Waterloo with M777s would be hilarious. I think it would be even more of a stomp than described in the video, as the recon team would be able to pick out commanders from a distance by their battle standards, effectively 'sniping' the enemy generals before the battle even really begins.
I think that would have been the most effective strategy. “Decapitation strikes” taking out Wellington and Blucher would have had devastating and decisive impact.
@@ParryThison the artillery crew you left out FDC(fire directions crew) the FOs would be coordinating with them not the gun crew . They(before computer calculations) did all the calculations and gave the gun bunnies the information they needed ( elevation and direction along with size powder bag and what round to use) . Unless you use a self propelled a 5 ton truck would also be needed and a commo team( to set up communications between the guns and FDC , they were usually far enough away if an accident happened) between the gun bunnies, FDC , commo and FOs you are looking at a minimum 12-15 personnel. When I was in the army my unit was made up of 4 198 howitzers, FDC, commo, and FOs. At least 40 personnel ( not counting support, command and minimum personnel) .
A-10 would be better in every role than aircraft of the day, it'd be a capable fighter even if only armed with guns. Throw in the full suite of missiles, rockets, and bombs, and it would absolutely devastate any ground targets other than heavy warships. Attack helicopters would not do so well. They're devastating against ground targets, yes, but they're low and slow, and they'd be facing a _lot_ of AA fire. The Apache is immune to any ground fire up to 23mm, and resistant to 30mm and 57mm... but in WWII, they'd be facing 88, 105, and 128mm flak, with shells the same power as modern SAM warheads. They'd get shot to pieces.
@windwalker5765 there's a good chance attack helicopters would never even be seen by all that flak. Depending on the model, hellfires for the west, vikhrs for the Russians, the range is from 6-12 kms.
What I love about your shows is that unlike nearly all other “alt history” shows, you don’t hold back on the actions and outcomes of your scenario, nor do you keep reenforcing the notion that this is just alt fiction. I like that you play it out properly and with enthusiasm.
Thank you. I dislike the constant immersion breaking that a lot of people do. I think most people understand that it's not serious, so i just go with it.
I think going fully modern towed artillery is actually making things less effective than they could be. M777 is extremely heavy and would be almost impossible to move without motor vehicles, would need a massive team of oxen. What would be really useful to Napoleon is actually older: the 75mm Pack Howitzer M1 (later redesignated M116), as used by the US Army during WWII. It was much smaller and lighter than a 155, designed to be disassembled and moved by pack animals, usually mules. It still could fire 6 rounds per minute out to a range of 5.5 miles, or 5 times the range of the heaviest field artillery of the era.
You're probably right. I just wanted one big gun though. My intention was not to move it at all. I think a lot of people are underestimating the fact that no one on this battlefield would have even a conception of a canon that could be hitting them from ten kilometers away.
@@Briselanceand it can be lowered to fire straight into an incoming force or elevated to fire extremely close. The 198mm we used could be elevated almost 90 degrees
M777 is pretty lightweight for a towed artillery - it can be airdropped with specialized parachutes to be used for airborne units. A baggage train of horses would've handled it rather easily.
This was a cool video. But there's no "burst" mode on the M777. It's only one round at a time. When I was on a M777 crew we could easily get out 4 rounds min.
I think what he means by "burst mode" is just firing as fast as you can load, while his "sustained fire" takes barrel heat and ammo conservation into considderation. Since you served on this weapon you probably have better knowledge on how quickly you could fire it all day long, and what the actual terms for that stuff would be.
"Burst Fire" on the M777 is just as fast as you can possibly send rounds down range without concern for barrel heat. Sustained fire can be kept up essentially continuously for as long as you have ammunition.
@@ParryThis So the technical terms are "rapid fire" and "sustained fire". There are limitations as to how many of X type of charge you can fire in a 24hr period, the lower the charge, the more you can shoot of it. Barrel temp plays into this to be concerned for cook offs, early detonation of the powder. But usually for firing artillery you receive a "fire mission" over comms and that fire mission gives you all your information you may need. Shell type, how many shells, deflection, quadrant, charge, fuse, and special commands "at my command (you fire at the command of fire direction control) "do not load" (you still adjust the gun aim and prep ammo), "high angle", "use gunners quadrant" (a tool used to make sure you're precise). Keep up the good work on your videos, I enjoy them.
@ParryThis It was entertaining as all your videos are. I had a feeling that a single artillery piece would change things, but not to the degree that you detailed.
For an extra level of familiarity with the weapon platform, you'd typically call it an M Triple 7. Even in French I'll hear gunners call it that. In case it ever comes up in a future video. Cheers! That was a fun listen
I think you give Napoleon too much credit for winning Waterloo. The question has to be asked - Why did Napoleon lose before the 100 days? Napoleon could never match british naval power so at worst the british would withdraw from the continent or back to spain. There are too many fronts to consider. Its unlikely the british would fold after a single defeat when they successfully campaigned for years in Spain.
Exactly. I think the Austrians and Russians particularly were determined to _get_ Napoleon. They would have kept fighting even if Waterloo had been a disaster. Also, I think the “brittleness” of France in 1815 needs to be taken into account. The Grande Armee of Waterloo was not the one that crushed the Austrians and Russians at Austerlitz or the Austrians at Wagram.
But...such an astounding victory, especially under such terrifying and unexplainable circumstances would bolster the French morale and solidify Napoleon's support there once again, as well as shake the Allied confidence. The Napoleonic wars were fought mostly because monarchies didn't want France legitimized, for fear of their own people rising up against them. If Napoleon returns from exile, only to utterly defeat the best Allied forces which even by conservative figures outnumbered him 2:1. That would have a huge effect. I think most if not all of the allies would sue for peace.
@@ParryThis If we look at WWI it took incredible losses for years for military doctrine to change from sending masses of men to their deaths. We don't have von clausewitzs concerns with economy of force until after the napoleonic wars certainly. These are countries with surplus populations more than willing to throw them into a meat grinder. For example most of the british forces just sat under heavy artillery barrage for most of the day as it was. Also the circumstances aren't inexplicable. Napoleon almost won Waterloo without the M777. Since Blucher and Wellington began the day split, and don't join up until 3ish PM. Thats one thing historians have debated for the past 200 years is how he could have done it (Send the Guard up immediately after Ney's cavalry charge for example). Adding a hyper accurate hyper devastating cannon that he may not get to use again.... As for boostering french Morale, and solidifying support. France still has a demographic problem. He is running low on men and has difficulty maintaining more than one front. This was true before he got exiled to Elba let alone Helena. Can he support a sustained campaign? Do the Allies know this? Anyway, love your channel! thanks for replying!
So perhaps a bit less thrilling, but what if the American Confederacy had bought Prussian needle guns at the beginning of the Civil War? The rate of fire alone, I think would have turned the tide significantly.
I've been considering the battle of the bulge for a while now, but i really want to make it a good one, so i'm carefully considering what would be best/most interesting to send there.
@@ParryThis Great UA-cam video, but I found the background music was way too loud and distracting. I would strongly suggest you get rid of it altogether. I firmly believe that background music is distracting, annoying, and unnecessary (especially for educational or opinionated videos with lots of talking). I also believe that people want to hear you speak/get information/hear your opinions and not hear generic background music that doesn't really add anything useful and that people have to mentally filter out. Plus it will be one less thing you will have to do when making videos. Thank you.
I like how ANY adversary cavalry locating the battery is never even considered. Rightfully so as the artillerymen would still be armed with at least m4 carbines, making short work of any such foolish ideas
@Wolfen443 thinks the calvary have a chance of dispatching the crew since the video never stated how much ammo did they bring in both the artillery piece and the crew.
@@Blackandwhitecat-to5ll Not after the first 2-3 line of their charge is literally cut in half, horse and rider both, with automatic large caliber gunfire. Even well disciplined contemporary lines could not be feasibly charged. Also lets assume they're not just standing around like an RTS unit but actually fortify their position. From the position of brit/prussian cavalry they see a Smokestack from Hell doing away with their army from beyond unimaginable range, and if they get like 500m of it, THEY START TO DIE, without ever even seeing their assailants. See GATE. A few more hundred years of tech and rudimentary guns still won't make them any more effective at resisting modern arms/tactics than medieval knights.
@@kanadashyuugo873 Huh, so you're saying a single piece of M777 can drastically change the outcome of Waterloo unlike the dude I @, who I'm assuming is ignorant and lacking knowledge of capabilities from modern tech and says it can't change the outcome.
@@void870 idk, i would expect they just have M4 carbines. Any veterans/active soldiers here know wether thats correct? Anyway i dont think just the gun crew by itself could defend their position from a determined attack by thousands of cavalrymen, especially if they are attacking from multiple directions and have been told about the importance of their mission to take out the wonderweapon. The second you attach a modern infantry platoon, or, as Napoleon would probably do, a battalion of his own soldiers to protect the gun, the whole point becomes irrelevant thou.
How many shells in the arsenal? Once spotters are taken out, lack of GPS lowers 155mm's efficacy. Your channel is interesting, but somewhat nonsensical. I'll watch a few more, but thus far have not subscribed. sorry. You assume opposition will take no counter-measures ~
Up next, what if the Coalition had called in Arclight strikes at Austerlitz, and next week, what if Vercingetorix had had AC-130 gunship support at Alesia
How much ammo can the battery carry?, and how long before the Allies detect it specially The Prussian arriving late to the filed attacking it with cavalry?. Sorry, one gun is not going to make a real difference in the outcome.
Well, the artillery emplacement is 10 kilometers away, and given how much area exists within a ten kilometer radius, it would actually take a lot of cavalry to attempt to detect the location, and that would essentially disrupt the existing troops the Prussians and British had. And that's all assuming they would consider that they were being shot from that far away. And everyone in the artillery crew would at the very least have small arms, like M4s, which would be more than a match for small-medium groups of cavalry. Even if they were only able to firs continuously for 30 minutes, that's 60 high explosive 155 mm rounds accurately taking out strategic targets. Do you honestly think that wouldn't make a monumental difference?
Ialways imagined what Waterloo would have been like with just ONE side having breech-loading rifles, like the British having Henry-Martini rifles like they had in the Zulu Wars!!!
