Could 50 WW2 American Infantrymen Change Pickett's Charge?
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 01. 2024
- Join us for a captivating exploration of the Battle of Gettysburg with a twist: What if 50 WW2 soldiers were sent back in time to change the course of history? Discover the Civil War era's tactics, strategies, and weaponry, contrasted with the advanced firepower and skills of these WW2 veterans. Explore the potential impact on Pickett's Charge and the broader historical implications of this hypothetical scenario. Don't miss this intriguing blend of fact and fiction that reimagines a pivotal moment in American history. Subscribe now for more historical "what if" scenarios!
👥 CONNECT & CONVERSE: Love speculating about history? Got ideas or scenarios you're itching to see? Drop a COMMENT below, SHARE your thoughts, and JOIN our community of passionate history enthusiasts!
🔔 DON'T MISS OUT: Click the BELL ICON to receive notifications and stay updated on the latest content. Check out our PLAYLIST for more gripping historical conjectures, and FOLLOW us on social media for behind-the-scenes extras and community polls!
Other Alternate History Battles: • Alternate History Battles
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 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.
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.
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...
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.
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!!!!!!
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 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.
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.
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 have have heard about it since idiot MTG mistook it for a Confederate Monument.
Unless they were able to cancel the Union artillery, probably just further casualties?
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
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
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.
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.
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"
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.
@@user-fu9vj9ix3gconsider the US troops could crawl forward and infiltrate, deploy smoke, then grenades, and then suppress the unholy position as the CSA advances.
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.
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.
Desert Storm soldiers in one of the War of 1812 battles would be interesting.
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.
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.
"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.
Reminds me of the 70s SNL sketch "What if Napolean had B-52s at the battle of Waterloo?"
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 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.
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 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.
I had a similar strategy. Keep about 10 of the best marksmen with Garands to the rear to act as snipers, picking off commanders, followed by the artillerymen. The rest of teh WW II platoon would move behind Pickett's men. As you said, the BARs would use short bursts for suppressive fire. Once close, 200 yards or less, the accompanying riflemen would use aimed shots to pick off Union troops in one sector of the charge, creating a weak point for the Confederates to create a breach.Those with Thompson submachineguns would enfilade and roll up the Union lines as the remaining riflemen , staying as one cohesive unit, act as a beakthrough force (a task that would normally be left to tanks in WW II), They would attack the command center and artillery, followed by concentrated fire to the Union rear. The attack to the enemy would mainly create psychological shock, ratehr than casualties. Bascially, we want the Union lines to break, with the rest of the Confederate troops exploiting the breach.
At Gettysburg, the rear was nearly a mile away. Snipers during Pickett's Charge would be best used ahead of the advancing Confederates , leapfrogging and maintaining a rolling advance. Heart rate would be an issue. Also, they would be within range of accurate Union artillery rifles the whole way across the open farmland. Once anyone was within 200 yards, the Garand, BAR, .30 cal, would not have much advantage in accuracy. Gatling guns were known by 1863, so I don't think a full auto weapon wouild have been much of a shock, except in range. And, how much ammo can two reinforced platoons carry. The volume of musket fire that would have been concentrated on them would far out number the rounds they could have returned. Union artillery rifles at under 1000 yards could hit a 30 gallon garbage can. Under 300 yeards the artillery switched to grape shot - and became huge shotguns. It was the most devasting weapon of the warfare in those days. We have to assume that the WW2 soldiers would have been as shot up as the rest of the regiments, half of who lay dead or wounded when it was over.
The Union troops in the Army of the Potomac were arguably by 1863, the best army in the world, and any anomalous soldiers seen firing with precision weapons would be targeted by hundreds of accurate muskets. Caveat: Most union soldiers were not marksmen, and had no idea they could with drill, hit a man at 500 yards. Thus, except for some experinced companies of veterans, most volley fire was done under 200 yards - often much less. A those close ranges, the Civil War rifled musket was as effective as any moder rifle, penetrating up to three men with one shot.
In my scenario - since we're all playing along - the 50 modern troops would have had little impact. Now, a battalion? Sure.
The battle field was massive, and there wasn't a flank that could be taken by enfilade - only by massive numbers in frontal assault. That's what failed against Chamberlians's 20th Maine.
