Sad that the set burned down. How much fun did you have?

Awesome 👍 I'm in a documentary and got pretty much nothing for it 😂

That's awesome. I was an extra in the made for TV civil war movie Andersonville in the mid 90s when I was about 17. I played a Union prisoner of war. Everyone took it very seriously and the set almost had a re-enactment kind of feel. I got there at like 4 or 5 AM, got set up in makeup and wardrobe and then sat in the camp all day long smoking and eating snacks and stuff between takes. It was a really fun time but super long days. I don't remember exactly how much I was paid but it seemed like a lot for a high school kid and helped me out with bills and such later on in college. Unforgettable experience for sure.

@@terrencemcdonald6322 I remember that film. We watched it in the army absolutely cool 😎

Bravo to you for reenacting the history of our great state

Unfortunately in the scenario laid out in the video, Claymores along with other party favorites like the Carl G have been restricted….. But that wouldn’t stop Rangers from outside the wire at night to raise other mayhem!

🤡🤡🤡🤣🤣🤣

They would have some guys from mortar platoon with them also so they'd be taking incoming day and night. Also access to drones lol so they might not even need to shoot anyone.

I was thinking the same thing. The rangers would make seriously psychologically damaging nighttime raids on the Mexican forces.

I think his point is, the battle wouldn't last until nightfall. And I agree. The snipers would win this battle single handedly. Once the Leadership fell, the rank and file would run. Done. Over.

Would still be a turkey shoot as those rangers would have accurate, long range semi automatic firearms, Browning Automatic Rifles, M1918 .30 cal machine guns, .45 caliber 1911 pistols, grenades, Hawkins grenades, potentially radios and flamethrowers and submachine guns.

@@hunterkiller232134not very sure about the flamethrowers, but potentially yes. They also probably would win as well

Ranges all day everyday twice on Sundays

Replace the Garand with BARs and Johnson Rifles and now we’re talking

Pacific Marines didn't have any problems stacking bodies in WW2 vs Bonzai charges .. Neither did the US Army during Korea vs Chinese human wave/attacks.. vs M1 Garands.

not to mention that the officers would be dressed in elaborate uniforms and very easy to distinguish from a group.

Very true.... Or you could just wait until someone salutes a senior officer. The older that person looks, the more likely he is the most senior officer.

You want Psychological effect .. hear the bolt on a M2 Maduce locking back at night . And shear fire power of the .50 a lone . And even a near miss is deadly

@@jeffherdz I think the "Psychological" effect would prove to be a problem and have the opposite effect of wining the battle. My reasoning is simply that you can't destroy an enemy if they don't come to battle. Or in this case, flee from the battle before the Rangers could do enough damage to the army in mass. Granted, if a sniper took out Santa Anna at the start, then the whole reason for the war would be null. But unless the Rangers use a strategy to keep the Mexican army in place to be destroyed (which isn't easy if the Rangers are stationary behind walls), the Alamo battle would be a none event for both sides.

@@anthonyhurst5898 erm, a near miss ain't deadly. Saw plenty of those, all kept on going. It's a .50, not a fucking death ray, dammitall! Might scare you to death, it won't actually kill you by missing by inches. Ever. Physics wins, bullshit loses always.

I don’t know any Ranger that EVER went into combat with 7 mags… 12+1 is the actual minimum loadout… usually more.

@@archer721i wasnt even a ranger and we each had at least 300 5.56 in mags and everyone would also carry drums for the mg’s.

I've ran 7 mags but that is with a squirter interdiction loadout and had all the extras stripped from the kit to make it easier to chase the enemy at 11000ft. Total Kit weight was still close to 90lbs though.@@archer721

And at least one guy would bring a tomahawk

@@jonathanmoody6951 - no doubt about it! 😎👍

50 rangers would easily beat the Mexican Army. Fact is they are not robots and modern weaponry would make mincemeat out of any Army of the period and the Mexican Army was not particularly well trained.

For a good depiction of what a .50 BMG would do to massed foot soldiers, check out Rambo (Part 4), where he goes into Burma/Myanmar to accompany some hired former US and Australian SAS mercenaries to rescue some well-meaning Christian missionaries intend on bringing relief to ethnic Karen villagers being attacked by the Burmese corrupt military dictatorship government’s ‘Tatmadaw’ Army. Rambo is able to kill a Burmese soldier manning an M2 mounted in the back of a Jeep and liquify the Jeep’s driver with said M2, and then goes on the offensive just at the moment that the now-captured mercenaries are about to be executed by Burmese soldiers, with Karen rebel soldiers coming in near the end to join the fight. Storyline and action-wise, it is the best Rambo installment, with plenty of Burmese dialogue with subtitles spoken, even some by Rambo himself ( which I can appreciate given that I have traveled to Burma/Myanmar 4 times and can speak a little bit of Burmese).

