Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Sheng_Pao on April 11, 2011, 11:33:58 AM
-
Many threads involving fun anachronistic pondering involve modern weapons being introduced into historical battles, like machine guns at the Alamo. Howver, lets have a thread that is exactly the opposite, an ancient army known for it's sheer ferocious fighting tactics versus a more modern one.
Imagine that a Mongol cavalry force of 20,000, led by Hulagu Khan himself, while they are charging into battle against the much larger army of the Abbasid Caliphate on the Uzbek prairie, is suddenly transported into the Texas plains of 1836 so now, the enemy they are charging is the Mexican army led by Santa Anna, in the process of laying siege to the Alamo. Except for the fact that the charging Mongols don't know this at all. The Uzbek steppes are virtually identical to the prairie in Texas, and now, the Mongols are within 400 yards of the Mexican besiegers. They still think that the army ahead of them is the colossal Abbasid army. They see them attacking some kind of strange fortification.
FACTS TO NOTE:
* The Mongols will not be intimidated by the Mexican muskets and cannon at
all. Genghis Khan had used Chinese engineers to build massive siege guns
called bombards when they defeated a large Turkish khaganate one year
earlier.
* The Mongol mounted archer can fire 20 aimed shots a minute with deadly
accurary, and the Mongol laminate composite bow, packing almost 120
pounds of draw, is accurate and lethal out to 300 yards.
* This Mongol force knows they are facing an Arab force almost 3 times their
size, so each warrior is equipped, physically and mentally for a vicious and
merciless fight. The Abbasids had just beheaded one of their diplomats
weeks earlier, so these charging horsemen are bloodthirsty for revenge.
* Aside from their deadly bows, Mongol horsemen are armed with the Charay
sword, a lethal curved sword that would later be used by the Ottoman
Empire. Mongol horsemen are also wearing heavy leather, silk, and metal
armor.
* Behind this Mongol attack force of 20,000 is 100,000 support troops,
infantry, charioteers, artillerists, weapons builders, and sappers.BUT IN
OUR SCENARIO, THEY HAVE NO COMBAT ROLE, NOT AS OF YET
Now lets discuss who would have the advantage, win, and why? And what would be the consequences of such an incident, and how the history of this piece of land, would be altered. Have fun
=)
-
Depends entirely on the training and morale of the Mex infantry.
If they are decently trained and have decent morale, no 13th century cavalry is going to rout them out of their infantry squares.
If you recall, ~20 years earlier Wellington's infantry did not rout in the face of Napoleon's many field guns and curiassiers.
Also, that same Napoleon turned a Mamluk army (similar to the Mongol one you described) into dog meat.
If the Mex infantry is good only for terrorizing campesinos and mojados and requires 20:1 odds to take an itty bitty mission church, the Mongols would have their way with them.
-
20,000 Mongols attacking the rear of +/-2400 Mexicans engrossed in surrounding and besieging a small mission, and they're already within 400 yards? The charge on horseback should take less than a minute from that distance.
Given the likely formation of the Mexicans (directed inward), their training, and the fact that this being 1836 they weren't using cartridge firearms, I think 20,000 Mongols would pretty much roll over them.
-
;/ Just equip the Mexican army with phased plasma rifles in the 40 megawatt range and be done with it. [popcorn]
-
Whatever you're smoking, please, please please don't bogart it.
-
Whatever you're smoking, please, please please don't bogart it.
???
-
???
I was referring to the OP. Your post, though, that was pretty funny.
-
Sure, the Mongols will win....but what's to keep them from wiping out the Texans too?.....
Oh, wait.....maybe the Texans can call in Stuka Dive Bombers...... =D
-
Negative. Expect the Texans to dust off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure....
-
Anytime you are talking about a thoroughly professional veteran army that is highly skilled and disciplined, you could probably put that army against many different groups that don't have the same attributes. Of course, 20,000 against 5000 in the open field and you could probably give them spears and they would still win.
Now you need to include a similar size civil war era unit with rifled muskets, revolvers, and flying artillery.
Where the hell did this idea come from?
-
Anytime you are talking about a thoroughly professional veteran army that is highly skilled and disciplined, you could probably put that army against many different groups that don't have the same attributes. Of course, 20,000 against 5000 in the open field and you could probably give them spears and they would still win.
Now you need to include a similar size civil war era unit with rifled muskets, revolvers, and flying artillery.
Where the hell did this idea come from?
Hatched over a round of cosplay or COD chat no doubt.