Lee mistakenly thought that Meade - who was a very competent commander - would place his strength on the flanks, possibly because of the repulse of the Texans by the 20th Maine. He decided that the Union center would be the weak spot but did not realize that it had been reinforced just hours prior to Pickett's Charge. The men who held the center were the best troops in the Union army, and had fought at Chancelorville and Fredricksburg. They were not going to run.
@@user-fu9vj9ix3g
Battlefield commands to include brigadier generals, and sometime higher up would be close to the frontlines just to see with their own eyes what is happening, sometimes right on the frointline sto encourage their men. Look at the nimber of generals killed during the Civil War. And because the the Union forces occupied a ridge, any division general would need to be right at the front lines to look down at the Confederate forces.
I do not believe the artillery would be able to spot the snipers, even assuming they knew what to look for. They will not be able to see a single shots and you have to remember that the modern rifles used smokeless powder. Furthermore, vetran WW II troops would be well versed in using concealment.
I think we would have to disagree on the relative accuracy of the WW II weapons vs Civil war rifled muskets. Granted, the advantage would be much less. However, there is also the issue of rate of fire. I am not sure if you have done much shooting, but if you can maintain your position and "cheek weld" to a rifle, you will have improved accuracy for follow on shots. The Union soldiers would need muzzle load teh next round, not only losing their firing posture, but also losing track of what is going on in the field. The WW II troops can fire three or for aimed shots rapidly and then move. I would also keep the WW II troops near the rear of the Confederate troops charging (actually marching briskly till they got really close). Their uniform may help a bit. I suspect any Union soldier would focus on the lead confederate troops.
To be fair, the fog of war is often very dense. lol
@@ycplum7062 Good points, but I disagree on the visibilty and concealment issue. Yes, I've been shooting for 50 years - a lot of it black powder. Lots of reading on the Civil War, it's weapons and tactics. No expert, but a keen student thereof.
There was almost zero concealment during the entire crossing by Pettigrew's men. WW2 soldiers would not have had any better visibilty of the Union line than confedrate troops had - which was almost none given the thickness of black powder smoke on the field, which was windless and over 95 degrees all during the battle. All visibliti was had by the Union line because they occupied the high ground and the smoke filled the entire western Gettysburg front below. Most of the smoke was from Union fire that drifted straight down the slope into the faces of the rebels and away from the Union line. A high pressure system and high humdity held it there for the entire battle. It was a turkey shoot.
The best representation of a Civil War battle IMO, was shot in the movie "Glory" , when the Regimnet fought its first engagement. The rebels came up quickly and silentley, crouched low, through the smoke of previous fire and were only visible at what appeared to be well under 100 yards.
In the movie "Gettysburg" there was no lingering smoke at all, even in the scenes showing the charge of the 20th Maine. It wouldn't have been very interesting if the audience saw nothing, right?
WW2 soldiers would have been instantly recognised by their round helmets - which did not exist in the world at the time. And, they would have been seen clearly as they got to within their own visibilty distance, which would certainly oput them at grave risk of grapeshot and aimed musketry.
We have to getaway from the Hollywood Gettysburg scenes of clear visibility and selective casualty shots. The reality was that men went down in heaps and rows, all along the mile wide front of the charge, and got worse as they attempted to close-in to the center at the kopse of trees near the Angle. Companies and regiments simply could not see the rally point within the first few minutes of the step off. That's why Armitage (?) stuck his hat on his saber and raised above , so the men would know his position. Many commanders did the same thing at many battles.
Strange, round-helmeted soldiers, coming out of the smoke at musket range would have been seen and targeted instantly since there was nothing to hide behind.
Just my opinin....✌
@@user-fu9vj9ix3g
"Concealment" would the the wrong word here. I should have used "low or lower visibility". A scattering of khaki green in the back would likely not draw as much attention as the soldiers up front, more or less in formation. As a general rule, one reacts to the nearest threat or the one that is visibly a greater threat. With smokeless powder, and firing from the rear, I think the Union soldiers will focus on the Confederate front ranks. Under stress, accuity heightens, but field of vision narrows. With eteh exception of the BAR gunners, I don't think the Union soldiers would recognize the threat.
Now, it would be different if a veteran from WW II travelled back in time to advise the Union side. I think he would immediately spot the threat of the US soldiers and direct fire at them.
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.
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.
