Posted on Jul 30, 2020
Who would win in a battle. 1 infantry battalion of modern Marines vs the entire Confederate Army?
1.78K
40
43
5
5
0
An infantry Battalion from 2nd Marine Division gets sent back in time. The starting point is the alamo in San Antonio TX. They get 1 week prep. Current weapon loadout an Infantry/rifleman (pogs are in this to) would have. Including fireteams with grenade launchers, M240s. One Humve with a 50 cal attached. One tank. And they get to have their corpsmans with them. with a Highest rank is the battalions LtCol, they do get all the modern history books pertaining the confederate and civil war.
Confederates have all that they would have during the 1800s.
On the day of the battle, The confederates surround the battalion. general Lee asks the LtCol to surrender. The LtCol responds "**** you" . The confederates charge. Can the Marines hold off?
Confederates have all that they would have during the 1800s.
On the day of the battle, The confederates surround the battalion. general Lee asks the LtCol to surrender. The LtCol responds "**** you" . The confederates charge. Can the Marines hold off?
Civil War
Tactics
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 13
4
4
0
Short answer? The CSA... and here's the "long" reasons why.
The Marines don't have any external support-no CAS, no MEDEVAC, and only the tech they've got on hand for internal comms. Any GPS based navigation isn't going to work either. They will be pretty much "blind" in terms of the CSA's movements. They can study the maps of the period all they want... the Confederates are going to have a commanding knowledge of the terrain due to superior recon capabilities and possibly local knowledge. Lee wouldn't be commanding every subordinate unit... so a lot depends on who his corps, division, brigade, and regimental commanders are. If Longstreet makes first contact, he's going to rapidly figure out he's up against vastly superior weapons... and withdraw long enough to consider alternative strategies. If Jackson's still alive... he's going to maneuver until he finds the weakest point in the Marines' defenses... wait for dawn, and overwhelm them in the dim light from the flanks or rear. By contrast, Armistead or Pickett might get frustrated and try a hell-for-leather assault and get slaughtered... it's all about whose calling the shots. My guess? Lee would listen to Longstreet (this time-unless Jackson is still alive, and he's not fought Gettysburg yet), use his cavalry under Stewart to harass and demonstrate on the flanks, try to hem the Marines up into a single, linear order of battle... pound them with artillery... then assault from two sides with infantry. The Marines' problem is that they are trained to engage in smaller-scale. They can accurately fire at targets inside of and up to 200+ yards... but if they're in the Wilderness or Shiloh... they might be engaging inside of 100 yards or less; maybe as close as 50, against not dozens, or even hundreds... but thousands of disciplined troops coming up in line. The CSA would be dropping like flies, but still moving forward... and if they got inside the Marines' lines; it could be a simple case of numbers. You've only got what; 1000-1,200 Marines vs. 50,000-90,000 Confederates?
Still... 25-30 rounds per mag, times six, plus three mags of 15 per man? That's potentially 225-250 rounds per Marine? That means the Marines have around 270,000 rounds total (less indirect fires)... meaning they could kill the entire Army of Northern VA three times, if every round counted. At best, the CSA is firing two to three rounds per minute from lines of about 1,000 in successive ranks. I'd estimate the Marines would be killing somewhere around 75-80% of their targets, while the CSA would be lucky to see 25-50%. More than likely, regardless of whose in tactical command at the time... the CSA's going to retreat and regroup. The Marines (who know more about modern warfare obviously) are going to form a "circle", dig in, and become a human fortress.
Here's where it gets "interesting".
The Marines have no where to go. They're going to be depleting their ammo fast... and even if they can keep the CSA at a distance, they're going to get slowly surrounded. The Victorian-minded CSA officers are going to offer "terms"... which, imbued with modern notions of combat ethos... the Marines are going to refuse-possibly by shooting the unfortunate junior officer under a white flag. Lee can't just "quit" and move off... so he's going to bide his time. The CSA will hit at night, skirmish, bring up re-enforcement and re-supply. Eventually, inevitably, it's going to come down to the last round... and then hand to hand. The Marines have several advantages in that vein... but none strong enough to overwhelm the multitudes of gleaming bayonets at the end of heavy rifled muskets coming at them. Lee's going to lose most of his army, because he... and his subordinate commanders are simply not going to comprehend how "good" modern Marines are at killing... but he's going to win this fight.
