Who wins?

>>737212157
do modern soldiers get jets? or it it a 10000 vs 100 on ground with just guns?

kek, soldier derp in the front with his hat over his eyes

>>737212245
I assume OP meant just the soldiers without anything else. With jets it would be over in a second obviously.

My bet is on the red coats though, sure they'll kill plenty but just the sheer number should overwhelm them.

>>737212361
if its the 10000 vs the 100 just on ground then i go with red coats

>>737212361
lol...

Clearly you don't know the differences between muskets and modern assault rifles.

>>737212289
that's got to suck if he can't risk fixing it

>>737212538
OP didn't say there'd be guns

300 redcoats would mow them down

>>737212538
They shoot once and storm with bayonets. They dont stabd a chance.

>>737212538
There are 100 muskets for every modern rifle.

>>737212157
The stick.

100 modern soldiers easy

Modern soldiers, first couple thousand will fall during their march to the battle field and the rest is a range game. Those muskets hit shit at ranges a modern rifle shoots. Plus designated Marksmen cut down the officers and it will be panic everywhere.

In one second 100000 shots would be fored from red coats, accuracy does not need to exist at this point

>>737212157
Due to friendly fire the modern American soldiers numbers will quickly drop while the rest are taken out by musket fire

If the us soldiers have modern guns they would win. Muskets are inaccurate as fuck. The us soldiers can stand 200 yards away and just now them down.

>>737212538
>assault rifle
Nigger you what
Assault rifle is a political term tossed around by the left to make guns sound bad. Assault is an action. Not an object.

>>737212806
Range does though.

Just because they're old fashioned doesn't mean they're stupid.

They would just surround you and could probably kill all the modern soldiers with knives.

>>737212157
Well, as long as the 100 modern US soldiers don't have to line up at 50 yards and exchange fire like a bunch of faggots, they'd destroy the redcoats

>>737212157
we're talking about a military force that was tactically inept, so im going with the 100 modern soldiers

If 10000 muskets fire at once you are pretty much throwing a wall at the 100 men at that point, britbongs win

Red coats
- shoot once every 30 seconds
- horrible range
- horrible accuracy
- stand in the open like a retard
- no armor
Modern soldiers have an easy win

>>737212638
they're soldiers, they dont fight with their dicks

>>737212157
It depends on so much, it's impossible to say without defining the scenario more, but unless the "modern soldiers" are backed by "modern logistics" and an economic superpower, then the difference between "modern" and "ancient" is just the training they get, so the redcoats would win overwhelmingly.

But if the "modern soldiers" have armored humvees and helicopters and logistic support and intelligence and everything, then the red coats are fucked.

>>737212681
Yes this strategy worked very well in ww1

>>737212881
Assault rifle implies the rifle is designed for assaulting. In the same way you can have a T-rifle which is used as a delicious desert during elevensies.

>>737212157
Gonna give a few scenarios to spark a discussion maybe
>Facing one another on a flat plain without cover 1km away from each other.
>modern day city with all houses unlocked and have the map of the city.
>night time on the unlimited field still starting 1km but knowing the general direction where the other side is.
>unlimited flat field with really heavy fog.
>mountain with narrow paths and heavy rock collapse chance.

>>737212892
/thread
Location matters more than anything. Us soldiers would do a fighting retreat. Set up fields of fire and just cut them down. Also after dust volley of muskets. Redcoats can see shit so us split as re engage at will. Anyone who thinks redcoats win is a fucking idiot

>>737213011
>- stand in the open like a retard
They aren't retarded. The only reason they stand in the open is because the other team does, too.

The CO would easily change his tactics.

>>737212881
not sure if serious or just pretending to be autistic

>>737212909
How would they accomplish that envelopment against a smaller, more mobile, better armed force?

They don't even have to kill all 10,000 of them. Imagine how devastated the redcoats' morale would be after taking 30% casualties on their approach march.

>>737212909
Because they're old means they have old tactics, especially marching in formation on the battlefield. Why would they change that with no information what the enemy is capable of?

No one in this thread knows what they're talking about.

>>737213018
like you'd know

>>737212157
Wouldn't even be close. 100 modern US soldiers for the win.

Between light and heavy machine guns, a few mortar teams, fireteams armed with automatic rifles and grenade launchers, and snipers... the red coats would be slaughtered.

>>737213064
This is where the scenario needs to be clarified. They talk about "modern soldier" right? Well, some chinese conscript training with an air rifle in the middle of china right now is a "modern soldier"

If we're talking about a shitton of modern equipment and defense positions, then that's something else. I'm imagining just the soldiers in an open field, not entrenched in a fucking bunker with machine gun turrets everywhere.

>>737212157
10,000 of military would beat 100 of any other. that is 100 red coats for every 1 soldier.

>>737212881
Not that guy, but actually dumbass - assault rifle is the proper nomenclature for a select fire rifle. An AR15 is not an assault rifle, an M4 or M16 is.

>>737212976
There is no possible way that they could concentrate 10,000 muskets on a target the size of an infantry company. The frontage of the redcoats is just too large to make that work.

>>737212157
where?
what terrain?
what are the rules of engagement?
do they have info on each other?
Is there chain of command?

If you just drop both groups on the open field, Red coats will win, probably with 2 salvos.

If moderns can create their engagement they would win 90%+ of the time.

If they get dropped somewhere around and need to face eachother then modern soldiers will always win, most of the time without losses just be creating ambushes and eliminating officers.

if theres only a finite amount of resources, the red coats would win

>>737213305
I suppose you refer to magazines as clips as well

>>737213199
>>737213203
There have been some creative Generals in history. I hardly think they would just stand there in formation when getting shot at from an unseen enemy.

>>737213055
Are you dumb? Look up cost it takes to train a solider. Old training is phased out because it's obsolete. Modern training is better in everyway. The modern solider is trained to fight a certain way whereas redcoats have no training per say it's literally just how fast you can reload and launch a volley at 200yrds.

>>737213346
I mean if they all stand how they would normally they could all fire in skatter so it would make a wall which would be hard to dodge unless you had cover

>>737213129
To what? They lined up like that because it's the only way to hit something over 50yrds.

quality over quantity

>>737213129
No he would not because the military training at the time was horrible narrow minded. That's why militia with guerrilla tactics could provide so much trouble to the redcoats in the beginning.

