Deadliest Warrior

[JoeHova]

To be fair, I don't think they take numbers into consideration when comparing the two. It's more like 5 Mongols against 5 Comanches.

I know, it's just that it seems like a bad matchup. The Mongols dominated a larger land area than anybody else ever did despite having relatively few people in their army. They controlled an empire that had over 100 million people in it, during a time when the population of the whole world was probably about 400 million. Meanwhile, the Comanche's biggest military action involved 1,000 soldiers and killed 41 enemies. It's like having Julius Caesar fight the police of Monaco. It's not that big of a deal, it's just that the Mongols were arguably the most feared military force in world history so I was hoping for a commensurate opponent. Not to take anything away from the Comanche, but they weren't concerned with world conquest like the Mongols were.

[paul253]

No I see what you're saying. It would be more to compare groups with similar goals. That is a problem I had with the Ninja-Spartan matchup. Whereas Spartans were warriors and soldiers, the Ninja would never line up in groups and fight their enemies head on.

[razzzorsharp]

Looks like they are ramping up the gore this year. Good.

[JoeHova]

I was a little disappointed that they couldn't get any actual GSG 9 guys but I guess that's not too surprising considering that their identities are classified.

[Menotti80]

had both episodes DVR'd last night.

 

woke up this morning, and my u-verse box was whining. i did a normal restart, and BAM - all of my recorded shows are gone.

 

good thing they are replaying last night's episodes this weekend...

[paul253]

I don't want to spoil this for anyone, so read no further if you haven't seen the episodes yet.

 

 

 

 

 

I was a little disappointed in the first show that compared the five groups together right away because my favorite guy, the Shaolin Monk, was eliminated like....instantly I am not sure if I'd pick the Spartan as the best of all of them in a one on one fight, but I probably would in a group on group. I think I'd go with the Apache Warrior one on one. As far as the other part, the Spetsnaz vs IRA. Did you guys see how badly Spetsnaz won? Wasn't it something like 73% of the time? I'm not surprised at all. I would have actually liked to see a one on one between the IRA and the Mafia. I think Spetsnaz was far and away the best of the groups that were left and it was a given that they were going to win.

 

The second episode SWAT vs GSG-9. I was a little surprised SWAT won, but I did think that the weapons they brought were better. That Taser thing they used was sick. Training and ability in real life would determine who is "better", and if I had to pick one group to save me in a hostage situation I'd still probably pick GSG-9, but you can never go wrong with LAPD SWAT.

[TheCrew07]

I call hogwash on SWAT.

 

That's like saying SWAT could go up and succeed against our Delta Operators, there isn't a chance in hell. One of my best friends was an Army Ranger with 3 rotations in Iraq and 3 in Afghanistan. As mentioned earlier they did a little bit of work with the SEALS during the Jessica Lynch rescue, but mostly they worked with Delta. We were at the bar after my friend's wedding, way past closing because we know the owner, and a friend got my buddy and his military buddies who were at the wedding talking about their missions and such. Essentially the Rangers just handled perimeter security, like what you saw in Black Hawk Down when they worked with Delta. The guy asking most of questions (I already knew most of this stuff as it had come up in various conversations prior) wanted to know why Delta always carried out the assaults for prisoners or rescues and the answer was basically because we needed the targets alive and the Rangers would have killed everyone... and this is coming from former/current Rangers. They said that Delta took target recognition, pin point marksmanship, and precise execution of a plan and decision making to an entirely differently level. On a 10 point scale, the Rangers rated most of themselves and their fellow soldiers as a 6-7, but the Delta Operators were all 9-10, they saw that much separation between themselves and the talent of the soldiers at the next level. Many of those guys moved on from the Rangers to Blackwater, I'm sure everyone is aware of Blackwater now, but soldiers who are basically now mercenaries didn't see themselves stacking up against Delta. I'm really trying to get the point across of how much respect the Rangers I came to know personally had for our elite services, and they are elite themselves.

 

Any gadget SWAT has, any elite force in the world has 2 generations newer. The Ranger battalion and Delta were testing the next generation of weapons as my friend was finishing up his service, I just don't think they did a very good job with that last episode. SWAT doesn't have better technology than GSG-9, better training than GSG-9, better personnel than GSG-9, nor have they ever tackled and succeeded with an operation as large as the Lufthansa Flight 181 hijacking. Last I had read (going to back to the original Rainbow 6 game when I first became interested in counter terrorism), no other counter terrorism force in the world had ever pulled off a hostage rescue of that magnitude without a single civilian casualty. I know as Americans we like to think we're the best at everything, but I think GSG-9 was done a huge disservice in that episode.

[JoeHova]

I know as Americans we like to think we're the best at everything, but I think GSG-9 was done a huge disservice in that episode.