-
Anytime you are talking about a thoroughly professional veteran army that is highly skilled and disciplined, you could probably put that army against many different groups that don't have the same attributes.
But could the thoroughly professional Mongol Horde make Starbucks in the field? Under rape and pillage conditions?
DD
-
But could the thoroughly professional Mongol Horde make Starbucks in the field? Under rape and pillage conditions?
....only if they were trained by the Canadians..... =D
-
20,000 Mongols attacking the rear of +/-2400 Mexicans engrossed in surrounding and besieging a small mission, and they're already within 400 yards? The charge on horseback should take less than a minute from that distance.
Given the likely formation of the Mexicans (directed inward), their training, and the fact that this being 1836 they weren't using cartridge firearms, I think 20,000 Mongols would pretty much roll over them.
Agreed! The Mongol bows had sufficient range and were much more rapid fire than anything Santa Ana had. I suspect the Mexicans woud be wiped out before all of them got turned around to face the attack.
-
Agreed! The Mongol bows had sufficient range and were much more rapid fire than anything Santa Ana had. I suspect the Mexicans woud be wiped out before all of them got turned around to face the attack.
I'd say your scenario was set up to reach that conclusion. As anyone said, a force of 20,000 versus an unsuspecting force of 5,000 would nearly always wins but for the invention of repeating firearms.
I'd take a company of Marines over those Mongols, though.
-
OK, I have finally had my fill of this myth:
* The Mongol mounted archer can fire 20 aimed shots a minute with deadly
accurary, and the Mongol laminate composite bow, packing almost 120
pounds of draw, is accurate and lethal out to 300 yards.
Given:
* Human shooter
* Equine mount
* Bow made from wood, horn, and glue
* Arrow made from same stuff as bow, plus metal
* Shot not made in a vacuum in zero G
This statement:
"is accurate and lethal out to 300 yards" approaches the value of horse manure (symbolically: Hpu).
Just because is is stated on the Hystery Chanul doesn't make it so.
-
Shot not made in a vacuum in zero G
This entire thread just became useless to me.
-
I can't believe I wasted 3 minutes of my life reading this thread. WTH was I thinking. :facepalm:
-
OK, I have finally had my fill of this myth:
Given:
* Human shooter
* Equine mount
* Bow made from wood, horn, and glue
* Arrow made from same stuff as bow, plus metal
* Shot not made in a vacuum in zero G
This statement:
"is accurate and lethal out to 300 yards" approaches the value of horse manure (symbolically: Hpu).
Just because is is stated on the Hystery Chanul doesn't make it so.
I think when people say "accurate out to 300 yards" what they really mean is they can hit an enemy formation. However, it is the actual 300 yard range I have always been skeptical about. That is a long damn way for a bow. I also have my doubts about the effectiveness of the arrows at range. Down here near the coast we get pretty heavy wind gusts some days. I really doubt arrows would be accurate at all in winds gusts beyond close range.
Essentially, I would think a formation of musketeers firing at 300 yards would be just as accurate and more deadly than a formation of archers at 300 yards. Certainly true if you require equal training time. The reload time would be longer though.
But as said above, a big force attacking an unsuspecting smaller force is at an advantage with just about any combination of weapons short of full-on modern stuff.
-
OK, I have finally had my fill of this myth:
Given:
* Human shooter
* Equine mount
* Bow made from wood, horn, and glue
* Arrow made from same stuff as bow, plus metal
* Shot not made in a vacuum in zero G
This statement:
"is accurate and lethal out to 300 yards" approaches the value of horse manure (symbolically: Hpu).
Just because is is stated on the Hystery Chanul doesn't make it so.
Devonai makes a good point. How accurate would an arrow be in a vacuum? =D
-
OK, I have finally had my fill of this myth:
Given:
* Human shooter
* Equine mount
* Bow made from wood, horn, and glue
* Arrow made from same stuff as bow, plus metal
* Shot not made in a vacuum in zero G
This statement:
"is accurate and lethal out to 300 yards" approaches the value of horse manure (symbolically: Hpu).
Just because is is stated on the Hystery Chanul doesn't make it so.
Also, don't forget the 20 shots per minute stipulation which is one shot every 3 seconds.