By redcoats do you mean the uniform because if so you could use the last dated version of a redcoat which would at least use a martini-henry

>>737213619
>i watch the history channel

>>737213129
>team
what

Well a bunch of niggers in loin cloths and animal hides wrecked the "modern" soldiers of Britain the first time they tried to wipe out the Zulus, and 100 to one are seriously bad odds.

10,000 people is a lot, guys. Even unarmed, I'm not sure 100 soldiers could wipe them out so easily unless they're in a really entrenched and fortified position.

10,000 is a lot.


And if we're talking about them having equipment, then the redcoats are going to have cavalry and artillery, as well.

>>737213582
>SO MUCH THIS

AND WHAT ABOUT 10.000 ATTILA HUNS VS 100 FAGS I MEAN MARINES?

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_1480377472361.jpg (913KB, 1475x1282px) Image search: [Google]

913KB, 1475x1282px

>>737213129
It took almost 2 years for the Brits to change their tactics during WWI

>>737213452
Considering that's exactly what happened during the Seven Year's War and the Revolutionary War, I think it would likely happen again.

An 18th century British army isn't suddenly going to develop the tactics to deal with an American infantry company from 2017. They're going to get massacred and retreat in disorder.

>>737213755
exactly. these retards think a us soldier is capable of killing 100+ men apiece.

>>737212157
Put it this way, if you sent 5 special forces operatives back to the war for independace they could cripple the british effort in a month.

Modern tactics are nothing like anything they would be used to. Our modern rifles have ranges on them that are beyond that of human eyesight.

An entire british encampment could be picked off from under cover and they wouldnt know what the fuck was going on. Just that their fellow officers were getting holes from unseen weapons fire.

File: red army.jpg (1MB, 3000x1292px)

1MB, 3000x1292px

100 US soldiers
>guerrilla warfare
>long range guns
>30+ rounds in a mag (less than 10 sec reload)
>much much more accurate
>full auto capabilities (shred through 10k in no time)
>hard to spot

10k redcoats
>wearing red coats in a green/ yellow environment
>1 shot that will most likely miss
>long ass reload
>inefficient guns
>terrible bullets
>single fire only
>large number

Its all about guns, ammo, and uniform.

Better question would be 10k red army vs 100 US

>>737213486
nah dude, you don't know what you're talking about. Can you actually picture the difference between 100 men and 10,000 men? I mean, like honestly visualize it? Get real. Even if they just had fucking sticks and stones, 10,000 men is a lot to fucking handle even if you're in a fortress.

>>737212157
Red coats would shit and run away as soon as 1 soldier started firing an automatic and killing everyone around them while they're lined up like retards

Dude, the redcoats couldn't beat the american soldiers in the 18th century despite outnumbering them and now the American have the advantage of modern warfare. The redcoats are fucked just like last time.

>>737212538
clearly u dont know the difference between 10,000 and 100 people

>>737213893
With little to no armour on the redfags, then ya they most definitely could

>>737213755
They don't need to kill all 10000, just enough to destroy morale

>>737212881
ok assault rifle is actually a thing/class of weapon, but an 'assault weapon' is the scary political term

>>737213501
Ten thousand men marching in three ranks across level ground would take up 3000-4000 meters of frontage. When you consider the spacing between battalions, any broken terrain, and the natural tendency of formations to open up, then that frontage gets even wider.

That US infantry company is maybe taking up a quarter of the frontage that the redcoat line is. Therefore the redcoats can only engage with part of their line at a time. Therefore there is no way to bring all 10,000 muskets to bear in a single volley at once, or even as three continuous volleys.

>>737213437
No fucktard, the kind of moron who doesn't know that a select fire rifle is properly labeled an assault rifle is the type of person who doesn't understand the difference between a magazine, an en-bloc clip, and a clip; that kind of idiot being you.

>>737213954
there weren't 100 redcoats to each American or there would never have been an America.

>>737214015
fucking sand niggers have no armor and we dont see us soldiers walking away with piles of kills, i think youre really underestimating what it takes to kill someone

>>737212157
How many
>Women
>Trannies
>Disable
The modern Soldiers have?

redcoats only knew how to battle by standing in lines and firing volleys. Stay outside their range, split up into multiple squads, and pick them off past 300 yards.

>>737213100
>Facing one another on a flat plain without cover 1km away from each other.
Modern soldiers. 1km range is far too distant for the redcoats. They'd get mowed down well before they got within range to fire back with their inaccurate slow firing muskets against armoured infantry.
>modern day city with all houses unlocked and have the map of the city.
Modern soldiers
>night time on the unlimited field still starting 1km but knowing the general direction where the other side is.
Modern soldiers
>unlimited flat field with really heavy fog.
Modern soldiers
>mountain with narrow paths and heavy rock collapse chance.
Modern soldiers

>>737214358
Haji also didn't engage us by advancing in ranks at a slow march.

The redcoats would get fucked.

>>737214414
THAT is NOT cool dude >:(((((

>>737213452
I did not say that, I said they would march in the beginning in formation into 100 Army men waiting for them. 100 men are ~4 platoons with 3 9 mans quads each in the army. Thats 24 M249 light machine guns and 24 under barrel 40mm grenate launchers plus 12 SDM eliminating the complete command structure of the red coats in the first moments of the battle while the LMGs and grenade launchers rain hell on earth on them like they have never seen. Any red coat still standing and trying to get 1 shoot at them would have my deepest respect.

>>737213437
US Army Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide - FSTC-CW-07-03-70

"The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as 'short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.'"

"In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:
It must be capable of selective fire.
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, such as the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and the 5.56x45mm NATO.
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.
It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards)."

Go kill yourself.

>>737214596
he makes a good point

>>737214414
Probably 1 in 10. Thanks Obama.

>>737214655
dubs confirmed for autist

>>737214358
>we dont see us soldiers walking away with piles of kills
...Are you being serious right now?

>>737212157

red coats just stand out in open fields and wait for the fight.

Play this in Civ 5

File: Eyes of the Dragon.jpg (85KB, 1000x600px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1000x600px

>>737212157
At the time of "British Redcoats" There was a lot of ritual in warfare. There was a designated ceasefire time where they would pick the wounded, and a point where they would surrender and retreat, and suchlike.