I was almost halfway through your video before I realized that what you are calling the "Forward Operating Squad" is FIST, or more commonly known as Forward Observers. They are the key to the effectiveness of modern artillery. The FOs go forward, set up an OP (Observation Post) and call/direct the fire in real time. Using either radio, or landline communication they can direct the gun bunnies to adjust their fire to bring the punch directly on the target. Napoleonic era artillery was an area attack weapon, IE you fired, rolled the tube back into its approximate place and fired again. Your odds of hitting the same spot twice were extremely low, but the gun crews could see what they were firing on (at least until the smoke got so thick you couldn't see anything) But it would have been a short-lived victory. Because once out of ammunition, the modern gun would have become a useless "boat anchor" that almost certainly could not provide further value to the French. France certainly did not have the technology to manufacture additional ammunition, nor did anyone else at the time. So, while it could have altered the outcome of that one battle, and perhaps a few additional situations depending on how much ammo the gun had with it, and how carefully they husbanded that ammo, they would eventually consume all stocks, and now be useless. I agree with your premise that it would be decisive in the short run, but not in the long run, simply because it was no longer capable of firing. Besides, Napoleon was an artilleryman himself. He would not have fully appreciated the capability of the single gun without a full demonstration, and such a demonstration almost certainly would have been observed, and reported to the British, as their intelligence networks in France were extensive and very good. It is an interesting story nonetheless.
So the Napoleon's old guards now have a full support from Wehrmacht WW2 artillery division? 210mm, 107mm, 150mm, 105mm and even Nebelwerfer and quad 20mm, 37mm, 50mm ? Also stuka squadrons, He-123, Even stug and panzerarmee batalion throwing in as bonuses ? Napoleon could easily destroyed every single of his enemy as long as the munitions, fuel, etc would last..
Feels like potential to be a little too much power and mobility, but there are a lot of Civil War battles to choose from. There is a possibility you'll see me do this.
Dude France was utterly militarily exhausted by 20+ years of warfare, there was no recruitment of more french brother. Only real argument is lack of setting the situation of waterloo the 2 battles just hours hardly a day before which had both the Prussian and British reeling back. Then the fact the that darn General G had roughly 30,000 of N's soldiers. Anyway Awesome awesome series on these situations thank, don't take my b s as rough criticism you must put tremendous amount of work to these videos each and every
This is almost hilarious, and that it would be a no contest a few barrages from modern Howard series with exploding shells would absolutely break the lines of infantry, walking information and throw everybody in chaos. Probably turn it into a route instead of an orderly retreat not to mention the amount of death and destruction. As for the opposing muzzleloading canon, they would be taken out in one barrage Any cavalry could easily be disrupted Not even a fair fight
Have you considered trying to enlarge the scope of these scenarios? Because I suggest transporting modern France back to the Napoleonic Era since it would be interesting how contemporary nations would try and limit the influence of Republicanism (like with how it played out at that time) but against a France that was totally different.
I would be interested in your view of what would be the minimum size modern military group that could lead the South to force the North to grant their secession.
One M777 could easily have changed the course of Waterloo. But unless Napoleon had a way to manufacture more ammunition, Napoleon would still need to face the armies of Austria, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, Spain, Portugal, and Russia, which were being mobilized even as the Battle of Waterloo was being fought. Also the Royal Navy would not have been effected which means that England wouldn't have surrendered. The biggest question is whether or not the Allied Coalition still had the will to fight. I personally think that Britain would have tried to keep the rest of the European powers in the fight, regardless of the cost.
I don't think it would be that extreme. I think France would have likely stayed Napoleonic. However, i do not know if the rest of Europe would look that much different. I would say More monarchies would have probably fallen earlier, to be replaced with French style republics. Which is what the allies feared, and why they wanted to fight Napoleon.
Grouchy: "Mon dieu, we located artillery piece shooting in general direction of emperor's positions from behind! Must be those Prussians we were sent to contain! Charge!"
"Burst Fire" on the M777 is just as fast as you can possibly send rounds down range without concern for barrel heat. Sustained fire can be kept up essentially continuously for as long as you have ammunition.
How about a modern Infantry regiment (6th Inf) fighting at the battle of the Wilderness for the Union with standard combat load, claymores, MGs, and mortar teams?
The missing component here is thinking the bravos or 11s are gonna process their own firing data…even if it is one gun, it still needs an FDC unless it is firing direct fire mode which would also make the fisters useless as well. FOs don’t talk to the gun line, they talk to the FDC who then processes the firing data and then the FDC sends the specific firing data to the guns. Also, the FDC is even more important because all of their computations would have to be done manually. The AFATDS and digital comms wouldn’t work because there are no satellites in 1815. The digital firing data is sent through the same radios everyone talks on and unless everyone is running SCPT, (and even then a relay would have to be set up for achieving comms at the max range of the guns)none of it will work without radio encryption. I can’t tell you how we do it, I can tell you the digital fire control system doesn’t work without the modern infrastructure to support it. So, without those weirdo, dungeons and dragon playing FDC types crunching the numbers, slide rules, tft’s and range deflection protractors in manual gunnery…the effectiveness of that M777 is only going to be as effective as the knuckle dragging gun bunnies figuring out what the crack smoking observers are saying to them… Signed, me… A retired artilleryman who has done it all.
I'm not responsible for the rest of the War. Just waterloo. But....i think you underestimate the morale change in this outcome, as well as the fear from the PR. The Prussians and British from this battle would have been annihilated and routed. But there would be survivors to tell how they were destroyed by artillery that couldn't be seen, cause massive explosions, and was able to quickly and accurately take out every high value target without ever being seen. If Europe thought Napoleon had somehow gained such an advantage, do you think they would continue to fight? The primary reason Napoleon fought his wars, was for legitimacy.
Could you do a video in the future of What if the Sat-Cho alliance at the Battle of Toba-Fushimi (1868) goes back in time to Sekigahara (1600) to help Toyotomi Mitsunari win. The Satsuma Domain (Shimazu) are deployed at the same spot as their ancestors and the Choushu Domain (Mori) as well, how would their training, firepower and discipline prevail against the Tokugawa and their allies.
How about what if the French had 500 WW one soldiers for the siege of Paris by the Vikings or what if the Byzantine’s had 200 Texas Rangers at the siege of Constantinople
One thing, in the Artillery we're called "Gun Sections" (sometimes shortened to just "Section") and not "Squads." Additionally, our squad leader is called "Gun Chief," assistant platoon sergeant is a "Gunnery Sergeant" (not to be confused with the USMC equivalent), platoon sergeant is called "Smoke," and the company is called a "Battery." Most of these terms go all the way back to the revolutionary war. Fun fact: it's also one of the oldest specialized professions in the military, next to Quartermasters.
A French victory at Waterloo would have meant that France and some other Western European countries would now be ruled by the Bonaparte dynasty. And that may not even be such a bad thing.
I like your videos, but most of the time I think you give them a too over powered variable. I know that is the point, but I like it when the original victor still has a chance of winning.
Well, i usually try to limit it. And i think they would still have many chances of winning this battle. They could change tactics, order an all out charge, stay mobile until the Prussians arrive and then swarm Napoleon. There are a lot of factors that i can't account for, but many of them could still lead to an Allied victory at Waterloo. The modern artillery is only so effective, because Wellington was playing defense here.
@@ParryThis No disrespect, but I disagree. The M777 position would likely be well guarded by French troops, and if the gunners brought their modern small arms with them, would proof to be too much for an Allied attack. I'm not saying it's entirely impossible, but if the attack was successful the cavalry would be in no shape to perform any further actions, but before this attack could take shape, the effects of the gun would've already decided the battle. A single 155mm can take out an entire company, and with it's firing rate, Wellington would be forced to order a retreat before the Prussians could arrive. The only way they could win is if they knew of the M777 before the battle, but that would prevent the battle from taking place to begin with.
Not gonna work, Ceaser would quite probably still win. 50 even 100 old guards aren't going to make enough of a difference. Baseline de minimis at the very least 400 old guards to make a real meaningful difference. That can help to break Ceaser siege & enable a break out.
Waterloo with M777s would be hilarious. I think it would be even more of a stomp than described in the video, as the recon team would be able to pick out commanders from a distance by their battle standards, effectively 'sniping' the enemy generals before the battle even really begins.
I think that would have been the most effective strategy. “Decapitation strikes” taking out Wellington and Blucher would have had devastating and decisive impact.
I agree. I tried to be conservative in this video, but i think it would be ridiculously one sided.
The modern artillery round having a 40m plus kill radius
2 lines of 175 men can fit within that
Lots of legs go flying
@@crimzonempire4677”See that infantry square over there? I’d rather it be gone. You have your orders.”
Imagining Napoleon discovering modern artillery is hilarious. He'd burst in his pants at those capabilities.
Yeah, probably would have a meltdown imagining the worlds he could conquer.
@@ParryThison the artillery crew you left out FDC(fire directions crew) the FOs would be coordinating with them not the gun crew . They(before computer calculations) did all the calculations and gave the gun bunnies the information they needed ( elevation and direction along with size powder bag and what round to use) . Unless you use a self propelled a 5 ton truck would also be needed and a commo team( to set up communications between the guns and FDC , they were usually far enough away if an accident happened) between the gun bunnies, FDC , commo and FOs you are looking at a minimum 12-15 personnel. When I was in the army my unit was made up of 4 198 howitzers, FDC, commo, and FOs. At least 40 personnel ( not counting support, command and minimum personnel) .
"Don't interfere with the enemy when they are positioning inside the howitzer's range." Napoleon Bonaparte
What if the battle of kursk had attack helicopters or A-10s
I would pay to see that
A-10 would be better in every role than aircraft of the day, it'd be a capable fighter even if only armed with guns. Throw in the full suite of missiles, rockets, and bombs, and it would absolutely devastate any ground targets other than heavy warships.
Attack helicopters would not do so well. They're devastating against ground targets, yes, but they're low and slow, and they'd be facing a _lot_ of AA fire. The Apache is immune to any ground fire up to 23mm, and resistant to 30mm and 57mm... but in WWII, they'd be facing 88, 105, and 128mm flak, with shells the same power as modern SAM warheads. They'd get shot to pieces.
A-10s would be cool. For whoever got them on their side at least.
@@ParryThis yeah it would be abit unfair for whoever had them so maybe attack helicopters which are more vulnerable
@windwalker5765 there's a good chance attack helicopters would never even be seen by all that flak. Depending on the model, hellfires for the west, vikhrs for the Russians, the range is from 6-12 kms.
What I love about your shows is that unlike nearly all other “alt history” shows, you don’t hold back on the actions and outcomes of your scenario, nor do you keep reenforcing the notion that this is just alt fiction. I like that you play it out properly and with enthusiasm.
Thank you. I dislike the constant immersion breaking that a lot of people do. I think most people understand that it's not serious, so i just go with it.
I think going fully modern towed artillery is actually making things less effective than they could be. M777 is extremely heavy and would be almost impossible to move without motor vehicles, would need a massive team of oxen. What would be really useful to Napoleon is actually older: the 75mm Pack Howitzer M1 (later redesignated M116), as used by the US Army during WWII. It was much smaller and lighter than a 155, designed to be disassembled and moved by pack animals, usually mules. It still could fire 6 rounds per minute out to a range of 5.5 miles, or 5 times the range of the heaviest field artillery of the era.
