Talk:Deadliest Warrior - Season 2: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:05, 10 August 2010

CLIP

Why does everybody on this show, even the "experts" call the magazines "Clips." It pisses me off to no end.-User:SargeOverkill

Because they aren't actually experts. Spartan198 08:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Shocking-User:SargeOverkill

yeah even geoff calls them clips, i like the show but acknowledge its stupidity ShootingLiberal 21:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

So what if they call them clips. it's basically the same thing. My uncle's a firearms instructor and he even calls them clips. DRC92

Moving Season 1

Was it really nessessary to give Season 1 it's own page? Excalibur01 14:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I only moved it because it was making the page too long. Kinda like how the 24 page was divided up into seasons; the page was also getting too long. Ominae 00:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Small mistakes

As I'm watching this show, I notice way too many small errors. For example, in Spetznaz vs. GB, they list the Makarov as 9mm. While it's true that it's 9mm, the 9X18 Makarov round is NOT the same as the 9X19.

And the Ninja's weapon, the Ninjatō, never had proof that it was real, Ninja's used Katanas. Also, the Ninja wearing black, is just a stereotype, in the woods they would wear something like green.

I was in a class that teaches the art of Ninjutsu and even the master said that ninjas use whatever they can get their hands on. They are real special forces like Excalibur01

Another mistake I noticed in the Yakuza vs Mafia episode. The Walther P38 is listed as the Yakuza sidearm of choice, but in the specs screen shown for the weapon the illustration on top is a Luger P08.

Richard Mackowitz?

Maybe my eyes are deceiving me, but I swear that guy firing the 416 is Mack from Future Weapons. O_o Compare these shots...

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Steve Gordon demonstrating an HK416 by firing it at a range instead of the PSD.

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Another angle of Gordon firing with the 416.

...to one taken from the Future Weapons page of Mack crouched over a rifle while wearing similar headgear.

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Well that's because both of them are bald and have the same shape of a head. It did make me glance twice Excalibur01

Pirates vs. Knights

That line-up was pretty laughable. Not sure who the pirate "experts" were, but they didn't know a thing they were talking about. Pirates carrying at least 4 to 6 pistols, a blunderbuss, AND grenados...yeah, no. And even going as far as to called them "trained soldiers." Pirates were poor rag-tag pillagers. Few were ever armed with more than one firearm and the chance for misfires for the flintlocks and the blunderbuss is ridiculous. Overall it would've been a sword fight and the knight's shield and sword combo with combat training would've easily taken down the pirate--no contest if the knight stayed on his horse.

-- This show is awesome, heh I hear they are going to have Green Berets vs. Spetsnaz and IRA vs. Taliban

Yeah it is awesome. I think the Spetsnaz are going to win over the Green Berets next week. I haven't heard anything about the IRA vs. Taliban fight though.

I agree totally. Spetsnaz could kick Special Forces' ass. but dont tell any i said that! -The Winchester

Whoever edited the page last is totally wrong. It should have the M4A1, AKM assault rifle, Mossberg 590, Saiga shotgun, RGD-5 grenade, M67 grenade, Beretta M9, Makarov pistol, SVD Dragunov, and M24 sniper rifle.

Ridiculous show

This show is ridiculous. Many of the match ups aren't fair to either or both sides, since they are just 'assuming' many things. Also many of the comparisons are purely apples vs oranges. In the Mafia versus Yakuza, comparing a Thompson to a Sten????? WTF? Two different types of guns for different purposes. the M1928 with a 100 round drum is ridiculously HEAVY and no soldier would want to be running around a lying prone with it (which is why the M1 &M1A1 with their stick mags were developed in WW2). The Sten is lighter and holds a 32 round stick mag. It was a very simplified design done for the sake of mass production during time of war, and it was much more suited to commando raids and airborne ops than the Thompson with a 100 rd drum, just because of weight and types of magazines.

Sure the historical tests of the weapons are fun and all, but all serious military historians think that the "matchups" are just stupid. MoviePropMaster2008 22:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Dude, the Sten and the Thompson are both submachine guns for close range fighting, and no military ever used the 100 round drum. Thompsons in airborne landings used 30 round magazines that were much better than the Sten's.

I've seen the first episode, the Yakuza vs. Mafia matchup, and this week's Spetsnaz vs. Green Beret episode. I can't say I have a problem with the Spetsnaz "winning", but I have serious problems with the testing they did. The ballistic knife over the E-Tool was the most ridiculous thing I've seen, by far, and while I can't say I've studied Spetsnaz tactics to any real extent, I refuse to believe that they really move around like they're shooting Hard Boiled 2. --Clutch 03:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

I agree, their shooting style was just...overblown. The fast crouching and ducking and shooting was just...stupid. They shoot their sidearms with one hand apparently, and got a better hit ratio over the Green Beret who shot faster and holding his M9 with both hands. The comparison wasn't as bad as the Mafia and Yakuza where they compared a P38 to a double barrel shotgun. Excalibur01 06:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read several articles written by former police and military combat instructors which discuss how the singlehanded grip, while less effective for long range target shooting, can be much more flexible and effective than the double handed grip. Practice is far more important than which grip is used, if the Spetsnaz soldier had trained more with a one hand grip than the Green Beret did with both than he would obviously perform better. Keep in mind, handguns have been around since the 1500's and the two-handed grip did not come into widespread usage until the 1950's.

The "final fight" was even worse. I'm fairly certain that any self-respecting soldier is going to carry multiple mags for any weapon they carry into battle. Here, the Green Beret empties his M9...and drops the gun. I almost screamed at the TV, "RELOAD! RELOAD, YOU FOOL!" At least the one on one between the Yakuza and Mafia soldier seemed somewhat realistic. --Clutch 19:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I know, it's like the Green Beret was thinking "Hey, I still have extra mags for my M4, but I rather use my M9. Hey, my M9 is empty, but instead of reloading, I'm going to use...my SHOVEL!" It's ridiculous. In one of the other forums, someone suggested that the show shoulda gotten the Russian and Green Beret guys in a paintball field, gave them guns that shoot sim ammo and rubber knives and have them go at it. At least that would have been more accurate results than some computer tests! Excalibur01 05:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a paintball match at a combat town would show off more of their small unit tactical training, than the bullshit 'test' they do on the show. That would be interesting to see! MoviePropMaster2008 01:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you guys caught the mention of the M4A1's four-position selector *rolls eyes*... Obviously the guys they hired to portray these ex-SOF soldiers didn't do their homework. Spartan198 00:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Spartan198

It would make sense to compare ANCIENT weapons. I think there are interesting comparisons between short swords, pikes, spears and other edged weapons FROM THE ANCIENT WORLD. But when it comes to firearms, COME ON! Like someone said, they 'tested' the Yakuza versus the Mafia by testing the Walther P38(!!) to a double barrel shotgun(!!!??) WTF? How about comparing the P38 to the Model 10? or the 1911? But then the Model 10 and 1911 were also used by the Yakuza. All of the Firearms testing on this show is ridiculous and stupid. The only valid 'comparisons' are between the ancient weapons, like the Zulu short spear or the Roman sword or the Scimitar, etc. etc. MoviePropMaster2008 01:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There were problems in comparing "ancient" weapons. I mean the Viking vs Samurai, they didn't mention that Vikings had bows and arrows too and they "tested" a viking axe to a Samurai sword! They didn't want to do the long sword vs the Katana why? I mean the samurai also used spears, but they didn't show that in the episode, just a bow vs a viking spear. Come on! The ninja vs spartan was also weak since all the weapons weren't matched up except sword against sword. Well at least for the next 2 weeks they're going back to actual warriors of old like Shaolin vs Mauoi, and 2 actual people of history Shaka Zulu vs William Wallace. But their last episode is going to be the worse, the IRA vs the Taliban! That is just..stupid. Excalibur01 11:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah and in Vikings .V. Samurai, the Viking snapped the Samurai's spine w/ a battle axe, but lost anyway. WTF?-S&Wshooter 00:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

IRA versus Taliban? Despite each group being completely different philosophy/theology/motivations/goals/limitations etc, the show could just show a Bomb going off in a pub (IRA) or a truck driving UP to a marketplace and then blowing up (Taliban)....Yeeesshhhhh! MPM2008

The only thing I've liked about this show so far was the actual ninja vs Spartan battle. It was fairly entertaining, if nothing else (even though it was a serious mismatch). Like comparing an AK to an AR hasn't been done 674356789765545675 times before...? They should stick to matching up pre-gunpowder warriors, IMO. Spartan198 01:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Spartan198

If it was Ninja vs Pirates, then that would be awesome Excalibur01 02:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Fuck that, i want zombies versus gladiatorsOliveira 16:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I just saw the Yakuza vs. Mafia & Spetznaz vs. Green Berets episodes, and I think I have a migrane now. They used a Luger P08 as a "Walther P38" and had a so-called "expert" saying the M4A1 has a "4-position selector switch" and is capable of both burst AND automatic fire. What the hell? They also had a Saiga-12 with a hunting-style stock rather than the mil-spec pistol grip. They also used a 7.62x39mm folding-stock AK to represent the 5.45x39mm "AK-74 carbine" I guess this should be expected from a channel with shows as Manswers... Orca1 9904 01:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Another glaring error; in the Green Berets/Spetznaz episode, U.S. military personnel NEVER wear berets in combat! That is PURE hollywood! Those soldiers would have been wearing kevlar helmets, patrol caps, boonie hats, or -maybe- a baseball cap, but NOT their freakin' berets which are only worn in non-combat situations such as when on base stateside. Orca1 9904 18:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Green Berets and Navy Seals during the Vietnam War did use Berets, Bonnie hats, Bush Hats and those baseball-cap style green caps they used when they weren't in combat. Alongside all kinds of bandanas but, they depicted the green berets and the russians in modern day and even that Spike TV managed to fuck up. The Spetznaz doesn't use AKMs. They use AK-74Ms.

