Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 January 26

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 26

International mail fraud

Today I received a letter claiming to be from a barrister representing an unclaimed estate which suggests that I might be a long lost relative and hier. You know the drill – an obvious scam. Normally, I'd turn the letter over to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service to add to their files for investigation and possible prosecution. However, this letter has a Lisbon metered postmark and Madrid contact information (including an apparent premium rate fax number +34 911 xxx xxx), so it appears to be of questionable jurisdiction. I'm looking for suggestions as to where to file a complaint that has any chance of triggering an investigation. (Of course the claimed estate is fairly sizable – maybe I should send them my bank account and credit card numbers, just in case. They say the transaction is 100% risk-free.) -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to give them the deed to your house while you're at it. Oh, and I have a slightly used bridge to sell you. Some assembly required. If it were me, I would start with the post office and see if they have any recommendations. Another possibility could be the U.S. Department of Justice? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule, people that direct things into another country, even if they are without it, are within the jurisdiction of that country. For the legal theory see personal jurisdiction and minimum contacts. Now, whether that means anything in your case I can't say. Shadowjams (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Interpol or Europol, depending where you reside? Or perhaps it should just be 'filed' away in the round 'filing cabinet' or if you prefer a square one. 220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as it's fed through a shredder first. You can't be too careful about the risk of identity theft. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, gold star for Bugs. Here however the 'barrister' already has the OPs address, hopefully nothing more! But yes, any identifying paperwork should be shredded ('crosscut' shredder preferred) before 'filing'. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I'm a hero of the Soviet Union. That's kind of like being a hero of the St. Louis Browns. d:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You deserve it, you made a very good point. (Typed "Gold Star" in the Search box and bingo. At least its shiny!) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the Browns still kinda exist. It would be more like being a hero of the Cleveland Spiders. --Jayron32 17:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Now I see what put you on to updating the Browns page. :) The scary part about the Cleveland Spiders is that League Park is in better shape than they are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Spain is an absolutely notorious base for advance-fee type scams (especially the Spanish Lottery scam). This, from the US Department of State, suggests that victims contact the Spanish Embassy, but I'm not sure how far they would go to investigate a letter if you haven't fallen victim to it. It's also commonly suggested that you contact the FBI, Secret Service or US Postal Inspectorate. See here for how to report. This includes international scams. --Kateshortforbob _talk 19:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Magic in Wikipedia

I am sure that I edited someone's user talk page, then when I visited again to see if he had responded, my post wasn't there. I checked his history, and I had never posted. Then I checked my posting history, and it also indicated that I had never posted. Then I find out (via external means) that he magically deleted my post -- but it was as though I had never done it in the first place, rather than allowing it to appear as an unposted-post. How is that possible within the framework of Wikipedia? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Were they an admin? Dismas|^(talk) 03:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What is an "unposted-post"? If an edit is hard deleted, then there is no trace of it left in a page history nor in a user's contribution history. Think about all those Speedy tags you've left on pages ... none of them show up in your edit history because the entire article has been deleted. However it is possible, AFAIK, to delete a single edit from a history, if you have a mop, rather than deleting the whole page. Meanwhile http://xkcd.com/693/ refers. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you didn't punch the "Show Preview" button rather than the "Save Page" button. 99 times out of 100, when someone reports the problem you are having, it generally comes from that problem. Actually, probably vanishingly close to 100 out of 100 times. --Jayron32 03:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes -- apparently, they are an admin. And at first I thought that I had merely previewed...until I found out externally that I had in fact posted and that it was deleted. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that your talk page post was deleted by the editor in question. This may be because it contained personal information; the editor you mention would probably be far better placed to explain their reasoning than anyone here. Warofdreams talk 03:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

[after edit conflict] Exactly, if it shouldn't be a preview issue (I agree that that's often the reason), only admins have the necessary wand power for hard deletes. As far as I understand, though, they should not use it unless there's a good reason for doing so--usually a legally relevant post, such as copyright violations or disclosures of personal information, or very strong verbal offenses/vandalism (unless the last are relevant for police investigations). --Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, it seems like the admin could have at least said something to DRosenbach about why he clobbered it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be visible with the admin tools unless the edits were oversighted. I do not see the deleted material, so perhaps oversight was used to remove them. (Oversight is like double secret probation in Animal House). I've always felt it is better to explain why something was deleted rather than trying to do it stealthily, which can result in unwanted discussion. Edison (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit in question has in fact not only been deleted, but also oversighted. This means that the contents of the edit met one or more of the criteria in the Oversight policy, such as libel, non-public personal information or gross vandalism. As such, is it not visible even to administrators. decltype (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This matter should probably be discussed at WP:ANI. It certainly shouldn't be discussed here. --Tango (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Tango -- I bemoan your comment; not only did I not know ANI exists, but it would certainly not be at the top of my mind, as I'm not an admin and don't have familiarity with admin powers. Miscellaneous ref desk is certainly a place to discuss miscellaneous topics. I'm not seeking a resolution to an incident -- I'm merely trying to understand how Wikipedia works and certainly think your words are too harsh for my query. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

