail/oar! Ramming speed!

 

[Dravur]

how about...

a C-130 gun ship... anywhere

 

[delta53]

?

They were heros of there day and many would probaly keep comming on both sides like many did in there time

 

[Phil DeGraves]

"Imagine if they had brought along the Gatling guns that they had available."

I think we had this thread before. If Custer had brought the Gatlings, there wouldn't have been a battle because the Indians would have been gone by the time Custer got there. He didn't bring them because they would slow him down.

What if they had all been armed with 1866 Winchesters?
It had already been out 10 years, and the magazine held 15 rounds!

Except for the end of it, most of that battle was fought at greater range and therefore more appropriate to the 45-70 and 45-55 rifles the Army was equipped with. The reason Custer lost had less to do with weapons than it had to do with underestimating the size of the opposing contingent. All that would have happened would have been Custer et al, would have taken a few more Indians with them before being killed.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

The South never really wanted Northern territory. We were content with our own. We just wanted the North and Northern influences out.

Read my book.

the South just needed more of what they already had - namely the Whitworth rifle. It was not uncommon for Confederate sharpshooters to successfully engage targets out to 1,000 yards, maybe more.

Read my book!

Now, I am not saying the North did not have its share of racism, but slavery was not needed in their economic infrastructure.

Ironically, the industrial revolution would have eventually end slavery on its own as machinery would make slave labor a less attractive proposition in the agricultural world.

READ MY BOOK!!!

Please.

 

[Ske1etor]

I think an AC-130, the USS Ronald Reagan Nimitz class supercarrier, its current stable of F/A-18(E,F and C) Hornets, its Prowlers, Hawkeyes, Seahawks and Greyhounds along with the help of two US Navy Ohio Class submarines could have pretty much changed any major battle in the history of America when that technology wasn't available.

 

[Pilot]

Was The Final Countdown. Wasn't just two aircraft, was the entire aircraft carrier USS Nimitz going back to just before Pearl Harbor. Debating if they were going to stop it or not. Decided they were going to but then they got sucked back into modern times just before preemptively striking the Japanese.

That was a great movie. Interesting concept, F-14 vs A6M Zero. The poster was talking about the scene where the two F-14's shot down the Zeros. That's what I think he meant by "two aircraft".

 

[GEM]

There's a series of books - pretty good - forget the author - how a future fleet led by the US carrier - Hillary Clinton (haha) lands up at Midway for naval fun.

Axis of Time? duh?

What if Spartacus Had a Piper Cub - on SNL a few years ago.

Lest Darkness Fall - L. Sprague De Camp - modern archeologist lands up just at the end of the Western Roman Empire. Invents bookkeeping, paper, decimal system and saves civilization. Can't get guns to work - not an engineer.

 

[Deanimator]

When I went to Gettysburg with my best friend, we went to the "Devil's Den". I speculated on the results if the defenders had had Trapdoor Springfields, then Hotchkiss bolt action .45-70s, then 6mm Lees, then '03 Springfields. We then did the same thing at the site of Pickett's charge.

Of course Custer would have found a way to lose at Little Big Horn, even if equipped with M1s and M1919s.

 

[Tommygunn]

The reason Custer lost had less to do with weapons than it had to do with underestimating the size of the opposing contingent. All that would have happened would have been Custer et al, would have taken a few more Indians with them before being killed.

True. He also didn't understand the Indians were quite ready to defend their village; Sitting Bull had prophesied that soldiers would "fall headfirst into camp," and even painted a picture of it. This encouraged the Indians to be ready and eager for the victory.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

You would need both modern weapons and modern men to use them. The tactical side of the equation is as important as the tactical.

Consider the "breechloader question" that Civil War buffs are so fond of debating -- would the adoption of breechloaders have given the North an even greater advantage?

The answer can be found by watching the movie "Gallipoli" with Mel Gibson. In the climactic scene, the Australians are preparing for the attack -- Lee-Enfield rifles with fixed bayonets leaning against the paraphet, scaling ladders in place for climbing out, officers and NCOs checking and rechecking everything.

The battalion commander comes walking down the trench and asks if one thing has been checked.

If you were a battalion commander, what's the one thing you would want checked?

I'll give you his words (the actual battalion commander actually said them, in the real battle), "Has anyone checked to see that these rifles are unloaded? This is supposed to be a bayonet attack, you know."

If you're not going to load your rifles, what difference does it make if you don't load them at the breech, or you don't load them at the muzzle?

Tactics didn't catch up to the capability of the breechloading rifle until very late in the war, and didn't really blossom until the invention of field radios, which allowed commanders to control widely spread out troops.

 

[Dan M.]

Wagon Box Fight.

30 guys with breech-loaders against one to two thousand Sioux who were expecting muzzleloaders.

Google it if you don't know the story.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

On 16 December 1838 some 470 Voortrekkers, led by Andries Pretorius, defeated an estimated 10,000 Zulu on the banks of the Ncome River, which was renamed "Blood River."

And they did it with flint locks.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

Wagon Box Fight.

30 guys with breech-loaders against one to two thousand Sioux who were expecting muzzleloaders.

And the Hayfield fight that happened the day before. 19 soldiers and five civilians armed with single shot breechloaders and one civilian armed with a 16 shot Henry Repeater fought off 800 hostiles.

