Deadliest Warrior season 2 starting soon

[OctoberRaven]

Re above spoiler:

They had Spartan winning because of the sheild, which is bullshit because the Kanabo couldn't break it but was still dealing enough force to break the arm of the Spartan weilding it. 450 psi of force will turn an arm into paste no matter what.

I love the gun demos myself, but I can see why some people would find it boring.... TBH my favorite season one ep was Spetsnaz vs Green Beret.

[GhostMachine]

Re above spoiler:

They had Spartan winning because of the sheild, which is bullshit because the Kanabo couldn't break it but was still dealing enough force to break the arm of the Spartan weilding it. 450 psi of force will turn an arm into paste no matter what.

I love the gun demos myself, but I can see why some people would find it boring.... TBH my favorite season one ep was Spetsnaz vs Green Beret.

Oh, I'm calling that total bs, then. Because

I'm also pretty damn sure that a katana - the sharpest sword there is, to this day - would be able to slice through a bronze shield. Let alone the arm being broken by the kanabo. Ninja losing to Spartan because of the armor and shield I totally understand, but a Samurai would fuck up a Spartan.

Was Spetsnaz vs. IRA a close fight (computer results wise and squad battle), or did the IRA get owned?

Spetsnaz vs. Green Beret was my favorite episode, too, even though I had problems with it, which I've already mentioned. Samurai vs. Viking is a close second.

Pirate vs. Knight may have been the most bs fight (choreography and results-wise), but I swear the new GSG9 vs. SWAT one was the most the boring. And I prefer squad battles over one on one fights most of the time.

Edited April 21, 2010 by GhostMachine

[Mick]

What I think is bullshit is this.

SWAT Kills GSG9 Kills

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 Taser Shockwave 0Stingball Grenade 0

Totals 578 422

Bolded are who the 'experts' picked. They were particularly crazy about the M4 and the PSG1, but amazingly they were both outperformed. It just shows that the edge is somewhat bullshit.

I don't know the result of IRA vs Spetsnaz. I had another Deadliest show to watch (Deadliest Catch )

[Guest Big Dog]

I thought that Spartan fought a ninja, not a samurai

and samurai winning a viking is total bs

Edited April 21, 2010 by Big Dog

[OctoberRaven]

Re: Above

This was an all-stars episode, kind of like a psuedo tournament.

And a Samurai beating a Viking is not BS at all. They had the better weapons and more sophisticated fighting techniques.

Also, had Vikings actually battled Samurai IRL, it'd be in Japan given the MOs of both Viking and Samurai. Meaning that they'd have to put tons of provisions into their longboats to survive the very long voyage, and they'd still likely be ending up with scurvy, meaning they would be considerably weaker and shorthanded as well.

Re: IRA vs Spetsnaz

Spetsnaz fucked them up. IRA got like 200-something kills.

I don't see how a nailbomb can be more effective than a grenade with a better killzone... Is the nailbomb more likely to kill in it's killzone, that's arguable. But a nailbomb (much like the SWAT's taser shockwave) is a stationary weapon. If you get outmaneuvered your weapon is effectively gone. A grenade lacks remote detonation and element of surprise but you can choose where to use it. Plus you can't flush a guy out of cover with a nailbomb.

But hey, the Russian Terminators won in the end. JA SPETSNAZ!

[GhostMachine]

I thought that Spartan fought a ninja, not a samurai

and samurai winning a viking is total bs

Spartan vs. Ninja was the first or second episode of the series, aka season 1.

They did a 90 minute special to kick off season two to determine the deadliest ancient and deadliest modern warriors; Spartan vs. Samurai and IRA vs. Spetsnaz (IRA are terrorists, NOT warriors!).

And sorry, but Samurai would seriously own Vikings. In the Samurai vs. Viking episode of the series, the Samurai had something like 600+ kills. And that's only because the show only factors in weapons.

Vikings were so effective because they were berzerkers who scared and intimidated their victims - something that wouldn't happen with Samurai. Samurai are not afraid of death, so they'd spit in the Vikings' eyes. Samurai were also master tacticians, and you have to consider that the fight would likely happen on the Samurai's home ground, as Vikings were raiders ("Viking" actually means "sea raider" if I remember right), so the Samurai have a huge tactical advantage. Plus, Samurai relied on speed and had stronger and faster weapons; most Vikings relied on strength, their weapons were big and clumsy, relying on size and smashing power, not the wielder's skill, for dsmage. Strength does no good when you can't hit your target, and a Samurai would be able to hit a Viking with at least 3 to 4 katana strikes before the Viking could even attempt a second hit with ANY melee weapon. Samurai also had the ranged advantage, because Vikings threw spears, which could be dodged easily if you saw them coming. Arrows are faster, so a lot harder to dodge.