DRosenbach, if I were you, I'd rather use Special:EmailUser/Oversight or contact the user whose talk page you edited privately. Since this does not require immediate administrative action (in fact, administrators can't help you with this), I do not think it is appropriate for WP:ANI. decltype (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. This desk is for general knowledge questions, not questions about how Wikipedia works. The right place to start with a query of this nature is the help desk. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think the Village Pump might be a better location. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure about that – the Pump is kind of a pointy-headed hangout for discussing policies, proposals, technical issues and whatnot. This kind of query might have ended up there, but I would always recommend going to the help desk first. It's staffed by knowledgeable people and you normally get a quick response. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI is a good place to start, as it is frequented by admins and they could advise him where to go - although the Oversite page is probably where they would send him. But as WarofDreams said, the best bet is to go directly to the one who deleted it and ask why. Because for others it could be guesswork, but there's a good chance the deleting admin will know why he deleted it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why I need to go anywhere -- all I wanted to know was what happened and how it happened, not figure out why and seek moderation. Thanks for everyone's comments that were directed at solving my query. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I that case help desk would indeed be the best place for future reference. Note that as people have explained, the RD Misc is intended for seeking references for miscellaneous factual questions or as explained in the main RD page "The Wikipedia reference desk works like a library reference desk. Users leave questions on the reference desk and Wikipedia volunteers work to help you find the information you need." It is not for random miscellaneous questions on anything in the world. And the RD is not for general help on using wikipedia (which includes editing, policies and what, why or how things happened on wikipedia). You clearly didn't know this, and that's okay, but now people have told you you should seek help in a better place in the future. The same way if you went to a library reference desk and ask them what happened to a book they once had or what happened to your account or what happened to a sign you left in the community notice board, they would direct you to the help desk or a similar place Nil Einne (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally with regards to the original question, I see a deleted contrib in DRosenbach's history, that was made about 20 mins before this post. Is that what's being referred to? If so, what am I missing since it is showing up in the history. It seems Wikipedia:Revision deletion was used and from what I understand the information available can be changed so perhaps it was? Looking at the page history in question, it's possible there were ongoing problems and DRosenbach's edit was simply caught up in the mess Nil Einne (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally :), after seeing that the post I had made didn't exist, I again posted. Only then was I contacted externally that my post had been deleted in a magical vanishing sort of way -- and so I deleted by second posting. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Powers model

What is a "Powers model"? Mary Sue Miller has been described in the NYTimes as "an early Powers model". Hiram Powers (1805-1873) and Preston Powers (1842-1904) are too early. Given that she died before her husband, who died in 1982 at age 76, I have my doubts if Ed Powers (* 1954) is what's meant (plus I'd expect her to be called an "actress", not a "model" then). Or did she model to advertise something called "Powers"? Powers Accounting Machine Company again seems rather early (unless she was much older than her husband) and I don't see how it would be shortened to just "Powers". There's also Powers (whiskey), but why would she be an "early" model for them if the Whiskey has existed since 1791?

So... what's a "Powers model"?? Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing the John Robert Powers Agency. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually just found them! We even have an article: John Robert Powers! I'm adding it on the Powers page... --Ibn Battuta (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad Credit and Car Dealerships

I live in the US east coast. Are there any car dealerships that would finance someone with horrible credit if they put down 50%? --Reticuli88 (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost certainly. Some make a point of advertising the fact. But I'm afraid I don't know which ones. And they'll make you pay for it. May I suggest instead taking your 50% down payment and using it to pay cash for a car worth half as much? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can get the seller to allow you to have the car inspected by an independent mechanic before purchase (and you check the VIN online to make sure the car is not a lemon), in my opinion you virtually always get better value for money buying a used car for cash. A new car loses something like 20% of its value the minute you drive it out of the dealer's lot, but you are still stuck paying for that 20% with interest if you need a loan to buy it. Not so with a used car you can pay for with cash. However, if you are determined to buy from a dealer on credit, you can try this locator. Tips on how to go about it are offered at www dot ehow dot com /creditcenter/wizard.jsp. Marco polo (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I was also interested in improving my credit score by taking on some payments for a used car at a dealership. I figured this will be a good way to do that. I thought about buying a better car through a private seller but that won't help improve my atrocious credit score. --Reticuli88 (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I would think that making payments on your existing debt on time, and gradually paying off that debt, would be a better way to improve a credit score than to take on more debt. That's assuming that you have not just gone through bankruptcy and no longer have debt. In the latter case (but I think only in that case), your idea might make sense. Even in that case, though, I would think the best thing would be to buy a car you can afford to buy with cash, take out a loan for the car, and then pay off the loan in a few big payments, ahead of schedule. That way you can improve your credit score while minimizing your expense in interest and principal. Marco polo (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(after e/c) I agree with Marco polo that current debt, if you still have any, takes priority. If you are now debt-free, and if you are employed and have a good employment history, I would recommend talking to a bank, and starting with small, easily repaid amounts. That's if the quality of the car is not as important as fixing your credit rating. (To the dealership, whether some or all of the money comes from a bank, this would be the same as offering cash, so your purchase price would still benefit.) I am in Canada, where banking and credit rules are materially different from the US, so YMMV. Bielle (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are looking to improve your credit score you are better off getting a very small loan - such as a credit card with a very low limit - and paying that off regularly. However far better than listening to my advice is getting a professional to advise you. You can get free independent advice on this, but make sure you are getting it from someone truly independent, not someone looking to replace your current loans with one of theirs. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I still owe over 5 grand to a loan that I haven't paid back in over 3 years. So, you are saying that it would be better that I pay back that instead of getting another loan? (sorry if that question sounds stupid) but I want to make sure that if I start paying back that old loan, does that institution have to, by law, report this to the credit agencies immediately? If so, does that prove favorable on my score or do I have to wait until it's completely paid off before I see any improvement? --Reticuli88 (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

We cannot offer legal advice on the Reference Desk, for which you would need to consult an attorney. However, you are entitled to one free credit report per year from each major credit reporting agency, and I believe that those agencies are legally required to correct your report if you can provide evidence that it is in error. So you can ensure that your credit report is corrected even if your creditor fails to report your resumption of payment. Now, if you have defaulted on your $5,000 debt, it may be that, because you have violated the terms of the loan, you cannot restore your credit simply by resuming monthly payments. Instead, the legal position of the creditor may be that you have to pay off the loan in order to be in "good standing". That said, creditors will often negotiate repayment plans on delinquent loans, and part of your negotiation could be to ask that the loan be reported as in "good standing" after a certain amount of payments if you stick to your schedule. Of course, the best thing would be to pay off the entire $5,000 if you can. If this would wipe out your car downpayment, figure out how much you would actually need for a car downpayment on the cheapest car that would meet your needs, set that aside (plus a couple thousand dollars as a cushion for yourself so that you won't need to go further into debt if an unforeseen expense came on), and then arrange a repayment plan on your old debt that you will be able to afford along with car payments. You will do much more to restore your credit by paying off your defaulted loan than you will by just taking on another loan and making payments on it. Incidentally, figure out which of the two loans will have the higher interest rate. If the car loan will have the higher interest rate, prioritize paying it off by planning the largest monthly payments you can afford, and try to minimize the monthly payments you negotiate on the defaulted debt, using car payments as your justification. (They don't have to know if you haven't yet arranged the car loan.) If the defaulted loan will have the higher interest rate, try to pay it off faster by getting low monthly payments on the car loan. The principle is to throw as much as possible at the higher interest rate loan, which actually minimizes your interest payments by reducing the principal at the fastest possible rate. (I am speaking, by the way, as someone who once had $23,000 in debt, including a defaulted loan, and paid it off in 5 years without a big income.) Marco polo (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are in default on a loan then your first priority should be to get back into good standing with that loan. What that requires will depend on the details. You should probably contact whoever that loan is with and find out what they require from you - if you haven't made any payments in three years, you probably will need to pay off the whole loan if you can. You may want to consult a financial advisor - they may be able to advise you of ways to get the lender to let you off with paying less. You certainly should not take on more debt before you have dealt with the debt you already have. I suggest you buy a small, second-hand car for a few hundred dollars - they exist if you look for them. They aren't very good, but they'll get you from A to B while you are getting your finances in order. --Tango (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If you contact the creditor on your defaulted loan, it may be willing to agree to a repayment plan on favorable terms, possibly including a reduction in the total amount owed. Getting a new repayment plan on any defaulted debts, and sticking to the terms of that plan, is the most important thing you can do to restore your credit. The next most important thing is to get a copy of your free credit report and review it, contacting the credit reporting agency to correct any errors. Instructions for getting your free credit report are here. John M Baker (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with Tango on everything except getting a used car for a few hundred dollars. In my opinion, that is likely to be penny-wise and pound-foolish, and a few hundred dollars down the drain. Cars are that cheap for a reason, mostly that they aren't much good except as a source of used parts. I think that you need to expect to pay at least $3000 to get a car that has much chance of lasting long enough for you to pay off several thousand dollars worth of debt, assuming your income is below about $40K. Marco polo (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

When you buy a really cheap car you do so knowing that it will only last a year or so (make sure the car is roadworthy with no serious problems when you buy it, of course - in the UK you can just check it has a recent MOT, I don't know if the US has anything similar - oh, and test drive it, too!). If we assume the OP is paying about 20% interest on loans, due to a really bad credit rating (it could easily be much higher), spending $3000 now, rather than in a year's time, will cost $600 in interest. If you can find a car for less than $600 that will last a year (not an easy task, but not impossible - my step-dad once bought a car for £50. Admittedly, that was 10 years ago and it cost £100 in parts and several day's work to get it roadworthy, but still...), you'll be better off. --Tango (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd just say that it's a real gamble to spend $600 and hope that it will last a year. If the transmission fails 4 months later, you are faced with having to shell out for another car (in the United States where cars are necessary for employment in most areas). If you get a solid $3000 car, it can easily last 5-10 years. If you buy $600 cars, I think you will have to buy them more often than once a year. Even at 20% interest, the $3000 car is the better investment, especially if it frees you to focus your disposable income on debt repayment rather than repeated transportation replacement. That's without taking into account the time required to find and test cheap cars before you find one that is more than a heap of scrap metal. The OP would have to make that an ongoing pastime if he or she decides to pursue a series of beaters. Marco polo (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

L.a. is a great big freeway

Put a hundred down and buy a car.

In a week, maybe two, they'll make you a star.

from Do You Know the Way to San José. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Need Direction

I am interested in contributing content to Wikipedia, mainly with business and other financial references. However, I am programming illiterate and can not find a good resource to learn the fundamentals of the MediaWiki software Wikipedia is based on. Could you point me to a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik Le Mesurier (talk • contribs) 18:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You should start with Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers, Wikipedia:Help and Wikipedia:Editing. If you have questions go to Wikipedia:Help desk You don't need to be programming literate to contribute. In fact you just did so. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

there is little actual programing that needs to be done to edit wikipedia. check the cheatsheet for a quick guide to the necessary basics. --Ludwigs2 09:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

transsexual lesbian

I'm a lesbian, and I've been seeing this transsexual girl (who used to be a man and still a penis, but has taken hormones so has breasts etc and she is so hot) and it's sort of getting to the point where, em, things would progress further than just kissing and cuddling. The thing is, I'm deathly scared to the point of being phobic about penetration, especially by a penis. I've never been in this situation before and I have no idea how a transsexual girl has sex with another girl. I don't know what to do. I'm sort of okay with giving hand jobs if that's what she wanted. What should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.141.252 (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid we can't really give advice on personal matters. We find references for people and there aren't likely to be any of help to you. I suggest you find a local LGBT association, they will probably be able to tell you where to go to get this kind of advice. If you tell us where you live, we should be able to help you find such an association. --Tango (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP address seems to be in Germany. Your English is outstanding, 84. Hopefully one of our contributors will help with some advice, along the lines Tango suggested. --Dweller (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never dated a transsexual of any kind, but my guess is that they're as likely as anybody else to tell you what they're looking for if you ask them. Asking person B what person A might like to do sexually seems needlessly complicated when you could just ask person A. Who else would know better? Different, um, strokes for different folks and all that. Matt Deres (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

GirlsAskGuys [1] specializes in topics of this nature. Vranak (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of who you contact, I think it's safe to say the only advice you'll be given is "talk to her about it." There's an infinite range of feelings a transsexual woman may have toward her own penis. On the one hand, she might hate it, wish it were gone, and prefer you didn't go anywhere near it. On the flip side, she might happily embrace her identity as "a woman with a penis" and enjoy engaging in all the activities penis-having people are capable of. Regardless, it's wrong to assume that, just because she's got the plumbing for it, she's into penetrating other people. So ask what she likes, tell her what you like, and I'm sure you'll find some activity that's acceptable to both of you. If you're uncomfortable talking about it, well, you probably shouldn't be doing it. -Fullobeans (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Continued support for the "ask her" advice. Transsexualism is not common, or commonly understood, so many people are used to having these sorts of questions, and it shows that you care about her feelings and satisfaction, as well as your own. (Well done to you for being open to it, by the way - not many people are). You already know about a lot of non-penetrative techniques as a lesbian (if you'll allow me to assume so), so it might be fun to consider which of those are still practical in your current situation. Steewi (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You say that she has been taking hormones; this means that there is a high chance that she will not be able to get an erection. Warofdreams talk 20:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed extensive unfounded discussion on the possible motivation of the original poster. --Carnildo (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

18th century British division vs 21st century Marine Corps rifle platoon

Lets say there are 8000 British redcoats with the trusty brown bess plus 10 9 pounder guns

The Marines have

• 21 riflemen
• 9 riflemen/underslung grenadiers
• 9 SAW gunners,
• 2 machine gunners, 2 machine gun crew with pistols and 2 more with carbines
• 2 SRAW gunners, 2 SRAW crew with carbines
• 1 60 mm mortar with 2 pistol and 1 carbine armed crew member
• CO, XO, RATELO with carbines and a designated marksman with M21

there's a perfectly symetrical valley and each side starts out at the top of one side. There are plenty of bushes, rocks and walls to use for cover. The British aren't terrified of the machne guns. The marines have unlimited ammunition. Which side would win a battle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.251.10 (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Offhand, this looks approximately similar to the Battle of Rorke's Drift. Naturally, the Reference Desk can provide no objective factual answer. — Lomn 21:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Without knowing what the objectives of either side are, who can even venture a guess? If the redcoats can stay put and make the marines come to them, they have an advantage and v v. The bigger question would be how did the marines travel back in time, and what is their quarrel with the Brits? Googlemeister (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a pen and paper role playing battle scenario. I suppose you could make a program, feed it various data and have it calculate the outcome, but that could never emulate a real life battle such as you describe - there are human factors involved that you simply could not predict. Likewise, even the most knowledgeable military buff on this board could not give a definite answer, only an approximation. Of course, if said buff estimated either side to have an overwhelming chance of victory, you'd have a sort of tangible answer. TomorrowTime (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

One major factor I suppose would be the width of the valley. If the British could fire directly at the Marines, I'd say they'd have a pretty good chance of winning simply by merit of numbers alone. A Mongolian guy once told me they'd never consider war with China, because if you put the Chinese army at one side of the border and the Mongolian army at the other, the Chinese could beat the Mongolians without even picking up their arms, just by throwing their hats at them. TomorrowTime (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

My money's on the Marines -- not because of the better equipment, but because of the huge difference in training. Of those 8000 Redcoats, maybe 80 of them are actually shooting to kill, while the entire Marine platoon is doing so. Read Grossman's book On Killing: you may disagree with his conclusions, but he's got very solid evidence that prior to the 1950s, the vast majority of soldiers weren't willing to kill. --Carnildo (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

