What Could 50 WW1 Soldiers Accomplish at Bunker Hill?

If you sent a 50 man platoon of US Army Soldiers from World War 1 back in time to the Battle of Bunker Hill, with the intention of defending it, or defeating the British army, what would they be able to accomplish? In this video, i tackle that exact hypothetical question as best as i possibly can with an analysis of the arms and tactics of the time compared to the same from today. Needless to say, it's not much of a competition, but watch the video so i can explain why.
Other Alternate History Battles: • Alternate History Battles
The Battle of Bunker Hill was fought on June 17, 1775 during the Siege of Boston in the first stage of the American Revolutionary War.[5] The battle is named after Bunker Hill in Charlestown, Massachusetts, which was peripherally involved. It was the original objective of both the colonial and British troops, though the majority of combat took place on the adjacent hill which became known as Breed's Hill.
The British had taken the ground but at a great loss; they had suffered 1,054 casualties (226 dead and 828 wounded), and a disproportionate number of these were officers. The casualty count was the highest suffered by the British in any single encounter during the entire war. General Clinton echoed Pyrrhus of Epirus, remarking in his diary that "A few more such victories would have shortly put an end to British dominion in America." British dead and wounded included 100 commissioned officers, a significant portion of the British officer corps in America. Much of General Howe's field staff was among the casualties. General Gage reported the following officer casualties in his report after the battle (listing lieutenants and above by name):
1 lieutenant colonel killed
2 majors killed, 3 wounded
7 captains killed, 27 wounded
9 lieutenants killed, 32 wounded
15 sergeants killed, 42 wounded
1 drummer killed, 12 wounded
Colonial losses were about 450 in total, of whom 140 were killed. Most of the colonial losses came during the withdrawal. Major Andrew McClary was technically the highest ranking colonial officer to die in the battle; he was hit by cannon fire on Charlestown Neck, the last person to be killed in the battle. He was later commemorated by the dedication of Fort McClary in Kittery, Maine. A serious loss to the Patriot cause, however, was the death of Dr. Joseph Warren. He was the President of Massachusetts' Provincial Congress, and he had been appointed a Major General on June 14. His commission had not yet taken effect when he served as a volunteer private three days later at Bunker Hill. Only 30 men were captured by the British, most of them with grievous wounds; 20 died while held prisoner. The colonials also lost numerous shovels and other entrenching tools, as well as five out of the six cannons that they had brought to the peninsula.

[@agentallstar7]

The Brits would quickly recognize that rate of fire was insane and they would not try to push after the first wave. The manner in which they would be wiped out would be never before seen.

[@dj1NM3]

...also, the guys in the fancy hats and gold-braided coats would have been killed in the first wave, because they wouldn't really haven't expected to be endangered by enemy fire over a hundred yards from the fortification, essentially leaving them leaderless within minutes. Presuming that there was anyone left alive to give the order, the Redcoats would most likely have given up and retreated from the hill.

[@sqike001ton]

So the fact that 30/06 rifles could accurately take out man targets at 5x the distance(for an average soldier) of the Brits and WW1 troops have no qualms targeting officers I could see the idea being to target the officers the issue is I ultimately see the rank and file routing as soon as a large number of the officers are gone and the fact that they went down at rangers where they normally only received artillery hits

[@commode7x]

The Brits recognized that the rate of fire of the colonial soldiers was already too much for them to handle after the first wave without needing any supernatural help. All the time travelers had to do was supply the colonials with more ammo, then have a picnic with the rest of Charleston as they watched the massacre.

[@Clem68W]

@@sqike001ton I think you've hit upon something. "Normally only received artillery hits". Lot of variables, but they would probably treat it as a seige and use their big guns to attack them rather than frontal assaults.

[@dj1NM3]

@@Clem68W While making the rash presumption that *any* Redcoat officers survived first few minutes of their attempted assault, to actually give the orders required to make all that happen. I also suspect that M1917 Springfield rifles might have outranged the portable artillery pieces that the Redcoats would have been able to bring with them, so their artillery crews would most likely have been shot to pieces, just trying to bring and position their guns to bear on the fortification.

[@danagray9709]

We technically lost bunker hill, but not because of a lack of numbers. We literally ran out of ammo. Just give the soldiers on Bunker hill more ammunition and it would result in an American victory.

[@vonbennett8670]

Imaging if a wagon or two showed up on the American side with more power and musket balls, hallway through the battle?

[@commando4481]

Is it really that impressive? it was 2400 against 3000 and the British had to go uphill against fortifications.

[@nunyabidness674]

A logistics win is still a win, so yeah, I can follow the logic. It's a bit more than just hand out more ball and powder though, at least in my opinion. Fresh rifles / muskets would also be a requirement.

[@commode7x]

@@nunyabidness674 They didn't have issues with excessive weapon failures during the battle. The primary issue was that they ran out of ammunition.

[@nunyabidness674]

@@commode7x Flintlocks can only fire so many times before fresh flints at a minimum are needed. That and barrel heating leading to letting it go or getting blistered. Again, in my opinion, fresh set of boomsticks would be needed before the extra ball and powder could be used. Edit: Realize that with a flintlock, the flint hitting the strike plate chips off bits of the strike plate, creating the sparks that hit the powder in the pan to get the thing to go bang in the first place. While a modern battle might involve all of 20-30 troops between both sides, in that modern battle more ammo can be consumed than in an entire battle between a thousand combined troops with flintlocks. Volley fire might indeed burn a couple hundred rounds per salvo, but every salvo the number of rounds fired is reduced by casualties. You might see a 3 day battle consume all of 3000 rounds total. What is more, after a couple hundred rounds (assuming flints get replaced regularly) the strike plate on a flintlock starts getting worn thin. You'd be looking for a blacksmith before you could get through the same amount of ammo as what one modern soldier carries on a patrol.

