|
|
|
|
#1
02-01-2007, 03:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: How many men with modern weaponry...........
Reminds me of an old Twilight Zone. A couple of present day soldiers in a tank were lost in the Wyoming hills. Suddenly they were time transported to Custers last stand ( I can't recall how). But the tank broke down had to be abandoned. They joined Custer and fought to their deaths all the time wondering what difference the tank would have made.
There was also a movie about a modern day aircraft carrier (F14's and the like) in a time vortex that showed up at Pearl Harbor in 1941. Can't remember the name? I think Kirk Douglass was the captain. It's an intersting scenario though. Modern technology would be devastating in more ancient times. 
|
|
#2
02-01-2007, 04:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How many men with modern weaponry...........
[ QUOTE ]
There was also a movie about a modern day aircraft carrier (F14's and the like) in a time vortex that showed up at Pearl Harbor in 1941. Can't remember the name? I think Kirk Douglass was the captain. [/ QUOTE ] The name of the movie is: The Final Countdown
|
|
#3
02-01-2007, 08:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How many men with modern weaponry...........
I would argue that the main advantage of modern weaponry is the accuracy, rather than the power. I think a well-trained group of 50 could do the job in fairly short order. As long as the entire group was available for the bigger towns, I think that dividing and conquering would even be possible. Given that guerilla warfare is a fairly new invention, especially, and that armies tended to march in straight lines in ranks toward their enemies, I think that only a small amount of strategic planning would be required.
Furthermore, I think a single modern warrior could rule vast portions of land, simply because his weaponry would ensure that no army could ever overrun him. You think that any army prior to gunpowder could ever stop a M1A1 Abrams tank?
|
|
#4
02-02-2007, 02:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How many men with modern weaponry...........
[ QUOTE ]
Given that guerilla warfare is a fairly new invention, especially, and that armies tended to march in straight lines in ranks toward their enemies, I think that only a small amount of strategic planning would be required. [/ QUOTE ] Thing is, it would only take one battle for the enemy to realize that marching in a straight line isn't a good idea against mortars and machine guns. Also, what would be the purpose of body armor? They don't protect against arrows or swords. Also remember, the Ewoks took out Stormtroopers, who had blasters and heavy artillery, using only rocks.
|
|
#6
02-02-2007, 04:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How many men with modern weaponry...........
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Also, what would be the purpose of body armor? They don't protect against arrows or swords. [/ QUOTE ] How does body armor not protect against arrows or swords? [/ QUOTE ] Well depends on the type of body armor/accessories, but a standard bulletproof vest can be pierced with a knife. Knife = tons of force on a very very small area. I imagine standard body armor would protect against a slashing blow from a sword.
|
|
#7
02-03-2007, 07:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How many men with modern weaponry...........
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Also, what would be the purpose of body armor? They don't protect against arrows or swords. [/ QUOTE ] How does body armor not protect against arrows or swords? [/ QUOTE ] Well depends on the type of body armor/accessories, but a standard bulletproof vest can be pierced with a knife. Knife = tons of force on a very very small area. I imagine standard body armor would protect against a slashing blow from a sword. [/ QUOTE ] A knife wouldn't pierce Dragon Skin armor
|
|
#8
02-06-2007, 05:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How many men with modern weaponry...........
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Given that guerilla warfare is a fairly new invention, especially, and that armies tended to march in straight lines in ranks toward their enemies, I think that only a small amount of strategic planning would be required. [/ QUOTE ] Thing is, it would only take one battle for the enemy to realize that marching in a straight line isn't a good idea against mortars and machine guns. Also, what would be the purpose of body armor? They don't protect against arrows or swords. Also remember, the Ewoks took out Stormtroopers, who had blasters and heavy artillery, using only rocks. [/ QUOTE ] How many Ewoks would it take to rule Europe?
|
|
#9
02-07-2007, 02:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How many men with modern weaponry...........
[ QUOTE ]
How many Ewoks would it take to rule Europe? [/ QUOTE ] Very good question. Given their proven success against larger opponents wearing armor.......
|
|
#10
02-01-2007, 10:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How many men with modern weaponry...........
I think a poster hit an interesting point with "look like gods"....
Imagine how many men you would inspire (or coerce) to your side by using your "magic". No matter how you ruled with that kind of tech it would be a theocracy. I agree with OPs answer 400-500 would rule a decent area... provide reserves... spread forces out enough to pacify regions... etc. Keys would be either setting up regional headquarters or developing a solid and fast transpotation system (a few hueys) to provent provincial breakoffs. Interesting wrinkle: naval power? I think a single modern destroyer > entire euro fleets of the time
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
