USA vs Roman Empire IN A WAR

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall

1. The M1A1 Abram tanks will find themselves blocked, yes, blocked by the roman limes. Caesar's ditches will slow the american advance to a hault.

2. Then , by deploying his hipaspides closer to the blocked tanks, Caesar can start taking them out one by one, using tar and greek-fire.

3. Further use of flaming arows against the 101 Airborne Division marines will prove itself of greater importance on a flat terrain, where the marines will find virtually no cover, ending up beeing pinned down by a halle of arrows.

4. To counter the enemy's mortar and heavy artilery, Caesar would sent his Heavy Cavarly upon them, slashing their crews in an instant.

5. Apache helicopters watching the area will find it dificult to take out their targets, due to the fact that the battle is already engaged by romans and the americans soldiers are virtually fighting close combat, in wich the legionaries will prevail, sooner or later.

6. With the machinegun bunkers of the American Army, Caesar can only sit back and enjoy the show as his balistae and catapults blast the entranchments apart.

7. The American Comander is taken prisoner by cavalrymen, running into HQ.

8. At precisely 3 P.M , an agreement is reached by all sides.

9. 3.30 P.M an all American surrender.

10. General Staff and GI's are taken as slaves.

Let's see...

1. The abrams could just run them over.

2. Null via point 1

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.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
6. Machinegun nests have greater range and firepower than catapults.

That's not even remotely true.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's not even remotely true.

You're right. Modern day armies should start using catapults instead.

BTW, I voted USA, NOT Rome.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
You're right.

Yes I am.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Modern day armies should start using catapults instead.

That would be foolish.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes I am.

That would be foolish.

(Assuming that you're serious) Contradicting yourself here?

And at whoever voted Rome, can you come out and say why?

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
(Assuming that you're serious) Contradicting yourself here?

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.

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.

🙂

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Punch was served?

Close, it spawned countless punchlines.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
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.

🙂

There's a new invention, maybe you've heard of it, it's called radar.

Also, a shield, sword and spear isn't a real match against even a 9mm.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
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.

🙂

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...

🙂🙂

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
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.

🙂

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. 😄

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
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.

A hail of machine gun bullets could destroy a catapult.

Originally posted by Robtard
There's a new invention, maybe you've heard of it, it's called radar.

Also, a shield, sword and spear isn't a real match against even a 9mm.

NO! Roman ships art immun te radar!!!!

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
A hail of machine gun bullets could destroy a catapult.

If they were in range. Which would require roman commander to be blithering morons or have really terrible catapults.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall

NO! Roman ships art immun te radar!!!!

I see, trolling. Oh good.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
This is what a rome fanboy said:

1. The M1A1 Abram tanks will find themselves blocked, yes, blocked by the roman limes. Caesar's ditches will slow the american advance to a hault.

2. Then , by deploying his hipaspides closer to the blocked tanks, Caesar can start taking them out one by one, using tar and greek-fire.

3. Further use of flaming arows against the 101 Airborne Division marines will prove itself of greater importance on a flat terrain, where the marines will find virtually no cover, ending up beeing pinned down by a halle of arrows.

4. To counter the enemy's mortar and heavy artilery, Caesar would sent his Heavy Cavarly upon them, slashing their crews in an instant.

5. Apache helicopters watching the area will find it dificult to take out their targets, due to the fact that the battle is already engaged by romans and the americans soldiers are virtually fighting close combat, in wich the legionaries will prevail, sooner or later.

6. With the machinegun bunkers of the American Army, Caesar can only sit back and enjoy the show as his balistae and catapults blast the entranchments apart.

7. The American Comander is taken prisoner by cavalrymen, running into HQ.

8. At precisely 3 P.M , an agreement is reached by all sides.

9. 3.30 P.M an all American surrender.

10. General Staff and GI's are taken as slaves.

🙁

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).

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
You're right. Modern day armies should start using catapults instead.

Catapults might have a longer range than an M16 that a soldier is carrying, but it wont have a longer range than a Tank.

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/war/Catapults.htm

says the longest recorded catapult was just over 600m, the Abraham's tank can shoot over 8000. And tanks aren't siege weapons.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/

Modern artillery, like a Howitzer, can fire over 22000m.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-198

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.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If they were in range. Which would require roman commander to be blithering morons or have really terrible catapults.

average catapults weigh in at around 400m range, though like I said, 600 for the record.

An M16 is effective up to 550m

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

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.

Or tactical airstrikes...

Carl Gustav: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustav_recoilless_rifle

RPG: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-7

Why is this even a discussion, a handful of armoured Humvees with roof-mounted .50 caliber nest would rape a Roman legion.

Originally posted by inimalist
average catapults weigh in at around 400m range, though like I said, 600 for the record.

An M16 is effective up to 550m

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

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.

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.

Originally posted by inimalist
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).

"you"? That wasn't ME that posted that. It was a roman fanboy.