Well, the were accurate enough by at least saying the Spetznaz use AK-74s, but in the show we don't see a single AK-74 like gun at all. Excalibur01 06:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

They said AK-74 not AK-74M but that is just nitpicking. They also called the AK-74 a carbine not a assault rifle. This show is dumb.-Oliveira 18:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Four position Safety

I hate to break it to some of you but they do in fact make a four position safety for the M-16 series rifle. You used to be able to buy them a few years back in the Shotgun news.Rockwolf66 17:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? That a fact? But we're talking about the Green Berets here. Do you really think they use M4s with 4 selections? Excalibur01 02:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't know the only time I have handled an official US issue M-4A1 was about ten years ago and it was safe-Semi-Full. from what I understand the four position safety was designed as an experiment and latter sold comercially. Given that the weapons are shown comertially then it is possible that such a selector on that rifle. As far as the "Green Beret"'s go I'm sure they have an example or two stored in the back of a bunker or two. Rockwolf66 18:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There was NOT any four-selector AR-15 based rifle EVER created. If you ever had any AR-15 rifle dissasembled, or even if you ever handled any, you would have know, that a four-selector switch is purely impossible. ALL issued variants have/had only a three-position selector switch - either for save/semi/auto (early models Colt 601,602, various carbine versions, the M16A3 and others) or save/semi/burst (M16A2, M16A2 etc). Concerning the M4 Carbine, the original version, Colt Model 720, adopted in 1994, was capable of firing three round burst and had M16A2 style non-remouvable carrying handle. M4A1 variant (Colt Model 925) and the SOPMOD version are capable of fully automatic fire, have remouvable carring handle, and in case of SOPMOD and M4 MWS (Modular Weapon System) are fitted with M5 Knight's Armament Corporation RIS/RAS. Ragnar -unregistered user

Sorry idiot i am calling you on your Bullshit. Look in the back issues of Shotgun News for about the past decade. it may take a while to find comertially available four position safty's for not only the M16 but for Romanian(?) AK varients. Tey were the sorts of adds that grabbed my attention because they were the sorts of odd things that you find in places that store small arms and/or the parts of. Rockwolf66 22:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Adendum...(http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=5760328.PN.&OS=PN/5760328&RS=PN/5760328 )Colt pattened the thing back in 1996.

This show is stupid, but It would be cool if they did Paul Kearsey VS Harry Calahan, Martin Riggs VS John Mclane, Josie wales VS Rooster Cogburn etc. At least then they would have an excuse for being so far fetched and rediculous.

IRA Vs. Taliban

I was kind of annoyed by the errors this show typically displays as always, but some notable ones were on Sunday with the IRA vs. Taliban episode. They claimed the Irish Republican Army used the "Armalite AR-15" as their main weapon, yet I was always under the impression they used the Armalite AR-18. And aside from that, hasn't Colt been the producer of the "AR-15" since the 70s? The guns they used on the show were M16A2/Colt AR-15 A2 HBAR rifles anyway, not Armalite guns. And they somehow tried to show the AK-47 was superior to an AR-15 by slapping a huge amount of mud on the action and pouring water down the barrel. The AK of course didn't jam and the AR did, but that's a dumb test. A gun can get dirty and jam up but if it gets THAT dirty, it isn't even a fair trial. Also, they compared an LPO-50 flamethrower to an RPG-7 (Norinco Type 69)? One is good for 20ft another can hit out at 300m. That's fair. And they claim both are MID-RANGE weapons. Also, they couldn't get the actual flamethrower used in the one incident, so they used this propane tank flamethrower that barely worked. And then they compare the slingshot to the bayonet. WTF??!! One is a hand-to-hand blade fixed to the muzzle of a gun, the slingshot is a mid-range projectile launcher. And if the IRA used it, it was more effetive than what they showed on the show. This show is dumb, I only watch it now because my friends told me it is awesome and I watch just to tear it down. Plus in the Gangsters episode, they kept saying "clip" instead of magazine, which was seriously pissing me off. And listening to David Wenham say the "British Sten uses a 30-round clip" made me want to kill everyone who makes this show. And the use of the term "drum-clip" is just insipid. There are better shows on sunday. Like Family Guy. I was mad I had to miss that just to watch this crap. Well, there's my review :) - Gunmaster45

You are right. The IRA did use AR-18s instead of AR-15s and i don't think that the IRA has a main weapon. Hell, i don't think that any guerrilla groups have main weapons. They just take what they can get, the only reason AKs are so common with guerrillas are because the Soviet Union and China gave those away like candy to enemies of the united States and because they are extremely easy to manufacture, and the use of the word clip in the show pisses me the fuck off. The computer guy also is extremely annoying. I want to shove a M67 up his ass.Oliveira 17:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I mean, they even said in the show the IRA also uses AKs. The "British" troops with M16s is very inaccurate, since no one in the British military outside the SAS, SBS or other Special Forces uses M16 weapons. This is an even more insulting episode than the Green Berets vs the Spetsnaz! Excalibur01 02:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

During the height of the IRA bombings, the British army still had the [FN FAL#L1A1|L1A1 SLR]] and Sterling SMGs. The Brits never used the M16 out side elite or non-conventional units. MPM2008

Well the British forces did have numerous AR15 type rifles in inventry for use by troops in jungle enviroments, such as Brunei and Belize. British troops from most infantry regiments could expect to do a rotation in ether country for jungle warfare training. Whilst the SLR was the most common rifle seen in Northern Ireland prior to the adoption of the SA80 series, AR15s were used there by non Spec Ops troops.

The slingshot vs bayonet comparison definitely ties with ballistic knife vs E-tool as the absolute worst mismatches I've ever seen. And after the Luger/P-38 fiasco and those so-called "Green Berets" and "Spetznaz" making complete fools out of themselves by knowing pretty much squat about their weapons, I didn't think it could get any worse.I wonder what's next on this show. Bloods vs Crips? Rainbow Six vs Ghost Recon? Sam Fisher vs Solid Snake? Old Lady vs Pickpocket? Sheesh... When it first premiered, I really enjoyed the show, but now... 24.7.190.251 03:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Spartan198

This is the LAST episode. I really HOPE there is no season 2, but if there is, I'll be there to screen cap it. And I wouldn't be surprise if it's gang bangers vs other gangs. And I'd bet on Solid Snake more than Sam Fisher and Rainbow Six over Ghost Recon. Excalibur01 03:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I've got better ones: LAPD vs Blackwater and George Bush vs Barack Obama. XD Spartan198 03:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Spartan198

Blackwater win over LAPD since the latter is a band of ex-military SF mercs, so no competition there. And if you want Bush vs Obama, just look at their presidencies and decided who wins or hope Celebrity Death match makes one. I'd say the LAPD SWAT vs the Columbian FARC. Excalibur01 03:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Blackwater has TONS of combat vets in their ranks. Bush versus Obama, we're not talking politics here, then only ONE of them had any military training, and he flew F-104 Starfighters, so there's no comparison. So you have a 'community organizer' vs 'fighter pilot' neither one has useful small arms or hand to hand training so it's kind of a moot point. Overall the show is supremely retarded. MoviePropMaster2008 05:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The most understated thing said so far. The show is supremely retard! Thank you Excalibur01 05:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Green Berets and Spetznaz guys know absolutely jack shit about guns. and i agree with you MPM, this show is supremely retarded but it's Spike TV so what do you expect?-Oliveira 21:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Provisional IRA had both AR-15s and AR-18s, and some M16s as well. These were all weapons purchased by their Irish-American sympathizers in the U.S.; the M16s were stolen from Camp LeJune, while the AR-15s and AR-18s were purchased at gun stores. Qaddafi sent them large amounts of Communist bloc weaponry, including AKs (mostly Romanian AIMs), RPG-7s, DShKs, RGD-5 grenades, and CZ-75s. Qaddafi sent them some Western-made guns, too, including "Wonder Nines", FN MAGs, and the LPO-50s. But the IRA almost never used the LPO-50s, except in a single recorded incident at an Army checkpoint.

I also found it interesting that they glossed over the fact that the IRA was actually one of the very first terrorist groups in the world to use the RPG-7 (they first used RPGs as early as 1972). But anyway, I think it's a really ridiculous comparison because the IRA and the Taliban are completely different types of groups. The IRA is more of a gang than a guerrilla army, and would be squeamish if they had to engage in the sort of activities that the Taliban do regularly. Euro-commie radical wanna-bes vs. Islamist tribal mountain savages = the savages win. Not to mention that the Taliban's fund-raising practices are WAY above the IRA's. -MT2008 03:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It funny how these people are like rrr "I am super awesome mega warrior" It is just funny how they call themselves experts. wouldn't they actually shoot each other or be arrested for terrorist activities? Beeteles

It seems like all these experts are all assholes too that look at the opposing side as weak jerk offs Excalibur01

Every time I watch this show, I end up laughing like hell, with their so called experts who keep flinching every time they fire a gun, hilarious. Also in the Spetznaz vs. Green Berets episode, the Spetznaz "sniperexpert" misses almost half of his shots, I mean WHAT THE FUCK, even I, the worst shooter in the world, could hit that target evey time with that kind of weapon, it's built for this job and he still misses. And he claims to be a former sniper, well time to work on your skills dumbass. -Jacco Croon-

This Page

This Page needs alot of work. I will try to fix it later.-Oliveira 19:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "Alot of work"? Excalibur01 06:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What i mean is that the screencaps need captions and some of the sections have no gun-pictures. It's more of "alot of work" as in quantity not difficulty.-Oliveira 18:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well some of the sections without gun pictures is because I didn't know which guns they were. Excalibur01 02:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Experts??"

I don't think that anyone on either side of the "Green Beret vs Spetnatz had been an "expert" for ten years or more. I meen the Green Beret was pathetic with the beretta and he had a beer belly that sticks out 20".-beeteles

Far be it for me to deem anyone's status at anything...I really think that the experts they get are actors who were just slightly better than the Z-list "talent" they got to do the re-enactments. --Clutch 02:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the "experts" are retarded actors that don't know a goddamm thing about guns or anything military in general.-Oliveira 11:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Case in point, Matt the Green Beret thinking his M4 was capable of both full auto and mechanical burst. Spartan198

And I've never met a Green Beret who actually wore his green beret into the field. -The Winchester

I have, but they were Nam era Green Berets.--Asmkillr323 03:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It also comes to mind that SF wouldn't typically be chosen for the type of "mission" that was portrayed in the closing battle. An op like that would normally be assigned to Rangers. Spartan198 10:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? Being not that informed or smart in shit like that,I always thought it was the enemy or situation that matterednot the operation. But again,I suck at shit like that. Pump_Shotty_Justice

Different units have different applications. SF would typically be dropped behind enemy lines to train indigenous forces and build alliances with them, while Rangers would carry out direct action missions. SF can do the latter, but they don't specialize in it. Spartan198 14:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

green beret vs spetznaz

well i watched the show mainly becauseit was a modern re-anacment and well...i fuckin hate this show. the so called experts were shitty shots with the beretta. the test were really un-fair. come on. mossy 590 shooting a pig from a few yards out is supposed to be a fair test to the seiga shooting about 4 different 'jelly' targets while moving and some were behind cover. a frag grenade in side a washing machine is fair compared to throwing a grenade in a plast-glass corridor. bullshit. they wouldnt really use an E-TOOL for a melee weapon the would use a K-BAR knife. they would use kinmber 1911 variants or maybe a MK23 (or is that black-ops forces). and wasnt the makarov replaced by some other gun recently (last 5-10 years or so) --Smish34 15:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah the MP-443 Grach-User:SargeOverkill

Well, Marines use KA-Bars, but many servemen use them because they are very reliable. Special Forces do use glocks and the occasional Colt, but the MK23 was phased out due to it being just overall too big of a weapon. And E-tools are extremely dangerous and quite effective when you slice something with it. -Winn

Couple of things I would like to point out. Yes, the Makarov is slowly being replaced by the GSh-18 pistol, which came out in 2000. I agree that the tests were incredibly unfair, though even in the shotgun test, the saiga won, even though it's test was unfair. I believe they used the E-tool as the Green Beret melee weapon because if it was just a knife against a ballistics knife, the ballistics knife would have too much of an advantage. With the E-Tool, which is still a very capable weapon, they at least have a longer reach in straight up melee combat. And no, as far as I'm aware, and this is supported by my limited research on the subject, the Green Berets would use the Beretta. The only branch that ever used/still uses a Kimber model was the MEU. 71.199.132.177 19:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

should have been Delta vs Spetnaz...ahhaha just kidding, but seriously that episode pissed off a ton of people, you'd think that the Green Berets would be equiped with more customized M4s and such, and each fire team would be different. wheres the team's DMR? wheres the team's machine gunner? etc etc and i mean for both sides...and a shotgun is a secProxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0

dary weapon, never a primary when it comes to a fireteam, unless you're in SWAT or something. M9s, M11s, MEUs, etc etc, each Green Beret or Special Forces soldier has his choice of what kind of firearms he wants to carry. overall...bullshit

do ya know what really pissedmeoff. when the spetznaz soldier threw the grenade in the washing machine he walked off and lit up a smoke like he was some badass cool soldier. very unproffesional. and made him look like a jackass. if i was on COD...hahahah just messing around im not an 8 year old--Smish34 20:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

So what? The Mafia guy put a rose into the pocket of a dummy after he mowed it down with his tommy gun. Excalibur01 20:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Why exactly does the image comment on the Benelli M3 say that the M4 would do better? As far as I know, they are both semi-auto tubular-magazine shotguns with similar capacities; all the M4 brings to the table is its special stock, which doesn't add up to a significant advantage over a regular tactical stock unless you're talking varied terrain or engagement ranges (going from medium to CQB to short range and back again). I haven't seen this newer episode with the M3 (I only saw the one with the Remington M870 or something), but they probably used it in pump-action only (for that extra dose of bullshit).

70.118.116.239

Actually it's a typo. I was refering to the M3, not the M4 since the M4 wasn't in the screen cap. I was saying that another semi auto would be better to compare to a semi auto shotgun like the Saiga Excalibur01 22:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Except the Benelli M3 is selective; you can switch between pump-action and semi-auto (the semi-auto has the same functionality as the Benelli M1, which is more or less the gold standard of rapid-response semi-auto shotguns; how can the Saiga, a re-purposed 12 Gauge variant of a sporter version of an AK, stack up to a purpose-built tactical shotgun?).

In all honesty, it really doesn't matter about fairness, because the whole test was rigged to begin with. We're talking about the same show that put a siege weapon against a battle axe.

72.189.150.170

Meant for Entertainment

I do not believe this show is meant to be taken seriously, rather it is meant for entertainment and possibly sending people into fits about whatever historical badass they were rooting for. I agree that the test ARE ridiculous, unbalanced and often seem rigged but I think the show was meant for viewing pleasure and a springboard for calm discussions rather than a reason to shout and call foul. Anybody with a brain, nay half a brain, could see that these tests and "experts" are fictitious. Hell, the "advanced system" they claim to use is MS Excel. Therefore I can only logically conclude that the show is not and never was meant to be taken seriously.By the way, the RPG-7 appears to be a a Norico copy.Bumblebear

The RPG also seems to be a fake cause the way it was fired, it looked like special effects. Excalibur01

This would be a good show if they didn't fudge the "tests" and just pitted two very different people against each other. The problem with the show is that it's ridiculous, AND it tries to look real and scientific. Seriously, ditch the fake science, and Spike would be sitting on a f*cking goldmine. Zombies vs. Delta Force? Win. Pirates vs. ninjas? Epic win.--70.121.214.203 20:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually like this show, even though they may never show it in Australia, but I watched several episodes on the internet and it's interesting and ridiculously funny.

If they were going for shock value and the coolness factor, they would have used Simunition and a hit-detection rig instead of this "programmer" bullshit. Why did they throw the science in if they're going to just half-ass it? They should pack it in and just go for maximum collateral, like everything else that involves guns and Spike TV.

70.118.116.239

Season 2

Bad news people,there is going to be a second season. --66.168.55.164 01:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC) (ThePotShot)

So???

What next? Delta vs Chinese special forces? LA SWAT vs Columbians? Abraham Lincoln vs Hitler? Excalibur01

Hey, those aren't very bad ideas. Maybe they might have them in future episodes. Also can we please cut down on the criticism because like what they said earlier this show isn't meant to be taken seriously and is rather more for entertainment.

I got it! MALL NINJAs versus COD Fanboys! Woo hoo! MoviePropMaster2008 08:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No no, Mall Ninjas vs REAL ninjas and COD fanboys vs Battlefield fanboys Excalibur01

Two new matchups- Attila the Hun v/s Alexander Great and Nazi SS v/s Viet Cong (WTF?) has been confirmed for Season 2 they are also doing jesse james gang vs al capone's too which seems a little one sided [1].--SB2296 16:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

See, neither of those make sense. Attila and Alexander were better as generals then warriors, as opposed to Wallace and Zulu, who were both revered as capable fighters. The Nazi SS and the Vietcong doesn't even begin to make sense. Acora 02:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

According to wiki, there will be a CIA vs KGB, which is also...pretty vague. Excalibur01

Do you think they should do North Korean Army vs South Korean Army?

James Bond vs Jasone Bourne might be nice (Bourne wins)

Here's seaason 2's match ups,,according to Wikipedia:

SWAT vs. GSG-9: Ther'e both SWAT right?

Aztec Jaguar vs. Zande Warrior Who's a zande?

A Zande is essentially a north african tribal warrior... ~kinda~ like a zulu but with their own unique style of weapons

Jesse James Gang vs. Al Capone Gang Uhm, Thompsons vs revolvers. no contest

Persian Immortal vs. Celt Ok, maybee

Roman Centurion vs. India's Rajput Warrior

Somali Pirate vs. Medellin Cartel Guy with ruty AK vs guy with unlimited budget for wepons? Medellin win

KGB vs. CIA What are they supposed to use?

Vlad the Impaler vs. Sun Tzu Uhm, Sun was a THINKER, not a warrior, and Vlad is an overrated psycho.

Ming Warrior vs. Musketeer

Comanche vs. Mongol

Navy Seal vs. Israeli Commandos Might be good

Ming Warrior vs. Musketeer - Musketeer has...guns. GSG-9 is German special forces. They are one of the world's first modern spec ops. They'll win. Attila the Hun v/s Alexander Great, they both had to be warriors on the field, because unlike Generals of today, back then, you have to be a good fighter to lead and these 2 live in similar times, so it's very possible. Excalibur01

The Ming dynasty covers the 14th-17th century and utilized firearms as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musketeer#Musketeers_in_China. Maybe we'll see matchlock vs. flintlock? I imagine they'll bugger it up fairly badly.

Actually on the website they show "bio" pics of the ming warrior with some kind of 4 barreled handganon and the musketeer is the type from the 1600s era with a matchlock musket and plug bayonet so all and all both sides actually have "fairly primative firearms

I have great expectations for the Navy SEALSs vs. IDF Commandos and SWAT vs. GSG-9 episode (hope the supposed experts do not spoil these two). Whereas the Jesse James vs. Al Capone, Vlad the Impaler vs. Sun Tzu and Ming Warrior vs. Musketeer episode are the most @#!*% selections and even a 8 year old can figure out the winners in the first and last one.--SB2296 04:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think the Navy SEALs vs IDF Commandos (um... which IDF Commandos? IDF has a special unit for everything from CT to cleaning the head...) is gonna turn out just as bad as SF vs Spetsnaz. They're gonna get actors who don't know crap about crap to portray their "experts" Spartan198 07:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

KGB versus CIA will be weird, because as far as I know they only carry handguns, so not much to compare unless we looks at document filing, penmanship, interrogation, and maybe watercooler conversations. Also, GSG-9 will @#!*% up SWAT, SS vs VC is retarded, and on the Bond thing, let's pull a Goldeneye and have "James Bond vs entire Russian army" cause we know how that works out. 142.167.158.222

According to this site http://www.isayeret.com/guides/units.htm, Isreal has 31 spceal forces units. Even if only a third are commando-type units, which one fights the SEALs? Flotila 13, the IDF/Navy SEAL equivelent, is best, but who knows. --Mandolin 00:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"SS vs VC is retarded". Not so much as it actually happened. When the French started fighting the VC, they sent in the French Foreign Legion, who just cut the VC into ribbons. A journalist did some investigating, and found out that the FFL soldiers were actually former Waffen SS. There was great outrage in France and all of the ex-SS FFL were kicked out. That's when the French started losing. David.

for CIA vs KGB, isnt it possible its the SAD? (Black Ops) so they would probably be armed with a Sig or a Glock for a sidearm, and a heavily customized M4/416

New complaints of the new season

Just saw the new episode and when the GSG9 guy talked about the PSG-1, he called the mag a clip. Not once but 3 times. That just seemed out of place. Excalibur01

ahahaha the VC would own the SS regardless. and that was funny when the GSG9 guys called the mag a clip, but they didnt even have a german accent...odd...LOL and why would they use a Mossberg when they have plenty of H&K shotguns...ahahahah this show is still bullshit when it comes to firearms comparision

They're also inconsistent. During the IRA vs Taliban, they rated the AR-15 higher than the AK. But on the Back for Blood special when they pit the Spetsnaz against the IRA, they suddenly declared the AR-15 and AK to be evenly matched. Spartan198 22:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It was funny when they mentioned the pirates and then mention the Somalis and I just laughed cause if you've been keeping up to date, the Somallis aren't having a good track record. Excalibur01

They should do Navy SEALs vs Somali pirates. They can do all their fancy "tests" and whatnot, but then when the end comes, show a short 30 second clip of SEAL snipers downing the pirates from 300 yards away from the stern section of a frigate. XD Spartan198 02:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

well to anser Spartan198 qustition/comment it was becuse the taliban used the AK-47 and the spetnaz used the AK-74 carbine (still think it is a bull shit connclushion tho)--Armyguy277 12:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I dont know why i still watch this, i really enjoy the non firearm episodes, but seriously, can they sort the 'experts' out. Did anyone else notice one of the GSG9 guys faffing aroung with a winchester trech shotgun, WTF? And dont get me started on the PSW/M4/416 mark your minds up. I also didnt see the point in a non leathal ssection on a show called deadliest warrior. Deadliest. Id much rather have seen a pistol showdown the stun grenades an a wall of tasers, ok rant over. Till next week i guess - captain snikt

@Armyguy277: So? An AK74 is just an AKM chambered for the smaller cartridge. Otherwise, it's the same identical gun. FYI, no AK74s were ever used anywhere in this show. The Spetsnaz were armed with AKMs just like the Taliban were. And the AK74 isn't a carbine, it's a rifle. The carbine version of the 74 is the AKSU-74. Spartan198 09:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In the GSG9 vs SWAT, the guys representing GSG9 weren't even GSG9 operators. One of them is a Gebirgsjäger, mountain infantryman of the Bundeswehr, who was never in the BGS/BPol. The other one, though a GSG9 combat instructor, was an instructor for hand to hand combat. The two SWAT guys on the other hand, were actual D platoon officers. The two German guys are good, but when they do the room clearing, they can't match the speed of someone who actually participate in mission or train everyday.

Also, I found the stingball grenade vs. taser shockwave comparison to be completely bogus since they are totally different class of weapon. When the German guys point out that the stingball is more maneuverable, they just use a single taser and test it on a subject and then declare taser superior. I mean WTF... For me, D platoon could do no wrong, but this show is totally unfair to the GSG9. --Wildcards 19:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the GSG9 guys' time in the room takedown "test" seemed a bit too fast for what they actually did. I also noticed they had a particularly slow rate of fire. I know I counted at least half a second between each of the three rounds one put into that first target dummy. And I'm not too sure of their reasoning for yelling "target" loud enough that everyone in the killhouse could hear. Spartan198 00:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, and is it just me, but did anyone notice one of the "operators" handling a Winchester 1897? I swear I saw it at one point. Also did the LWRC PSD switch back with a standard M4A1 when they were switching between "prep" and live fire? Also I have to agree with the "comparison" of the stingball/taser shockwave. The stingball would be the more practical of the two whereas the shockwave, though cool looking, is almost impractical. Seriously if riot cops have to set that thing up before use ya think maybe the rioters will rush them before it can be deployed?

In addition the one thing I found odd, and please correct me here, is the SWAT use of lethal force. I was always under the impression that SWAT used lethal force as a last result (yes I know this was a "combat" situation) but, at their core, they are cops who prefer to arrest suspects. I refer specifically to one scene where a SWAT operator guns down a wounded GSG-9 operator. GSG-9 on the other hand is, by their very nature, supposed to do nothing but use deadly force. Rant completed Charon68 02:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, GSG 9 is technically a police tactical unit too. When the situation permit, they would attempt to arrest suspect too (hence the use of non-leathal weapons such as the stingball). Just as for SWAT, when the lives of civilians or officers are threatened, SWAT officers wouldn't hesitate to use deadly force to neutralize the suspect. As for the combat simulation at the end of the episode, it was the dumbest thing I ever saw. The only amusing part for me was that the taser shockwave proved inferior to the stingball grenade in actual combat. --Wildcards 10:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought GSG-9 were Counter Terrorist special forces kind of group. Excalibur01

I think it's idiotic to pit a regional rapid-response team to a federal counter-terrorism/mobile response force; it's like trying to compare an officer of the Gendarmerie Nationale against FBI special agents. It would have made much more sense to use the FBI HRT, GIGN, or equivalent. Also, their entire method of testing is just bullcrap. I say use Simunition and a hit detection rig and let them at each other; for hand-to-hand, there are plenty of compact force detection rigs, and I'm sure that almost all of these organizations have cross-trained before.