One of the most impactful uses for the GIs would be as observers. The Confederate cannon barrage before Pickett's Charge was largely useless, as the fuses used in the cannonballs were faulty. Most of the rounds flew well passed the union lines before exploding, leaving the defenses largely unaffected. A handful of GIs with radios could have gotten word back to Col Alexander that the shots were too far, and the fuses could have been cut shorter. The smoke that engrossed the field made it impossible to see how affective the artillery was. Radio would have been the only way to report such information in a timely manner.
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
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.
we used to discuss this, when i was an Infantry instructor in the Marines.. due to an old book about the Alamo and soldiers .. but it was more talkig about how our weapons forced new tacticts.. no more "on line" shoulder to shoulder charges.. automatice weapons stopped that.. then there was accuracy..and reloading vs automatic weapons and well placed and coordinated fires..etc .. 50 men would turn the war, 100%. comms, bulletts, and weapons etc.. plus.. ammo - they can easily reload.. lead, gun powder etc..
also, using fireteam size elemnts, leading each a company of conf soldiers, using the comms and and TTPs.. they could over whelm the enemy, evenb uphill in the defensive
The one thing that was missed was the use of the WWII hand grenades. If the WWII soldiers were positioned to lob grenades into/directly behind Union lines as the final charge began there would be massive disruption in the Union lines, allowing the Confederates to achieve multiple penetrations and begin flanking moves. At that point all the Confederates would have to do is start funneling more men into the breach (Pettigrew and Trimble), as the Union Army would be trying to contain the breach and come back together to avoid a potential defeat in detail (as Lee had done before).
Pickett's charge took place over a mile-long open field. With an effective range of 500 yards, you have them opening up effectively at a mile. They would have to close over the open field to that 500 yard distance suffering the same percentage of casualties from Union artillery as the Confederate troops did. If you have ever tried to hit a man-sized target at 500 yards with the M-1 you would prefer to have them close to 250 yards before you would expect accurate marksmanship. I speak with some authority as I competed at Camp Perry in the National High Power Championships with the M1 for ten years, and nobody was shooting back at me. By the time our WW2 troops had closed to 250 yards your contingent would be lucky to number 10 men and their impact would, in my opinion, be minimal. Despite the technical advantage of the M1 a mile across an open field and the volume of fire from the northern troops would make the additional losses minimal.
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
I'd deploy them as Cavalry against Custer. This would mean unhorsing some of JEB Stuart's men, which I would deploy as Infantry with Pickett. Stuart was supposed to link up with Pickett's Charge from behind Union lines, cutting them in half as Pickett charged to meet them. Therefore, Pickett would be ordered to wait until signaled to charge, that signal being from Flare Guns being fired as Stuart and Infantry approach from the rear.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Being somewhat familiar with the weapons of the Civil war period and the battle of Gettysburg ,I just want to point out that some condition that exist were not taken into account . The first being that the Artillery Barrage from the Confederates was ineffective, Landing well behind the union lines, The smoke from the black powder cannons however resulted in extremely limited visibility, which would have limited the WWII snipers effectiveness. Obviously the return fire from the 1854 Springfield rifled musket would add to the visibility problem . While the M1 Garand rifle is a great weapon, and certainly superior to the Union Springfield, the limited ammunition would be a serious issue . Then we must remember that there was a fence across the Gettysburg battle field that had to be scaled by the attacking confederates that would be no less a problem for the WWII infantry men. Lastly, the stupidity of Lee choosing to concentrate the charge at the center of the union lines, assuming that the center would be the weakest point can't be overlooked. Without disparaging the U.S. infantry of WWII, I doubt that 50 of them could have overcome such a shortsighted battler plan.
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.
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...
Its an interesting investigation for sure. That said we could also just consider the wide spread adoption of repeating rifles by the Union. This was an available technology but it was rejected in favor of muskets as there was a concern that with repeating rifles they could not keep up with ammunition use. The Spencer repeating rifle for example was used by some small (usually calvary) units.
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.
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.
Their radios alone would be devastating.
Covering fire eats up a LOT of ammunition.
Also, you very much forgot that the wooden fence was the more pressing factor on the destruction of pickets charge. The only thing that the WW2 would have changed was less officers and artillery.
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
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!
Unfortunately, the video doesn’t really go into any tactical specifics of the battle. Here’s what I would consider doing:
Divide the 50 into the standard 12 man rifle squads, each with a BAR team, grenadiers, and riflemen, just like in WW2. This leaves you a 2 man reserve/support/ communications specialists.