You're probably right. I just wanted one big gun though. My intention was not to move it at all. I think a lot of people are underestimating the fact that no one on this battlefield would have even a conception of a canon that could be hitting them from ten kilometers away.
Almost impossible to move, indeed. But man, what a range. Something like 30 kms, at maximum.
@@Briselanceand it can be lowered to fire straight into an incoming force or elevated to fire extremely close. The 198mm we used could be elevated almost 90 degrees
Horse and manpower move wonders. 🤔
M777 is pretty lightweight for a towed artillery - it can be airdropped with specialized parachutes to be used for airborne units. A baggage train of horses would've handled it rather easily.
Battle of Gettysburg with ww2 armored platoon with tanks and soldiers.
I'm working on a Battle of Gettysburg idea already, and it is WW2 themed.
I'm glad you chose this one, because it is a very interesting concept. I especially like it, because Napoleon loved artillery.
I thought so too. I get a lot of requests in this series, but i choose them mostly based on which one stands out the most to me.
Of course, he loved artillery. He started his military career as an artillery junior officer, after all.
Operation Ten-go, but the Yamamoto has CIWS instead of the 25mm AA
Interesting.
Brutally interesting.@@ParryThis
This was a cool video. But there's no "burst" mode on the M777. It's only one round at a time. When I was on a M777 crew we could easily get out 4 rounds min.
I think what he means by "burst mode" is just firing as fast as you can load, while his "sustained fire" takes barrel heat and ammo conservation into considderation. Since you served on this weapon you probably have better knowledge on how quickly you could fire it all day long, and what the actual terms for that stuff would be.
"Burst Fire" on the M777 is just as fast as you can possibly send rounds down range without concern for barrel heat. Sustained fire can be kept up essentially continuously for as long as you have ammunition.
@@ParryThis So the technical terms are "rapid fire" and "sustained fire". There are limitations as to how many of X type of charge you can fire in a 24hr period, the lower the charge, the more you can shoot of it. Barrel temp plays into this to be concerned for cook offs, early detonation of the powder. But usually for firing artillery you receive a "fire mission" over comms and that fire mission gives you all your information you may need. Shell type, how many shells, deflection, quadrant, charge, fuse, and special commands "at my command (you fire at the command of fire direction control) "do not load" (you still adjust the gun aim and prep ammo), "high angle", "use gunners quadrant" (a tool used to make sure you're precise). Keep up the good work on your videos, I enjoy them.
YES!!!! MY SUGGESTION WAS CHOSEN
Congratulations. I hope you enjoyed the video.
@ParryThis It was entertaining as all your videos are. I had a feeling that a single artillery piece would change things, but not to the degree that you detailed.
For an extra level of familiarity with the weapon platform, you'd typically call it an M Triple 7. Even in French I'll hear gunners call it that. In case it ever comes up in a future video. Cheers! That was a fun listen
Pearl Harbor with modern day Aircraft Carrier groipvs Imperial Japanese Fleet. The Final Countdown(1980) style.
There is a YT channel called "Grim Reapers" that plays out this exact scenario in DCS. Pretty entertaining, actually.
@@marshallsvetlik6070 I know that because I actually watched it, and the movie obviously because I watched it.
Great movie! Amusingly enough, the Tomcats on the USS Nimitz in the movie are now obsolete in 2023 (as was highlighted in Tom Gun: Maverick).
I feel like the level of piss stomping a modern Carrier Group could do in WW2 would be my most overpowered video yet.
@@ParryThis 👍agree.
U should put zombies in medieval era
Theres a video game in development that aims to do just that, and it looks fun. Plate armor would make you pretty much untouchable by most zombies.
How about a modern infantry squad in the battle of Gettysburg
Coalition losses:
Wellington †
Blucher †
41, 000 casualties
15,000 captured
All guns lost
A very different Waterloo.
If Napoleon had access to modern technology, he could rule the world
I think you give Napoleon too much credit for winning Waterloo. The question has to be asked - Why did Napoleon lose before the 100 days? Napoleon could never match british naval power so at worst the british would withdraw from the continent or back to spain. There are too many fronts to consider. Its unlikely the british would fold after a single defeat when they successfully campaigned for years in Spain.
Exactly. I think the Austrians and Russians particularly were determined to _get_ Napoleon. They would have kept fighting even if Waterloo had been a disaster. Also, I think the “brittleness” of France in 1815 needs to be taken into account. The Grande Armee of Waterloo was not the one that crushed the Austrians and Russians at Austerlitz or the Austrians at Wagram.
But...such an astounding victory, especially under such terrifying and unexplainable circumstances would bolster the French morale and solidify Napoleon's support there once again, as well as shake the Allied confidence. The Napoleonic wars were fought mostly because monarchies didn't want France legitimized, for fear of their own people rising up against them. If Napoleon returns from exile, only to utterly defeat the best Allied forces which even by conservative figures outnumbered him 2:1. That would have a huge effect. I think most if not all of the allies would sue for peace.
@@ParryThis If we look at WWI it took incredible losses for years for military doctrine to change from sending masses of men to their deaths. We don't have von clausewitzs concerns with economy of force until after the napoleonic wars certainly. These are countries with surplus populations more than willing to throw them into a meat grinder. For example most of the british forces just sat under heavy artillery barrage for most of the day as it was.