Shaolin Monk vs. Maori Warrior was the most one-sided fight they've had on the show yet, but if you ask me, in real life Samurai vs. Viking would be just as one-sided, if not moreso.

At another board I go to, there's a poster who lives over in that part of the world and whose ancestors were likely Vikings, and even he was stunned the Samurai didn't win by a bigger margin.

[Guest Big Dog]

Vikings were so effective because they were berzerkers who scared and intimidated their victims

First of all you should get your facts straight. Not all Vikings were berzerkers, only few who had seen too many battles, got too many knocks on the head and ate too many mushrooms. The average Vikings usually fought in a rather disciplined shield wall, one-on-one fighting was rare. As for the scaring and intimidating their victims, well, scared people are easy to conquer. And how samurai hits viking 3 to 4 times through a f'n sturdy round shield? If he tried he just gets stabbed in the gut with a spear/sword.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Big Dog

[Liam]

I don't know about the technicality of it all, but Spartans were fucking savages. Irrelevant of their presentation in films like 300, they were considered the toughest warriors in a time when there was a lot of competition.

[OctoberRaven]

Vikings were so effective because they were berzerkers who scared and intimidated their victims

First of all you should get your facts straight. Not all Vikings were berzerkers, only few who had seen too many battles, got too many knocks on the head and ate too many mushrooms. The average Vikings usually fought in a rather disciplined shield wall, one-on-one fighting was rare. As for the scaring and intimidating their victims, well, scared people are easy to conquer. And how samurai hits viking 3 to 4 times through a f'n sturdy round shield? If he tried he just gets stabbed in the gut with a spear/sword.

The kanabo wouldn't entirely break the sheild, but it would break the Viking's arm. I don't care how tough you are, if you have a broken arm, you're not going to be able to do anything with it especially with a heavy sheild strapped to it. Can't lift your arm, can't block with your sheild. And don't try to tell me the arm would not have been injured with a 400+ psi blow to it. Also, Samurai were well armored, not to mention would have the tactical profeciency to be prepared for a counterattack.

Also, as I said before, if Viking/Samurai had ever happened, it would have been with a scurvy-ridden Viking against a healthy samurai.

Also, I have Atilla the Hun winning this next one. Alexander the Great was a tactician, Atilla was in the frontlines.

[GhostMachine]

Responding to Big Dog's post, I was in a hurry when I made mine because someone else needed the computer so I didn't have time to edit.

What I meant is that Vikings were effective because they had fear and intimidation on their side - something that they would NOT have vs. Samurai, who would spit in their faces and say `BRING IT ON!'. The closest thing they had to `special forces' units would have been the Berzerkers. Berzerkers would stand absolutely NO chance against Samurai, either in a one-on-one battle, a squad battle, or a full on battlefield, because Berzerkers were all offense; they didn't defend themselves and were able to survive wounds longer than the average Viking, but a Berzerker isn't going to keep fighting after being chopped to pieces with a Katana or shot full of arrows.

One on one: One thing Deadliest Warrior *may* have gotten wrong is Vikings wearing ring or chain armor; there's only one or two known examples of that type of armor being found in an excavation of Viking lands. So lets assume that metal armor was only worn by the richer Vikings or commanders and the rest wore leather armor that may have had *some* metal components, but not mail (note: Not counting helmets here, just body armor; there's no disputing Vikings wore metal helmets). That automatically gives the armor advantage to Samurai. Shields? Well, Viking shields were round and were made of wood with iron bands around them holding the whole thing together; Vikings eventually did switch to more conventional shields, but that was near the end of Vikings' existence. Those iron reinforced wooden shields would not hold up in prolonged combat, and I don't see a Viking taking down a Samurai quick, because the Samurai would have the mobility advantage (Samurai were fast and fairly agile; they'd be dodging AND getting more hits in due to their training and the speed of their weapons).

Now lets assume this fight takes place in Japan, which would be most likely. The Vikings would automatically be disadvantaged because not only would the Samurai have homefield advantage, but they'd also have access to archers. Vikings DID use bows and arrows, but they were used more as hunting weapons. I wouldn't think a raid would have a lot of archers, if any. Plus Samurai would have troops on horseback, armed both with melee weapons and bows.

