Exactly ... when the turks used their arkebuse for the first times enemys were frightened. A canon that you can hold? Something they couldn't even grasp at the time. Then the fact that these rifles here are much faster. It would probably have changed the outcome. Maybe it would even be seen as magic because it is so superficial that you click and something directly impact.
@@ParryThis I'd say it's massive before firearms were introduced in the region, so it doesn't matter if it's in 1066 or 480BC in Europe. After it's introduced (early 13th century in Europe when the Mongols bring it), the effect diminishes as gunpowder is known, it's just more effective designs. By the late 1500s the psychological effects of muskets would be null as arquebuses were standard.
Gunpowder had been invented by 1066 AD but it probably hadn't reached Europe yet. According to Wikipedia, the earliest known written formula for gunpowder is in Chinese, from the Wujing Zongyao of 1044 AD. The earliest Western accounts of gunpowder appears in texts written by English philosopher Roger Bacon in 1267 called Opus Majus and Opus Tertium.
This is very much an ultimatum glass canon against an army of tanks scenario First things first: the Anglosaxons should be made familiar with gunfire, lest they flee in panic from their new friends (like Soviet units did when the Katyusha's were first deployed) Next would be to assign a bodyguard to the 95th. A decent sized group to form a shieldwall in front of them, should a sudden cavalry charge catch them out in the open, and one dedicated bodyguard for every rifleman once they get within archer range, and practice a little cooperation and simple commands (down! *Bang* up!) to not hamper their effectiveness Lastly, a point you did not mention: tight formations give less chance of missing shots. While the effect of a mass of cavalry thundering towards you is unnerving and can make you miss shots, these men faced down cavalry in the Napoleonic wars as well and while they looked different, death by long pointy piece of iron remained the same. My two cents
@@wardaddy6595 In real life this did not happen either. The Anglosaxons were exhausted from a LONG march, digging pits is very tiring work in the best of conditions. And curious, can't remember it from other vids: did they arrive at the battlefield around the same time, or did one arrive hours earlier?
@@sjonnieplayfull5859 possibly, but don't forget they'd be exhausted and depending on when the Rifles turn up, there'd be issues with getting them able to work together. Anglo-Saxon isn't very similar to English and while you could use signals, you need to work out what each means, and also they need time to get used to the rifles. They'd probably think the Gods themselves had descended. There was no gunpowder used in England OR Normsndy
Great video! Can you do modern US Marines QRF responding to the siege of peking during the boxer rebellion? (assisting the past Marines in the legation)
@@Destructaconn In that case they would probably achieve the same as the Tiger and Elephant did: kill loads of tanks until they got tracked or got a hit on the main gun Kursk was about numbers. Back when it was all books it read 2700 German tanks and assault guns versus 3600 Russian ones. A platoon of 5 might turn one attack, spend all their ammo on T-34/85, KV-85's and Su-152's, blunt one attack and help save other tanks, but in the end, the numbers would end it. In the air the Russians managed to get the upper hand as well, so that would further complicate things
@@sjonnieplayfull5859 I agree. As technology advances, a small force of modern units becomes less powerful in relative terms as the enemies are effectively catching up in tech, and as the scale of war increases. Regardless of how much better a Leopard's armor is than a Tiger, it can still be tracked by WW2 soviet AT weapons, and it has a limited amount of ammo. Depending on where and when they were deployed, they could make a small difference, killing many enemy tanks, but ultimately the amount they would contribute to battle as a whole would be low.
I think it's important to remeber that ranged weapons back in the middle ages were often not used to outright kill the opposition but to disrupt them and make thier formations harder to hold, Arrows, javlins wounds would not usually outright kill a person but injure them and hinder thier mobility and effectiveness in fighting and would usually lead to a much slower death unless the projectile could be removed and the wound sufficently cauterised, And thats only if they are able to penetrate armour such as mail which would have been used at the time along with shields which they would struggle to get past if the formation adopted a shield wall, A muzzle-loading rifle on the other hand shoots a ball almost 3 times the size (width wise) of a modern 9mm pistol bullet and would have a tremendous muzzle velocity depending on powder load, the projectile itself would not be very aerodynamic so it's range would be shorter than modern rifle as would it's accuaracy but in dense formations of men that probably wouldn't be an issue, it's also very unlikely that any amount of armour or even less a wooden sheild would be any protection against it. A projectile that large fired at that velocity is known to break bones and kill outright if hitting a vital spot, If not and you were unlucky enough to survive being shot it's likley you would go into shock and die from hemoraging. I think most medieval soldier would think of this as witchcraft or the like and would not be used to seeing fully armoured men be killed or disabled this quickly and would likely have a very serious effect on thier morale. Do bear in mind i'm not a historical expert but these weapons changed the history of warfare and made body armour which had been a staple of war since the dawn of man effectivly useless until modern times.
Oh yeah, at this point some of the more educated people _might_ have heard stories out of the far East about gunpowder, but to the vast majority even the idea would basically be magic.
I saw the tittle of this video on my home page and did a double take hahaha. I had to give it a watch, I was like this is so specific and interesting to me lol. Nice video, enjoyed.
Surely the superior British riflemen 's discipline would be a great advantage, they wouldn't foolish desert their sure position to pursuit a retreating enemy. Remember that the saxons didn't had ANY cavalry, and the battle was lost when they fell in the feigned retreat 's trap. Probabilly the riflemen would use a tactic employed by the early arquebusers, deploying themselves behind the shieldwall, firing then retreating to recharge, allowing a devastating continous fire. Remember that cavalry charges, for being effective, had to be very tight, so it's difficult that a shot will be lost, and add the probability of other knights trampling the fallen, so becoming CD.