[@mpetersen6]

Marksmen begin engaging the Brits before they even start up Breed's Hill. Targeting noncoms and officers.

[@iansneddon2956]

Yes, the British experience during the Boer War provides some good examples of this and the effect on troops who have been drilled to stay in formation and wait for instructions. Letting them approach to around 150-200 yards before taking out their leadership and then hitting them with bursts of machinegun fire would be a slaughter followed by a complete rout.

[@timothyterrell1658]

The American enfeald rifle was amazingly accurate and effective in the defensive role , though being a bit heavy. Laughably comparable to a brown bess musket,in weaght. 30 of those rifleman would have a devastating effect on massed troops in the open ,then the mgs would fire and it would be over. And yes 200 would be about right.

[@jameslawson3876]

I would imagine that all that would be needed would be the two machine-guns, supplied with more ammo. The other 40-odd soldiers with rifles would not be needed.

[@djrmarketing598]

​@@jameslawson3876 You would think so, but in terms of the forces realizing they were up against a massive threat from 2 positions, they could have attacked them from a different side or all sides at once. I don't want to make this political, but look at Israel and Ukraine. Despite massive air defense systems, getting overwhelmed is still a major threat.

[@DemitriVladMaximov]

Imagine being the WW1 America Soldier who presents George Washington with his weapons? How would General Washington react to shooting a .45 1911?

[@AAFBNC]

“WHERE IS THE KICK?!” (I know a 1911 has kick, but compared to a musket pistol…)

[@ACE_1923]

“What the devil?! this pistol has almost no kick and actually hits it target! I hereby order these pistols of the future to be commissioned to every soldier at once!”

[@sundai4486]

That would be a great T-shirt! Washington wielding God’s pistol! M-1911 .45 acp!!!!

[@CrossOfBayonne]

​@sundai4486 Same, Never fired a 1911 but I heard it kicks back because .45 ACP is a man stopper

[@HenryKobyla1407]

I think a devastating victory for the Americans here would have either made the Brits consider suing for peace, or would at least convince France earlier to ally with America.

[@ParryThis]

I think it would have huge historical consequences.

[@tomjackson4374]

@@ParryThis After the Battle of Bunker Hill the Brits just stayed in New York, so a defeat there might have meant they took the war a lot more seriously.

[@firestrikerii810]

@@tomjackson4374 No it wouldn’t. They would’ve lost and sued for peace

[@benthecartoonist3518]

​@@ParryThiswhen word gets back to the founding fathers of the use of bolt actions and machine guns we very well could have plasma rifles present day as they rapidly would try to advance and make bolt actions and machine guns back then after seeing the effectiveness

[@scottmad8563]

​@@benthecartoonist3518no... reverse engineering those guns wouldn't lead to massive advances in physics and other sciences to make that even remotely possible. Plasma guns are even remotely considered possible currently

[@Monkeywrench542]

My grandfather was in WWI on the American side. He had told me that it was was common for each soldier in the company to be carrying extra cartridges for the machine gunner in order to have more firepower for the company.

[@danielbeck9191]

In WW I the machine gun ruled the battlefield from the early days of the war. This lead to the extensive use of trenches on both sides, with a resultant change in strategy and tactics. In this time-travel battle, the Redcoats advancing up the hill in the open would have been annihilated.

[@scottanno8861]

Not to mention the arms race that would begin to understand repeating rifles, cartridges, etc. The butterfly effect here would be insane.

[@commode7x]

Repeating rifles and revolvers were developed more than a century before this battle. The arms race would only exist if the French or another colonial power beat back the British. The American colonies beating back the British with futuristic weapons would be a slap in the face, but unless the nascent United States decided to invade other British possessions, Britain would still just pack up and leave.

[@smuganimeface6247]

The smokeless powder alone would be a massive boon.

[@MagicMan508]

The only way Britain could start an arms race is if the reversed engineered our weapons. Which they would never have because we would never lose.

[@commode7x]

@@smuganimeface6247 Smokeless powder would've been expensive to make. America's major enemies were the British, a series of stone-age tribes, and highly exploited Spanish colonies that oftentimes barely had enough food due to Spain constantly draining them for all they were worth. Obsolete flintlocks were used all the way up until the American Civil War despite repeater rifles having been developed two centuries previous because of cost. When your second biggest threat is literally a large number of tribal warriors, there's no reason to develop and field advanced and expensive technology like repeater rifles or bullet cartridges.

[@Sporkmaker5150]

@@smuganimeface6247 American gunsmiths would have likely reverse engineered the Enfield rifles using blackpowder cartridges. Developing smokeless powder wouldn't be necessary, just the initial hurdle of creating primers.

[@Tracer_Krieg]

I've actually got an interesting one for you: the Potomac Army under Grant versus the Grand Armee under Napoleon, perhaps at Austerlitz. While Napoleon is the better tactician, Grant is easily close enough in terms of strategic and logistics planning and it would be interesting to see how much of a difference 50+ years of weapons development has on this engagement.

[@ParryThis]

Not bad. Grant is actually an exceptional tactician. It's important to remember that by the time of the American Civil War, all of Napolean's tactics were being taught at West Point. I might do a video like this, but it would almost certainly be extremely one sided.

[@bthorn5035]

I'd watch that video. I'm always hungry for napoleon content.

[@poil8351]

depends on which napoelon your talking about the tired old man(yes i know he was not that old, but for a general he was past his peak) at waterloo who was seriously ill or the young upstart general in italy who was running circles around the austrians or the more more experienced emperor at austerlitz. i would argue grant would win if it was against 1815 napoelon napeolon would win if it was 1805 austerlitz napoelon in my view because he has the well developed tactics and a very large well disciplined army. but not sure if it was 1790s army of italy napleon where he was able to beat bigger more opponents one after another, but he had less resources and a far smaller force than grant would have.