A shield wall wouldn't last long because those iron reinforced wooden shields would be too full of arrows to be of any use, and mounted archers would probably outflank them before they could shift to defend themselves properly, anyway. In a hand to hand combat situation, I believe the Kanabo would put the shield and the arm using it out of use. If not, a Katana could probably cut through it; remember, Katanas are the sharpest swords there are, as well as one of the hardest.

The most common Viking weapon was actually the spear, NOT swords or axes like you see in movies (they didn't wear helmets with horns on them, either; that's a total myth), so in a squad or battlefield situation, most of the Vikings would be screwed right there. Mainly because the spears had wooden shafts and were made to be used as hand held or ranged weapons. Can't kill someone when your weapon has been hacked to pieces, and I believe a Samurai would be too fast to be hit by a thrown spear if he saw it coming.

Now, in Viking territory I'd probably give the advantage to the Vikings - because they'd have horses and maybe even archers while the Samurai likely would not. But if the fight took place in Japan or even neutral territory, it would be a massacre....by the Samurai. (Why Samurai in neutral territory? Because if you give both sides horses and archers, the Samurai would still have the cavalry advantage because they used mounted archers. Vikings did not.)

Samurai vs. Vikings might as well be Samurai vs. the Minnesota Vikings!

P.S. October, I'm with you regarding Atilla vs. Alexander. Plus, I think its fairly obvious that Atilla will have the ranged advantage hands down.

Edited April 26, 2010 by GhostMachine

[OctoberRaven]

Also, a spear hitting Samurai armor would ruin the spearhead and at best chip the paint of the armor, and that's with an ideal clean blow with a charging opponent. So even IF they landed, they'd likely lose their weapon and have a POed Samurai still standing.

Also when comparing sheer strength of their blows, as the Vikings are using sheilds their main weapon is being held one-handed. And unless the viking is facing Miyamoto Musashi, the samurai would likely be using his weapons with both hands. What this means is more power behind the Samurai's blows. And if it IS Musashi, well, Musashi beat other samurai to death with wooden swords, he'd slaughter a viking.

[GhostMachine]

Also, a spear hitting Samurai armor would ruin the spearhead and at best chip the paint of the armor, and that's with an ideal clean blow with a charging opponent. So even IF they landed, they'd likely lose their weapon and have a POed Samurai still standing.

Also when comparing sheer strength of their blows, as the Vikings are using sheilds their main weapon is being held one-handed. And unless the viking is facing Miyamoto Musashi, the samurai would likely be using his weapons with both hands. What this means is more power behind the Samurai's blows. And if it IS Musashi, well, Musashi beat other samurai to death with wooden swords, he'd slaughter a viking.

And even if the Viking was using a sword or axe, they'd still probably be screwed. They tested one of those weapons (axe, I think) on a Samurai helmet, and the helmet deflected it. Might sprain the Samurai's neck if the blow was hard enough, but that would be it.

I'd love it if they use Miyamoto Musashi in a future historical figure battle, but knowing them they'd give him wooden swords as his special weapon.

[Guest Big Dog]

You just can't have a no-nonsense conversation with these samurai-fan boys. "Samurai wears heavy armor""Samurai doesn't fear anything". Vikings didn't have anyone to fear, but they weren't stupid as they only fought when they could win or it was necessary. Not fearing anything doesn't make you invincible, it makes you reckless.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Big Dog

[GhostMachine]

You just can't have a no-nonsense conversation with these samurai-fan boys. "Samurai wears heavy armor""Samurai doesn't fear anything". Vikings didn't have anyone to fear, but they weren't stupid as they only fought when they could win or it was necessary. Not fearing anything doesn't make you invincible, it makes you reckless.

In case you missed me mentioning it, over at another board I go to, a poster who is over in that part of the world (Norway, I think) and whose ancestors were Vikings was surprised the Samurai didn't win by a bigger margin. When someone agrees with his ancestors getting their asses kicked, that's good enough for me.

And Samurai were not reckless; they just didn't fear death, so a Viking trying to intimidate them would just get laughed at. Plus Samurai were master tacticians. When you think of tacticians, Vikings don't even enter the conversation. I'm not saying all Vikings were idiots fought like animals. I'm just saying their usual advantages would be non-existent or almost worthless vs. Samurai. A Viking trying to taunt or scare a Samurai would be Viking looking at his guts spilling on the ground a few seconds later.

They're using Celts in an upcoming battle, and frankly I think Viking vs. Celt would have been a more interesting fight.

Go watch the episode of the History Channel series Warriors, a series hosted by Terry Shappert, who is a former Green Beret, that they did on the Vikings. Its a much better done, more realistic series than Deadliest Warrior and actually gives you historical information as well as having experts on. That episode had me even more convinced that a Samurai would own a Viking. (There's also an episode on Samurai)

Vikings would have the strength advantage, no doubt. But Samurai would have the speed advantage both in movement and weapon speed. You can't kill what you can't hit, and when you're being hit 3-4 times while you're getting one hit in....

