How many armed combatants can you actually survive fighting at a time by yourself?

I see the possibility of these one vs multiple combatant scenarios where the combatants stick around and fight until getting wounded or killed rather than fleeing regularly get brought up here, but how many armed combatants can a single person actually survive going against in one of these scenarios? Not limited to legal self defense, but also mutual gang shootings and even military scenarios so long as the shooting isn't being done with what is normally a crew served weapon, how crazy can things actually get while still being survivable?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    OP, you are not going to get anything resembling a good answer because this is the boogloo bois forum and not your grandpa and buddies telling stories at the legion

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There are way to many factors to determine that. You could kill everyone on the planet, but that is not likely to happen. How well armed are both parties? What is their training, where are they located) attacking? Defending? Ect

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Ect
      Etc, short for et cetera.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Ect

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why do they make us wear these ridiculous ties?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I was really looking for examples of situations that have actually happened rather than theoretical discussion.

      >You could kill everyone on the planet,
      Reread my post, I specifically said excluding situations involving weapons that are normally crew served.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There was a Roman Praetorian named Sempronius Densus who is said to have fought against an entire legion and held his own
        He was killed but to be fair, he is the only praetorian/legionary that day whose name is actually remembered

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >a man of the west, yet you carry yourself for battle

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Shit I read that 2 fast while taking a shit at work, my bad.
        Audie Murphy is one famous example. Heinrich Severloth probably holds the record. I’m sure there are quite a few who fought bravely but were not remembered.
        Stamford bridge resulted in the Viking dying but that is a pretty crazy historical example. Götz von Berlichingen I think had some crazy shit happen too. Christman Genipperteinga was a serial killer who almost killed 1000 people, he would routinely take on heavily armed groups alone by ambushing them. All of these probably arnt exactly what your looking for but hopefully help.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Fuck I fucked up again Audie was using a .50 for most of it. Heinrich was using a mg42 and kar98, the mg42 probably counts as crew served.

          One more I got is Josef Allerberger, the squad he was with got killed by Soviet machine gunners but he managed to take out the whole squad with his g43 and mp40 a few days before ww2 ended

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Shit I read that 2 fast while taking a shit at work, my bad.
          You might want to read it again, as you have absolute shit reading comprehension. I specifically said no crew served weapons in the OP, then said it again in the post you just replied to.

          >Audie Murphy
          The high kill counts from his famous one man army actions were due to him personally manning crew served weapons in crazy situations.

          >Heinrich Severloth
          Primarily used a crew served weapon, and his claim isn't considered credible as it would involve him being personally responsible for 40%-80% of the casualties on Omaha Beach.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >t.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >the most attackers shot in a self defensive scenario anywhere in the world is 6, the defender knew the attacker was coming a day in advance and took the time to fortify their position, involved a cartel that was effectively powerful enough to be a form of government, and the defender still died because scenarios with that many attackers who don't run away after the shooting starts aren't winnable
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alejo_Garza_Tamez#Ranch_siege

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There are WAY too many factors. Is our glorious coommando defending? Attacking? What weapons does he have? What weapons do the opposing side have? How trained his he? How trained is his opponents? Why is this fight happening?

      A single man could possibly take on over a 100 attackers and survive by sheer luck, no matter how unlikely that may be.

      He was also only able to use old hunting equipment, such as double barrel shotguns and old deer-rifles, while going up against people with AKM's and Grenades. I think he could of won if the Mexican Government wasn't so cucked about gun rights.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >There are WAY too many factors.
        Not when you limit discussion to documented cases that have already happened rather than basing discussion around theoretical possibilities of stars aligning generating cases many times crazier than anything that has ever happened.

        There was a Roman Praetorian named Sempronius Densus who is said to have fought against an entire legion and held his own
        He was killed but to be fair, he is the only praetorian/legionary that day whose name is actually remembered

        Yeah, and the legend of Billy the Kid involves him killing 21 people, one for each year of his life, before dying in a gunfight himself. In reality he killed 8 or 9 people over a 4 year period. Larger than life legends really aren't representative of reality.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I remember people on here who were disappointed that that SAS guy in Kenya "only" killed 2 of the 5 terrorists attacking that hotel in Nairobi. Like he was supposed to be running through the halls John Wick-style and racking up a double digit body count in minutes.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It seems like his strategy didn't involve a lot of solid cover. More of a move and shoot approach. Which is good but not ideal.

        Reminds me I need to invest in force multipliers before shit hits the fan.

        It's amusing how posters here will always show up and try to claim unwinnable situations like this could somehow be made winnable if the defender had just used a different gun or different tactics. He was up against the Zeta cartel of Funky Town and bus gladiator fight fame. Even if they did fall back in the moment, he'd still be forced to flee and they'd still know exactly who he was so he wouldn't get far.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It seems like his strategy didn't involve a lot of solid cover. More of a move and shoot approach. Which is good but not ideal.