[@LauchlanMcdonald]

​@ParryThis I don't think it would be that one side the grande armee out numbered the army of the potomac 4 to 1 but the union has a technological edge.

[@LostDisciple24]

@@LauchlanMcdonald uh, what are you talking about? Grant's army was 125,000 or more. Napoleon had 75,000 (at Waterloo and Austerlitz). So Grant had the bigger army AND with a technological edge.

[@andrewbreland7293]

50 WW2 island hopping marines at Little bighorn.

[@jonathanbair523]

They would get beat worse then the 7th Calv as the natives would still have used the ground to mask there movements

[@jacobmccandles1767]

​@@jonathanbair523 Wishful thinking. Grazing fire from the M-1919, and 3 BAR teams would take care of that...but Cus-tard left his Gatling Guns, so we will leave the belt fed. There would still be 6 submachineguns, a BAR team, 4 Hi-Cap carbines, and about 40 M-1, Garand semi-auto rifles, at least 6 1911s ...and about 7000 rounds of ammunition. Plus about 90 grenades. Custer's men could fire about 6-7 rounds per minute, which meant they were almost always reloading. His men DID have 100 rounds each, but their rifles took 10 precious seconds to load with ONE round, while the Garand takes 8 in just 3 seconds. Furthermore, U.S. troops of the Custer era were not well trained in marksmanship. Their pumpkin-slinger rifles made range and lead estimations critical. The USGI of 1943 had none of these drawbacks.

[@snapdragon6601]

You'd have to lower the number to 25 WW2 Pacific theater US Marines to even make it interesting.

[@greenktoo]

25 would prolly do.

[@natebox4550]

@@jacobmccandles1767Man Custer was a idiot.

[@MrRdvs87]

I’m glad you said it: officers are getting taken out first. The threat bubbles of the standard arms compared against each other would make it too easy to reach out and takedown anyone without a brown Bess.

[@Swindle1984]

Standard loads for the M1911 were three magazines, including one in the pistol, and one extra round in the chamber, for a total of 22 rounds. Some holsters had an additional pouch for a fourth magazine, so 29 rounds. Carrying pistols with a full magazine and a round in the chamber wasn't common practice at the time, but a lot of soldiers did it just to have that one extra round and we can assume people sent back in time would be the sort to do that kind of thing. Pistols also weren't issued to most soldiers, instead prioritized on officers, NCO's, and the Allied equivalent of stormtroopers, but we can expect that a force specifically sent back in time to alter history would be equipped as well as possible. The Mk 2 hand grenade wasn't widely available until after WW1, in 1920; although officially adopted in 1918 as a replacement for the Mk 1 hand grenade, very few actually reached the troops before the war ended. So Mk 1 grenades or British Mills bombs would be more likely, but if this group is specifically being sent back in time with the best weapons available in 1918, I'll give this a pass. In this instance though, it would be strange that none of them had M1918 BAR's, considering the portability and effectiveness of automatic rifles/light machine guns at the time and the BAR being cutting edge technology that they would certainly equip troops with if they wanted to give them the best chance of success. Also, some of those Maxim gunners would still have rifles, even if acting as riflemen wasn't their primary role. We would also expect to see one or two soldiers in this 50 man squad equipped with VB rifle grenade dischargers.

[@MikeB128]

The guy who made this video literally knows jack-shit about WW1 AEF equipment.

[@Richie_the_Fixer]

Ignore the M1911 , the S&W side-ejector (later known as the M&P , the Victory Model , and the Combat Masterpiece) , adopted by the military in 1899 , in the hands of 50 men would be devastating .

[@rmdlgarcia]

@@Richie_the_Fixer Try reloading that during hand to hand combat. I'll take the 45 semiauto over a little .38 special revolver.

[@SantaClaus-kk8zr]

@@rmdlgarciaNice so long as you have magazines, revolver is more consistent with less downtime given you have the rounds handy or even better in speedloaders

[@rmdlgarcia]

@@SantaClaus-kk8zr Glock 21 - 3X 13 round mag plus on in the chamber for 40 rounds and 28,000 joules of energy. Great for hand to hand if hearing loss is not you biggest concern.

[@carinasmirnoff1780]

You could do American Horse Soldiers, from the American-Indian Wars, going up against Brits in the War of 1812. Would be pretty dang close, but i still think would be a huge tactical advantage.

[@ParryThis]

That's true. The firearm difference would be huge, but we're talking less than 100 years difference. Revolvers, Repeaters, and Probably a Gattling Gun or two.

[@BioHunter1990]

Rourke's Drift, WWI British infantry.

[@jaredjosephsongheng372]

I feel like that's a little bit much don't ya think. 189 British were already able to mop the floor with 4000 Zulus let alone WW1 British.

[@rons4297]

Do one with a battalion of Marines in the final battle in the Lord of the Rings.

[@romanfields7900]

🤯

[@mackenziemcinnis1879]

Put one Marine Scout Sniper team in to cover the French Knights charge at Agincourt.

[@bastianrattler1392]

My great great (several greats) grandfather fought at Bunker Hill under the Patriot flag. Although records say he perished in the battle, our family records show him buying land in Ohio in 1812. Despite research and proof given, the federal government won't remove him as a casualty of the battle, which is honestly really funny

[@bastianrattler1392]

Private Willaim Miller Served in Abbot's company and Stark's regiment

[@gennymikel4296]

As a casualty of war he probably got a great deal on real estate.

[@bostonrailfan2427]

was wounded in battle but survived? he would be listed as a casualty as wounded-in-action vs. killed-in-action thus has to be on the list

[@sparta2705]

​@@bastianrattler1392stark? Was he at Bennington or saratoga?

