I think that 50 WWII American Infantrymen on the Confederate side, during the Battle of Little Round Top might make the bigger difference. I believe the Union flank would have collapsed, Confederate forces could have swarmed in, Pickett's Charge would not have happened. Just my ignorant opinion though.
The Union had units with repeating and breech loading rifles at Gettysburg ... the WW2 soldiers wouldn't have been that overwhelming or gotten very far. A Rifle Company load out was 120 rounds per soldier and the BAR men only carried 11 mags (220 rounds) each and the grenadiers only carried a few dozen grenades. Their fire would have been drowned out by the 300 cannons and 20,000 muskets trading fire.
The smart general would order the WW2 soldiers to withdraw to the rear once their ammo got low. Their value as tech research far outweighs their value as melee fighters.
The South didn't use Spencer rifles because they couldn't manufacture the brass bullets. The US Navy blockade prevented the South from getting anything from Europe. The technology would have been useless to them.
I'm just speaking from theory but I believe the industrial technology of the south in the 1860s might actually be capable or reverse engineering some of the weapons of WW2 with some time. But that too comes with a risk. If the south can, the north absolutely will if they get their hands on it. And they have a much better industrial capacity than the south.
The title was referring to if they could change the outcome of Pickett's charge which was a military operation in the Battle of Gettysburg, which was a battle in the Civil War. It was not the War. If you removed them from the Pickett's charge operation, they would have had no effect in that operation. You didn't read or understand the title. Moreover, at this point in the war, your suggestion would not impact the outcome of the war either. I spent 10 years in the military and 9 of them were as an infantry soldier. I also study military history and the civil war and have been to Gettysburg at least 12 times. There is a lot more needed than just 50 soldiers and their issued weapons and their standard load.
The handpicked WWII soldiers would all have to be hardcore Southerners. Otherwise you'd get a big screw you towards the South's leaders at best, possibly a 'mutiny'.
They would all also know the result of the battle once they realized where they were and whom they were with. In 90 years, most Southern military men turned very pro-US military.
Or those fed up with WW2 enough to consider changing ACW as acceptable in order to avoid it entirely - and eg. lack of American involvement in WW1 due to say, less cohesive confederacy (rather than union - or heck, two rival states) exerting less influence on the world, can pretty much guarantee original timeline being derailed.
@@jjhantsch8647 Consider the 1898 Spanish-American War. Two confederate generals were made Generals in the US Army and the grandsons of “Johnny Reb” volunteered in big number to fight in the War.
I think in this scenario, it's more fun to just not think about the ideologies of the individuals and focus more on their capabilities. Just imagine that they're brainwashed, idk. They went back in time, so obviously something like brainwashing might be more possible.
I think 50 GIs could actually do even better at Pickett's Charge if used differently. First of all, the analysis did not include the Garand's M7 grenade projector; having some mini mortars around would be really useful. Let's say our 50 men are in 5 under-strength squads: 1 BAR, 1 Thompson, 6 M1 Garands (2 of them with grenade launchers), and 2 M1 Carbines. The first half of the advance is beyond the range at which the GIs can actually hit anything, beyond spraying the Union position with stray rounds. Stray rounds from 50 men isn't going to do much to ten thousand, most of whom are in some kind of dug-in position. So, we're gonna put the modern troops _behind_ the Confederates, at the rear of the advance, where they'll take less fire, and let Pickett and his men close the distance. Keep in mind that the real Pickett's Charge actually reached the Union position before being driven back by troops in cover behind a stone wall. The big moment is once the Confederates get to the ditch at the Emmitsburg Road. That is effective musket range, decent cover, and also the point at which the GIs can start firing rifle grenades over the top of the rebels and into the Union center, where troops are packed in four rows deep behind the wall. Each grenadier is carrying 6-8 rifle grenades, and there are ten of them. The grenadiers and BAR gunners will hammer the Union position, and then the Confederates are going to bayonet charge. The GIs will be close behind, breaking into the Union lines with most of their ammunition, at which point, they are going to cause absolute havoc, with all their weapons being effective. Alternatively, the Confederates might hold the breach, and the GIs advance further into the Union position to attack the artillery. Either way, this would be the time for Lee to throw everything he had in support.
How about at least 2 M1903A4 scoped Springfield (or the rarer M1D scoped Garand) to replace the carbines? The Whitworth rifle, despite being produced and used in very small numbers, gained a terrifying reputation. If that muzzleloader can do much damage (even if mostly psychological), one can only imagine what WW2 scoped rifles can do.
@@el52 I don't think it would matter much. The _effective_ range of the 1903 was about 600 yards. Maybe 800 with a real good shooter. But the distance from the Confederate lines to the Union position was a little over 1300 yards, and the Union artillery was some distance behind the front. So a sniper would have to come at least 500 yards into the open field with zero cover to get a shot. And then, if they can manage to steady the rifle while the ground is shaking from artillery pounding the Confederates, they can pick off a few officers, maybe cause a little confusion. But Meade's command post is close enough he can send someone to take over. Actually, if I were to change the loadout from the "average" WWII squad setup discussed above, I would lean towards mobility and close-combat power. No BARs or Thompsons (too heavy), just enough Garands for the rifle grenadiers. The other eight guys per squad, 40 men total, get either M3 grease guns or M1 Carbines (which lets them reload faster and carry more ammo). The GIs aren't taking part in the advance, really. Pickett's troops are being used to tank fire and deliver them into the Union position around "The Angle" where the IRL charge stopped. At which point, you have an admittedly small number of men, but who have a massive advantage in the close in, trench clearing kind of fight. Rapid firing, magazine fed weapons and hand grenades against single shot muzzleloaders. They still don't have the ammo to take out the entire Union force (not even close), but with proper fire discipline, they can hold out long enough for more Confederate troops to exploit the breakthrough.
Except they aren’t going to get close enough to use grenades. Remember that the charge began to break up 400 meters away from the Union lines, far beyond the range of a rifle grenade. Yes, one unit made it to the Union lines. The rest of them failed to. The battle line was a mile wide and only one unit made it. Unless those WW2 soldiers remember their history class they won’t be behind the unit that makes it to the Union lines. Even then, the Union soldiers are used to receiving cannon fire. They would probably just think the rifle grenades were just more cannon fire and go about their business.
@@patrickbrooks2743 Yeah, but I dumped all over Parry's last battle scenario and I'm leaning into this one, giving it the best possible chance. As a couple other people in the comments suggested, what 50 GIs ought to be doing at Gettysburg is attacking Little Round Top. Many fewer defenders, and I seriously doubt Joshua Chamberlain and Strong Vincent could handle 1940s weapons and fire and maneuver tactics in that kind of terrain...
This would be kind of similar to that "Twilight Zone" episode where a US M3 Stewart tank somehow made it back to the Battle of the Little Big Horn. The tank suddenly became unserviceable but the crew went into battle - and were eliminated during the battle.
@@DennisMSulliva I saw that one too, and I remember what the Confederate lieutenant said when he put the book of Satanic spells on the fire: "If the Confederacy has to die, let it be buried in hallowed ground." Now here's the lesson. The originator of "Twilight Zone" Rod Serling was a political liberal but he harbored no feelings of superiority or hate or contempt for anyone. Being a WW2 veteran he learned that even though all men are different all men are the same and like all vets he'd met and gotten to know men from all over the country. The fact he showed those Confederate soldiers as honorable men even though the cause they fought for was questionable (Any Johnny Reb would give you a different reason why he was fighting anyway) spoke volumes about Mr. Serling. A lesson many today should take to heart.
@@ZudinGodofWar Something mechanically broke on the tank during normal operations. Broke a track or through a track. Ran out of gas. Plenty of things to go wrong on a mechanized vehicle and they are a pain in the butt to repair as well. Stuff happens all the time.
Excellent period to choose i think the Civil War being often considered the "last old war" and the "first modern war" is a great testing ground for what ifs.
I'm not sure I completely agree with the analysis. The Confederate soldiers and WWII soldiers had to run 1 mile from the tree line to the Union soldiers at Seminary Ridge. The whole time, they were facing a barrage of cannon fire and sharp shooters. It can be difficult to tell the difference 400 and 500 yards in fair conditions. But add in the running with all the gear and the adrenaline from taking fire, I think they would have either stopped too close or too far away to stay out of range of the Union rifles and be in range of their rifles. The BAR is definitely a helpful tool, but I don't think it would have made a massive impact on the battle. I do agree with the conclusion that the Union would have won the day, but I think the WWII soldiers would have made little impact on the battle. To make any real impact, there would need to be a bigger difference in long-range shooters. For instance, having current military snipers that can consistently hit targets from 1000+ yards would make a bigger difference on the battlefield. I do enjoy these videos and thank you for making them. What about the use of 1880s US calvary soldiers in the Revolutionary War or the French and Indian War. Or 10 modern A10s at Pearl Harbor? Thanks again for making these videos.
