Got this from pol for whatever reason and it actually got a good debate.
I'd like to hear from /k/s view as well
>>29731599
The key question is how much ammo the Rangers have.
Also, OP is a fag.
>>29731599
>/pol/
Perhaps you should have stayed there?
>>29731605
A major point brought up was to use the lobsters weapons against them
That and to a revolutionary red, an automatic rifle would sound like a thousand different rifles at once
>>29731613
It depends on the circumstances of going to battle with one another. If the Rangers knew who they were fighting, they may be able conserve ammunition, but this means in fairness the redcoats would need to know who they were fighting, and would likely do everything they could to adopt more efficient movement tactics.
If neither side knew what was going on, the rangers would likely blow they supplies in a couple / few battles and still not killed a major portion of them. Most of the advantages of technology would be spent rapidly anyway, any NVGs, flashlights, radios, would quickly be rendered dead weight unless you set them up with solar panels and chargeable batteries beforehand. Regardless advantages like GPS, fire support, CAS, etc would be non existent. Resupply would be out of the question, faster forms of transport would be emptied of gas quickly. Remember that the biggest portion of deaths came from the elements, starvation, disease. While the rangers would have better sleep systems, they still need to eat, and still need to fight off illnesses.
The British disadvantages are obvious, but the advantages are they already have fair knowledge of horseback riding, hunting, familiarity with the territories, and pure numbers. Even if the rangers picked up and used muskets after blowing all their ammo, it would immediately equal out the weapon tech differences they had before, furthermore they would be clumsy and slowly as they learned how to use the new weapons.
I believe the Rangers would lose, they'd send a spike of shock and awe through the British ranks, but unless they each carry 5,000 rounds and never miss, they simply do not have the capability to win.
>>29731599
If the rangers are carrying 30 Mags each which is a fucking retarded amount. Thrn they only have 900 rounds each which is only 90000 rounds total.
They simply cant carry enough ammo to win.
Even assuming no ranger gets killed whilst they have ammo and have godlike marksmenship there simply isnt enough ammunition to win.
Once they run out of ammo they still have a tactics advantage over the redcoats but even the best hit and run warfare isnt going to have a hundred guys win against the remaining 20000 redcoats.
They would likely to be able to beat them into a surrender though, when they brits start losing tens of thousamds of men they are likely to become fairly negiotable especially when they dont know their enemy is rapidly running out of supplies.
>these plebs answering
Rangers would go full gorilla warfare mode and harass brits for 10 years+
They would have big supply caches full of ammo to restock.
>>29731599
There's no way the Rangers could stop a force that large. All they could do is harass the British and relocate. They'd have to be careful about not getting trapped or cornered into a valley or anywhere else. Their survival would rely on positioning. If they weren't careful they could be flanked with cavalry or the British charge them with a wave of men they can't mow down fast enough. Not to mention the Rangers still have to deal with volley fires of muskets/cannons. Grapeshot will fuck you up no matter what century you're from.
Knowing that they marched in packs, landmines could be placed strategically along paths
Also, I've heard they're somewhat useless without an officer
if the Rangers don't have vehicles they're fucked
>>29731762
That assumes the canoneers can even see their target.
Canon really isn't effective against non-formation armies.
>>29731773
Mortars and means of indirect fire existed at the time. They'd just need to know the general area of the Rangers if British forces could keep them in one place for long enough.
>>29731599
> ITT could the French have won the French and Indian war with better tech?
Probably not.
>>29731599
Rangers easily. They can carry enough supplies and have enough mobility to stay clear of the British Army until it's overtaken by disease and famine on account of being a hilariously impractical concentration of troops without supply lines.
All commissioned officers dropping dead on the first day won't help either, nor would the apparent spontaneous combustion of every singe munitions store in their camp.
>People actually think that you need to kill every member of an army for it to collapse
>People think direct combat was the leading cause of casualties in colonial times
>>29731599
>112,000 Redcoats
The Rangers would have to make some decisive moves on the British leadership otherwise they'd be fucked.
you are, quite simply, a complete and utter fucking retard if you imagine that *any* forces could win in those odds.
100 SAS vs 112,000 American revolutionary war soldiers? SAS loses.
100 rangers vs 112000 down syndrome children, and they'd still lose by sheer weight of numbers.
