Who Wins

whowins.jpg (161 KB)

Entire British Army during the Revolutionary War (112,000 soldiers) or 100 Modern Day US Marines

  • Leave a comment ?

    56 Responses to Who Wins

    1. The Marines. No contest. It would be one LONG afternoon, though.

      Reply

    2. It almost seems like this has some kind of point. Can someone help me out here?

      Reply

    3. Depends on whether the Brits flee. If they don’t, like, no ammo.

      Reply

    4. Definetly the brits.
      Seriously, 112.000 contra 100? No way.

      Reply

    5. Think 300.

      If the marines have automatic weapons, decent ammo supply, and positioning… there is no way they could lose. Especially since the British style of fighting at the time was to march in columns to engage the enemy, like shown in the photo.

      Reply

    6. I don’t care how much ammo or how big their guns are. 112 000 soldiers could “swarm” the 100 marines and take their weapons. This is precisely how the weaker Americans Tanks defeated the powerful German Tanks in WWII. This is why the Vietnamese kicked your asses, and why Iraq is turning out the same way. Superior technology is no match for superior numbers.
      .
      Plus, don’t forget the Brits have cannons. No one has invented a cannon ball-proof vest, yet.

      Reply

    7. @Alec
      Enough with the trolling already. Just how big is your insecurity complex with America? Es ist interessant für mich, den nur Kanadier so emotional werden, wenn Amerika vorgebracht ist.
      ~
      Canons? Simple: Don’t fortify in one huge group like the British do. Canons are pretty worthless if AT BEST you can only hit one guy.
      ~
      Swarming? Disperse, camouflage, and hit & run tactics. You seem to forget the British style of fighting at the time was in columns.
      ~
      If we’re going to get hypothetical in saying they decide to use ‘swarm’ tactics, then grenades, landmines, and AGAIN strategic placement. Note that does not mean grouping in one huge easily hittable mass.
      ~
      I think the biggest question here, given automatic weapons versus weapons that could take up to a minute to load, is just how high bodies could stack before they create strategic obstacles.

      Reply

    8. If the 120,000 soldiers were all stuck in a giant pit, yeah the marines could beat them pretty easily.

      If they’re in a big, open, flat field, starting not too far away from each other, then no.

      The soldiers would be able to rush the marines and overwhelm them with brute force. They’d take massive casualties, but they win.

      If we’re talking about a ‘war’ of sorts rather then a battle, with forces spread over a varying landscape, my money’s on the marines, depending on how smart organised and suicidal the soldiers are.

      Reply

    9. @Paul_Is_Drunk
      Me, troll? Pot, kettle, black. Don’t call it trolling just because you disagree. So the Americans defeated these same 112 000 British troops in the war of independence through superior numbers, but now that doesn’t count?
      .
      And I let it pass before, but I’ll jump on it now. You used “300” as an example. Might I remind you they were also utterly defeated by superior numbers. Sure they put up a hell of a fight, but they lost. You really should watch these films all the way to the end. You’re you own worst enemy.

      Reply

    10. *Ambush and camoflauge tactics. The British Army just stand there and fire at the opposing force. In the Revolutionary War, it was considered honorable for the British to stand in perfect unison, as well as FIRE in perfect unison, without moving foreward unless directed. Marines may use strategic positions, such as beneath haystacks or upon riverbays where they will call out enemy positions. Easily, 1,000 British will fall before a Marine dies.

      Reply

    11. One word, guys:

      Artillery.

      So, unless the marines have a couple of big guns themselves, sorry.

      Reply

    12. I’m leaning towards the US. Especially if they have anything other then the standard guns (A chopper, tankish vehicle ect. Any of that would sereously fuck them up.)

      And Phaed, wouldn’t a marine be able to pick off the artillery men? Based on the research I didn’t do, I’m going to assume that a modern marine has a longer range then a 250 year old cannon.

      Reply

    13. what was the range of a civil war cannon?
      m-16’s alone can reach out and touch someone accurately to about 600 meters with just a reasonably trained shooter.
      I’d say if the brits fought in columns as they traditionally did and the marines fought guerrilla style hit and move hit and move..I’d vote for the marines.

      Reply

    14. What’s a (presumably American) Civil War cannon got to do with this?

      Reply

    15. I’d have to go with the Marines. Considering how it was “honorable” to stand in lines and shoot while even then Americans were going “Hey! Trees block bullets!” and the fact that a bullet is considerably more accurate than a ball and that same ball would more than likely be stopped by a vest, 100 US Marines would probably take a good deal of casualties, but win.

      I predict 50,000 British losses for the day, while 63 Marines die, depending on medical aid available.

      Reply

    16. @Alec
      Perhaps it’s a knee jerk reaction on my part from several of your previous posts of “Haha, America sucks, and here’s a bunch of reasons why!” …this time, admittedly, you’re in more of a passive aggressive USA bashing mode. Either way, you have some strong insecurity issues.
      ~
      If the British army gets canons, wouldn’t the marines get tanks, etc? I think a single tank could cause some serious casualties.