Let's not forget about the factor that the intense heat played at 3:00 on a July afternoon. On failing to take Little Round Top the preceding day, one member of Law's Confederate brigade commented that the burning thirst they experienced and the lack of water (the detachment detailed to fill canteens had been captured) was a major contributing factor in their failure.1860's or 1940's, men can only take so much Mother Nature hits them with.
I think this scenario changes depending on if the WW2 platoon have all of the weapons they would have in the 20th century, such as hand grenades, 30 cal machine gun, the bazooka etc
They were given just rifles. That is not enough to make enough difference to change the outcome Union Artillery would still have devastating effects on confederate troops.
yeah I was surprised there was no mention of Thompsons, carbines or mortars or .30 caliber machine guns. I think that the M1 carbine would have really done well in this battle if they assigned them to confederate regiments.
I think soldiers from WW2 were much more educated in combat. Just basic training would have a huge impact. Booby traps and the education of warfare would turn the tide of most battles of that time.
Even if the south won, it might not really have done any good. Vichburg was lost that same day, cutting the Confedercy in 2. A most likely worse blow then the loss at Gettysburg.
Suggestion scenario: What if Admiral Nelson had his Royal Navy fleet right before Battle of Trafalgar replaced by the Royal Navy first full ironclad warships HMS Warrior and HMS Black Prince. How would this change the battle of Trafalgar ?
Don't forget the Union had artillery on Culp's Hill and Little Round Top that fired from the high ground on both flanks and decimated the Confederates marching over open ground. All these pieces were out of rifle range and protected by elevation and tree cover. The Union also had some regiments (notably the 8th Ohio) on the Confederate left who were in enfilade position and poured in small arms fire that melted advancing columns. Union artillery in the center was also firing canister shot, making them essentially giant shotguns. The march was over a mile, so even with the superior accuracy of their guns, the time travelers would still be exposed to the same rain of fire from the Union artillery as the rest of the ranks. If they were grouped together and not spread out, one well-placed shot would take them off the field.
The question I always ask when I watch these temporal “What Ifs” is whether or not the future soldiers retain their knowledge of the historic battle in which they are now integrated into…retaining future knowledge would be a great advantage even if not equipped with superior weapons!
This scenario is somewhat covered in the book "The Guns of the South." It's an alternate history book, but centers around a group of South African Neo-Nazis traveling back in time to the US Civil War, bringing with them modern weapon technology. In particular, the AK47, as well as a handful of other modern ideas centering around medicine, and manufacturing. (That's what I remember off the top of my head, fyi.) In the book, it notes that the sheer volume of fire that the modern weapons could produce, was enough to cause Union forces to greatly falter, and in many cases, completely break and run from the field of battle. The book doesn't end the way you'd expect, for those curious. Specifically, Lee (who becomes president of the Confederacy after the war) learns that everything the South Africans have told him about the future, was a lie, thanks in no small part to a modern history book which another Confederate soldier stole from the South Africans. Understanding that the war should have gone an entirely different way, and that the world would have been better for it, Lee tries to enact some law changes (like freeing the slaves) and hopes to correct the problems that his now divergent timeline has created.
Better than the Alamo video as you considered lower ammo. But too many factors were wrong. There is no way GI’s hit command or artillery early. Way to far out. These guys marched a long way into artillery fire it would be a wonder if all 50 made it close enough to hold off the route. If they could make the difference early enough then Be in range of some artillery that may make the thing a whole lot different. I also liked the psychological prospect. If the 50 makes it cohesively once they begin the unit they fight would be under heavy mental pressure. In the end I don’t know if 50 men would be enough with only a few advantages. It’s not like the union were not battle harder and had significant training at this point.
You did no math did you? 50 guys firing 8 rd clips of 30-06 from a mile and a quarter away vs 12,000 REbs ( or 10,000 Yanks) firing 53 cal minne Balls in 3 successive ranks - so near continuous fire from the equivalent of 4000 rifles. You would never even notice the Garands. 50 rounds out of 4000 at the same rate of fire. you cannot aim and run, so no advantage at all. You forgot all about the effective range of the M-1 which is 500 yards and the Yanks are 2200 yards away. The Garands and BARs (same range) are useless for suppressive fire until the riflemen march a mile under Union artillery fire which would cut them to ribbons just like Picketts troops.
This one is a bit vague as it doesn't really detail their positioning. For example they could assign squads to different brigades in the assault, or do a mix where they have skirmishers during the bombardment (mixed with Confederate skirmishers so they are less vulnerable). And then if any are armed with Thompson submachine guns they could also be devastating if assigned to brigades but would just have to keep alive or at least train some other southerners on how to use the gun. One other thing not mentioned is that these soldiers could have been used on a completely different parts of the battlefield in order to distract the union. They could probably have assigned them with confederate skirmishers to harass the enemy and confuse them so they dedicate troops elsewhere.
If I had 50 WWII soldiers, I put that at Little Roundtop not Pickett's charge - despite not holding the high-ground, the ability to move in combined arms coordination would be able to take the hill, roll the Union left and roll the entire Army of the Potomac back up to New Jersey...
What would have made more of a difference is the rebel artillery barrage actually being able to hit Cemetery Ridge. Rebel shells were wasted as they sailed beyond the United States soldiers. Another factor that was pivotal was the fact that Stewart’s rebel cavalry, which attempted to simultaneously strike the rear of the USA line, was repulsed by US cavalry, which included the aggressive George Custer. US artillery would have accurately decimated WW2 soldiers, and Canister shot would have decimated them at closer range with no cover. US Reinforcements from the flanks could have still repulsed the rebel advance.
..until they run out of ammo. Actually, their radio communications could have been the actual game changer to exploit gaps that otherwise went undetected until too late.
While Gettysburg was going on, Vicksburg was also ongoing. Though having some initial advantages such as sniping field grade officers and several artillery batteries, the outcome in my opinion would've still resulted in union victory but with a slight reduction of confederate casualties due to the suppression of several artillery batteries. The outcome would probably resulted in the union possibly capturing several garands and BARs if the vetetans are unable to maintain morale during the route, which is debatable and with Vicksburg under union control, Abram Lincoln would've still released the proclamation address
Imagine if the 50 US WWII soldiers had been on the Union side. Behind the stonewall, with a machine gun, BAR and M1s, Pickett's Charge most likely would have never gotten to the Chambersburg Road.
Yes. Pickett's charge was a near thing as it was. A few troops with faster firing, and longer ranged weapons would easily make the difference. When the Union troops countercharge at the end when the Union countercharges they'll be devastated. Hell if they target the right positions that alone could turn the last phase. Knocking out some of the artillery units that devastated the charge for example. I read somewhere that Grant thought the Union public would have turned against the war if the Confederates had been able to keep fighting for another year. So a longer war might be all needed to change the results.
The Union had units with repeating and breech loading rifles at Gettysburg ... the WW2 soldiers wouldn't have been that overwhelming or gotten very far. A Rifle Company load out was 120 rounds per soldier and the BAR men only carried 11 mags (220 rounds) each and the grenadiers only carried a few dozen grenades. Their fire would have been drowned out by the 300 cannons and 20,000 muskets trading fire
Interesting video. Here is my take on it. The initial Confederate cannonade was vastly ineffectual. Most of the rounds landing far to the rear of the Union lines. I am going to assume that at least 1 of the WWII soldiers had a set of binoculars. Being able to shift the Confederate artillery fire so it actually was effective would have had a huge impact on the charge. Put a couple of men out in positions with decent cover with Binocs and radios and have them act as FO's and all of a sudden you have holes opening up in the Union lines. Next have your best marksmen (WWII) act as snipers to take out the Union officers thus disrupting the Union Command structure. Add the grenade launchers that were available to some with the M-1 Garand and you get a further opening of the holes in the Union lines caused by the increased accuracy of the Confederate artillery. It still would not have been a walk in the park but the odds of a Confederate success would be much greater.
I doubt morale would change. Pickett's charge was faced by the remains of the first Minnesota volunteer infantry regiment. Given the entrenchments and stone walls the superior weapons will provide a small boost but most WW2 soldiers were not marksmen. At the end of the day, then small boost to the confederate army results in a handful more casualties. Even if every bullet they carried resulted in a kill it would be a rounding error compared to the total casualties it Gettysburg.
I think 50 WW2 Infantrymen would not make a concrete difference. Perhaps a full Regiment with Support troops carrying a large quantity of rifle ammunition, mortar rounds, and belt fed machine gun ammo would make the charge a success?
How much ammo would the WW2 soldiers bring with them from 1944 and how would their expended ammunition be resupplied? WW2 era ammo and weaponry was nonexistent in 1863.
