A modern tank time travels to 1815 Battle of Waterloo. Could it help Napoleon win?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 лис 2023
- 35% off on Binkov tees until December 2nd! Get Binkov as Napoleon and other tees here: www.redbubble.com/people/bink...
Binkov plushies on a 15% discount until Nov 27th. Get them at: crowdmade.com/collections/bin...
This video asks and answers the following question. What if a modern main battle tank, a French Leclerc tank, went back through time to 1815 and helped Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo? How would the course of that battle go? And would the French be victorious in this alternate timeline?
Music by Matija Malatestinic www.malatestinic.com
If you want to watch our videos without ads, if you want quick replies to any questions you might have, if you want early access scripts and videos, monthly release schedules - become our Patron.
More here: / binkov
Get Binkov plushies here:
crowdmade.com/collections/bin...
You can also browse for other Binkov merch, like T-Shirts, via the store at our website, binkov.com
Subscribe to Binkov's channel for more videos! / @binkov
Follow Binkov's news on Facebook! / binkovsbattlegrounds
Follow us on Twitter: / commissarbinkov
#isot - Розваги
35% off on Binkov tees until December 2nd! Get Binkov as Napoleon and other tees here: www.redbubble.com/people/binkov/shop
Binkov plushies on a 15% discount until Nov 27th. Get them at: crowdmade.com/collections/binkovsbattlegrounds/products/binkovs-battlegrounds-plush
This video released an hour ago,and MasterofRolfnesss' video about Napoleans' route from rabbits was two hours ago.
Now we need to know if an MBT would've turned the tide against the rabbits.
Not if it was a NATO tank lmfao
More alternative history battles like this, please Binkov.
@@ZillaFury2542me too.
Is this a reupload as I’m sure I’ve seen it previously
yes... yes it could.
😂
Before watching this idk how he made it a 30 min video 😂
Abslolutely
shekelstein (hand rubbing intensifies) 😁
Short. Simple. Accurate.
The tank, without ammo, is equally terrifying. I picture it ramming into rows of bodies and horses.
I was thinking this and some cav would be scary… now you throw in shaping the battle first with some long range shots…. Let’s just say it would be a scary time for the allies
Equally, no. But terrifying enough.
Would thermonuclear weapons help the Roman Empire defeat some barbarians in a forest?
Wait are we talking like Conan barbarians or just regular ones
@@jamesyandsonsoutdooradvent9394 Doesn't matter any survivors would become radioactive mad max barbarians and those guys you don't wanna mess with.
@@attemptedunkindness3632 Oh no, not the leukemia barbarians.
Here's another. Could the Zanzibar Sultanate have won the Anglo-Zanzibar War if they had the imperium of man space fleet ready to execute exterminatus on the British?
@@uku4171 They don't want your gold or your women, they want your iodine and will start leaving their radioactive dead in your water supplies if you don't give them what they want.
could a star destroyer help the romans against the parthians?
thats overkill
What kind of Star Destroyer
lol i think you put that in another level😅
Let’s be intellectually honest, any empty modern tank just driving through enemy lines would be enough to route an enemy.
You watch your buddy get ran over by a 50 ton metal war horse from hell driving 30-40 kph you’re running
He would still have to use it to the full advantage, and be smart. Not get it stuck or break it.
Does he have one tank of gas is the real question. Or can he refuel? If he could refill everything he would basically be essentially a moving castle
I feel like if the British knew what a tank was they would be able to defeat it. Men inside? Charge it on horse, and molotov it. Set an 18th century I.E.D.
If they never seen or heard about it or the way it worked?
It would be an effin demon straight out of hell, and the men route surely route saying Napelon is the Devil.
Maybe a few brave men would shoot it with cannons, but once that plinged off of it they wouldn't know what to do. I think it would make it even worse if men saw that.
Napoleon could just have his men follow behind it breaking their lines, and literally crushing them if they stood their ground.
Save the ammo for the calvary. Save the main gun for fortifications.
Europe would be his, and stay his. Till the Germans come around with their own, and route the French.
@@dianapennepacker6854 I think the best you can do would be sth like the CV90s with high caliber autocannons.
You get less armor and punch, but the psychological effect from just deleting one artillery crew a second with 40mm HE would be devastating.
tldr: Take an IFV with a 40mm turret. 80% of the intimidation, but at least double the ammo for the main caliber gun
@@robeylemere- buddy got the medal of Smosh with tracks...all over..
Let's be realistic here, any modern MBT crew wouldn't risk just ploughing through massed infantry...
... they'd do donuts.
Would an atomic bomb have helped the Hill Tribe defeat the Valley tribe in 33,000 BC? Interesting question.
Lmao, asking dumb questions from AI is always funny:
Picture this wild scenario, buddy! Imagine the Hill Tribe in 33,000 BC stumbling upon a cosmic vending machine that spits out an atomic bomb. Like, woah, what a crazy twist in the ancient plot! So, they decide to use this mega-boom stick against the Valley Tribe.
First off, kaboom! The explosion is like the ultimate firework show, turning the battlefield into a wacky, post-apocalyptic rave. But here's the kicker - the fallout is not just confetti; it's some serious glow-in-the-dark stuff, making the land look like the set of a sci-fi B-movie.
Now, imagine the survivors of both tribes scratching their heads, trying to figure out how to cope with this newfound nuclear glow. It's like trying to teach a cat to breakdance-totally absurd and confusing! The remaining folks are left pondering life's big questions, like "What's the meaning of existence?" and "How do we clean up this radioactive mess?"
In this alternate universe, the Hill Tribe and Valley Tribe might end up forming a weird fusion dance of cultures, creating the first-ever radioactive folklore. But let's not forget, buddy, that the real moral of the story is to keep your intergalactic vending machines away from ancient battlefields. You never know when they might dispense a game-changer!
Three days after the victory at Waterloo, in Notre Dame de Paris, with a dismayed Napoleon watching from the crowd, the Leclerc XLR tank crowned itself emperor.
Now THIS is the type of content I come on UA-cam for! Doesn’t everyone imagine themselves wrecking an ancient army with modern tech from time to time?
Next I’d like to see “Could a Ford class carrier have helped Carthage win the punic wars”. I’m betting on “maybe”
Just imagine being on a roman ship and suddenly a fucking island honks at your mates before running them over at 5 times your max speed or so.
All while you are completely baffled by the fact that, what you thought was a stranded ship on the edge,
just got shot in the air and is now brrrrrting your admiral
Considering the several times the Romans lost their entire fleet and had like 10% of the entire adult male population drowned in one storm, yet still keep building more ships to throw more people at Carthaginian fleet until they win……idk I think the Ford would get bored after shooting for a while and left.
Or the Carthaginian might just fire them, like how they fired that Spartan commander/advisor that was winning the war for them lol.
To be honest, you'd be shitting your pants if your muskets and canons can't destroy a magical metal box
These are just silly. Forget a tank. A pair of walkie talkies to coordinate better would have instantly changed 99% of battles
Short answer: hell yes.
The range between the armies at Waterloo started well within the range of any modern tank. When the tank runs out of main gun ammo while not even having to move and use gas, it can simply advance to machine gun range. When that ammo is gone, it can start running over enemy troops, scaring the hell out of horses, and causing even the best troops to break and run.
Time to write this: less than a minute.
i doubt anyones stick around to find out, a massive rout would occure the moment those tank start firing
Little reminder that war was always won, in most cases by this era, by morale breaking, and a tank is fueled with nightmares for its enemies.
Thereby, just move it around, use the tank as protection against cannons, make horses use it to go over it and jump any obstacle, whatever, Napoleon would see 400 new opportinities with a literal unstoppable chunk of metal going around, shooting stuff from kilometers away, and a speed one could envy.
Also, why wouldn't Napoleon just ride on the tank?
Why would he? He can't operate any of the equipment and he still needs to give orders to his generals
@@lew-ejones-ayres5088 The video literally talks about the soldiers knowing how the tank is and how it do stuff, just so they don't rally from just seeing it. Also the tank has a crew, so Napoleon could just be in the tank giving orders in a safe place with a good speed.
The machine gun alone couldve altered the course.
Wellington watching as a APFSDS round punches a hole right through his horse: 😐
Wellington watching a tungsten canister round turn half of his Calvary turn into a red mist
Even if the allies were informed in advance, a tank such as this would give them a far worse tank-shock than the Germans suffered in 1917 and 18. Basically, after it would steamroll a few positions, snipe a few artillery pieces and survive a lot of incoming fire, most of the men would flee. The armies at the time were used to fleeing at the sight of incoming bayonet charge of a superior foe. Now imagine a blunt, 50 ton bayonet charging at you at twice or thrice the speed of galloping horse. Yeah, I cant see more than 10% of British (nor Prussian, nor any other for that matter) soldiers holding their ground at that sight.
In short: yes.
In depth: yes. Of course.
An AN602 Thermonuclear Warhead Code Name "Tsar Bomba" times travels to battle of Thermopylae
It would be more of a psychological victory than anything. If you've ever read how German soldiers in WW1 wrote about their encounters with British tanks in an age where they would likely have still heard about things that would be associated with the tank. Farm tractors, deisel engines, rivets and welding, ect. Now imagine a Napoleonic-era dude seeing the same thing, except without that point of reference and the damnable machine is speeding along the battlefield towards his line as musket balls ping harmlessly off it.
Yes, a single Leclerc would single-handedly win the battle with its MG alone.
1) The LeClerc would just drive around smooshing the darn enemy. 2) Fuel would be the problem...
500 km range of top speed at 71 km/h that gives you 12,5 hours running over the enemy faster than any horse gallop (55 km/h) and world record human runners (44km/h).
High proof booze!
Imagine a Leclerc tank driving around at midnight, machine gunning your lines using thermals and night vision. That would be hell. Lowkey Dr. Who episode lol
a few thoughts from an ex REME engineer
1. A single MBT could position itself well out of range of enemy cannons and still pick them off with ease using HE rounds, without moving anywhere. fuel would not be an issue in this case.
2. it was mentioned that AP Fin rounds would have little effect without a direct hit, I would suggest that you actually consider the physics of a supersonic 1m long tungsten or depleted uranium dart passing within a few feet of a massed body of men. it wouldn't just kill or injure those it hits.
3. The optics alone would be a game changer in the battle. We're talking about sights that can image clearly for up to or beyond 15km through all weathers and smoke. Even just using them to identify targets for the rest of Napoleon's army would be decisive.
That's without even considering the morale effects of the coax machine gun wiping out ranks of men from over a mile away.
One shell and one volley of machine gun fire and the entire enemy army would surrender. Not only would they be terrified of the silouette of the tank but all they'd see an entire platoons worth of soldiers drop dead from a huge explosion and a loud boom in the distance. Then another platoon would drop dead from machine gun fire. Literally it's easy to see, they'd surrender or retreat really fast.
Human beings are resourceful, and these are soldiers... After initial shock they would probably find a way to combat this machinery. I remember story how some Yugoslav partisans threw a blanket over German tank.
They don't know how to combat a tank and a blanket doesn't stop thermals
"That time me and my tank crew got isekai'd into the Napoleonic era to fight for the French"
Kind of reminds me of Gate:Jietai
You've overlooked the lethal, disruptive and terrifying ability of a modern battle tank to *charge at infantry and crush them under its weight.* A tank can even *safely counter-charge a cavalry charge* and even crush unlucky horses, and even *run after horses* in some cases, depending on the terrain.
So, even without ammunition, as long *as the tank has fuel left,* it remains *an abomination for any ground unit devoid of anti-armor weapons.*
Even without firing a single shot, charging opposing riflemen to prevent them from reloading gives allied troops a formidable advantage, turning all firefights into easy mode for them. It's the equivalent of an additional cavalry with *total invincibility!* In this context, it's more than a game changer, it's downright ultimate cheating! It combines well with any existing ground involved in battles at this time and remains *unbreakable* as long as anti-armor weapons or anti-armor defenses aren't invented.
My thought as well. To be fair, 50% of what the tank is doing in this hypothetical could be done by a single off the shelf drone. Intelligence is crucial.
Napoleon: There's nothing we can do...
Tank: No, we can.
M0R0N
R34ARD
?
The tank wouldn't even need to shoot. It could just charge and run over troops. The french army could follow in the chaos and mop up. Even if it got stuck, it could turn the turret and swivel then fall back on it's guns. There's nothing that the enemy could do to damage even a static target. Also, a modern Abrams would be a better choice because its turbine could be refuelled by high-test alcohol, meaning that it could be refuelled.
Okay guy bring me your strongest Alkohol I need to refuel 😂
Remember, a tank can also squish people. 😉
that would certainly be a way of conserving ammunition against infantry formations
@@MercenaryPen It would be way to save fuel as well. This video is wrong, tank would never ride around enemy units to scout, it would always ride the straightest path and scare the shit out of soldiers. First attack would be right through whole army to get rid of commanders. By it's speed they would have no chance to run away.
The terror factor of the tank alone would infinitely outweigh any direct material advantage it provided. The members of the Seventh Coalition would have no idea that the tank had used up its fuel and ammo in that one battle and had basically been reduced to a big, scary-looking paperweight. They wouldn't even know for sure that there was only one of these metal monsters. Diplomatically, the tank and the accounts of terrified Allied soldiers who had seen it in action and managed to escape the battlefield would be a powerful tool for France at the negotiating table. Napoleon could threaten to unleash a whole (imaginary) army of tanks on Europe to bluff the Allies into potentially giving him a peace deal that allowed him to remain in control of France. Even if they only agreed to an armistice for a relatively short time (say, 1-2 years), that would give the tank crew a chance to train additional soldiers on how to use modern weaponry and give French engineers, metallurgists and chemists a chance to potentially reverse-engineer the tank's fuel and ammo and be able to produce useable supplies of both so that the tank could be used indefinitely if the war flared up again after the armistice was over.
literally one tank and being outnumbered 40 to 1 you would win almost instantly due to the insane tank shock.
the enemy would break after the first shot.
Imagine Napoleon say merde you hit the wrong farmhouse through the walkie talkie 🤣
I think a modern infantry fighting vehicle would be even more effective than a main battle tank. An IFV would be armoured enough to resist any small arms fire. It would be mobile enough to be effectively untargetable by field guns/artillery. An autocannon and machinegun would annihilate infantry out in the open, especially firing on the move with modern stabilisation.
I agree, I think the autocannons and machine guns would be far more useful against soft targets than a single he gun…
Driving straight into the lines with all the machine guns blasting would probably instantly shatter any army
IFV is still a light armoured vehicle, a cannon ball volley or grapeshots would most likely disable it
When MBT would care less
An IFV would absolutely not be penetrated by a cannonball. Grapeshot would be even worse. Modern composite armor would stop any 1800s-era solid-shot cannon round with ease. @@ivanmikushin371
Prussians after seeing the Tank:
"Hey, I also want that ~ and that thing they call machine gun too..."
Just the crew alone could potentially change the course of the battle, with their advanced armor, camouflage, superior tactical and physical training, and better weapons, they'd be like halo Spartans to the 19th century troops. Even just with their service pistols, they would be the best unit on the field by a long shot.
I agree with you, they would be overwhelming in their ability to change the battle just from their small arms alone, BUT on the fact of service pistols, even modern day pistols have a laughably ineffective range when compared to even muskets. Of course the problem for the Napoleonic troops would be getting the modern soldiers to the point where they have to use their service pistols...