      Reply

    17. Why would I be the one with insecurity issues? You’re the one that is being sensitive to jabs and perceived jabs at your homeland. I just call it like it is.

      Reply

    18. You’re also completely off topic, AlecDalek. Go use the forum if you want to troll. Thanks mate.

      The Brits only get cannons if the Marines get tanks. Either way, the Brits are screwed so long as the Marines have enough ammo to kill enough people that the Brits decide to retreat. It shouldn’t take too long, though.

      *Puts his chips on the Marines for the win*

      Reply

    19. Can we all at least agree that this is kind of comparing apples to oranges?

      Lets just turn it over to Mythbusters and call it a day.

      (IMHIO Marines would likely win, as they would fight on favorable ground in the first place, rather than line up for the brits and go “OK, we agree to be shot at now!”)

      Reply

    20. how much does 112,000 rounds of modern ammunition weigh ?

      Reply

    21. 155 rounds of 7.7mm weights 10lbs… so about 7,225 lbs… distributed over 100 infantrymen… roughly 72lbs a piece to carry. Of course, that assumes they don’t store and stash for upward mobility. 😛

      Reply

    22. except the m4/m16 shoots a 5.56 😛

      I’d go with marines. 10 rifle squads of marines could easily decimate 1000 colonial period brits in a matter of minutes. If we are talking a company of marines (About 120) with standard infantry company supplies (claymores, 4 weapons squads with an MG, 2AR and AT4), easily massive casualties. The marines would essentially need an unimaginable amount of ammo.

      Reply

    23. Holy fuck, that weight is impossible to carry alone, so that means they CAN be rushed! Because in order to win, they’d have to sit on their ammo, at least till it becomes a manageable weight, plus you can only assume they can kill 100 opponents at once, so in essence they’d get 112 “shots” each to make it with the most efficiency, which, having myself played a marathon match of duck hunt, is do-able.

      Reply

    24. I see it turning out something like Rorke’s Drift from the anglo-zulu war (the movie zulu) 140 british vs. 5000 zulus. British won with 17 dead to 600. Although the entire british army I think would include cannon, morters, snipers, rangers, engineers and logistical support. 112000 is a hell of a lot. British victory.

      Reply

    25. I’ve read enough comic book crossovers to guess that they would fight for while, then realize that they are really on the same side and team up t0 go fight Napoleon.

      Reply

    26. @mgear :

      For sure, you mean 1120 shots, not 112.

      I think, the Marines will need a hell of a lot more ammo, because not every shot hits his target. Plus, they may need spare guns, because gun’s barrell don’t like to become overheated…

      Reply

    27. Even if this was an open fight in a field like a lot people seem to assume it is, the marines would retreat and wait for strategic advantage. Be that better terrain, a night ambush, or even distractions with creative flanking maneuvers.
      ~
      @mgear
      72lbs isn’t that heavy. I was routinely carrying 60lbs on hilly terrain while wildland firefighting. Certainly not comfortable, but doable.
      ~
      It’s moot anyway, as if the marines were worth their salt they’d be doing hit and run tactics, with reserve ammo stashes for mobility.

      Reply

    28. @Alek “This is why the Vietnamese kicked your asses, and why Iraq is turning out the same way. Superior technology is no match for superior numbers.”

      It’s not exactly “sheer numbers” that won the Vietnamese war and is causing the mess in Iraq. Both were/are the kind of wars the U.S. was not prepared to fight at the time. I.e., the U.S. and its train of thought/strategem for war was/is unsuited for both conflicts.

      Reply

    29. Point of Order: The original proposition says nothing about either side having any weapons. Nor does it define the nature of the contest or the conditions of victory.
      So its safe to assume that’s its a hopscotch tournament held in the Roman Coliseum. Which the marines would easily win because everyone in the British Army during the revolutionary war is already dead.

      Reply

    30. Also, as to the whole 100 Marines vs 112,000 British “Revolutionary War-era” troops, I’d say the Marines would win because of superior weapons, tactics, and training.

      The weapons used by the Marines would have a much better range, accuracy, and much more lethality. Plus, the British would be fighting like they were trained: in those tightly-packed, box formations. This is a wet dream for any crew-served weapon operator. (E.g. M2 .50 MG)

      Also, as for the talk of artillery or any other sort of support, the Marines would again have a distinct advantage if they had any sort of artillery support whatsoever. You’re talking shells that have a killing radius of 50m and a “casualty” radius of 100m.

      Reply

    31. But Reboot probably brings up the best point out of all of this nonsense.

      Reply

    32. A couple gangsters against the British ground forces?

      Two against a .22? Who do you think’s gonna win that fight?

      Ten to one it’s the gangsters. Those Dragoons don’t even know how to fight.

      Reply

    33. I’d have to give it to the Americans. After a couple hundred British got machine-gunned, the rest would say, “Sod this. If you need us we’ll be in the pub.” Then they’d go to the pub, have one sip of American beer and flee back to England to enjoy their luke-warm lager.

