Project Reality Forums

Teek wrote:with 100 marines, you will have around 25 m249s, and 25 M14s, and 25 m203s and with modern defences (Hesco and container bunkers), Marines will win. Each marine must kill 1,120 red coats. A Brit can fire at a rate of 3 shots a minute, A m249 can fire 800 rounds in the same time, plus with marksmen, you can pick off the officers and colours, quickly demoralizing them.

I lol'd

On the topic of revolutionary British soldiers vs 100 Marines, I say the Marines would win, unless the British did a rush tactic. Marines would be tearing through the British upper ranks before the Brits would know what hit them, leaving the soldiers confused. Then with marksmen and rifleman with optics would keep dropping guys before the British could get close enough even to use their guns. A single SAW would drop tons of Brits at a time, and the British would be shittin' their pants before they could fire their second shot.

You must understand that the old style of war fighting was very, very crude. They would meet head on in the field, the front row would fire their muskets (very innaccurate. The point was to have tons of people firing in the general direction of the enemy and hope a few of the enemy are hit), they would crouch down and the second row would fire, first row, second row. They didn't use cover at all, if they were coming they would be announcing it with trumpets and drums like a parade. They would be lined up ready to go for a SAW to start mowing them down like a knife through butter.

And if the USMC was mobile, ambushing the British, no question. Small groups would hide along roads, throw a few grenades, the grenades would land at the British feet, the British would be like "wtf? What a strange looking apple." Boom.


Oh, and the British at the time would probably think the USMC were all witches and would run away at first sight.

112,000 people... How would the Marines win that? British would definitely win. You are forgetting how much 110,000 is.

GreedoNeverShot wrote:112,000 people... How would the Marines win that? British would definitely win. You are forgetting how much 110,000 is.

True, but it depends on whether we're talking an outright open field fight, or an entire war.

I've fired those things that they used in the revolution, if a person is using proper cover techniques it's like a mug on your desk, and going 25 ft away and trying to throw pennies into it.

Better analogy, it's like trying to hit the broad side of a barn, and failing.

Those things aren't that great, that's why they used the mass firing technique of that age. Oh, and open field battle victories like that made generals look good.

Are the USMC totally topped up on ammo? Are they defending a static position? If they were mobile they would get to ambush but eventually they'd get outmaneuvered by some cavalry. An intelligent commander would realize it was a guerrilla operation and would try to trap the marines as they retreated after an attack. It would work for the marines at first but after a while they'd get either taken down by a smart commander or get killed by attrition (how many ambushes to kill 100k people?). Plus... how much ammo can a Company of soldiers carry? If it ever came down to hand to hand, then bayonet charge would definitely beat the oppositions plastic-rifle attack. Combat knife definitely doesn't have the reach of a musket.

As per the insurgent scenario, I do know about the Mirbat incident. Read about that one in Soldier I. That is a perfect example of A)how the outnumbered force could survive and B) how the proposed scenario in the first post was unrealistic. How would 8 marines get cut off like that in a country where their forces have air superiority? Why would they be holding a tactically unimportant and indefensible position such as that to begin with, and if so why would they be so under supported?

There would have to be some kind of off map artillery, some kind of positional superiority, better weapons than just M16s, or else you gotta wonder why the SL allowed his unit to be cornered in a bad spot.

Cannon fodder is still ... cannon fodder.

If they were fighting an entire campaign, The Marines could use their NVGs and engage at night, zero risk of injury. They could also sneak up to British barracks and put a little bit of C4 down the chimney

They could also chuck a grenade into gun-powder stock piles, set up minefields that would completely redirect enemy movements, lone marksmen can scout ahead, report back with radios, take out officers and run away, or put an AT-4 on the wagons carrying ammo.

When the soldiers hear about hundreds of men being slaughtered within minutes, they would lose faith in their officers and would just quit.


And if the Marines had artillery, ho boy. Brits would be sittin' in their farmhouse when incendiary shells come roaring through the ceiling.

Plus, back in the revolutionary days, the Geneva conventions/Ottowa Treaty/etc. didn't quite exist, so hollow-point bullets and trip-claymores are go.


Old muskets wouldn't do anything against modern body armor unless it was up close, in which case the Marines' superior hand-to-hand combat training would be of great use.

Teek wrote:with 100 marines, you will have around 25 m249s, and 25 M14s, and 25 m203s and with modern defences (Hesco and container bunkers), Marines will win. Each marine must kill 1,120 red coats. A Brit can fire at a rate of 3 shots a minute, A m249 can fire 800 rounds in the same time, plus with marksmen, you can pick off the officers and colours, quickly demoralizing them.

The Marines can fire at 800 RPM cyclic. An M16 cannot maintain that ROF in a sustained engaugment. Thats not the same as effective. Factor in reloading and aming and you're looking at around 30 RPM maxiumum (which is the same as a British soldier in WWI/II doing a "mad minute" [firing as fast as possible] with a bolt action Lee-Enfield rifle). The outcome depends upon the distance and cover involved. If the enguagement starts at anything less than 700 yards I'd wager my money on the British.

One must also consider that the entire British Army of the American Revolt (you rebel scum) would have artillery and cavalry, which a unit of 100 US Marines of the present day would not. They'd be lucky to have mortar support.