See also: "The Guns of the South" (1992) by Harry Turtledove. South African Afrikaner time travelers provide AK47s, ammunition and food to the Confederate army.
Having a semi-automatic rifle allows you to walk your shots onto the target because you don't have to take your eyes off the target or move the weapon.
Fifty against fifteen thousand.they could be outflanked .and mgs can be out flanked.plus with 30000 bullets directed against 50 guys i doubt it would make much of a difference
The confederate army would have won the battle if they committed more troops to take Little Round Top , because the Union soldiers were virtually out of ammunition and a massive concentrated press would have turned the union flank and given them the high ground to fight from.
Actually an estimate the Union's weapons and strength the Union soldiers are not stupid they mainly understand these strange repeaters and they would figure strategy to maybe outsmart him don't forget they have leather action rifles their own selves and Spencers and even buy world war II standards some of the repeating rifles and lever action and preacher sniper rifles were pretty deadly if you ever watched forget a weapons in range show which is a in range in scenario at the United States army adopted lever action rifles as their main combat rifles with the breech-loaded Spencer's they already have they would be more than capable way they can counter the machine guns of world war II units the only thing they can encounter back then very well with tanks but once they learn about Ha charges and maybe fire
Infantry would still be king of battle. Modern weapons would be a force multiplier making one wwii soldier equal to several civil war soldiers. However adding 2 or 300 confederate soldiers wouldn’t have changed the outcome.
Questions to be answered...... Are the WW2 infantrymen aware of history that has already happened.? Are they aware of Union positions on the battlefield as noted in history books? and finally, do they relay this historical info to Confederate Officers?? Lots of "IF's" here.
they would contribute until they run out of ammunition, a bit like Ukraine at Avdiivka, held it for 10 years until American congress decided Russia is their boss and cut the ammunition
Honestly, I believe the 50 US solders would refuse to serve the Confederates and relocate to the Union lines as they would be honoring their Oath of service.
I recommend Guns of the South, by Harry Turtledove, an alternate history in which time travelling apartheid era South Africans show up in 1864 and arm the confederacy with AK-47s.
Yes. THIS. You put them with the Alabama regiment that attempted to take little roundtop and you succeed in collapsing the Union left flank and it's game over. But during picketts charge they would have no impact on the outcome.
The dismounted cavalry defending the hill had Henry Rifles and 150 cannons backing them up so the Platoon of M1s and a few BARS would not have been that scary. Gatling Guns were known at the time so I doubt they would have had any real impact.
@@josephmeador1529 don’t be so sure. WWII infantry were trained for fighting like that, except dealing with elevated trenches and fortifications. There where very littke fortifications on LRT. I’ve been there. 50 men could cover more of that kind of battlefield easily. Their own explosives could tear holes in Union lines. It wouldn’t be easy, but I think they could. Remember, they don’t need to break the line, just punch a hole through to flank it. Once they punch through the Union line, they can sow total chaos behind it and the Rebels can exploit that.
Like every other one of these it'd be brutal, the fact that the Union soldiers were on the defensive would minimize the impact in a way that the World War I soldiers at Bunker Hill got to experience from the other side, where two machine gun teams and vastly longer range weapons would be hugely beneficial. Now if they had some artillery... ouch.
First of all ... Bunker Hill was a Revolutionary War battle ... The Union had units with repeating and breech loading rifles at Gettysburg and they knew about the Gatling Gun ... the WW2 soldiers wouldn't have been that overwhelming or gotten very far.
@@josephmeador1529Yesh that’s exactly it. I don’t think they’d have mattered nearly so much on the offense. If they’d been on the Union side they’d have seen off Pickett’s charge pretty fast given how much more valuable better weapons would have been on the defense. Close formation infantry advancing would have meant nearly every rifle round would have counted.
Lee threw away his best troops on a dumb charge. We didn't have factories and supply like the North.If the French got involved it could have been different.
@@jcullum71cute joke, but no. Mexico was a French Imperial state at the time and could have sent an army up through Texas or landed one on the Gulf coast if they wanted to. Also, historically, French armies really don't suck. Look it up. They helped us get our freedom in the 1700's.
Average ammo load out for a ww2 infantryman was around 120 rounds. So 6000 in total, say they got 1 kill for every 10 rounds they take out 600 union troops. Wouldn’t have made much of a difference.
I can see those WW2 soldiers born and raised in the south gladly joining the confeds. But would the northern man agree to take up arms against the official united states of A, changing their reality to something unpredictable?
Agreed!!! I think that as soon as the threat from wwII soldiers was noticed. I believe the Union Army would have concentrated artillery on their position. I really don't believe that 50 would have made much of a difference in pickets charge. The artillery destroyed most of the men that made the charge. Not many men made it to the Union line. I am sorry but 50 men with rifles even from WWII would not make much difference. But if they had mortars and 1 to 2 30 cal guns that would have been standard weapons in a platoon. Then just with those 2 things alone would have destroyed the Union line. Otherwise Union artillery still prevails.
Totally agree. Unlike previous stories Union troop had experienced multi round rifles & while seldom used the Gatling gun also existed. My point being is that the weapons of WW2 would have less of a psychological impact.@@tomblake5723
Are we just gonna ignore the fact that this scenario could lead to a Confederate victory in the war as a whole which opens up the possibility that the US would never join WW2 (if the war even happened at all) and thus the soldiers would’ve never been sent back in time in the first place, which turns this entire thing into a catch 22?
It is highly unlikely that a successful Pickett's Charge would have change the outcome of the Civil War. Meade would have withdrawn to a secondary line of defence and Lee's army would have been too spent to pursue right away. Even if the Army of the Potomac was routed, Lee did not have the resources to take Washington and would have to withdraw back into Virginia. Vicksburg has fallen and the Confederate economy was hosed. The only real possibility would be if the defeat caused Lincoln to lose the election but even that is not given.
even if the confederates won Gettysburg it probably still wouldn’t mean a confederate victory. The city of Vicksburg on the Mississippi would soon be seized by union troops, splitting the confederacy in two. The only way confederates could win is if northern support for the war turned completely against it
@@instinctrocks6802true. I believe even if the confederates had won at Gettysburg it wouldn't have much effect on the war. Lee's army was too weak to seriously threaten DC; and the Union had the capability to replace any army Lee defeated
Many of the Union soldiers on Cemetary Ridge were armed with lever action rifles in use at the time, the capacity and the rate of fire is similar to the M1 ... Mosby called the Henry Repeating Rifle "that damned Yankee rifle that can be loaded on Sunday and fired all week.". The Gatling Gun was known so the M1 and BAR would not have been 'that" unfamiliar
No I'm sorry that's not true. Virtually none of the Army of the Potamic was equipped with lever action rifles at Gettysburg. The first mass equipping of Union Soldiers with those guns happened in the Army of the Cumberland in late 1863 when the Lightening Brigade of mounted infantry was first equipped with the Henry Rifle. The first battle they had a major impact in was the Battle of Chickamauga. There's even a monument to them there. You may have heard about it since idiot MTG mistook it for a Confederate Monument.
True, Many do consider the Civil War to be the first modern war because of the technology used, Since I'm a railfan it was also the first war where railroads and locomotives were used in combat which at the time was an advantage over horses for both North and South although the Confederates had a different track guage from Union railroads
I doubt the CSA winning at Gettysburg would help much when it comes to international support. The position of the 2 countries that were in a position of doing something at the time, the UK and France, had been secured by the North after Antietam in 62 then the Emancipation Proclamation (Lincoln had waited for a significant victory to pass it while in a position of strength). After that, the UK and France, which were spearheading the anti-slavery movement worldwide, could no longer openly support the CSA as the war had become officially about slavery and not simply the South seceding. So any attempt of victory by diplomatic support by the South, should have been done before Antietam.
I know this isn't the point of the scenario but I just love how this scenario doesn't get an explanation for why these guys join this side. Just a bunch of dudes like who've been fighting Nazi's are suddenly like, "Yeah fighting FOR slavery sounds like fun"
Well i still think that South will loose Gettysburg after breaking 1 Union line. But even if they will won this will didn't change war. After fall of Vicksburg South will be lost.
Many, if not most, if not nearly all of US paratroopers had sidearms, be they regulatory Colt 1911 A1 or civilian-bought other handguns, mostly of the same caliber.
The Battle of Gettysburg was fought in 100 degree heat and almost no breeze. The smoke from black powder of thousands of rifle muskets and dozens of cannons was absolutely blinding within the first hour. Smoke grenades would have not even been noticed.
It might not even be noticed by the other side unless it's colored smoke. Otherwise they'd probably think it was just the normal clouds of thick black powder smoke that obscured almost every battlefield during that era.