70.118.116.239

G36C, Season 1?

The section of Season 1 that was about the G36C was wrong. It incorrectly labeled the gun, since it was a G36K, not a G36C. I've fixed it, but if anyone wants to inspect it to make sure I'm not just seeing things, go ahead. Acora 00:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Just Pathetic

I was quite stoked for the new season. But when I watched the IRA vs Spetsnaz bit on the special, I noticed that when the announcer describes the G3 sniper rifle, the fucking picture beside him is a G36K! I could understand a slight mistake, but considering these are two COMPLETELY different weapons of different eras, that's plainly unacceptable. 142.167.158.222

They did the same thing with the Walther P38 and had the stat image be a Luger Excalibur01

I believe we have now officially left the land of "Did Not Do Their Research", and have entered the realm of "They Just Didn't Care."--PistolJunkie 22:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As horrible as their firearm "tests" and the like have been so far, they just totally blew them all out of the water with the Alexander the Great vs Attila the Hun episode. They compared a one-handed Hunnic battle axe to a freaking BALLISTA! A melee weapon vs a siege engine? Seriously, WTF?! That's like comparing an M9 bayonet to the 120mm main gun on an Abrams tank! Spartan198 13:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh. What????

Ok I've watched a couple episodes and I have to say this show is ........... well it's stupid. That's the only way I can describe it. --Jcordell 22:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we all agree on that Excalibur01

Yeah, comparing a battle axe designed for melee combat to a ballista designed to attack structures and large formations was the last straw. This show has lost all credibility. Spartan198 04:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about ya, but has Spike TV received any complaints though???

Online fan complaints are always going on Excalibur01

I am now pissed!

A grenade vs a Winchester repeating rifle?! The Tommygun vs the peacemaker?! Brass Knuckles vs pistol whipping someone. And Al Capone LOSES to the cowboys?! This show never ceases to piss me off. Excalibur01

Man that was rigged! Besides I know more about gangster weapons compared to cowboy weapons.

It wasn't rigged they rightfully took into account that Jesse James and his boys had more experiance in marksmanship and built up speed when aligning their sights

Mobsters would most likely use a .38 snub nosed revolver of some sort while the James gang would have a mix of Remington, S&W and Colt. Also, mobsters usually shot people from behind, rarely getting into gun fights-S&Wshooter 21:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the earlier comment. I believe that this was one episode where they actually made sense. The Thompson is a submachine gun but they make a valid point in that the James gang could easily outdraw a mobster and put them down before they could bring up the Thompson. The only part I didn't get was the stiletto versus the Bowie knife. More concealable? What does that have to do with anything. The Bowie is easily the more deadlier in my opinion.GaBoy45 23:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's probably easier to bring to bear (a Bowie is a pretty decent chunk of steel, whereas the stiletto is the equivalent of a sharpened steel rod with a handle), but I agree, once you get it upon your enemy, they don't stand a chance. 70.118.116.239

Anyone else cringe when he pistol whipped the skull with the chamber and barrel of the pistol and not the butt, hope he wasnt planning on using that gun to shoot with if he pisto whips like that - Captain Snikt

Probably put the damn thing out of lock. 70.118.116.239

I'm waiting for fluffy pillow versus toxic Fart.......MoviePropMaster2008 02:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In answer to the Pistol whipping question, that's how they used to pistol whip people, with the barrel/ cylinder area.-Ranger01 05:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the Remington Model 1858 was popular with Lawmen of the period for the simple reason that it was a solid frame compared to Colt's early models which weren't. Pistol whipping was a whole lot less harmful to a solid frame. The Peacemaker was made the same way. You would have pistol whipped them with the barrel unless you were highly proficient with the bandit shift you wouldn't want to take your finger that far away from the trigger. These were fixed sight guns so you didn't have to worry about knocking the sights out of alignment. And as they proved you weren't going to damage the guns as your head is of a much weaker material.GaBoy45 21:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

NAZI vs Vietcong

The gun match ups are just stupid for the NAZIs, I mean, they have the C96 for their handgun when the Luger is known for the gun of Germans or even the Walther P-38, but I understand not the P38 cause they did it already in the Yakuza episode. And no MP40? And a flamethrower? They've already done a Flamerthrower for the IRA, why another one? I guess they don't want the AK or any AK variants for the Vietcong? This was just disappointing. They don't even take into account that the Vietcong is jungle warfare vs the NAZIs SS that never had jungle warfare training. Excalibur01 05:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You might as well stop bitching about this show's infinite stupidity, because everyone knows this show is made by mall ninjas, for mall ninjas. I can't imagine how many points my IQ dropped when I watched the IRA/Taliban match-up. -MT2008 05:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

A bit of history for both of you. After WWII was over the French absorbed a fairly large number of German troops into their Foriegn Legion. These German trained troops were actily fighting the Viet Mihn and kicking ass. Unfortunatly for the French some reporter broke the story that the French Government were using former German troops including members of the SS. The result was a purge of the ranks of the Foreign Legion. Soon afterwards the French being...well the french started seriously getting their tail kicked. Rockwolf66 07:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually this episode impressed me the most out of all the others. The Waffen SS, as they were the descendants and conquerors of the dreaded Brownshirts, favored the Mauser C96. A lot of them liked the greater ammo capacity and armor piercing capability of the 7.63mm. The MP 28 was the first issued submachine gun as it was the first that was manufactured when they broke the Versailles treaty. As for pitting it against the MAT 49, it was a fair matchup. They would have had a lot of MAT 49's left when the French were defeated. Yes this show gets a lot of stuff wrong but they are trying to do a fantasy on a thirty minute tv show as best they can. So stop bitching so much. If you had to list the entire arsenal used by the Viet Cong, you'd be here for a while. They used everything and anything they could. The choices were good. They were supplied by the Russians which explains the TT 33 as well as the MAT 49. All in all the show is entertaining. Yes they get things wrong. What show doesn't every now and then? I think that they are getting better about things though.GaBoy45 16:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I know they've done AKs before, but how can you picture Vietcong without an AK47? Excalibur01 21:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

And wouldn't it make more sense to pit Chechen separatists or the Taliban against the Vietcong? Why do they make a point of comparing two entities in entirely different categories? Like the SWAT vs. GS9. Why would you put a regional, local response organization against a federal rapid response unit?

72.189.150.170

The same could be asked why a guy with a SAA can defeat guys with freaking Tommy GUNS!!!! 07:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Easy when one does exactly as they did. Fire first, hit first or come around the back and hit them. Just because one group had a tommy gun doesn't automatically mean he wins. Wyatt Earp said, "Fast is fine, accurate is final". He may have had the most rapid fire weapon but they proved that emptying a fifty round drum only produced one or two shots on a person. The James Gang had a higher ratio with their humble SAA's. Its oftentimes not the gun but the gunfighter that decides it. The James gang were well versed in firearms and tactics. Capone's gang was a bunch of thugs who used brute force and short ambushes to win. Capone's hits himself were pulled on unsuspecting men who had no chance to defend themselves. Jesse and Frank James fought Union regular army units face to face.GaBoy45 00:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Only a foolish man would underestimate a SAA in a trained hand...full auto is ONLY good for cover fire. Spades of Columbia

I'd pick a Tommy simply because it has more range, stopping power, more ammo and rapid fire. Not just in full auto, but semi auto. I'd be able to keep the guy with the six shooter down under I can flank him or short burst to control accuracy. That alone would give me an overpowering advantage against a guy with 2 SAA. Excalibur01 16:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Excalibur, you would, and I would, just as a trained warrior would. But Capone's gang were not trained. The only thing they had any experience with is shooting unsuspecting men or drive by shootings. Even the most effective example of the Thompson's power was the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, though they relied on subterfuge and lined up the victims against the wall. The argument still stands. Both groups were used to standing and shooting it out. The James gang would have one being as they were the first to draw, the first to fire, and most importantly the first to hit. I would choose the Thompson over the SAA if I was going into battle. GaBoy45 00:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Has everyone forgotten how big, heavey, and uncomfortable the tommy gun is. Jesse would have his SAA unholstered and fired before capone and anyone else trained or otherwise could even shoulder the tommy. The tommy looks cool but that is it, not easy to be accurate with and a pain to lug around. Plus a .45LC could do a hell alot more damage then a standard .45 acp. Spades of Columbia

