Page 1 of 3
#1
with hundreds of boxes of ammunition, would it be possible for you to single handily take out the Roman Empire in it's glory days with the strongest army in the world? (at that time)
Quote by progdude93
my fetish is dudes with dicks small enough to pee on their own sacks.
#2
Quote by Jostry
with hundreds of boxes of ammunition, would it be possible for you to single handily take out the Roman Empire in it's glory days with the strongest army in the world? (at that time)
You do realize that their shields and armor were made out of steel, right?

/Thread
ggg1 ggg3

.
#3
No.

/Thread

Edit:Well, actually, if it was a M249 or some other ridiculous shit then you could manage to make a decent dent, but there's no fucking way that you could kill well over 100,000 trained soldiers spread over multiple continents.
Quote by Butt Rayge
Pretty sure Jesus was decaffeinated.


I'm just a hedonist without happiness
Last edited by doomded at Feb 11, 2012,
#5
no, unless you were obscenely far, they would shoot you with arrows if you could somehow keep the normal dudes and cavalry at bay
#7
Quote by behind_you
You do realize that their shields and armor were made out of steel, right?

/Thread


If we can shoot through specially made bullet proof vests today, we can easily shoot through thin sheets of steel... especially with a high caliber weapon.
Quote by progdude93
my fetish is dudes with dicks small enough to pee on their own sacks.
#9
Quote by Jostry
If we can shoot through specially made bullet proof vests today, we can easily shoot through thin sheets of steel... especially with a high caliber weapon.

With a high enough caliber of bullet, you can shoot through anything.
MY GEAR:
PRS SE Custom 24
Jackson DKA7
Gibson Explorer
MESA/Boogie Express 5:25
BOSS GT-100

BOSS TU-2
Dunlop Cry Baby Classic
BOSS NS-2
VOX Joe Satriani Ice 9 OD Pedal
VOX Joe Satriani Time Machine Delay Pedal
Ernie Ball Strings
V Picks
#10
No. Not because firepower is a problem, but numbers...

Its 100,000+ vs 1 person. You're beyond boned once you have to reload.

And most bullets could pierce shields. What happens after the bullet leaves the shield is a different story though.
#11
Yeah, they'd totally just approach your from one direction in a line ready to be killed...

You'd make it to your first reload and then they would rip you limb from limb faster than you can say accipe hoc.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#14
Depends on the caliber of the gun. A 30 caliber machine gun, yes I think it would be possible to bring down empires, assuming you were trained with that weapon and knew how to survive in the wilderness.
And as far as archers go, I'm reasonably sure no archer can shoot an arrow further than a mile, big caliber weapons on the other hand can shoot over a mile, reliably and accurately.
All my friends are Imaginary


"There was much of the beautiful,
much of the wanton, much of the bizarre, something of the terrible,
and not a little of that which might have excited disgust"


Swan Song
A Story by the Earl of Slander
#16
Quote by behind_you
Then they would simply overrun you.

Was also about to make this point:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18576_5-ridiculous-gun-myths-everyone-believes-thanks-to-movies.html

Point #4

What about belt fed machine guns, not assault rifles?
You can lay down hundreds of rounds with those types of guns
All my friends are Imaginary


"There was much of the beautiful,
much of the wanton, much of the bizarre, something of the terrible,
and not a little of that which might have excited disgust"


Swan Song
A Story by the Earl of Slander
#17
It takes time to reload a machine gun after a clip's been emptied, it might jam, and within the time it takes to fix these problems while facing thousands of roman soldiers, a good number could get close enough to where they can stab you before you can aim, archers can stick a few arrows into you, or someone can just chuck a spear at you. Doesn't matter how much ammo you have, you're screwed.
#18
probably, if you're really fast at running backwards and reloading a machine gun.
#19
I used to be a soldier in the Roman Empire, until I took a machinegun bullet to the knee..
(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Put him in your signature and help
(")_(") him on his way to world domination.
#20
Quote by m.f.k.r
What about belt fed machine guns, not assault rifles?
You can lay down hundreds of rounds with those types of guns
Doesn't matter. My point is about how rapidly the weapon would fire those rounds.

Give yourself 10 seconds before you're screwed.
ggg1 ggg3

.
#22
Tactics and strategies are much more important than weaponry.

Give me a Ma Deuce with 1 million rounds of .50 BMG, and while I could make a dent, there's no way I could take all of them out.
This ends now, eat the goddamn beans!
#23
Quote by GL600FB
I used to be a soldier in the Roman Empire, until I took a machinegun bullet to the knee..


It's in. I took a [projectile] IN the ****ing knee.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#24
Quote by behind_you
Doesn't matter. My point is about how rapidly the weapon would fire those rounds.

Give yourself 10 seconds before you're screwed.

I think I am perceiving the situation differently from everyone else. I am picturing laying down on the top of a valley a mile out from a city, and then just open fire. I would never think it is possible to infiltrate a roman city, kill everyone in it, and survive without critical wounds with only one gun.
All my friends are Imaginary


"There was much of the beautiful,
much of the wanton, much of the bizarre, something of the terrible,
and not a little of that which might have excited disgust"


Swan Song
A Story by the Earl of Slander
#25
You have a time machine, wonderful machine that baffles science and has so much potential for learning and understanding, yet you wish to use it to go back in time to see how many people you can kill with our new fancy weapons.
In my heart I'm with you

every night
#26
Quote by m.f.k.r
I think I am perceiving the situation differently from everyone else. I am picturing laying down on the top of a valley a mile out from a city, and then just open fire. I would never think it is possible to infiltrate a roman city, kill everyone in it, and survive without critical wounds with only one gun.
Machine guns aren't very accurate at such long distances. Also, they got bows.
ggg1 ggg3

.
#27
This like a rehashing of the old "Could one squad of extremely well trained SEALS take out 100k Civil War soldiers?"

