Thread 18081990

500 Roman legionnaires would chop most of these into dog-meat.

I takes exactly 80 templars to decimate an army

>>18081990 (OP)
Romans without archers or cavalry against mongols riding around you and shooting arrows at you? Sounds familiar.

>>18081990 (OP)
I think 3 SEALs all with grenade launchers have a good chance.

>>18082012
Its not Fortnite mate, a granade launcher has max 3 charges and very low mobility. You'd killa horse with a charge. No wonder Americans lost every war since joining ww2 after it was already finished

>>18082061
They actually wouldn't. At islawanda 100 primitives killed 1 British soldier.
Dozens of primitive vs one gun will win. But the gun also has many people behind it and logistically the gun is actually a lot of people.
Human power is 10kw and energy is $1 per mj so a thousand bullets is about a minute of human time, so about a million humans would be needed per shooter if they were efficient.
In reality it takes about a million bullets per kill because you need to keep the enemy away from your food.
In an attrition scenario the gun guy is firing at about a mile range to protect their supplies. 1% error at 1 mile vs a 1 meter target is about a thousand bullets per hit. If multiple hits per kill and also target is small then it could easily get toward 100,000 bullets per kill.
This means your effort to make bullets is pretty close to the effort for the infantry to run away and steal your food.

I feel like seals are mandatory to prevent them from just sniping you. I'd say them and 50 grenadiers.

>>18082077
I say this with complete sincerity and genuine concern i work in mental health and you type like a schizo

>>18081990 (OP)
250 Mongols and 3 SEALs is by far the best option

>>18081990 (OP)
do the samurai have guns?

>>18081990 (OP)
only the vikings and possibly the samurai depending on the era would they stand a chance, the rest are from eras with such tech gaps that they wouldn't stand a chance, just seeing a gun in action would realistically cause them to rout hard

>>18081990 (OP)
Mongols and Grenadiers

>>18081990 (OP)
I will take 400 XIX century samurai and 3 navy seals for the radios mostly

If environment, time, logistics are unlimited, and enemy morale is a factor, navy seals to snipe the other gunners/ambush them/kill the mongols horses and Legionaries to form a shield wall around me/buy time guarding the building im in/killing the melee guys

If a straight up arena where everyone attacks at the same time and distance/bullets are limited and the enemy wont run, then vikings to go ballistic and mongols to hopefully run down and kill the gunners before they can pick enough off

Do the seals get like a squad support weapon a vehicle, or the like?

>>18081990 (OP)
Legionnaires will brought down like Zulu dogs

>>18082857
read up on how many casualties the maxim gun inflicted during that time. it's like a fucking cheat code.

Seals would easily win if they had a modern vehicle desu
Otherwise mongols because the others are all on foot

>>18081990 (OP)
250 mongols on horses wins.

>>18083520
Meanwhile jannies taking a dive wiggling their asses up in the air hoping a Potsdam Giant claims it.

>>18082112
I agree, however I’d say 30 Prussians and 3 seals over 50 grenadiers.
The seals can take on other ranged elements while the Prussians volley down the melee forces.
I would have said the Legionaries or the Mongols but it’s not clear if everyone attacks all at once. The Romans would be best for handling fighting in all directions and the mongols could use their mobility to avoid encirclement. Templars on horseback I think could defeat the rest combined but it doesnt specify that.

The Seals could comfortably take out all these faggots, assuming the battlefield has a good line of sight and they get enough ammo.

>>18081990 (OP)
250 Mongols easily.

>>18081990 (OP)
A single Templar would crush all of them combined.

>>18083614
Prep work also matters. If the Romans could build a fort and the seals had anything belt fed and enough ammo for it, then that’s game.

>>18083750
SQUAD BROKEN

>>18083763
that brought back memories

>>18081990 (OP)
Prussians and grenadiers, 80 men drilled to hell and back, give them some time to adapt to a unified command and you can dish out a lot of firepower.

Only the americans and janissaries have guns but the difference in numbers for the former and quality for the latter is more than enough overmatch against them

>>18083763
I SHALL CLEANSE THE XENOS STAIN FROM HOLY TERRA

Bump

>>18081990 (OP)
What year of Prussians. What kit do the seals have. The seals could easily beat everything. The grenadiers could beat every thing except the seals. Unless the Prussians have needle guns. Then its seals and Prussians as top two. I bet 1/100 times the Prussians could beat the seals.

>>18081990 (OP)
Unless they're fighting on a steppe, its fair to say the 3 SEALs is the safest bet.

>>18081990 (OP)
Legionnaires would get turned into porcupines from arrows before coming anywhere close to any of those, even vikings

You cant gap technology with My little dark age hype edits

>>18084759
Seals would out perform mongols on the steppe. It's flat and they have rifles. Depends on their kit. If they get M14s and a M48 the Mongols are dead in like two minutes.

As a vikingboo myself I feel like whoever made this overestimates the power of vikings. Most vikings were not professional warriors like legionares they were mobs of farmers conscripted by professional warriors,usually noblemen, with the promises of riches and plunder across the seas. They were essentially pirates and were not an organized or standardized military like the roman legions were, which were still not as standardized as modern militaries. Thr average viking would have worn leather and cloth armor and maybe a simple helmet, only the professional warriors wpuld have been wearing what most people imagine when they think of a viking. Chainmail byrnie and helmet woth face mask and all that. Samurai also would have been slaughtered by romans, most wore reed armor ffs.

