| Off Topic > Off Topic |
| 300 US Marines vs 60000 Romans |
| << < (9/17) > >> |
| sir dooble:
For an historical comparison of many non-ranged troops versus fewer stationary armed troops, see the Battle of Isandlwana during the Anglo-Zulu War. The large Zulu force (20,000) armed mostly with shields and spears defeated a smaller force (2,000) of British troops armed with rifles, field guns and rockets. The Brits were disorganised and had poor defenses set up (not unlike the video scenario). The Romans have a much much greater numerical advantage than the Zulus did, plus better equipment and training, being a professional army. There's very little chance of a Marine win under this extreme scenario. It's pointless even entertaining the idea of the Marines having airsupport as it tips the scales ridiculously to their side. If they have airsupport why even call in airdrops? Why not call in a gunship or an AC-130? With something like that you could singlehandedly destroy any army that ever existed prior to the 1900s. Even just a single unarmed helicopter could feasibly pick up marines, hover out of arrow range and let the marines mow people down from above. |
| ZombiLoin:
I feel like the Marines would still have the advantage in any fight. Assuming that they only have infantry weapons, they still have grenade launchers, GPMGs, and disposable rocket launchers that would incapacitate several Romans at a time. A Roman testudo formation would only make the effect of fragmentation grenades and other explosives worse. If a grenade rolled into a testudo formation, that's 32-48 Roman soldiers incapacitated in the span of less than a second. Whatever training the Romans may have, they're still human, and I think an ancient plebian or equestian who hadn't seen a grenade explosion before would buck and run. That's not counting the fact that these Marines would have advanced melee training and the ability to use bayonets, plus torso armor. If you really want to stretch, you could argue that humans were over-all shorter and less healthy 2000 years ago than today, giving a physical advantage to the modern day marines over antiquity soldiers. This isn't to mention that it would be difficult for the Romans to organize and move an army of 60,000 soldiers, while the Marines have radios and the ability to use them, giving them the tactical flexibility to maneuver and move that the Romans couldn't match. If this fight were to take place in Europe, then the Marines would be able to use maps of the area to fight in places that nullify the Roman's advantages in numbers. The Romans were, at one point, the most successful fighting force on the European continent. But a group of 300 physically imposing men with the ability to injure or kill dozens of your own with a metal orb the size of the baseball, punch straight through your shield and several people behind it, and out fight you in hand to hand combat, would probably make you want to run, even if you're well trained and have 60,000 men around you. Then again, this is just an imaginary dream scenario, so /shrug. |
| Nonnel:
--- Quote from: Bisjac on May 20, 2017, 03:13:32 PM ---if 1 shot = 1 kill every time, without missing. in theory they could do this with the amount of ammo they could still realistically carry. --- End quote --- reload time would do them in, though |
| sir dooble:
--- Quote from: ZombiLoin on May 20, 2017, 04:44:20 PM ---I feel like the Marines would still have the advantage in any fight. Assuming that they only have infantry weapons, they still have grenade launchers, GPMGs, and disposable rocket launchers that would incapacitate several Romans at a time. --- End quote --- Your entire post is a really good point, but if we're allowing all sides to have access to their complete arsenal of infantry weapons then I still feel that the Marines are forgeted. If I have 60,000 Roman Soldiers (who depending on definition may not even be Italians) all equipped with bows and arrows, then I can unleash such a volley of arrows that no Marines would survive, even if they took out thousands of Romans. If we play in a real environment it only gets easier for the Romans to get into a perfect range. |
| ZombiLoin:
--- Quote from: sir dooble on May 20, 2017, 04:56:47 PM ---Your entire post is a really good point, but if we're allowing all sides to have access to their complete arsenal of infantry weapons then I still feel that the Marines are forgeted. If I have 60,000 Roman Soldiers (who depending on definition may not even be Italians) all equipped with bows and arrows, then I can unleash such a volley of arrows that no Marines would survive, even if they took out thousands of Romans. If we play in a real environment it only gets easier for the Romans to get into a perfect range. --- End quote --- I feel like the Marines would win in most battlegrounds. If it's on an open plain, I feel like it would go to the Marines. Compare the 800-1200m range of many of the Marine's weapons to the 100-200m range of the bows and arrows used by the Romans. In a wide open space like this (say, the semi-arid regions of Spain, the deserts of North Africa or Palestine) all the marines would have to do would be to kite the Romans, plinking off their soldiers and constantly moving out of the range of their bows. If you want to get real devious, the Marines could lay down mines like Claymores in order to further delay and attrit the Romans. Similarly, I can't see the Marines losing in a mountainous region either. All the Marines need to do is capture and hold the high ground, and they can fire down on the Romans with impunity. As for the arrow thing, I don't think it would work very well. Volleys of arrow fire were good at thinning out ranks of tightly packed troops in a formation, softening them up for melee fighters and heavy infantry to finish them off. However, the Marines, due to radio communication, would be able to spread out and fight from multiple positions with no loss to their tactical ability. Once the marines have split up into platoons or squads, archers have to aim at individual targets instead of areas and formations. And it's obvious, but bows are very poor when aiming at an individual target at 100-200m |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |