StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2010-04-28 11:14pm**

Edward Yee wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:I have an odd feeling that the simulation program has a "Who the producers have determined will win" term.
I figured that when they announced "SWAT vs. GSG-9"...

I thought the exact same thing. So a marginal difference in stopping power, when the target is equally dead, is a massive leg up for SWAT?

A banked Tazer which has to be set up in advance is superior to pain grenades which can be deployed anywhere? Really?

Posted: **2010-04-28 11:58pm**

I honestly thought they should have done the assualt rifle test better, just timing them and looking at the damaged caused by a larger round does nothing. They could have rigged paintball guns or something to make the GSG9's slower and more cautious approach worth something. I would have also liked the guys claiming the sting ball grenade wouldn't incapacitate have actually stood and taken on like they did with the tazer.

Posted: **2010-04-29 02:57pm**

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Edward Yee wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:I have an odd feeling that the simulation program has a "Who the producers have determined will win" term.
I figured that when they announced "SWAT vs. GSG-9"...
I thought the exact same thing. So a marginal difference in stopping power, when the target is equally dead, is a massive leg up for SWAT?

A banked Tazer which has to be set up in advance is superior to pain grenades which can be deployed anywhere? Really?

I'd like to see the banked tazers working in the Mogadishu scenario.

EDIT: look at the point spread:

Code: Select all

Close Range 	Benelli M4 	80 	Remington 870 	81
Mid Range 	LWRC-PSD 	227 	H&K G36 	136
Long Range 	Remington 700 	271 	H&K PSG1 	205
Special Weapons 	Taser Shockwave 	0 	Stingball Grenade 	0
Totals 		578 		422

Yeah....right. Somehow the LWRC-PSD is almost double as good as the G36? I doubt that.

Posted: **2010-04-29 04:53pm**

Thanas wrote: EDIT: look at the point spread:
Code: Select all
Close Range 	Benelli M4 	80 	Remington 870 	81
Mid Range 	LWRC-PSD 	227 	H&K G36 	136
Long Range 	Remington 700 	271 	H&K PSG1 	205
Special Weapons 	Taser Shockwave 	0 	Stingball Grenade 	0
Totals 		578 		422
Yeah....right. Somehow the LWRC-PSD is almost double as good as the G36? I doubt that.

How are they even supposedly quantifying that? Or is it the producers being retarded, which, from what I've read in this thread, is to be expected?

Posted: **2010-04-29 04:55pm**

Apparently, the guys managed to shoot their targets faster (1:20 against 1:27) than the GSG-9 guys did. Funny thing - only one of the guys was actual GSG-9 and he was an unarmed combat instructor. So why they picked him for shooting things.....

So yes, the producers are being retarded.

Posted: **2010-04-29 05:16pm**

What, is anybody surprised? In Spetznaz vs. Green Beret, they had two shotguns: The Mossberg pump-action one, and a Saiga, which is a semi-automatic magazine-fed death stick.

The mossie test consisted of a pig hanging down, and a guy had to pump four shots into it. The Saiga test was a small set-up with four gel dummies and some cover, and the Spetznaz guy was expected to beat the time the other guy took shooting up a single pig.

He even commented how stupid that was. He still beat the time, but it was stupidly narrow, despite the obvious, crushing superiority of the Saiga.

Posted: **2010-04-30 05:11am**

Thanas wrote:Apparently, the guys managed to shoot their targets faster (1:20 against 1:27) than the GSG-9 guys did. Funny thing - only one of the guys was actual GSG-9 and he was an unarmed combat instructor. So why they picked him for shooting things.....

So yes, the producers are being retarded.

So it was just the shooters being slightly better, and something else as well?I'm not seeing how being 7 seconds better (which is argueably primairily due to operator skill, not the weapon itself) would make it nearly twice as good.

Posted: **2010-04-30 05:30am**

[R_H] wrote:
Thanas wrote:Apparently, the guys managed to shoot their targets faster (1:20 against 1:27) than the GSG-9 guys did. Funny thing - only one of the guys was actual GSG-9 and he was an unarmed combat instructor. So why they picked him for shooting things.....

So yes, the producers are being retarded.
So it was just the shooters being slightly better, and something else as well?I'm not seeing how being 7 seconds better (which is argueably primairily due to operator skill, not the weapon itself) would make it nearly twice as good.

I wouldn't even say that it was due to operator skill, the GSG9 went in more cautiously and didn't simply shove the other dummies down like the SWAT guys did. I would have liked to see a test with paintball guns used against the teams that factored caution into the equation.

Posted: **2010-05-03 05:21pm**

Meest wrote:Well the Attila v. Alexander one was the first one to make me groan about stupidity over entertainment. A siege weapon in a one on one fight? It would've been better if they had some representation of his tactics as a special weapon choice, or at least give him a regular sword and shield for his rank/riches. Then a heavy crossbow that's more like man portable artillery it was just silly.

Having just seen the episode, while it's nice to see a ballista in action, you don't bring a siege engine to a one on one fight. And why the hell did they let his ass kicked during hand to hand combat against Attila? A good part of the show they put emphasis on Alexanders superior martial arts skills.

As for the ancient champions of season 1, the obvious winner between Spartan and Samurai would obviously be Knight. Seeing William Wallace his claymore against the Samurai would have been cooler though.

Edit: the show's samurai wanking aside, I was actually surprised when they tested the samurai armor and how effective it was. The helm could easily deflect the full blow of a danisch axe and the chest armor was effective in against a bronze spear (would it still be able to stand up aganst an iron spear though?)

EDIT: look at the point spread:

Code: Select all

Close Range 	Benelli M4 	80 	Remington 870 	81
Mid Range 	LWRC-PSD 	227 	H&K G36 	136
Long Range 	Remington 700 	[b]271 [/b]	H&K PSG1 	[b]205[/b]
Special Weapons 	Taser Shockwave 	0 	Stingball Grenade 	0
Totals 		578 		422

Huh?!? The H&K was the only weapon which gave ze Germans an edge (according to the makers of the show), and it still lost strongly to the Remington?

The taser shockwave was just plain retarted to see. I loved how the SWAT guy was waiting around the corner untill the GSG9 dude stood in front of the shockwave. Instead of, you know, just shooting him since he SGS didn't saw him anyway. Doesn't SWAT used those portable taster handguns as well? With the emphasis of portable.

Regarding SWAT vs GSG9, those marginally different weapons are insignificant to the training, skill and experience of the person wielding it. For this reason alone I'd vote SWAT for having more experience in the field.

Posted: **2010-05-10 02:55pm**

wautd wrote:Regarding SWAT vs GSG9, those marginally different weapons are insignificant to the training, skill and experience of the person wielding it. For this reason alone I'd vote SWAT for having more experience in the field.

GSG9 is the only federal anti-terrorism force and SWAT unit of Germany.
List of missions. There is no way a standard SWAT team has that stringent standards, has that low an acceptance rate and that much of training. Heck, Landshut alone should show that.

Posted: **2010-05-10 03:28pm**

I was stupefied at how GSG9 lost, they had weapons that I would call superior except for the shotgun, and with their skill and slugs that shotgun would still pulp a charging drug addict and drop him with a single head-shot.

Posted: **2010-05-10 05:54pm**

Just to let you know, these are the upcoming fights. Mind you, I got this off Wiki so take it with a grain of salt.

Aztec Jaguar Warrior vs. Zande Warrior
Nazi SS vs. Viet Cong
Roman Centurion vs. Rajput
Somali Pirate vs. Medellín Cartel
Persian Immortal vs. Celt
KGB vs. CIA
Vlad The Impaler vs. Sun Tzu
Ming Warrior vs. French Musketeer
Comanche vs. Mongol
Navy SEAL vs. Israeli Commando

Posted: **2010-05-10 09:45pm**

Predictions

Aztec Jaguar Warrior vs. Zande Warrior: Zande warrior. They have metal weapons. They win.

Nazi SS vs. Viet Cong: SS

Roman Centurion vs. Rajput: Centurion Will probably win for the same reasons the Spartan won.

Somali Pirate vs. Medellín Cartel: Toss up

Persian Immortal vs. Celt: Woad painted celt, or chainmail armored celt? If chainmail, Celt definitely wins. If not... I will still probably give it to them because persian immortals carried bronze weapons and only light armor, not suitable against the iron tipped spears and spathia favored by the celts.

KGB vs. CIA: KGB in reality, CIA due to producer fiat. The KGB was just so much better at assassinating people than the CIA.

Vlad The Impaler vs. Sun Tzu: Sun Tzu was an Bronze Age? Philosopher and strategist. His weapons and armor to the extent he was skilled in them are inferior to what Vlad had. Which was a suit of steel plate mail. Tzu would have been trained in some form of chinese martial art to the extent such existed in the Bronze Age, which I am not sure if they did. Vlad would have been trained in the formal use of a Longsword in fencing, which at the time he lived was a disgustingly well developed martial art. Vlad wins.

Ming Warrior vs. French Musketeer: Gonna go with the musketeer. First, a musket. Second, rapier>Coat of plates. On the other hand... the musketeer is unarmored. Toss up.

Comanche vs. Mongol: Armored horse archer>unarmored horse archer.

SEAL vs Israeli: Dont know enough about modern weapons.

Posted: **2010-05-10 10:27pm**

In the producers defence they got the Maori pretty much right.

Posted: **2010-05-11 06:49am**

Comanche vs. Mongol: Armored horse archer>unarmored horse archer.

Comanche with Winchester>>>>>>>>>armored Mongol horse archer.

Posted: **2010-05-11 07:06am**

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Persian Immortal vs. Celt: Woad painted celt, or chainmail armored celt? If chainmail, Celt definitely wins. If not... I will still probably give it to them because persian immortals carried bronze weapons and only light armor, not suitable against the iron tipped spears and spathia favored by the celts.

The Immortals were much more of a heavy unit that most people realize. In the age of Alexander, they were comparable to Greek hoplites and routinely beat them in the field before Alexander arrived.

Posted: **2010-05-11 10:11pm**

Thanas wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:Persian Immortal vs. Celt: Woad painted celt, or chainmail armored celt? If chainmail, Celt definitely wins. If not... I will still probably give it to them because persian immortals carried bronze weapons and only light armor, not suitable against the iron tipped spears and spathia favored by the celts.
The Immortals were much more of a heavy unit that most people realize. In the age of Alexander, they were comparable to Greek hoplites and routinely beat them in the field before Alexander arrived.

True. Scale mail armor under the robes right? Not as effective against greek weapons as the greeks own armor was. Discipline and maneuverability will win over a phalanx on open ground a good percentage of the time. They are comparable, but from what I read the tactical doctrine was different. In a one on one fight against a guy wearing iron chain mail and carrying a wooden shield with an iron boss (depending on whether he is using sword or spear of course. Or maybe some sort of axe), i will give it to the guy in iron armor as a rule, particularly against bronze weapons which is what I am assuming would be used. Arrows of the time probably would not penetrate chain. The spear will fuck someone up through chain, provided the bronze spear head does not bend out of all recognition without penetrating.

If you take it to sword play... celt is favored by virtue of superior reach, superior armor both against materials and the type of sword cuts that would be used, and the superior material of his own weapons.

I of course welcome corrections on any of that. Being told I am wrong by you is like drinking nectar from the gods.

Posted: **2010-05-12 12:34am**

Glad the Zande Warrior won, I've always loved those throwing axes of whirling doom they have and I wanted them to win just because they had those. Steel weapons, a mindset towards causing fear with insane looking weapons, and the desire to kill quickly help me to like them as well though.

Posted: **2010-05-12 01:43am**

Thanas wrote:
wautd wrote:Regarding SWAT vs GSG9, those marginally different weapons are insignificant to the training, skill and experience of the person wielding it. For this reason alone I'd vote SWAT for having more experience in the field.
GSG9 is the only federal anti-terrorism force and SWAT unit of Germany.
List of missions. There is no way a standard SWAT team has that stringent standards, has that low an acceptance rate and that much of training. Heck, Landshut alone should show that.

The only SWAT teams in the US that might have similar levels of training are the LAPD and NYPD ones, your typical city and county SWAT teams won't. I'd throw Detroit's in there too simply because the city is a war zone, but considering the city's tax base they probably don't have the same funding.

