Anyone watching Deadilest Warrior?

[Steelyeye]

Anyone watching this TV show on Spike? They pit two warriors from different eras against each other and see who would win. It is not to bad and they demostrate how much damage weapons from all eras can do to a human body. I am a little ****ed that they didnt do the classic Pirate vs. Ninja match up. They did do a Ninja vs. a Spartan and a Pirate vs. a Knight.

The last one I saw was the Pirate vs. Knight, and they claim that the Pirate would win because he had a Blunderbuss. I think the Kinght would win considering how unreliable those types of weapons were. The Ninja vs. Spartan was a good one, and I agree that the Spartan would win in a straight up fight due to his large shield.

[Faolon]

I've seen a couple of episodes.

I saw Ninja vs. Spartan and Viking vs. Samurai.

[Taedae]

I've seen a couple of episodes.

I saw Ninja vs. Spartan and Viking vs. Samurai.

i saw these and gladiator vs Apache. Apache won. Not surpirsed. They were crazy good at what they did.

I think the ninja should have won because they didnt put in the varibles for stealth.

[Steelyeye]

The one expert did say on the Ninja vs. Spartan show, that a true Ninja would have most likely run away and hide from the Spartan. Then at night when the Spartan slept, he would sneak up and kill him.

[KeystoneMan]

Ive watched it, but i find the weapon tests far more interesting that the stupid computer predictions. The morning star was awesome. Im going to carry one with me all the time.

[Robota]

Yeah a ninja would never get into a stand up fight. They were mountain bandits for ****s sake.

Also a blunderpuss was unreliable yes but a guy in platemail is hella slow. All the pirate has to do is reload on the move and he wins

[King_Aries]

yea i never missed a episode saw Mafia vs Yakuza last night :cool:

[Steelyeye]

Ive watched it, but i find the weapon tests far more interesting that the stupid computer predictions. The morning star was awesome. Im going to carry one with me all the time.

That morning star was cool. I love how they use fake blood and brain matter in the ballistic dummies. :)

[PurpleDrink]

that show reminds me of that game i played when i was a kid, you know the one where we said things like.

me: i hit you i hit you!
douchebag: no no no i have a force feild blah blah you cant hit me
me: no i can penetrate it!
douchebag: i bleed acid and fire so you die!
me: f%@k

i saw both those episodes. pirates > knights because of something you cant out smart. bullets. and....theyre pirates fgs.

and the Ninja vs Spartan one was retarded, ninjas dont fight out in the open in the middle of day light, they sneak up on you and "kill you in your sleep"

and the episode forgot one important thing. Ninjas can teleport, Spartans cannot.

[Jmsa4]

Yeah, I agree that ninjas would have won. Ther should do a ninja vs samurai.

[LurkerMax]

who won in vikings vs. samurai?

[cobrawax]

Samurai won

[Jericho]

Samurai won


Barely, though. It irritated me that they acted as though it were a decisive victory. 55 to 45 isn't a big margin for how hyped the Samurai is.

~Gabriel

[PurpleDrink]

Yeah, I agree that ninjas would have won. Ther should do a ninja vs samurai.

uh ninjas vs pirates?

why didnt they think of that?




..and zombies, they need zombies too.

[SaintKairos]

oh, and when the armor is made FOR you by a good smith who knows what he's doing, a fot knight is not substantially slowed by platemail.
It really just depends, as a blunderbus or single shot muzzle loader is a little erratic, and gives you one shot.
there is historical evidence that good 1600s armor could stop bullets, but that depends on size and speed. Bullets back then had less mass for their diameter due to being spheres, were less efficent at being pushed by hot gasses, were less acurate due to a lack of rifling, and were generally slower due to the use of inferior (to now) powders, and the lack of modern level pressures behind bullets.

And contrary to popular belief about guns, unless you could take out your target from a good distance (highly unlikely without firing in volleys, which a single pirate with one gun can't do), then the Knight wouldn't bleed out before he could get to the pirate and destroy him with brute force and skill.

edged weapons or large blunt weapons are far more devestating when used skillfully than their contemporary firearms of that erra. A Morningstar to the head is going to brain you all over the floor, a bullet to the head might do the same, but would be harder to pull off in combat, and you'd only get one chance.
---
The show is wrong: the Knight would have won. However, on a ship the out come might have been different. I can't help but think that full plate with water nearby and the needed agility to climb ropes and rigging in combat might favor the lighter, more nimble pirate.
--
and they forget one age-old advantage that a viking would have over their samurai counterpart: a shield. The Katana is not as effective at shield cleaving as movies imply (it is comparable to it's Eureopean counterparts in most repects, and would seem to be nearly identical against hard targets). Many Vikings wore armor, and weren't just clad in Fur like Hagar the Horrible. Their weapons had comparable weight (one is not much faster than the other), and both are known to devestate soft targets (the katana could do so more smoothly though due to it's curved blade... making draw cuts that don't slow you down faster post cut for the recovery to defend against a counterblow... if there is one).

While Samurai are generally considered to be more disciplined, they could also be tactically stupid due to Bushido rules.
In many ways, the Crusaders have more in common with classic Samurai, and would have been an interesting match (I think). The Chainmail they had was inferior to plate, and heavy, and the Crusaders were known to emply Bushido-like tactical moves rooted more in "honor" than good sense.

But the whole "eastern=fast, Western=Slow" is patentedly false.
---------------------------------------
as aside: a ninja fight is binary because they weren't historically "fighters" they're assassins. thus, they kill you unbeknownst, or they don't. they might be able to pull a few tricks on you, but they developed their tricks due to a lack of tactical superiority on merit alone, and because when you're trying to just kill a mark, or steal something, you aren't insterested in "winning" you're interested in success, barring that, you're interested in escape. Ninjas don't "fight", they distract and get away, or they surprise and destroy.
And Spartans devoid of anything but a short sword versus a ninja with a comparable weapon (and no dirty tricks in their pockets) in day light, goes to the partan every time. Their historical combat discipline and aptitude, and die-hard social morals ensure that on an equal field with equal tools, you WILL LOSE.

It might have not been like in the movies, but these guys are the historical "wolverine" not in that they have superpowers, but in that they were "the best at what they do", and their whole society was geared towards enforcing the skills and fitness to make this true every time possible.
-

[Brodiewan]

My friend has got me into this... didn't think I'd like it, but then I heard the voice of David Wenham and was instantly hooked, he has a voice that makes you pay attention.

[cobrawax]

uh ninjas vs pirates?

why didnt they think of that?



I think that fans of either side would get ****ed if their side didn't win. There would probably be a riot and the producers would be killed and dragged through the streets.

[PurpleDrink]

yeah...by ninjas, because ninjas always win. Bring on the riot!!

[Beaver8]

The biggest BS was the yakuza vs italian mafia.

On paper and translated to the computer the mafia weapons were better, but their computer didn't factor in the people wielding the weapons.

A trained martial artist and trained in weapon combat isn't going to lose to some scrub with a baseball bat. PSH on them failing with that matchup.

That would be like saying Me vs bruce lee. I have a knife, he has bare hands. On their computer I win because of my weapon, but in reality I would end up having my throat cut by my own weapon.

[KeystoneMan]

The biggest BS was the yakuza vs italian mafia.

On paper and translated to the computer the mafia weapons were better, but their computer didn't factor in the people wielding the weapons.

A trained martial artist and trained in weapon combat isn't going to lose to some scrub with a baseball bat. PSH on them failing with that matchup.

That would be like saying Me vs bruce lee. I have a knife, he has bare hands. On their computer I win because of my weapon, but in reality I would end up having my throat cut by my own weapon.

Why are all yakuza assumed to be highly trained and Italian mobsters arent? All fighting skill arent learned in a dojo.

[LurkerMax]

in the pirate versus ninja match, they would have to factor in which century of ninja since I'm pretty sure they were the first to use guns in Japan.

The vikings didn't have shields?! That means the samuri won by handicap

[Someguy0507]

oh, and when the armor is made FOR you by a good smith who knows what he's doing, a fot knight is not substantially slowed by platemail.
It really just depends, as a blunderbus or single shot muzzle loader is a little erratic, and gives you one shot.
there is historical evidence that good 1600s armor could stop bullets, but that depends on size and speed. Bullets back then had less mass for their diameter due to being spheres, were less efficent at being pushed by hot gasses, were less acurate due to a lack of rifling, and were generally slower due to the use of inferior (to now) powders, and the lack of modern level pressures behind bullets.

And contrary to popular belief about guns, unless you could take out your target from a good distance (highly unlikely without firing in volleys, which a single pirate with one gun can't do), then the Knight wouldn't bleed out before he could get to the pirate and destroy him with brute force and skill.

edged weapons or large blunt weapons are far more devestating when used skillfully than their contemporary firearms of that erra. A Morningstar to the head is going to brain you all over the floor, a bullet to the head might do the same, but would be harder to pull off in combat, and you'd only get one chance.
---
The show is wrong: the Knight would have won. However, on a ship the out come might have been different. I can't help but think that full plate with water nearby and the needed agility to climb ropes and rigging in combat might favor the lighter, more nimble pirate.
--
and they forget one age-old advantage that a viking would have over their samurai counterpart: a shield. The Katana is not as effective at shield cleaving as movies imply (it is comparable to it's Eureopean counterparts in most repects, and would seem to be nearly identical against hard targets). Many Vikings wore armor, and weren't just clad in Fur like Hagar the Horrible. Their weapons had comparable weight (one is not much faster than the other), and both are known to devestate soft targets (the katana could do so more smoothly though due to it's curved blade... making draw cuts that don't slow you down faster post cut for the recovery to defend against a counterblow... if there is one).

While Samurai are generally considered to be more disciplined, they could also be tactically stupid due to Bushido rules.
In many ways, the Crusaders have more in common with classic Samurai, and would have been an interesting match (I think). The Chainmail they had was inferior to plate, and heavy, and the Crusaders were known to emply Bushido-like tactical moves rooted more in "honor" than good sense.

But the whole "eastern=fast, Western=Slow" is patentedly false.
---------------------------------------
as aside: a ninja fight is binary because they weren't historically "fighters" they're assassins. thus, they kill you unbeknownst, or they don't. they might be able to pull a few tricks on you, but they developed their tricks due to a lack of tactical superiority on merit alone, and because when you're trying to just kill a mark, or steal something, you aren't insterested in "winning" you're interested in success, barring that, you're interested in escape. Ninjas don't "fight", they distract and get away, or they surprise and destroy.
And Spartans devoid of anything but a short sword versus a ninja with a comparable weapon (and no dirty tricks in their pockets) in day light, goes to the partan every time. Their historical combat discipline and aptitude, and die-hard social morals ensure that on an equal field with equal tools, you WILL LOSE.

It might have not been like in the movies, but these guys are the historical "wolverine" not in that they have superpowers, but in that they were "the best at what they do", and their whole society was geared towards enforcing the skills and fitness to make this true every time possible.
-

If you had watched the show, they took most of those variables into account. The samurai carried a blunt weapon that proved to be able to break the viking's shield. and if not the shield, his arm beneath it.

The pirate's blunderbus was tested in the studio against a genuine set of knight armor, and it tore through it.

[Jericho]

The biggest BS was the yakuza vs italian mafia.

On paper and translated to the computer the mafia weapons were better, but their computer didn't factor in the people wielding the weapons.

A trained martial artist and trained in weapon combat isn't going to lose to some scrub with a baseball bat. PSH on them failing with that matchup.

That would be like saying Me vs bruce lee. I have a knife, he has bare hands. On their computer I win because of my weapon, but in reality I would end up having my throat cut by my own weapon.

The Mafia won that match-up because the Thompson sub-machine gun was inarguably the best automatic weapon of its era. If you check the numbers, the hand weapons accounted for almost none of the kills.

To put it another way, the best hand-to-hand combatant in history would have no advantage in a gun fight.

~Gabriel

[Beaver8]

Why are all yakuza assumed to be highly trained and Italian mobsters arent? All fighting skill arent learned in a dojo.
Because they do train a lot where as the mobsters don't. The mob also just uses a lot of hit and run tactics and do not likely get into many fisty cuff battles that arent 6 on 1.

The Mafia won that match-up because the Thompson sub-machine gun was inarguably the best automatic weapon of its era. If you check the numbers, the hand weapons accounted for almost none of the kills.

To put it another way, the best hand-to-hand combatant in history would have no advantage in a gun fight.

~Gabriel
That is true to a degree, but dead is dead. Both machine guns were great and you couldn't really say that in a duel one would win every time. I guess if the computer just said well...1 bullet= 1 kill, then the tommy would get 50 kills per mag, the other 30. I guess what I am most irritated about though is their little mock battle they had where that guy killed the other with a knife and when mr baseball bat man went babe ruth on the one.

The sawed off shotgun would sure have helped that battle along too. I think the computer only had the italians winning 53% of the time anyways, so I guess it was a close call.

[Ravenstein]

Yeah, it sounded neat, but there are many balance issues that you would need take into consideration.

Such as terrain, stealth, surprise, weapons technologies, melee vs. ranged, shields, mounted vs. unmounted, etc.; too many variables. For example, how would a force of samurai fare against a force of vikings in Swine Array? How would the pirates do on a battlefield against a charging group of knights?

[Beaver8]

How would the pirates do on a battlefield against a charging group of knights?

If they had bombs and cannons, pretty good :p

[roshambo]

I love the show regardless of my agreeance with the results :p

[Beaver8]

I love the show regardless of my agreeance with the results :p

That's the spirit. Even if we find some things flawed. It was still quite entertaining to watch.

[Jericho]

[COLOR="slategray"]That is true to a degree, but dead is dead. Both machine guns were great and you couldn't really say that in a duel one would win every time.

Well, that's sortof the point of running the simulation a thousand times. I don't think it's coincidental that the fight was so close. The Thompson had more ammo and better stopping power (higher caliber). Those aren't things that guarantee every confrontation, but they DO make a difference in the long run.

~Gabriel

[Ravenstein]

Well, that's sortof the point of running the simulation a thousand times. I don't think it's coincidental that the fight was so close. The Thompson had more ammo and better stopping power (higher caliber). Those aren't things that guarantee every confrontation, but they DO make a difference in the long run.

~Gabriel

I just want it on the record now, that one of my goals in life is to get a Thompson submachine gun to compliment the M1911 Colt I presently own.