[@martinwalker9386]

I see one possible negative effect from an American victory, at that point the Americans had NOT declared independence. Would they have done so after such a victory? Or would they have demanded representation in parliament.

[@wulfthofengaming457]

the opening shot of the battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, which sparked the American Revolutionary War and led to the creation of the United States. Battle of bunker hill was June 17, 1775 so bunker hill was almost 2 months after the start of the war.

[@curlyfries2956]

@@wulfthofengaming457at that point in the war, the aims of the revolutionaries were unclear. There was still some debate about what they wanted from this, being representation in parliament, autonomy, etc. Independence was on the table, but was still considered a last resort. Once the war spiraled out of control however, causing the Declaration of Independence in 1776, all other options were officially out of the question

[@jonnyd9351]

Exactly. A majority of people at the second continental congress wanted to reconcile with the British and drafted the olive branch petition a month after bunker hill. Even George Washington didn’t think the colonies could win a war against the British until after bunker hill which made him realise it was possible.

[@timengineman2nd714]

The M-1917 uses (used) a 5 round stripper clip. It can hold 6 rounds, and in several men would carry loose rounds to top off the (internal) box magazine to 6 rounds....

[@sham_shielded]

When I was young and The Patriot came out I had the thought of what would it be like if one modern day US Army infantry squad was sent back in time and fought a battle against the British.

[@danielsaenz23]

The difference between musket balls and bullets going through rifled barrels is insane

[@Richie_the_Fixer]

Which is why , one of the real great American advantages in the Revolutionary War was the Pennsylvania Rifle's range advantage over the British Brown Bess Musket .

[@kargandarr]

Soldiers from late in the civil war at the battle of Yorktown with repeating rifles of the civil war period.

[@ZacharyBurgard]

It would be a massacre especially if they had a early Gatling gun or Hotchkiss breach loading cannon I think spinner rifles would reck havoc on the British they also had Ketchum Grenades

[@jeffreytinacanine5026]

Thank you for using the Enfield, most folks assume the M1903 was the most used American rifle.

[@nickmiller5685]

I need a million more videos like this. I’ve always thought up scenarios like this in my head and it’s really cool to see someone put it together in a quality video. There are endless fascinating matchups that you could do and I’m very excited for more of this kind of content

[@tomjackson4374]

1453, the siege of Constantinople by Mehmet II. This was the first time gunpowder was used to breach the, until them, impenetrable walls of what was left of the Byzantine Empire. Constantine XI hired mercenaries as well as any men capable of fighting along the walls to put up a desperate, last ditch defense. So time travel all the French forces at Dien Bien Phu, who faced a similar siege by the Viet Minh, and place them behind those great walls. This is possibly one of the most important battles in world history whose effects are still felt today. That would be my suggestion.

[@mstevens94]

Even then, the French would win because they had automatic, if not bolt-action weapons, while the Ottomans probably had single-fire gunpowder weapons. It would be lopsided. A better example would be the Union Army under Grant from Shiloh from the American Civil War at Austerlitz against Napoleon's Grand Armee. Both had single-fire weapons, and although the Union had rifled muskets as well as artillery and single-action revolvers (the revolvers were largely ineffective), the forces were relatively equal, with about 65,000 on both sides and about 30-50 years of technological progress. The edge would be to the Union Army. Still, Napoleon used the weather to his advantage, seeing Grant was a capable commander, probably staying on the high ground like the Russians did, possibly fortifying the position. It would be interesting how two commanders with two wholly different beliefs in warfare would cope and strategize in such a fight.

[@tomjackson4374]

@@mstevens94 What do you think 50 WW I soldiers with WW I weapons would do to advancing troops marching inline? The entire premise is lopsided. Mehmed II had as many as 200,000 troops, an artillery train of over seventy large field pieces, some firing stones weighing hundreds of pounds and a navy of 320 vessels. The French had 11,000 troops at Dien Bien Phu. But what you are talking about, a battle between Grant and Napoleon, wouldn't have been that different from the battle that was fought. West Point before the Civil War taught Napoleonic tactics.

[@Domjot5569]

​@tomjackson4374 yeah it would have been just a battle between two napoleonic commanders with one just having better technology Also I'd be down for that Constantinople battle

[@mstevens94]

@@tomjackson4374 Not really, though. Grant went to West Point and learned how to fight like Napoleon, but the common adage was to take the battle and take a few months to recover and have another set-piece decisive battle. Grant would have kept hammering that weakened enemy force until they surrendered...unconditionally. He was a different kind of general. Grant fought a different style of warfare that Napoleon would have never seen. Grant was the first modern American general who utilized proto-WWI trench warfare, using the North's advantages to win the Civil War. Compared to Robert E. Lee, Grant actually had fewer casualties than Lee, who was basically the old-style Napoleonic general who put the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia into engagements like Antietam and Gettysburg, where they lost manpower they could not get back, UNLESS they started employing enslaved people as combat soldiers, which the government of the Confederacy was not going to do. The technological gap between 1805 and 1862 is less compared to 1775 to 1917, nearly 60 years to just over 140, 82-year difference. As you said, the generals went to West Point to learn Napoleonic warfare. I chose 1862 because the idea of Union cavalry and other elements having repeatable arms, like the Spencer rifle,e did not make its way into their hands until 1863 and 1864. Rifled muskets and artillery would be one of the Grant Army's only advantages. Napoleon attacked Austerlitz more as a surprise from a fog attack because the Russians GAVE UP the high ground. Grant probably fortified the high ground instead. Grant from Shiloh made a gallant yet bloody defense amidst such a similar surprise Confederate attack from PGT Beaureguard, only to be reinforced by other Union corps that evening so Grant could defeat the Confederate force the next day. I did not try to make it lopsided. In the 142 years between 1775 and 1917, any force engaging would be entirely lopsided and ridiculous to make a video on because the gap technologically is too far. This battle is like having a party armed with a bow and arrow, and the other party has a crossbow.