Fighting the American Insurgency, Britain faced a new and demonic adversary that did not keep to the ritualized nature of the warfare they were used to. The American Insurgents used guerilla tactics and unethical stratagems such as attacking on Christmas Morning.

If you consider that, then it's like asking if a single nigger felon could wipe out a 100 pacifist scientists. Probably, right? I mean, if we're talking about killing people in their sleep and all that shit that "Modern Soldiers" do, then of course the old armies don't stand a chance. War for the British was never "Total war" It was about shows of force. Modern Warfare is right back to salting the fucking earth and shit like that.

>>737214655
no one gives a shit you autistic faggot

Depends when the fight is set with the modern soldiers being adapted to diseases, then again modern soldiers still would most likely win.

>>737214414
>disable
If you cout mentall disabled then all of them. You have to be a few fries short of a happy meal to willingly join the military.

>>737212157

I imagine the modern soldiers could just stand behind some trees and take out like, 50-75% of the line of redcoats with their automatic rifles before the redcoats knew what hit them.

Redcoats got wrecked by native americans and they had fucking bows and harchets...

>>737214720
>i was wrong :(
gfkys

>>737214735
yes, you dick sucking maggot

>>737214972
Holy shit, you're fucking stupid then lol

>>737213919
Army Rifle squads have 9 men 2 LMGs and 2 40mm grenade launchers. It wouldn't take long to get past their 400 men quota while the red coats stand in formation waiting for the enemy to march on the battle field.

>>737214604
This guy gets it.

It would be over right quick.

https://youtu.be/zViyZGmBhvs

The redcoats will not kill shit at range. Their morale will plummet as casualites pile up. The only real question is will they behave like real people and retreat when 1000 men die in the first minute or will they rush in like zombies? They will literally think the enemy some demonspawn and gtfo.

>>737212157
Well the redcoats will first try a classic battleorder... the assaultrifles will fire down their lines, lots will die in this moment. Some moderns soldiers will met the ground, but their protection will save most of them. Well, just think what the germans did with russia in wwII, and theses armys werde only divided by some decades of time and technology... the red coats will meet their creator soon.

>>737215017
if a single us soldier has 100 confirmed kills then please enlighten, else go fuck yourself

>>737215036
Like 99% of the people in this thread have no idea what a TO&E is bruh, you're speaking Chinese to them.

File: Download (8).jpg (5KB, 188x251px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 188x251px

Join https://discord.io/otaku for more nudes!

>>737213919
Would you still charge me when 2 or 3 of the men right and left of you died within seconds through 40mm grenades and LMG fire? so the goal is 20-30 kills in the first minute or so. Plus your commanding offices would be the first targets of the designated marksmen. No one calling ready aim fire...

>>737214596
Dude diversity its our strength

>>737215156
>>737215017
In modern warfare the vast majority of casualties are from ordinance. Bombs and missiles.

Individual infantry soldiers in the army, are often there just so you know when they're gone so you can know when and where to carpet bomb a place.

ITT: armchair battlefield 1 generals
Also way over half the redcoats will be killed but by that point only a few marines would remain

>>737214822
Warfare in the 18th century in Europe was largely a matter of attrition. Armies would regularly meet on the field, inflict tens of thousands of casualties, and then retire until the next campaigning season.

The fact that the Americans fought a war of posts against the British, and roundly defeated them is not due to any particularly "dishonorable" tactics (as if those exist in war). Both the British and Americans employed skirmishers. Both the British and Americans employed irregular forces. The British were defeated because they were fighting an insurgency that was too large for them to handle.

t. A real historian.

>>737215156
>"confirmed kills"
Fucking lmao - the only people with "confirmed kills" are snipers and people who operate aircraft. Get fucking real dude.

In Iraq alone, during the GWOT, US troops have killed something like 30,000 insurgents while only sustaining 3k killed.

In any stand-up engagement with US troops, insurgents get fucking wrecked.

Just throw a container with a modern disease. Works like a charm

>>737215433
>All US service personnel are vaccinated against smallpox
This

>>737215269
Dude, if you're talking about the modern soldiers having all those tools, then the redcoats would have cavalry, artillery, and cannons.

And if we're taking morale into the equation, then the 100 modern soldiers aren't the 10 foot steel desert warriors you all imagine, they're a bunch of fucking kids without air support, without logistics, and without vehicles, vastly outnumbered.

>>737215528
Most of them have also probably never fired a weapon. 10,000 shitty flintlocks ain't shit compared to M4s and 240s. The only problem would be ammunition.

This really comes down to the scenario they're put in.

What kind of hardware is each side packing? Does either side have access to mortars/artillery? Do modern forces have access to a sizable supply of HMGs/LMGs, etc.

Red Coats best bet would honestly be to just Zerg rush and hope you can get enough men into range before all of your officers are wiped out. Just hope they aren't packing M2s and mortars or they're going to be taking unbelievable casualties.

This is literally a WW1 scenario except the people going "over the top" are in much worse shape

>>737215528
what if it were 50 vs 5000? numbers still not matter? what about 25 vs 2500? 1 vs 100?

100 vs 10,000 it doesnt matter how well trained you are they will overwhelm you

File: IMG_0622.jpg (158KB, 906x767px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 906x767px

>>737215647
Ok so get a shitty flintlock, look deep into the dark hole in the barrel, stare deep into the abyss and pull te trigger, maybe then you will find the answer to life, or any other question

>>737215630
What do you think a couple of machine guns would do to a troop of cavalry?

The artillery might be of concern though, since it can engage from outside the range of most of the infantry company's weapons. But if we're giving the Brits arty, then the Americans would probably have AT4s and Javelins. Explosives make good problem solvers.

>>737212157
100 = infantry company. 4 platoons. Each platoon with a weapons squad with 3 240s. That's 12 240s. Have you ever seen the carnage a 240 can cause? We're talking 7.62mm rounds on unarmored opponents that are massed. Shit would kill 3-4 red coats with one burst.
Not to mention the other squads have a standard load out of underbarrel grenade launcher per FIRETEAM. Good luck standing up to 12+ grenades flying at your formation every 3-4 seconds.
Not to mention a SAW per fireteam. Belts of bullets flying at you from every angle. Even if the records had cannons it would be a joke.