The thompsons would be out and firing at greatter range than the SAA. Its not like youd be doing duels and quickdraws with a SMG. And seriously, grenades for longrange? Again, a thompson would be kicking ass. -k9870

I can accept the SAA being easier to draw and more accurate, but what happens when the cowboys have to reload? They're going to get gunned down by fully-automatic SMGS BeardedHoplite 02:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well...back to the discussion of VC vs SS, you have to consider that we are talking about 20-30+ years of weapons development, most importantly that of the assault rifle. The weapon choices for the both factions were relatively poor. Even though the Mp-28 was used, the MP-40 would have easily superseded it by the height of WWII. Furthermore, The SS would have mostly bolt action rifles like the Karabiner 98k or semi-auto rifles like the Gewehr 41 or 43. These things are loaded with stripper clips mind you, which is not a fast action like I don't know...magazines. These weapons lacked fire suppression, putting the SS at a volume of fire disadvantage. But you argue range? Well, without optics, and the WWII did not have widespread use of optics outside of snipers, your ironsights will likely hit something within 250 meters. I would've used the panzerfaust or panzershrek as my special weapon. Also consider this, the SS were especially good for executing unarmed civilians and terror tactics. During the invasion of Poland it is noted historically that the SS were too fanatical in their tactics and lost more men than they should have in their attacks. Their experience is European fighting and the beginning of urban warfare. The VC on the other hand would have a plethora of weapons of their choosing and a huge advantage over the SS due to weapon availability and choice. Not only do they get the leftover toys of the Soviets from WWII (which defeated the SS btw), they also have assault rifles. Now, the exclusive of the AK-47 or the Type 56 in the hands of the VC was simply absurd. The exclusion from the show shocked me. That gun, in all its amazingness,would destroy anything the SS could bring to bear. If you pair the SS WWII rifles to a VC SKS or a Draganov SVD, we're talking the advantage of scopes and larger magazines. Personally, I find the sub-machineguns available to either faction virtually too similar to gauge an advantage. Also, why no rpgs for the VC? RPGs were widely used by them and had larger warheads and shot hundreds of meters further than any SS equivalent, let alone their flamethrower. Think counter-tactics too: US troops in Vietnam had training based on experiences in WWII and had assault rifles, but were sadly outperformed by the VC. With their gurellia and "lấy anh ta bởi vành đai các khóa" (grab him by the belt buckle) tactics, they were able to swarm and at least debilitate the fighting ability or the fighting mentality of their enemy, and they were superb at it. So, the inferior weapons and fanatical SS tactics are going to beat the VC's superior weapons and guerrila counter-western tactics, laughable. I don't have any love for either faction, but I do like logic and stuff. --108.0.97.230 11:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)DaiTaNam 5:12am, 9 June 2010

I think SS vs NVA would be more fair, the NVA were actually trained and disciplined more and an actual fighting unit, VC were peasants that were just thrown guns and told to go fight. The superior discipline of the SS troops would have them win even if the VC managed to have superior weapons (which i doubt they would, ive seen pictures with some aks, sks, etc, but most had like mosins or captured french weapony.

True that the VC were a group of peasants but the history of Vietnam was that of constant invasions from superpowers of several ages. Most would have been veterans against the French in the French Indochina War and with the brief fighting against the Japanese in WWII. That and the precursor to the Green Berets in WWII sent units to train the precursors of the VC called the Viet Minh. Therefore, their experience against enemies with with advantages such as air power, armored vehicles, tanks, a navy, and superior weapons was all but plenty of training for the surviving VC which they passed onto the next generation. Furthermore, the SS discipline was counter with their own fanaticism. Sure they didn't run away, but they also performed suicidal charge tactics, particularly in Poland and other theaters in Eastern Europe where they were also defeated by the conscript army of the Soviets. As for weapons provided, the VC would be equipped with French Mas rifles, Japanese weaponry, and mosin-nagants in the EARLY stages of the French Indochina War. After and into the Vietnam War, the Ho Chi Minh trail along with China's and Russia's blessing would have them thoroughly supplied. This supply began in the middle of the French Indochina War and persisted into the Vietnam war so AK's were in no short supply. Discipline is important, but the way of fighting countered the style of fighting of the SS and many years of weapons improvement, its one sided. --108.0.97.230 06:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)DaiTaNam 12:15am, 10 June 2010

Tôi hy vọng rằng Cộng sản Việt Nam ghi ở dưới địa ngục! Try to figure out what that says! - Kilgore 19:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Meddellin cartel vs Somali Pirates

What do you think? I personally wanted the cartel to win but not every thing comes true

The Car bomb and Machete were better then the hook and RPG, but honestly, the PKM and AK got most of the kills, and they were better than the M60 and Uzi. Honestly, the Uzi vs AK-47 was stupid to begin with, as obviously the longer ranged, more accurate and higher powered gun was going to win. Somali Pirates won fair and square. M14fanboy

No one ever doubts the AK, but what whas the point of the exploding head, who can overheat their machine gun fastest competiton? - Captain Snikt

I like how the cartel had a remote bomb in their own car......

I was laughing when they had the Colombian dancing while carrying his M60 Excalibur01 12:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"The dancing machine gunner!" was all I could say when I saw that. --HashiriyaR32 15:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- That whole "intro scene" for the Cartel side with that "Latino Heat" music playing plus the alternating images of the dancing M60 man and the one guy carrying nothing but a machete practicing his fighting technique(!) was some of the funniest stuff on this show. DKS01 11:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

For once, I knew going into the battle who would win. With the Somalis having the edge in firearms and the Colombians having the edge in a car bomb and machete, the outcome was clear. Fun to watch, and the Somali guys were badass and funny. M14fanboy

In real life the somalis are poorly armed and high on Khat.

I mean if the French can capture the Somali pirates, then anyone can Excalibur01 21:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that when they were introducing the Mini UZI they showed a MAC-10, any one see that? also M14fanboy, I wasn't saying the somalis wrongfuly won, its that I went in rooting for the cartel. Just so theres no miss understanding between us:)

Yeah, I was watching the show with my dad, and I pointed out they showed a MAC instead of an Uzi. DKS01 11:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's be honest, the cartel aren't warriors in any sense. Murdering policemen in their homes in cold blood, killing unarmed civilians and politicians in cold blood, and trafficking cocaine does not qualify one to be a warrior. I won't say the Somalis were really warriors either, but atleast they get into actual gunfights instead of murdering innocent people. M14fanboy

Agreed, I just rooted for them because I like the movie Blow :)

Okay, who in their right mind would lug a PKM and/or an M60 to a gunfight? Both of these things weigh at or around twenty pounds, both could have easily replaced those with lighter machine guns. Since East-Bloc guns are a dime a dozen, the Somalis could have gone with an RPK or an RPD (more likely the RPD). Both weigh less than the PKM, and carry the same amount of rounds (okay, RPK has a 75-round drum), and the cartridges are only fifteen millimetres shorter than the PKM's, but just as lethal. As for the cartel, they could have used a Galil ARM or an early variant of the SAW, and they most likely would have gotten them from corrupt soldiers and/or policemen (not sure if the PNC has as high-quality gear as the Army) looking for a quick peso. -Any mouse

Deadliest Warrior...riiiight

Okay, I've seen the discussions on this page, and it's official: Deadliest Warrior sucks. The weapons suck, the match-ups suck, and half of the winners in these match-ups would end up getting their asses blown off by the loser (Army SF vs. Spetznaz, anyone?). This is another show that's gonna entice dumbass teenagers (come August, I'm going to have to deal with them again, but I'm a senior, so hopefully this is the last time) that what's presented on that show is the real deal and they won't even bother to look up half of the crap that's presented on the show and find out the REAL truth. -Any mouse