Even assuming they have 40 magazines each - which they dont - it would then require a "one shot, one kill" to take out the 112,000.
the reality is, that in Afghanistan, the US army averaged 250,000 rounds expended per insurgent.
> (Sources - plenty, but here's two:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-forced-to-import-bullets-from-israel-as-troops-use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-314944.html
https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1597259 )
Even assuming that as special forces, they are orders of magnitude more efficient and accurate, the reality is simply that they would not, and could never have sufficient munitions.
And that's before you even look at the redcoats shooting back.
No, muskets were not so inaccurate you couldnt hit anything. that's an ignorant myth. you could hit a man at 100 yards easily, and you could hit him at 300 with some luck. Body armour might prevent torso injuries - but musket balls to limbs which are un-armoured were vastly more incapacitating than modern firearms, which are bad enough. Those big, heavy lead balls would shatter bone, and cause huge wounds - it wasnt just the poorer quality of medical science at the time that resulted in so many amputations of limb wounds, it was the nature of the wounds too.
the entire british army also includes cavalry - there were two full cavalry divisions - artillery - the royal artillery were in the Americas, as well as auxiliaries. So you have not just the redcoats, but cannon-fire, mortar, and fast cavalry.
There is no doubt that the british would suffer horrendous casualties, but that was the nature of war at the time. Regiments were trained to press forward while being cut down.
>hurr they dont have enough ammo to kill every british soldier in america!!!
Do you think the Colonists killed every Redcoat in the colonies during the Revolutionary war?
Do you think the British Army brought every soldier they had to every region for each battle?
Do you think they even killed half of them?
Do you know a fucking thing about warfare?
Are you mentally challenged?
>>29731794
>nor would the apparent spontaneous combustion of every singe munitions store in their camp.
Because of course the British are all idiotic cardboard cut-out chinless villains with an IQ of 52, who couldn't possibly ever work out after the second "spontaneous combustion" that its sabotage, could they?
Nooooo.
and clearly, Rangers are very familiar with the layout and procedures used by 18th century armies, to miraculously know exactly where the equipment and people are?
And the leadership are all going to sit on top of horses, waving "I'm here" flags after the first half dozen are sniped, right?
Yes, those hilarious old-time people were so fucking stupid. I mean, after all, they only managed to navigate using calculus and a sextant, working out mathematics and similar things using their brains in ways you, or I would be completely stumped by, because we've got a calculator to tap the numbers into...
The only thing that you got right is that you dont need to shoot everyone for a force to collapse.
>>29731838
>Do you think the Colonists killed every Redcoat in the colonies during the Revolutionary war?
They had enough ammo to
>Do you think the British Army brought every soldier they had to every region for each battle?
If they're not bringing everyone, then the picture is misleading.
>Do you think they even killed half of them?
Only if you count disease.
>Do you know a fucking thing about warfare?
This isn't a war, it's a giant cage match.
>>29731849
Trig and log tables are just 18th century calculators desu
Not like it matters anyway, since calculators stop being relevant when you start doing big boy math
Muskets were not the only weapons the Redcoats had.
WTF are the Rangers going to do against a Man O'War? How will they defend themselves against cannon? How would any amount of body armor hold up against grenadiers?
>Rangers get fucked, the end.
>>29731866
>giant cage match
Thats just it. When I see OPs pic, I dont envision some 10 square mile featureless land mass where these two sides square off against each other.
>>29731599
1000 naked Victoria's Secret models vs 100 black bears televised by HBO
>>29731849
There's a reason the IQ scale needs to be constantly adjusted, and it's not because people are getting any dumber, but that's not even the point.
Aside from some of the commanding officers, very few of the men would be particularly educated, and you don't need to have encyclopedic knowledge of 18th century tactics to recognize organizational patterns. The guy who talks to a messanger every two minutes? Probably worth shooting. Also important might be shooting kegs of powder (which are visually very distinct from ones carrying water or food by their size)
Some of the command might reasonably conclude that they were simply being targeted from a very long range somehow, but they still wouldn't have a very robust counter to it besides sending out cavalry detachments, which in sufficient force could be a threat to the rangers, but also might lead to them quickly losing their horses as they're separated from the main force. Mobilizing enough cavalry to run the rangers down effectively would take time, and they would likely underestimate the number necessary at first since they would only be aware of the range of their enemy's weapons, not rate of fire.