Open the roses!

File: IMG_0610.jpg (94KB, 916x658px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 916x658px

>>737215842

File: IMG_0612.jpg (46KB, 483x331px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 483x331px

>>737215856

>>737212538
Each soldier gets 100 musket balls shot at them.

Only needs 1 in the right place.
Sure their vitals are well protected but legs, arms and face are fair game.
>>737213011
>Stand in the open
Whereas the marines conveniently have a set of buildings they are holding like non retards?

Battles like this are typically done on a flat field for fairness. So yes the marines are now standing in the open like retards aswell.
Also you say the muskets have poor accuracy which is wrong but you also fail to remember
>American soldiers
If they don't end up killing their own soldiers they won't hit shit anyway.

Even if the redcoats literally ran at them with bayonets and didn't even bother firing they would overwhelm them.

Every marine couldn't kill 100 before they reached them. Typically 3 mags of perfect 1 shot 1 kill? AMERICAN soldiers? Hahahahaha

>>737215630
A company of the shittiest Nasty Girls, would still decimate 10,000 troops using fucking 17th century line infantry tactics. The mortars section would have killed like 50% of the enemy before they were even in range.

How are you not understanding this concept?

>>737214604
Your mom did not say that

>>737215910
Spider-Man thread take overs aren't even that great, they need to put more effort in the artwork

Muskets of that period were terrible. They were smooth bore, so they had poor accuracy. Compound that with the fact that they didn't even have sights, and accuracy drops even further.

From lethal range perspective, it's not even close. The modern battle rifle has a lethal range 5-7 times greater than a revolutionary war musket, and can throw 100 times more lead downrange per minute.

This discussion is silly. The modern US soldier using modern tactics would decimate 10,000 red coat soldiers using their tactics.

/thread.

File: IMG_0623.jpg (100KB, 593x665px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 593x665px

>>737216021

>>737215953
See this...
>>737214119
There's no way to throw 10,000 musket balls at once.

>>737215787
>keeps getting wrecked in this thread
>only thing he can do to respond is call people autistic or tell them to kill themself
wew lad

>>737216076
READ IT AGAIN RETARD

I said without even firing.

File: IMG_0546.jpg (104KB, 480x688px)

104KB, 480x688px

>>737216068
You are wrong kid

>>737215630
Even better, because if you bring in artillery then the riffle platoons get their accurate 60/81mm mortars with airburst ammunition and shoulder launched rockets too. I would pay to watch that.

You're all a bunch of fucking idiots. Technology wins, especially when it's 200 years apart. I see these "romans vs spartans" threads and people are basing their answer off of having seen 300 and gladiator. It's steel vs bronze. That's like knife vs butter.

>>737212157
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWQ8LfOiz5Q

Our modern rifles have much more accuracy and range compared to the redcoats. The soldiers would win.

ITT: summerfags and arma geeks

>>737212157
Well, are they armed with everything they had in the era? Or just muskets for both? Air craft? Boats, tanks, cars...?

a platoon of modern day soliders includes machine guns RPG's and long range snipers. They'd be able to take out the commanders within days. if we are talking litterally then a red coat is an article of clothing and therefore is easily detroyed

>>737215992
Dude, do you think redcoats didn't have artillery? If the modern soldiers have mortars, then why not say the redcoats would have a bunch of cannons and artillery, like they actually did?

This is where the scenario just turns to shit, because there's no clear distinction as to what the tools are. In almost every war ever, the tools made all the difference.

>>737215762
1 vs 100? easy, they start to march up I hold my M249 right in the middle of them and as the first 20-30 dropped down the rest will die tired from all the running away.

>>737212638
OP never said there wouldn't be tanks.
OP never said there wouldn't be logistical support.
OP never said there wouldn't be helicopters.

>>737212866
kek

File: IMG_0591.jpg (73KB, 353x500px)

73KB, 353x500px

>>737216291
/thread

>>737216195
Ok, how about knight vs samurai? Surely glorious Nippon steel and wicker baskets as armor will win

How the fuck can 100 men kill 10000 men running towards them?

Sure the Red Coats might lose half of their men on the approach, that still leaves 5 fucking thousand mad dudes with bayonettes in your face.

I supposit: the modern armsmen would win, they'd use cover, and engage in beyond musket range combat. Due to their knowledge of history, and superior automatic rifles.

>>737216408
Its tru, over 60% of deaths in the us military is from friendly fire

>>737216419
Neither wins, the Asian runs away after his sword gets stuck, and the fat Englishman can't chase him in his heavy steel. Draw.

File: 386593243.jpg (11KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 300x300px

>>737212157
Probably Us soldiers since coats are inanimate object worn by soldiers

But seriously who wins? It's impossible to know without more information. Where are they fighting? Why? What about their age? What are they eating? You think war is just about the number of soldier? Clausewitz would disagree

File: e58fcd4d848c3cafdd13f96ea97a3895.jpg (241KB, 750x499px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 750x499px

You cant deal with a 10000 man bayonette charge.

>>737216002
You would be amazed what my mom would say

>>737216461
HEY PRIVATE BILLY JOE CARL DANNY FRANK, HOW MUCH OF HISTORY DO YOU KNOW AGAIN?
Muh texus.
Also what makes you think readcoats didnt use cover? Stop getting your facts from mount and blade N.W. faggot

>>737216557
Dude. Yes you can.

File: 1490744026079.jpg (28KB, 696x693px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 696x693px

>>737216404
OP never said they'd be humans

>>737215953
Redcoats w/ Brown Bess muskets
>Brown Bess maximum range: 150m
>Brown Bess effective range: 50m

US Troops with basic TO&E small arms
>M240 Maximum range: 3,725m
>M240 Effective range: 1,100m
>M4 Maximum range: 3,000m
>M4 effective range: 600m (area), 500m (point)

Kinda hard to shoot someone when they've already killed you before you can even fire back.

>>737216433
once a thousand plus men are gunned down its not like the red coats are going to keep charging. They will route, become disorganized, freak out. How can they shoot so much? So far?! Then the hunt begins

>>737216121
So 10,000 men advancing in what, line of battalions? Column? Over what distance? Say 500 yards?