 

[Wes Janson]

If we seek to maximize the potential impact for the size of the object of war, I think the most bang for the buck would come from a Davy Crockett-equipped Jeep. Instant conflict resolution on any battlefield in history.

 

[VirgilCaine]

Well some years ago a movie came out where two modern fighter jets went back 50 or so years and went up against WWII-type aircraft.

Would this not work as well you might think?
Don't they have pretty high stall speeds on jets nowadays?

 

[Deanimator]

Tactics didn't catch up to the capability of the breechloading rifle until very late in the war, and didn't really blossom until the invention of field radios, which allowed commanders to control widely spread out troops.

Neither the Boers nor the Spanish in Cuba got that memo. Neither did Buford's cavalry at Gettysburg.

There are plenty of examples of military stupidity, but more than enough of simple common sense.

Had the Union had even .58 rimfire Allin conversions at Gettysburg, Lee's defeat would have been much more lopsided and even more rapid. The Union was on the defensive. In such a situation, those who can EASILY lie down and reload have an incredible advantage. And had even substantial quantities of weapons fallen into Confederate hands, the results would have been the same as when Spencers and Henry's fell into their hands. When the capture ammunition ran out, they would become expensive clubs.

 

[cmb3366]

Rather than machine guns and assault rifles, I've often wondered what 1 modern bolt action and glass could have done. Imagine what a Remington 700 PSS style rifle in something flat shooting like .300winmag, with a good ballistic plex scope and a laser rangefinder could have done back in the American Revolution, give the guy a guille suit and a spotter and things get even more interesting.

What would the British have done if their officers started dropping like flies a thousand yards away from an enemy they couldent see? What would they do if even sporadically, their supply lines got harrased by 'invisible' rifle fire?

 

[mindwip]

One plane with a 500 pound bomb would change many almost all battles pre 1800. At some point with battle lines and such droping one of those in the middle would of kill lots and lots of enemys not to mention leave a huge gap in there center which is so so so bad. The other side could just rush in and separate the two groups and deal with at will.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Neither the Boers nor the Spanish in Cuba got that memo. Neither did Buford's cavalry at Gettysburg.

Actually, they did -- for Buford, I recommend reading Coddington's The Gettysburg Campaign.

Coddington makes a good point that -- despite what enthusiastic amateurs claim -- there is no battle where you can show weaponry was decisive.

As for the Boers, they fought mostly a classic cavalry campaign -- no different from one that say Buford or Stuart would have fought.

The Spanish in Cuba showed no great tactical acumen -- they weren't even able to stop a dismounted rush by Volunteer Cavalrymen.

 

[Zoogster]

and didn't really blossom until the invention of field radios, which allowed commanders to control widely spread out troops.

That is not entirely accurate. Loud drums and things like bugles were used to convey practicly any command from pretty good distance away.
I have seen some good demonstrations of American Civil War drum commands and I can assure you that the individual in charge could communicate anything he wanted to officers in the field through his musicians.


In fact such musicians were a major target in many conflicts because they were essentialy the backbone of communication and it took quite a bit of training to replace them and teach new ones not just all the commands, but for them to become proficient in issuing them without any mistakes as directed.
Loud musical instruments were used to convey commands over a wide area on the battlefield.

Drums were used to communicate successfuly for a long time prior to the radio to entire battlefields.

Banners and flags were used in most conflicts as well for visual ques, but it was the musicians that communicated commands given by those in charge most effectively and quickly.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

That is not entirely accurate. Loud drums and things like bugles were used to convey practicly any command from pretty good distance away.
I have seen some good demonstrations of American Civil War drum commands and I can assure you that the individual in charge could communicate anything he wanted to officers in the field through his musicians.

But have you seen it done in combat?

Modern armies do not use drums and bugles for communication on the battlefield -- for a host of very good reasons.

 

[Zoogster]

Battlefields cover many miles today, even hundreds of miles when you include the aircraft coming and going from carriers at sea, artillery firing from miles away, nevermind missles from afar.
Totaly different. Individuals many miles away are actively engaged in ongoing battles.


Musical commands make it appearant what commands are being given by the enemy who can also hear them if they know the commands thier enemy uses. So obviously encrypted modern communication is far superior.
Although modern communications are subject to jamming. In fact most modern nations can jam the majority of communications that work on radio signals if they so desire in a given area.
So they can just create an entire blacked out area absent such communication.
So they are not without thier own drawbacks.
You just do not hear such things done when simply fighting third world insurgents.




In the time periods music was used, when battlefields were in a few mile radius, musical instruments worked fairly well. A field commander could definately communicate his desires to the battlefield. So changing tactics and commands issued mid battle were very common and well recieved long before modern communications existed.
That was the point being made. They were far from limited before modern communication was available.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Musical commands also make it appearant what commands are being given by the enemy who can also hear them if they know the commands thier enemy uses. Obviously encrypted modern communication is far superior.

Musical commands, aside from the other shortcomings you listed, are limited in the amount of information they convey. Can you imagine all the buglars in a battalion trying to send the night ambush locations from each company to battalion HQ -- while other musicians (presumably using kazoos) send in the nightly log report?