Idk, maybe if you had a shitload of ammo, 10-15 guys, skills in stealth, and multiple types of modern weapons. One dude and a machine gun, probably not.

#28
Quote by m.f.k.r
I think I am perceiving the situation differently from everyone else. I am picturing laying down on the top of a valley a mile out from a city, and then just open fire. I would never think it is possible to infiltrate a roman city, kill everyone in it, and survive without critical wounds with only one gun.


Well if you're a mile away, you'll miss with most of your shots. And they'd just outmanoeuvre you.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#29
Quote by Todd Hart
It's in. I took a [projectile] IN the ****ing knee.


This one million thousand times over.
#30
Quote by Todd Hart
Well if you're a mile away, you'll miss with most of your shots. And they'd just outmanoeuvre you.

Do you think an early roman city would know what to do if their city was under siege from a "gun"? They didn't have those back then. And as they start to leave the city to flee or attack, firing hundreds of rounds in their direction will kill some.
I'm not saying I could bring down a civilization, I'm just saying it would be somewhat possible to bring down one city.

EDIT: And as far as my knowledge goes, I don't see how an archer can shoot further than a gun, with more accuracy
All my friends are Imaginary


"There was much of the beautiful,
much of the wanton, much of the bizarre, something of the terrible,
and not a little of that which might have excited disgust"


Swan Song
A Story by the Earl of Slander
Last edited by m.f.k.r at Feb 11, 2012,
#31
Quote by behind_you
Machine guns aren't very accurate at such long distances. Also, they got bows.


Which can't even touch you from a mile away.
Quote by progdude93
my fetish is dudes with dicks small enough to pee on their own sacks.
#32
Get your self a nice m2 .50 with a rediculously long belt and a few extra barrels or a gatling gun with a shitload of ammo and I bet you would do quite well..
YEAH! ಠ_ಠ
#33
Info for a light machine gun, M249 SAW
sustained rate of fire: 50 rounds per minute; Rapid rate of fire: 100 rounds per minute; cyclic rate of fire: 850 rounds per minute.
Muzzle velocity 915 m/s (3,000 ft/s)
Effective range 1,000 yd (910 m)
All my friends are Imaginary


"There was much of the beautiful,
much of the wanton, much of the bizarre, something of the terrible,
and not a little of that which might have excited disgust"


Swan Song
A Story by the Earl of Slander
#34
Quote by m.f.k.r
Do you think an early roman city would know what to do if their city was under siege from a "gun"? They didn't have those back then. And as they start to leave the city to flee or attack, firing hundreds of rounds in their direction will kill some.
I'm not saying I could bring down a civilization, I'm just saying it would be somewhat possible to bring down one city.

EDIT: And as far as my knowledge goes, I don't see how an archer can shoot further than a gun, with more accuracy


I think they'd work it out within about ten minutes. You couldn't fire hundreds of rounds in anything longer than about ten second bursts (by the end of which you would be shooting upwards and your shoulder would have been turned into so much red jelly) as otherwise your weapon would eat ammunition too fast. They had rapid fire (kind of, ten or so shots a minute) bolt launchers, I'm sure their imagination could make the leap.

And this isn't a case of you vs one archer, this is you vs a legion of archers. You vs 100 people, with 100 rounds of ammunition = a dead you. Sure, you'll kill some, if not most, but all it takes is a few to move in and either shoot you back or hack you to pieces whilst you fumble around and reload. One arrow and you're dead.

Quote by m.f.k.r
Info for a light machine gun, M249 SAW
sustained rate of fire: 50 rounds per minute; Rapid rate of fire: 100 rounds per minute; cyclic rate of fire: 850 rounds per minute.
Muzzle velocity 915 m/s (3,000 ft/s)
Effective range 1,000 yd (910 m)


So only slightly more than half a mile? Yeah, you're screwed. Second you have to reload they're close the distance and kill you.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
Last edited by Todd Hart at Feb 11, 2012,
#35
Honestly you're better with a good precision rifle in .50 BMG, .408 CheyTac or .338 Lapua.

No one would know what a gun is... they just see their guys falling out of nowhere, and then seconds later they will hear the noise, still not knowing what it is. I'd feel much more effective with that than being pretty much stationary with a heavy gun.
This ends now, eat the goddamn beans!
#36
Yes.

Romans are pussies, just like bears. When they saw that gun firing they'd be more afraid of you then you are of them. You would demolish them.
#38
Their lack of understanding for this object that magically kills people will create fear, they will most likely worship you once you demonstrate the machine gun's capabilities on a few of their soldiers.
#39
Quote by Jostry
Which can't even touch you from a mile away.
They have legs. They have tactical manoeuvring.

That + bows and you're dead.
ggg1 ggg3

.
#40
Quote by m.f.k.r
Info for a light machine gun, M249 SAW
sustained rate of fire: 50 rounds per minute; Rapid rate of fire: 100 rounds per minute; cyclic rate of fire: 850 rounds per minute.
Muzzle velocity 915 m/s (3,000 ft/s)
Effective range 1,000 yd (910 m)

Just because 5.56 is effective at 1000 yards doesn't mean it'll kill anyone, reliably. And the M249 is the worst way to try and connect at long range.
This ends now, eat the goddamn beans!
Page 1 of 3