If line then:
>Redcoats advance across the front.
>US forces engage with LMGs and grenade launchers.
>Even at a quick march, crossing 500 yds takes several minutes.
>US forces open up with rifles at 300 yards.
>Enemy formation so large it's impossible to miss.
>British center is devastated, flanks can no longer advance.
>Casualties pile up until British force withdraws under fire.

If in column of companies:
>French formation, British didn't use it, but for sake of argument.
>British advance in a block, 50 men wide, 200 men deep.
>US engage as above.
>Continually destroy the front of the column.
>British advance over their own dead.
>Repeat until British formation disintegrates and they withdraw.

There's no way for the British to advance into that kind of fire and survive.

>>737216557
>What was the Somme?

>>737216709
OP said "modern soldier" Not "Soldiers from the most powerful superpower spending more on their military than the next 3 top countries combined.

Some chinese infantryman training with an air rifle in the middle of china is a modern solider in case you missed it.

>>737216557
Sure you can. See 'Battle of Gettysburg'.

>>737216673
I think OP assumed we would assume that the redcoats would actually be those monsters Q created and dressed in French Legionnaire costumes who had Klingon strength and energy weapons that looked like flint rifles. Because this is /b/, that's a reasonable assumption.

>>737214119
You could stack them 9 rows deep (bringing it down to 1000m) and fire 3 volleys at 3 rows each lying/kneeling/standing, but still they would get decimated before even coming in range.

As i said before, have a sick soldiers sneeze on bullets, shoot the redcoats, those who survive will need medical assistance. Infects others, die, victory.
Or just throw a case of small pox at them.

>>737216897
There tanks and planes in that battle, dude.

File: 1320792079276.jpg (253KB, 458x581px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 458x581px

>>737216907
OP said 100 modern US soldiers. Pick related.

>>737216951
I thought'd they'd be coats that were red

>>737216360
Jesus fucking christ dude.

Once again, the accuracy and range of 17th century artillery doesn't come even close to modern arms and ammunition.

Your basic 81mm mortar, has a range of almost 6,000m. Your largest cannons during the time period had a range of 600m.

Read a fucking book

>>737215992
This

Line tactics would absolutely get the reds fucked up. And since they believed is was dishonorable to fight like savages (guerilla warfare) the Brits would uphold to line fighting.

Muskets of the time were low accuracy at long mid to long range. Musket balls are relatively low velocity, and offer pretty much no penetration against modern armors.
And you dont send 10,000 units into a field all at once.

If eacg squad of modern soldiers had a single marksman, and a single man to lay down fire with an lmg, then the battle would either be a stalemate, or a victory by modern soldiers

>>737217074
Not in any meaningful capacity. The British simply got out of their trenches, advanced at a walk, and got massacred by German machine guns.

>>737217083
touche...

>>737216557
>WWI and the Korean War would like to have a word with you.

>>737212875
Everyone saying muskets are innacurate obviously knows nothing about black powder rifles. Once the advent of rifled barrels came into effect rifles could easily shoot accurately up to 300 yards. I shot black powder competitively for years.

>>737216897

comparing 2 million dug in soldiers with artillery and mustard gas to 100 men on an open field.

>>737216360
Here's the thing though, revolutionary war era artillery had <2000 yard (about 1800 meters) effective range.

Modern MORTARS have a range of 4500-5600 meter range. They'd wipe out the red coats artty before they could even get close to being in range.

You bring modern mortars (or god actual artillery pieces) and this starts getting laughably one sided

>>737213755
I'm as patriotic and 'MURICA as the next guy, but a lot of the pro-redcoat arguments make sense, although I do think it's true that morale after any large percentage of loss would be a huge blow to the British.

>>737213011
This is just plain wrong.

>>737217197
I forgot to add the fact that the Reds would flee once they see weird magic guns that decimated hundreds of their men in a matter of seconds

>>737217347
But the British didn't deploy very many rifles. Their line infantry were equipped with smoothbores.

Besides, anyone saying a 1750 flintlock is equivalent to a modern black powder rifle knows nothing about firearms.

>>737217347

also id rather be shot by a 5.56 bullet than a musket ball. those things are basically shoulder cannons.

>>737217347
You shot smooth bore muskets?

>>737217496
Or the US troops would literally just fuck off till night time and engage under NODs once all the Brits were setting up camp.

>>737217374
Why wouldn't the US infantry company dig in?

If you have to make up an extremely specific scenario like that for the Brits to win, then they aren't meant to win.

>>737217496

the coats were red so you wouldnt see the blood. if your buddy drops youd assume hes taking a nap.

File: IMG_1897.jpg (53KB, 284x362px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 284x362px

>>737216709
TFW modern small arms have better range than red coat artillery

If the modern soldiers held some kind of defensive position they might stand a chance. If it were an open battlefield or any other conceivable scenario. ...red coats hands down.

>>737217378
What about against 10,000 samurai?
Their Nippon steel blades can deflect bullets, cut through modern amerishit gun and artillery barrels, and their full body lamellar armour was highly compact and able to stop arrows, so no shrapnel would harm them.

>>737213304
100 RC per 1 modern
10 or more 30 round magazines for weapons that have more than 5 times the range of the RC and the RC aren't wearing any kind of armor. have you ever fired a 5.56 or 7.62 at a tree? depending on the width it can go straight through. 1 modern bullet can kill 2-3 of the RC who literally just line up

>>737217347
1. red coats had smooth bore muskets
2. 300 yard < 660 yard a M4 has effective fire range.
3. You saying so doesn't make black powder rifles anywhere near comparable to a M4 even if you like them very very much.

>>737212157
The jews

>>737217347
The Brits literally had less than 1,500 rifles deployed during the war. ~1000 of which were Pattern 1776 Infantry Rifles, and the remainder (~100) being Ferguson pattern rifles.

Modern blackpowder rifles shit on what both sides had.

Break redcoats in half then you have two redcoats

Redcoats win everytime.

>>737217685
In an open field there would be a 1000m circle of death around the US position. There is absolutely no way for the redcoats to approach that doesn't get them completely fucked with mortars, AT4s, LMGs, and rifle fire.

>>737217547
No. Modern rifled barrels. I realize the time peiod OP is assuming is around the revolution. And rifled barrels didnt exist then. I was just trying to cling to a redcoat victory. It makes me feel better thinking a civilian army might stand a chance.