The best unit of literally three people though.
The British had pioneered the use of rifles, they were hitting targets down as far as 200 yards with aimed fire (There are also stories of people having insane accuracy beyond the 200 yards range), far outranging the French muskets which were shorter range and inaccurate. Sure they might not have the speed of a LMG or an assault rifle, but they just have to get in range and I doubt a tank crew alone without a tank could lockdown a area large enough to stop them.
If Wellington truly got the accurate possible damage the tank can do he would probably avoid conflicts like this all together. The real disadvantage of the tank is actually the lack of resupply and it’s crews. He could simply not engage the tank within its gas range, the the French army would not be able to move the tank once it ran out of gas. Wellington could also resort to assassination of the tank crew when they are off duty. Both these options are so much easier than taking it head on
The terror that thing would cause on the battlefield would end the war. Automatic weapons, high explosive 105mm guns. Not to mention it's capacity to roll around the battlefield, crushing enemies indiscriminately.
And it runs out of ammo in minutes, 1500 rounds or so is not even couple 100 dead enemies. 50 rounds HE is not gonna make a big dent..
It could go for the leaders/generals. But 1800s artillery can still hurt the tank.
@@jmkhenka Ehh, no. I'd beg to differ. At most maybe it could result in a mobility kill, but that would take a very unlikely shot with infamously inaccurate and slow to fire artillery. So not very likely to do much to it. For the machine guns they'd only run out of ammo if you fire them willy nilly, which there's no reason to do because you're in an armoured tank they can't actually hurt you on the inside of. Why would you put down suppressive fire when you can conserve ammo with accurate bursts instead? Logistically it would be an issue but the battle would be decided by the time that becomes a concern.
-A tank would break infantry squares, and cavalry kill infantry not in squares.
-A tank would break masonry walls, driving through. The Hougoumont farm wouldn’t last 5 minutes.
-A tank would enfilade “the thin red line” with machine gun fire or by simply driving along its length. The terrififying French column attack, which made any body of troops break and run, except the British, would defeat the broken line.
-A tank could freely range behind the British. Under artillery fire, before the French charged,Wellington had his troops lie down on the dead ground behind the crest. The tank could flush those troops into the artillery.
Yup. Tank wins.
The radios alone would be enough to win this battle. Not to mention a single machine gun.
7:59 If Wellington got one shot by a french tank, that would’ve been funny asf. The allied army would’ve been like wtf while napoleon would’ve been laughing his ass off while leading his troops
Holy fuck a video where the battle of Waterloo is mentioned and the Dutch army is actually credited for its part that’s insane
Its machine gun alone would have changed the outcome of the battle. A slightly fairer match would be "What if 4 Hotchkiss M1914 with 2500 ammo each appeared in the battle of Waterloo."
Another cool idea is "What would happen if Napoleon's troops were magically given Mle 1866 Chassepot rifles, Mitrailleuse, and La Hitte system cannons." Basically, give Napoleon's troops 1870 weapons. This would have created an interesting scenario, as the technological gap between a Charleville musket and a Mle 1866 Chassepot is just a generation away. So is the La Hitte rifled muzzle loading cannon. I want to see your take on it.
Or imagine 1000 French soldiers armed with Henry repeater rifles and enough ammo.
The PTSD the tank crew would get like damn
that would be really bad people don't realize how bad a hard fought victory can scar the victors and the ones that lost
Imagine just driving the tank through the Anglo-Prussian camp at night, blaring "The Flight of the Valkyries" on loudspeakers...
"Alan Aztec - Disco Panzer"...
do I need to say more?
As a former tanker I think you are missing an aspect of tanks most people don't think about...If a tank is out of main gun rounds and machine gun ammo, you can still run over infantry or anyone on the ground...I'm sure a tank facing off against a Napoleonic-Era battle square would easily cause carnage even without using projectiles...
But he also don't included hand held granades. One of this thing could easly mess with optics, and improvised mine could blow up tracs easly. So trying ram people will be dangerous to tank.
Eaven a massive pice of cloth could disable tank if they don't have support (if they wraped optics then you can't do shit if you don't see anything).
@@mateuszszewczuk1700 one guy with some equipment, e.g. granades, large hammer aso could probably render the tank useless if he manages to climb on it and the tank has no support
A few swings with the hammer to the machine gun barrels might be enough to bend them a little which would make them not really useable. Then hammer to the optics, if that doesn't work, try explosives, if that doesn't work, just put them under the cloth
then try what would happen when you throw some of the granades into the main gun barrel. Most likley won't do much, but if they just damage/bend the gun a little, it would be enough, at the end just try to somehow block the barrel.
You culd also try to find out what would happen if you throw some explosives into the exhaust/block the exhaust and air intake
@@habala3135 As if the army of that time would have any idea what tank optics and its weaknesses are.
@@f50koenigg not that, but it's pretty easy to figure out what the "wheels" are, and I don't think tanks really like having bent road wheels from some lucky cannon shots
@@aRealAndHumanManThing As if the people in that time would have known tank weaknesses also a moving tank at 70kph is very hard to hit let alone a stationary cannon trying to take an aim on track wheel.
I think instead of a tank, maybe a squad of GIGN or a French military platoon would be better. Maybe accompanied by an armoured vehicle along with extra ammo and equipment would make a bigger impact.
They would still have a very limited amount of ammunition, but firing in semi-auto only and targeting key enemy officers should be enough to win thousands of battles if they really conserve their ammo.
Maybe engineers at the time would be able to figure out how to manufacture modern firearms and ammunitions very early if they are allowed to tinker with it.
Wow man actually needed 30 minutes to say a 3 letter word "Yes"
Lol yes. The battle would be over in 15 minutes
**Nobody**
**Absolutely nobody**
Binkov: Here's a 30 minute video about another whimsical alternate history scenario!
(And everybody clapped.)
This gives me another Idea, The siege of Constantinople 1453, except the Byzantines have 5 WW1 Era machine guns, would they be enough to win the battle?
The only thing the Byzantines needed to win the siege of Constantinople was to remember to keep their gates locked, or so is alleged by Doukas.
-The tank's optics finds wellington. Battle is over.
This is one scenario where "both sides have the new weapon explained to them so they dont run in terror" would probably backfire and have the British withdrawing in good order much sooner.
Exactly this. The real limiting factor for the tank isn't ammo, but fuel.
@@OmikronZeta If the British catch on to the fuel limitations, just dispersing, kiting, and making the tank chase for a few hours does 90% of the work. You'd lose some men and equipment. But perhaps not a devastating amount if you just focused on denying the tank an opportunity to have a big victory.
Also, if the British can figure out some sort of pit trap to get the tank to drive over, that could take it out of the fight. But it would take a long time to dig and prepare, and the tank has better optics than they do. But Binkov has the tank charging into the manor compound for close quarters battle. If the British can expect and exploit that attack, the tank might well get stuck right there.
Yes, but then the video would have become boring.
@@OmikronZeta most modern tanks are flex fuel. All they would need high proof alcohol.
@@guaposneeze you don't even need a huge trap, look at some of the anti tank trenches in Ukraine that were enough to render prtty big IFVs and personell carriers basically useless
assuming morale wouldn't break in an hypotetic battle, it's like ignoring gravity for an hypotetic skyscraper construction.
It's like the most important factor to take into account to determine the outcome; truth is, with a tank, in this situation, the battle would be over in few minutes, when they realize they're just sitting ducks with zero chance of hurting it. There would be also very few casualties, even if the army didn't route on its own, a sane commander would retreat and assess the situation before even trying to fight the damn thing again.
Its also a tank against line formations, it could just run them over.
If Napoleon had a tank, would Abba have won the 1974 Eurovision Song Contest?
Why waste the ammo? Us dumb ass tankers would just see rows of infantry as oh so crunchy. If any line held it would end up under track. Not a round would need to be fired. You can't out run a modern tank. If they didn't break and rout they would be ran over.
Yes! finally someone who acknowledges this!
bringing armor piercing rounds is so stupid. the closest thing to an armored target are the people crouching behind artillery and the metal rings in a horses’ bridle. it’s all flesh, all of it and shrapnel is the way to go.
That is the no-preparation assumption of a favorable but realistic layout.
@@FactoryofRedstone the tank can just use anti personnel grape shot rounds
Ye he said they didnt specially prepare the tank for this mission, otherwise they would have stocked it to the brim with HESH
True, though I think you underestimate the damage a 120mm APFSDS can do blasting through a rock wall. In the taking of the fortified town it would have helped greatly, though HEAT or HESH still would have been better
Imagine seeing some artillery crew shooting a tank with roundshot
cavalry charge to a tank would be even better
That's basically how my Civilization matches go.
Are always the brutal opption for the tank and drive full speed into the formation
Was just about to leave a comment about ramming myself
Good video, feel like most of the comments haven't even finished watching.
And the name of the tank is "Josephine"!...
Underrated comment
Everyone loves tanks, however something like a Bradley would be a much better choice. The passenger compartment could hold extra ammo, you could use HE ammo in the 25mm. It is sniper accurate, and so is the 7.62. The big difference is, the fuel last much longer.
The max operational range of the LeClerc is ~550km, the Bradley only gets ~400km. Also, the LeClerc tops out at ~72kmph on roads (~55kmph off road) while the Bradley seems to top out at ~56kmph (I don't know if that's a road or cross-country speed).
The main advantages of the Bradley would actually be:
1) The far greater ammo capacity (~400-700 rds vs ~40 rds for the cannon) and fire rate (100 rpm on the low setting vs ~9 rpm sustained) -- though the sheer devastation of a single round would be reduced.
2) The ability to cross more bridges and swim across rivers that didn't have a suitable bridge (if you brought an older model) -- the major limitation on the mobility of the LeClerc in this scenario.
Tank would only have to run over the cannon emplacements without even firing a shot to turn the battle in Napoleon's favor.
Theres nothing that could be done about it.
Drives straight up to the opposing army
Absorbs all incoming fire without complaint
Runs over all the artillery pieces
Refuses to elaborate further
Leaves
Yea, that probably send the entire enemy run in fear and disarray. imagine that they try to riding hose, run away but tank just simply out ran the house and roll over it.
Arm a single division of Napoleon's army with FAMAS rifles and they probably would win almost every battle just by themselves
No need for ammo. Just rolling over formations would be enough. Losing formation means losing the battle and you cannot hold in front of a tank. All you need is enough oil to run over enemy formation and your cavalry does the rest. A modern tank is actually overkill. Any ww1 era armoured tractor would do. You don't particularly need weapons,
I’d say 3 toyota pickups driving around the field with a french flag would’ve routed both the British and the Prussians lol
@@Jacky-zt5chThis reminds me of the american dodge commercial lol
@@nwt689the one with Washington?
You might actually be able to get through the frontal armor of a WWI tank with a cannon at very close range . (After all, the .50 BMG AP was considered an anti-tank round back then). Or at the very least, you could make it very miserable for the people inside. The visibility from those tanks was also terrible, and the slow speed meant troops could just redeploy, since we’re not talking about static WWI trench warfare here. A WWII tank would be pretty much invincible though.
Wellington's artillery would certainly destroy a ww1 tank. Or at least knock it out.
I wonder what the effect would be of the tank not just firing guns, but running over batteries of artillery and infrantry formations. That would quickly break up lines of soldiers and send them fleeing. A modern battle tank is faster than troops running, and so could run a lot of them down.
It could even shoot rear forces and destroy ground lines of communication whilst running over forward positions and artillery batteries...
Still, it would eventually run out of fuel, and fresh allied armies would be deployed. Napoleon had already sapped France of the military age men it could spare by the time the Battle of Waterloo took place. So, besides increasing the death toll, I doubt the outcome of the war would have changed.
Yeah a tank is cool and all, but giving Napoleon some radios is just straight broken.
Give him radios yo yell at his force that was supposed to be chasing the Prussians and you get some funny moments when the Prussians show up
I think Napoleon himself will order to allow himself into the tank and assume command from there. Gave the radio to the the vice in command, used the optics at the tank to order more accurate fire by his own cannon.
There's one more option the tank could do. Roll the enemies beneath the thread.
Also it could spearhead shielding an elite snipers group behind the tank.
In case this is a modern tank with Drone included, it could scout the incoming Prussian far faster than the scout could.
If the tank charged the infantry, the artillery would have to choose between shooting their own men or not shooting at all. And the infantry formation would break, which is very bad in itself.
Also, if the crew has some knowledge of history, they would know the Prussians are coming. Intel in at least as valuable as firepower :)
Napoleon lost because an Indonesian volcano named Tambora blew up in the spring of 1815 and the debris caused worldwide weather disruptions. One of those disruptions was a massive rainstorm during the day before and the evening of the battle of Waterloo, which resulted in Napoleon having to delay the deployment of his artillery. So Napoleon lost and history was changed due to a volcano going off halfway around the world a few months earlier.
The MBT would wipe the floor with Coalition artillery, which would be enough to turn the tide on it's own.
The morale effect such a magic steel monster from the future would have on the enemy forces would be enough to cause a rout.
All you need is a big enough trench to stop it if it’s not being used as a Mobile Artillery gun
Reading all those comments and thinking about the scenario myself I got an idea for a series or similar: Imagine in a far future, where weapons have gotten so deadly that starting a war would inevitably lead to a endless brutal war of attrition.
So instead, the large powers of the world try to develop weapons that adapt best to battlefields of the past, so they can send them back in time to try stop their rivals from ever existing. Things like flying fortresses or almost purely psychological weapons and the like that would be completely useless and easily countered in their own time but designed to cause the most possible damage in the past.
And then in return the country that is attacked by it develops their own weapon that specializes in countering that one weapon that gets send in to the past. And as the time in the far future advances, their time travel technology also gets more advanced, allowing more powerful weapons and larger amounts of them to be transported into their past.
A bit like Terminator, now that I think about it.
there is a book, I don't exactly remember the name that the premise is that races got so advanced that they can throw planets like missiles. Now I think i read something about time travel about the book. If somebody knows it, it would be cool to put the name here
That single tank will wreak havoc, kill thousands and win several battles, but soon it will run out of ammo and fuel, while its mechanical and computer systems also develop malfunction. The crew might also fall ill from diseases they're not immune to... or even die within the French camp, perhaps at the hands of assassins hired by the British. Never underestimate the greed and treachery of humans. Without a capable crew, the French will be left with a hunk of useless steel monster.
Whatever happened to that 'Rome Sweet Rome' movie project every time travel nerds drooled about from years ago lol?
History channel at 3 am
To be honest, for a time travel operation it would be wise to fully equip the tank with high explosive rounds and one good charge with it would break the English morale and route their army way faster. Napoleon would probably try to conserve it's fuel and ammo for the most critical missions and try to find a way to transport it more cheeply, like a moving battle fortress to make France the hegemon of Europe.
In 1830s, most of Europe would be inventing their own moving fortresses and start inventing steampunk tanks. It's likely that the French would make more primitive replicas of Leclerc or even try to reverse engineer it, which would make France an even stronger powerhouse that would dominate Europe through sheer military strength, having a decent chance to restore the Roman Empire till the Victorian era.
World War I would probably happen way earlier and be less shocking as the way earlier presence of tanks would prevent everyone from being stuck in trench warfare, and we would see a weird fusion of Napoleonic wars and WW2, like steampunk Warhammer-sryle warfare.
HE would not be the go-to round and nobody really uses that anymore. They use HESH and HEAT rounds if they need the explosive effect. On close standing Infantry in the open a Beehive would work and make nice red mist. A modern tank could also spot Wellington himself and just take him out no problem. then command would go to the Prince of Orange. I think they run out of gernerals before the APDS is used up.
A team or draft horses should be able to tow the tank if it's put into neutral. It would only move as fast as the army baggage train but it would be sufficent to have as a potential weapon in any subsequent battle. Even if completly out of fuel and ammo the enemy would need to take it into account.
@@kennethferland5579 A tank without fuel is nothing.
I know this is just a funny video and a weird topic for the sake of discussion.. but of course it would. Look up a video of a main battle tank approaching the camera from a far, that shit is scary and we know what it is.. imagine back in those days seeing that monster approach you, the enemy army would run away in fear after the fast moving steel looking monster randomly started shooting projectiles and blew up line after line with precise accuracy from 2 miles away lol.
On-top of that, Napoleon's army could just engage the enemy and then have the tank slice right through the center and then there's a gap that's impossible to close which usually means defeat. Back in those days you also had armies in tight formations, which means one big burst from the tank's machine gun would cripple an entire line of infantry.
It would be a complete slaughter, BUT with less deaths because the "coalition" would obviously retreat very early on.
The most important factor is the immense psychological effect this tank would have, which is why I think it would definitely help Napoleon win. Not because of its sheer firepower, but merely because of the psychological effect it would have. Think about the devastating psychological effect the appearence of the first tanks had on german soldiers in WW 1 or the quite potent psychological effect it had on allied soldiers when a Tiger made his entrance to a battlefield even in the late days of the war.
The fact that there is a massive... thing made of metal, with a skin even the most potent artillery available can not even scratch, that moves across the battlefield at breakneck speed, crushing soldiers, horses and cannons alike, is not even held back by rough and crushes through houses and entrenchments like nothing. Mind you, those men have never seen a car or at least a train, let alone a monster like that, moving at what was literally seen as breakneck speed, all of its own and _without horses!_
And while I'm at 'horses', now those would completely freak out. Horses nowadays are used to noisy metal boxes driving around, but horses back then? Not. At. All. Most horses seeing and hearing this thing would simply bolt in panic, which would get rid of cavalry and any cannons still dragged by a team of horses pretty much instantaneously.
And then this thing begins to fire its gun, laying waste by firing incredibly potent rounds at a cadence that would have made even the best artillery crews of this time blush in shame. Then the machine guns begin to speak and whatever weapons systems this tank has on board, I guess rockets would be fun. Then a hatch opens and a man can be seen leaning out and holding something in his hands. It could be a firearm, but its too big and cumbersome for a pistol and too small for a rifle and... _holy crap, the thing in his hands is spitting death at an incredible rate and he never needs to reload, I swear, I have seen and barely survived it!_
The tank would not even really engage in extensive combat action, all he would have to do is to drive around, wreak some havoc and then move on. It would not matter that gas and ammo are limited and it does not matter how many soldiers and cannons this tank would have to face, since we are talking about the most terrible thing those men have seen even in their often quite harsh and brutal lifes. Its appearance would cause a panic. And never undersestimate the record speed news and rumours can go around even or maybe even especially on a chaotic battlefield. Rumours would spread about an incredibly powerful secret weapon Napoleon has available and cause bewilderment and panic. The same rumours would soon reach the commanders of the opposing armies, which would also react either with disbelief or with bewilderment as well, while having a hard time finding out what is really going on and how to react to it. If wisely used and directed by Napoleon, this one tank could make his opponents flee like a panic-stricken flock of sheep.
What if a 18th century Prussian army was at Minas Tirith during the siege?
I feel like a Self-Propelled Artillery (or even just a M777 + Ammo truck) would be way more useful. 15 mile range means that they could annihilate the Prussian army before the battle with Wellington even began.
Arguably a dozen Maxims (PM1910) on horse drawn carriages would have wrecked.
How, in 1815, would battery commanders have directed fire? In 1815, if you couldn't see it, you couldn't shoot it.
I mean, the tank could just sit right next to Napoleons tent where Napoleon would point to where he wants the shot fired and it’d probably win the battle. No fuel needed.
To begin with, the Leclerc's commander would have studied the Battle of Waterloo, so he would immediately be able to gain Napoleon's confidence using that knowledge. The British would not know what the tank was, so it certainly wouldn't be sent out to scout. More likely it would be obscured under canvas until the battle commenced. Once committed, its first task would be to breach the defences of Hougoumont. APFDS rounds are better than high explosive munitions against stone buildings and walls, half a dozen of those and a HE round against the gate before the tank rams through would allow French troops to storm the strongpoint with few losses. Next, using its .50 cal it would systematically neutralise the British guns between Hougoumont and Le Haye. Then, Le Haye would be breached and assaulted and taken. By this point, the Leclerc would have used the majority of its APFDS, if not all, 3-4 HE rounds, and half its .50 cal ammo. It would still have most of its soft-target ammunition, and a nearly full fuel tank. That would be about the point where the Leclerc simply drives straight for Wellington, followed by French cavalry. Ideally, Wellington would be captured, immediately ending the battle. The Prussian forces would have immediately retreated if they'd arrived to find Wellington's forces surrendered or routing.
The coalition soldiers, "there's nothing we can do," 😔
An Infantry Fighting vehicle would be so much more useful in this time period. But the tank itself using high explosive could easily rout the British at Waterloo and make that battle a French victory.
I would go for Beehive ammo. He would hardly be effective here.
Doesnt tanks have a crap ton of machinegun ammunition? They could probably just tap fire the machineguns to take down a significant amount of troops
@@owo1744 a few thousand rounds maybe but hardly a world changing amount. But sure that would F-up any close colum of line infantry once ore twice until you run out.
@@hannesromhild8532 A abrams tank has around 10400 rounds for the machineguns, so a Leclerc or Leopard probably has roughly the same amount.
@@owo1744 Leclerc has about 1000 for the M2 and 3000 for the 7.62. That can be gone awfully fast.
There is a huge flaw in this video: Napoleon is an experienced commander, he would have definitely loaded 9 tanks into that chronosphere ;)
To be fair an IFV with a fuck ton of HE and Fragmentation rounds plus MGs would most likely do a better job.
Yes, it’s in the name that it’s meant to fight infantry.
Obviously yes. They would see cannon balls bouncing of without doing damage and entire units break after a burst of machine gun fire. Battle would be over in a instant because morale will break.
Why didn’t Napoleon do this? Was he stupid?
Man firing a HE round at the thick and tightly packes brittish lines would be so devastating.
Yikes…
Blood for the blood god
Who says that the LeClerk tank crew even *need* to fire their main-gun?
It's not like the British or the Prussians even know what an AT gun or MANPAT looks like.
Driver: "C'est quoi ce bruit de craquement ?"
Commander: "Manteaux rouges et Prussiens."
The What tank?
Never heard of that model!
Funny how you can't spell the tank's name while the rest of the French you wrote is perfect; what's going on here?
With a 50 cal machine gun (assuming an m2hb), you are taught to shoot "short short long", to conserve ammo. The 2 short (3-5 round bursts) are to get on target, the longer burst is to destroy the target, vs unarmered targets, the long burst wouldn't be needed, meaning ammo conservation would be even more severe. The tank itself can be used as a charge through the literal lines of men, causing them to scatter.
I think ou could even optimize that idea by using a Wiesel with the 20mm cannon as a 50cal sniper on steroids with 3rd gen thermals (and 200km offroad range at ~70kph).
Or, assuming you just "have" that weapon for your army, do it like the US: "You get M2, you get M2, you over there come get your M2, everyone gets M2!"
This subject feels so adjacent to civilization 6! If Napoleon is on a battlefield next to a tank, prepare for unforeseen consequences...
Also, excellent video Binkov. Thanks!
If the tank could anticipate the mission, it could carry HEAB rounds, which would decimate all target types, several at once even. It could also carry around 6000 MG rounds.
Also a MG has a range of over 1Km of effective accuracy. The enemy couldn't get into direct fire range assuming coordination from French troops.
In that state, the main gun will be used like artillery and the machine gun will be used like a main gun.
Except for the observation equipment on the outside of the tank, explosives and gunpowder weapons of that time were useless against modern MBTs.
Idk man a cannon ball can fuck up a barrel or a track
@@WOTplaya a canon ball would have very hard time getting in range for that. I also doubt it could disable the main gun. At most it could get a track, though the crew could most likely fix it.
The tank could simply drive over the enemy, imagine what a 40 ton plus tank would do to those british box formations, a single tank full of fuel and ammo could have decided the battle......
Napoleon would would do better if he had a Cyberdyne Systems SKYNET HK Series G Tracked Autonomous Fighting Vehicle - ground-based combat Hunter-Killer vehicle.
Several stories tall and vaguely humanoid in overall shape, possessing a rotating, conning tower-like "head", two steel "arms" equipped with twin-barreled directional plasma cannons, and two "legs" consisting of massive, individual tank treads.
Probably not win the battle fighting, but it vould scare the hell out of the coalition, and would cause enough chaos for the French to win. Not the overall war though.
Could a hydrogen bomb have helped King Ramses II at the Battle of Khadesh to defeat the Hittites?
😂
First we have to assume that the Hittites didn't have a nuclear program of their own..
Even if the tank have no ammo, it would be still terrifying to watch. Imagine an unstoppable steel beast moves at the speed of horses, musket and cannon only make a scratch on it, it's engine roaring scared the horses, demoralizing the men, it so heavy that everything is crushed on it's path, a literal nightmare
As much as I need the realtime war updates from Binkov I miss these days of time displacement war scenarios
"Contraption of doom from the future"
best line
I have to agree with nearly every strategy you have put forward here, well done. In this fictional scenario, if a tank existed, it would be a mission objective to remove and the only way to really do so after realising that it was impervious to 19th Century ballistics would be a pit trap. Tanks work well on flat or gently sloped terrain so engagements would change to hilly locations which make its mobility predictable. A smart tank commander, knowing it was the only one, would refuse to engage except in the open.
Future scenario: Can a modern day tank division help Constantine XI retake large parts of the Byzantine Empire from the Turks?