Re: USA vs Roman Empire IN A WAR
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
So I was looking at stuff, and I came upon this:http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1017213
What do you think? 😄
Re: USA vs Roman Empire IN A WAR
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
So I was looking at stuff, and I came upon this:http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1017213
What do you think? 😄
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Sorry for double post, but no. It would need more ammo.
I don't think so. The Romans wouldn't know how much ammunition the jet had. They would more than most likely assume that it is from the Gods. With the right munitions and F-16 could level a Roman city. During the Roman rule who ever controlled the military controlled Rome. I highly doubt you could convince Roman soldiers to fight a jet 😂
It wouldn't even take a jet though. A small unit of special forces soldiers outfitted with enough ammunition could conquer the entirety of Rome. It's not a question of discipline or strategy but rather, technology. In the ancient world technology was almost always the deciding factor of victory. Ancient Romans wouldn't be able to comprehend modern day warfare technology. They would kneel and worship.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I still side with catapults if gunners on both sides are good at the jobs.
Likely Scenario:
"ZOMG! Wut iz tat?!?!?!?!?"
"Looks like an incoming projectile."
"Shant we moooooove, dude?!?!??!?!?!"
"Yup"
*Both run forward 10 yards.*
*Deep thud is felt with rock splintering or flame splashing out.*
*Both U.S. infantrymen just look at the pretty fire. Then they fire an RPG at the catapult and watch it blow up...before the catapulters have a chance to load another bomb.*
The end.
😐
Romans were so successful in their time not because they had more advanced weapons and a lot of people, but because they had the best strategy.
USA is unsuccesful in Iraq, Afghanistan and was so in Vietnam because it has the most advanced weapons but very weak strategy.
A famous Arab proverb says:
An army of sheep lead by a lion will defeat an army of lions lead by a sheep.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Likely Scenario:"ZOMG! Wut iz tat?!?!?!?!?"
"Looks like an incoming projectile."
"Shant we moooooove, dude?!?!??!?!?!"
"Yup"
*Both run forward 10 yards.*
*Deep thud is felt with rock splintering or flame splashing out.*
*Both U.S. infantrymen just look at the pretty fire. Then they fire an RPG at the catapult and watch it blow up...before the catapulters have a chance to load another bomb.*
The end.
😐
Because two guys can dismount a machine gun and run with it out of their hiding place in a matter of seconds and the apparently disassemble it in the space of a few minutes and put it back together as a loaded rocket-propelled grenade launcher that they can operate with perfect accuracy with little or no training?
Actually that sounds insane, my idea makes a lot more sense.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Romans were so successful in their time not because they had more advanced weapons and a lot of people, but because they had the best strategy.
USA is unsuccesful in Iraq, Afghanistan and was so in Vietnam because it has the most advanced weapons but very weak strategy.
I think you're underestimating the sheer discrepancy in technological levels here . . .
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
A famous Arab proverb says:
An army of sheep lead by a lion will defeat an army of lions lead by a sheep.
Only if that's a giant lion. Also Hitler said the same sort of thing, so it must be wrong.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because two guys can dismount a machine gun and run with it out of their hiding place in a matter of seconds and the apparently disassemble it in the space of a few minutes and put it back together as an rocket-propelled grenade launcher.Actually that sounds insane, my idea makes a lot more sense.
Who said they would they would do all of that? Why would the? Why would they even setup a machinegun nest anyway? Really stupid.
Why wouldn't they pick up an RPG and one round while waiting for what I calculate a 14 second travel time, is not doable? (The math was using a range of 400m...it comes out to a little over 14 seconds.)
Originally posted by dadudemon
Who said they would they would do all of that?
I did.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Why would the?
Because it's the only way to replicate the circumstances you suggested. Two guys with nothing but a machine-gun would have to be Captain America and Reed Richards to dismount it and turn it into a loaded, highly accurate RPG launcher.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Why wouldn't they pick up an RPG and one round while waiting for what I calculate a 14 second travel time, is not doable? (The math was using a range of 400m...it comes out to a little over 14 seconds.)
Because they're guys who have decided to fight catapults with machine-guns. They have no choice in the matter. Either they fight catapult with machine guns or they don't (in which case they cease to exist, as they are hypothetical soldiers that exist only for the moronic task of fighting catapults with machine guns).
Go back and read the comment that started this particuar line of discussion.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think you're underestimating the sheer discrepancy in technological levels here . . .
I think sucess rates of wars in Afghanistna and Iraq speak for themselves.
You can bomb and bomb and bomb and nuke, but the sheer fact is, when you get on the ground, troops return in body bags and the country is still not conquered.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Also Hitler said the same sort of thing, so it must be wrong.
Hitler's Germany was the first to ban smoking in public places, to promote health education, organising medical lectures and raising tobacco tax, so you must live in a Nazi country.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I think sucess rates of wars in Afghanistna and Iraq speak for themselves.
You can bomb and bomb and bomb and nuke, but the sheer fact is, when you get on the ground, troops return in body bags and the country is still not conqured.
this is true, but neither of those insurgencies are bent on military victories. The Roman military wasn't built to run guerrilla tactics.
EDIT: what I mean is, they were meant to create a situation of attrition from indirect conflict, whereas the Romans had a conventional army based on direct conflict.
How are the Romans going to beat an aircraft carrier? Or nuclear subs?
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I think sucess rates of wars in Afghanistna and Iraq speak for themselves.
You can bomb and bomb and bomb and nuke, but the sheer fact is, when you get on the ground, troops return in body bags and the country is still not conquered.
The people in Iraq and Afganistan have guns and explosives. Roman legions wouldn't even understand what those are. I mean with a SMG I could probably take out Romes best warrior.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Hitler's Germany was the first to ban smoking in public places, to promote health education, organising medical lectures and raising tobacco tax, so you must live in a Nazi country.
I live in my own little world. So that's libel 😬