-
Oh hell. The Mongols would hand Santa Anna his ass, on a plate, butterflied. In no time. Since we are "what iffin" here. In place of the Mongols, insert Hannibal's army at Cannae. That would be interesting. [popcorn]
-
* Shot not made in a vacuum in zero G
Oh, great....now we're gonna have to have Monguls IN SPACE..... :facepalm:
Since we are "what iffin" here. In place of the Mongols, insert Hannibal's army at Cannae. That would be interesting. [popcorn]
I'd kinda like to see the Monguls vs. the Apaches.....horse warriors vs. horse warriors....maybe throw in a few medeval knights for a skirmish or two..... [popcorn]
IRL, the Apaches kept the Mexican Army hoppin' for years after they learned to ride horses....
-
Essentially, I would think a formation of musketeers firing at 300 yards would be just as accurate and more deadly than a formation of archers at 300 yards. Certainly true if you require equal training time.
The problem as stated does not have two formations facing each other. It has cavalry at full gallop charging the Mexican rear. The training has already been done and is not part of the problem.
I suspect that the Mongols were not so much trained as raised to be bowmen.
As to maximum range, Google it. I just did, and you won't believe me. Effective range? As we often say -- I don't want to be the test case.
When I was an undergrad, we had a similar "What if." What if all the Chinese armies started marching west?"
-
Devonai makes a good point. How accurate would an arrow be in a vacuum? =D
More accurate than in air. True, no fin stabilization, but also no aerodynamic negative effects, so you'd be trading imperfectly corrected aerodynamic effects for no effects at all. Winner: space bow
As for the OP question, without magazine fed, repeating firearms, the Mongols win.
Let's look at the stats.
First, can we stipulate that the Mongols begin 400yds away, and also stipulate that if they close this distance before losing more than 15,000 of their number, (2:1 ratio cavalry vs. Foot soldiers at lover range? Cavalry wins).
Okay, the math. A horse at full gallop travels at about 30+ mph (not a racehorse remember), or about 44fps. To cover 1200ft, it takes about 27 seconds. The 2400 mexicans therefore need to kill 15,000 Mongols in 27 seconds, or roughly one Mongol per Mexican every 4.5 seconds. Given a typical single-shot hit percentage on a 30mph moving target of 20% increasing to 80% at near zero range (giving the defenders the benefit of the doubt), or an average of 50%, the defenders would need to fire an average of 12 shots, accurately aimed, at a rate of one shot every 2.25 seconds or faster.
Given the above, I would conclude that without WWI level weaponry at least, the Mongols win, in fact, I think even a WWII infantry force would be close to losing
My logic:
WWII US weapons: M1, M2, browning 30, and the BAR
M1: 10 shot stripper clip...assuming 4-5 seconds to reload and re-aim, 12 aimed shots takes too long
M2: infantry emplaced tripod had limited arc of fire, can't traverse 180 degrees in less than 27sec and then fire the 30-50 rounds needed (3 man crew, thus 18 kills, lower hit percentage means 72+ rounds needed, so the traverse and reset has to take less than 20sec)
Browning30: same issue
BAR...now it's possible, 20rnd magazine, but low issue rate means minimal overall impact, and "oh crap" realization will likely reduce effectiveness of aimed fire, and again, reloads take too long.
Basically, without modern repeating, large capacity firearms, AND vehicle mounted rapid traverse crew served weapons, it's the Mongols...or it's damn close (and I'm really giving the defenders the benefit of the doubt in hit percentages on a horse mounted rider...cut the hits down to 20%, and even with modern weapons, it would be the Mongols (let's see someone hit 6 of 30 against a jinking mounted rider with an M4/16).
What stopped the use of cavalry and human powered weapons wasn't the individual firearm (at least against a threat who didn't care how many died, e.g. The Mongols in this case), it was artillery with grape or exploding shot and/or large capacity crew served weapons.
-
And I'm assuming there is zero reaction time! Basically, if you don't start killing them sooner, you are done. He'll. Let's say you had 4 Bradley's and a platoon of infantry, the Mongols would still win (max rate of fire on all associated weapons would only yield about 500 25mm rounds, 1200 coax, another 1200 from hatch-mount, 1000 or so from the platoon, and you've killed maybe 5000...
Crap, the more I think about this, the more it's kinda scary...even buttoned up in a platoon of Abrams, you'd run out of ammo and fuel before you kill them. Damn Mongols.
-
I love these kinds of what-ifs. Once I spent a whole day with all my reference books trying to determine if the US has "lost it's ability to perform a d-day level of amphib assault" (read that somewhere)..turns out, no. The current USN/USMC could put more men, vehicles, and tons of equip ashore, faster, from farther away, with better protection with only active duty equipment and ships than the allies in D-day, and the current USN can put more tons of munitions (shells, bombs, etc) on a beachhead per unit time now than they could on d-day, from a lot further away, and at far better accuracy (so equal tonnage and better aimed). So once again, sometimes things aren't what they appear.
