3. The marines would fire at the archers as well; they won't just sit there. And their guns would be much longer ranged and more accurate.
4. The mortars/arty would destroy them before they get close (plus the noise would scare the sh*t out of the horses) and the crew would be armed with at least pistols. Pistol >>>> ancient weapons.
5. How do the legionaries get close to the US soldiers?
6. Machinegun nests have greater range and firepower than catapults.
7. Commanders no longer fight on the front lines.
8. ok...
9. See the above points.
10. See the above points.
BTW, that Polish calvarly charge was a myth.
__________________ Introduce a little government. Upset the established gangs, and everything becomes order...
Democracy is the very definition of awesome.
You're right. Modern day armies should start using catapults instead.
BTW, I voted USA, NOT Rome.
__________________ Introduce a little government. Upset the established gangs, and everything becomes order...
Democracy is the very definition of awesome.
Last edited by Hewhoknowsall on Apr 24th, 2009 at 09:40 PM
(Assuming that you're serious) Contradicting yourself here?
And at whoever voted Rome, can you come out and say why?
__________________ Introduce a little government. Upset the established gangs, and everything becomes order...
Democracy is the very definition of awesome.
Gender: Male Location: al-Jumhuuriyya al-Yamaniyya
I am serious. I'm not contradicting myself.
Machine guns aren't effective at the range catapults fire from. One or two hits from a catapult would destroy a machinegun nest. Replacing machines guns with catapults is still moronic because a) they do different things, catapults are artillery while machine guns take out softer targets at shorter range and b) we have much better forms of artillery to do the job of catapults.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
I have a radical (and not serious) theory about how Rome wins a naval engagement:
First, they sneak up behind the ships via the roman ships' small size.
Then, they attach grappling hooks to the ships and and board it. They will take the Americans by surprise and in close combat on ships they'd pwn.
__________________ Introduce a little government. Upset the established gangs, and everything becomes order...
Democracy is the very definition of awesome.
american naval patrol are accompanied by radar, subs (which Rome wouldn't even know exists) and have access to military satellites.
Even then, I don't give close quarters fighting to the Romans. They have swords. Americans have automatic shotguns, flashbangs, grenades, M16s with shotgun attachments...
__________________ He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
Wrong. Every US naval ship has a detachment of Marines on board. These Marines stand guard over the ship, and they use M16s. A plywood shield will not stop bullets.
__________________ I play guitar, sing & write songs. Listen to my music HERE Or my new CD HERE
A hail of machine gun bullets could destroy a catapult.
NO! Roman ships art immun te radar!!!!
__________________ Introduce a little government. Upset the established gangs, and everything becomes order...
Democracy is the very definition of awesome.
The problem is, this isn't the scenario you presented.
This is more like: Rome has 10 years prep. They know exactly what the Americans will be bringing. America gets 1 poorly armed squad of novice soldiers, no access to major technology (nukes, subs, aircraft carriers, satellites), has no engineering crew, has no snipers, etc.
Then, America MUST attack the heavily fortified and prepared Roman army, using none of the intelligence they could glean from history books, and must isolate each of their divisions (tanks, artillery, soldiers) into neat groups that don't cover each other and just run at the Romans.
EVEN then, the Romans couldn't do shit to the tanks, or to the planes (flaming arrows? planes are going a bit faster than that).
__________________ He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
M16s are infantry weapons, they would be compared to archers and legionaries, tanks are essentially "cavalry", whereas the proper comparison would be Howitzer to catapult.
__________________ He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
It would probably take a huge amount of bullets to render a catapult useless, but 1 or 2 Carl Gustavs (which I can't find the range for...) or an RPG 7 (over 900m range) would destroy it with little problem.
__________________ He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
Gender: Male Location: al-Jumhuuriyya al-Yamaniyya
A gustav is like 85mm or something. You're well into the realm of autocannon at that point, it's not a machine-gun anymore, an RPG is well an RPG not a machine gun.
It would take at least a few dozen hits to disable a catapult with any sort of normal machine-gun. At 400m most shots are going to miss. On the other hand a catapult just needs a single hit to make the position useless. I still side with catapults if gunners on both sides are good at the jobs.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
"you"? That wasn't ME that posted that. It was a roman fanboy.
__________________ Introduce a little government. Upset the established gangs, and everything becomes order...
Democracy is the very definition of awesome.
KMC Community Forums
Apr 24th, 2009 09:25 PM
I play guitar, sing & write songs. Listen to my music 