NO SURPRISE

Marketing success does not make the quality of the show. And I'm sure we can all agree that "though a person is smart, people are stupid". There are many shows that are going on forever that have no sense of intelligence, quality, or cultural/philosophical depth, but they still make massive amounts of money and continue. Also, two seasons is not a large measure of success as many shows continue for at least two seasons. It's on Spike TV at like 9 or 10 at night, what kind of people you expect to watch it? I'll let you play with that thought. Furthermore, unlike mythbusters, this show does not use any real science. Go back to your 8th grade science course, what was the first thing we learned: how to make a proper experiment. You CAN NOT take two weapons, give them different tests, and then compare them! "Oh weapon A stabs geletin better and weapon B slices pig better...uuhhhhh I think I'll chose this one because lalala reason that makes no sense. Hmm, this gun hit more targets in a shorter time but this gun does more damage...lalalal". DO THE SAME TESTS TO COMPARE! These unintelligent dimwits that run the show don't know how to make science work properly. Only the doctor guy is smart, cause he's a trauma doctor, he knows what makes death happen, though he should shut up on voting on a weapon. And the slytherin studios guy is the worse. A battlefield simulation? Go to their website and take a good look at their games and you'll see that he can't make a good simulation. On the note of Green Berets vs Spetsnaz, as an American I love America and HATE COMMIES!!! But I'd be an idiot if I believed my country was invincible. Sure we can glass 90% of the globe, but in a man for man fight, we are a bit disadvantaged. We live in a rich beautiful society that makes us weak as a tradeoff and our special forces though certainly an elite, follow under Rules of War and are precision soldiers as opposed to outright murderers like the Spetsnaz. Green Beret are special ops, Spetsnaz (if we assume that we can pull from their best due to an ambiguous name) are black ops. There is a difference level that separates the Spetsnaz from the Green Beret. A fair match-up is Navy SEALS and the Spetsnaz, now that would be great. If you want a Russian pair for the Green Beret, go with the VDV Airborne. Also, consider the weapons, M4/M16 series weapons are terrible. They jam for any reason pretty much and the lethality of the 5.56x45mm is dependent on fragmentation that doesn't always happen. Politics and economic maneuvers have kept this garbage in the American military. Notice that most NATO forces do not use the M16 but other weapons (Aug, Famas, SA80, G36)that ya know, don't jam all the time. Ak's and their variants are used globally and have proven their lethality. And for the Spetsnaz well, look up the AN-94, the OC-14, and the 9x39mm Russian cartridge. Youtube it, do your research online, you'll find the difference in weapon lethality over the m16. (I know they didn't use those weapons but I'm sure the above posters refereed to a more realistic comparison). Now if the president didn't decline the implementation of the Bushmaster ACR in American forces than we'd have a closer weapon match-up. But alas, declined due to "not wanting to give America a warlike image"...during war. That thought alone should give you a picture on the "us versus them" comparison.

          -DaiTaNam--24.4.196.248 18:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hold up, who declined the ACR, Dubya or Obama

It was Obama

Er, I'd say that most US special forces tend to be better trained than their Russian counterparts. Go ask the Northern Aliiance. And the Specnaz aren't "black ops."

M16 is terrible? What a joke... I'm sure the US military, the SAS/SBS, the Israeli military, the Ghurkas, the Brazilian Marine Corps, the Canadian armed forces, the Dutch armed forces, the Indonesian special forces, Polish GROM, etc. would disagree with that. But what do they know about guns?

And something must be wrong with my AR-15...it never jams. I've put over a thousand rounds through it rapidly without cleaning. No malfunctions. My friend in the USMC dragged his M16 through mud during a live fire exercise, and the weapon functioned perfectly. No malfunctions! And at 500 yards, the .223 only has as much ballistic energy as a .45 does at the muzzle. That’s barely 3X the power of a .22 magnum, and that’s at 500 yards! Up close it’s barely more energetic that a .44 magnum. Can’t we get a REAL manstopper? Anyway, any help would be appreciated. How do I get this thing to malfunction at an appropriate rate?

Yeah, mine must be broken too...I have a S&W M&P15T and have yet to have one single jam...I even shot it completely dry for a year and a half and can not make it jam. the rounds are always damn near touching too...I love my civilian M4.--Spades of Columbia 19:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I'll explain my comment on M16 jams. I can start that the ammunition in the M16A1 used ball gunpowder cartridges that left significant amounts residue in the barrel. And in that and later series M16's, the direct impingement system meant that combustion byproducts accumulate and condensate in the barrel, bolt, bolt carrier and receiver. Also, if submerged or substantially wet would not not work or rendered inoperable. Prolonged continuous fire (that does occur in combat) burns off essential lubricant needed to operate the gun. Using the wrong lubricant jams the weapon as well. Large temperature swings in the receiver meant damaging or destroying the spring, metal gas rings, and several other receiver parts, meaning the weapon can destroy itself. Humid environments screwed with the lubricant require to fire the weapon. Due to the numerous small parts it requires less dirt/mud to jam than other weapon platforms. The M16A1 lacked a forward assist. The M16A1 also had a forward handguard that was made of bekalite (probably spelled wrong) which could easily break or melt from prolonged fire. In an American test to find a replacement for the M16/M4, the shorter barreled M4 suffered by far the most stoppages in an extreme dust environment (about 882). So yeah, many problems with the M16 are with the A1 model but the weapon is still has many for reasons to jam than other firearms. In the recent war between Ossetia and Russia, the Ossetian army was given M16s but refused to use them in their dusty country over the AKM and the AK-74. Just because YOUR M16 was newer and well cared for, doesn't mean anything because YOU DID NOT go fight in a War environment to prove its ability to not jam. Also, the SAS also use the G36, the Israelis use the IMI Tavor or the IMI Galil, and that's only few of the many armies in the world an above poster listed that use the M16. Most NATO forces...do not. And outside of NATO, practically nobody else. And for your 5.56x45mm M855 FMJ (used by US forces). The fragmentation ability on the 5.56mm IF it fragments is super deadly, but that is a big if. Fragmentation, when it does occur, happens at depths that are thicker than the typical, malnourished American enemy. Over-penetration of flesh has been cited in Vietnam against the VC. In Somalia, many Somalis were able to continue fighting after several hits whilst being high. In shorter barreled weapons like the M4, "reliable" fragmentation muzzle velocities are not achieved. Us Americans are seeking a new round like the 6.5mm Grendel or the 6.8mm Remington to attack the very problem of the lack of stopping power of the 5.56x45mm. And the parent case, the .223, a hunter will tell you that's for killing varmints and rodents. The research is there, go take a look. DaiTaNam --24.4.196.248 02:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Last I heard the Canadian Forces used the C7 which is a full auto M16. Last I heard the SAS used this gun aswell. Also just because other countries ues their own gun doesn't mean anything. The AUG is just used by Austria, the FAMAS is just used by france, China is the only one that uses the QBZ 95. Just because a gun is used by one country doesn't mean its bad. You really need to stop reading stuff off the internet and using future weapons as a reference about guns. You were saying how the M16 jams all the time but then corrected yourself saying it was the M16A1 when that was retired about 40 years ago making your whole argument pointless. People have kept fighting after getting hit numerous times with a .45 up close, does that mean that .45 ACP isn't big enough and everyone needs to start carrying desert eagles!? How about no lubricant? One said here about having no lube in his for over a year and a half without a jam. Please stop listening to those on the internet with little or no experiance.--66.30.50.180 14:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The SAS never have used the G36, and the Israeli phased out the Galil for the M16/M4 years ago (the Tavor is a new design being introduced, however). Wikipedia has a list of users of the M16, check it out.

I have seen this list, most of these countries received handouts of arms from the U.S. during the Cold War, revolutions and the support of anti-communist factions and whatnot, and many others do not use them as their standard rifle. Some countries are listed purely because they stole X number of m16's from the battlefield (like modern Vietnam or Cambodia). True, I leave most of my jamming grievances with the M16A1, it does not mean that the M16 later series, though better, are jam prone. Like with the 2006 Dust Test I mentioned earlier (turns out there were other dust tests that demonstrated the M16/M4 weapons jamming prone), the M4 (sharing 80% part commonality with the M16) suffered the most stoppages by far. And the American military is actively seeking a replacement to the M16 series weapons. Also, with these other users of the M16 variants and derivatives: you probably put lots of care, cleaning, and love into your M16. You take it out to ranges, shoot them, have a nice time. When I refer to jams, I refer to combat situations, which I doubt most of you do have. Real combat (as this show is "supposed" to simulate) is what I'm talking about. Of course Your's didn't jam because you didn't go to war with it, where all kinds of crazy stuff happens. This is where jams occur. And no, my information is not purely internet; I also watch documentaries like Tales of the Gun, AK-47 VS M16, Top 10 Rifles, High Impact (just to name a few); all shows on the History Channel, Discover Channel, and Military Channel all bringing historians, war veterans, and museum curators like Dr. William Atwater. There's also Time Magazine's article "Defense Under Fire". How about the US Army Natick Soldier Center presentation concerning the M4 with up to 20% reporting jamming issues. There was also a CNA Corp. survey of the US army. How about the "Baseline Reliability and Dust Assessment for the M4, M16, and M249" Army test, done by the US Army, found one jam every six rounds. But what about people in the field? Well, there's the "Project Manager Soldier’s Weapons Assessment Team’s July 31, 2003, report" detailing jamming reports from the 25th Infantry, the 82nd Airborne, 75th Ranger Regiment, and the 507th Maintenance Company to name a few. M4's (which are essentially M16A2's) as well as M16's show likeliness to jam over other weapon systems, with high reliability coming with high maintenance. Jamming is a study of the usage of a weapon in a realistic combat environment, not your local firing range. Also, on the note of other countries, the M16 came out far before weapons like the Aug and the FAMAS yet these countries didn't use them over the M16 as the Eastern Bloc countries adopted the AKM. They instead spent more many making the factories, designing the parts, and coming up with their own new weapon built around the 5.56x45mm NATO standard the US forced upon them, instead of just buying M16's. DaiTaNam --24.4.196.248 18:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Like i said above, I did not clean my M4 designed firearm for over a year and a half, and i live in Montana. Very mountainess and dusty in summer, wet cold and freezing in winter and very wet spring weather with jungle like area as well as very rocky. NOT one jam in all these diffrent weathered landscapes with heavey firing...atleast two mags at a time (just enough to get that barrel really hot). When I did finally clean it i used super store brand G96 (nothing Special) in the same kind of shooting enveronment still with no jams. We got dirt here, we got mud here, we have heat and freezing temps...name any element, we have it here and i have done heavey shooting in it...with NO JAMS...I used crappy wolf ammo, i have used Hornady TAP ammo...Still no Jams. The US was looking for another combat weapon and they were going to replace the M4 with the SCAR...and they backed out because it didnt preform that much better than the M4. A gun is only as good as the operator and the ammo they put in it. Dont kill the gun with the first shot then use a second, you got 30rds in the mag...or you can wait for his buddy to come get his wounded ass and get him too.--Spades of Columbia 19:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Last I checked The military is always looking for a better weapon so they are always testing. The reason that all the soviet bloc countries use the AKM is because of a little something called COMMUNISM.--66.30.50.180 22:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Communism by any means, but you can maybe point me specifically to which Communist doctrine reads "Communists may only use and manufacture AKs, M16s and similar weapons are strictly forbidden"? DKS01 22:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Its not forbidden but because of what the people in moscow say, all bloc countries use AK series rifles only because that is what communism is. Everyone has and uses the same.--FIVETWOSEVEN 14:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