Communication would also be a serious issue. With a force that big, it's far from instantaneous, especially when the command structure is slowly being trimmed and messengers are picked off. For all our advancements in weaponry, the state of modern warfare rests primarily on our communications technology. Official communications would lag or be cut off entirely while rumors and speculation would run through the camp like a wildfire.
All of that however is only aggravation to the real downfall of the redcoats in this scenario, the fact that the force is too big to sustain in the field. Just think about how much water that many men would drink. How much feces they would produce. Forget all the sniping and mortaring, the rangers could win by running away.
>>29731910
Not be near a coast, be out of range, be out of range.
Assuming the rangers have no vehicles, cavalry is the greatest advantage the British have, and potentially a decisive one.
If the British cavalry all knew where the rangers were and were already mobilized with their full cavalry, they'd crush the rangers in minutes assuming it's not a flat, open plain, and even then a loose formation and a wide front would likely close the distance too quickly.
If we're placing the two forces in a cage deathmatch, most of the British army could really just go have tea while the cavalry sorts it out,.
That said, if we're assuming the two are just plopped down into an open environment and generally instructed to kill each other, I still think the British Army would fall apart under its own weight and the harassment of the rangers, assuming the rangers play it smart.
>>29731994
After the first messengers start dropping the brits would react by having people try to find whoever is shooting. Also they would do something about their messengers being obvious. They werent stupid.
Also the ranger would be having trouble communicating too after a their radio batteries die out.
>>29731609
Fucking uppity nigger
>>29731830
>implying 112,000 littles downies isn't a good army
>>29732034
Nope. The cavalry would get rekt against even a handful of modern weapons. Sidearms even.
Better to launch wave after wave of infantry to soak up all their ammo then just over run them.
That is what infantrys for anyway.
No sense wasting a fine gentlemans life when a few hundred commoners will do!
>>29731599
too many variables.
>terrain?
>ammo?
>weapons available?
>scope of the mission? (ie Rangers hold ground or assault? Is it the ENTIRE brit army at once in an open battlefield or insurgency type situation?)
>Do the rangers have their assigned vehicles?
>do the Brits have logistical support?
>>29732108
They could send people out, but they wouldn't necessarily get them back. Like I said, unless they can quickly organize a massive cavalry charge on a suspected position, they're either going to get there too late or with too little force to be effective. And if they do get there, congrats they found maybe one or two guys.
Carrying extra batteries would not exactly be a huge burden, but assuming the rangers did stumble into the situation without necessary supplies they would still benefit from a much greater deal of autonomy since one or two of them is still a big enough force to be doing damage to the enemy. The critical period would be the first few hours engaging the British Army, where a coordinated strike would allow them to make the most of their advantages before the enemy had any idea what those advantages were. After that, communication could be reduced to hourly check-ins unless an active engagement is taking place.
>huehuehue muh guerrilla warfare
The British army was THE BEST IN THE WORLD at fighting guerrillas, insurgents, and rebels.
They'd been doing it all over the world and kicking ass way before America ever rebelled.
Guerrilla didn't accomplish shit in the American Revolution.
We won with conventional armies, massive international aid, and tons of political and various other factors.
The Rangers have no supplies and most would die in a few days from a combination of dehydration, starvation, and disease.
They also have no transportation, so once they're found, the Brits can just chase them down indefinitely.
Anyone who actually think the rangers would win is a fucking waste of oxygen.
>>29731830
>you could hit a man at 100 yards easily
maybe if he was the size of a small shed
>300 yards
nope
>>29731599
Really you guys?
>not enough ammo
>impossible to win
You don't need guns to kill someone. Jesus.
I'd go with the rangers. Knowledge of modern guerrilla tactics against an enemy who has as of yet, fought slug out matches against farmers, and maybe Indians. Maybe.
The easiest and fastest way I'd kill a large group of them would be to lure them into a town, and either blow the fucker up, or burn it down, NCR style.
With luck, maybe they'd convince the britbongs they're fighting a force 1000% it's actual size.