-
M1: 10 shot stripper clip...assuming 4-5 seconds to reload and re-aim, 12 aimed shots takes too long
M2: infantry emplaced tripod had limited arc of fire, can't traverse 180 degrees in less than 27sec and then fire the 30-50 rounds needed (3 man crew, thus 18 kills, lower hit percentage means 72+ rounds needed, so the traverse and reset has to take less than 20sec)
Browning30: same issue
Where can I get some of these ten-shot clips for the M1? Here I've been using eight rounders like a sucker.
The Brownings, in both their .30 and .50 caliber manifestations, are not the M240B. That said, the M240B and a well-trained crew (Devonai points at himself) are not subject to the limitations you've stipulated.
-
And I'm assuming there is zero reaction time! Basically, if you don't start killing them sooner, you are done. He'll. Let's say you had 4 Bradley's and a platoon of infantry, the Mongols would still win (max rate of fire on all associated weapons would only yield about 500 25mm rounds, 1200 coax, another 1200 from hatch-mount, 1000 or so from the platoon, and you've killed maybe 5000...
Crap, the more I think about this, the more it's kinda scary...even buttoned up in a platoon of Abrams, you'd run out of ammo and fuel before you kill them. Damn Mongols.
Not unless you factor in running over a bunch of them with your heavy armored vehicle.... ;/
-
Where can I get some of these ten-shot clips for the M1? Here I've been using eight rounders like a sucker.
The Brownings, in both their .30 and .50 caliber manifestations, are not the M240B. That said, the M240B and a well-trained crew (Devonai points at himself) are not subject to the limitations you've stipulated.
Crap, I had 8, but changed it to 10 as that didn't seem right (last time I fired one was in October)...my bad! I admit the error! :).
Also, 240b/g wasn't around in ww2. And in my more modern example (mechanized infantry platoon), I limited the number of guys--it becomes ammo limited. But to that point, with an average of 250-300 rounds per modern infantry combat load and 20% hits, unless you had more than 300 joes, and the time to fire that many aimed shots (which you wouldn't, given the closing speed, you would have at most time to fire 30-50 (or a spray and pray of a box through a SAW, which would likely have the same number of total hits)...so you would need a very large number of good guys in green.
-
Not unless you factor in running over a bunch of them with your heavy armored vehicle.... ;/
Tough to do, on rough terrain horses are about as fast as a tank and more maneuverable.
Anyway, I was just trying to have a little fun here, but it did surprise me when I did the math.
-
Heh, I figured it was just a typo.
As for the support elements, I must admit a limited view of the situation. I've only trained for a relative handful of battle drills and the final protective lines of a patrol base, so I can hardly claim expertise for all scenarios. All I know is that the M60/M240B are both more versatile and easier to wield than the limitations you've mentioned. I have only dealt with the M2 for Humvee mounts, not dismounted on a tripod, but the GPMGs don't have to be locked into sectors. You can free gun it.
-
Also you didn't factor in that horses can't move at 27fps over dead and dying horses/men. Once WWII (maybe even WWI) crew served weapons open up, there will be large "piles of panic" in dead and dying horses/men. That will have an impact on those following.
It wasn't artillery that killed off the horse cavalry it was the machine gun.
-
Tough to do, on rough terrain horses are about as fast as a tank and more maneuverable.
Except that, when 50,000 are charging in at once, the middle doesn't have a whole lot of room to maneuver....
-
Also you didn't factor in that horses can't move at 27fps over dead and dying horses/men. Once WWII (maybe even WWI) crew served weapons open up, there will be large "piles of panic" in dead and dying horses/men. That will have an impact on those following.
It wasn't artillery that killed off the horse cavalry it was the machine gun.
In the case you mention, it depends if they can open up at more than 400yds... If it's a big pile, yes, a horse every few strides, the horse can clear it (horses aren't that tall when dead). Assuming the horses are approaching over a 2.4km wide front (one defender per meter of front), the horses would be in 40 ranks (5m apart). So the dead ones would be about every 10m. At a gallop, a horse can jump/dodge a 3 foot tall object randomly spaced 5m laterally and every 10m in direction of travel. Mexicans/ww1/2 still lose. Yes, machine guns are one of the main factors in the demise of cavalry, BUT it was the coincident appearance of machine guns, trench/wire/etc emplacements that did it. Without all of those, cavalry waves like the Mongols in question would work (except with arty)... BUT the kind of Mongol charge we are discussing also didn't exist then...you have to follow the assumptions of the anachronism!
