How many modern soldiers do you need to fend off the French!

In My Humble Opinion
21

Start with night vision and expert equestrians.

Each morning, the french find a few dozen more horses and feed missing. It’s June, so there shold be grazing fields readily available.
With enough guards to ensure that nobody who sees the horses and their new owners lives long enough to tell the tale.

If possible, steal not only tack, but carts as well.

For the first 2 weeks, the French mobility is waning and yours is increasing. Just keep your existence secret.

Now, all the solders who came along as simple pack mules can start riding to secure food and water.
Can we go back and forth? If so, 200 guys do nothing but transport logistics from 21st to 17th centuries. We now have adequate food and water (and the occasional beer) to last 2 months.
We are now almost as mobile as the French - a whole bunch of their horses have switched sides.

When it comes time to attack, the first thing is to take out the top echelons - They won’t know what hit these guys - a modern .500 sniper bullet will produce a wound they have never seen.

Assuming their army is like every other army, rumors will spread, and the grunts will start thinking of home.

Now a dozen frag mortar rounds placed in the largest of the camp fires.

You now have an army afraid of its own shadow.

Now the heavy machine guns start chewing up tents at night.

About here is where they French decide to find out who is behind this (or, believing in God, they decide it is Divine Intervention and all run) and mount up (as best they can) and go looking.
Just make sure your well-emplaced machine gunners have at least 100,000 rounds which actually hit someone. However many rounds it take to get a single kill when firing into a mass such as a 1715 French army would present.
50 such emplacements should be able to cover the field. So: 2000 good rounds/however many barrels or other replaceables which would be needed to handle 2000 x whatever factor of misses-to-hits rounds.

22

No, the range factor favors the modern soldiers.

During the Napoleonic era, infantrymen fired muskets. This gave artillery an advantage because you could set up cannons outside the effective range of musket fire and shoot cannon fire at infantrymen couldn’t shoot back.

But even as early as the American Civil War, the balance had shifted. Rifles could shoot at comparable ranges to cannons (with the number of rifles greatly outnumbering the number of cannons) and infantrymen could take better advantage of defensive positions. So a battle between an artillery battery and an infantry company favored the infantry.

Modern weapons just increase this disparity. No crew of artillery men is going to be able to set up and service a cannon within 825 meters of enemy soldiers armed with M16’s.

23

*These *French had just kicked ass all through Europe for about 15 years before being defeated by the Russian winter and the combined forces of all the other European countries :rolleyes:

24

Maybe take back weaponized anthrax, sarin, VX, or even the deadly EbolAids and an appropriate delivery vector…shouldn’t need more than a few dozen people I’d imagine (with very little thought actually put into my imagination, admittedly).

25

Sure, but maybe not if Greenpeace had been there.

26

As long as you have essentially unlimited ammunition, food and water, a small team of machine gunners would do it. They could take turns sleeping, eating, etc.

27

…the French killed a member of Greenpeace in one of our ports and they managed to practically get away with it. It would be appreciated if you would stop using the worst act of terrorism on NZ soil as a punchline for your poor joke.

28

To be sure to cover enough of a front and totally seal the deal I would go say a US/Army Battalion of say 600 to 1000 men, normal distribution of weapons, and a couple extra loads of ammo on each soldier.

Multiply that by 10 if you are drawing the troops from England. <ducks and covers> :smiley:

29

I thought the idea was to arrive the day before and offer battle on the day. To do at least as well as Wellington?

30

I don’t care much for the hypothetical, as I firmly believe that an Armored Cavalry Troop (as part of an Armored Cavalry Regiment) should be the Minimum Unit Strength for any ground-based combat operation.
But I admit to a certain prejudice in these matters.

31

A solid battalion of light infantry. You need a team that can be mobile and you need enough soldiers to - call it 600-700 to get a lot of tasks done quickly. Recon, transport and so forth.

But the real secret isn’t the weapons, it’s what you use.

Bring the mortars, sure. They’ll be useful and they’ll have range.

For mustard gas. Bring that to the table and Napoleon’s troops will lose their nerve after a while. The scream of an incoming mortar leading to horrible, lingering death? Not designed to promote positive morale.

I also agree that Napoleon isn’t just going to come right at us. That’s why so many men are needed. As Napoleon retreats/disengages you need people who can keep up with his army and continue harassing them with more gas and sniper fire to keep up the scare.

32

A ranger battalion should get the job done although they’d want to air jump in so they’ll be disappointed at missing out on that. Honestly though a modern military unit would have so many advantages; health, training, moral, disease resistance, professionalism and more that Napoleon’s troops would have a hard time against a battalion of admins.

33

Why would you take back things that can harm you? Small pox, bubonic plague, and any number of other diseases which you can be immunized for or which are easily treated with antibiotics.

34

Biological weapons don’t work on a tactical level. They’re not going to change the course of the next few hours of a battle.

35

I find this thread very interesting. I’d like to add my own conjecture. Unfortunately, I dont know enough about military tactics/strategy/power or the battle of Waterloo itself to be able to fashion a salient what-if.

But when has that ever stopped anyone??? :smiley:

One thing I think has been overlooked here (though not by all) is the ability of Napoleon and his staff to respond to totally unknown and seemingly overpowering weapons and tactics.

Seems to me there is a reason why modern military strategists-to-be still study the strategies of generals who lived one, two, or three hundred years ago. There are instances in history where outgunned and out-manned armies have nonetheless been victorious dues to superior military and logistical thinking.

I would not bet the bank that Napoleon or another great military mind of the past wouldn’t be able to adapt and alter strategy to successfully deal with machine guns, mortars, etc., from the 21st Century.