I've got an interesting matchup for you... Who wins in a fight between squad of the 101st Airborne squad from 2015, and a squad from 1945? The matchup seems one-sided at first, but gets intriguing if you take a closer look. The WWII squad has more men, 12 to the modern squad's 9. The modern soldiers have body armor, but only the ceramic plates on the chest and back will stop .30-06, and only one hit. Modern soldiers have modern training, but their only combat experience is in low-intensity counterinsurgency, where the WWII squad has been through some or all of D-Day, Market-Garden, and the Bulge. And at the squad level, they don't have individual comms, spoken and hand signals only. 2015 squad loadout: 9 men, 7x M4 carbines, 2x M249 SAW, grenades 1945 squad loadout: 12 men, 10x M1 Garand, 2x BAR, grenades
No M203 grenade launchers? Either way 30 round mag vs 8 round clip; and 200 round SAW mag vs 20 round BAR mags. Huge advantage in suppressive firepower. It would come down to who is attacking? What’s the terrain?
@@CorePathway I also got rid of the M7 rifle grenade launcher for the Garand; a typical squad would have had 3 in 1945. They're about equal power to a 40mm, longer ranged but less accurate.
I think just the sound of rifles going off and the plumes of smoke followed by people falling over with massive puncture hole but nothing sticking out of them would turned the tide mentally much earlier
Hmm... what about a division of regiments akin to Regimental Combat Teams, of the early 1990's to middle 2010's of the French Armed Forces, with the support of one squadron of, say, Mirage 2000 and/or Rafale, one of attack helos, etc. with all the engineers, signals, medical, artillery, etc. support battalions, sent spearheading the Warndt/Saar Offensive in 1939 against the Wehrmacht?
@@Briselance modern jet fighters would be underwhelming, better WW2 or even WW1 designs to strafe enemy formations with machineguns. Sure, a supersonic boom would be terrifying but so would be a flying machine. So better an older design with machineguns
@Duke_of_Lorraine nah, they'd be a massive game changer, but not for the reasons people think. Modern jet fighters come with a bunch of advanced scanners and optics that, together with their high speed, would make them insanely effective recon planes. Bye-bye Ardennes offensive, the Mirage just spotted it from 10 miles away and has laid a carpet of cluster bombs along the single-track road. Funnily enough, the biggest challenge with modern jets in WW2 isn't ordnance or even maintenance, but supplying them with the right fuel. It wasn't until 1942-44ish that high octane fuel became widely available.
@@davidbuckley2435 a plane with a radio and a copilot with a map would do the same thing when it comes to recon. Perhabs more effectively as such plane would fly lower than a fighter jet. Napoleonic armies didn't have the same operational complexity as modern armies.
That is pretty good. I see lots of these sorts of things about modern day units going back in time but it's interesting to see historic forces from different eras jumping around.
I love those what-ifs❤ Why not leave the Anglosphere for the next one and do something like: KSK (German special forces) on the western front in WW1 or WW2 Greek infantry at Thermopylae ?
That gives me the idea of introducing technicals to an ancient chariot battle or giving the Persians torpedo boats at Salamus. In both of these cases, the modern units would have a significant advantage in mobility and firepower, but would still be vulnerable at close range.
Best deployment would be to have the 95th covering the beach as the Normans landed. I think if they had picked off the first 50 or so to come on shore (which would include William) the rest would turn and flee and not come back for a couple of generations.
@@ParryThis well, if memory serves, I think did something with teddy roosevelt vs lawrence of arabia some years ago on Deadliest Warriors I found cool and always wanted to see how Teddy would far against whomever after watching your page.
@@blindscience1701 Doing a bit of reading it turns out to be actually kind of complex. The most obvious question is when the Rough Riders should be added? At the infamous last stand of Custer's doomed battalion? Or prior to the battle itself where the addition of around 800* men might affect the plan of attack. * The 1st U.S Volunteer Cavalry had a strength of over 1000 men. However at least two companies were left behind in Tampa due to limit space aboard ships. The next question is, would the Rough Riders be mounted or dismounted? They were trained as cavalry but were forced to leave almost all their animals behind in Tampa, again because of limited space aboard ships. The third is a question of allowing the unique weapons attached to them, two Gatling guns, two privately purchased colt m1895 machine guns and a dynamite gun (a numatic cannon that hurled a load of volatile explosives). These would have a huge impact on the battle but again would wildly change the logistics as well.
One major thing considered how close the ranks are when it comes to melee based armies is that musket balls are able to go through more than one person. Even making account for period armor it's very probable that one ball could hit two people maybe up to three.
@Duke_of_Lorraine technically that's a fair question but in all reality there is only one real answer when someone says "the siege of jerulalem" and thats the one in 1187 ad
I'm thinking of sending a corp of German Freikorp troops back to the Boar Wars, the 2nd one which ended in British Victory in our world. How would battle harden German troops from 1918 and 1919 fair up against the British? Alternatively, how would the Ottomans Army from WW1 fair in the siege of Vienna? Could a company of Ottoman soldiers from the distant future be able to turn the tide of battle in the Ottomans favor?
@@ParryThis glad you think so. I do enjoy scenario or ideas like these, despite how some might write them off, I enjoy imaging old tech face off against more modern tech, soldiers, and tactics.
That could be interesting. Problem with the Battle of Thermopylae, is it would negate the largest advantage of the Crusaders, which would be heavy cavalry.
@@ParryThiswhy would the Templates dismount? Let Leonidas do his thing, and once the Persians retreat, let the 300 form a path for a lance to thunder through Alternatively, they could hide around the area of the goat trail and hit the Persians from the rear during the peak of the battle
I'm thinking the Calvary would quickly focus entirely on the riflemen as would the archers and if they were organized (likely sacrifice cavalry to get the archers close, The rifle company might get routed, but only at the loss of nearly all of the cavalry. Whether other part of the battle could be won without cavalry is still doubtful.
would be fairly interesting. I can't imagine they would actually achieve too much in trench warfare if its just infantry squads. airsupport artillery etc obviously would be GG OP
Love this series mate! Be interesting to do a naval one of some sort, such as Napoleonic era British Navy ship/s joining an ancient Greek naval battle of triremes. Also, something featuring the Mongols.
What could the 95th do against Andrew Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans? That it would be a very great video. I have heard that some of the 95th did fight against Andrew Jackson and lost because obviously America won that battle.
Five companies of the 3rd Battalion, 95th Foot were at New Orleans, so basically a half battalion. According to Wikipedia: “They disembarked at Bayou Catalan on 22 December 1814, having departed Plymouth, Devon on 18 September 1814.[16][17] Effective strength of 317 out of a headcount of 395 as at 25 December.[1] Casualties 23 to 24 December: 23 killed; 62 wounded; 42 missing. Casualties 1 to 5 January: 1 killed. 296 ORs on 8 January according to Major Pringle's letter.[11] Casualties 8 January: 11 killed; 101 wounded.[4] Effective strength of 200 out of a headcount of 345 as at 25 January 1815, 32 deaths since the prior monthly return.[2]“
Navy Seals during the Russian Intervention... Since the Seals used MP5's chambered in 9mm Parabellum, I bet they could punch above their weight, especially if they are supplemented by M1917 rifles with hunting scopes and dynamite
Don't over estimate the effectiveness of cavalry, even assuming the horses aren't terrified by the noise, the 95th could form square which would be at least as effective as in Napoleonic times remembering the horses were considerable smaller in 1066 In addition although I think 85% of bullets missing the target they are aimed at is fair, the Normans have to be close packed to stand a chance against the shield wall. A lot of misses are going to hit someone else.
Riflemen were issued with sword bayonets, and were very much trained to use them. They could also operate with regular line infantry tactics which could defend more easily against cavalry. Also, due to them being light infantry they could fire and then quickly put distance between them and the enemy.
Ideas: 1. 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but the US Navy is using the current modern technology. 2. Brusilov Offensive but with Soviet Red Army. 3. Battle of Okinawa, but with JSDF. 4. Battle of Isandlwana, but the British are using the WW1 technology. 5. Battle of Jutland, but the Germans are bringing in Bismarck, Tirpitz, and Graf Zeppelin. 6. British Commando raids on German heavy water facilities in Norway, but with the modern day SAS.
This one is a lot more in doubt than your other videos. I think you are underestimating the advantage the rate of fire gives to archers, against these types of guns. look up the fetterman massacre wyoming 1866,
If I may propose a match, I'd love to see you put Brian Boru's army of Irish and Danes from the Battle of Clontarf against Cromwell and his New Model Army at Drogheda (sp?). Cromwell has canon and single shot firearms, but Brian has staff sling and more than a few berserkers.
The issue is the rifles prior to the invention of the conical bullet were extremely slow to load. Also became fouled quickly. Even with later rifles in the Civil War the soldiers had to leave the line after a time to clean their weapons since they become fouled. 1-3 rounds a min were later rifles. I highly doubt they could have fired 1-3 rounds a min.
Suggestion for future ep: 1041st usaf security police squadron (project safe side. Vietnam war) at the battle of the little big horn helping Custer 1876.
And here is an Ode to the 95th rifles The first in the field, and the last to retreat When Bonaparte's armies are scattered and beaten They'll say that the 95th won the day. (tune: farewell and adieu)
William: Fall back, when they follow, turn and cut them down! Riflemen: Hey, they're retreating! Reload, prepare for the next volley! William: ...Excuse me, what?
America? That'd be nice. But you see, the King of England owes me last month's wages. And I'd never sleep easy in America knowing that that bastard owes me a shilling!
Interesting, as always, the question is for me if you sent a unit back and they changed the battle /history, do they go away after? If they had a bit of knowledge, they could introduce things like gunpowder and Iron musket balls for example and stay on top forever.
Writing this before watching (will edit) - My guess is the 95th Rifles would get *instantly* overrun by cavalry and all slaughtered, unless they had proper infantry support. Then they'd get a few casualties upon the enemy before the smoke on the battlefield nullified the extent of their operations, and they'd essentially just be regular skirmishers for the most of it. The rifle simply did not fit well upon the battlefield actively in roles except for skirmishing due to it's decreased rate of fire, and due to the fact it *still* produced smoke on the battlefield. Plus there's no way they're going to hold off a cavalry charge with 1-2 shots per minute, unless they're under very good defensive structures, and the longbow/crossbow will probably match or even defeat the 95th rifles (musketry was only rapidly adopted due to the fact it was cheap and easy to equip lots of men with it, along with of course the fact it could shoot through armor. Plus you didn't need to have a lot of strength to utilize a musket, unlike certain medieval longbows).
I know you already did ww1 in the American Rev war but i had an idea for an alternate history battle. 50 ww1 US marines aiding Patriot and French forces at the Siege of Savannah 1779. I would've asked for French Reanult FT's instead of US marines but i think that is a bit too overpowered.
the problem is they create a paradox by killing their great great great distant ancestors on the norman side which means they will never be born so they will never be able to travel back to the battle in the first place which would mean that the battle would infact as normal which means that the riflemen are in afct born which would mean they would be able to travel back in time and thus you have a paradox loop.
This actually isn't hilariously one sided. His precious videos involving more modern firearms were because in those situations, the time travelers really weren't vulnerable,.while here, the tech gal isn't enough to confidently say the Normans don't take down a rather significant portion of the riflemen with them.
I haven't watched the videos by my guess is that they probably didn't do much.. their rifles might gave them unmatched firepower and strike fear upon the enemy. they're basically a very very lightly armed ranger in a very loose formations and as a light infantry they're mostly fore harassing the enemies and are very very vulnerable to enemy cavalry.
This won’t change the results, but there was another video i saw quoting an English officer of the time. Brown bess musket kill rate less than 5%. Baker rifle in the hands of a trained riflemen 20%.
Baker rifles against medieval army formations would hit significantly more than 15% of their shots. However, you are not accounting for fouling - after several shots, the rifled barrels would have to be laboriously cleaned.
What is this easy version. Let's do something hard for example what 100 USA Navy Seals (or different Commando) could do in battle of Gettysburg(with their strategical and tactical help to R.E Lee).
was expecting this to be a surprisingly short video as realistically only 2 answers exist either they would a) massacre the other side to the point of causing them to run for their lives regardless of which side it was or b) one or both sides would think they were demons or devils and promptly massacre them to a man in a hurry or die trying. Would make for like a youtube short at best. This way is better
If the 95th had some time to train the Anglo-Saxons, then they could 'form square' as part of the shield wall and resist the Norman cavalry. The Norman cavalry would have been 'disturbed' by the sound and smells of gunpowder weapons.
Completely forgot about the effect of the rifles and gunfire on the Normans in terms of moral and how scared theyd be by sticks that explode and somehow kill people far away
So? They still have quantifiable feats regardless of plot armor or who's writing. Last I checked, Rambo being a hardcore Vietnam vet trained to live off the land and eat things that'd make a billy goat puke wasn't plot armor.
For all those suggestions the answer remains the same: Stalin wants Warsaw punished for his defeat in 1920 and he has no place for brave Poles in his communist Utopia So no matter how many Germans they kill, how much of Warsaw they manage to liberate, Stalin will just park his troops on the other side of the river a little bit longer. In the original timeline he waited over two months. The war COULD indeed have been over by Christmas In the end, be it Rambo, an M-60 crew or Green Berrets, they will run out of ammo just like Bor's army did Alternatively, they could have sent Roosevelt some balls so he would just telegram Stalin that a thousand US planes were inbound for one of his airfields and it would be considered rude if they were not allowed to land, refuel and rearm and go back to fighting Germans around Warsaw, and deliver supplies to the city Stalin just kept up the lie that five thousand Soviet tanks were no reason for the Germans to send reinforcements but somehow a few thousand resistance fighters DID cause them to send SO much reinforcements that the Soviet army could not move forward anymore The Kremlin really is a good place if you enjoy impossible lies ....
Now let’s see The Third Reich (Or WWII Soviets) vs 10 million Roman Empire soldiers, 10 million both Persian Empire soldiers, 10 million Assyrian soldiers, 15 million Akkadian soldiers, and 10 million Hittite soldiers.
Going back in time to potentially change history? Now that's soldiering!
Well sir, upon seeing the Normans advance, I formed a shield wall - that's my style, sir!
favorite comment, lol.
Such a comment has to be paid.
Here's forty shillings on the drum.
@@Briselance For those who'll volunteer to come
King Godwinson payed with his LIFE, Sir!
The psychological impact of rifles can not be ignored
Exactly ... when the turks used their arkebuse for the first times enemys were frightened. A canon that you can hold? Something they couldn't even grasp at the time. Then the fact that these rifles here are much faster. It would probably have changed the outcome. Maybe it would even be seen as magic because it is so superficial that you click and something directly impact.
Correct. And i think the further back you go, the more of an overwhelming advantage firearms would be due to that psychological effect.
@@ParryThis I'd say it's massive before firearms were introduced in the region, so it doesn't matter if it's in 1066 or 480BC in Europe. After it's introduced (early 13th century in Europe when the Mongols bring it), the effect diminishes as gunpowder is known, it's just more effective designs. By the late 1500s the psychological effects of muskets would be null as arquebuses were standard.
Gunpowder had been invented by 1066 AD but it probably hadn't reached Europe yet. According to Wikipedia, the earliest known written formula for gunpowder is in Chinese, from the Wujing Zongyao of 1044 AD. The earliest Western accounts of gunpowder appears in texts written by English philosopher Roger Bacon in 1267 called Opus Majus and Opus Tertium.
Guns reached Europe in the later Middle Ages. But you are clearly correct gunpowder was a Chinese invention.@@snapdragon6601
This is very much an ultimatum glass canon against an army of tanks scenario
First things first: the Anglosaxons should be made familiar with gunfire, lest they flee in panic from their new friends (like Soviet units did when the Katyusha's were first deployed)
Next would be to assign a bodyguard to the 95th. A decent sized group to form a shieldwall in front of them, should a sudden cavalry charge catch them out in the open, and one dedicated bodyguard for every rifleman once they get within archer range, and practice a little cooperation and simple commands (down! *Bang* up!) to not hamper their effectiveness
Lastly, a point you did not mention: tight formations give less chance of missing shots. While the effect of a mass of cavalry thundering towards you is unnerving and can make you miss shots, these men faced down cavalry in the Napoleonic wars as well and while they looked different, death by long pointy piece of iron remained the same.
My two cents
Also, given enough time to prepare , they could have deployed sharpened stakes and dug hidden pits for anti-cav protection.
@@wardaddy6595 In real life this did not happen either. The Anglosaxons were exhausted from a LONG march, digging pits is very tiring work in the best of conditions.
And curious, can't remember it from other vids: did they arrive at the battlefield around the same time, or did one arrive hours earlier?
@@sjonnieplayfull5859Harold picked the field, but only by a few hours if memory serves.
@@Bus_Driver_Jay just enough to assign a bodyguard to the rifles. Thanks
@@sjonnieplayfull5859 possibly, but don't forget they'd be exhausted and depending on when the Rifles turn up, there'd be issues with getting them able to work together. Anglo-Saxon isn't very similar to English and while you could use signals, you need to work out what each means, and also they need time to get used to the rifles. They'd probably think the Gods themselves had descended. There was no gunpowder used in England OR Normsndy
This is the most interesting one yet. Because the future soldiers are actually vulnerable
I thought so too.
Sharpe's rifles REALLY must want Anglish to be a thing.
That's just good soldiering.
Yip a lot of those riflemen would’ve been Norman descendants now that’s what I call paradoxing 😂
Great video! Can you do modern US Marines QRF responding to the siege of peking during the boxer rebellion? (assisting the past Marines in the legation)
Could you perhaps do a video discussing what a single or maybe a platoon of leopard 2A7s could achieve at the battle of Kursk? Love your videos!
On which side?
@@sjonnieplayfull5859 german, probably, given that the lepoards are modern german tanks
Bro wants the nazis to win
@@Destructaconn In that case they would probably achieve the same as the Tiger and Elephant did: kill loads of tanks until they got tracked or got a hit on the main gun
Kursk was about numbers. Back when it was all books it read 2700 German tanks and assault guns versus 3600 Russian ones. A platoon of 5 might turn one attack, spend all their ammo on T-34/85, KV-85's and Su-152's, blunt one attack and help save other tanks, but in the end, the numbers would end it.
In the air the Russians managed to get the upper hand as well, so that would further complicate things
@@sjonnieplayfull5859 I agree. As technology advances, a small force of modern units becomes less powerful in relative terms as the enemies are effectively catching up in tech, and as the scale of war increases. Regardless of how much better a Leopard's armor is than a Tiger, it can still be tracked by WW2 soviet AT weapons, and it has a limited amount of ammo. Depending on where and when they were deployed, they could make a small difference, killing many enemy tanks, but ultimately the amount they would contribute to battle as a whole would be low.
This has quickly become my favorite series that you produce. Next time you should do something in the American Indian Wars, or the War of 1812.
I am glad you enjoy it. It is also quickly becoming my favorite series to produce.
There's an ok book series on it time warriors I think
If I may offer a suggestion, Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders at the Battle of Little Big Horn.
That would probably end in a similar outcome, I suppose bolt action rifles would help a little but not enough
@davidw1634 they wouldn't make much of a difference a lot of those American Indians had repeater rifles.
*Major Richard Sharpe Shoots William of Normandy down in combat*.
Perkins: "Did you just kill William the Conqueror?"
Sharpe: "Bastard!"
I think it's important to remeber that ranged weapons back in the middle ages were often not used to outright kill the opposition but to disrupt them and make thier formations harder to hold, Arrows, javlins wounds would not usually outright kill a person but injure them and hinder thier mobility and effectiveness in fighting and would usually lead to a much slower death unless the projectile could be removed and the wound sufficently cauterised, And thats only if they are able to penetrate armour such as mail which would have been used at the time along with shields which they would struggle to get past if the formation adopted a shield wall,
A muzzle-loading rifle on the other hand shoots a ball almost 3 times the size (width wise) of a modern 9mm pistol bullet and would have a tremendous muzzle velocity depending on powder load, the projectile itself would not be very aerodynamic so it's range would be shorter than modern rifle as would it's accuaracy but in dense formations of men that probably wouldn't be an issue, it's also very unlikely that any amount of armour or even less a wooden sheild would be any protection against it.
A projectile that large fired at that velocity is known to break bones and kill outright if hitting a vital spot, If not and you were unlucky enough to survive being shot it's likley you would go into shock and die from hemoraging. I think most medieval soldier would think of this as witchcraft or the like and would not be used to seeing fully armoured men be killed or disabled this quickly and would likely have a very serious effect on thier morale.
Do bear in mind i'm not a historical expert but these weapons changed the history of warfare and made body armour which had been a staple of war since the dawn of man effectivly useless until modern times.
Oh yeah, at this point some of the more educated people _might_ have heard stories out of the far East about gunpowder, but to the vast majority even the idea would basically be magic.
I saw the tittle of this video on my home page and did a double take hahaha. I had to give it a watch, I was like this is so specific and interesting to me lol. Nice video, enjoyed.
Great idea. I love the concept of iron age warriors facing Baker Rifles.
I've made scenarios like this in my head all the time as a kid. Especially when I was on deployment lol. Can't believe I just found this channel.
Great video, this series shows a lot of potential and your putting it to use.
Glad you think so!
Love these videos. Great to learn history, and then go through a hypothetical mind exercise.
Glad you like them!
Just like a historical Death Battle!
Surely the superior British riflemen 's discipline would be a great advantage, they wouldn't foolish desert their sure position to pursuit a retreating enemy. Remember that the saxons didn't had ANY cavalry, and the battle was lost when they fell in the feigned retreat 's trap.
Probabilly the riflemen would use a tactic employed by the early arquebusers, deploying themselves behind the shieldwall, firing then retreating to recharge, allowing a devastating continous fire. Remember that cavalry charges, for being effective, had to be very tight, so it's difficult that a shot will be lost, and add the probability of other knights trampling the fallen, so becoming CD.
I've got an interesting matchup for you... Who wins in a fight between squad of the 101st Airborne squad from 2015, and a squad from 1945?
The matchup seems one-sided at first, but gets intriguing if you take a closer look. The WWII squad has more men, 12 to the modern squad's 9. The modern soldiers have body armor, but only the ceramic plates on the chest and back will stop .30-06, and only one hit. Modern soldiers have modern training, but their only combat experience is in low-intensity counterinsurgency, where the WWII squad has been through some or all of D-Day, Market-Garden, and the Bulge. And at the squad level, they don't have individual comms, spoken and hand signals only.
2015 squad loadout: 9 men, 7x M4 carbines, 2x M249 SAW, grenades
1945 squad loadout: 12 men, 10x M1 Garand, 2x BAR, grenades
No M203 grenade launchers?
Either way 30 round mag vs 8 round clip; and 200 round SAW mag vs 20 round BAR mags. Huge advantage in suppressive firepower.
It would come down to who is attacking? What’s the terrain?
@@CorePathway I also got rid of the M7 rifle grenade launcher for the Garand; a typical squad would have had 3 in 1945. They're about equal power to a 40mm, longer ranged but less accurate.
This is my first encounter with your channel and I enjoyed it immensely. Huzzah!
Welcome aboard!
I think just the sound of rifles going off and the plumes of smoke followed by people falling over with massive puncture hole but nothing sticking out of them would turned the tide mentally much earlier
What if Napoléon had a company of Leclerc tanks at the battle of Waterloo ? Or as he was an artillery specialist, some 75mm guns ?
I would say the artillery would be an interesting change.
Hmm... what about a division of regiments akin to Regimental Combat Teams, of the early 1990's to middle 2010's of the French Armed Forces, with the support of one squadron of, say, Mirage 2000 and/or Rafale, one of attack helos, etc. with all the engineers, signals, medical, artillery, etc. support battalions, sent spearheading the Warndt/Saar Offensive in 1939 against the Wehrmacht?