If they had 50 calibre at all

If they only had their M4 with plenty of ammo, they would wipe out the Mexican army with machine gun fire, heck 5 men probably could

Actually the Mexican army of that time was one the most highly regarded infantry armies of that time. Highly trained and organized. They still would have gotten completely stomped. However, that particular time period the Mexican army was well respected.

Senators are congressmen. Congress is a unit in the legislative branch which includes the US house and the US senate. So, US Representatives of the House and members of the US Senate are both congressmen.

No, a congressman is a member of the U.S. (or state) House of Representatives. A senator is not. Both are member of Congress, but only those of the House are titled, refered to, and addressed as congressman. No House member is entitled to be called senator. They are not the same.@@knowledgeking2155

Nobody says a congressman referring to a member of the senate. Although in theory you could. Most importantly in response the author called a representative a senator so the OP is correct in common vernacular and in regards to the author.

You mean he was a Representative. They (Senators and Representatives) are all Congressmen.

​@@knowledgeking2155Colloquial language is a real thing in linguistics. Congressman is near always used as the title for a representative your just being pedantic for no reason

Agree 100%

That s*** still kills morale now hahaha

@@joespheigo2061 hahah, very true

Retreat nothing! More like an “every man for himself!” event

Cool story, bro.

​​@@leonardosantuario3346 Look up the Battle of New Orleans from the War of 1812.

@@dclark1980 don't care. Nerd.

The Battle of Alamo had more to do with how many cannons were at the disposal of the defenders than any kind of frontier grit. Those cannons were the very reason Santa Anna was raiding the Alamo, and the inspiration behind the "Come and Take It" flag...

T.R. Ferenbach's assessment should be taken with a grain of salt. He was a proud Texan and has a reputation for his mythologizing of Texas history. He also never claimed to be a historian, but rather a admirer of it. Not saying he's wrong, just saying to add some sodium to his characterization.

Probably bullshit, as are many things

It was 200. He was also mostly written off as dead because nobody could hear him shooting anymore. Nah...he only stopped shooting because he killed them all lol Some Ghurkas at the Alamo would suck for mexico. When 10 dudes who are all 5ft to 5 ft4 start carving up mexicans with their knives, wed see that they aint bout that life

yea but most of that were melee fighters

Yeah running face first into a machine gun is never a good idea

@@repentandbelieveinJesusChrist4 well Daly was defending mostly missionaries so there's that. But you should look into other translations as the NIV has some problems.

That's cool man.

That kinda reminds me of the Twilight Zone where a tank crew from the Montana National Guard is on maneuvers near the Little Big Horn Battlefield so they grab their guns and go off to die with the 7th Cavalry armed with M1911Colt.45 pistols and M3"Grease Guns"SMG. Hypothetically,they might've fared better if they'd gone into battle with their M3"Stuart"tank instead.

You should see Billy Bod Thornton in Blood In, Blood Out.

I was also an extra on the movie. All the extras used to go behind the dumpster and jack each other off while screaming "WE ARE SUPERSTARS!"

Y’all smoke some of the Ol wacky tobacco with Billy Bob? 😎🤙

You don’t need 50 with that kind of fire power. Maybe a dirty dozen Rangers.

its obnoxious when you think about it. increases by factors when thinking about the amount of resupply/ability to MOVE@@tomaswalsh-gomez8042

This was my first thought. Using the Alamo as a fire support base for Artillery, raiding at night, constant ambushes, the Mexican Army would never be able to get close. As much as I love the M2, I would actually drop it and make sure that the Rangers were outfitted with a SAW in each fire team, an M320 in each fire team, and as much ammo and demo as they could carry. Using the Alamo as a supply depot as well for food and water, their flat out wouldn't be a Mexican Army. This video while detailed, does not take into account the modern tactics that even in defense the Rangers would use. Also, there wouldn't be 10 Snipers, but you could easily find 4 designated Marksmen and that would be more than suffice.

@@billzade8158 the M2 isn’t even necessary, it’s more effective against soft and light vehicles, which the Mexican Army would not have. The space and logistical weight can be saved for more man-portable infantry supplies.

I know it’s the idea for the video, but like someone said above, Take 10-15 75th guys and the Mexicans wouldn’t have gotten to see the Alamo. If only the US would have backed Texas quicker, it wouldn’t have been a possibility either (with the same era men). We walked through to Mexico City like it was a training ruck. We should have kept it then. Maybe the border issues would be entirely different today.

50 Rangers with at least 200rnds each is 10,000 rounds. and shooting single shot at extended ranges for much of that... with snipers hitting commanders.....and you show them what a M2 and M240B can do at 500yd, and the rest would flee in a hurry.

He said a combat loadout (which in my expieremce, most guys carry a lot more than that, but for sake of argument we'll stick to it) That works out to 210rds for each guy carrying an M4 800-1000rds for the M240 machine guns For the M2 it's harder to say but they would likely have at least 5-600 rounds Any way you slice it, even if the rangers carried half of their typical combat load. That still spells overwhelming casualties for the mexican army

Normal load out of 30 rounds times 7 mags = 210 rounds per soldier. That's 10500 rounds. And that is just the m-4's. So even if you only hit a target half the time, that's 2500 rounds left over. Add the machine guns and maybe 1000 rounds per times 4 = few survivors. On top of that on the off chance they ran out and left even a thousand then the hand to hand comes into play. Ballistic armor and advanced training equals maybe a few ranger casualties.

If you take the evidence of San Jacinto you'll see how quick the Mexican army is to route so I would think by the time the first 1000 rounds had been expended and the battlefield is Covered in Mexican Manuto the routing would be at Terror Levels all the way back to Mexico City!!! 🤠👍

​@mr.browning7.624 Agreed... US Troopers will stuff extra mags, boom, and chow into anything and everything they can wedge it into. Don't be surprised when the skinny kid that looks like he's hung like a rhino reaches into his skivvies and yanks out a 5.56 magazine, a pouch of MRE peanut butter and a frag...

Check out the story of Los San Patricios. You'll likely find it interesting.

took a piss at the alamo thought it was the toilet

Correct. There is also a flag on display for each US state the defenders came from. Many of the Alamo defenders had come from immigrant families who had taken the opportunity to get free land which the Mexican government had offered for families moving to Texas. In 1833 Santa Anna became President of Mexico and decided he was going to strictly enforce Mexico's laws against the settlers in Texas, rather than allow them the "variances" the former government had under an agreement in 1824. Such as _requiring_ all of them to be Catholic. The Texicans, at first, only wanted to be restored to the 1824 agreement and didn't seek independence. In fact the "Alamo Flag" is the Mexican flag with "1824" emblazoned on it. It was Santa Anna's brutal treatment of the Texicans, particularly at the battle of Goliad, before the Alamo, that pushed them into declaring independence.

My great great great grand father was James Nolan and he was Scott who died at the Alamo. Most of the defenders were from the south and would have mostly British ancestors.

@@GSXRI300karma is a thing … when it catches up with you, please remember your comments here.

Sad part is that most (not all) College age students cannot pick out on a map of the world. 5 countries ....including the U.S.. I wish I was joking about this.

Anyone find the title of that book?

Remember The Alamo!-Kevin Randle & Robert Cornett (1980) (Time Mercenaries Series)

Got me thinking of the game Darkest Days. You're a soldier fighting alongside Custer until you're wounded and rescued by time travelers who recruit you to help protect the timeline.

I remember reading this book and it was a good book. The soldiers that went back were all Vietnam vets, yes they brought modern weapons but the outcome was still the same.....just ordered this book on a online discount book store, there are two more books in this series. Remember Gettysburg and Remember the little big horn.

I remember this very well. I think Jerry Pournelle had an excerpt in one of his There Will Be War books from that novel.

not alot...ammo dependent weapon...even a heavy load out is 13 mags or 390 rounds and 4-8 hand grenades. so initial burst damage from the grenades and then single shots could account for as many as 500...an impressive number, but against an army of 8000 or more, its only a scratch...then they bite his knees off.

Zero significant effect.

They retreat from fear from the strange knight that killed swathes of their comrades with sound & fire...

In any one major battle, they would definitely turn the battle into slaughter. Medieval armies were a few/ bunch of rich knights and a shit ton of poor farmers and such making up the bulk. Once they start dropping like flies from 400 to 500 yards away they will lose the will to fight and run.

​​@@Rosivokyou're forgetting one thing, they can eliminate the officers, nobility, etc..... At range. That alone changes a lot for medieval armies.

What’s it called?

Ya what is the name

@@harryjoe860 Remember the Alamo! by Kevin D. Randle, Robert Cornett.

Yes but the tank ran out of fuel and the tankers went to battle with just the arms they carried on the tank.

They could have taken the .30 calber machine gun.

@@Fokkerc1 could have been a long time since I saw that one.

was a good episode

The Indians took out there tank with arrows

Yes, I agree with you entirely. It's an excellent film, especially if you care at all about the history. Great call!

Of course, I'd love to go back with just 20 of my people. I worked with some serious bad @sses. I don't need 50, just 20 that were trained with me. Trust me, Texas will be free! 👍🏻👍🏻😎😎

@@ciAMkia If it were possible we definitely should go back in time and make this happen. I may not have the experience that you and your friends do but I’m not a bad shot myself and would happily go with you guys to help out. I personally believe the changes that would result from such a outcome would be quite positive actually.

Mine as well. I absolutely love this film.

As someone who is related to Colonel Travis, this movie got me choked up at times.

...the other thing not mentioned is the close air support by two Apache attack helicopters, just so they make it home for dinner.

What if they didn’t have any of their weapons and technology?

@@TheDogGoesWoof69 ….a blind dog with a note in it’s mouth could take over Mexico, any anyway, soon enough they’ll all have crossed the border regardless

@@Adam-ze1jwI think it still would have been the same result. Even with primitive technology the grasp of maneuver warfare and unconventional tactics could have led to a victory. Using these methods the rangers could have possibly destroyed the enemies will to fight before having to kill many of them

@@cspace1234nz insufficient firepower. They'd need at least six AC130's to make a proper impression. Or one MLRS system, to keep things semi-obsolete. Although, a 120 mm mortar would even the field quickly, if they were allowed to approach. But, OP was right, Rangers don't wait to meet and greet, they greet in advance. Shockingly so, by design, they are shock troops after all. Against modern forces, mass maneuvers would take adjusting tactics on the fly - with only a basic combat load, so it's even money, Tora Bora ugly style. And in Tora Bora, we had 2500 Afghans supporting us. No, wasn't there, friends were, I was assigned elsewhere. War is never about killing the most, that's amateur play. It's about destroying the will to fight, the desire to fight, leaving continuing hostilities an exercise in destroying that which the one warring is trying to protect. So, one engages their supply trains, leaving them low on ammo they're not carrying and SOL for food. Then, erode command and communications, in that era, commanders wore colorful outfits that stood out, signals were flag and bugle. Only after do you inflict serious pain, if they're still approaching. Lower ordinance and ammunition expense, greater benefit and well, at the early stage, use as much of theirs as possible to inflict damage. Black powder of that era wasn't exceptionally stable, oils and other flammables not sequestered like we do today.

Spare quick change barrels are standard with the M2, or at least were when I was in. It's kind of like saying you need laces for your shoes. Yeah, you do, but they come with the shoes, so you don't really need to point that out.

Could you imagine a spooky just hanging rounds down on open field 😂

There's actually a book that examines what would happen if 100,000 AK47's and ammo got sent back in time to the Confederates. It's called "Guns of the South" by Harry Turtledove

@@generalkayoss7347read it it’s pretty good

Honestly pickets charge might have been different if only they hadn't changed to different shell fuses just before the battle. That alone caused all there preparatory fire to be useless.

they didn't ? WHAT ?

Even at night, the Rangers would still out rang the Mexicans... So they would be falling soon as they start to form a line.. The Mexican cannons would be in range too so the Mexican troops seeing there cannons being death traps would play havoc on there morale.... And the machine guns would chew up the Mexican lines to.. They would also see the tracers coming from the machine guns at night better so they could see a few places spitting out fire and raining death on there lines...

Communist Chinese tried that in Korea War , the ending was ugly

It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

@@actionjksn @ or stampede the ants

Just think if Santa Ana bypassed the Alamo except for a small group to pin the down , Then found and attacked a unprepared Sam Houston force. Later Mexico pieced land off a little at a time and Texas never happen.

Fairly A lot of Myth Surrounds Houston’s Assembly of Force During and After The Alamo The Propaganda Affects Were Glorious And It Did Distract Santa Anna and His Immediate Army Immediately for a Good While per The Standard’s of The Time But What I Remember Is Houston Didn’t Need It too Much in Terms Creating a Force More of Moving a Force a Little and Preparing for Mexico to Come to Him Resulting In The Little Dictator’s Capture and Release

Unfortunately that's a commonly held myth, the battle of the Alamo ddi nothing for Houston to gather an army. When the Alamo fell he only had a handful of men with him.

@@sgtfrank2590 It would still have happened. It's well understood that Mexico HAD to end up capturing New Orleans in order to maintain territory in the central area of North America. Anyone who controlled New Orleans was going to end up controlling the land that now makes up the US. New Orleans was needed to control the Mississippi River Basin and all of it's offshoots, and that would give total control the whole interior. Even if Mexico took Texas, they would end up losing it anyway because they never had a chance to take New Orleans.

I dont think there was any suicide plan, they felt they were going to be re-enforced and by the time they figured out that wasnt going to happen it was too late.

"That guy looks important." "He's gonna look dead in a second."

24 minutes most likely 😂

@@DavidMedic447 24 minutes sounds reasonable to spot the leader if he wasnt sitting on a horse. If he is horseback I am thinking more in the 24 second range.

Lol, 24 hrs? He wouldn't last the initial engagement.

All you need is a middle schooler with his fathers hunting rifle. he could just stand on the barracks. then maybe some pistols at each corner. this would be so easy.

unless of course the paradox is actually happening from NOT sending in those rangers....

Unless time branches into a different reality if you change the past.

Well, it would only happen once.

Oh don't start w/ that time paradox/Terminator shit.

Crockett won the WH, and raccoons were hunted to extinction as the demands for the coonskin hats went nuts.

Maybe a couple of Gatling guns at the corners....

How is 180 to 4000 close??? How exactly would 50 more men with 7 shot lever guns ( I assume you meant Spencer, not Sharps) change anything??? You still have a company size unit taking on a regular army corps. Civil War era ratio for shots taken to kills ranged in the 60-100 range. At that rate you still need 250,000 cartridges or 5000 per man. That is 32 lbs. of shells per man. Those weapons were available in the US Civil War. Name one action where a platoon or company size force with 50 repeating rifles defeated a whole army corps. There were none. Why do you suppose that is?

Close? Not even.

@@johnbreitmeier3268 Santa Anna had less than 2500men total. That's not a Corps

@@CS-zn6pp You did not watch the video, did you. For this silly exercise Santa Ana was given 4000 troops. I am playing within the rules stated. None of this is sane. I will cede you that 4000 is more of a corps size and 2500 a brigade, BUT it does NOT change the problem. It is the numbers that make the difference, not what you call the unit. Bowie called his 30 volunteers a regiment but there were still only 30. You can call the Rangers an Army Group and there are still only 50. When did you ever hear of a Company sized unit (The combined Alamo and Ranger group of 230) or just a platoon of 50 defeating either a whole brigade or a division??

Hell, just having Minié balls in combustible paper cartridges would have been a major advantage. The defenders would have had the rate of fire of a smoothbore musket even if they all used rifles, which are typically difficult to muzzle-load.

Don't be silly St Michael general of the heavenly host would fight for Mexico under orders from God and would use his flaming sword to smite any combatant as cowardly as a sniper out of hand before they had even unleashed thier first wicked shot.

I agree with you. If snipers took out command and control, it would be over with.

There are 2 Sean's 1st half of them would look at them as if they were Monkey LOL and accidentally would kill half of eachother or they wouldn't use them. 2nd with them you drop off on Person to transfer Knowledge of usage of Rifles to them and Hope back over, now then you would have a good set up. But then you would have to deal with aftermath of Future being so different. 🤣🤣🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️ My thoughts 🤷🏻‍♂️

The only issue is though is ammo. The end is still defeat or retreat. Santa Ana has 8k troops, each ranger may have 6 to 10, 30rd mags. They will run out of ammo before Santa Ana would run out of troops.

@@domagojbeno388the idea that riflemen and infantrymen who were trained as marksmen from youth would look at a more advanced rifle as if they were a monkey is a fundamental misunderstanding of human intelligence. They would immediately recognize them for what they were and the potential for warfare they held. Our brains haven’t measurably developed in the last 30,000 years, much less the last 150. I guarantee John Browning had a firmer grasp of physics and engineering than you do right now You could send a crate of Rubik’s cubes to the court of Charlemagne and you’d find his courtiers would solve them at the same rate modern people do.

In the scenario 34 rangers would have 7+ magazines each for 7140 rounds. In reality the 16 machine gunners would also have their rifles and be able to share ammo. That's not even accounting for the mg ammo

I think I Video Guy did say Once Mexican Soldiers Sow There High Ranking Officer's Die. There is a small chance they would stick around and fight. Plus he didn't go into Reco Side of thing's the damage with Them going behind enemy line and doing light Knife work as well. I think the would be OK to be honest LOL Modern Tip of Combat is and would Be ALIEN to man back in those day's. As you know it is all done as a Gentleman's agreement Like we fight Chest to Chest and who has more wins! Doing that today would be as bright as single Person charging with a pen knife a Squad of SEALs or any other SPEC OPS LOL🤷🏻‍♂️🤣🤣

Not just 40mm but also a m3 RAAWS 84mm with he or hedp, and if someone sweet talked jsoc maybe some ADM rounds which would end any charge on the spot.

He limited all modern explosives. Lets face it, the shear amount of explosives carried as standard equipment in a 50 man ranger team would be enough to pretty much take over North America at that time.

@@jodyhannah5931it’s so hard to wrap your head around the advancement of weaponry we have made. A team of seals would probably run the independent colonies and build an empire

It was actually a Stuart.

The thing about modern tanks in a battle like that is ammunition capacity. Sure, a Leopard 2A7 could destroy any WW2 era tank with a single shot from a ridiculous distance and would be practically invulnerable, but you can't escape the fact that it can only carry 27 rounds. So what would the effect of a Leopard 2A7 at Kursk be? It would just mean 27 fewer Soviet tanks in the fight, which would make no meaningful difference. If you wanted to have an impact at the battle of Kursk with a modern vehicle, you'd be better off sending something with an autocannon.

@@hydra70 Yeah true, something like a PUMA or Bradley would probably be far more effective against T-34's and any lighter vehicles. Although it might still struggle against KVs? not exactly sure abt that one tbh, I never tried killing a 1940's era tank using a modern IFV.

10 may even be overkill depending on what battalion they come from. 1st Ranger or RRC and I'm guessing a single 4-6 man team can handle it tbh

Really? There is no question that modern gear and training are superior, but while far more accurate at mid-to-long range, a 5.56 round is honestly NOT better at disabling an enemy than .70 cal ball ammo. The real question is could those men carry enough ammo to win against THAT many enemies. Despite what many people think because of movies, people did not just stand still in neat little lines and let people shoot at them, they used flanking maneuvers, sought natural cover, and built barricades then as now. With that few people against nearly 2,000, every single shot missed would increase the smaller group's chances of all dying. And taking the time to line up perfect shots every time they fired would likewise increase the chance of someone lining up a shot on them instead. I'm not saying it's impossible for a relatively small group of modern Rangers to win that fight with the right strategy, but it certainly wouldn't be some effortless cakewalk.

@@jakecarter9920 You're basing the entire scenario off of...bullet caliber? Really? That's all you think war comes down to? No consideration for the effect of even a dozen rangers shooting at well beyond a musket's effective range would have on nearby formations would have? Morale doesn't exist in your mind? Never read any examples of that in history?

@@KonglomeratYT Wow you truly are an idiot aren’t you? My argument isn’t about bullet calibers AT ALL it’s about the LACK of sufficient force multipliers to make up for the massive difference in numbers. An M-4 is better than a Kentucky long rifle but not better ENOUGH to overcome a disparity of several hundred to one. Modern armor isn’t better ENOUGH to erase the medical trauma of getting shot by the Mexicans’ guns. Children like you think that people back then entered into mindless zurg-rushes into hails of gunfire without shooting back and with no thought of self preservation. The reality is that just didn’t happen, especially by that time. The Rangers could certainly inflict heavy casualties but they would be completely reliant on the statistical impossibility of thousands of trained men and all of their long rifles, pistols, and cannons somehow never once getting successful shots off. Don’t be absurd!

@@jakecarter9920 Yeah but with the weapons of the day, the Texans already killed nearly 25% of the Mexican force before the Alamo fell. There would be a 300 m radius kill zone around the Alamo - the Mexicans would never get close enough to take a shot.

Or a walk in a desert.

Yet you still got your asses handed to you by the Vietnamese. Try again, Ranger.

2/75th 96-03 11C Add us and our mortars and it's over in minutes.

hell. just a platoon from my battery at Fort Sill during BCT would devastate that force. after are forge of course. we had roughly only 32 people yes all with M4s. but then you take in are command team. Staff Sergeant Hairston was infantry, trained us all in combat maneuvers and my platoon i would be so full to say was the best in are battery with them. Staff Sergeant Loth was a very very smart man who was highly skilled in anything artillery. he was actually the one training us the most though. and was the one who gave us the most indepth training. then are Platoon Sergeant. Sergeant First Class Butto. man was insane. big scary korean man. drove trucks as an 88M. while he didnt train us directly very often he was one of the most respected there and also didnt help he was recovering from knee surgery at the time of my cycle. while we were only second best in the overall accuracy we had 27 hit sharpshooter in qualifications. everyone was qualified with grenades. while yes we wouldnt do as well as 50 rangers just those of us who were there would have done enough. especially if we included everyone who was in my platoon at the start. which was 42 of us. only downside of us was a lack of specialized training. we only knew how to use the m4 and grenades. nothing else. though we did get a run down on the Saw with DS Loth. so we at least knew how that weapon worked and with just some quick personalized training we would have been able to use them effectively.

You know damn well Saying it would’ve been a fun training exercise is still too generous.

"Ma Deuce" firing Tracer rounds during a night attack forget it game over for the enemy!!!

My guy cannons with similar effective ranges and *superior* destructive force were most definitely a thing back then, and the exact scenario you are describing happened to more than one commanding officer on many a battlefield (though admittedly by walking shots or luck rather than precise aiming). They would be neither shocked nor psychologically paralyzed by the event. AT MOST they would simply misattribute the kill to an enemy cannon instead of a high caliber rifle.

Now imagine if the mexican army had the same weapon lol 😂

For sure. The battle would have been over in about 15 minutes instead of 90. 1 Ranger equals 10-15 Mexican army troops of the time, even if they were equipped with modern arms. The Rangers would smash the assault to bits in no time. @@manueltrae713

Wouldn't have needed a .50 cal, a decent rifle in 7.62 NATO might have been able to do it. Field artillery of the time were around 1000 yards range, and Santa Ana was commanding from near his battery, to better direct their fire. A good modern sniper might well have been able to engage either Santa Ana himself, or the artillery crews.

So, he was a state rep instead?

No, US congressman

@@Joe_Friday - No, he was the US Congressman from Tennessee's 12th District.

@@Joe_Friday - Incidentally, Sam Houston was also a US Congressman from Tennessee's 7th District. And the former Governor of Tennessee. He would go on to be President of the Republic of Texas, Governor of the State of Texas and also a Senator from Texas. I believe he was also a Texas State Senator at one point too.

@@colin1818 I heard he was hall monitor at school too.

The Rangers are best when they can maneuver, not to mention night actions. An old but tried and true tactic is to hit the enemy every night, so they cannot rest. Also if you can, destroy baggage and supply trains and cannons. An army the size the Mexican had, would not have been stopped by 50 Rangers holing up inside the Alamo. Unless they could bring a semi trucks worth of ammo, and spare guns.

Imagine the nuclear armed holy armies of Mexico as they enter the utterly utterly defeated and devastated Washington DC as the Archangel Michael flies overhead with his sword of judgement aflame announcing the liberation of all black slaves and native Americans. It is a cruel and evul person who's heart is not warmed by that liberation. All together Mexico, freedom and justice! Huzzah!

With Ted Cruz as it's eternal leader.

There. Is a succession movement In Texas, they are exploring options 😊

@@digbyanddad Puff puff, Pass 🤷🏿‍♂️

@@rickreese5794Pass indeed :) do you know how the Archangel Micheal punishes those that do not follow the orders of the Almighty?

I feel like the Rangers wouldn’t have to use full auto or burst fire with their M4s or M4A1s to be effective. They are trained to use semi automatic fire very effectively to be more accurate and conserve ammo. Semi automatic fire is recommended for those reasons and combined that with the machine gun positions, ranks and columns of soldiers would just drop like potato sacks in seconds. The Mexican troops could not comprehend the rate of fire of those small M4 carbines even on semi automatic fire. Being able to shoot 30 rounds as fast as the rangers want while they can only shoot 3 rounds a minute at best is just an instant demoralizer. By the time the Mexican infantry formations understand what they’re up against, it’s too late and they have seconds before being mowed down. Tracer rounds in the machine guns, and seeing their own comrades being torn to pieces by the M2 50 caliber machine gun would just be a nightmare to the Mexican formations. The Mexican Army would break and run away just seeing the first infantry lines cut down like weeds to a weed whacker in just minutes. I don’t even think the historical defenders would even bother doing anything but firing the cannons. Maybe they’d just be drinking whiskey and watching the rangers do the work for them. The defenders would either laugh at the destruction of the Mexican Army, or be amazed and simultaneously horrified at 21st century firepower.

I have always wondered what soldiers from previous wars would think if they could witness modern warfare. I got out of the Army in 1996 and seeing some of the changes in that period of time is staggering.

what if the Texans had their 50 rangers, but Mexicans had, well they had the 3,000 troop advantage, but what Santa Ana was approached by say, 15 modern Mexican Army soldiers, offering their services?

@@Defender78 yep , talk about Pandora's box , the knock on possibilities are endless.

The Maxim machinegun, which works almost exactly like modern machineguns, came out in 1884. During the height of the old west. So they had machineguns mack then too just not handheld like tommy guns

The M2 machine gun mentioned in this video has been around since world war II.

​@@user-oy9zy4ds9mthe Gatling gun was manufactured starting in 1861. If the defenders had just two of those, the outcome would have been very different. If the Texas Army would have been trained in Combat Reloading(for that era), the Mexican Army would have suffered many more casualties. I don't remember exactly but I think the women who stayed in the Alamo were helping with the flintlock reloading at one point.

@@actionjksn m2 been around since 1918 I believe

A couple of Jedi and a platoon of Clones

That's what happens when you invade other people's land. The good guys won that one.

The Alamo complex was about 10 acres originally, all that is left now is the church...so there is that

​@kingdedede9135 yes we did and Texas became a free Republic, thank you for your recognition 🙂

@@Grim-Crusader “Free republic.” Lmao. You invaded Mexico, and tried to start a slave state. Show some self awareness. It’s embarrassing to be so openly and proudly stupid.

Yet those "good guys" are the invaders now.

The Spartans were holding their own quite well against the frontal assault. Maybe the 50 Rangers could be used to close off the mountain pass the Persians used to surround Leonidas and his men.

love San Antonio.

The more heavily-armed Rangers would be more effective in this scenario. But if you couldn't take modern weapons and had to use the contemporary muskets, go with a Delta Force platoon.

​@darko714 Delta can get whatever weapons they want. They'd be just as armed if not more than the Rangers.

The Navy Seals would give the Mexican army a run for their money! 20 would probably worked!

@4redniwediS you're aware that Delta is above SEALs, right? Both on mission priority and funding? But yes, that might be enough.

@@WannabeSuperSoldier Delta are trained for special ops, not regular infantry combat. Sure, they can do it, and do it well if need be, but why expose them when the Rangers can do the job?

Unfortunately for that movie, a modern carrier wouldn't be that useful there. They'd get a bunch of kills, but would hit the issue of limited useful weapons for air to air. Heat seekers might have issues because, well, other missiles in the air might confuse them and radar guided would be difficult due to construction materials...and you'd have to rely on gun passes which aren't trained as much for modern pilots.

Welcome to the channel. Yes, i sometimes have unreasonably long breaks in uploads, but i want to try and be more consistent.

​​@@ParryThiscan you do more time travel military videos please?

With millennials and gen zeros.......they would have turned around and scampered back on the landing craft, cowering in the corner holding their trophies and parci certificates. This lot of Draftable Americans nowadays would not last a half of a second

Don't send the police, they would only ask random people minding their own damn business for ID and then assault those people when they say no.

with enough ammo and food i believe they could've turned the tide

One sniper with a 308 rifle and enough ammo would single-handedly win the entire battle.

@@Whats-It-To-Ya The Mexican officers dressed like peacocks. Easy pickings. No officers, no army.

The difference between a “civilian” and “infantry” are 6 weeks of basic PT, weapons training, and learning to obey orders because you’re too stupid to know better.

I remember reading the same book. It was very interesting

sounds like Harry Turtledove and his Guns of the South books, where time-travling Russians equip the Confederate Army with AK-47s.

was a fantastic book, and even had a good ending...they stayed and invested in the industries that were just comming up and lived rich.

That book is probably banned in schools now …. It’s talking about scary guns and hurting people

I wonder where I heard this concept before. 😂

I read ‘Remember the Alamo’. Very interesting book for a sci-fi and history buff like m’self. I highly recommend it for a light read.

@@terryspees9210 It seems there is some moron with huge complexes. If he would have changed history, he should have asked about what if the sioux have gotten the modern weapons, to slaughter the yankee scum who tried to exterminate the native indians. But nope, some dumb a§§hole who is upset about defeats (even such satisfying ones like Little Big Horn) and try to erase them. This is disgusting. But suits a lot of ducking people.

I read that book when I was 8

I was going to mention that but didn’t remember the name. Didn’t know about the other two books.

Oh Green Berets would interesting and not as overpowering as a Ranger platoon just given that the SF guys have far less in weapons than the Rangers do. The math there being Rangers are heavy armed light infantry and Green Berets are force multipliers who rely on training foreign nationals how to fight and ise weapons systems but their M16s and M60s alone would have easily been enough to take out Santa Ana's army not to mention that SF jas engineers to make things go boom.

Texans: The defenders of the Alamo fought for freedom! Critical thinkers: Freedom to do what? Texans: 🦗 🦗

nah there is reason he left that out, bad optics

Reminds me of Guns of the South by Harry Turtledove. A South African group goes back in time to bring the AK47 to the Confederacy.

So basically this guy's idea 😆

I have this book, great read, its about 40 years old,

Guns of the South is a great book .yeah it was published in 1980.

​@@theyearwas1473People have been kicking around alt history ideas like this for decades. This isn't Turtledove or Randall/Cornett's idea. Hell, there's probably evidence of Alexander the Great and Aristotle doing this for The Trojan War. Shit, Homer's epic poem is probably an alt-his "what if the gods were involved in the Trojan War" story.

I wonder how bad the psychological effect of tracers would be.