@@Lollygagger-k4pconsider the US troops could crawl forward and infiltrate, deploy smoke, then grenades, and then suppress the unholy position as the CSA advances.
Same background but place the WWII soldiers at the Round Tops. Smaller battleline better suited to the group with better results for the CSA. Also what about adding a platoon of Sherman tanks?
This is _exactly_ what I was going to say. Little Round Top, less than 400 Union troops, about 5,000 Confederates, but more importantly, it's heavily forested terrain, with great concealment and decent cover. The GIs wouldn't _need_ any tanks, they'd tear the Union troops to pieces with tactics from the hedgerows and towns of Normandy.
Union cannon had a 1,000 plus yard range. Even if all the modern troops were trained sharpshooter, w/scopes, and grenade launchers, it would have made little difference.
I'd get them to crawl very close to the union lines in the dark, before the attack. They would wait until the Confederate attack started to falter before popping up and delivering a withering fire into the Union position immediately to their front. The Confederate troops would have been instructed to advance toward the WW2 troops and take advantage of the breach in the Union line.
In this scenario you made the WW2 soldiers self aware of what had happened. I was waiting for them to turn on one another when the implication of fighting for the Confederates dawned on them
The overwhelming majority of US GIs during WWII agreed with the confederates, my guy… No one voted to extend civil rights for blacks until the 1960s… about 23 years after the end of WWII. GIs instituted the height of segregation.
by any chance could you do one that the time machine f up and dump a company of ww1 or 2 or hek us civil war soldiers full combat gear into the sige of Gondor i wood like see that gos for the dark lord army
Wouldn't it be more historically meaningfully to insert these WWII Infantry Men into the Battle of Bull Run on the Union Side? It would end the Civil War before it ever started right.
An interesting twist on the idea of bringing futuristic technology to an historical battlefield : what about a modern medical corps supporting an historical army, let's say bringing the US WW2 medical corps further back in the past ? With large numbers (around 10% of mobilised personal) and innovations like pennicillin, its efficiency would still be envied by many modern armies. The effect on an historical army, provided the numbers sent are up to scale, would be massive.
50 infantry soldiers? About a company strength depleted. They would also most likely have a mortar team of 2 60 mm mortar tubes. That would also affect the charge. However, if I were commanding the infantry I would have suggested to Lee that we would be better utilized in a flanking attack and moved up on the lines in a low crawl in the wee hours of the morning.
Depending on the situation the 50 troops were pulled from, Company HQ would have issued one, maybe two M1919 Machine Guns down to Platoon level as well... While having limited ammunition, at a key point those would've played HAVOC with the tightly packed Union Lines...
Pickett 's charge is large in. Scale for any real advantage for the confederate army by adding 50 ww2 soldiers. I would think adding them to The 15th Alabama on day 2 at little round top . Having those 50 ww2 soldiers there would have made the difference in turning the union line and gaining the high ground. It's a very interesting concept.
I whole heartedly disagree with this assessment. The thing that nobody accounts for is distance. Yes, the Garrand had a maximum effective range of 500 yards, but Pickett’s charge was over 1200 meters. Additionally, while the maximum effective range of the Garrand was 500 yards, most soldiers were not trained to shoot that far. 300 yards is a much more realistic effective range (and even that is pushing it). Looking back at the records, the Confederates began to break up after they began to receive canister fire (about 400 meters). So those WW2 soldiers don’t take part in the battle until the charge is three quarters over and the Confederates are beginning to retreat. There is no way those WW2 soldiers are going to change the tide of this battle if they are part of the charge. Also, suppressive fire would not work in this situation. Civil War soldiers were not trained to seek cover while under fire. Quite the opposite in fact. They were trained to stand in Rand and file while being shot at. A few shot would not make them break ranks. And they were under an artillery barrage during the charge, so they may not even notice being under fire from the WW2 soldiers.
Ok let’s say each soldier only carried an M1 Garand… Which holds 8 rounds of .30-06 in an En Bloc clip,, Each Soldier fully kitted out would have 88 rounds 8 in the gun 80 in pouches,, now they had to march 3 quarters of mile (1320 yards) and they have an effective firing range of 500 yards ..they pry start shooting right away and the Garand has 50 rounds a minute firing rate…and remember they are getting raked by cannon fire all the way.. Id bet like most of the troops they hold up about 300 yards away at the last shelter before the Union lines the depression of the road there ..they could pry pick off many men but it wouldn’t be enough and they’d run out of ammunition…
Interesting thought experiment, but realistically 50 WWI soldiers would hardly make a dent. Sure, their weapons were better, but the effective range of an M1 Garand isn't much longer than that of a Civil War era rifle, both are mostly limited by iron sights/human vision and not the accuracy of the rifle itself. Additionally, Union sharpshooters would be certain to notice and pick off the funnily dressed and futuristic looking soldiers who were sniping at their officers and artillery. Add to that the massive amount of smoke, noise, and confusion and their effectiveness starts to plummet even more.
Your exact ‘plan’ doesn’t take into account the WWII support fire would be simply volley fire, they have nothing to aim at specifically. Blackpowder, used during the Civil War would’ve obscured any direct targets on Union side. And any engagement by WWII group , I covered in my other comment
Since a large portion of men from Southern States make up a large portion of Infantry units, I’d say Pickets charge would have been a success, as well as the rebels would have won the battle.
You either forgot they would have had M1917 light machine guns, the 60mm mortar section, bazookamen, and squad designated marskman likely carrying M1903 Springfields or for some reason intentionally left them out. Either way you left out a lot of weaponry they would've had with them. They wouldn't need to have comms with their higher HQ as long as they can communicate amongst themselves with radios. Depending on how many radios they have, 1 or 2 can be left in the rear and they can teach some of the smarter folks how to use them.
Radios, radios, radios. Using 50 soldiers as scouts would open alternatives to Pickett's charge. If they can't avoid enemy scouts, their extra firepower would be a huge advantage in the small-unit skirmishes that Civil War scouts encountered and would give Lee a picture of the battlefield any 19th Century general would've envied.
I think that 50 WWII American Infantrymen on the Confederate side, during the Battle of Little Round Top might make the bigger difference. I believe the Union flank would have collapsed, Confederate forces could have swarmed in, Pickett's Charge would not have happened. Just my ignorant opinion though.
I like your thinking .
The Union had units with repeating and breech loading rifles at Gettysburg ... the WW2 soldiers wouldn't have been that overwhelming or gotten very far. A Rifle Company load out was 120 rounds per soldier and the BAR men only carried 11 mags (220 rounds) each and the grenadiers only carried a few dozen grenades. Their fire would have been drowned out by the 300 cannons and 20,000 muskets trading fire.
I can't quite tell from your response. Are you claiming there were 300 Union cannons and 20,000 Union muskets on Little Round Top?
Very good observation. That would have changed the outcome of the entire battle possibly.
I was thinking the same thing myself...
The smart general would order the WW2 soldiers to withdraw to the rear once their ammo got low.
Their value as tech research far outweighs their value as melee fighters.
The South didn't use Spencer rifles because they couldn't manufacture the brass bullets. The US Navy blockade prevented the South from getting anything from Europe. The technology would have been useless to them.
I'm just speaking from theory but I believe the industrial technology of the south in the 1860s might actually be capable or reverse engineering some of the weapons of WW2 with some time.
But that too comes with a risk. If the south can, the north absolutely will if they get their hands on it. And they have a much better industrial capacity than the south.
The title was referring to if they could change the outcome of Pickett's charge which was a military operation in the Battle of Gettysburg, which was a battle in the Civil War. It was not the War. If you removed them from the Pickett's charge operation, they would have had no effect in that operation. You didn't read or understand the title. Moreover, at this point in the war, your suggestion would not impact the outcome of the war either. I spent 10 years in the military and 9 of them were as an infantry soldier. I also study military history and the civil war and have been to Gettysburg at least 12 times. There is a lot more needed than just 50 soldiers and their issued weapons and their standard load.
The handpicked WWII soldiers would all have to be hardcore Southerners. Otherwise you'd get a big screw you towards the South's leaders at best, possibly a 'mutiny'.
Thats what I thought. Maybe southern state national guardsman?
They would all also know the result of the battle once they realized where they were and whom they were with. In 90 years, most Southern military men turned very pro-US military.
Or those fed up with WW2 enough to consider changing ACW as acceptable in order to avoid it entirely - and eg. lack of American involvement in WW1 due to say, less cohesive confederacy (rather than union - or heck, two rival states) exerting less influence on the world, can pretty much guarantee original timeline being derailed.
@@jjhantsch8647 Consider the 1898 Spanish-American War. Two confederate generals were made Generals in the US Army and the grandsons of “Johnny Reb” volunteered in big number to fight in the War.
I think in this scenario, it's more fun to just not think about the ideologies of the individuals and focus more on their capabilities.