That's why I was surprised Spetsnaz beat the Green Berets. Anyway, I think GSG 9 lost mainly because the guys they had using their equipment weren't as good/fast as the SWAT guys were. However, they weren't actual GSG 9 guys, unlike the SWAT guys, who were actually on a SWAT team. (The testers seemed to give too much credence to the fact that SWAT assault rifle was a bigger caliber. If that was a huge issue, I think most countries would use something bigger than the NATO round, which is what GSG 9's guns use. I know that .22 caliber is not big but I would assume GSG 9 uses a high tech bullet with more stopping power than a standard .22. Even the 7.62 NATO round is not that big compared to many handguns. There must be a reason people favor a (relatively) smaller round in automatic rifles, which I assume would be ease of use.)

 

Also, they demonstrated the taser on a live guy but not the grenade thing. That seems to indicate that the grenade is nastier than the taser if they weren't willing to actually use it. (Not that they should have, I sure wouldn't want to get hit with a grenade even if it was supposedly non-lethal.)

[paul253]

That's like saying SWAT could go up and succeed against our Delta

Operators, there isn't a chance in hell

To be fair, I don't think GSG-9 would hold water with Delta either. Plus, in the last SWAT challenge rankings I was able to find, GSG-9 was only ranked 5th. I know that doesn't really have anything to do with how a team would be able to handle an actual hostage situation, but I don't think GSG-9 is as far ahead of a good American SWAT team as you think. Like I said though, if it came down to me having to pick a team to save me in a hostage situation, I'd pick GSG-9.

 

Also, they demonstrated the taser on a live guy but not the grenade

thing. That seems to indicate that the grenade is nastier than the taser

if they weren't willing to actually use it. (Not that they should have,

I sure wouldn't want to get hit with a grenade even if it was

supposedly non-lethal.)

 

It's hard to compare the taser to that grenade thing because I think they serve different purposes. I assume the grenade is thrown into a room and after it goes off the team storms the room. The taser is more of a defensive weapon than an offensive weapon.

 

One match-up I'd love to see would be Delta vs. the Navy SEALs.

[JoeHova]

Plus, in the last SWAT challenge rankings I was able to find, GSG-9 was only ranked 5th.

Maybe, but they absolutely dominated the ones I saw. They were on another level. Maybe the other guys caught up, or GSG 9 sent their JV team that year.

 

 

As for the matchup of winners from season 1, it seemed odd that the Spartan spear was credited with so many kills when it had been demonstrated that Samurai armor was very effective against it.

[TheCrew07]

Hmm, I didn't mean to suggest GSG-9 was the same level as Delta, though that's how it looked, I worded that horribly. I meant to compare Delta/Rangers to GSG-9/SWAT and I got off on a tangent and never got back to my original point. Sorry for the incoherent babble.

 

Those SWAT guys saying that they do it every day and had more experience was really grating on me. Almost every GSG-9 operation they've ever done is classified, but I remember reading some place that they had successfully completed over 1500 missions since their inception.

 

The one thing I don't get is why the computer guy's opinion on the weapons matter at all, what does he know about weapons? I like both weapons for their roles, but there's more to an assault rifle than stopping power, I thought the guys representing GSG-9 did a decent job talking about weight and mobility, but they didn't touch on accuracy for whatever reason.

 

The shotguns are used for different applications by the 2 services, the Benelli is a fantastic weapon but the test was a subject running full on towards the shooter, which is a situation that SWAT would be much more likely to see. On a counter terror/hostage mission you'd be looking for a 1 shot kill on a suspect at close range, if you have to shoot him 3 times you need to find a different career. In a coordinated assault the Benelli's higher rate of fire of wouldn't really have a role, there would be way too much collateral damage from pellets ricocheting all over the place. I thought it was old school to be using a pump shotgun, I'd prefer a semi automatic gun personally, but I can definitely see why GSG-9 would prefer the Remington in a closed environment.

 

The whole Taser vs Grenade debate wasn't well done either. GSG-9 doesn't do crowd control, the technology they would be deploying would be far more advanced, along the lines of monitoring, detecting, and identifying threats. The grenade was portable and has a 360 degree impact radius, making it much more suited to anti terrorism missions. I'm not sure how the 2 special weapons were comparable at all, SWAT isn't going to be resolving hostage situations by storming a room with tasers.

[paul253]

This next week's episode is one that I've been looking forward to for a while. Navy SEALS vs. Israeli Commandos. The weaponry is going to be amazing.

[paul253]

If anyone is still interested in this show, Season 3 just started up last night. The first episode was a matchup of an army commanded by George Washington against an army commanded by Napolean. Washington's won, but just barely. The simulation was run 5000 times and Washington won less than 1% of the time. The weapons were ok, but the episode was a little boring. Either way, it's the same general concept as previous seasons and if you don't take it too seriously if a very entertaining show to watch. Here's a link to all the season three matchups.

 

http://blog.newsok.com/ne...rrior-season-3-matchups/

[DuWayne Steurer]

Yeah, the Washington/Napolean episode was kind of a stinker.