...and the equipment certainly helps, as well. Can a Brown Bess penetrate kevlar? Probably not. But yeah, the equipment and the training makes the Marines have a really massive advantage. I imagine the Marines would take almost no casualties in such a situation, whereas the Redcoats are sitting ducks. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC):I agree that the range of engagement is important. If the forces start off at a distance such that the muskets (only effective to 100 meters or so) are out of range of the modern weapons (maybe 600 meters for rifles, over a kilometer for the machineguns and mortar), and the Redcoats come marching in a nice formation toward the enemy, as was the custom in the 18th century, it should be a slaughter favoring the modern troops, because of the high rate of fire of machine guns and the longer deadly range and higher rate of fire of modern rifles compared to muskets. If they are close enough to get within bayonet range pretty quickly the greater numbers should favor the Redcoats, since the numerical ratio stated is about 200:1. If the British officers were taken out by machineguns or mortars early on, and the British cannon crews were taken out by the modern weapons, there might be some morale problems with maintaining an orderly march into the buzzsaw of modern weapon fire. The modern soldiers would use terrain for concealment and by no means would march steadily toward the enemy as was European 18th century practice for mass engagements. Edison (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(Also EC) Remember also that the Brown Bess was a musket, not a rifle. They wouldn't have been able to shoot to kill from a long distance, even if they wanted to. With only 40 Marines to shoot at, they would be extremely lucky to hit anyone at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that why they lined up in ranks and fired at each other? They might not hit who they were aiming for, but there was a good chance they would hit somebody. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, musket equipped troops didn't really aim at all. They were trained to point the barrel in the direction of the enemy line and pull the trigger on command. Accuracy didn't really matter, it was all about massed fire. Tobyc75 (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions speculating about impossible historical pairings like this always have some element of "What if Spartacus had a Piper Cub at his disposal while fighting the Roman Army, or what if The Man from U.N.C.L.E. went back in a time machine and killed all the dinosaurs (from an early "Saturday Night Live" skit). I note the Redcoats have "10 9 pounder guns." With explosive shells or grapeshot, these cannons could wipe out the two machine guns, the mortar and the other modern automatic weapons pretty quickly. There is one devastatingly powerful cannon effective at quite a long range for every 4 modern soldiers. We also need to know what each side knew about the other side and its capabilities. If the 8000 Brits broke up and encircled the modern forces, things might be different than if they marched in formation toward what they assumed was an equivalent but smaller force. Tactics could vary with conditions. Did each side get some time to dig in? How broad a front do they have to defend? Are the few modern soldiers supposed to merely defend against attack from superior numbers by use of machine guns, or are they supposed to drive out the British and capture their hill? The wider the front is, the more spread out the modern forces would be, conveying an advantage on the Redcoats, who could creep up on them under cover of darkness. What does each side take as the reason for killing their opposite numbers? "We're fighting to defend our native land?" "We're opposing aggression?" "We want to loot and plunder?" "Don't ask me I don't give a damn?" How effective are the officers? That can have an effect, as demonstrated by the repeated success of forces under Nathan Forrest against larger and better equipped opponent forces. Edison (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

For historical cases of battle where the sides have big technological differences (and the "oldest" technology has the most soldiers), see for example Battle of Omdurman (apparently not as biased as I somehow remembered from school) and the "use in colonial warfare" section of Maxim gun. Jørgen (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's my tuppence. As an avid wargamer, I've often thought of scenarios like this and how I would react when in a game like this. Quite simply, though, if I were the British commander, I'd order the artillery to bombard the marines' positions while my men dug in and fortified the area to make a very strong defensive position. With ample places for men to get behind cover it won't matter if the enemy is armed with machine guns or guns that blow strings of bubbles when they have had enough of getting hammered by artillery shells and finally try to pull off a full frontal. Simples! :) --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 21:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A ref about the British 9 pounder of a few years later said its max effective range was1700 yards, its most effective range was 800-900 yards, and its range for canister (multiple small propjectiles, most analogous to a machine gun) was 450 yards. Another ref says inthe 18th century a cannon could be fires 2-3 times in 5 minutes. Edison (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm in no doubt that it would take a long time, but when people's lives are at stake you don't want to rush things along. In any case, at that range, they would be relatively safe from enemy rifles, and concentrating the cannon fire on the mortar and the machine guns until they are knocked out would seem a pretty wise thing to do. When the enemy finally comes in for an assault, it would be easy to bring them into close quarters to fight among the fortifications or trenches, much like modern-day urban warfare, and at these ranges a musket is just as effective as an M16, and when the odds are over 200 to one, there is a huge chance the British will win. Don't forget, also, that the British are perfectly able to pick up 'dropped' enemy weapons and use them, albeit without as much accuracy as a soldier who is trained with that specific weapon. --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 00:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"Concentrating cannon fire on the mortar and machine guns": The M2 machine gun has an effective range of at least 2400 yards, and the M224 mortar has an effective range of 3800 yards, while the 9-pounders you're opposing them with have an effective range of only 1700 yards. Further, the mortar is an indirect-fire weapon, while the 9-pounder is direct-fire only.

In close-quarters combat like you're envisioning, the difference in equipment is just as great. The Marines have grenades, automatic and semi-automatic weapons, body armor and helmets, while the Redcoats have what amount to makeshift clubs (people are unbelievably unwilling to stab others with a bayonet -- if you read up on the trench warfare of World War I, you'll find that despite every rifle having a bayonet on it, stab wounds were quite rare). --Carnildo (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The two fundamental facts that make this a slam-dunk is that (a) the Marines out-range the Redcoats and (b) the Marines can move faster than the Redcoats. Those two things make their job easy (albeit bloody). The Marines can stand back out of range of the brown bess and the cannon and pick off the redcoats about as fast as they can pull the trigger. That leaves the only possibility for the Redcoats to try to close the distance as rapidly as possible. But assuming they can't change their traditional tactics overnight, they are going to have to march in a solid block - much more slowly than the Marines can fall back. The only long-ish range weapons that the redcoats have are their cannon - but so long as the marines stay out of grapeshot range (which is only a few hundred feet) - a single solid cannonball won't take out more than one marine per shot...at the very best. But as others have pointed out - even a machine-gun can outrange the cannon - so step one for the marines is simply to machine-gun down the gun crews and dump mortar shells into their artillery line. The idea of advancing cannons on the marines then doesn't work because the time it take to limber up a cannon - move it a few hundred feet, then unlimber and fire again is so slow that they'd all be dead long before they could get off another shot.

Digging in would be unproductive - a mortar can make short work of a mass of people packed into trenches and that alone would force them to move. It would also take far too long. Their numbers would be reduced to the point where they'd break and run for sure. The Marine snipers would pick off colour bearers and officers who were all too visible amongst the ranks. Without a commander - those guys would have no reason to stand there and get massacred with no hope of responding. They'd run.

You could make this a much fairer fight by having the Redcoats use something like the British 95th rifles who fought so well at Waterloo. They had longer, rifled guns - they wore dark green coats and they were trained to disperse, make best use of the cover and to snipe. They would still be horribly outranged by the Marines - but they'd at least have a chance to get around and surround them and to pick them off from cover. With a VAST numerical advantage, they might stand a chance...but it would still be super-tough.

The only other way to change the odds would be to constrain the action to a small amount of space. If the redcoats start off within musket range and the Marine's had their backs against some insurmountable obstacle - then the redcoats could probably win. Regardless of weapons, 8000 guys could lose 1000 men getting up close and still have hundreds to one advantages. With nothing more than bare knuckles they'd win.

SteveBaker (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

British redcoats would not be afraid of machine guns because they never heard them before but they weren't so stupid that they couldn't observe their effect once they started firing. The redcoats' position at the top of a hill gives an immediate route to take cover and retreat. When the marine infantry (carrying their unlimited ammunition!) eventually cross the valley they may see nobody waiting, but that doesn't mean there aren't now thousands of angry British guerrillas lurking. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, so the Redcoats loose; we look forward to a replay between a platoon of Royal Marines and a division from the Continental Army. BTW, I don't buy the theory about 80% of the men not shooting to kill. It might apply to wartime conscripts but not to trained professionals. The evidence: the repulse of the Old Guard by the 1st Foot Guards, the stand of the 93rd Highlanders at the Battle of Balaclava ("the thin red line") and the Battle of Mons when the Germans thought British rifle fire was machine guns. Alansplodge (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's actually between 95% and 99%, and it applies to every single army prior to the US Army in the Korean War. Volume of fire is not the same thing as shooting to kill -- you can maintain a machine-gun level of fire, and still send every bullet over the heads of the oncoming soldiers. Read the book: the apparent unwillingness of soldiers to kill was a well-known problem among military professionals, and is backed by solid evidence. --Carnildo (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

