- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:30 am to NYCAuburn
quote:I think transportation issues do them in. They would wreck shop but no way are they defeating either side with 100 people.
You dont think they would be able to fight a guerrilla war and take out opposing leadership easily?
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:31 am to Cdawg
quote:
I'm with you. The union army was about 500,000 strong in 1862. NO way 100 seals could do anything remotely effective even with 100 snipers.
Considering the tactics of the day, sure they could, and it's not 100 snipers going it alone, but 100 snipers taking out officers, and people in artillery, and that's a game changer. I mean, the confederates took out 2 to 1 with a bunch of country boys with squirrel guns, muskets, and even in spite of repeaters and Gatling Guns toward the end of the war. Taking out officers and artillery personnel from over a mile away would most certainly have had an enormous impact on the outcome of the war, through eliminating fire support to get troops in closer, confusion and breakdowns in chain of command.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:32 am to TSS_Tiger
quote:
Does "standard issue equipment/gear" include Black hawk Helicopters?
No. Sorry my military vocab is pretty much limited to Call of Duty talk.
They get assault rifles, machine guns and sniper rifles. Unlimited ammo.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:32 am to LasVegasTiger
Once a commander gained comprehension of the lethality of 100 SEALS in that environment, the commander would employ them in a manner to create opportunities for grand flanking maneuvers by entire armies. The war would have ended much sooner than it did.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:33 am to LasVegasTiger
100 seals could not take on an entire army, even if they're fighting agains guys with 1860s technology.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:35 am to LasVegasTiger
quote:
LasVegasTiger
Is it the seals alone vs the opposing force or is the same side still fighting as well?
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:35 am to Swoopin
In straight combat of armies against 100 men, I don't think it's any question that the SEALS don't really have any chance. However, I do think it's very possible for an even smaller group of SEALS to sneak behind enemy lines and take out the entire leadership of either side.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:36 am to NYCAuburn
quote:I read it as Seals vs North or South, not joining one side or the other.
Is it the seals alone vs the opposing force or is the same side still fighting as well?
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:37 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
NYCAuburn
think he meant.....Confederate Seals or Northen Seals..fighting the opposition..
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:38 am to LasVegasTiger
This has got to rank close to the top as one of the most absurd notions I've ever seen discussed here. And that's saying something.
100 SEALS against either 2.65 million Yankees or 750,000 Confederates?!?! And there is actually any thought of them "winning" a war against numbers like this?!? Come on people.
100 SEALS against either 2.65 million Yankees or 750,000 Confederates?!?! And there is actually any thought of them "winning" a war against numbers like this?!? Come on people.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:39 am to CaptainsWafer
Just do the math. EACH SEAL would have to kill at minimum 5000 guys.
Uh oh, stray bullet takes out one of them. Now someone has to kill 10,000. And no army/nation is surrendering to 100 dudes just due to low morale from pain inflicted.
Uh oh, stray bullet takes out one of them. Now someone has to kill 10,000. And no army/nation is surrendering to 100 dudes just due to low morale from pain inflicted.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:41 am to NYCAuburn
Thread was originally replace one of the armies with 100 seals, would the SEALS win.
The more interesting debate is add XXX number of seals to the Confederates, does that change the outcome of the war.
The more interesting debate is add XXX number of seals to the Confederates, does that change the outcome of the war.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:44 am to Swoopin
The only way 100 SEALs could change the outcome of the war is if instead of being sent to the front, they're sent to camps to train cadres of men in modern war fighting tactics who them in turn train more men in the same manner and on and on down the line.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:44 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
This has got to rank close to the top as one of the most absurd notions I've ever seen discussed here
easy Darth...i said that and got blasted.....so i kinda joined in...
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:45 am to SthGADawg
They can blast away. I still stand by my point that there's no way 100 can stand against almost 3 million or even three quarters of a million. Hell, if nothing else, either side could line their artillery up all around them and bury them under tens if thousands of cannon balls.
This post was edited on 3/31/14 at 8:47 am
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:46 am to Swoopin
quote:
Thread was originally replace one of the armies with 100 seals, would the SEALS win.
They would lose for the simple fact of the amount of people hunting them down. In order for them to plausibly win, they wouldnt have to kill everyone, just command and control. But the shear number of people hunting them would get them captured or killed relatively quickly.
quote:
The more interesting debate is add XXX number of seals to the Confederates, does that change the outcome of the war.
Adding them to either side of an existing war, ends the war relatively quickly
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:46 am to LasVegasTiger
The people saying yes are the reason I stopped reading these stupid fricking hypothetical threads a while back. (Until I fell off the wagon with this one.)
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:46 am to Swoopin
quote:
Of course they could, and they'd do damage and be legends in history, but they couldn't stop a belligerent of ~500K-1M if all they had was themselves.
I didn't really look at it as 100 vs. 500,000. I mean how large was a typical infantry regiment? I really don't know..
I kind of looked at it as 100 vs. a few thousand or so at a time.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:48 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
Is it the seals alone
Original question was alone vs either North or South, some people said they would easily win others have said no way.
Page 3 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News