[OctoberRaven]

Attila wins, close one, though Alexander's Edges were more 'this is cooler' than 'this is more effective'.

Also Rashad, now you got two things in common with Alexander: You're both only the second best.

Jesse vs Capone next, if Jesse wins we riot?

[aajj1144]

i was greatly disappointed with this match up. I had Alexander winning due to his skill in hand to hand as well as overall sword skill. Atilla was good but Alexander was more crisp. Was very surprised to see Atilla win like that in the re-enactment as I though for sure Alexander would out sword Atilla.

Prediction for Capone vs James. They have done something similar with Mafia vs Yakuza except this time it's "modern" weapons vs 1800's weapons. A tommy gun gets the vote over a lever cocking rifle or 6 shooter 10/10 times imo.

[GhostMachine]

The only way I see Jesse James standing a chance is if they give him dynamite as his special weapon or they pull some bs and give him a gatling gun.

Regarding Alexander vs. Attila:

First of all, why the hell did they give Alexander a Ballista as his special weapon? It's a siege/battlefield weapon, and that was a one on one fight! If they couldn't find some other weapon to give Alexander, then they should have picked someone else to use. Seriously.

Secondly, I love how they throws things in there that are more or less shots at the other guy or are done to give the side that wins a chance when they show the fight. In Pirate vs. Knight, there was no way the Pirate would have won if the Knight had picked his shield back up after he got knocked off his horse and had shown enough sense to put his visor back down after he raised it to look around. In this fight, Attila trapping Alexander's arm and punching him the face probably would have been the end of the fight if Alexander's arm hadn't been injured, because of Alexander's training in Pankration. He would have countered it and probably snapped Attila's neck or at least hurt him enough to get his sword and do to Attila what Attila did to him.

Good fight, but as soon as I saw the weapons used, I knew Attila was going to win. I expected it to be close, but it was a bit closer than I thought it would be.

[Mick]

edit: bah, didn't read above post >_<

They probably will give him a Gatling Gun though. I wouldn't put it past them to. I think that Jesse James vs Capone is kind of cheap though, since...we already had Mafia on, and I can't see what weapons would be different.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Mick MacLeod

[YI]

You just can't have a no-nonsense conversation with these samurai-fan boys. "Samurai wears heavy armor""Samurai doesn't fear anything". Vikings didn't have anyone to fear, but they weren't stupid as they only fought when they could win or it was necessary. Not fearing anything doesn't make you invincible, it makes you reckless.

In case you missed me mentioning it, over at another board I go to, a poster who is over in that part of the world (Norway, I think) and whose ancestors were Vikings was surprised the Samurai didn't win by a bigger margin. When someone agrees with his ancestors getting their asses kicked, that's good enough for me.

I have nothing to input, but, bwahahahahahahhahaa.

[GhostMachine]

Okay, Jesse James vs Al Capone just aired, and all I'll say is they managed to give Capone different weapons than the Mafia used vs. the Yakuza, for the most part (Capone still had the Tommy Gun).

However, the episode turned out to be a 4 on 4 squad battle. It should have been advertised as Capone Gang vs. James Gang, not Capone vs. James.

Now, that said....

Despite their reasoning why the James Gang won, which did make sense, I think they really won because they had more guns. The James Gang was given two different pistols and rifle, while the only gun the Capone Gang had was the Tommy Gun. (They matched up both pistols against the Tommy Gun in weapon testing, though) A rifle vs. a grenade is a bad match-up.

Second, I hated the way the fight was done. A 4 on 4 squad battle, and they sort of gave away the ending before it actually happened. When Capone dropped the stiletto beating up the only member of the James Gang left alive besides Jesse, that's when I knew Capone was going to lose. Plus this was one of the closest squad battles yet, but they had 2 members of the James Gang survive. In all the previous squad battles - some of which have had bigger margins of victory - there's only been one man from the winning side standing. I've wanted to see a squad battle with more than one survivor, but NOT in a close fight. Even the squad battle with the biggest asskicking only had one man left alive.So why two survivors for this one?

Anyone else who saw last week's battle still wondering WTF they were thinking having Alexander use a Ballista in a 1 on 1 fight? (The actual battle was acted out as a team battle but not counted as one (ie, no counter on screen ticking off deaths), so it didn't make sense)

Edited May 5, 2010 by GhostMachine