[@tomjackson4374]

@@mstevens94 The first trench style warfare was Crimea not the Civil War and Grant was on the verge of defeat if he had not been reinforced at the last minute. Even Beaureguard was commander because A. S. Johnston had been killed. In fact Napoleon hadn't lost a battle until Waterloo. The Russian loss was during the retreat after the Russians refused to destroy their army fighting him as he wanted. So Napoleon was just as flexible as Grant and like you said, the technology wasn't that different. You keep saying Grant fought differently than the Russians but Boney could have just as easily adapted his strategy because his talent was his ability to adapt to conditions. Wasn't it Napoleon who said plans go out the window after the first shot?

[@hardcharging]

Another consideration: even if the British Naval fleet retaliated by attempting to bombard the American position the American WWI soldiers who are used to engaging targets farther than 600 yards would probably attempt to fire back and actually hit some of the ships and crew.

[@sharkybate7115]

Especially considering that the ships were wooden, and if the Americans had enough ammo (and maybe mortars), I wonder if some powder stores wouldn't catch a round or two

[@Horologist-zu5vq]

​@sharkybate7115 Ships Hull would be too thick. Plus they kept the powder storage below the water line. It definitely keep the people on deck pinned down.

[@sharkybate7115]

@@Horologist-zu5vq that and they could probably waste enough of the crew that the ship became combat ineffective/force them to get more people to operate the ship Edit: To add to what I just posted: They could also try and shred the sails with some incendiary munitions (if they had enough after the British assault got beat back), and then board and capture/sink the ship. They might not have enough ammo at that point, but they can cost the Brits a few ships in addition to killing their landing forces (or at least enough of them that the British are repelled)

[@hardcharging]

There's also the psychological factor of the British realizing that they can be reached despite being on ships through the overall range and rate of fire of small arms they've never encountered before.

[@firestrikerii810]

@@Horologist-zu5vqit wouldn’t be too thick

[@alessiodecarolis]

As for Alamo 's video, this would be an one -sided massacre, probabilly no British soldiers would've reached less than 500 m. from the patriots' lines. Without either officers and NCOs alive, the few survivors would've routed away from such a terrible ordeal, imagine seeing your comrades killed by a literal avalanche of bullets, without ANY possibility to defend themselves.

[@SpookyBC09]

You know whats actually crazy is that none of our boys had a single trench clearing kit with a pump action 1897 shotgun though i do like you adding two 30-06 machine gunner squads

[@bensonfang1868]

The 50 ww1 troops can also use the sights on their rifles to help the 1700s Americans aim their cannons

[@jollyroger822]

Would absolutely love to see a video done on "the Battle of Long Island", also known as the Battle of Brooklyn and the Battle of Brooklyn Heights 1776 with a modern light INF BN lets say from the 10th MTN DIV of similar. Love the video's and hope to see more soon. Or how about some modern troops at The Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC.

[@pogonator1]

Have ever considered how a simple set of radios could change every major battle of the American Revolution or the Civil War?

[@dongilleo9743]

Or accurate maps. As a history/military geek, I don't think maps get enough(if any) credit as a major evolution of military "technology". Before maps, a Commander had to rely on only what he could see of the terrain, or reports by scouts, and trying to coordinate with sub commanders on where to go, what to do, was a guessing game.

[@stargatefan10]

Love this. Went further back in time for both, so it's still a huge technological difference, but not nearly as drastic as the first.

[@ParryThis]

Thanks. I am glad you enjoy the approach i took here.

[@TheIrishvolunteer]

Love this kind of video! Keep up the great work!

[@robertl8270]

I think the soldiers from 1918 would likely recognize their fire superiority & try to use the element of surprise to their advantage. In true WW1 fashion, they would probably entrench themselves and wait for the British to get well within range of their guns before firing. The British have no idea what's awaiting them, because why would they, and they lose nearly all but those who retreat in the initial wave. There would be no second wave.

[@jamalwilburn228]

The AEF woukd target their officers cause they know the British rely heavily on direct command and supervision

[@blackhorse-wm6oc]

I think this would be more interesting if you sent the 50 man WW1 platoon back to a battle that was significantly larger than Bunker Hill. Something more in the scale of say the Battle of Waterloo where the terrain of the battle itself covered much more area and involved significantly more troops than the platoon feasibly has the ammo to wipe out. Likewise perhaps sending them to Gettysburg or another major Civil War battlefield would also be a good one. Alternatively sending a Union Army brigade equipped with Model 1861 and miniball ammunition somewhere would also be interesting as such a unit going to something like the Alamo or the Battle of Brandywine would provide needed extra troops while not skewing things with ridiculous rate of fire advantages but could still have a huge impact providing a full line formation of men to a key area with a greater reach and accuracy.

[@decimated550]

There is a book series called The Lost regiment about this fanciful idea, a union regiment and a artillery battery go back in time through an electrical storm to a alien planet. Don't even read the Wikipedia because it'll give the plot away like it. Just unfortunately happened to me while researching this. Very comment. Maybe just get the first book. Don't read ahead for spoilers and enjoy it. What you are imagining has already been done so it's there just for you to find

[@Friel23]

Cliff notes: It'd be a GD turkey shoot

[@grantrichardson5766]

Probably a trivial issue since this is all hypothetical anyway, but the Maxim you show and state is a 30-06 is in fact the Russian 7.62x54r Maxim. The snow cap is a dead giveaway, and the American water cool would be the Browning.

[@cameronmolt5649]

So glad someone makes a video about the stuff that goes through my head when watching a movie.