>>737217763
That's a hard one, are they doing the war for an honorable reason?

>>737217674
But people are still going to try and argue this shit.

>>737217587

For science. We have to assume all factors are the same. the two forces just spawned opposite each other in a big steppe.

if not then the 10000 redcoats would simply surround and starve out the entrenched GI's.

Or just fucking charge.

Every GI killing 100 men before they traversed 2000m in a simultaneous charge is just unrealistic.

>>737213452
even so, if they start off at more than a hundred yards/meters how are they going to get creative when one of the sharpshooters puts a round through his head. remember modern weapons are far more accurate, they can just take out all the officers in seconds. who's gonna lead then?

>>737217990
>if not then the 10000 redcoats would simply surround and starve out the entrenched GI's
>>US troops wait till night
>>NOD up
>>Kill redcoats in the dark when they can't even fight back.

>>737217926
The winner gets to bang OPs mom

>>737217834
>>737217883
OP makes no mention of these in his scenario.

>>737217347
Get fucked, you're the one who knows nothing. The britbongs during the revolutionary war had smooth bore muskets, so talking about rifled muskets makes no sense. Retard.

As far as accuracy goes, the reason they bunched up in a line and all fired at one time is because that is the only way they could actually hit something effectively.

Christ on a cross in July, the modern soldiers would shred those poor bastards and not even suffer a casualty.

>>737217763
The reaction time needed to deflect a bullet is superhuman. This is fantasy at best.

>>737213357
This.

Open field = the red coat would win by sheer numbers.

Anything where the modern soldiers can take cover, move, and generally not face more than a few dozen red coat at a time its their win.

File: 1473723440177.jpg (61KB, 1205x881px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1205x881px

>>737217883
> not lobbing corpses in via trebuchet until the 100 fags are buried in their hole forever

going with soldiers. WTF are articles of clothing going to do? you get two soldiers to round up a washing machine, and the remaining 98 to start gathering up the coats. boom.

if the soldiers are naked, even better because then they each just put on a coat, and now there are 100 less you need to take care of

>>737218098
All US units operate on a basic Table of Organization & Equipment. Mortars, LMGs, HMG/GPMGs, AT weapons, etc. all fall under this.

>>737217099
Yeah, metonymy is tough for us neuro-atypicals.

Pretty sure superior tactics never wins when the number difference is so great. A comparable battle would be between the Spartans and Persians. The Spartans had far greater training yet they eventually became outnumbered and fatigued.

>>737212866
dubs don't lie i'm gonna side with the red coats too

>>737218092
>having sex
>ever
>not being the good friend to all females

That's not very honorable

>>737213755
then the moderns would have the equivalent,armed and armored transport,mortars and HMG's. no competition. >50 cal snipers could easily take out the old artillery or the operators atleast

>>737217990
2000 meters?

Keep in mind the redcoats can't engage effectively outside of about 100 m. They have to approach, at a quick march, across 2 km, they're going to get decimated. The US wouldn't even have to kill all of them, just put down even 10% and the redcoats would likely withdraw.

>>737213619
>guerrilla tactics
guerilla tactics still give modern militaries a hard time

>>737212157
statism

>>737218361
How long is the range of a cannon?

>>737218183
On a flat field, modern soldiers can just fall back out of range and fire. Rinse and repeat.

Red coats lose.

>>737218142
Easy there armchair warrior. I stated in my previous post everything you just called me on. No need to get your pampers in a twist.

you might as well say the brits have pikes with one shot..the french used to send there soldiers on bayonet charges with there guns unloaded so they would cover the ground faster and not be tempted to root...if the modern soldiers have no support weapons like fixed machine guns i have to say 10000 men really would be able to just over run them, lets be real 10,000 men is an entire division..

>>737218463
refer to >>737217114 and >>737216709

The Brits cannons would literally have the same range as a M4, but with less accuracy.

File: IMG_2352.png (75KB, 267x150px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 267x150px

>>737212881
AR 15 stands for assault rifle 15 anon

File: stg44.jpg (13KB, 300x222px)

13KB, 300x222px

>>737212881

Nigga you dumb ?

An assault rifle is any 1-person carriable rifle with selective fire. (can either be fired shot by shot or full auto).

Pic related, its an STG44.

>>737213091

Based custardy dessert poster

>>737218617
ACTION REPEATER

>>737218215
Still op made NO mention of support logistics. Given all you said one could also assume the brits had cavalry, wardogs, warships, etc. None of this is defined and we MUST take op at verbatim.

>>737218537
Yeah, I saw that after I posted. At least you're reasonable.

Huggies, not pampers btw.

You guys know that most of the 18th century cannons used by the British had a maximum range of 3 fucking miles. The 100 US guys are losing this fight.

>>737217641
Wat...

>>737212157
The 100 modern US soldiers would be hiding in concrete bunkers on a different continent.

>>737218617
AR stands for Armalite Rifle. Holy fuck, you're retarded.

File: 002.gif (348KB, 500x308px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 500x308px

>>737218617
Automatic* rifle 15

>>737218685
I wonder how often citizens would get hit by stray bullets

>>737218674
Ok, so both sides are completely unarmed.

>>737216907
But look at the picture OP posted when he said modern soldiers...hmmm

>>737218685
>Max range.

At the time the British deployed their artillery level with the ranks of infantry. The idea of a grand battery of concentrated artillery firing from a well sited position was a Napoleonic invention.

>>737213305
>AR-15 is not an assault rifle
>AR-15
>Assault Rifle 15
>Assault Rifle 15 is not an assault rifle

>>737218736
This fight seems ironic considering the fact that the British have had to help the Americans in every major battle.

>>737218878
Think you have that the wrong way around.

The Americans have had to save the British twice in the last 100 years from no shit existential threats.

File: IMG_2355.jpg (89KB, 640x964px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 640x964px

>>737218659
>>737218737
I'm eating good tonight

>>737218361

Withdraw? I seriously doubt that. These guys were lowborn, they were basically the property of their lords.
Back then you'd gift your friends 10000 men as a sign of appreciation. You think those 10000 men had a chance to object being pulled from their homes and sent off to serve some other lord?

2km can be covered pretty fast, sure theyd take heavy losses, but 10000 is just simply too many, just a wave of red to sweep you away.