@@Briselance modern jet fighters would be underwhelming, better WW2 or even WW1 designs to strafe enemy formations with machineguns. Sure, a supersonic boom would be terrifying but so would be a flying machine.
So better an older design with machineguns
@Duke_of_Lorraine nah, they'd be a massive game changer, but not for the reasons people think. Modern jet fighters come with a bunch of advanced scanners and optics that, together with their high speed, would make them insanely effective recon planes.
Bye-bye Ardennes offensive, the Mirage just spotted it from 10 miles away and has laid a carpet of cluster bombs along the single-track road.
Funnily enough, the biggest challenge with modern jets in WW2 isn't ordnance or even maintenance, but supplying them with the right fuel.
It wasn't until 1942-44ish that high octane fuel became widely available.
@@davidbuckley2435 a plane with a radio and a copilot with a map would do the same thing when it comes to recon. Perhabs more effectively as such plane would fly lower than a fighter jet.
Napoleonic armies didn't have the same operational complexity as modern armies.
That is pretty good. I see lots of these sorts of things about modern day units going back in time but it's interesting to see historic forces from different eras jumping around.
Love these great videos!
One possible (yet bad) video idea I had was 1 M1 Abrams at Waterloo.
Keep up the good work!
Your voice makes me want to listen about battles in history and fantasy for hours
Who else wants Sean Bean to say “William the BASTAD, BASTAD”
Awesome video man very interesting points!
love your videos! keep em coming
Awesome! Wish for 21st century Green Berets vs ancient factions!
That would be cool!
I love those what-ifs❤ Why not leave the Anglosphere for the next one and do something like: KSK (German special forces) on the western front in WW1 or WW2 Greek infantry at Thermopylae ?
That gives me the idea of introducing technicals to an ancient chariot battle or giving the Persians torpedo boats at Salamus. In both of these cases, the modern units would have a significant advantage in mobility and firepower, but would still be vulnerable at close range.
Best deployment would be to have the 95th covering the beach as the Normans landed. I think if they had picked off the first 50 or so to come on shore (which would include William) the rest would turn and flee and not come back for a couple of generations.
Love your content man. Keep it up
I would love to see the teddy Roosevelt rough riders in one of your what if videos. Gatling guns and all.
I'm thinking that could be a fun idea. I'll see what setting the rough riders would go best in.
@@ParryThis well, if memory serves, I think did something with teddy roosevelt vs lawrence of arabia some years ago on Deadliest Warriors I found cool and always wanted to see how Teddy would far against whomever after watching your page.
What if the Rough Riders joined Custer's 7th Cavalry regiment at the Little Bighorn?
@@williamlydon2554 I think you might be onto to something, good sire.
@@blindscience1701 Doing a bit of reading it turns out to be actually kind of complex. The most obvious question is when the Rough Riders should be added? At the infamous last stand of Custer's doomed battalion? Or prior to the battle itself where the addition of around 800* men might affect the plan of attack.
* The 1st U.S Volunteer Cavalry had a strength of over 1000 men. However at least two companies were left behind in Tampa due to limit space aboard ships.
The next question is, would the Rough Riders be mounted or dismounted? They were trained as cavalry but were forced to leave almost all their animals behind in Tampa, again because of limited space aboard ships.
The third is a question of allowing the unique weapons attached to them, two Gatling guns, two privately purchased colt m1895 machine guns and a dynamite gun (a numatic cannon that hurled a load of volatile explosives). These would have a huge impact on the battle but again would wildly change the logistics as well.
Please do what if modern Italian paratroopers were at the battle of Candia on the isle of Crete between Venice and the Ottomans.
That's an interesting suggestion. I'll have to ruminate on that one.
Hopefully without TV, reporters or similar, otherwise imagine what kind of cries would arouse for the "poor" turks!😬
Avanti Folgore!
Please do a naval video of Taffy 3 being sent to The Four Days’ Battle of 1666. Imagine 5 inch guns vs Ships of the line
One major thing considered how close the ranks are when it comes to melee based armies is that musket balls are able to go through more than one person. Even making account for period armor it's very probable that one ball could hit two people maybe up to three.
Winged hussars at the siege of herusalem
Which siege ? What year ?
@Duke_of_Lorraine technically that's a fair question but in all reality there is only one real answer when someone says "the siege of jerulalem" and thats the one in 1187 ad
Sorry in the year of our lord 1187
In the year of our lord 1187, the Defenders of Jerusalem were all but overwhelmed....Then the Winged Hussars Arrived!
@@ParryThis did anyone else read the last part really aggressive way. Like in a Swedish metal sort of way
Here's a possible scenario
Admiral Togo's flagship(the Mikasa, a pre-dreadnought class battleship)vs Admiral YI's entire fleet
If Sharpe is on your side, you’re most likely going to win.
I'm thinking of sending a corp of German Freikorp troops back to the Boar Wars, the 2nd one which ended in British Victory in our world. How would battle harden German troops from 1918 and 1919 fair up against the British?
Alternatively, how would the Ottomans Army from WW1 fair in the siege of Vienna? Could a company of Ottoman soldiers from the distant future be able to turn the tide of battle in the Ottomans favor?
A very interesting suggestion.
@@ParryThis glad you think so. I do enjoy scenario or ideas like these, despite how some might write them off, I enjoy imaging old tech face off against more modern tech, soldiers, and tactics.
I got one for you parry. What would happen if you sent back a 20th century artillery company or 5 self propelled guns to Napoleon at Waterloo?
Templar Crusaders aiding the Greeks at the Battle of Thermopylae?
That could be interesting. Problem with the Battle of Thermopylae, is it would negate the largest advantage of the Crusaders, which would be heavy cavalry.
Yes
then the sassanids arrive and help the Achaemenids or better still they arrive at the battle of marathon with their cataphracts.
@@ParryThiswhy would the Templates dismount? Let Leonidas do his thing, and once the Persians retreat, let the 300 form a path for a lance to thunder through
Alternatively, they could hide around the area of the goat trail and hit the Persians from the rear during the peak of the battle
As a Frenchman, this is the "Britishest" thing I've ever seen.
