- 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
re: Which historical armies could a battalion of 2026 Marines defeat?
Posted on 3/29/26 at 10:05 pm to 844_Tiger
Posted on 3/29/26 at 10:05 pm to 844_Tiger
Well that would depend on which side in the fight is holding the defensive position, which is trying to seize the position
its not just personnel and numbers
All the really great battles in history a lot of the outcome was the ground that they fought on, Waterloo ,San Jacinto , Angicourt
its not just personnel and numbers
All the really great battles in history a lot of the outcome was the ground that they fought on, Waterloo ,San Jacinto , Angicourt
This post was edited on 3/29/26 at 10:13 pm
Posted on 3/29/26 at 10:08 pm to weagle1999
quote:
riflemen without air support

Posted on 3/29/26 at 10:11 pm to weagle1999
Patton's Third Army of about 350k soldiers, tanks and artillery could probably beat a thousand modern Marines.
Posted on 3/29/26 at 10:11 pm to weagle1999
They can’t defeat Iran for starters
Posted on 3/29/26 at 10:11 pm to weagle1999
quote:
Good reply. The Marines in this scenario would be riflemen without air support.
Thanks. If that’s the case, I’d say they can defeat any field army from the mid to late 19th century. A modern Marine battalion would be able to achieve fire superiority and use its mortars to silence the breechloading direct-fire cannons of such formations. Accuracy, range, and volume of fire would be totally lopsided in favor of the Marines to the point that greater numbers of a mid-19th century field army would be negated. The marines could simply sit back and attrit them until the field army broke.
But the Marines would not stand a chance against a field army from the early 20th century due to the combo of sheer numbers and firepower at the disposal of such a formation. Though the Mariens would have better automatic weapons, the early 20th century field army would make up for this from a combination of bolt-action rifle and machine gun fire in numbers that would make up the difference. Add in the artillery at the disposal of an Earl 20th Century field army, and the outcome of such a contest would not be in doubt. The Marines would be wiped out.
Posted on 3/29/26 at 10:13 pm to OWLFAN86
quote:
Well that would depend on which side in the fight is holding the defensive position, which is trying to seize the position
Good point, OP didn't specify that though. I'm assuming that both armies at fighting head on, flat ground like the Eurasian stepped and no-one has the positional advantage, no bunkers, no barbed wire, no advantage in cover for either side, no air superiority on either side in fact, lets take out death from above completely. No artillery either.
Now that i think about it, the Nazis with the Luftwaffe would have probably beaten out our modern marines if they have no air defence.
Posted on 3/29/26 at 10:16 pm to weagle1999
I’d say the 31st expeditionary USS Tripoli could take all but maybe China by its self if we let the Generals fight and not the politicians. The Chinese would even be possible. A ship full of expeditionary Marines with air power can take over a lot of ground quickly. Now they aren’t really setup to hold that ground. But if you filled in with Army Infantry and let the marines continue on the move not many modern military’s can slow them down in conventional warfare
Posted on 3/29/26 at 10:21 pm to weagle1999
quote:
Which historical armies could a battalion of 2026 Marines defeat?
Confederate States of America- 750,000-1,000,000
Napoleon's Army of 600,000
Roman Army 450,000
These would likely win based on shear volume. Typical numbers are 3:1 for an offensive. In these cases you have ratio's of 1,000:1 to 450:1.
Each of these also have artillery and a calvary.
Posted on 3/29/26 at 10:21 pm to LCboi
what if one side ran out of bullets?
How would that change things?
Are there rocks and sticks on the ground that could be crafted into a rudimentary weapon
What if they fought in a bouncy house
There are so many variables
How would that change things?
Are there rocks and sticks on the ground that could be crafted into a rudimentary weapon
What if they fought in a bouncy house
There are so many variables
Posted on 3/29/26 at 10:43 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Fast forward a little over 50 years to WWI.
Most people simply have no idea of the increase in lethality in the profession of arms that came with industrialization.. Alexander's army could have stayed with most armies that came after them until, maybe, Frederick's Prussians. The pinnacle of pre/early industrialization was Napoleon's army which would have crushed, quite easily, any prior great army.
The WW1 armies of Germany and France would have crushed Napoleon. Equivalent to a 63-10 football game.
This post was edited on 3/29/26 at 10:44 pm
Popular
Back to top


1