First, I’d have one squad on the right flank of Pickett’s advance. This is probably enough to stop Stannard’s Vermonters from tearing into my right flank. These men were 9 month soldiers, seeing their first serious combat of the war, and knew they would be mustered out within a few weeks. They performed well above expectations at Gettysburg, swinging at a right angle with Pickett’s advance, pouring fire into Kemper’s exposed right flank. This probably no longer happens in the face of the rifle squad, and if it does, something tells me they wouldn’t withstand a BAR team on their own exposed left flank. Kemper no longer has to detach 2 full regiments to protect his right, and can now add them to the weight of the main attack.
The next step is the key. I have the remaining 3 squads on the left flank of the advance, supported by a skirmish line of Civil War soldiers about 50 yds behind them. Their mission is to brush aside the Union skirmish line first (which should be relatively easy) and then disrupt the bastion of Cemetery Hill with everything they’ve got. I want grenades and BAR fire harassing the Union artillerymen, and taking out the artillery horses. In reality the Confederates couldn’t advance a strong infantry formation against this position from this angle, as it just completely dominated the field. Skirmishers could advance, but were not enough to do any real damage even if they could get through the enemy skirmish line. These 3 squads will be ELITE skirmishers, compared to any Civil War skirmish line. This should, at the very least, provide for some much needed cover for the entire left of the attack to go in-which in reality crumbled quite fast, especially Brockenbrough’s Brigade. The 8th Ohio can’t swing against our left as well. And best case scenario, this provides an opportunity for us to storm Cemetery Hill. Most of Rodes’ Division plus Thomas and Perrin’s Brigades and a shit ton of artillery are in support along Long Lane and beyond. This should be enough safe guard against any determined Union counter attack against the WW2 soldiers. And hopefully, with Cemetery Hill in disarray, we could even get them to advance, really adding weight to the attack.
The remaining 2 soldiers are probably best suited as communications directors if we can give them both an operating radio. I’d love 1 about 100 yards behind our advanced line, and the other closer to the rear, coordinating the right time for Rodes to advance. This way we don’t miss our critical moment to storm cemetery Hill if the opportunity presents itself.
I thought about having some or all of these soldiers advance as skirmishers in front of the main attack, focusing on the remaining batteries and infantrymen to our front. But the fire on our flanks, especially the artillery fire from Cemetery Hill, is still just too much to overcome. In reality, the batteries directly in front the Confederate front were already heavily damaged and partially overrun. The Union infantrymen at the stone fence were-at least to some extent, broken, before counterattacking with the aid of reinforcements. So the WW2 soldiers aren’t AS necessary there, and they’d be quickly caught up in the melee and rendered ineffective.
In conclusion, Confederates probably win with my plan. At the very least, the main attack has more weight to it and Meade’s men have trouble patching it swiftly as they did in real life, forcing him to retire. If all goes well, we may completely dismantle the linchpin of the Union line, Cemetery Hill, and cause a route. This is even more likely when we consider the psychological effect men from the future with crazy weapons would have on the Union officers and men.
Awesome. Thank you.
Glad you liked it!
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."
Great video. Love the analysis
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...
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.
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.
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 ?
There was in Playboy back in the seventies with a similar question only the soldiers were on the Union side and the battle was at Franklin Tenn.
You seriously read Playboy for the articles? 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Still suggesting Modern French Foreign Legion holding the Ardennes against the Wehrmacht in the battle of France
Overcoming general Lee’s ego would have been the biggest challenge
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
If the Confederacy waited and told the north that they were willing to negotiate they could drag out the negotiations for several years to a point where they could then go to war confidently with north. In 1865 the Gatling gun was in use by the northern army. It was encased ammunition going up to 2 miles away. Just imagine how different the civil war would be with this type of devastation as the war was progressing they were slowly in the northern army turning away from the musket they had several lever action rifles that had 15 rounds in them. Meaning that you could fight in the rain the snow everything that is wet and boggy using encased ammunition compared to having to fight in dry areas because you're using exposed gunpowder.
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.
Fifty wouldn't really affect the charge to where it would tip the balance to the ANV. They'd provide the initial benefit as noted but the limited ammo is the biggest decider. With Birneys 3rd having strength available they'd shut down any real breakthrough.
Where the 50 would have real impact is the first day in securing Cemetery Hill. That would alter the entire engagement.