I'm thinking the Calvary would quickly focus entirely on the riflemen as would the archers and if they were organized (likely sacrifice cavalry to get the archers close, The rifle company might get routed, but only at the loss of nearly all of the cavalry. Whether other part of the battle could be won without cavalry is still doubtful.
Could you try a scenerio where modern soilders are sent to a ww2 or ww1 battle? I would be interested in seeing how that would go.
would be fairly interesting. I can't imagine they would actually achieve too much in trench warfare if its just infantry squads. airsupport artillery etc obviously would be GG OP
Love this series mate! Be interesting to do a naval one of some sort, such as Napoleonic era British Navy ship/s joining an ancient Greek naval battle of triremes. Also, something featuring the Mongols.
What could the 95th do against Andrew Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans? That it would be a very great video. I have heard that some of the 95th did fight against Andrew Jackson and lost because obviously America won that battle.
Five companies of the 3rd Battalion, 95th Foot were at New Orleans, so basically a half battalion. According to Wikipedia:
“They disembarked at Bayou Catalan on 22 December 1814, having departed Plymouth, Devon on 18 September 1814.[16][17] Effective strength of 317 out of a headcount of 395 as at 25 December.[1] Casualties 23 to 24 December: 23 killed; 62 wounded; 42 missing. Casualties 1 to 5 January: 1 killed. 296 ORs on 8 January according to Major Pringle's letter.[11] Casualties 8 January: 11 killed; 101 wounded.[4] Effective strength of 200 out of a headcount of 345 as at 25 January 1815, 32 deaths since the prior monthly return.[2]“
Navy Seals during the Russian Intervention...
Since the Seals used MP5's chambered in 9mm Parabellum, I bet they could punch above their weight, especially if they are supplemented by M1917 rifles with hunting scopes and dynamite
What if the Napoleonic wars had 21st Century technology
Cool video
Thank you.
Don't over estimate the effectiveness of cavalry, even assuming the horses aren't terrified by the noise, the 95th could form square which would be at least as effective as in Napoleonic times remembering the horses were considerable smaller in 1066
In addition although I think 85% of bullets missing the target they are aimed at is fair, the Normans have to be close packed to stand a chance against the shield wall. A lot of misses are going to hit someone else.
now I got to try this out in UEBS 2
A pike and shot army at the battle of Thermopylae? Or some other similar Bronze Age battle?
Riflemen were issued with sword bayonets, and were very much trained to use them. They could also operate with regular line infantry tactics which could defend more easily against cavalry. Also, due to them being light infantry they could fire and then quickly put distance between them and the enemy.
I always think of things like this but never see them put into a video
Ideas:
1. 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but the US Navy is using the current modern technology.
2. Brusilov Offensive but with Soviet Red Army.
3. Battle of Okinawa, but with JSDF.
4. Battle of Isandlwana, but the British are using the WW1 technology.
5. Battle of Jutland, but the Germans are bringing in Bismarck, Tirpitz, and Graf Zeppelin.
6. British Commando raids on German heavy water facilities in Norway, but with the modern day SAS.
I especially like the stealth raid in WW2 utilizing modern SAS. That could be a fun exercise.
There's a movie on that. A Nimitz class carrier is transported back to the day before.
The Final Countdown.
This one is a lot more in doubt than your other videos. I think you are underestimating the advantage the rate of fire gives to archers, against these types of guns. look up the fetterman massacre wyoming 1866,
If I may propose a match, I'd love to see you put Brian Boru's army of Irish and Danes from the Battle of Clontarf against Cromwell and his New Model Army at Drogheda (sp?). Cromwell has canon and single shot firearms, but Brian has staff sling and more than a few berserkers.
US civil war Line Infantry (1865 ish) in relief of the siege of Vienna.
The issue is the rifles prior to the invention of the conical bullet were extremely slow to load. Also became fouled quickly. Even with later rifles in the Civil War the soldiers had to leave the line after a time to clean their weapons since they become fouled. 1-3 rounds a min were later rifles. I highly doubt they could have fired 1-3 rounds a min.
With Maj. Sharpe and the chosen men they could! That's what makes a goos soldier!
Suggestion for future ep: 1041st usaf security police squadron (project safe side. Vietnam war) at the battle of the little big horn helping Custer 1876.
Could you send a Barbary Coast pirate ship back to the battle of Ecnomus between Rome and Carthage?
And here is an Ode to the 95th rifles
The first in the field, and the last to retreat
When Bonaparte's armies are scattered and beaten
They'll say that the 95th won the day.
(tune: farewell and adieu)
How about a SWAT team versus the first Viking raid at Lindisfarne? =^[.]^=
William: Fall back, when they follow, turn and cut them down!
Riflemen: Hey, they're retreating! Reload, prepare for the next volley!
William: ...Excuse me, what?
America? That'd be nice. But you see, the King of England owes me last month's wages. And I'd never sleep easy in America knowing that that bastard owes me a shilling!
Settle down Harper.
But which side should the Rifles belong to? Are they more Saxon or more Norman?
Interesting, as always, the question is for me if you sent a unit back and they changed the battle /history, do they go away after? If they had a bit of knowledge, they could introduce things like gunpowder and Iron musket balls for example and stay on top forever.
Falklands task force from 1982 at Waterloo
With the Chinooks?
The mere use of rifles would instil a fear of sorcery in the Normans. They'd be routed a lot sooner than you assume in this video.
Yes, because the Normans have less an ability to adapt to loud noises than literally everyone else who ever faced off against early gunpowder weapons.
Doom guy replacing the lone Viking holding off the Saxons at the battle of Stamford Bridge
My brother have you been watching Sharpe with Sean Bean?
Now I wanna watch Sharps Hastings
No, I’ve never seen you do a video about the Navy what about hood repulse a vanguard and KGV being sent to the Battle of Jutland?
I'm spittballing some navy idea. We'll have to see what i'm able to figure out first.