1:100 is alot man

An additional thing to consider would be if the fight was on the ocean or not. Many 18th century naval cannons could penetrate and even sink modern warships.

>>737218685
>Being this fucking wrong
lol

>>737218866
The "AR" in AR-15 doesn't stand for assault rifle you fucking dipshit. It stands for ArmaLite rifle

>>737218990
Straight from the book of American history taught to gullible kids...

>>737218990
I for one can't wait until we're forced to invade GB to save the queen from mohammad and the rest of the shitskins

>>737218993
I'm a pretty ironic fish

>>737219018
> Being butthurt that your shit teir troops couldn't beat an 18th century platoon.

File: 6.jpg (111KB, 851x438px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 851x438px

>>737218866
... are you retarded?

>>737218839
OP only said there'd be Redcoats. The British Army started using Redcoats as their standard uniform during the 1500s and stopped using them around the 1890s. That's a HELL of a span.

For all we know, could be Victorian Era Redcoats with Martini-Henry rifles.

>>737219087
As long as it's iron and not mercury

>>737217823
kek

File: 1480915982982.jpg (406KB, 2193x2617px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 2193x2617px

>>737219188
better hope i'm not sold from a japanese market then

>>737219065
...The Brits needed help so badly during WWII that we literally got them to break up what was left of their empire and pay us in gold for any and all assistance they received.

You don't break up your empire and deplete your nation's gold reserves when shit isn't literally hitting the fan.

>>737219163
The pic related looks like Rev War uniforms. But sure, we could kick the shit out of a division of Victoria's nigger beaters as well. Fuck em.

Red coats are British, meaning they are already ill by default, and much weaker than the us troops. The Americans have Kevlar, better training, better equipment. Easy win.

>>737219341
They're wearing Pith helmets

>>737219298
I always knew being a weaboo would kill me, but I always assumed it would be suicide

>>737218999
First time I've ever seen trips lie.

You're so wrong about history it's making me rethink getting my PhD.

>>737213966
lol. Exactly. 10,000 musket round will surely at least fuck up 3/4 of the 100 soldiers in the first volley. It would take a while to kill 10,000 soldiers, even with assault rifles or machine guns.

>>737218203
but OP never said they'd have detergent, bleach, or even fabric softener. Red coats would win solely because US soldiers would die of exhaustion after having to hand wash all those coats, even if it's 9,900 of them.

>>737219467
Sorry, I meant OPs. Tricorns and Brown Besses and shit.

File: 300px-48th_highlanders.jpg (30KB, 300x305px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 300x305px

>>737219341
>dis nigga serious?
Also, the last use of British Redcoats was during WWI.

Enjoy being gassed, shot down by Lee Enfields, shelled, and machine gunned, yanks.

>>737219606
We enjoyed it so much we came to France and won the war for you, you limey cunt.

Several things to mention. If the British get cannons does the modern, U.S. infantry get their crew served weapons. A platoon of U.S. infantry carries m249 SAW, and the M240 GP MG (7.62mm effective range about 1000m). This does not count m203 grande launchers, hand grenades, or the platoon level at-4 rockets. Not to mention the body armor that will stop a musket round that has very low velocity compared to modern weapons. Keep in mind modern infantry will use cover, concealment, and camoflauge as well. they fight with vastly different tactics. It would be a very one sided fight even with the number difference due to these factors. DO not forget Modern infantry can also move, communicate, and fight at night also.

>>737219662
>"we won the war"
>arrived about two months before the war ended
>war ended after Canadians pushed the Germans back over the Rhine with French and British support.
Yeah, definitely won that one for us, America.

>>737219381
This made me smile.

>>737217908
> It makes me feel better thinking a civilian army might stand a chance.

Well, they would stand a chance, but that's because unless they wanted to lose, this civililan army would have to have or take control of military installations and equipment pretty quickly in a multi-front engagement with a lot of help from the inside...

>>737219763
this

>>737214119
This guy gets it.

File: 1cmis10km.jpg (86KB, 2000x243px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 2000x243px

>>737212538
>>737212681
>>737212744
>>737212792
>>737212875
>>737212892
>>737212916
>>737212919
>>737213011
>>737213120
>>737213199
>>737213203
>>737213242
>>737213486
>>737213582
>>737213791
>>737213862
>>737213917
>>737213919
>>737213934
>>737214015
>>737214036
>>737214426
>>737214920
>>737215050
>>737215156
>>737216709
>>737216816
>>737217197
This really isn't a debate, but more of a test to see whether you have autism or not.

Pic related, so you have a way of actually seeing the difference between 100 and 10000.

>>737218999
dammit why are you making me feel bad about glorious, bloody carnage?

>>737219004
interesting take on the battle.

File: Pancho-Villa-Newspaper-sm.jpg (375KB, 432x338px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 432x338px

>>737219662
>Americans "won" WWI
>Had to retreat from Mexico under cover of night because they had no idea how to fight

This gringo.

>>737212806
Not exactly how it works. They fire in volleys while their formations march around, essentially taking turns fireing until the enemy is within range of a bayonet charge.

>>737219763
>Arrived in the spring of 1917.
>Defeated the German Spring Offensive of 1918.
>Won the battle of Meuse-Argonne
>Rolled the Germans back to the Rhine right alongside the Canadians, French, and British.

Yeah man, we pretty much won it. You lot would have been fucking around for another three years at the rate you were going.

>>737219515

Ok, we totally needed the age of enlightment because the aristocracy was being too nice to the common folk back then.

Community College degree?

Maybe tell me what you think is wrong instead saying you have a PhD.

>>737212157
>10,000 red coats run towards building
>grenade launchers start firing out the windows
>instantly kill 400 red coats (they circled the building and are stacked together)
>rest lose morale and run away

10,000 trained soldiers with smooth bore muskets would be expected to fire 3 round a min...that is 30,000 rounds a min..a soldier with an AR 15 would be doing good to go through 5 mags of 20 in the same min..so that is 10,000 rounds a min..so the brit division would have a 3 to 1 volume of fire they could put on the US soldiers..and though the modern riffles are more accurate you have to know that if you out number someone 100 to 1 you are going to charge at them as fast as you can...

>>737219943
>Doubt.