Just imagine that they're brainwashed, idk. They went back in time, so obviously something like brainwashing might be more possible.
I think 50 GIs could actually do even better at Pickett's Charge if used differently. First of all, the analysis did not include the Garand's M7 grenade projector; having some mini mortars around would be really useful. Let's say our 50 men are in 5 under-strength squads: 1 BAR, 1 Thompson, 6 M1 Garands (2 of them with grenade launchers), and 2 M1 Carbines. The first half of the advance is beyond the range at which the GIs can actually hit anything, beyond spraying the Union position with stray rounds. Stray rounds from 50 men isn't going to do much to ten thousand, most of whom are in some kind of dug-in position.
So, we're gonna put the modern troops _behind_ the Confederates, at the rear of the advance, where they'll take less fire, and let Pickett and his men close the distance. Keep in mind that the real Pickett's Charge actually reached the Union position before being driven back by troops in cover behind a stone wall. The big moment is once the Confederates get to the ditch at the Emmitsburg Road. That is effective musket range, decent cover, and also the point at which the GIs can start firing rifle grenades over the top of the rebels and into the Union center, where troops are packed in four rows deep behind the wall. Each grenadier is carrying 6-8 rifle grenades, and there are ten of them. The grenadiers and BAR gunners will hammer the Union position, and then the Confederates are going to bayonet charge. The GIs will be close behind, breaking into the Union lines with most of their ammunition, at which point, they are going to cause absolute havoc, with all their weapons being effective. Alternatively, the Confederates might hold the breach, and the GIs advance further into the Union position to attack the artillery. Either way, this would be the time for Lee to throw everything he had in support.
Lot of words dude
How about at least 2 M1903A4 scoped Springfield (or the rarer M1D scoped Garand) to replace the carbines? The Whitworth rifle, despite being produced and used in very small numbers, gained a terrifying reputation. If that muzzleloader can do much damage (even if mostly psychological), one can only imagine what WW2 scoped rifles can do.
@@el52 I don't think it would matter much. The _effective_ range of the 1903 was about 600 yards. Maybe 800 with a real good shooter. But the distance from the Confederate lines to the Union position was a little over 1300 yards, and the Union artillery was some distance behind the front. So a sniper would have to come at least 500 yards into the open field with zero cover to get a shot. And then, if they can manage to steady the rifle while the ground is shaking from artillery pounding the Confederates, they can pick off a few officers, maybe cause a little confusion. But Meade's command post is close enough he can send someone to take over.
Actually, if I were to change the loadout from the "average" WWII squad setup discussed above, I would lean towards mobility and close-combat power. No BARs or Thompsons (too heavy), just enough Garands for the rifle grenadiers. The other eight guys per squad, 40 men total, get either M3 grease guns or M1 Carbines (which lets them reload faster and carry more ammo). The GIs aren't taking part in the advance, really. Pickett's troops are being used to tank fire and deliver them into the Union position around "The Angle" where the IRL charge stopped. At which point, you have an admittedly small number of men, but who have a massive advantage in the close in, trench clearing kind of fight. Rapid firing, magazine fed weapons and hand grenades against single shot muzzleloaders. They still don't have the ammo to take out the entire Union force (not even close), but with proper fire discipline, they can hold out long enough for more Confederate troops to exploit the breakthrough.
Except they aren’t going to get close enough to use grenades. Remember that the charge began to break up 400 meters away from the Union lines, far beyond the range of a rifle grenade.
Yes, one unit made it to the Union lines. The rest of them failed to. The battle line was a mile wide and only one unit made it. Unless those WW2 soldiers remember their history class they won’t be behind the unit that makes it to the Union lines.
Even then, the Union soldiers are used to receiving cannon fire. They would probably just think the rifle grenades were just more cannon fire and go about their business.
@@patrickbrooks2743 Yeah, but I dumped all over Parry's last battle scenario and I'm leaning into this one, giving it the best possible chance.
As a couple other people in the comments suggested, what 50 GIs ought to be doing at Gettysburg is attacking Little Round Top. Many fewer defenders, and I seriously doubt Joshua Chamberlain and Strong Vincent could handle 1940s weapons and fire and maneuver tactics in that kind of terrain...
I would love to see what if a company of modern US Army Rangers would effect the battle of Little Big Horn
There was a twilight zone episode where a tank crew from the 40s or 50s went to little big horn
@@aaronayers5151link please this sounds badass
That episode ended with the modern Commanding Officer saying the tank " might have helped ".
@@MW-bi1pi I’m going to try to find that one.
How about a company of Cavalry from the modern day 7th Cavalry. That same unit from 1876 still exists
This would be kind of similar to that "Twilight Zone" episode where a US M3 Stewart tank somehow made it back to the Battle of the Little Big Horn. The tank suddenly became unserviceable but the crew went into battle - and were eliminated during the battle.
I remember that one! Great episode!
I like the original series episode: "Still Valley" . They Rebs. turn down a chance to win, with the help of Satan.
@@DennisMSulliva I saw that one too, and I remember what the Confederate lieutenant said when he put the book of Satanic spells on the fire:
"If the Confederacy has to die, let it be buried in hallowed ground."
Now here's the lesson. The originator of "Twilight Zone" Rod Serling was a political liberal but he harbored no feelings of superiority or hate or contempt for anyone. Being a WW2 veteran he learned that even though all men are different all men are the same and like all vets he'd met and gotten to know men from all over the country. The fact he showed those Confederate soldiers as honorable men even though the cause they fought for was questionable (Any Johnny Reb would give you a different reason why he was fighting anyway) spoke volumes about Mr. Serling. A lesson many today should take to heart.
How does that work, the tank becoming unserviceable
@@ZudinGodofWar Something mechanically broke on the tank during normal operations. Broke a track or through a track. Ran out of gas. Plenty of things to go wrong on a mechanized vehicle and they are a pain in the butt to repair as well. Stuff happens all the time.
Excellent period to choose i think the Civil War being often considered the "last old war" and the "first modern war" is a great testing ground for what ifs.
I agree. Plus, there are a bunch of very different battles in this war to examine.
I'm not sure I completely agree with the analysis. The Confederate soldiers and WWII soldiers had to run 1 mile from the tree line to the Union soldiers at Seminary Ridge. The whole time, they were facing a barrage of cannon fire and sharp shooters. It can be difficult to tell the difference 400 and 500 yards in fair conditions. But add in the running with all the gear and the adrenaline from taking fire, I think they would have either stopped too close or too far away to stay out of range of the Union rifles and be in range of their rifles. The BAR is definitely a helpful tool, but I don't think it would have made a massive impact on the battle. I do agree with the conclusion that the Union would have won the day, but I think the WWII soldiers would have made little impact on the battle. To make any real impact, there would need to be a bigger difference in long-range shooters. For instance, having current military snipers that can consistently hit targets from 1000+ yards would make a bigger difference on the battlefield.
I do enjoy these videos and thank you for making them. What about the use of 1880s US calvary soldiers in the Revolutionary War or the French and Indian War. Or 10 modern A10s at Pearl Harbor? Thanks again for making these videos.
Let's not forget about the factor that the intense heat played at 3:00 on a July afternoon. On failing to take Little Round Top the preceding day, one member of Law's Confederate brigade commented that the burning thirst they experienced and the lack of water (the detachment detailed to fill canteens had been captured) was a major contributing factor in their failure.1860's or 1940's, men can only take so much Mother Nature hits them with.
I think this scenario changes depending on if the WW2 platoon have all of the weapons they would have in the 20th century, such as hand grenades, 30 cal machine gun, the bazooka etc
They were given just rifles. That is not enough to make enough difference to change the outcome Union Artillery would still have devastating effects on confederate troops.
yeah I was surprised there was no mention of Thompsons, carbines or mortars or .30 caliber machine guns. I think that the M1 carbine would have really done well in this battle if they assigned them to confederate regiments.
I think soldiers from WW2 were much more educated in combat.
Just basic training would have a huge impact. Booby traps and the education of warfare would turn the tide of most battles of that time.
Desert Storm soldiers in one of the War of 1812 battles would be interesting.
Even if the south won, it might not really have done any good. Vichburg was lost that same day, cutting the Confedercy in 2. A most likely worse blow then the loss at Gettysburg.
Suggestion scenario: What if Admiral Nelson had his Royal Navy fleet right before Battle of Trafalgar replaced by the Royal Navy first full ironclad warships HMS Warrior and HMS Black Prince. How would this change the battle of Trafalgar ?