Assume Mongol horde, then my logic is still valid (and I am loving this debate...what is the line about arguing with an engineer being like wrestling with a pig)
-
"Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig: You're out a $50 meal at the Olive Garden and the pig is knocked up."
-
"Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig: You're out a $50 meal at the Olive Garden and the pig is knocked up."
But one burning question remains:
"Who knocked up the pig? The engineer or the fool who argued with the engineer?"
-
Heh, I figured it was just a typo.
As for the support elements, I must admit a limited view of the situation. I've only trained for a relative handful of battle drills and the final protective lines of a patrol base, so I can hardly claim expertise for all scenarios. All I know is that the M60/M240B are both more versatile and easier to wield than the limitations you've mentioned. I have only dealt with the M2 for Humvee mounts, not dismounted on a tripod, but the GPMGs don't have to be locked into sectors. You can free gun it.
My point on the sector part was just that it added time...whether that time is 5 seconds or twenty, in 27 seconds at full cyclic rate, you'll get 250-500rnds, maybe. With 5-10% hits (if you are lucky) that means you need 300 such MG's (more than were issued in the unit size I described). So it's closer, but I'm still giving way more credit to the hit percentage for rapid fire.
The jumping over horses and such is the best argument so far against in my opinion.
Though, I think I've gotten myself in deep on this one! I've learned my lesson! :)
-
Though, I think I've gotten myself in deep on this one! I've learned my lesson! :)
"Don't mess with Space Mongols."
-
"Don't mess with Space Mongols."
Horses don't work in space. :)
-
Horses don't work in space. :)
HA!
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.desertmoonent.net%2Findex2%2Fimages%2Fspace%2520horse.jpg&hash=700ddd4aae12875f1b1d902c9d63ed0554091346)
-
Dare we ask about the speed of a swallow?...... =|
-
HA!
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.desertmoonent.net%2Findex2%2Fimages%2Fspace%2520horse.jpg&hash=700ddd4aae12875f1b1d902c9d63ed0554091346)
I stand corrected, your evidence has convinced me.
-
wall of text about mongols, mexicans, and fully automatic sniper longbows
...but what about the bear cavalry?
-
...but what about the bear cavalry?
Depends, are they rocket propelled chainsaw equipped and have Freddie mercury as a rider?
-
Hatched over a round of cosplay or COD chat no doubt.
Someone's been reading Prof. William Forstchen...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Regiment
(The books actually are rather enjoyable, IMO.)
-
Depends, are they rocket propelled chainsaw equipped and have Freddie mercury as a rider?
If they are getting ridden by Freddie Mercury, they are gay bear cavalry, which is a whole 'nuther kettle of fish.
For instance, bear charioteers (http://"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/BearsMarchaGayDF.JPG").
-
Silly bear calvary. Everyone knows the Mexicans forified thier 6 o'clock with a moat, which was full of sharks. With frickin laser beams on thier heads.
-
The problem as stated does not have two formations facing each other. It has cavalry at full gallop charging the Mexican rear. The training has already been done and is not part of the problem.
I suspect that the Mongols were not so much trained as raised to be bowmen.
As to maximum range, Google it. I just did, and you won't believe me. Effective range? As we often say -- I don't want to be the test case.
When I was an undergrad, we had a similar "What if." What if all the Chinese armies started marching west?"
Would you rather have a 30-06 or a pointy stick (http://TheFiringLine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185348)?
Well what about a pointy stick fired at 20 times per minute to a distance of 300 meters by a mongol!!!!?
-
Dare we ask about the speed of a swallow?...... =|
African or European?
-
In the case you mention, it depends if they can open up at more than 400yds... If it's a big pile, yes, a horse every few strides, the horse can clear it (horses aren't that tall when dead). Assuming the horses are approaching over a 2.4km wide front (one defender per meter of front), the horses would be in 40 ranks (5m apart). So the dead ones would be about every 10m. At a gallop, a horse can jump/dodge a 3 foot tall object randomly spaced 5m laterally and every 10m in direction of travel. Mexicans/ww1/2 still lose. Yes, machine guns are one of the main factors in the demise of cavalry, BUT it was the coincident appearance of machine guns, trench/wire/etc emplacements that did it. Without all of those, cavalry waves like the Mongols in question would work (except with arty)... BUT the kind of Mongol charge we are discussing also didn't exist then...you have to follow the assumptions of the anachronism!