>>29732237
>Knowledge of modern guerrilla tactics against an enemy who has as of yet, fought slug out matches against farmers, and maybe Indians. Maybe.
Pick up a fucking book
>>29731849
>stay mad britbong
>>29732168
Small units are able to do damage but how will they coordinate their attacks? And the people scouting don't necessarily need to find the rangers themselves, it is enough that they find something to track, they had good trackers and dogs had been invented. Even a dead scout is information gain. Without modern vehicles the rangers aren't going to stay ahead of the brits for long.
>>29732253
I doubt they had many Seven Years War vets left by the time the Revolutionary War started
>>29732237
What do modern guerilla tactics bring in to table compared to old ones? Avoiding detection by aerial surveillance?
>>29731613
Very true. The reds could be tricked into thinking they were fighting a ridiculously large force via automatic gun reports.
>>29732233
>best in the world at fighting guerrillas
No they weren't. Nobody was. Hence, the French, Americans, and Natives all using it to kick their asses numerous times.
>Guerrilla didn't accomplish shit in the American Revolution.
Actually, guerilla warfare is why Cornwallis had such a bad time in Carolina. I think your use of the term "guerilla" is also way too narrow here.
>Anyone who actually think the rangers would win is a fucking waste of oxygen.
What if they have air support, and start bombing the fuck out of the Brits hours, or even days before they actually fight?
>>29732293
Mines, IEDs, Vietnam style booby traps, etc
>>29731830
>can hit a man at 100 yards easily and 300 with some luck
confirmed for never having shot a flintlock rifle from a standing position at anything smaller than the side of a derelict McDonald's.
>>29732233
>The British army was THE BEST IN THE WORLD at fighting guerrillas, insurgents, and rebels.
They were probably the best in the world at a lot of things until 1776...
>>29732286
The British had been fighting guerrillas and irregulars all over the fucking world for nearly 2 centuries.
Your idea that
>lol brits didn't know about guerrilla tactics
is fucking laughable
>>29732311
>No they weren't. Nobody was. Hence, the French, Americans, and Natives all using it to kick their asses numerous times.
Nope.
Not even worth my time.
>>29731699
yeah but it won't matter because the british army won't keep sending wave after wave to certain death at the hands of machine guns like in WW1, their command is probably more intelligent than that.
>>29732253
You think an English enlisted man could operate against guerrilla fighters without the help of an officer?
(Assuming the rangers play it smart and eliminate tbd leadership first)
>>29731849
I'll take What Is NVG for $800, Alex.
>>29732161
The effective range of an m4 carbine is 500m. The Baker Rifle is rated to have a 33% hit rate on a man sized target at 100m (though one was once documented as killing at 600m, and their "effective" range is 200) With the number of these baker rifles involved, I think it's safe to say this kills enough of the rangers to stop them from inflicting a significant number of casualties in the time the cavalry takes to close the remaining 100m.
So our rangers have 400m in which to kill the attacking redcoats. Sounds good.
A typical cavalry charge is about 20km/hr. Horses can go faster than this, but a slower speed was used to keep formation. We're assuming here they do it by the books.
This comes to about 5.555m/s, or .18 seconds per meter. The entire charge then takes a little over a minute before they can fire.
One minute is not a lot of time to kill thousands of cavalrymen rushing at you. It's possible, assuming good marksmanship on the part of the rangers and absolutely positively no cover or visibility obstruction, but it's definitely not the curb stomp you seem to think it would be. If the rangers are using sidearms, it's not going to go well for them at all.
>>29732327
>They were probably the best in the world at a lot of things until 1776...
>>implying the American military was in any imaginable way better than the British
>Hurr, but we won!
Save yourself the embarrassment and don't go there.
>>29732321
How are those things new and modern? Besides you have to take in to account that there are only so many mines the ranges can carry with them.
And what kind of IEDs would rangers know how to make out of 1700's equipment?
>>29731599
At night against practically any concentration of the enemy, the rangers could suppress/kill their way straight to the fucking leadership and force them to surrender.
Probably, anyway.
>>29732236
stop taking your "facts" about historical arms from film and videogames, and go do some research.
>>29732362
>The Baker Rifle is rated to have a 33% hit rate on a man sized target at 100m
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
WOOOOOOOOOW
A fucking smoothbore can do better than that.