Don't forget the Union had artillery on Culp's Hill and Little Round Top that fired from the high ground on both flanks and decimated the Confederates marching over open ground. All these pieces were out of rifle range and protected by elevation and tree cover. The Union also had some regiments (notably the 8th Ohio) on the Confederate left who were in enfilade position and poured in small arms fire that melted advancing columns. Union artillery in the center was also firing canister shot, making them essentially giant shotguns. The march was over a mile, so even with the superior accuracy of their guns, the time travelers would still be exposed to the same rain of fire from the Union artillery as the rest of the ranks. If they were grouped together and not spread out, one well-placed shot would take them off the field.
The question I always ask when I watch these temporal “What Ifs” is whether or not the future soldiers retain their knowledge of the historic battle in which they are now integrated into…retaining future knowledge would be a great advantage even if not equipped with superior weapons!
This scenario is somewhat covered in the book "The Guns of the South." It's an alternate history book, but centers around a group of South African Neo-Nazis traveling back in time to the US Civil War, bringing with them modern weapon technology. In particular, the AK47, as well as a handful of other modern ideas centering around medicine, and manufacturing. (That's what I remember off the top of my head, fyi.) In the book, it notes that the sheer volume of fire that the modern weapons could produce, was enough to cause Union forces to greatly falter, and in many cases, completely break and run from the field of battle.
The book doesn't end the way you'd expect, for those curious. Specifically, Lee (who becomes president of the Confederacy after the war) learns that everything the South Africans have told him about the future, was a lie, thanks in no small part to a modern history book which another Confederate soldier stole from the South Africans. Understanding that the war should have gone an entirely different way, and that the world would have been better for it, Lee tries to enact some law changes (like freeing the slaves) and hopes to correct the problems that his now divergent timeline has created.
Better than the Alamo video as you considered lower ammo.
But too many factors were wrong. There is no way GI’s hit command or artillery early. Way to far out. These guys marched a long way into artillery fire it would be a wonder if all 50 made it close enough to hold off the route.
If they could make the difference early enough then Be in range of some artillery that may make the thing a whole lot different.
I also liked the psychological prospect. If the 50 makes it cohesively once they begin the unit they fight would be under heavy mental pressure.
In the end I don’t know if 50 men would be enough with only a few advantages. It’s not like the union were not battle harder and had significant training at this point.
Awesome. Thank you.
Glad you liked it!
You did no math did you? 50 guys firing 8 rd clips of 30-06 from a mile and a quarter away vs 12,000 REbs ( or 10,000 Yanks) firing 53 cal minne Balls in 3 successive ranks - so near continuous fire from the equivalent of 4000 rifles. You would never even notice the Garands. 50 rounds out of 4000 at the same rate of fire. you cannot aim and run, so no advantage at all.
You forgot all about the effective range of the M-1 which is 500 yards and the Yanks are 2200 yards away. The Garands and BARs (same range) are useless for suppressive fire until the riflemen march a mile under Union artillery fire which would cut them to ribbons just like Picketts troops.
This one is a bit vague as it doesn't really detail their positioning. For example they could assign squads to different brigades in the assault, or do a mix where they have skirmishers during the bombardment (mixed with Confederate skirmishers so they are less vulnerable). And then if any are armed with Thompson submachine guns they could also be devastating if assigned to brigades but would just have to keep alive or at least train some other southerners on how to use the gun. One other thing not mentioned is that these soldiers could have been used on a completely different parts of the battlefield in order to distract the union. They could probably have assigned them with confederate skirmishers to harass the enemy and confuse them so they dedicate troops elsewhere.
If I had 50 WWII soldiers, I put that at Little Roundtop not Pickett's charge - despite not holding the high-ground, the ability to move in combined arms coordination would be able to take the hill, roll the Union left and roll the entire Army of the Potomac back up to New Jersey...
Still suggesting Modern French Foreign Legion holding the Ardennes against the Wehrmacht in the battle of France
One of the future soldiers says, 'I ain't sure but I think you people lost the war and you were massacred in this battle."
Covering fire eats up a LOT of ammunition.
What would have made more of a difference is the rebel artillery barrage actually being able to hit Cemetery Ridge. Rebel shells were wasted as they sailed beyond the United States soldiers. Another factor that was pivotal was the fact that Stewart’s rebel cavalry, which attempted to simultaneously strike the rear of the USA line, was repulsed by US cavalry, which included the aggressive George Custer. US artillery would have accurately decimated WW2 soldiers, and Canister shot would have decimated them at closer range with no cover. US Reinforcements from the flanks could have still repulsed the rebel advance.
..until they run out of ammo. Actually, their radio communications could have been the actual game changer to exploit gaps that otherwise went undetected until too late.
The M1 Carbine was actually a descendant of Carbines used by Union calvary and there was even one that was lever action which was the Spencer 1860
While Gettysburg was going on, Vicksburg was also ongoing.
Though having some initial advantages such as sniping field grade officers and several artillery batteries, the outcome in my opinion would've still resulted in union victory but with a slight reduction of confederate casualties due to the suppression of several artillery batteries.
The outcome would probably resulted in the union possibly capturing several garands and BARs if the vetetans are unable to maintain morale during the route, which is debatable and with Vicksburg under union control, Abram Lincoln would've still released the proclamation address
The emancipation proclamation was signed into law January 1, 1863; before either the Vicksburg or Gettysburg battles were fought
Imagine if the 50 US WWII soldiers had been on the Union side. Behind the stonewall, with a machine gun, BAR and M1s, Pickett's Charge most likely would have never gotten to the Chambersburg Road.
Yes. Pickett's charge was a near thing as it was. A few troops with faster firing, and longer ranged weapons would easily make the difference. When the Union troops countercharge at the end when the Union countercharges they'll be devastated. Hell if they target the right positions that alone could turn the last phase. Knocking out some of the artillery units that devastated the charge for example. I read somewhere that Grant thought the Union public would have turned against the war if the Confederates had been able to keep fighting for another year. So a longer war might be all needed to change the results.
The Union had units with repeating and breech loading rifles at Gettysburg ... the WW2 soldiers wouldn't have been that overwhelming or gotten very far. A Rifle Company load out was 120 rounds per soldier and the BAR men only carried 11 mags (220 rounds) each and the grenadiers only carried a few dozen grenades. Their fire would have been drowned out by the 300 cannons and 20,000 muskets trading fire
It might behoove you to use unit to&e from modern military units in these videos instead of arbitrary numbers of troops.
Overcoming general Lee’s ego would have been the biggest challenge
Interesting video. Here is my take on it. The initial Confederate cannonade was vastly ineffectual. Most of the rounds landing far to the rear of the Union lines. I am going to assume that at least 1 of the WWII soldiers had a set of binoculars. Being able to shift the Confederate artillery fire so it actually was effective would have had a huge impact on the charge. Put a couple of men out in positions with decent cover with Binocs and radios and have them act as FO's and all of a sudden you have holes opening up in the Union lines. Next have your best marksmen (WWII) act as snipers to take out the Union officers thus disrupting the Union Command structure. Add the grenade launchers that were available to some with the M-1 Garand and you get a further opening of the holes in the Union lines caused by the increased accuracy of the Confederate artillery. It still would not have been a walk in the park but the odds of a Confederate success would be much greater.
What about using that same number of men from Kampfgruppe Peiper in this hypothetical battle?
Would love to see a rokes drift edition with one British vikers machine gun
I doubt morale would change. Pickett's charge was faced by the remains of the first Minnesota volunteer infantry regiment. Given the entrenchments and stone walls the superior weapons will provide a small boost but most WW2 soldiers were not marksmen. At the end of the day, then small boost to the confederate army results in a handful more casualties. Even if every bullet they carried resulted in a kill it would be a rounding error compared to the total casualties it Gettysburg.
50 guys with plasma rifles couldn’t break that line. Come on man. The only “what if” southern victory soul have to come prior to the battle or Day 1.
What if the Germans had an M1 Abrams at the battle of Pocarovka or Kursk.
I would say the 60 ww2 soldiers would had been better off at the battle over little round top, which really was the pivotal action imho.
The Union defenders were behind cover and had double canister Artillery support. It would still have been a bloody repulse and massacre.
WWII USS Missouri goes back to the American Revolution.
I think 50 WW2 Infantrymen would not make a concrete difference. Perhaps a full Regiment with Support troops carrying a large quantity of rifle ammunition, mortar rounds, and belt fed machine gun ammo would make the charge a success?
How much ammo would the WW2 soldiers bring with them from 1944 and how would their expended ammunition be resupplied? WW2 era ammo and weaponry was nonexistent in 1863.
So are the hypothetical Pickett's brigade substitutes, US Army soldiers or US Marines and Navy Corpsmen from WW2?
This would probably not take place as almost all us soldiers would not side with the south.
It would be treason!
The 50 soldiers would have to lead and command themselves. Robert E lee nor his subordinant officers would have known how to use them effectively.
See also: "The Guns of the South" (1992) by Harry Turtledove. South African Afrikaner time travelers provide AK47s, ammunition and food to the Confederate army.