Assume Mongol horde, then my logic is still valid (and I am loving this debate...what is the line about arguing with an engineer being like wrestling with a pig)
I imagine the Mongols could not fire at 300 yards and 20 times per minute all while dodging the dead bodies of their buddies and their buddies' horses. If they were taking rifle fire at range, their effectiveness would be hit hard.
The last successful cavalry attack on a machine gun emplacement was made with advantage of terrain and surprise so the gunners were unprepared and didn't see them coming.
Barbed wire on the battlefield probably affected use of cavalry also.
-
Silly bear calvary. Everyone knows the Mexicans forified thier 6 o'clock with a moat, which was full of sharks. With frickin laser beams on thier heads.
If you allowing lasers in the 19th century, why not allow Reason (from snow crash)...then I bet one guy could do it.
-
The problem as stated does not have two formations facing each other. It has cavalry at full gallop charging the Mexican rear. The training has already been done and is not part of the problem.
I suspect that the Mongols were not so much trained as raised to be bowmen.
As to maximum range, Google it. I just did, and you won't believe me. Effective range? As we often say -- I don't want to be the test case.
When I was an undergrad, we had a similar "What if." What if all the Chinese armies started marching west?"
I hate to dredge up this from the 1st page, but if you follow all that, you have basically stacked the advantages so far to one side that they could go barehanded and still win. What is the point of that? Much better to just think about a Mongol army versus a typical Napoleonic Army. Prepared, I think the Napoleonic Army would wipe the ground with them.
What about the Chinese Armies? What if they met up with the Roman Empire? What if the Mongols just went through a rain storm and couldn't use their bows? What if something else?.......
-
I imagine the Mongols could not fire at 300 yards and 20 times per minute all while dodging the dead bodies of their buddies and their buddies' horses. If they were taking rifle fire at range, their effectiveness would be hit hard.
The last successful cavalry attack on a machine gun emplacement was made with advantage of terrain and surprise so the gunners were unprepared and didn't see them coming.
Barbed wire on the battlefield probably affected use of cavalry also.
True. I did mention trenches and entanglements in a previous post though.
Also, I assumed the Mongols didn't shoot arrows at all, but rather engaged with swords up close, hence my requirement that they still had a 2:1 advantage when arriving at the lines.
As for last successful attack, again, referring to a previous post, I don't think at any time since the Mongols were cavalry massed in anywhere close to those numbers. If you reduce the numbers to a few hundred to a few thousand, the cavalry loses. My whole point was given those numbers, rate of fire and ammo loads become the driving factor, regardless of firearm technology level. If you changed it to 50,000 men on foot charging, the results would be the same, the defenders either can't fire fast enough, or run out of ammo. (look at the human wave attacks in Korea, or even the larger charges in early WWI...the ratios where they were "successful" were in the 20:1 range or greater). I'm not saying it's smart, or effective, but with the right ratios and lack of entanglements and arty, it can work.
-
I hate to dredge up this from the 1st page, but if you follow all that, you have basically stacked the advantages so far to one side that they could go barehanded and still win. What is the point of that? Much better to just think about a Mongol army versus a typical Napoleonic Army. Prepared, I think the Napoleonic Army would wipe the ground with them.
What about the Chinese Armies? What if they met up with the Roman Empire? What if the Mongols just went through a rain storm and couldn't use their bows? What if something else?.......
Remember that Napoleonic armies were very rigid in discipline, while Mongols, and most other Asiatic (Manchu, Ottoman, Seljuk, etc) forces almost never used formations in battle. They used melee assaults, and the Mongol cavalry in this instance would be firing arrows all the way UNTIL they come within sword range, then the fearsome Charay comes out.
For an idea of how a Mongol attack looked like, here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBgLjsNJvFs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBgLjsNJvFs) This was a battle between Mongols and Abbasid cavalry in Kazakhstan, during Hulagu Khan's drive westward.
-
They may not have been disciplined, but they used better tactics than a lot of the armies they faced in Easter Europe from what I understood. They had a lot more experience than most of the people they faced.
-
They may not have been disciplined, but they used better tactics than a lot of the armies they faced in Easter Europe from what I understood. They had a lot more experience than most of the people they faced.
True, after years of this kind of attack, not only would they have experience, but anyone who wasn't the Mongol equivalent of a Spartan warrior was dead.