The Marines don't have any external support-no CAS, no MEDEVAC, and only the tech they've got on hand for internal comms. Any GPS based navigation isn't going to work either. They will be pretty much "blind" in terms of the CSA's movements. They can study the maps of the period all they want... the Confederates are going to have a commanding knowledge of the terrain due to superior recon capabilities and possibly local knowledge. Lee wouldn't be commanding every subordinate unit... so a lot depends on who his corps, division, brigade, and regimental commanders are. If Longstreet makes first contact, he's going to rapidly figure out he's up against vastly superior weapons... and withdraw long enough to consider alternative strategies. If Jackson's still alive... he's going to maneuver until he finds the weakest point in the Marines' defenses... wait for dawn, and overwhelm them in the dim light from the flanks or rear. By contrast, Armistead or Pickett might get frustrated and try a hell-for-leather assault and get slaughtered... it's all about whose calling the shots. My guess? Lee would listen to Longstreet (this time-unless Jackson is still alive, and he's not fought Gettysburg yet), use his cavalry under Stewart to harass and demonstrate on the flanks, try to hem the Marines up into a single, linear order of battle... pound them with artillery... then assault from two sides with infantry. The Marines' problem is that they are trained to engage in smaller-scale. They can accurately fire at targets inside of and up to 200+ yards... but if they're in the Wilderness or Shiloh... they might be engaging inside of 100 yards or less; maybe as close as 50, against not dozens, or even hundreds... but thousands of disciplined troops coming up in line. The CSA would be dropping like flies, but still moving forward... and if they got inside the Marines' lines; it could be a simple case of numbers. You've only got what; 1000-1,200 Marines vs. 50,000-90,000 Confederates?
Still... 25-30 rounds per mag, times six, plus three mags of 15 per man? That's potentially 225-250 rounds per Marine? That means the Marines have around 270,000 rounds total (less indirect fires)... meaning they could kill the entire Army of Northern VA three times, if every round counted. At best, the CSA is firing two to three rounds per minute from lines of about 1,000 in successive ranks. I'd estimate the Marines would be killing somewhere around 75-80% of their targets, while the CSA would be lucky to see 25-50%. More than likely, regardless of whose in tactical command at the time... the CSA's going to retreat and regroup. The Marines (who know more about modern warfare obviously) are going to form a "circle", dig in, and become a human fortress.
Here's where it gets "interesting".
The Marines have no where to go. They're going to be depleting their ammo fast... and even if they can keep the CSA at a distance, they're going to get slowly surrounded. The Victorian-minded CSA officers are going to offer "terms"... which, imbued with modern notions of combat ethos... the Marines are going to refuse-possibly by shooting the unfortunate junior officer under a white flag. Lee can't just "quit" and move off... so he's going to bide his time. The CSA will hit at night, skirmish, bring up re-enforcement and re-supply. Eventually, inevitably, it's going to come down to the last round... and then hand to hand. The Marines have several advantages in that vein... but none strong enough to overwhelm the multitudes of gleaming bayonets at the end of heavy rifled muskets coming at them. Lee's going to lose most of his army, because he... and his subordinate commanders are simply not going to comprehend how "good" modern Marines are at killing... but he's going to win this fight.
(4)
(0)
Suspended Profile
LCDR Joshua Gillespie here the thing though...the technological leap between custer his foes and the British and the Zulu’s isn’t nearly as profound as what we are talking. The CSA commanders would have to invent an entirely new doctrine, on the fly, under fire, and they wouldn’t even have a 25% grasp on the enemy’s capabilities. They would have no deep reconnaissance, no idea of assigns strength and not even a guess as to capability. They’d just know that men seemed to drop dead from an enemy they couldn’t even see. And then the man next to him would as well. You’re right, it’s strictly hypothetical. But was it fought by humans not chess pieces, and humans panic. Maybe not all of them, but enough of them to turn this into a route.
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
SFC Thomas Foreman - Granted, it's not a direct parallel; a Martini-Henry sure as heck ain't a two forty golf, let alone a tank. One might even add that the average British solider circa the late 1800s was a far less disciplined, well-trained, and versatile fighter than a modern U.S. Marine. All of the above could indeed make everything I'm suggesting invalid.
However, I give these historic tacticians a little more credit... based on the study of their strategies, and how they applied them. Every now and then, history drops a few "geniuses" on the battlefield... I sometimes think the late 18th-19th Centuries saw more than their fair share of them consolidated around about 140 years between 1757 and 1900.
However, I give these historic tacticians a little more credit... based on the study of their strategies, and how they applied them. Every now and then, history drops a few "geniuses" on the battlefield... I sometimes think the late 18th-19th Centuries saw more than their fair share of them consolidated around about 140 years between 1757 and 1900.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
LCDR Joshua Gillespie yes but to be fair, if a bit brutal, the geniuses we’re discussing couldn’t win their own war in their own time, either.
*Marine sees masses troops moving forward in a skirmish line*
*Marine presses claymore detonator, giggles*
*Marine sees masses troops moving forward in a skirmish line*
*Marine presses claymore detonator, giggles*
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
Well-they certainly gave it a go my friend. Final thoughts: weapons, tactics, and tech evolve for practical reasons... it's always "bothered" me a bit when people try to draw parallels between say, Rogers Rangers, and modern-day Special Forces. However, for all our advanced technology, improved tactics, and expensive training... we're never invincible. One of my greatest "fears" is that three plus decades of fighting "unconventional" wars has limited our focus on fighting larger, more conventional forces... something we may have to do eventually, either in Europe, the Middle East, or God forbid... right here in North America.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I go with the modern weapons and tactics. Plus the Union army had access to repeating rifles and the gatling gun but those in charge choice not to purchase them in any volume , their think was troops would waste ammo.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google