It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who would win?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
100 of these guys:





VS


10.000 of these guys:













GOGOGO!!!!




posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyWarrior
 


I'd take ten of the modern soldiers vs. 1000 of the old boyz...

Sniper rifle/machine gun... Ftw





posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyWarrior
 


thats a hard one, does the 100 have on limted ammo? and other stuff like grenads mortors sniper gear, mines whats there position, or is open field battle what are the perameters



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyWarrior
 


That's not a fair fight. Assuming there's cover available, and with those muskets being notoriously inaccurate, those Redcoats don't stand a chance. We might lose a couple of men, but in the end, our technology and training is superior.

They wear red for a reason.

edit on 13-9-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
reply to post by HappyWarrior
 


thats a hard one, does the 100 have on limted ammo? and other stuff like grenads mortors sniper gear, mines whats there position, or is open field battle what are the perameters


Scenario: The 100 US soldiers are behind cover and the 10.000 British soldiers are basically advancing towards them while firing their rifles at the same time. Both parties have unlimited ammo. No rocket launchers, grenades, etc. Just their guns and ammo (and lots of it)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyWarrior
 


so i guess the question is how long could 100 modern fighters stand agaist a 1000 at time musket balls being shoot at them at all times and if the 100 would be able to protect there flanks and there ass at the same time this still a tuff one. i think that if the redcoats won they will have to have sustained major losses in order to win. im gonna have to side with redcoats unless the modern warriors we dug in really deep



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Red team go Red team go...... I think the old timers would just bum rush the modern dudes and start clubbing them to death with their rifles and hatchets..A lot of'em would be cut down on the initial rush but they would eventually overwhelm them..I have to think the old timers were way better at hand to hand combat than the modern guys



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by haven123
 

So long as they are using someone else's resources and man power.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyWarrior
 


LOL, one of those modern soldiers would just call in some steel rain...



Fight over.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
IMO it all depends on strategy. Strength is usually greatest by numbers so if I were a betting man I'd take the red coats.

If you were able to surround a 100 troops with 1000 red coats you might lose a lot of men, but unless your strategy is piss-poor than you should be able to win the battle considering you out number them by almost 10X



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
technology wins wars. not numbers



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by haven123
 


lmao...

preach brother...



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLonewolf
Red team go Red team go...... I think the old timers would just bum rush the modern dudes and start clubbing them to death with their rifles and hatchets..A lot of'em would be cut down on the initial rush but they would eventually overwhelm them..I have to think the old timers were way better at hand to hand combat than the modern guys


I agree with you.
Another point to contemplate is the amount of ammo that the US soldier uses to kill ONE enemy, it is staggering.
When the Russians came to Afganistan they were shocked to notice that the Taliban were very good shots. With their old guns almost all shots counted.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Pokoia
 


WTH? LOL.

I was US Army and in OIF. Taliban are pretty good shots, but so were the Repub. Guard and your probably counting suppressing fire.

I can tag a man via peep sight at 400 meters. I'll prove it via video if necessary. Most US Combat Arms troops can.
edit on 13-9-2012 by thesungod because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
THIS! IS! SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARTA!

Sorry, had to do it.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


LOL.


Give 'em bullet proof shields and maybe.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Pokoia
 


Your right about the amount of ammo modern day soldiers use..I watch ALOT of firefight footage and the one thing that always sticks out in my mind is the random, blind firing i see them doing..I guess it's because they know they have the ammo in reserve..I can see where the insurgents, rebels, terrorist would want to make sure EVERY one of their shots where on target..Their not gettin' any ammo drops or running back to the ammo depot to restock..The one thing I don't understand is the random firing in the sky they do..I wonder how many have been killed/injured from falling lead over there
edit on 13-9-2012 by TheLonewolf because: sp



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyWarrior
 


I say this guy can take them all:






new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join