>>29731605
Standard combat load
>>29732273
They would probably only need to evade them until night time though.
>>29732384
8 to 16 mags?
>>29732335
>natives with melee weapons
>men with single shot rifles and maybe cannon
I highly doubt the rangers will use 17th and 18th century weapons and tactics.
all the rangers have to do is kill redcoat officers and they win.
seriously, redcoats go to shit if they don't have any kind of officer corps to fall back to.
once the snipers take out a few generals, they can get on the 249 or the 240 and mow down redcoats.
>>29732363
I never said that shithead, they did win though and if you're going to ignore that fact then you're the one who should feel embarassed
>>29732380
Get 100+ men to line up and shoot, and it won't matter if one man can't hit it. That's what the 99+ is for.
>>29732401
Since you're clearly such an expert, explain to me in precise detail 18th century irregular and guerrilla tactics, then explain 21st century tactics, then compare the two and show how they are dissimilar.
inb4
>hurrrr, we got betr guns now!!
>>29732233
>Handful of rangers would be totally unsupplied and die of dehydration in days
>100,000 Redcoats would thrive on their love of their Queen alone.
One of these forces is significantly harder to supply than the other. Assuming they both only come with their day's kit, it's much easier for the rangers to kill some game or eat some berries than it would be to feed even a tenth of the British force the same way.
Fun fact btw, the British had very little cavalry in the Revolutionary war because all the horses died in transport. Once those guys are dead, I'm putting my money on the guys with modern shoes who aren't moving as fast as the slowest guy in 100,000.
Also, I don't think the British army's experience with insurgents extends to being outranged by a factor of five by an enemy that can fire about 50 times faster (and that's aimed shots.)
.
>>29732402
>dude bro all they gotta do is magically locate everyone important in a force of hundreds of thousands of people, then somehow get past all of them, kill the important people, then get away without getting shot!
>lol im such a genius why didn't anyone else think of that?
>I could have totally pwned those redcoats!
You have the mind of a child.
>Why doesn't the government just print $1,000,000,000 bills for everyone so we can all be rich??
>>29732453
>One of these forces is significantly harder to supply than the other.
One of these forces ACTUALLY HAS A FUCKING LOGISTICS CORPS YOU FUCKING MENTAL MIDGET
>>29732455
except the officers tended to be at the front of a charge muster and on horseback so they were nice and easy targets.
sure it would be difficult, but not impossible and certainly not for rangers.
>>29732470
>except the officers tended to be at the front of a charge muster and on horseback so they were nice and easy targets.
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHA
THOSE ARE FUCKING JUNIOR OFFICERS AND SHIT YOU FUCKING RETARD
HAHAH WOW
YOU THINK THEY ACTUALLY PUT IMPORTANT PEOPLE ANYWHERE NEAR WHERE THE SHOOTING IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN??
>>29731762
>There's no way the Rangers could stop a force that large. All they could do is harass the British and relocate.
That's how we won the Revolution so....
>>29732455
At first, that wouldn't be an issue. Just kill anyone with a fancy hat, or too much Gold and medals on them.
Once the officers learn that differentiating themselves from the lower ranks would get them killed, they might try to blend in. Then your argument would come into play.
>>29732477
Pressing the caps button won't change the validity of your argument.
>>29732478
>things Americans actually believe
>>29732497
Then please explain how we got the Brits to fuck off
SHUT UP YOU FAGGOTS.
NEW ARGUMENT.
ONE ARLEIGH BURKE CLASS DESTROYER
VS
THE ENTIRE BRITISH ROYAL NAVY CIRCA 1778
Both ships have a full crew compliment and ammunition supply but no further support
Who wins?
>>29732465
>If I decide that one of the forces has supplies and the other does not, the supplied force has an advantage!
The underlying assumption is that these forces were simply dropped into an area, so even if the British get to bring all of the officers in charge of logistics, they're still not bringing the fields and granaries, or their own portable river to drink from.
>>29732453
>One of these forces is significantly harder to supply than the other.
and this is why the british army all died out after 1 week in the revolutionary war.
and why the war of 1812 lasted 6 days.
and why Napoleon's entire army was only 100 men, to get him to take most of europe over the course fo 3 years, right?