Also, this depends on the units involved. If its 100 Marines forming the crews of M1A1/2 Abrams, LAV-25s, AAVs, etc, they'd win every time. Also, I dread to think what 100 USMC pilots with F-18s, AV-8B Harrier IIs, UH-1s or AH-1Zs could do to the British army in close order drill. They have no anti-aircraft assets and a few cluster bombs would mess them up real nice.

gazzthompson wrote:INS easy, any day of the week. the AK is still very good in PR and people dont act like real INS so... INS every time.

yea lol the ppl in pr acualy aim their wepons

Marines vs. old Brits: Marines win hands down. First, you have to consider the fact that the period's tactics did not include the concept of "cover", meaning that the brits would just march up in a big wall, allowing 1 or 2 SAW gunners to mow down a ton of them. Plus, the Marines are using modern weapons that outrange any of the British equipment, and because of their body armor, headshots, arty, and melee combat would be the only way to kill them. The musket balls could barely even kill an unarmored guy properly back then (usually it was the infections that killed wounded soldiers). And, if the Marines have heavy vehicles then there's no point in even fighting.

And if it were a real war, they'd have the Continental Army to keep the Brits busy as well.

Cobhris wrote:The musket balls could barely even kill an unarmored guy properly back then (usually it was the infections that killed wounded soldiers).

Hah. Hahahaha. Sure, accuracy sucks but if you got hit by a musket ball you had a hole the size of your fist through you.

Well, even if Muskets hurt, the ol'brits would definitely lose if they used a *wall* formation. It'd be even easier than killing from the bunkers during D-Day because they wouldn't even take cover while the marines would use any kind of cover available. Also, M203's would tear any kind of formation ..
Against cavalry, SAW's and M16s are well enough to counter and stop a cavalry unit quickly. I mean, how would a horse endure a storm of 7+ rounds going straight into his face/chest/legs?

The only way the ol'brits would win this is by using artillery and non-conventional tactics for their time period or by forcing the USMC to engage in closer than 700m engagement.

TBH, even if the Brits win such a fight, they'd lose because of wasting so many lives on so few enemies.

Please SOMEONE make that map. Would be so intense

'[R-MOD wrote:Bob_Marley;866636']The Marines can fire at 800 RPM cyclic. An M16 cannot maintain that ROF in a sustained engaugment. Thats not the same as effective. Factor in reloading and aming and you're looking at around 30 RPM maxiumum (which is the same as a British soldier in WWI/II doing a "mad minute" [firing as fast as possible] with a bolt action Lee-Enfield rifle). The outcome depends upon the distance and cover involved. If the enguagement starts at anything less than 700 yards I'd wager my money on the British.

One must also consider that the entire British Army of the American Revolt (you rebel scum) would have artillery and cavalry, which a unit of 100 US Marines of the present day would not. They'd be lucky to have mortar support.

Aiming? Why would you need to Aim? They are literally lining up to be shot.

30RPM on a M249? thats 1 every 2 seconds? 3 round burst ever second would be closer to ~200RPM times that by 25 and you got 5000 Round downrange per minute just on the MGs. A single 40mm nade would wound at least 3-5 men, and injure half a dozen. Thats 300 men in one volley on m203 fire.

When you lose a thousand men in a single minute or two, and there are no officers about because they have been head shotted, I doubt they would have the resolve to keep fighting.

A musket has a effective range of less than 100m. Accuracy through volume was the doctrine and that relied on the enemy doing the same thing.

100,000 men in formation cant all bring arms to bear on 100 men, Automatic and semi automatic fire, scopes and grenades can however.

Given modern (hell, even WW2 era) defences against cannons (the crews of which can eliminated from Scoped fire).

All you need for a single howitzer or 2 MRLS now days is 6 men, cluster munitions anyone? wouldn't be fair to the Brits.

You'll note I didn't say M249, I said M16. For which my statement is true.

Everyone seems to assume that the British would simply turn up with 110,000 troops in a single massive box formation. This is not the case. While the majority of the British Infantry would operate in close order drill, this doesn't account for cavalry, skirmishers or artillery. Also, they would operate in a series of "boxes" rather than a snigle one.

Now, if the infantry are charging at full tilt with bayonets fixed on a position occupied by 100 modern day US Marines while the cavalry do the same in a flanking manuvre and the artillery fire cannon at the US position, the Marines simply would not have the firepower to stop both charges, and as soon as one reaches thier position they'd be screwed. Sure, they would inflict severe casualties on whichever of the two they chose to fire on, but they could not stop both. The Marines can kill 1,000 troops per minute, it wont matter, neither will the lack of officers as the British are simply enguaging in a head long charge with an attacking force probably over 100,000 strong. With that many bayonets, spears and swords the Marines position would be rapidly overrun.

Colonelcool125 wrote:Depends on a lot of factors.
How much ammo do the Marines have?
What's the terrain like?
Does 100 U.S. Marines mean 50 light infantry+4 tanks+a Cobra+a Harrier? Or just 100 light infantry?

In general, I'd say the 100 Marines would win.

lmao, okay. Someone brainwashed you in thinking marines are some kind of superheroes? They're still human and they can't kill and oncoming army of brits for sure! 100 marines with rifles(i assume only rifle because it wasn't specified that they had any arty or armor) cannot win against those numbers.

Hummm wouldn't 112,000 troops just make camp and entrench themselves around the 100 troops after seeing the marines have some pretty good weaponry ?
They'd just have to wait for the marines to starve and voila.

They could indeed make a sortie at night while using their NVG, but still be on foot and probably quickly be engulfed in the issuing chaos.

I liked your idea alot, its definitely something I would play. But like with hills of hamyong(hope I got it right , and why the F isnt it anymore?!?!?) not alot of people liked the vulnerablility of that faction. It'll be awsome to see this idea come to life, so start working on it

Reminds me of the hour-long discussions I have had with my brother about how modern-day Marines would do on D-day.

[R-MOD]dunehunter wrote:Reminds me of the hour-long discussions I have had with my brother about how modern-day Marines would do on D-day.

If they got pushed out the boat like everyone else? Probably get annihilated by MG-42 rounds and mortar fire like anyone else.