      Reminds me I need to invest in force multipliers before shit hits the fan.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    one guy = one gun = one sector of fire. one sector of fire is not really that large and the one guy is going to die extremely quickly unless he is aiming at the only entry point to wherever he is

    the military doesn't operate in buddy pairs and fire teams because they think it's cool, they do it because two guns are better than one etc

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There are relatively reliable ways to estimate/simulate this sort of situation, but they depend on a lot of variables.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    a camouflaged man on his own turf could take out a lot.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How many armed combatants can you actually survive fighting at a time by yourself?
    Me? My high score is six in one building but I only killed a couple of them

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not that it's worth much because lmao airsoft, but I hold a personal record of 26 consecutive "kills" using a pump airsoft shotgun in a CQB event, before getting flanked and shredded.

      [...]
      It's amusing how posters here will always show up and try to claim unwinnable situations like this could somehow be made winnable if the defender had just used a different gun or different tactics. He was up against the Zeta cartel of Funky Town and bus gladiator fight fame. Even if they did fall back in the moment, he'd still be forced to flee and they'd still know exactly who he was so he wouldn't get far.

      Who said anything about it being winnable? I didn't. We are discussing how one might win or might improve their odds or at least cost the enemy as much as possible. Everyone with any sense knows that am outnumbered defense, especially a seige, is always a losing game.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This was over 3 rounds. I subsequently went 0-7 in the next round. Which just goes to show how much luck plays into things.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Who said anything about it being winnable?
        That's what this thread is about you fucking tard. It's even in the title of the OP if you don't have the attention span to read past that.

        >or at least cost the enemy
        Video game addicted kid who's completely detached from reality or mass shooter shit. No actually functioning adult goes through life wanting to maximize the number of people they can kill before dying in a shooting.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No, we are discussing how many people someone could kill in a fight and survive.

          Not whether or not he could defeat the whole scenario of being under seige. If that is too complicated for you let me simplify it:

          Scenario 1:
          >survive the encounter
          >kill as many as oponents as possible

          Scenario 2:
          >win - defeat all opposition to your continued and preferred method of living

          These are distinctly different objectives.
          Killing more zetas before (preferably without) dying and ending the specific encounter is possible. Not likely or easy, but there are clearly ways to do it. Since he died from Grenade shrapnel, having more hard cover around and ways to block the windows with wire mesh, would have improved his odds.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Not whether or not he could defeat the whole scenario of being under seige.
            If you're pinned down and can't flee, then the fight isn't over.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Um typo? Isn't that pretty much when the fight is over?

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    do you have thermals, do they have thermals
    how much range is there between you and them?
    how much range is your weapon vs theirs?

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Completely based on the skill of the atttackers, if one keeps you pinned and another flanks you are fucked, if they zulu charge you can take as many as you can land hits.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    well.. if they're approaching in a stack and you got them lined up in prepared positions with something like mg-42, a lot

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Consider yourself having a 50% chance of surviving (without grievous wounds) an incident where both sides are shooting. Doesn't matter who the enemy is or how many, doesn't matter what guns are used. Death rolls the dice, and either you are lucky or you aren't. The thing is, next time is also a 50% roll. So your chance of surviving then is 25%. There will always be some luckorama freak like Audie Murphy. But if you read his book you might notice EVERYONE else dies. Now... do you feel lucky?

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In a stand up even fight, a one on one is likely to go either way and thus should never be fought if there is an option. Starting to add variables like camouflage, equipment advantages (e.g. outranging the opponent's weapon, better LBE=more sustainment/ammo, NODs/thermal), sniper/ambush tactics/traps, theoretically one man could defeat many more than one.

    >you with a rifle in the daytime vs. Someone with similar level of experience during daytime = who knows. Probably not a fight worth fighting
    >you at night, camouflaged, AR platform with IR laser/illuminator and appropriate optic, in an area with concealment and cover with lots of ammo, NODs and a suppressor against multiple untrained street bros with glock fowties= great success.

    The point: Acquire every unfair advantage before arriving to the fight. Why don't you have NODs?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >what if you're kitted out like special forces and waiting to ambush random people that you judge to be a threat because they're black and might be carrying a gun?
      A yes, the next grocery store hero who will succeed at nothing beyond getting more gun control laws passed in response.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You cant really answer that, if you say like hard contact probably the one who sends more shots wins (and the one who shoots first)

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >You cant really answer that
      >you can't look at real world documented events to see what's possible

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Dumb question. One bullet can kill you and you're risking your life in amy scenario that isn't final destination with them stuck in the open and yourself behind magical cover and an armored prism sight so there is literally no way a golden BB could get you.

    You win gunfights by not getting shot at.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >all the posters trying to direct the discussion toward theoretical situations as if there aren't tons of real world scenarios we can look at for what has actually been possible
    Reminder that you will never be an action hero.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    None

Your email address will not be published.