Honestly, how fucking stupid is this entire idea? do you have ANY clue what the actual logistical processes of a 18th C military were? no, you dont.
>>29732481
>At first, that wouldn't be an issue. Just kill anyone with a fancy hat, or too much Gold and medals on them.
O HAY LOOK! A BUNCH OF FANCY CHAPS 300 YARDS AWAY!
LET'S SHOOT EM!
BANGBANGBANG
YAH WE GOT THEIR OFFICERS GUISE!
O NO, THEY'RE SHOOTING BACK AT US!
DUN WORRY, THEY'LL SURELY FUCK UP WITHOUT THEIR COMMAND STRUCTURE, RIGHT??
meanwhile, at someone with an actual fucking rank
Sir, I believe we've lost a few lieutenants.
Oh no matter, send in some replacements with a general order to advance. And do be sure to send in the dragoons, would you?
What's really funny about this is that if the rangers were as retarded as you, they'd die even sooner.
>>29732494
D E A L W I T H I T N E R D
E
A
L
W
I
T
H
I
T
N
E
R
D
>>29732515
>Which is why Napoleon was perfectly fine in Russia. :^)
Once again, assuming that one force has the backing of their nation's agriculture and industry while the other is just dropped in with the shirts on their backs is fucking stupid and needs to stop.
>>29732507
the arleigh-burke has all the advantages until it runs out of fuel.
But fter that, its a sitting duck, and will eventually be boarded.
Again, casualties would be monstrously disproportionate, but it would have sufficient armament to sink about half the british fleet.
its a far more interesting question than OP's, given that the technology and power projection of a modern ship is so much greater than that of a single soldier.
>>29732507
Pretty sure the battle of Manilla bay settled this. Or hell, any of the engagements between ironclads and conventional warships in the Civil War.
>>29731913
I'm pretty damn sure this girl works at the bird sanctuary near the shooting range I go to. Looks like I'll have to stop in and spill some spaghetti.
>>29732588
How many rounds does the average destroyer carry for its deck gun?
Do you think they could use the CWIS in small bursts to fuck with closing ships?
What about the missiles it has on board?
I wonder if it has enough to engage 130 ships let alone stay in range of them.
>>29732507
all the burke has to do is evade the shitty sailboats until the brits get scurvy and die, and then the burke can just go home
>>29731613
>A major point brought up was to use the lobsters weapons against them
Uh this is no longer 1975.
>>29731599
I'm pretty sure the Rangers would die of old timey illnesses and shit before the brits could even engage.
>>29731660
This.
>>29731830
>250,000 rounds per insurgent
Firstly, the vast majority of that is suppressing fire.
Second, it's a completely different type of warfare. Fighting an enemy hiding in groups of two or three spread out among rocks vs huge formation based open field warfare. There's just no way to compare the two.
>>29732362
>the entire British cavalry deployed across the entire continental states will be somehow transported to the same place at the same time and act in perfect unison to take down some group of one hundred unknown unidentified guys.
Right
>>29733793
That is somehow less believable than 100 rangers time traveling?
Better yet, ranger battalion with all the people, equipment and ammo it posesses vs the whole Britt army.
>112000 Redcoats and 100 Army Rangers engage each other
>Each side using rifles, pistols and grenades
>111999 Redcoats die
>99 Rangers die
>Last Redcoat goes to fire at the last Ranger
>Ranger goes to fire at the last Redcoat
>Both jam
>Toss their guns aside
>Pull out melee weapon
>Start to circle around
>Take slashes at each other and miss
>Both get a grazing cut on each other
>One gets on top of the other
>Right between the Ranger plunges the knife into the Redcoat's heart, the Redcoat opens his mouth
>The poor dental hygiene coupled with greasy tasteless food wafts into the Ranger's nose
>Ranger is distracted by the germ warfare
>Redcoat gets the upper hand, kills the Ranger
WINNER! RED COAT!
NEXT TIME ON DEADLIEST WARRIOR!
>>29731830
Yes, because the piles of bodies left by the first 8 magazines per man, the machine gunner(s), and explosives kills wouldn't discourage them to break off at all.
british scouts fuck them up
>>29732335
>All over the world
>2 centuries
>The british empire in 1576-1776
The great majority of conflicts with locals, and especially in a guerilla warfare context, occur in the 19th century after the revolutionary war. The West African outposts were just that - outposts for trading. The enemy in the Caribbean were the French or Spanish. In India they were just starting to fight and it was only large set piece battles (Plassey, Buxar.