I’ve been to Gettysburg and walked on that field where Picketts charge was. You would need tanks to take that field.
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.
Pickets charge was decimated by cannon fire. A modern rifle company would not stand up to cannons. My dad talked about how the German 88s decimated their troops, and if it were not for their tanks and own artillery they would have never overwhelmed the German positions.
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.
Read "Guns of the South" by Henry Turtledove. How time travelers brought back AK-47 assault rifles back to the Confederacy and help them win the war.
Also don't forget mortar teams and machine gun teams. A platoon may have mortar support and machine gun like 30 cal and 50 cal support. If the platoon were use to out flank the Union position, it might be a better use than direct frontal assault?
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.
..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
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.
Really good analysis here. I think it makes a lot of sense.
Thank you, i am glad you think so.
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.
There is a book sort of about this. It's called The Guns of the Soiuth by Harry Turtledove. It is my favorite book.
50 American soldiers transported back to the Confederate lines would immediately eliminate most high ranking officers includung Lee. It would end the war two years earlier and save many thousand Americans from both sides. I also think there would be far less animosity after the war leading to a quicker reunification.
SNL had a skit “What if Napoleon had atomic weapons”.
The battle of Little Round Top would also be an interesting battle to look at this way. If the Confederates would have taken Little Round Top, Pickett's Charge wouldn't have happened.
Whether Picketts’s charge was pivotal part of the battle is debatable, but Gettysburg, though a seen as a turnings point, was far less so than the Battle of Vicksburg was in the west- which occurred on just about the same days. The Union obtained full control of the Mississippi.
Reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode when a tank crew was thrust back in time to Custer's Last Stand. I suggest watching it and seeing what happens. Another thing is how many of those soldiers actually fight with the South considering they already knew what started the war? Since the soldiers know where all the union soldiers are located and battle tactics plus history knowldge, they could stay under cover and snip them to conserverve ammunition and stay safely out of range of most rifile fire.
To have any significant effect on the battle, a mere fifty soldiers would have to expend their ammo (and assuming standard loadouts, it wouldn't have been enough to sustain fire for very long under those conditions) at a very high rate. Otherwise, all they would have been was fifty additional (and more accurate) rifles on the Confederate side. While they might be able to conduct some decapitation attacks of opportunity against Union officers, in the chaotic conditions of Pickett's Charge, they would have limited ability to select such prime targets. Ultimately, I think the WWII soldiers would find themselves lost among the TENS OF THOUSANDS of combatants, and rendered almost useless once their ammo ran out, being unable to use the weapons of the day. ='[.]'=
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
Just the context of CW soldiers meeting WW2 soldiers. The M1.... .
Plus the WW2ers know history. The shock and awe.... and....could armories ramp up to create an M1 like rifle? The possibilities are endless.
Also, the WW2ers, if they survive, do they now have to live in the 19th century?
I don't know if it would be enough to turn the tide, but it would certainly have a huge impact.
Yeah, that's the problem with inserting infantry into a charge against a fortified position.
If that happened I think Meade would’ve begun calling in units from the flanks earlier to bolster his position
You forgot snipers, bazookas, claymores.
Of course , no need to even watch. Two guys with some automatic weapons about 200 yards apart or even one squad automatic weapon utilized in a flanking maneuver would have easily rolled up the union at that point . In addition, if 50 of the Confederate soldiers had been equipped with repeating rifles at the point of the breach ,they may have very well won the battle. They would have been able to easily take little round top and Culps Hill as well due to overwhelming continuous suppressing firepower.
10 of those 50 WWll infantrymen should have been equipped with the Thompson sub machine gun as well. You left that out.
Fictional 80s characters vs a given battle. Rambo, Arnold in Predator, Chuck Norris from Delta Force, and Robocop.
Imagine these 4 in custards last stand, the 300 last stand at thermopolea (so), battle of the bulge, against the opening blitzkrieg in France… hahaha. Any combo sounds fun and funny.
Julius Caesar (and legions he had in second invasion of Briton) vs one of the Battle of towton armies?
Julius Caesar (with legions that fought vercingeterix) vs Hannibal Barca?
Even if this guy never reads this, thoughts?
It would have help to my understanding that the cannon barrage the Conferate was to happen before the charge never happened. Am I wrong on that?. And the open ground that had to be covered the WW2 soldiers would make little difference.They could had provided cover fire but ran out of ammo before making a difference. 10:25