Having a semi-automatic rifle allows you to walk your shots onto the target because you don't have to take your eyes off the target or move the weapon.
tldr: Yes.
According to this author, confed chances are turned from guaranteed fail to a real chance to succeed.
Fifty against fifteen thousand.they could be outflanked .and mgs can be out flanked.plus with 30000 bullets directed against 50 guys i doubt it would make much of a difference
If used by the Union it would be a watershed moment of the war. With the Confederacy probably not much
It would depend on what weapons they had .
What if Abel had a mp5 when Caine came to kill him with a rock? 😂😂
The confederate army would have won the battle if they committed more troops to take Little Round Top , because the Union soldiers were virtually out of ammunition and a massive concentrated press would have turned the union flank and given them the high ground to fight from.
Actually an estimate the Union's weapons and strength the Union soldiers are not stupid they mainly understand these strange repeaters and they would figure strategy to maybe outsmart him don't forget they have leather action rifles their own selves and Spencers and even buy world war II standards some of the repeating rifles and lever action and preacher sniper rifles were pretty deadly if you ever watched forget a weapons in range show which is a in range in scenario at the United States army adopted lever action rifles as their main combat rifles with the breech-loaded Spencer's they already have they would be more than capable way they can counter the machine guns of world war II units the only thing they can encounter back then very well with tanks but once they learn about Ha charges and maybe fire
Infantry would still be king of battle. Modern weapons would be a force multiplier making one wwii soldier equal to several civil war soldiers.
However adding 2 or 300 confederate soldiers wouldn’t have changed the outcome.
How about they don't do Pickett's charge? Send back some experts on the battle, and the rest of the war.
You very much forgot that the Tommy gun was utilized in warfare at this time.
Considering 50 men in modern day arms is good enough to secure a town. Outside the full automation of rifles Yeah not much changes since WW2
Questions to be answered...... Are the WW2 infantrymen aware of history that has already happened.? Are they aware of Union positions on the battlefield as noted in history books? and finally, do they relay this historical info to Confederate Officers?? Lots of "IF's" here.
pickett charged failed because stewards calvary was to brake through behind union lines and link up with pickett thanks to custer that never happened
they would contribute until they run out of ammunition, a bit like Ukraine at Avdiivka, held it for 10 years until American congress decided Russia is their boss and cut the ammunition
Honestly, I believe the 50 US solders would refuse to serve the Confederates and relocate to the Union lines as they would be honoring their Oath of service.
What if Custer took a Gatlin Gun??!😆
I recommend Guns of the South, by Harry Turtledove, an alternate history in which time travelling apartheid era South Africans show up in 1864 and arm the confederacy with AK-47s.
Yes.I was going to bring that up. In the next Civil War alternate history, he had the south win because the lost orders 191 never got to the USA side.
@@DennisMSullivaThat was at Antitam.
@@hubertwalters4300 Thank you. i didn't remember that.
Sounds like a MAGA wet dream. 🤮
Have it. Read it at least 3 times. My favorite book.
Now, you put them in the fighting on day two, during the Confederate efforts to take the heights; I think they shift things dramatically.
Yes. THIS. You put them with the Alabama regiment that attempted to take little roundtop and you succeed in collapsing the Union left flank and it's game over. But during picketts charge they would have no impact on the outcome.
The dismounted cavalry defending the hill had Henry Rifles and 150 cannons backing them up so the Platoon of M1s and a few BARS would not have been that scary. Gatling Guns were known at the time so I doubt they would have had any real impact.
@@josephmeador1529 don’t be so sure.
WWII infantry were trained for fighting like that, except dealing with elevated trenches and fortifications. There where very littke fortifications on LRT. I’ve been there. 50 men could cover more of that kind of battlefield easily. Their own explosives could tear holes in Union lines. It wouldn’t be easy, but I think they could. Remember, they don’t need to break the line, just punch a hole through to flank it. Once they punch through the Union line, they can sow total chaos behind it and the Rebels can exploit that.
Like every other one of these it'd be brutal, the fact that the Union soldiers were on the defensive would minimize the impact in a way that the World War I soldiers at Bunker Hill got to experience from the other side, where two machine gun teams and vastly longer range weapons would be hugely beneficial. Now if they had some artillery... ouch.
First of all ... Bunker Hill was a Revolutionary War battle ... The Union had units with repeating and breech loading rifles at Gettysburg and they knew about the Gatling Gun ... the WW2 soldiers wouldn't have been that overwhelming or gotten very far.
@@josephmeador1529Yesh that’s exactly it. I don’t think they’d have mattered nearly so much on the offense. If they’d been on the Union side they’d have seen off Pickett’s charge pretty fast given how much more valuable better weapons would have been on the defense. Close formation infantry advancing would have meant nearly every rifle round would have counted.
Lee threw away his best troops on a dumb charge. We didn't have factories and supply like the North.If the French got involved it could have been different.
@@haroldbell213I think you meant the British
@@jcullum71cute joke, but no. Mexico was a French Imperial state at the time and could have sent an army up through Texas or landed one on the Gulf coast if they wanted to.
Also, historically, French armies really don't suck. Look it up. They helped us get our freedom in the 1700's.
Average ammo load out for a ww2 infantryman was around 120 rounds. So 6000 in total, say they got 1 kill for every 10 rounds they take out 600 union troops. Wouldn’t have made much of a difference.
I can see those WW2 soldiers born and raised in the south gladly joining the confeds. But would the northern man agree to take up arms against the official united states of A, changing their reality to something unpredictable?
I think by the 1940s the entire American platoon would’ve balked at the idea of joining the treason that took place almost a century earlier.
Relax, it's just a conversation about tactics and equipment. You're missing the point of what's going on here.
Unless they were able to cancel the Union artillery, probably just further casualties?
In this case I think the impact is not as much as in the previous examples. Union Artillery was key would have been in this scenario too.
Agreed!!! I think that as soon as the threat from wwII soldiers was noticed. I believe the Union Army would have concentrated artillery on their position. I really don't believe that 50 would have made much of a difference in pickets charge. The artillery destroyed most of the men that made the charge. Not many men made it to the Union line. I am sorry but 50 men with rifles even from WWII would not make much difference. But if they had mortars and 1 to 2 30 cal guns that would have been standard weapons in a platoon. Then just with those 2 things alone would have destroyed the Union line. Otherwise Union artillery still prevails.
Totally agree. Unlike previous stories Union troop had experienced multi round rifles & while seldom used the Gatling gun also existed. My point being is that the weapons of WW2 would have less of a psychological impact.@@tomblake5723
Are we just gonna ignore the fact that this scenario could lead to a Confederate victory in the war as a whole which opens up the possibility that the US would never join WW2 (if the war even happened at all) and thus the soldiers would’ve never been sent back in time in the first place, which turns this entire thing into a catch 22?
but the technologies would sill have been invented
It is highly unlikely that a successful Pickett's Charge would have change the outcome of the Civil War. Meade would have withdrawn to a secondary line of defence and Lee's army would have been too spent to pursue right away. Even if the Army of the Potomac was routed, Lee did not have the resources to take Washington and would have to withdraw back into Virginia. Vicksburg has fallen and the Confederate economy was hosed. The only real possibility would be if the defeat caused Lincoln to lose the election but even that is not given.
even if the confederates won Gettysburg it probably still wouldn’t mean a confederate victory. The city of Vicksburg on the Mississippi would soon be seized by union troops, splitting the confederacy in two. The only way confederates could win is if northern support for the war turned completely against it
@@instinctrocks6802true. I believe even if the confederates had won at Gettysburg it wouldn't have much effect on the war. Lee's army was too weak to seriously threaten DC; and the Union had the capability to replace any army Lee defeated
LLLOLLL!!!!!!
Many of the Union soldiers on Cemetary Ridge were armed with lever action rifles in use at the time, the capacity and the rate of fire is similar to the M1 ... Mosby called the Henry Repeating Rifle "that damned Yankee rifle that can be loaded on Sunday and fired all week.". The Gatling Gun was known so the M1 and BAR would not have been 'that" unfamiliar
No I'm sorry that's not true. Virtually none of the Army of the Potamic was equipped with lever action rifles at Gettysburg. The first mass equipping of Union Soldiers with those guns happened in the Army of the Cumberland in late 1863 when the Lightening Brigade of mounted infantry was first equipped with the Henry Rifle. The first battle they had a major impact in was the Battle of Chickamauga. There's even a monument to them there. You may have heard about it since idiot MTG mistook it for a Confederate Monument.