 

I mean, it's an entertaining show, but I'd really like to know what the computer guy is using when he's rating these weapons. A lot of what they do seems very arbitrary. I know it's a tv show meant for entertainment, but these guys doing the show try to pass their results off as very scientific, when what it really seems like is they're doing a video game simulation, and nothing more.

[Eck17]

I hope that they go back to previous seasons, and do four weapons, because the if they only do three from now on, it better be more interesting. I absolutely love history, but even I found that episode a tad boring, I guess it doesn't fit with the previous editions of the show. While this matchup was interesting, I hope this season goes better than last night's episode.

[paul253]

The weapons are demonstrations are pretty cool and even though the guys vote on which one is better I'm not sure if that really makes a difference in the final battle. I think it's a pretty legit computer program though that ends up making the decisions even though a lot of times we kind of question the results. I thought I heard them say once the program was originally designed for the military to help them predict outcomes of battles or something like that. Either way, it's pretty cool seeing experts use these ancient weapons and seeing how gruesome some of these things can be, like swords cutting a guys clean in half or sling shots that shatter bones.

[TheCrew07]

I agree that the weapon demonstrations are the best part of the show but most of the time I don't agree with their outcomes because human decision making/training isn't taken into account the battle numbers typically are off. If you're going GSG-9 against SWAT and using 1 team of guys for each side that makes good sense, but when you're comparing historical generals I don't see how 4 soldiers is an accurate representation of anything.

 

How is it fair to only use 4 soldiers to simulate battles between Washington and Napoleon? 1 used hit and run tactics, fighting on a much smaller scale, the other used artillery and flanking cavalry attacks in large scale (for the time) warfare. With 4 soldiers how do you know if Washington could have fended off, worn down, and eventually cornered Napoleon? With a much slower rate of fire how would the Continental army have stood up to one of those cavalry charges and overcome the greater range and power of Napoleon's artillery?

 

Historically I'm not sure we can even give credit to Washington for Cornwallis ending up in Yorktown, he was heavily engaged against Howe/Clinton for most of the early part of the war, only slipping out of the north to help with the seige of Yorktown. While he was overall commander, he didn't have a direct hand in many of America's greatest victories during the war. He fought brilliantly at the end of 1776 pushing the British back into New York City for the winter. In 1777 Gates actually had the most success wiping out Burgoyne's army through a series of battles and poor British decisions culminating with the Battle of Saratoga which convinced the French to join the war. At the same time Howe had marced on Philadelphia eventually capturing it though Washington won smaller battles to keep the Briitish confied to Philly for the winter. Clinton then replaced Howe for the British and he abandoned Philly to go back to NY as the French had entered the war. Washington shadowed Clinton back to NY and won a strategic victory at Monmouth, but the northern armies would never square off again in open combat.

 

Clinton sent a detachment of his army from NYC and captured Savannah, GA in the winter of 1778, then he captured Charlestown, SC while wiping out most of the southern Continental Army in 1780. Lt. Gen Cornwallis was appointed commander of the southern British army while Gates was sent down to command what was left of the American forces. Gates was soundly defeated at Camden by Cornwallis and was replaced by Greene, who was actually the general who kept the British occupied and wore them down. Cornwallis was ordered to secure a fortified naval base in VA and he ultimately settled on Yorktown. I think sometimes people think Cornwallis was beaten back and cornered at Yorktown which wasn't the case, it was a tactical move that backfired horribly when the French fleet managed to blockcade the port. Cornwallis lost some 7,000 men at Yorktown but the British still had over 30,000 in NY, however after the British defeat at Yorktown the British Parliament was no longer interested in war with the colonists.

 

Much of the success in the south which utimately led to Cornwallis' defeat at Yorktown was due to Greene and Daniel Morgan, Washington never had the number of troops necessary to challenge the main British army in the north. He did a fantastic job keeping them at bay, but it's hard to say how well Washington would have fared in the large scale European warfare of the time period.

[paul253]

How is it fair to only use 4 soldiers to simulate battles between Washington and Napoleon?

 

I don't think the actual data put into the program was limited to 4 soldiers. I think that's just for the sake of the tv simulation. They do that same thing with all the groups. Green Berets vs Spetsnaz, Navy SEALS vs the Israelis, Yakuza vs Mafia, IRA vs Taliban were all the same way. They don't have the time to see how a full battle with dozens or hundreds of soldiers would end up.

[TheCrew07]

That's not my understanding of it and it's always bothered me. If I'm wrong I'll certainly give the program more credit for being more in depth than I believed, and would certainly lend more weight to their conclusions.

[stoutdude04]

I thought I was watching one of the shows between the Irish and something else and thats what they said. The program does it with multiple 'people'. Then when they showed the head to head there were only 5 or so. Each guy used a different weapon. So I just assumed thats why they did 5 on 5 or 4 on 4 or whatever they do. I have only seen 1 or 2 episodes though. So just my thoughts on it.