Posted: **2010-05-12 01:58am**

Alyrium Denryle wrote: Nazi SS vs. Viet Cong: SS

What combat environment, though? If it's the SS (which, IIRC, didn't have any experience in tropical rainforest hellholes) versus the Viet Cong in their home turf, I imagine they're going to have something of a bad day.

Posted: **2010-05-12 03:42am**

I wonder what weapons they'll be giving the Viet Cong? I doubt they'll want to test AK's again so I get the feeling we'll be seeing PPSh-41's versus StG 44's and Siminov's versus Gewehr 43's. I have a funny feeling due to Nazi wank the SS will win.

Posted: **2010-05-12 03:43am**

Ilya Muromets wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote: Nazi SS vs. Viet Cong: SS
What combat environment, though? If it's the SS (which, IIRC, didn't have any experience in tropical rainforest hellholes) versus the Viet Cong in their home turf, I imagine they're going to have something of a bad day.

True. But these things never take that into account.

Posted: **2010-05-12 03:44am**

Ilya Muromets wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote: Nazi SS vs. Viet Cong: SS
What combat environment, though? If it's the SS (which, IIRC, didn't have any experience in tropical rainforest hellholes) versus the Viet Cong in their home turf, I imagine they're going to have something of a bad day.

Heh. Well, a lot of the french troops in indochina were actually former SS. The french recruited extensively among German POW and for a reason I think we all know "war service" sounded more appealing to SS members than "war crimes tribunal".

Alyrium Denryle wrote:True. Scale mail armor under the robes right? Not as effective against greek weapons as the greeks own armor was. Discipline and maneuverability will win over a phalanx on open ground a good percentage of the time. They are comparable, but from what I read the tactical doctrine was different. In a one on one fight against a guy wearing iron chain mail and carrying a wooden shield with an iron boss (depending on whether he is using sword or spear of course. Or maybe some sort of axe), i will give it to the guy in iron armor as a rule, particularly against bronze weapons which is what I am assuming would be used. Arrows of the time probably would not penetrate chain. The spear will fuck someone up through chain, provided the bronze spear head does not bend out of all recognition without penetrating.

If you take it to sword play... celt is favored by virtue of superior reach, superior armor both against materials and the type of sword cuts that would be used, and the superior material of his own weapons.

I of course welcome corrections on any of that. Being told I am wrong by you is like drinking nectar from the gods.

Well, there is the small problem of us not knowing if the immortals were changed after the failed invasion of Greece under Xerxes. We do know however that the army of Dareios is depicted as having almost Greek-like equipment in the Battle of Issos and we also know that the Immortals were supplemented with hoplites themselves. So it may very well be that depending on the unit of Immortals being used, they might be as well armored or even better than a Hoplite.

Of course, fat chance of the producers doing the research, after all they seem to go out of their way to make the most retarded matchups possible.

Posted: **2010-05-12 07:14am**

Knife wrote:USMC rifle known distance course was the 200, 300, and 500 meter marks. That's a M16. 85 meters for a 'sniper rifle' is ridiculous. If you need a scope at 85 meters it is because you put one on your handgun.

I've never seen this show myself but from all the rage and mocking I see on this gunforum I hang out on WRT this show, it's clear these guys don't have the slightest clue about anything, least of all guns.

Posted: **2010-05-12 04:48pm**

His Divine Shadow wrote:
Knife wrote:USMC rifle known distance course was the 200, 300, and 500 meter marks. That's a M16. 85 meters for a 'sniper rifle' is ridiculous. If you need a scope at 85 meters it is because you put one on your handgun.
I've never seen this show myself but from all the rage and mocking I see on this gunforum I hang out on WRT this show, it's clear these guys don't have the slightest clue about anything, least of all guns.

I tried watching the SWAT vs GSG9 episode, I was only able to withstand about 10 minutes of it.

BTW, it's Spike TV, they fail at anything more intellectual than boobies and Slamball.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)

Re: Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)

Re: Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)

Re: Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)

Re: Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)

Re: Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)

Re: Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)

Re: Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)

Re: Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)

Re: Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)

Re: Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)

Re: Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)

Re: Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)

Re: Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)

Re: Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)

Re: Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)

Re: Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)

Re: Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)

Re: Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)

Re: Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)

Re: Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)

Re: Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)

Re: Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)

Re: Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)

Re: Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)

Re: Who! Is! Deadliest?! (Deadliest Warrior Back for Blood)