[@ssocar96]

Sidearms are not issued to riflemen

[@gew1898]

A surprising number of WW1 doughboys were issued pistols, both 1911s and Model 1917 revolvers. This was due to their effectiveness in Trench warfare. This is how a rifleman named Alvin York found himself with a 1911 that was instrumental in the action for which he won a Congressional Medal of Honor. Since, in this scenario , the British never get within pistol range it is really a moot point.

[@CMDRFandragon]

British start off marching slowly, until they get closer and the Maxim MG opens up on them.....then the Captain would be all: "At the double quick lads!" Probably before sucking down his own personal helping of Maxim machinegun.

[@whiteboyplays6940]

You just got a new subscriber buddy great video ima go look at your others now😮

[@OtherThanIntendedPurpose]

a key piece of kit you did not include, but would have certainly been available to a unit that size and elite status was the Stokes mortar with an 800 yard range, and a cyclical rate of 25 per minute. even 1 4 man team with a Stokes tube, and 40 rounds ( 10 per man was not uncommon load out) also, the members of a mortar team would have still carried their rifle and a full load out of rounds for the rifle, as well as a side arm, and grenades. in WW 1, and well into modern times ( well, the 1980;s and 90's when i served) if you were issued a 1911, you carried 3 2 magazine belt pouches, plus the loaded magazine in your weapon, and a pre-set 1 in the chamber, or 50 rounds of .45APC. the pouches were carried 2 on your belt, and one on the strap on your field pack ( in 1918 ) later the third was carried in the front pouch on your ruck. it was also not uncommon to carry extra ammo in your ruck. the U.S. ARMY learned in the Spanish/American war that running out of ammo was a bad plan. for reference, I served as a paratrooper in the U.S. ARMY for 10 years, and was deployed on several occasions.

[@Royalmerc]

Man, the moment machine guns where added was the moment this became a one sided battle. I really do love these hypotheticals though so this video was great. Maybe you could do one on the battle of Wake Island, or one on Task Force Faith in Korea.

[@dicksledge7744]

I absolutely love these videos

[@Lexi-vl5eh]

This was a very entertaining video. This series is quickly becoming my favorite one that you do.

[@ParryThis]

Glad you enjoy it!

[@chaoticwj1772]

Agreed

[@EngineeringWizard11]

The machine guns could probably start peppering the ships in the harbor below after the assault with whatever ammo they have leftover. A WWI Maxim gun would probably have a similar range to a late 18th-century cannon.

[@jonathanbair523]

Aww man they would chew the ships up... Well maybe not ships of the line, but the frigates for sure.

[@michaelayers3998]

Yeah, the Brits wouldn’t reach the base of the slope. It’s possible the Doughboys would be able to pick them off either still in the ships or in the boats coming from the ships. Certainly the Maxim guns could do that. (In fact, the Maxim guns could probably win the battle by themselves.) I agree that they’d never get close enough for the Minutemen to fire.

[@supergoodadvice853]

@@michaelayers3998 Yeah, the Maxim guns, with enough ammo, can fire for such an absurdly long time, the record has yet to be beaten by even modern machine guns. Just a constant stream of .303, with little to no end if needed.

[@MagicMan508]

I imagine the brits would break line and retreat after watching the maxin gun sweep an entire line in 3 seconds, but assuming the brits CANNOT retreat and must fight to death. Pretty cool vid.

[@ben10mama]

I'd like to see a revolutionary War battle with maybe a hundred or 200 civil war troops with sharps rifles, would the more minor advantages in equipment have any significant ramifications

[@demomanchaos]

Being able to put far more accurate fire at far longer ranges would absolutely make a massive difference in whatever sector of the battlefield the ACW era troops (Even just grunts) were in.

[@firestorm165]

How about an offensive for a change of pace. Send task force time lord to the Battle of Hill 60 of the Gallipoli campaign, 21st of August 1915. 40°16′21″N 26°17′35″E I'd recommend sending a modern day USMC to help the ANZACs as they're the only US forces I know of that still do bayonet drills and they actually might be handy if they get into the trenches

[@ParryThis]

I have a couple offensives in mind.

[@ElyanMC]

Please, please, please make a video explaining the history of Arthur's knight, Sir Elyan The White he's the most underrated knight along with major roles played in it's history

[@jonaspete]

Whoa sir!! I need more ammunition!!!

[@RedCharLang]

I feel as though its irony since the image at 0:57 is of British troops (you can tell due to ammunition belt on the dude on the right) and yet they are fighting against the British forces during the Battle of Bunker Hill.

[@Jakethesnake2007]

It looks like a mix because those are american tunics on the men at the bottom you can tell because of the collar standing up and the 1903 springfield with the two men in the bottom

[@danielcurtis1434]

I say you redo on the Alamo. However in this scenario it would be one time traveling drill seargent with all the rangers weapons and equipment and 5 days to train the soldiers on the time traveling equipment. You could even limit it to 1-4 days or a few hours. Lots of potential. I like the idea of allowing the original people to fight. Another option is how about Army Rangers armed with the best of 1836 weaponry??? I’ve begun to realize you probably don’t lack for ideas much??? Seems to me you have too many options if anything???

[@Codevil.]

Awesome concept, I'm 99% sure I'll be subbing ...I'm only one minute in

[@Deuce02339]

1 modern company from 20th SF, unknowingly travels in time from an ongoing combat mission to Shiloh, TN on April 5th 1862. Of the gaurd company, most are from the nearby area, and familiar with what is soon to transpire, they introduce themselves to Gen Wood, and decide and with no time to spare over night, set up a defensive position near Fraley's field, awaiting the inevitable skirmish to be had the following morning, Praying to buy time for the hopefully now rushed reinforcements to arrive from Corinth as they find themselves trapped in a fight they know all to well from history.

[@Dare_To_Game]

Could do the Army of Northern Virginia vs the Brittish in the Revolutionary War.

