No!!!!! How about 1000 M1A1 and 1000 A2 Leopards versus THE ENTIRE ARMY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE?
The lag from that battle would crash the game.colonelioan wrote:
No!!!!! How about 1000 M1A1 and 1000 A2 Leopards versus THE ENTIRE ARMY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE?
lololololOllie wrote:
The lag from that battle would crash the game.colonelioan wrote:
No!!!!! How about 1000 M1A1 and 1000 A2 Leopards versus THE ENTIRE ARMY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE?
Plus the romans were notourious for their speed hacks.Ollie wrote:
The lag from that battle would crash the game.colonelioan wrote:
No!!!!! How about 1000 M1A1 and 1000 A2 Leopards versus THE ENTIRE ARMY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE?
This is true.NateWiese wrote:
Plus the romans were notourious for their speed hacks.Ollie wrote:
The lag from that battle would crash the game.colonelioan wrote:
No!!!!! How about 1000 M1A1 and 1000 A2 Leopards versus THE ENTIRE ARMY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE?
Maximus Speed Anyone?NateWiese wrote:
Plus the romans were notourious for their speed hacks.Ollie wrote:
The lag from that battle would crash the game.colonelioan wrote:
No!!!!! How about 1000 M1A1 and 1000 A2 Leopards versus THE ENTIRE ARMY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE?
Thats crysis bitch!colonelioan wrote:
Maximus Speed Anyone?NateWiese wrote:
Plus the romans were notourious for their speed hacks.Ollie wrote:
The lag from that battle would crash the game.
It's obvious the Marines would win. Warfare was an entirely different story back in the 1700s. They'd all line up with their muskets and just shoot until they finally hit someone. Not to mention the Brits uniforms had giant white X's on them just screaming for the colonists to shoot them. Plus the Marines' weapons are far superior to those in 1775.
I don't know why this is even a question. I guess the only negative factor for the Marines is only having 100 of them, but that still shouldn't stop them from winning.
I don't know why this is even a question. I guess the only negative factor for the Marines is only having 100 of them, but that still shouldn't stop them from winning.
The 100s of marine would recruit and train americans in modern day tactics. The marines would win.
because muskets didnt really kill people...
just spray on musket repellantGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
because muskets didnt really kill people...
be careful not to miss a spotSEREMAKER wrote:
just spray on musket repellantGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
because muskets didnt really kill people...
250,000-300,000 is a more historically accepted number.HurricaИe wrote:
they were also against a million Persians, and eventually a shitload of ImmortalsDrunkFace wrote:
And the (300) Spartans lost... remember.HurricaИe wrote:
It'd be like 300. If the Marines have a ground advantage they'd rape face. Better trained and better equipment.
After that, 10K spartans and 30K normal greeks kicked the asses of the Persians
Also the 300 only survived for so long because of the naval battle that was taking place in the Artemesium Straight, which denied the Persians from landing troops behind the Spartans and encircling them. Not to mention the 100 ships that were sunk in the storm sent around Euboea to flank the 300 Persians and Themistocles leading the Spartan naval defence.
Shit loads of Immortals was 10,000 and they were not called the Immortals because of their skills (though they were better then the ordinary light infantry), but because they always consisted of exactly 10,000 soldiers. Because they only ever recruited when one of them died or retired. Now don't get me wrong, what the 300 Spartans accomplished was an extraordinary achievement, but no matter how good they were, they had both location, luck and naval help to aid them, and they still lost.
In American there is no natural barrier like the Alps to force a larger army to funnel into a small canon and rendering Calvary useless, They would have no naval support and a storm is not going to stop you getting flanked. As such the 100 marines could easily be surrounded and overwhelmed, even if the British had nothing but rocks. And is why in my original post said the Marines would have to keep a rolling battlefield, inflicting high casualties and constantly withdrawing before they can be surrounded and overwhelmed.
Even if the marines were on a cliff all they would do is throw puppies at the attacking british forces.
Criminal wrote:
and you know what... hell 100 marines could probably annihilate the entire british army of the present
Course they could.
I think they'd need to be fighting on the same side though. We all know how the yanks love a bit of "friendly fire".
sory, i r can not has azn hax liek ucowami wrote:
jingoism, stupidPoseidon wrote:
Extreme nationalism ftl.Criminal wrote:
ahh didnt catch that.
sorry fine sir
and you know what... hell 100 marines could probably annihilate the entire british army of the present
Learn your vocab, sophomore.
better question: king kong vs godzilla
go.
go.
Duke Nukem imo.XxRavenxX wrote:
better question: king kong vs godzilla
go.
Exactly.geNius wrote:
You'd have to have a serious geographic advantage to hold off the entire army with 100 soldiers.
I have a ton of faith in our modern tactics and weaponry, but we're talking thousands to 1 ratios here; it's nearly logistically impossible.
maybe chuck norris vs bruce lee
meh
You sir. Are beyond words...Criminal wrote:
and you know what... hell 100 marines could probably annihilate the entire british army of the present
I'm not going to say anything because it will result in a temp ban.
#rekt
Well we can all sit here and argue hypothetical.
Or we can round up and find out how long it would take for the British army to win.
Or we can round up and find out how long it would take for the British army to win.
I take your gun and raise you a Knight in Shiny Armour!DoctaStrangelove wrote:
meh