Writing this before watching (will edit) - My guess is the 95th Rifles would get *instantly* overrun by cavalry and all slaughtered, unless they had proper infantry support. Then they'd get a few casualties upon the enemy before the smoke on the battlefield nullified the extent of their operations, and they'd essentially just be regular skirmishers for the most of it. The rifle simply did not fit well upon the battlefield actively in roles except for skirmishing due to it's decreased rate of fire, and due to the fact it *still* produced smoke on the battlefield.
Plus there's no way they're going to hold off a cavalry charge with 1-2 shots per minute, unless they're under very good defensive structures, and the longbow/crossbow will probably match or even defeat the 95th rifles (musketry was only rapidly adopted due to the fact it was cheap and easy to equip lots of men with it, along with of course the fact it could shoot through armor. Plus you didn't need to have a lot of strength to utilize a musket, unlike certain medieval longbows).
Its also thought that instead of thinking Williams had died it was a depiction strategy
What if they had the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch?
Do one the other way, how many of Henry V's army from Agincourt do we need to make the battle of isandlwana a British victory?
I know you already did ww1 in the American Rev war but i had an idea for an alternate history battle. 50 ww1 US marines aiding Patriot and French forces at the Siege of Savannah 1779. I would've asked for French Reanult FT's instead of US marines but i think that is a bit too overpowered.
the problem is they create a paradox by killing their great great great distant ancestors on the norman side which means they will never be born so they will never be able to travel back to the battle in the first place which would mean that the battle would infact as normal which means that the riflemen are in afct born which would mean they would be able to travel back in time and thus you have a paradox loop.
God, this is hilariously one-sided and I love it. Gives me a good chuckle, can't wait to see more.
This actually isn't hilariously one sided. His precious videos involving more modern firearms were because in those situations, the time travelers really weren't vulnerable,.while here, the tech gal isn't enough to confidently say the Normans don't take down a rather significant portion of the riflemen with them.
Do midlevel knight's against the Egyptian empire sense total war pharaohs came out recently
I haven't watched the videos by my guess is that they probably didn't do much.. their rifles might gave them unmatched firepower and strike fear upon the enemy. they're basically a very very lightly armed ranger in a very loose formations and as a light infantry they're mostly fore harassing the enemies and are very very vulnerable to enemy cavalry.
“my lord, why these green men shoots fire on their sticks ? who are they”
“ they are on our side. at least that matters”
This won’t change the results, but there was another video i saw quoting an English officer of the time. Brown bess musket kill rate less than 5%. Baker rifle in the hands of a trained riflemen 20%.
How about a Marine Expeditionary Unit vs the Confederates at Fredericksburg?
Baker rifles against medieval army formations would hit significantly more than 15% of their shots. However, you are not accounting for fouling - after several shots, the rifled barrels would have to be laboriously cleaned.
I would like to see Vietnam era Air Cavalry with the Allies at the battle of Arnhem. Also a U2 spy plane with the Red Army in WWII
What is this easy version. Let's do something hard for example what 100 USA Navy Seals (or different Commando) could do in battle of Gettysburg(with their strategical and tactical help to R.E Lee).
was expecting this to be a surprisingly short video as realistically only 2 answers exist either they would a) massacre the other side to the point of causing them to run for their lives regardless of which side it was or b) one or both sides would think they were demons or devils and promptly massacre them to a man in a hurry or die trying. Would make for like a youtube short at best. This way is better
If the 95th had some time to train the Anglo-Saxons, then they could 'form square' as part of the shield wall and resist the Norman cavalry.
The Norman cavalry would have been 'disturbed' by the sound and smells of gunpowder weapons.
What if Pearl Harbor had 20 Modern Jets with Rader/Command/Air Base? (1941)
The French and Indian War was fought way before 1800 AD. That war was a mid 18th century conflict.
yes can he exsplain it in an understandabole way i dont mesure in the inche thing and yard and that i use the system with mm cm dm m km mil:/
They would have die very fast because of the enemy arrows - they didn't have any shield !
Completely forgot about the effect of the rifles and gunfire on the Normans in terms of moral and how scared theyd be by sticks that explode and somehow kill people far away
It's a bit like asking "how would superman do in a heavyweight fight"
The technology level is just so far removed.
How about Rambo in the Warsaw Uprising?!
The problem with fictional characters like rambo, is that 90% of their effectiveness comes from Plot Armor.
So? They still have quantifiable feats regardless of plot armor or who's writing. Last I checked, Rambo being a hardcore Vietnam vet trained to live off the land and eat things that'd make a billy goat puke wasn't plot armor.
Okay, how about an M60 unit from the 1960’s. That gets rid of the plot armor.
How about a squad of modern Green Berets with all the latest tech. the night vision, drones and all?!
For all those suggestions the answer remains the same: Stalin wants Warsaw punished for his defeat in 1920 and he has no place for brave Poles in his communist Utopia
So no matter how many Germans they kill, how much of Warsaw they manage to liberate, Stalin will just park his troops on the other side of the river a little bit longer. In the original timeline he waited over two months. The war COULD indeed have been over by Christmas
In the end, be it Rambo, an M-60 crew or Green Berrets, they will run out of ammo just like Bor's army did
Alternatively, they could have sent Roosevelt some balls so he would just telegram Stalin that a thousand US planes were inbound for one of his airfields and it would be considered rude if they were not allowed to land, refuel and rearm and go back to fighting Germans around Warsaw, and deliver supplies to the city
Stalin just kept up the lie that five thousand Soviet tanks were no reason for the Germans to send reinforcements but somehow a few thousand resistance fighters DID cause them to send SO much reinforcements that the Soviet army could not move forward anymore
The Kremlin really is a good place if you enjoy impossible lies ....
Now let’s see The Third Reich (Or WWII Soviets) vs 10 million Roman Empire soldiers, 10 million both Persian Empire soldiers, 10 million Assyrian soldiers, 15 million Akkadian soldiers, and 10 million Hittite soldiers.
Do Napoleon in the 100 year war
Hey I have an idea! What about modern Russian troops assisting the white Russians during the bolshevik revolution? That would be hype.