[@ParryThis]

If i did that, it would have to be instead of the entire Revolutionary Continental Army. the Tech/Strategic/Number advantage would be huge.

[@Jakethesnake2007]

What about a squad of modern day American marines at the battle of Okinawa?

[@SilverSpike_Gaming]

Could you send a squad of Winter War Finnish soldiers to the eastern front during ww1 at the Battle of Osowiec Fortress?

[@blindscience1701]

random battle, but, add in the gadget the first nuke tested on said battle field or air power of ww1

[@ParryThis]

Would probably result in total devastation on the battle field, and a surrender of the other side.

[@jparker19822009]

@@ParryThiswhat about the Shotgun

[@hossstreebeck9184]

I would love to see if a team of Navy SEALs could siege and take control of a medieval castle

[@schrodingersgat4344]

Imagine being on the deck of a ship, in the harbor, and without the elevation to help.

[@jonathanbair523]

*inserts Mr. T* "I piddy the fool."... I think the WWI troops could shoot at the crews stuck on them ships. If they where Marines then they might as well been snipers in the view of the troops on both sides as most the shots would be kills. The ships cannon fire was not really much help for the Red Coats ground troops. The ships officers would see how they where failing and the sailors they would be losing... Brown alert time!

[@schrodingersgat4344]

@@jonathanbair523 Pretty much. They couldn't get sufficient elevation on tje guns to support the ground troops. The superior position of the hilltop would have made it certain death to be exposed on those decks.

[@user-sd7gk3qp8l]

I reqlly enjoy these videos. How about the Bay of Pigs invasion but with modern Marines. Or the Battle at Little Bighorn with modern calvery soldiers. Or chasing down Geronimo with modern day special operations units like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan going after high value targets. Thanks for the video.

[@ParryThis]

Great suggestions. I will certainly give them all some thought.

[@tomjackson4374]

@@ParryThis The Bay of Pigs was not a failure because of the quality of the troops or their equipment. It failed because of a lack of air support and the failure of a popular uprising. If modern Marines came ashore with the same limitations I doubt they would do much better. Or how about arming Geronimo with AK 47s and RPGs.

[@iansneddon2956]

As a better invasion scenario, how about a Wasp class amphibious assault ship with a couple of escorting frigates at the landing at Salerno, arriving at the beginning or as reinforcements before/during the German counter attack. What if General Clark prayed really really hard....

[@davidroman1654]

@@ParryThis Just give the Indians Cell Phones and leave everything the same and it would be years before the West would have been safe.

[@texpatlee]

@ParryThis, first the rifles carried by us Infantrymen was yhe M1903 Springfield, the bayonet they carried was the M1917, (they only carried 80-100 rounds on the web gear), some also carried the M1918 BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) with 150-200 rounds generally, the M1897 Trench Guns (a.k.a. the Winchester shotgun cut down, with a heat shield and bayonet lug for the M1917 bayonet) with 80 rounds. A full platoon would have had 2 machine guns, 3 squads with 1 BAR each, and at least 1-2 Trench Guns per squad. You also said that the MG teams didn't have rifles, they actually would have. Love the content!! Keep them coming!

[@ZanXpeacemaker0989]

M1917 rifle was far more common in WW1 than the M1903 that was the official adopted rifle.

[@engineer12v]

Hey how about a singular troop with a UTV loaded with ammo in magazines with a singular m16?

[@mininoble2253]

Couldn’t our ww1 soldiers just use their rifle ammo to feed the machine guns if it was really necessary? If would take a little bit to feed the ammo into the belts, but with 15-30 minutes warning they would be good.

[@dragonelite2725]

What if you used early ww2 marines

[@anatolib.suvarov6621]

I find this an interesting concept. Battles from antiquity, with a more modern twist.

[@kenfox22]

You want the defensive positions. Can inflict great casualties on the charging enemy

[@BrickDaniels-qu7bz]

Perfect. I was looking for something kinda stupid, but not really.

[@CMDRFandragon]

Next battle: 2 Maxim machinegun teams go back to the Battle of Thermopolyae

[@nikobellic5198]

What about, One British Ship of the Line (1700s) going back in time to fight the Great Heathen Army?

[@ParryThis]

That is an intriguing suggestion.

[@rickden8362]

A very fun intellectual exercise. However your analysis of the 3 British attacks could much better detail. As with the Alamo ''exercise'', I think an interesting analysis would have been on the pre-battle use of the 'time travelers' incredible range advantage of their rifles. The British, while forming-up to attack would have been easily within range of the best shots of US shooters. Before the attack even started, 150- 200 could be dead, many officers, many by head shots. The British would be in chaos.

[@tomjackson4374]

If I was the British General who just saw his entire frontal attack mowed down I think I would switch tactics. Gen. Howe wasn't happy about all the frontal assaults but he underestimated the resolve and deadliness of the Colonial militia. He believed a decisive, and if necessary, bloody victory would end this rebellion before it got started. He was certainly willing to uses flanking attacks after he saw the frontal attacks falter.

[@Grimpy970]

As unconventional as it may be, I think putting the victory results *before* the hypothetical scenario(s) is a wise way to structure these sorts of videos!

[@samabraham6440]

I got one for you for and Idea a U.S. Navy Seal Squad imbedded with the army of the Potomac during the peninsula campaign.

[@Ken19700]

How many old battles could be won by one sniper?

[@tomjackson4374]

How about one well placed sniper to eliminate the Commander in Chief of an invading army right before the eminent defeat of the other side. I dunno, maybe in a theater on April 14, or there abouts.

[@cosmic-cat6315]

I really like this series

[@ParryThis]

Thanks. I am glad you enjoy it.

[@LupercusArchanus]

Rifle men on the assault: 10x 10 round ammo pouches plus 1-2 bandoliers in addition to ammo carried in the weapon. Pistol armed men carried 3 or 5 magazines. Dual armed me was uncommon, cavalry used a 9 pouch belt with room for a double mag pistol pouch.