So, if the AK is so terrible, what part of the doctrine forbids them from making a new, better weapon for "everyone to have and use the same"? I mean, it's not like they were using AKs prior to WW2, so obviously they had no problems replacing the older weapons "everyone had and used" previously. DKS01 07:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I never said it was bad, where did I say that? If you notice, all of the Russian Military uses their own weapons. Do you see them running around with weapons made by other countries? --FIVETWOSEVEN 16:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The root of the discussion was that the AK was a "bad" gun. It was then said the reason the AK is used is because of "Communism", implying that the AK is indeed not a good gun and is simply used because of politics. You may not personally think it's a bad gun, but the view you were expressing was siding with those who did, even if not deliberately. And I'm not sure the point you're trying to make about the Russian military using their own weapons, as a)they could easily replace the AK with a new weapon(of their own design/manufacture, doesn't have to be imported) if they wanted, and b)the Russian military is far from the only user of AK/AK clone weapons. DKS01 19:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The root of this discussion was you stating the M16 was a bad gun, not that the AK is a bad weapon. The AK is used by many other countries yes, I don't get what your trying to say there. The ComBloc countries use weapons made there they just haven't choosen a weapon to replace the AK yet because if it ain't broke don't fix it. Plus issuing new weapons and withdrawing those in service is a huge hassel that they like to avoid. It is politics. The AK series is used in the ComBloc countries because of communism because that is the gun they prefer. --FIVETWOSEVEN 20:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't discussed the M16 at all(I will state that I have multiple friends who are currently serving in Iraq, and several other former military friends, some who served in Vietnam, some in Desert Storm, who ALL hate the M16, one of whom says it's the worst gun he ever used), the root of the argument though, was some dude saying the AK sucks and the M16 is good, another guy responded that the M16 sucks and the AK is good, and then you joined in about how the only reason people use the AK is because of "communism", implying that the first guy was right about it being a bad gun. DKS01 05:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not getting through your head I see, The main reason why RUSSIA and its COMBLOC countries all use the AK series is because of COMMUNISM. Russia has decided that its the best weapon for the time being and sees no need to reissue another weapon. Russia left alot of AK 47s in the middle east and thats why so many people use it, because its there. In order to re-issue a new weapon to replace the Stoner platform would take recalling all weapons, issuing new weapons, training on the new weapons, getting spare parts for all weapons, and if the military decides to go with a new caliber, thats gonna take recalling all that ammo, stock piling all that new ammo somewhere, and stock piling that new ammo in smaller amounts closer to the troops.

Its more cost effective now to keep it in service. The Stoner platform is fine. I've heard reports of those in Iraq that find it fine for combat. Regular matinence is required for any gun. In russia the Mauser was jamming because of the temperatures, does that mean that its a horrible gun and needed to be replaced with the springfield?--FIVETWOSEVEN 15:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Communism or not, if the AK was such a terrible gun(as the original person stated, not saying YOU stated that, just that your reply appeared to be agreed with the original person), it could be replaced. It may not be perfect, but it's hardly the terrible weapon the original posted implied, either. You've heard "reports" of those in Iraq that find it fine. I've heard "reports" of those in Iraq that find it terrible. But reports can be manipulated, I've actually *spoken* with several of them DIRECTLY, and every single soldier and former soldier I've spoken to about the M16/M4 dislikes it. DKS01 17:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

And I've spoken to those directly about it that served in the middle east and they said it was fine. The reports i'm talking about are from those that served directly. To me the AK is just reliable and cheap but thats all. Neither of us have the experiance of serving in an enviroment like that so we are just speculating, we have conflicting testimonies of the Stoner but no personal experiance. To me its a fine weapon and plenty reliable. Para made a AR15 that was able to fire 25,000 rounds without cleaning and never jammed once.--FIVETWOSEVEN 17:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with "reports" is that you can cherry pick what you want to include in them. Say you interview 100 people, 60 of them hate something, 40 of them like it. You list the 40 who like it in your report, and your report shows overwhelming favor for something. It may be plenty reliable for you, but it's not for my friends, and they're the ones who have to use it. DKS01 05:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

YOu guys do relize they don't show all of the test that they perform otherwise it'll be way to long. They show what the producers deem exciting and what not. And if you don't like the show don't watch otherwise shut and enjoy it. DRC92

@@ Line 401: / Line 401: @@
 True that the VC were a group of peasants but the history of Vietnam was that of constant invasions from superpowers of several ages. Most would have been veterans against the French in the French Indochina War and with the brief fighting against the Japanese in WWII. That and the precursor to the Green Berets in WWII sent units to train the precursors of the VC called the Viet Minh. Therefore, their experience against enemies with with advantages such as air power, armored vehicles, tanks, a navy, and superior weapons was all but plenty of training for the surviving VC which they passed onto the next generation. Furthermore, the SS discipline was counter with their own fanaticism. Sure they didn't run away, but they also performed suicidal charge tactics, particularly in Poland and other theaters in Eastern Europe where they were also defeated by the conscript army of the Soviets. As for weapons provided, the VC would be equipped with French Mas rifles, Japanese weaponry, and mosin-nagants in the EARLY stages of the French Indochina War. After and into the Vietnam War, the Ho Chi Minh trail along with China's and Russia's blessing would have them thoroughly supplied. This supply began in the middle of the French Indochina War and persisted into the Vietnam war so AK's were in no short supply. Discipline is important, but the way of fighting countered the style of fighting of the SS and many years of weapons improvement, its one sided. --[[Special:Contributions/108.0.97.230|108.0.97.230]] 06:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)DaiTaNam 12:15am, 10 June 2010
+Tôi hy vọng rằng Cộng sản Việt Nam ghi ở dưới địa ngục! Try to figure out what that says! - [[User:Kilgore|Kilgore]] 19:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 == Meddellin cartel vs Somali Pirates ==

Talk:Deadliest Warrior - Season 2: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:05, 10 August 2010

Contents

CLIP

Moving Season 1

Small mistakes

Richard Mackowitz?

Pirates vs. Knights

Ridiculous show

Four position Safety

IRA Vs. Taliban

This Page

"Experts??"

green beret vs spetznaz

Meant for Entertainment

Season 2

New complaints of the new season

G36C, Season 1?

Just Pathetic

Uhhh. What????

I am now pissed!

NAZI vs Vietcong

Meddellin cartel vs Somali Pirates

Deadliest Warrior...riiiight

NO SURPRISE

Navigation menu

Talk:Deadliest Warrior - Season 2: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:05, 10 August 2010

CLIP

Moving Season 1

Small mistakes

Richard Mackowitz?

Pirates vs. Knights

Ridiculous show

Four position Safety

IRA Vs. Taliban

This Page

"Experts??"

green beret vs spetznaz

Meant for Entertainment

Season 2

New complaints of the new season

G36C, Season 1?

Just Pathetic

Uhhh. What????

I am now pissed!

NAZI vs Vietcong

Meddellin cartel vs Somali Pirates

Deadliest Warrior...riiiight

NO SURPRISE

Navigation menu

Search