True, Many do consider the Civil War to be the first modern war because of the technology used, Since I'm a railfan it was also the first war where railroads and locomotives were used in combat which at the time was an advantage over horses for both North and South although the Confederates had a different track guage from Union railroads
I doubt the CSA winning at Gettysburg would help much when it comes to international support. The position of the 2 countries that were in a position of doing something at the time, the UK and France, had been secured by the North after Antietam in 62 then the Emancipation Proclamation (Lincoln had waited for a significant victory to pass it while in a position of strength). After that, the UK and France, which were spearheading the anti-slavery movement worldwide, could no longer openly support the CSA as the war had become officially about slavery and not simply the South seceding.
So any attempt of victory by diplomatic support by the South, should have been done before Antietam.
Should have had an Italian squad or German unit fight for the south
Actually im pretty sure plenty of american southerners in ww2 would have totally fought for the south
I know this isn't the point of the scenario but I just love how this scenario doesn't get an explanation for why these guys join this side. Just a bunch of dudes like who've been fighting Nazi's are suddenly like, "Yeah fighting FOR slavery sounds like fun"
Well i still think that South will loose Gettysburg after breaking 1 Union line. But even if they will won this will didn't change war. After fall of Vicksburg South will be lost.
The South's only hope of victory was military intervention by France or Britain. Neither nation would go to war to protect slavery.
Smoke grenades that weren't even mentioned would have a far greater effect than the 1911 that most soldiers wouldn't have even had.
Many, if not most, if not nearly all of US paratroopers had sidearms, be they regulatory Colt 1911 A1 or civilian-bought other handguns, mostly of the same caliber.
The Battle of Gettysburg was fought in 100 degree heat and almost no breeze. The smoke from black powder of thousands of rifle muskets and dozens of cannons was absolutely blinding within the first hour. Smoke grenades would have not even been noticed.
It might not even be noticed by the other side unless it's colored smoke. Otherwise they'd probably think it was just the normal clouds of thick black powder smoke that obscured almost every battlefield during that era.
I doubt smoke grenades would do much considering the massive amount of smoke produced by firearms at the time, be it artillery or volley fires.
@@Lollygagger-k4pconsider the US troops could crawl forward and infiltrate, deploy smoke, then grenades, and then suppress the unholy position as the CSA advances.
Same background but place the WWII soldiers at the Round Tops. Smaller battleline better suited to the group with better results for the CSA. Also what about adding a platoon of Sherman tanks?
This is _exactly_ what I was going to say. Little Round Top, less than 400 Union troops, about 5,000 Confederates, but more importantly, it's heavily forested terrain, with great concealment and decent cover. The GIs wouldn't _need_ any tanks, they'd tear the Union troops to pieces with tactics from the hedgerows and towns of Normandy.
Sure. Maybe an arclight strike too while we are at it?
Union cannon had a 1,000 plus yard range. Even if all the modern troops were trained sharpshooter, w/scopes, and grenade launchers, it would have made little difference.
I'd get them to crawl very close to the union lines in the dark, before the attack. They would wait until the Confederate attack started to falter before popping up and delivering a withering fire into the Union position immediately to their front. The Confederate troops would have been instructed to advance toward the WW2 troops and take advantage of the breach in the Union line.
In this scenario you made the WW2 soldiers self aware of what had happened. I was waiting for them to turn on one another when the implication of fighting for the Confederates dawned on them
The overwhelming majority of US GIs during WWII agreed with the confederates, my guy…
No one voted to extend civil rights for blacks until the 1960s… about 23 years after the end of WWII. GIs instituted the height of segregation.
"Guns of the South" by Harry Turtledove was about South Afrikaans using a time portal to deliver 100,000 AK47s to Robert E Lee.
Hilarity ensues.
I'm glad you mentioned the importance of radio communication. The ability to communicate on the battlefield is huge.
Well, i do believe it would have a pretty huge impact here.
Not for 50 men at that era heavy radios two to four at the most and confederate commanders have no practice with them.
by any chance could you do one that the time machine f up and dump a company of ww1 or 2 or hek us civil war soldiers full combat gear into the sige of Gondor i wood like see that gos for the dark lord army
If they had been used to take little Round Top they would have been able to roll the Union up and catch them in enfilade.
I'm glad you didn't do what a bunch of people were requesting and send tanks. In this battle, even WW1 tanks are way too much of an advantage.
Wouldn't it be more historically meaningfully to insert these WWII Infantry Men into the Battle of Bull Run on the Union Side? It would end the Civil War before it ever started right.
Exactly. The hypothetical WWll soldiers are from the US Army, with the emphasis on US.
It will be the summer War that most of the civilian and some of the military man thought it be
But if Chuck Norris was there……
An interesting twist on the idea of bringing futuristic technology to an historical battlefield : what about a modern medical corps supporting an historical army, let's say bringing the US WW2 medical corps further back in the past ?
With large numbers (around 10% of mobilised personal) and innovations like pennicillin, its efficiency would still be envied by many modern armies. The effect on an historical army, provided the numbers sent are up to scale, would be massive.
50 infantry soldiers? About a company strength depleted. They would also most likely have a mortar team of 2 60 mm mortar tubes. That would also affect the charge. However, if I were commanding the infantry I would have suggested to Lee that we would be better utilized in a flanking attack and moved up on the lines in a low crawl in the wee hours of the morning.
Depending on the situation the 50 troops were pulled from, Company HQ would have issued one, maybe two M1919 Machine Guns down to Platoon level as well... While having limited ammunition, at a key point those would've played HAVOC with the tightly packed Union Lines...
YEET
YOTE
Pickett 's charge is large in. Scale for any real advantage for the confederate army by adding 50 ww2 soldiers. I would think adding them to The 15th Alabama on day 2 at little round top . Having those 50 ww2 soldiers there would have made the difference in turning the union line and gaining the high ground. It's a very interesting concept.
I whole heartedly disagree with this assessment.
The thing that nobody accounts for is distance. Yes, the Garrand had a maximum effective range of 500 yards, but Pickett’s charge was over 1200 meters. Additionally, while the maximum effective range of the Garrand was 500 yards, most soldiers were not trained to shoot that far. 300 yards is a much more realistic effective range (and even that is pushing it).
Looking back at the records, the Confederates began to break up after they began to receive canister fire (about 400 meters). So those WW2 soldiers don’t take part in the battle until the charge is three quarters over and the Confederates are beginning to retreat. There is no way those WW2 soldiers are going to change the tide of this battle if they are part of the charge.
Also, suppressive fire would not work in this situation. Civil War soldiers were not trained to seek cover while under fire. Quite the opposite in fact. They were trained to stand in Rand and file while being shot at. A few shot would not make them break ranks. And they were under an artillery barrage during the charge, so they may not even notice being under fire from the WW2 soldiers.
Ok let’s say each soldier only carried an M1 Garand… Which holds 8 rounds of .30-06 in an En Bloc clip,, Each Soldier fully kitted out would have 88 rounds 8 in the gun 80 in pouches,, now they had to march 3 quarters of mile (1320 yards) and they have an effective firing range of 500 yards ..they pry start shooting right away and the Garand has 50 rounds a minute firing rate…and remember they are getting raked by cannon fire all the way.. Id bet like most of the troops they hold up about 300 yards away at the last shelter before the Union lines the depression of the road there ..they could pry pick off many men but it wouldn’t be enough and they’d run out of ammunition…
Interesting thought experiment, but realistically 50 WWI soldiers would hardly make a dent. Sure, their weapons were better, but the effective range of an M1 Garand isn't much longer than that of a Civil War era rifle, both are mostly limited by iron sights/human vision and not the accuracy of the rifle itself. Additionally, Union sharpshooters would be certain to notice and pick off the funnily dressed and futuristic looking soldiers who were sniping at their officers and artillery. Add to that the massive amount of smoke, noise, and confusion and their effectiveness starts to plummet even more.
Your exact ‘plan’ doesn’t take into account the WWII support fire would be simply volley fire, they have nothing to aim at specifically. Blackpowder, used during the Civil War would’ve obscured any direct targets on Union side. And any engagement by WWII group , I covered in my other comment
Since a large portion of men from Southern States make up a large portion of Infantry units, I’d say Pickets charge would have been a success, as well as the rebels would have won the battle.
You either forgot they would have had M1917 light machine guns, the 60mm mortar section, bazookamen, and squad designated marskman likely carrying M1903 Springfields or for some reason intentionally left them out. Either way you left out a lot of weaponry they would've had with them.
They wouldn't need to have comms with their higher HQ as long as they can communicate amongst themselves with radios. Depending on how many radios they have, 1 or 2 can be left in the rear and they can teach some of the smarter folks how to use them.
Radios, radios, radios. Using 50 soldiers as scouts would open alternatives to Pickett's charge. If they can't avoid enemy scouts, their extra firepower would be a huge advantage in the small-unit skirmishes that Civil War scouts encountered and would give Lee a picture of the battlefield any 19th Century general would've envied.