[@DeutzFarmer96]

Mustard Gas....just hope the wind doesn't change.

[@ParryThis]

Yeah, that one could depend. Might totally defeat the Americans with zero British casualties.

[@lamoe4175]

Correction concerning the WWI grenade - KILL radius is 5 M but effective wounding radius is 15 M - wounding an enemy is often times more effective on destroying moral and troop strength than killing (stopping to aid wounded). The "blast" radius typically was greater then the throwing distance. Which is why we were taught to "get down / stay down" until after the "boom"

[@firestrikerii810]

No

[@lamoe1777]

?

[@christinepearson5788]

The ammunition for M1903/ M1917 came on 5 round stripper clips, not 6. The M1917 magazine was carried over from P1914, the 303 rims took up more space. So a five round 303 mag became six round mag in 30-06.

[@57WillysCJ]

Would have been more interesting to have the guys from the Second Battle of Adobe Walls there. The forces would have put the British in retreat even without Maxim guns. There would have been Henrys, Winchesters, Sharpes, plus side arms.

[@Bane_Cat]

Do a squad of modern Army Rangers

[@ParryThis]

Lol, i did that for the Alamo.

[@GodmanGoddard]

As a tanker, I always wondered about a section (2) of Abrams tanks at Gettysburg or a platoon (4) during WW1 when the first German tanks arrived

[@demomanchaos]

GrimReapers did a video of a group of Abrams and some artillery/MLRS support facing off with Rommel in Africa. It did not go well for Rommel.

[@swiftf0x]

Oh! I expected one of those software generated skirmishes that showed how the battle might have played out given your lead up and distribution of forces to wrap the whole video up.

[@njesperson7760]

Please do this with Rangers or Regular Infanty complete with company heavy weapons

[@jonathanbair523]

company heavy weapons vs wooden ships = splinters in the harbor, or lots of new coral reefs.

[@carlbirtles4518]

If only there was a simulation, this video would have been fun.

[@rayshiffer5026]

The question we all need

[@shadowangel3995]

The future soldiers could potentially kill more than one enemy combatant per shot fired. My reasoning for this is, like you said in the video, the weapons are much more powerful so the British soldiers would not have any body armor which means the higher powered weapons could go through the human body more easily while still doing significant damage to each target. I have a suggestion that I actually saw in a movie where a single carrier battle group was sent back in time to Pearl Harbor.

[@trevornekuda3101]

Grim reaper on KZbin does stuff like that all the time

[@primus482]

Sir, I don't think I have room for that in my rucksack

[@ssfbob456]

Bolt action rifles would be like machine guns to the British at the time, and they also would have had at least one actual machine gun. The sheer psychological effect of that kind of firepower alone would likely win the fight.

[@chrisbrown-uu3mh]

Can you do 1 current day Aircraft Carrier only with accompanying Aircraft and personnel vs the attack at Pearl Harbor

[@pgandy1]

A correction in your narration. I was expecting you to say the M1903 Springfield as that is the one most commonly photographed, but you got that correct it was the M1917 Enfield and did have a 6 round capacity due the original British manufacture in calibre .303 British. When the Americans took over the reduced diameter of the .30-06 allowed for 6 rounds. However, the stripper clips were 5 rounds, not 6. And I suspect that rifle was most commonly used with 5 rounds rather than the soldier fishing around for that one extra round to top the magazine off. If I understand correctly, you said the infantryman was given a M1911 as well. Not so in WWI or any other time as standard issue. The pistol photographed is not a M1911 but the M1911A1.

[@civilwarreenactor6374]

the battle of the little bighorn send in the ww1 attachment

[@DarkHorseSki]

Replace the marines at Wake Island on Dec 8, 1941 (in WWII) with a comparable quantity of marines and equipment that they would have had come the end of WWII. (I.e. upgrade the planes, guns, artillery, etc...) How long can they hold out?

[@thomasmeagher8941]

Next video: "What would the effectiveness of the door gunner from Full Metal Jacket at the battle of Missionary Ridge be?"

[@victorcastelli5469]

Idea: 300 Spartans vs. Dan Daly from the boxer rebellion (along with his machine gun)

[@christopherwang4392]

This is an interesting video to think about, but I believe you should have done more research on how a WW1 US Army rifle platoon would actually be organized. BATTLE ORDER has more information on how a US Army rifle platoon would be equipped and organized in 1917 thru 1918. A WW1 US Army rifle platoon consists of 1 officer and 58 enlisted (59 total) organized into a platoon headquarters and four sections: - A 17-man Rifle Section; - A 12-man Hand Bomber Section armed with hand grenades; - A 9-man Rifle Grenade Section armed with three to six VB grenade launchers; and - A 15-man Automatic Rifle Section armed with two to four of either the M1915 Chauchat, M1917 Lewis, or M1918 BAR.

[@gew1898]

Australian Light Horse troops, ca. WWI, at Little Big Horn would also be fun.

[@joehess7149]

Tom Clancy once wrote a book where most of the military was quarantined because Iran had figured out how to weaponize Ebola, and so a single division (maybe wrong unit size?) and a Natuonal Guard regiment, who were not affected because they were doing training maneuvers together when the bioattack occurred, were sent to the middle east and had to take on a ten division Iranian army. So, what about taking a national guard unit, and sending them to a major, fairly recent conflict, like the Battle of the Bulge? Or maybe a modern Marine division in China to defend against the Imperial Japanese Army during WW2?

[@basketcase289]

Maybe try something closer in time period like getting 1918 WWI Brit soldiers to Rorke's Drift? No clue how many you'd want to choose though

[@rh5842]

You should do one on e the battle of Thermopylae with 1 machine gun