      Reply

    34. the brits would get rocked. it wouldn’t even be fair. numbers would make a difference if they fought in the same manner, but the brit’s style makes numbers pointless. if this battle were between the brits and some SEALS, then it wouldn’t be a battle, it would be a free $0.75 ass raping

      Reply

    35. whoaaaa, long comment thread is long!!

      Reply

    36. would 112,000 brits be _willing_ to keep charging towards the Americans after seeing the first 50,000 or so get cut down? no.

      Reply

    37. arg, what a stupid thread. As Reboot glibly and overly-subtly pointed out, battles aren’t measured in technology and training alone. Some considerations:

      1) Where? What type of terrain?
      2) Under what circumstances?
      3) Organization on both sides?

      And so on. Without any of that info, this is about as stupid as the Enterprise vs. Deathstar debate.

      Also, keep in mind that far more American marines have been massacred by fewer and worse-armed troops with a strategic advantage. Without any context, this is amazingly retarded.

      Reply

    38. But I’ll throw in my two cents anyway:

      Say the 100 American marines were former mafia bosses who had just got out of jail to live with their ‘mom’. Then we find out that the mom isn’t actually the marines’ mom, but the mom of one of the victims of the marines’ mafia campaign. But then the British Army, sensing a power vacuum in local mafia activity, bribes some corrupt politicians and takes over the town.

      Now, the 100 marines living with their foster mom try to leave their life of crime behind and work as a mechanic. However, the Brits, knowing of the Marines’ former underworld dominance, are constantly suspicious, and demand the marines cut the tendons in their hands in exchange for peace. Seeing this as an opportunity to protect their life as mechanics and to protect their foster mom, the marines comply, and hope the brits leave them alone. Fortunately the Brit, jeff, who is supposed the tendons is sympathetic with the marines and only makes a superficial cut.

      Then they kill the foster mom of the marines. Fuelled by revenge for the foster mom who promised them a legitimate life, the marines enter the mafia headquarters, scream, “Jeff, if you want to live, leave now!!”, kill all of the British single handedly, and then set the British mafia headquarters on fire. Then the marines let themselves die in the fire, knowing that they could never return to crime, but have already gone to far to live on the straight and narrow. Thus our tragic tale is complete.

      Reply

    39. I second Death Star.
      ~
      Unless, of course, the Enterprise had artillery back-up. Then we’re talking a whole different ballgame.

      Reply

    40. Marines.

      Why?

      Grenades.Lots of them.Really fast throwing.Grenades.

      Reply

    41. “# Paul_Is_Drunk on February 23rd, 2008 7:21 am

      Think 300.

      If the marines have automatic weapons, decent ammo supply, and positioning… there is no way they could lose. Especially since the British style of fighting at the time was to march in columns to engage the enemy, like shown in the photo.”

      Paul, take another look at the picture. That’s a line (rank), not a column(file). The French fought in columns, one of the reasons they got thrased by in English in the Napoleonic Wars, who arranged themselves in lines, usually two deep, to put a greater number of troops in a position to use their weapons.

      Reply

    42. headpalm.jpg
      ~
      I only meant 300 as an example of how a smaller number of troops engaged and successfully fought a larger army. I invoked it because I thought everyone on this board would easily be familiar with it, not because -as people seem to think- I was using it as a cornerstone in my argument.
      ~
      Also, the French whooped the English in the Napoleonic Wars. The only true advantage the British had was Naval superiority, which is how they were able to block trade and maintain longterm limited contact ground warfare.

      Reply

    43. ‘Whooped’ the English, eh? I guess that’s why they wo.. oh, wait. Nicely paraphrased from the wikipedia article, by the way. Cute. Besides, quit it with the straw man; I was referring to the tactical superiority of a two-deep line as shown, as opposed to the column tactic favoured by the French, and pointing out how you misrepresented British infantry tactics.

      Reply

    44. Columns/ranks… es ist mir Egal. Ich habe einen Fehler gemacht. Semantisch.
      ~
      The main argument here is numbers versus armament and tactics. Tactics being that the British did not commit hit and run tactics, but rather open field warfare.
      ~
      Oh, and Jean Valjean, what were you doing looking at that article at Wikipedia?

      Reply

    45. P.S. In a debate, that’s called a ‘digression.’

      Reply

    46. try to keep it all in engrish kids

      Reply

    47. OK, let’s make this more interesting… The entire *American* army during the Revolutionary War, Vs. 500 *French* marines.

      Who wins?

      Reply

    48. Howabout this: 1 billion of Alexander’s Hopolites vs. Rocky?

      Reply

    49. Not enough info provided to determine.

      Reply

    50. @Caio
      Well how deep would the Hoplites’ lines be? Any more than 3 and Rocky would take them easy.

      Reply

    51. I see one fatal flaw for the marines, they better have a hell of a lot of ammo 😉

      Reply

    52. @24601
      You didn’t read earlier in the thread. The guys in 300 all died. They put up a hell of a fight, but they were all defeated by superior numbers.

      Reply

    Leave a Comment




    Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Art Awesome Things Batman Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Donald Trump Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Interesting LOLcats Military Motorcycles Movie Posters Movies Music Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF X-Mas