>>18081990 (OP)
obviously this is the best choice

>>18084772
>Samurai also would have been slaughtered by romans, most wore reed armor ffs
This is what decades of anti-weeb propaganda by american conservative basedboys does on your brain

>>18081990 (OP)
>30 prussians
>actually individually the same as the "Grenadiers" only with 30 instead of 50
Why couldn't they at least choose 19th century Prussians or something for the image

>>18081990 (OP)
I pick 3 navy seals and 500 legionaries. The range would decimiate any of the others and anyone that actually gets close wouldn’t be able to break the disciplined legions. It wouldn’t even be a challenge.

>>18085125
The faggot who made the image in question is a retard.

>>18084988
Cringe

If it's early Prussians
>Seals + Mongols
If it's Franco-Prussian era
>30 Prussians + Seals

I'd take 3 Navy Seals (provided they have enough ammunition) and 50 British Grenadiers. Or else, 50 British Grenadiers and 30 Prussians.

>>18081990 (OP)
If the 3 navy seals have full ammo and all their standard military equipment, then I pick them and the legionaries.

>>18082012
you basically have to pick navy seals just so you dont have to defend vs them because they would be able to do enough damage the rest would beat you. 500 legionaries and 3 navy seals is probably your best bet.

>>18081990 (OP)
Correct response is 400 samurai and 3 SEALs
>muh folded steel
No, it's 400 professional horse archers.

>>18081990 (OP)
SEALs are a massive "it depends". Are they three heavy machine gunners bunkered down with a box of ammo? Yeah they'll probably win. Are they three random SEALs who just stumble across another army? They get destroyed. I think samurai and Mongols are the most consistent to win against the others. 650 horse archers will be a nightmare for the rest to deal with in most scenarios. Hell, just 250 Mongol horse archers and 400 samurai infantry could do the job

450 vikings and 3 navy seals. I'll probably win, but if I don't, I'll go to Valhalla

>>18082119
He is unironically a homeless schizophrenic so you are correct.

>>18085125
>>18085326
18th century Prussia is when they were consistently winning battles against armies twice their size.

>>18081990 (OP)
official powerlevels
50 entrenched grenadiers
500 entrenched romans
30 entrenched prussians
300 heavily armored templars
250 mongols with infinite arrows
150 bow and arrow janny0salaries
400 musketless samurai
450 low iq vikangs

>>18081990 (OP)
grenadiers and the prussians should do the trick
depends what era of janissaries though, before or after they all became decadent retards

>>18081990 (OP)
Lol, the turkish were never an fear fighting force, must always beg the venician, the German, Spain or the US

>>18086848
youre brown and mexican your opinion doesnt count
https://youtu.be/IH2EkuYCpUM?si=fy72afTCDc-z0Rcd

>>18086855
Holy shit can this sperg not just form one coherent sentence

20 Men-at-Arms from House Goodmen

>>18081990 (OP)
1 Jesus is all I need

Navy seals would be unstoppable if properly equipped, it would be a turkey shoot, but I guess they just have standard gear so they'd run out of ammunition against all except the 50 grenadiers and 30 prussians, maybe the janissaries.

The legionaries and vikings would be at a severe disadvantage without cavalry. Maybe the Samurai too if they are meme katana infantry not mounted samurai, but then most samurai were not mounted.

So it boils down to 300 templars vs 250 mongols. European knights were slaughtered during the Mongol invasion of Poland and Hungary, however the Mongols were driven from Austria when they encountered knights doing what they do best, as a small group riding out from their castle and raiding camps and supply lines. Even though the knights are heavier, they can outpace light cavalry if their horses are fresh, like the Mongols a knight had several horses, except the knight would have a large warhorse, a destrier, which did not need to carry a rider or baggage on the way to the field of battle.

Generally I would say the chances are in favor of the Mongols. The mongols would be driven from the field by the initial charge, but they would continue to harass the knights all day, and perhaps the next day, and unlike the knights they were not an elite specialized unit, rather a flexible self-sufficient band that could travel 100 miles a day if necessary with riders drinking the blood of their horses. The Mongols also had their own heavy cavalry in addition to their horse archers.

>>18081990 (OP)
The mongols could just circle around them and shoot arrows. Fuck Luigi gon do?

>>18082112
Ain't no way a grenadier fires 3 times as fast as a janissary.
Also those prussians ARE grenadiers. Prussian grenadiers weren't much better than british ones (if at all).

>>18081990 (OP)
3 navy seals and 150 janissaries because they had horses, guns, grenades and cannons, the grenadiers and prussians do not offer that much of an technological upgrade to lose either 100 or 120 men. However none of these compare to a fleet of drones which will soon be able to do this.

>>18082061
>max three charges
>low mobility
Lmao, if you don't know anything about guns, then stay out of the conversation, britcuck.

>>18087100
Yeah they fire like 100 times faster

>>18087137
oh wait I am retarded I associated Grenadier with the Navy Seals lol

>>18081990 (OP)
250 horseback mongols would win against everyone else, it's not fair. Only the 3 navy seals would have a chance if they were entrenched in a favorable position.
The 500 legionaries would slaughter everyone else but get easily beaten by the mongols.