The only areas the British had prior guerilla experience were the Irish and in the Americas during the 7 year's war.
>>29732356
Battery-hungry.
>>29731660
It would take the rangers a half a nanosecond to realize they're fighting redcoats. The British wouldn't even have a vocabulary to describe what was going on.
>>29735392
They last days. Especially if you're only using them to do hit and run attacks at night.
>>29732505
We kept engaging them in pitched battles for long enough that we eventually drained their manpower and will to fight to a sufficient degree that other nations felt like they could fuck Britain over by supporting our independence. This further hampered the supply situation in the New World, and led to Britain's defeat.
The Revolutionary War was mostly a conventional war, fought by conventional militaries and led by conventional officers.
>>29735509
And by manpower I mean manpower in the new world.
>>29731599
number of red coats would surely overwhelm 100 rangers in an open battlefield but, if they fought in the americas, the rangers could definitely win and it'd be like the american revolution again.
Redcoats:
>Single-shot muskets
>filed in ranks
>much like Mangalores, won't fight without their leader
Fuck, man, imagine the damage a sniper team could do to their morale, picking off their officers from a mile away
those lobsters aren't gonna stick around and keep fighting against a force they can't see and can't hear until after it has already struck.
Imagine a group of 16th century, poorly educated fucks, covered in their captain's blood and viscera, gathering around what's left of his torso
>>29735754
>16th century
God damn it, I agree with you, but get your dates right
The rangers would die in the first cavalry charge
>>29732384
>Standard combat load
Things that don't exist in special ops circles.
>>29735939
18th, whatever
Hello everyone,
I asked my mum about this, she said that Americans don't have the right attitude to win.
Have a nice day :)
>>29732366
>And what kind of IEDs would rangers know how to make out of 1700's equipment?
Black powder, time fuse, projectiles. All things carried by british troops, also all the things you would ever need to make a downright lethal IED. So in short. A fuck ton.
>>29732440
Not wearing Bright red coats in the woods helps for starters.
>>29731609
>>29733006
>I'm pretty sure the Rangers would die of old timey illnesses and shit before the brits could even engage.
Apparently you've never seen the Christmas list of vaccines and antibiotic shots they give us in basic training to immunize us from the diseases thought to be extinct 100 years ago or more. There is a shot they stick in your ass cheek it has the consistency of peanut butter and they shoot enough of it into you ass to equal the size of a D battery.
>>29735325
if you weren't a tripfag, I'd cap that post.
>>29736160
Stop that anon. I'm in the car with my family and I can't afford to get all hot and horny right now.
>>29731599
112 000 brits would win with axes against 100 army rangers, there is simply too many of them
That is, if they are willing to die for victory and aren't a bunch of pansies that scatter at the first burst
>>29731830
Read your own source, all they did to get that number was look at the pentagons reported insurgent deaths (which probably aren't even close to accurate) and total number of rounds the entire DOD expended between 2002 and 2006. If you don't see the problem with that consider my battalion shot probably over 100,000 rounds this weekend all at targets in north Carolina and not a single insurgent was killed.
>>29732366
HME is surprisingly easy to make. The availability of some chemicals may be a problem in 1775-1776 but I'd wager for the lack of complex chemicals there were just as many unregulated and easy to obtain ones too. Using various oils, soaps, and other hydrocarbon chains you can quickly and effectively make hme, all of these things are available at the time. Oh and not to mention that gunpowder and time fuse are pretty effective on their own.
>>29733006
More likely newer illnesses like our flu would wreck the redcoats.
>>29736044
Seconded.
There are still not enough variables addressed. Is it blank field or in colonial USA?
Thing I hate about this question is, everyone assumes it's the Rangers who go back in time.
Let's mix it up a bit.
Rangers are in present day America in some backwater town (with Civvies) in middle of absolutely nowhere. 112000 Brits suddenly time travel to the nearby area and are mighty pissed off and began ransacking the local townships and villages. Theyre also having a good old looky loo at all our modern day technology
GO