Oh, that's a good one. Leonidas and the 300, in Thermopylae, vs the same Mongol horde.
Nevermind, that's not a good one.
How about revolutionary war infantry (either side) vs the Spartans at Thermopylae?
-
True, after years of this kind of attack, not only would they have experience, but anyone who wasn't the Mongol equivalent of a Spartan warrior was dead.
Oh, that's a good one. Leonidas and the 300, in Thermopylae, vs the same Mongol horde.
Nevermind, that's not a good one.
How about revolutionary war infantry (either side) vs the Spartans at Thermopylae?
If the Revolutionary War infantry is foolish enough to make a bayonet charge, the Spartans would turn them into meat jelly. Spartans were trained from young to become warriors. Their muscles were toned from years of practice with swords and shields. There is simply no way the napoleonic infantry will even last a minute against them. If the Spartans have bows and arrows, they can also match the napoleonic infantry in the open field. If not, the Spartans, assuming they know about their opponents' guns, can simply lay down prone when the volley fires so the volley passes over them, then charge while the infantry is reloading and mince them up.
-
In terms of accurate range, rate of fire, and lethality (against unarmored targets), how does a ancient Greek bow fare?
-
In terms of accurate range, rate of fire, and lethality (against unarmored targets), how does a ancient Greek bow fare?
Not sure about ancient Greek archery, since there is not that much written about it. But in Homer's "Odyssey", Odysseus' bow was pretty powerful, look at what it did to the rowdy suitors in his hall. It was made from plain wood, if I got that correct, with no laminates or enhancements. On the other hand, the Persian Sasanids were using bows with laminates and some even got bows made from all steel :O
Lets assume that the Spartans use the plain wood, Odysseus-type longbow. I've shot a board-bow before and with aimed fire, I hit a hummock at 75 yards away. With volley fire, these arrows are definitely lethal out to 300 yards or more. If the Spartans open up the battle by exchanging volley fire with the napoleonic infantry, I suppose the 300 of them would stand in line and deliver volley after volley. The rate of fire of arrows are far more than muzzleloading flintlocks, and with the harassment of hundreds of arrows raining down on them nonstop, I doubt the napoleonic soldiers would even have the nerve to stand still and load their cumbersome flintlocks.
-
Yeah, sorry, but musket aed infantry with any discipline at all would shred any bow armed force to pieces. There is a reason that gunpowder fueled armies dominated over time. It is not because more primitive armies were lacking in muscle tone that might have saved them.
The proof positive of this is in the exploding casualty numbers that come with guns. They are better killing machines, period. With gunpowder we've managed to rack up casualties that might have widened ghengis khan's eyes.
-
Yeah, sorry, but musket aed infantry with any discipline at all would shred any bow armed force to pieces. There is a reason that gunpowder fueled armies dominated over time. It is not because more primitive armies were lacking in muscle tone that might have saved them.
The proof positive of this is in the exploding casualty numbers that come with guns. They are better killing machines, period. With gunpowder we've managed to rack up casualties that might have widened ghengis khan's eyes.
What DS wrote. There were several such meetings during the dawn of the gunpowder age and later. It generally required a profound screw up on the part of the gunpowder army for them to lose.
And don't get me started with horse-mounted cavalry vs gunpowder-equipped infantry, given equal discipline...
-
I wonder how much of the effectiveness of early firearms was due to the ungodly amount of noise they made?
I think the Spartans would be annihilated. Shields and armor didn't do well against bullets.
-
Anyone aware of studies on the maneuverability of infantry armed with muskets as compared to more primitive methods? I would suspect that guns would give an army a lot more flexibility in how it will deploy on the field.
-
Just give the Mongols Phasers and the Mexicans Disruptors. [popcorn]
-
I wonder how much of the effectiveness of early firearms was due to the ungodly amount of noise they made?
I think the Spartans would be annihilated. Shields and armor didn't do well against bullets.
Ah, but what if they were wearing L3 body armor with .308 trauma plates and a second plate duck taped to the armor?
Spartans all the way.
-
Ah, but what if they were wearing L3 body armor with .308 trauma plates and a second plate duck taped to the armor?
Spartans all the way.
Nope. That armor is still not suitable to stop bayonets much more than the laminate armor. Also, that armor only protects the chest. While a Spartan might continue to function with a stab wound, a musket ball in the thigh is not the same. The helmet is also inadequate. I doubt you would find the Marines standing shoulder to shoulder doing volley fire trusting their armor.