Also the circumstances aren't inexplicable. Napoleon almost won Waterloo without the M777. Since Blucher and Wellington began the day split, and don't join up until 3ish PM. Thats one thing historians have debated for the past 200 years is how he could have done it (Send the Guard up immediately after Ney's cavalry charge for example). Adding a hyper accurate hyper devastating cannon that he may not get to use again....
As for boostering french Morale, and solidifying support. France still has a demographic problem. He is running low on men and has difficulty maintaining more than one front. This was true before he got exiled to Elba let alone Helena. Can he support a sustained campaign? Do the Allies know this?
Anyway, love your channel! thanks for replying!
What if napoleon the third had a bunch of rocket artillery and German mp 40s in the battle of sedan
So perhaps a bit less thrilling, but what if the American Confederacy had bought Prussian needle guns at the beginning of the Civil War? The rate of fire alone, I think would have turned the tide significantly.
The US armor from the battle of 73 Easting sent to the battle of the bulge
I've been considering the battle of the bulge for a while now, but i really want to make it a good one, so i'm carefully considering what would be best/most interesting to send there.
@@ParryThis Great UA-cam video, but I found the background music was way too loud and distracting. I would strongly suggest you get rid of it altogether. I firmly believe that background music is distracting, annoying, and unnecessary (especially for educational or opinionated videos with lots of talking). I also believe that people want to hear you speak/get information/hear your opinions and not hear generic background music that doesn't really add anything useful and that people have to mentally filter out. Plus it will be one less thing you will have to do when making videos. Thank you.
@@ParryThis Vietnam era helicopter company
I like how ANY adversary cavalry locating the battery is never even considered. Rightfully so as the artillerymen would still be armed with at least m4 carbines, making short work of any such foolish ideas
M4's, SAW's, M240B's, Mk19's to name some lol
Artillerymen are pretty well armed
@Wolfen443 thinks the calvary have a chance of dispatching the crew since the video never stated how much ammo did they bring in both the artillery piece and the crew.
@@Blackandwhitecat-to5ll Not after the first 2-3 line of their charge is literally cut in half, horse and rider both, with automatic large caliber gunfire. Even well disciplined contemporary lines could not be feasibly charged. Also lets assume they're not just standing around like an RTS unit but actually fortify their position. From the position of brit/prussian cavalry they see a Smokestack from Hell doing away with their army from beyond unimaginable range, and if they get like 500m of it, THEY START TO DIE, without ever even seeing their assailants. See GATE. A few more hundred years of tech and rudimentary guns still won't make them any more effective at resisting modern arms/tactics than medieval knights.
@@kanadashyuugo873 Huh, so you're saying a single piece of M777 can drastically change the outcome of Waterloo unlike the dude I @, who I'm assuming is ignorant and lacking knowledge of capabilities from modern tech and says it can't change the outcome.
@@void870 idk, i would expect they just have M4 carbines. Any veterans/active soldiers here know wether thats correct?
Anyway i dont think just the gun crew by itself could defend their position from a determined attack by thousands of cavalrymen, especially if they are attacking from multiple directions and have been told about the importance of their mission to take out the wonderweapon.
The second you attach a modern infantry platoon, or, as Napoleon would probably do, a battalion of his own soldiers to protect the gun, the whole point becomes irrelevant thou.
YEET
YOTE
Then so would the British.
I mean....This is my party, so i get to make the rules....so, nope, they don't get any.
Lol, that would really put a crimp in Wellington's petticoat.
I should say so.
How many shells in the arsenal?
Once spotters are taken out, lack of GPS lowers 155mm's efficacy.
Your channel is interesting, but somewhat nonsensical.
I'll watch a few more, but thus far have not subscribed. sorry.
You assume opposition will take no counter-measures ~
Up next, what if the Coalition had called in Arclight strikes at Austerlitz, and next week, what if Vercingetorix had had AC-130 gunship support at Alesia
All solid ideas.
How much ammo can the battery carry?, and how long before the Allies detect it specially The Prussian arriving late to the filed attacking it with cavalry?. Sorry, one gun is not going to make a real difference in the outcome.
Doesn't the artillery crew have at least M4 carbines as their equipment to prepare when cavalry notice the crew and charge?
Well, the artillery emplacement is 10 kilometers away, and given how much area exists within a ten kilometer radius, it would actually take a lot of cavalry to attempt to detect the location, and that would essentially disrupt the existing troops the Prussians and British had. And that's all assuming they would consider that they were being shot from that far away. And everyone in the artillery crew would at the very least have small arms, like M4s, which would be more than a match for small-medium groups of cavalry. Even if they were only able to firs continuously for 30 minutes, that's 60 high explosive 155 mm rounds accurately taking out strategic targets. Do you honestly think that wouldn't make a monumental difference?
Ialways imagined what Waterloo would have been like with just ONE side having breech-loading rifles, like the British having Henry-Martini rifles like they had in the Zulu Wars!!!
I was almost halfway through your video before I realized that what you are calling the "Forward Operating Squad" is FIST, or more commonly known as Forward Observers. They are the key to the effectiveness of modern artillery. The FOs go forward, set up an OP (Observation Post) and call/direct the fire in real time. Using either radio, or landline communication they can direct the gun bunnies to adjust their fire to bring the punch directly on the target.