Of course, that only goes so far. At some point, if you have enough well-equipped, well-trained troops with the OP-allowable modern weapons, they are going to rout good old Bonaparte.

That’s why I enjoy this thread. The OP was kinda like, “Well, of course we know that 200,000 well-equipped 2016 U.S. Marines would fuck up Napoleon! But just how few of them could you do it with?” I think it’s a very interesting question. Especially considering the points some have brought up. For example: one modern company of MG’s could slice through the French infantry like butter … but could they hold their ground? How long? Could they resupply? Resist a siege? Could they advance on the French; surround them and force them to capitulate? One company?

Good thread!

ETA: As a wild-ass guess, I’d say you’d need a least 3,000 well-armed modern fighters to do the trick. This 6 or 12 guys isn’t going to do it. At some point you need bodies just to hold positions.

36

Yes, because armies of the time were always running in the opposite direction when targeted by, say, artillery fire, rather than following orders to keep position, move, charge, etc…

I wrote earlier that a small detachment couldn’t achieve anything because it could just be besieged or even ignored, but thinking about it, it wouldn’t even be able to survive a frontal assault. I looked up the M240 mentioned previously and its effective range is 1100 meters.

Even with some mortars thrown in, they could be dispatched by Napoleon’s 252 guns firing at long distance alone. The French would sustain some losses presumably, but your couple hundreds guys won’t survive for long a concentrated artillery fire.

Even removing the artillery, 1100 meters can be covered in less than five minutes by charging infantry, and less than that by charging cavalry. And as soon as they’re within firing range, let alone engaged in close combat, they’re dead. The charging troops would sustain many casualties, but there’s only so many people you can kill in 3-5 minutes, and Napoleon could send thousands of troops coming from all directions. And look at the Napoleonic wars, the American civil war, World War I, soldiers have often charged into very heavy fire.

You can’t win when being outnumbered to such an extent (at least not when facing a disciplined military, you could probably if you were facing a random crowd of civilians). Even if the French soldiers only had sticks and stones as weapons, your small band will be dispatched in no time.

The only counter-example I can think of is Cajamarca. But there, the Spaniards immediatly captured the deified leader of the opposing army, which wasn’t even expecting a fight, and on top of it, the “awe factor” of firearms was presumably much more shocking than it would be in the case of soldiers from the 1800s facing machine guns. The equivalent would probably be an helicopter squadron suddenly showing up at Napoleon’s headquarter, capturing him and his staff and starting to mow down his army.
My guess would be that you would need at least a ratio of 1/20, probably more, to win the battle. So, something like 3000-5000 soldiers. And as i already wrote, this would allow you to win the battle, but not to win the war, because such a small force can’t control territory.

37

While I agree with the sentiment that ultimately you need warm bodies to hold positions and control territory, I’m relatively certain that modern man-portable, large-calibre weapons would swiftly convince even a 70000-strong Grande Armée to lay down its arms and negotiate surrender.

Give me 1000 men with modern assault rifles, some 40mm autocannons (which I’m relatively confident pass as man-portable), and time enough to emplace them in a strategically vital position, and I think I can repel as many men as Napoleon is willing to throw at me. Napoleon’s men may be used to cannon fire, but I think even the Old Guard will turn tail and run for the hills in the face of rapid-fire weaponry capable of turning men into so much red mist. I’d probably need as many as 10000 to even begin to consider holding any sort of territory, as opposed to just digging myself into a position that Napoleon cannot simply ignore and circumvent.

38

Yeah, I think a heavy company is a minimum. To do it right you’d probably need a battalion as others have pointed out. And, sure, those snipers would be handy. I’m pretty sure a modern company with packs could actually out march the French Army and be able to ambush and hit and run to force the French to battle. I don’t think they could simply march away…not only would the modern troops (from whatever military) be better trained and healthier, it’s simply easier to move a few hundred guys than 10’s of thousands with all the supplies they would need (or if they were foraging then that takes a lot of time and effort as well).

39

I don’t believe that the French could leave behind a sufficient force to encircle and pin down a heavy company, let alone a battalion if that was the minimum needed. Not one equipped with mortars and machine guns as well as modern assault rifles and snipers could be encircled by less than the full army of the French, and if they were going to do that they would try and assault. I also don’t think that Napoleon would leave such a powerful, even if small force in his rear. If he did I’m confident that the modern soldiers could keep ahead of his army and pick places to force him to fight, probably using ambush and hit and run tactics to hit him at night or while on the march, demoralizing his army and hitting his logistics. Of course, that means these guys better be thinking about beans AND bullets and also how to support themselves in the field.

40

Yep. Machine guns have ranges in the hundreds of yards, and so do rifles. Your average smoothbore musket had an effective range of 100 or less.

So what would likely happen is that your halfway competent commander would set his troops up in such a way that they’d be concealed and dug in, and just ambush the French. Even if they did manage to form up and march to the attack, it would be Cold Harbor, Omdurman, Gallipoli, Rorke’s Drift, or Fredericksburg, but on a larger scale. They’d have to march through 200-300 meters of withering rifle, mortar and machine gun fire just to get into firing position… if there were any of them left who hadn’t run by that point.

If it was a set-piece battle, and Napoleon’s army knew where the modern day troops are, it wouldn’t be much different; the modern guys would be dug in, and they’re trained to deal with modern artillery, not the solid-shot firing guns of that era. Casualties would be lighter, I suspect, as dug in infantry wouldn’t be nearly as vulnerable as Napoleonic-era infantry in line formation would have been.

The telling thing would be ammunition though; the modern guys would be firing it at a prodigious rate.