The Spartans' big advantage at Thermopylae was they were heavy armored infantry while the Persians had no equivalent. The Persians just didn't have heavy spears or straight swords designed for armored opponents. Other forces wouldn't have that issue.
-
Anyone aware of studies on the maneuverability of infantry armed with muskets as compared to more primitive methods? I would suspect that guns would give an army a lot more flexibility in how it will deploy on the field.
I think it is less the guns and more the lack of long spears and pole arms, but I agree on the added flexibility. Musket armed armies also get no advantage from stacking infantry deep.
-
I imagine the Mongols could not fire at 300 yards and 20 times per minute all while dodging the dead bodies of their buddies and their buddies' horses. If they were taking rifle fire at range, their effectiveness would be hit hard.
I have read in several books Santa Ana's infantry were armed mostly with Napoleonic war-era muskets. If true I doubt they'd be able to consistently hit stuff at 400 yards.
-
I have read in several books Santa Ana's infantry were armed mostly with Napoleonic war-era muskets. If true I doubt they'd be able to consistently hit stuff at 400 yards.
Yeah, that was a bit before the introduction of rifled muskets and mini-balls. Santa Ana called himself the Napoleon of the West if I remember correctly. I thought I read that in the Mexican War 20 or so years later rifled muskets were much more common at least on the US side.
I was just thinking that volley fire by masses of muskets would be just as accurate and deadly at 300 or 400 yards as arrows.
-
Nope. That armor is still not suitable to stop bayonets much more than the laminate armor. Also, that armor only protects the chest. While a Spartan might continue to function with a stab wound, a musket ball in the thigh is not the same. The helmet is also inadequate. I doubt you would find the Marines standing shoulder to shoulder doing volley fire trusting their armor.
The Spartans' big advantage at Thermopylae was they were heavy armored infantry while the Persians had no equivalent. The Persians just didn't have heavy spears or straight swords designed for armored opponents. Other forces wouldn't have that issue.
I forgot one of the first rules of the internets.
Let me fix it:
Besides, I'm sure the Marines would have no chance if the Spartans were equipped with tactical wheelbarrows. (NOW is the sarcasm strong enough for people to catch it? ;) )
-
Considering the nature of the OP and some of the follow on posts, how could you expect me to detect sarcasm?
-
Considering the nature of the OP and some of the follow on posts, how could you expect me to detect sarcasm?
Ah, but what if they were wearing L3 body armor with .308 trauma plates and a second plate duck taped to the armor?
Spartans all the way.
I thought everyone would immediately know it was a mall ninja joke.
-
Are you talking about your post or the OP? =D
-
So.....mall ninjas vs. innernet commandos......who wins?..... =|
-
I thought everyone would immediately know it was a mall ninja joke.
Ghengis khan would dominate any indoor retail shopping area with a combat briefcase
-
Ghengis khan would dominate any indoor retail shopping area with a combat briefcase
Not if Leonidas was working the Auntie Annie's Pretzel Stand..... :cool:
-
Not if Leonidas was working the Auntie Annie's Pretzel Stand..... :cool:
Madness?...
THIS.... IS..... SPRINKLES!
-
Ghengis khan would dominate any indoor retail shopping area with a combat briefcase
Until Khan Noonien Singh took over ....... [tinfoil] ;/
-
All your armies are useless in the face of a pack of IRS agents.
-
All your armies are useless in the face of a pack of IRS agents.
Yeah, but who would win between the IRS and roman tax collectors? REMEMBER: Roman tax collectors gathered gold. The IRS gathers worthless federal reserve notes!
-
Yeah, but who would win between the IRS and roman tax collectors? REMEMBER: Roman tax collectors gathered gold. The IRS gathers worthless federal reserve notes!
The mall cops would win with the awesomeness of their tactical Segways.
-
Yeah, but who would win between the IRS and roman tax collectors? REMEMBER: Roman tax collectors gathered gold. The IRS gathers worthless federal reserve notes!
IRS agents are faceless, humorless, soul-less beings. They carry giant manuals and will regulate anyone in thier path into submission with obscure tax code references. Roman Tax Collectors are no match.
-
IRS agents are faceless, humorless, soul-less beings. They carry giant manuals and will regulate anyone in thier path into submission with obscure tax code references. Roman Tax Collectors are no match.
I don't know. Roman tax collectors got to keep any excess they collected. They had incentive to be ruthless.
Ruthless vs. soulless is a hard fight.
-
I bet Roman tax collectors traveled with soldiers though.