They didn't aim their muskets so whether they kill or not is just pure chance. They just pointed them int he general direction of the enemy and fired, some even looking away to protect their eyes in case of a malfunction. I wouldn't believe what that guy writes anyway as is views on the influence of violent video games have been proven wrong. Anyway I'm certain I would have seen some study on this from WWII if it was true even then. Look at the british paras at arnhem: 50 of them in a house with rifles, they all fire once shot and kill 37 germans who were trying to sneak up. That's far far higher than 99% of people not firing to kill.Patton123 (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Read the entry on the Battle of Mons 'Unlike the largely conscript armies of Germany and France, however, the BEF was an entirely professional force made up of long-service volunteer soldiers. As a result, the BEF was, on balance, probably the best-trained and most-experienced of the European armies of 1914. In particular, pre-war British Army training emphasized rapid marksmanship, meaning that the average British soldier was able to hit a man-sized target fifteen times a minute at a range of 300 yards with his Lee-Enfield rifle. This ability to pour out rapid, accurate rifle-fire would play an important role in all of the BEF's battles of 1914.' and 'Advancing in columns, however, the Germans were immediately met with heavy rifle and machine gun fire, and were "mown down like grass."' Alansplodge (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't actually distinguish what did the killing. Carnildo is mixing up a bit what Grossman is saying. Single-man rifle fire, pre-Korea: most people are not killing, they are posturing, aiming wildly or too high, even if they are professional soldiers. Most of the rifle kills are coming from just a few soldiers who are actually killing. Multiple-man machine gun fire (e.g. Maxim gun): lots of killing, in part because of the oversight of the team (the guy next to you knows when you miss), and the more mechanical nature to it. (And the more impersonal you get, the more kills you have—so bombing and mortaring are of course pretty deadly.) Grossman's book is pretty interesting, and apparently the data backs him up on this (and it's not really his argument, per se—it's the argument of the military analysts who decided that training had to change to raise the kill rate). Being "well-trained" means nothing unless the training is actually for killing, which pre-Korean War training was not. (It is the difference between being trained to aim at a "man-sized target" and the difference in being trained to readily shoot at an actual man. Skinnerian conditioning, and all that.) Check out the book, it is pretty interesting. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think an interesting point is how much this applies to the situation we're talking about. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with Grossman's conclusions, not having read the book, but I question if he had strong evidence for what 18th century British soldiers were like. I'm presuming of course he really intended his thesis to apply to such soldiers, and you and Carnildo aren't mistaken. In particular, as several people have pointed out, they weren't really taught to aim, just point in the general direction and fire. It would seem to me this depersonalises the killing aspect, you're unlikely to know if you're killing. And I presume as most people would be pointing in the same general direction, it's gonna be more obvious if you were pointing somewhere odd. And while not particularly relevant to the question, what about if we go back before firearms? Would it still be true most people weren't aiming to kill? I'm not so sure about this, particularly for those in close quarters combat where survival instinct may overide any desire not to kill. Another thing which occurs to me is regarding Battle of Rorke's Drift, is it really likely of the 139 or so British soldier involved, only about 10-15 of them were actually aiming to kill? I somewhat doubt it. It seems to be this is another situation where the general thesis doesn't work. Amongst other reasons, it wouldn't surprise me if the fact many of the British soldiers likely thought of their opponents as savages and may be even something less then human means they would be more willing to kill. And the overwhelming odds may have also had a similar effect. It wouldn't surprise me if the Zulu warriors were similar in their atitudes to the British. The Battle of Isandlwana mentioned below may be a similar example. In comparison, while German soldiers during WW2 for example were often demonised (and vice versa), I'm doubtful the same feelings and inherently beliefs were present. (In a similar vein, I wonder if Grossman found any difference in say the way Japanese and Germans were treated?) How does this affect the question? Well I wonder how the British soldiers, faced with these 21st century marines would react. Would they have a similar revulsion? Would they still see them as human or almost as some sort of alien force? Would this affect their willingness to kill? Also while in simple terms, it may seem the marines are overwhelmed, when the British soldiers see their lines being decimated by the small number of marines, would they start to see an overwhelming odds situation and would this perhaps partially overcome their natural tendencies not to kill? In other words, no matter how sound Grossman's thesis, I don't think it's easy to say how it would apply in an unusual situation like this Nil Einne (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I hate to spoil everyone's fun, but this entire debate was largely played out in the American Civil War (where the rapid improvement of machine guns and cannonry forced american generals to drop 18th century battle tactics and adopt the precursors of modern mechanistic warfare). I suggest a couple of good history books would answer all of your questions in this regard. --Ludwigs2 19:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Pickett's Charge (a Balaclava-like situation) finally turned the light bulb on for the generals who were using the old methods against new weaponry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but Von Bredow's "Death Ride" a few years later showed that an aggressive charge could be a battle winner. It had a profound effect on European tactical thinking up to 1914. The British found out in the Second Boer War that these tactics wouldn't work anymore, but the French flung themselves into the Battle of the Frontiers in their white gloves and red trousers and the Germans attacked in dense coloumns singing hymns as they had done for 200 years previously. Alansplodge (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The Battle of Isandlwana showed that a mass charge over open ground by infantry vastly outnumbering the defending force (armed with rifles, Maxims, and artillery including rockets) could easily overcome an enemy and annihilate it as it did in this case. --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 15:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)