Napoleonic era artillery was an area attack weapon, IE you fired, rolled the tube back into its approximate place and fired again. Your odds of hitting the same spot twice were extremely low, but the gun crews could see what they were firing on (at least until the smoke got so thick you couldn't see anything)
But it would have been a short-lived victory. Because once out of ammunition, the modern gun would have become a useless "boat anchor" that almost certainly could not provide further value to the French. France certainly did not have the technology to manufacture additional ammunition, nor did anyone else at the time. So, while it could have altered the outcome of that one battle, and perhaps a few additional situations depending on how much ammo the gun had with it, and how carefully they husbanded that ammo, they would eventually consume all stocks, and now be useless.
I agree with your premise that it would be decisive in the short run, but not in the long run, simply because it was no longer capable of firing. Besides, Napoleon was an artilleryman himself. He would not have fully appreciated the capability of the single gun without a full demonstration, and such a demonstration almost certainly would have been observed, and reported to the British, as their intelligence networks in France were extensive and very good.
It is an interesting story nonetheless.
They wouldn't be able to retroengineer the modern howitzers, but I think it would still have boosted their science and mechanical engineering.
They don't direct the gun bunnies, they work with FDC who are the ones in charge of the gun bunnies.
So the Napoleon's old guards now have a full support from Wehrmacht WW2 artillery division?
210mm, 107mm, 150mm, 105mm and even Nebelwerfer and quad 20mm, 37mm, 50mm ?
Also stuka squadrons, He-123,
Even stug and panzerarmee batalion throwing in as bonuses ?
Napoleon could easily destroyed every single of his enemy as long as the munitions, fuel, etc would last..
Civil war but with WW2 tanks please. (Leaving this open on types and battle)
Feels like potential to be a little too much power and mobility, but there are a lot of Civil War battles to choose from. There is a possibility you'll see me do this.
I’m just imagining what a 155 white phosphorus or DPICM round would do to a British square oof poor bastards
Dude France was utterly militarily exhausted by 20+ years of warfare, there was no recruitment of more french brother. Only real argument is lack of setting the situation of waterloo the 2 battles just hours hardly a day before which had both the Prussian and British reeling back. Then the fact the that darn General G had roughly 30,000 of N's soldiers. Anyway Awesome awesome series on these situations thank, don't take my b s as rough criticism you must put tremendous amount of work to these videos each and every
Luckily, this didn’t happen, or this entire comments thread would be in French.
What if my grandmother had been my grandfather.
These comparisons are pointless.
This is dum, what if wellington had A10 warthogs and katusha rockets? Right?
This is almost hilarious, and that it would be a no contest a few barrages from modern Howard series with exploding shells would absolutely break the lines of infantry, walking information and throw everybody in chaos. Probably turn it into a route instead of an orderly retreat not to mention the amount of death and destruction.
As for the opposing muzzleloading canon, they would be taken out in one barrage
Any cavalry could easily be disrupted
Not even a fair fight
As an artillerymen this was painful to watch…M Triple 7 not seven seventy seven…and it’s a section not squad.
Have you considered trying to enlarge the scope of these scenarios? Because I suggest transporting modern France back to the Napoleonic Era since it would be interesting how contemporary nations would try and limit the influence of Republicanism (like with how it played out at that time) but against a France that was totally different.
"slaughter" would be putting it kindly
Here's one for you.what if a seawall class submarine took part in the battle of the pacific. On the American side.
A stryker brigade fighting alongside the Confederates at Gettysburg
I would be interested in your view of what would be the minimum size modern military group that could lead the South to force the North to grant their secession.
Oh ya? Well what if England had air superiority?
What if the Crusaders had access to the Hammer of Dawn from Gears of War durring the Third Crusade
What if Wellington had hypersonic missiles?
What if the germans had modern air support in the battle of stalingrad
We'd all be speaking French. Great choice of music btw.
One M777 could easily have changed the course of Waterloo. But unless Napoleon had a way to manufacture more ammunition, Napoleon would still need to face the armies of Austria, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, Spain, Portugal, and Russia, which were being mobilized even as the Battle of Waterloo was being fought. Also the Royal Navy would not have been effected which means that England wouldn't have surrendered.
The biggest question is whether or not the Allied Coalition still had the will to fight. I personally think that Britain would have tried to keep the rest of the European powers in the fight, regardless of the cost.
@@davidkinsey8657How "high" of the cost? Like millions of lives and moneh?
I don't think it would be that extreme. I think France would have likely stayed Napoleonic. However, i do not know if the rest of Europe would look that much different. I would say More monarchies would have probably fallen earlier, to be replaced with French style republics. Which is what the allies feared, and why they wanted to fight Napoleon.
What if a squadron of b17 were sent back to ww1
Modern American carrier task force at Pearl Harbor?
What if napoleon’s army was made of chocolate
delicious, but not heat resistant.
They would win at Waterloo, and then almost certainly, having defeated the Prissians and British so soundly, Austria and Russia would sue for peace.
I agree. I find this to be the most likely outcome. Whatever the case is, it would look very different from real life.
Grouchy: "Mon dieu, we located artillery piece shooting in general direction of emperor's positions from behind! Must be those Prussians we were sent to contain! Charge!"
That would be an ironic twist of fate.
I'd think direct fire would be ideal. No such thing as "burst fire". Direct fire does not need FO's like indirect fire.
"Burst Fire" on the M777 is just as fast as you can possibly send rounds down range without concern for barrel heat. Sustained fire can be kept up essentially continuously for as long as you have ammunition.