>>737219822
God willing "they" (we) would have help. The army has been doing excercises on "zombie" targets for the past couple years. Its all to desensitize them to shoot unarmed civilians. God help us.

>>737213793
Found the S.A.S. tea sipper faggot.

>>737217347
There is a difference between muskets and rifles. The red coats used smooth bore muskets. That's why they stood out in the open in a tight formation. When a unit fires together in that tight formation it creates a giant shotgun effect. The smooth bore simply didn't have the accuracy to be used effectively from long range. Rifles on the other hand have spiraling grooves down the inside of the barrel that put a spin on the ball exponentially increasing accuracy and effective range. There are stories from the American revolutionary war that tell of Kentucky riflemen who would turn the tide of battle by means of some interesting tactics. A few of them would post up on a near by hill out of range of the red coats, and using their superior accuracy and range, would point out individuals and pick them off. Many times directly targeting officers. This was very effective psychological warfare because the average red coat knew he was utterly helpless to defend himself until he could get into range and then after that there was no guarantee that He could even hit his attacker. Plus when he did get in range the chain of command would be fucked because of losing officers.

You are assuming the engagement will begin within musket range also which it would not. Modern rifles have much better accuracy/rate of fire at much longer ranges. Modern infantry will not stand in rank and file in front of an enemy they will use cover and concealment and fire from entrenched positions into the massed ranks of red coats. The redcoats would be trying to hit point type targets beyond the range of their muskets. Once they take mass casualties from an enemy they have trouble hitting morale would be come a great issue as the casualties piled on. When the belt fed weapons opened up it would be over. This is not just with red coats and modern U.S. infantry either. Any fighting formation from that time period placed up against modern weapons and tactics would be easily overwhelmed

>>737219985
The British troops of the 18th century were volunteers, not conscripts. The weren't serfs either. The idea that they were beholden to a particular lord is false. At most, their loyalty would have been to their regimental colonel, and even then that loyalty would not hold if they were being torn to shreds in battle.

>>737212157
Muskets can't shoot past 100m.

If the US soldiers can just infinitely peel, disperse their forces, and whittle down the redcoats from a distance.

>>737213824
I think we should all elaborate on this image more

>>737212157

100 soldiers is approximately the size of a company in the US army, which consists of three rifle platoons and one heavy weapons platoon. The US soldiers would be able to engage the red coats at distances greater than the effective range of any weapons the red coats are carrying.

File: 103678.jpg (212KB, 1000x751px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1000x751px

>>737219965
All you did was manage to get a battalion lost in the woods, insisted on using French Lebel machine guns, and sit on your ass in a trench while the French allies of yours did all the work.

Hell, you guys were so salty, you started a cold war with Britain between the world wars.

Frankly, Britain doesn't have to do shit against the US. All they have to do is send the Canadians into American soil, Canadians burn down the White House, and the Americans cover up the fact they lost like they always do.

>>737218617
(A)ss (R)eamer you fucking libtard shill

>>737219519
Go watch some video of the M249, which has an effective range of 600 - 1000 meters. Compare to the musket range of 45-55 meters.

Everyone here talking shit about red coats having a chance need to get bent.

25 M249 soldiers could just about take down the entire 10,000 in minutes.

>>737220328
You managed to lose half a million men fighting the fucking Turks, of all people, for a strip of sand barely big enough to put a beach house on.

Your boy Winnie couldn't even figure out how to defeat the weakest of the Central Powers with the combined might of the British Empire. You're just lucky we came along when we did.

1 modern soldier could probably kill 10,000 redcoats if he had enough ammunition given the fact he can engage them effectively at 300-500 meters, well outside the range of the redcoats.

>>737213100
>Facing one another on a flat plain without cover 1km away from each other.
With a long line, redcoats, due to sheer number
>modern day city with all houses unlocked and have the map of the city.
Redcoats due to CQC potential of bayonets
>night time on the unlimited field still starting 1km but knowing the general direction where the other side is.
Modern soldiers
>unlimited flat field with really heavy fog
Modern Soldiers
>mountain with narrow paths and heavy rock collapse chance.
Redcoats

>>737220727
Only reason you came across the pond was because you couldn't figure out how to find ONE guy in Mexico, and somehow managed to get BOTH sides of that conflict to fight against you.

Hell, the only reason you idiots came across was because you were TERRIFIED the Germans MIGHT have decided to help Mexico regain lost lands to the Americans.

Face it, you didn't give a shit about what was going on in Europe. You only did it because your lovehate boner for Mexico was strong.

100% depends on terrain and length of stay allowed of the field. Assuming both parties dont have to abide by there SOPs of the day.

>>737213824
Best historical fap ever. Thanks for the pic anon

>>737216127
You're mad, kid.

>>737218617
actually no, it stands for Armalite model 15.

Do the modern marines get their 203 and 249 with weapons squad holding 240s or are they all holding m4. Additionally is this a field or wooded terrain. Additionally, is it night or day. And finally, who is holding ground and who is taking

>>737218866
Armalite model 15= ar15. go learn something

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/155549/god-save-the-queen

>>737220894
Nah, my nigga Woodrow Wilson saw an opportunity to put the old empires in their place and spread all that freedom and democracy around.

Turns out it was a bad idea. Our bad.

>>737218737
This

>>737215953
nigger you forget about LMG's. That shit can shred through 100+ redcoats before they reached the marines.

>>737220894
nigga unless you have a military base in our country you can get fucked

>>737213824
>>737220294
Looks like the rise and fall of nations.
An emergence from chaos into order, strong men driving a nation forward. A period of relative peace, and wealth. Moral decadence takes root, and society begins to collapse and fall back into chaos with violence and war. Then an emergence of a new Hegemonic power from the ashes to restart the process.

>>737218999
modern rifles are capable of firing 600+ rounds per minute. lets say only half hit, which is unlikely given the strict formation standards of 17th century british soldiers would make it a shooting gallery.but still thats 300 rounds that hit their mark per minute, thats 18000 hits. per minute. how long does it take to march 2km?

>>737218866
This shit bait is catching a lot of fish.

File: 1497989987045.jpg (21KB, 370x296px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 370x296px

>>737218685
>3 miles
>the maximum range of my sides
>where you just put them

>>737220328
Canada. . . Lmfao.