How about a modern Infantry regiment (6th Inf) fighting at the battle of the Wilderness for the Union with standard combat load, claymores, MGs, and mortar teams?
Could certainly be an interesting one.
The missing component here is thinking the bravos or 11s are gonna process their own firing data…even if it is one gun, it still needs an FDC unless it is firing direct fire mode which would also make the fisters useless as well.
FOs don’t talk to the gun line, they talk to the FDC who then processes the firing data and then the FDC sends the specific firing data to the guns.
Also, the FDC is even more important because all of their computations would have to be done manually. The AFATDS and digital comms wouldn’t work because there are no satellites in 1815. The digital firing data is sent through the same radios everyone talks on and unless everyone is running SCPT, (and even then a relay would have to be set up for achieving comms at the max range of the guns)none of it will work without radio encryption. I can’t tell you how we do it, I can tell you the digital fire control system doesn’t work without the modern infrastructure to support it.
So, without those weirdo, dungeons and dragon playing FDC types crunching the numbers, slide rules, tft’s and range deflection protractors in manual gunnery…the effectiveness of that M777 is only going to be as effective as the knuckle dragging gun bunnies figuring out what the crack smoking observers are saying to them…
Signed, me…
A retired artilleryman who has done it all.
One world war 1 mark V tank at the charge of the light brigade during the Crimean war
That could certainly be interesting.
What if the Americans during the revolution had access to a seal team.
Would be most effectively used as assassins.
Good,now here come 4,000,000 more soldiers and you're out of ammo
I'm not responsible for the rest of the War. Just waterloo. But....i think you underestimate the morale change in this outcome, as well as the fear from the PR. The Prussians and British from this battle would have been annihilated and routed. But there would be survivors to tell how they were destroyed by artillery that couldn't be seen, cause massive explosions, and was able to quickly and accurately take out every high value target without ever being seen. If Europe thought Napoleon had somehow gained such an advantage, do you think they would continue to fight? The primary reason Napoleon fought his wars, was for legitimacy.
Could you do a video in the future of What if the Sat-Cho alliance at the Battle of Toba-Fushimi (1868) goes back in time to Sekigahara (1600) to help Toyotomi Mitsunari win. The Satsuma Domain (Shimazu) are deployed at the same spot as their ancestors and the Choushu Domain (Mori) as well, how would their training, firepower and discipline prevail against the Tokugawa and their allies.
What if the Roman empire had access to Willy jeeps?
They would be able to move faster...that's for sure.
La Victoire Est a Nous
Seeing the look on the British military’s faces.While the M777 is raining shells on their positions.Would be interesting!
As long as the Duke of Wellington can have a company of Royal Marines with their current gear.
Nice:)
Thank you! Cheers!
This scenario is absolutely hilarious!
Could you give the names of the songs used in the video?
God fights with the best artillery
Especially in this instance.
Do one about a infantry division at Marathon with a heavy weapons company
I'm currently spit balling an idea that is 300 spartans related.
if i can help please let me know
@@ParryThis
How about what if the French had 500 WW one soldiers for the siege of Paris by the Vikings or what if the Byzantine’s had 200 Texas Rangers at the siege of Constantinople
I like both of those suggestions.
@@ParryThis Really? Thanks.
Loved this theme at the end from v for vandetta
Wow 🤯
Lol, glad it had that effect.
One thing, in the Artillery we're called "Gun Sections" (sometimes shortened to just "Section") and not "Squads."
Additionally, our squad leader is called "Gun Chief," assistant platoon sergeant is a "Gunnery Sergeant" (not to be confused with the USMC equivalent), platoon sergeant is called "Smoke," and the company is called a "Battery." Most of these terms go all the way back to the revolutionary war. Fun fact: it's also one of the oldest specialized professions in the military, next to Quartermasters.
That is a fun fact. And thank you for sharing that interesting knowledge.
A French victory at Waterloo would have meant that France and some other Western European countries would now be ruled by the Bonaparte dynasty. And that may not even be such a bad thing.
I think France and Italy for sure, possibly also Spain.
I like your videos, but most of the time I think you give them a too over powered variable. I know that is the point, but I like it when the original victor still has a chance of winning.
Well, i usually try to limit it. And i think they would still have many chances of winning this battle. They could change tactics, order an all out charge, stay mobile until the Prussians arrive and then swarm Napoleon. There are a lot of factors that i can't account for, but many of them could still lead to an Allied victory at Waterloo. The modern artillery is only so effective, because Wellington was playing defense here.
@@ParryThis No disrespect, but I disagree. The M777 position would likely be well guarded by French troops, and if the gunners brought their modern small arms with them, would proof to be too much for an Allied attack. I'm not saying it's entirely impossible, but if the attack was successful the cavalry would be in no shape to perform any further actions, but before this attack could take shape, the effects of the gun would've already decided the battle. A single 155mm can take out an entire company, and with it's firing rate, Wellington would be forced to order a retreat before the Prussians could arrive. The only way they could win is if they knew of the M777 before the battle, but that would prevent the battle from taking place to begin with.
I know you’ve technically already done 2 Napoleonic battles, but could you maybe do 50 members of the Old Guard vs the Romans at the siege of Alesia?
Not gonna work, Ceaser would quite probably still win. 50 even 100 old guards aren't going to make enough of a difference. Baseline de minimis at the very least 400 old guards to make a real meaningful difference. That can help to break Ceaser siege & enable a break out.