Deadliest Warrior TV show croc of poo

[papa_bear]

Anyone see the Deadliest Warrior special forces edition? Just watched it. It was green berets vs. spetsnaz. I thought it was a pretty good idea. Thet Russians came out ahead just barely. However I thought the data was flawed. They compared shotguns, grenades, edged weapons, carbines, sniper rifles, and side arms. Here's the run down. (Stars designate the winner)
Green Berets

• Mossberg 590A
• M67 Frag **
• Entrenching Tool
• M4 (draw)
• Rem. 700 **
• Berreta M9

Spetsnaz

• Siaga **
• RGD-5
• Ballistic Knife **
• AK74-U (draw)
• Dragonov
• Makarov **

After compiling the data and running it through a computer simulation of 1000 battles the Spetsnaz came out ahead by a mere 7 kills. However, the part I think is flawed is the grenade test. The russian grenade was placed in a washing machine then the blast was compared to an American grenade on the ground. ***!?!?!? Of course the grenade not enclosed in the washing machine is going to produce a bigger blast. Propaganda? I don''t know but a big thumbs down to the producers of this show. On a side note, the Spetsnaz guy seemed to be more professional and better trained. the Green Berets seemed cocky and incompetent. I don't know if this is the case but, I will no longer be following this show. They seemed to be bias towards the Americans. I think in a realistic environment, unfortunately, the Spetsnaz would put a hurtin' on the Berets. If this tv show wanted some credibility they would have compared the hardware by having a soldier use both sets of hardware to compare effectiveness or they could have compared the soldiers training by having both soldiers use the same hardware. Instead, they sometimes compared the hardware (shotgun, grenade, edged weapon)and sometimes compared the soldiers ability (side arm, carbine, sniper). If you have seen this episode your thoughts are welcome.

 

[Pronghorn]

I completely agree, some of these shows on the history channel are very flawed in the facts/realism department.

 

[gabepossenti]

Every show I've ever seen on the history channel has been total nonsense, especially when they start talking about Jesus or the Church.

 

[docnyt]

I like the show for its entertainment value, and it's been a conversation starter with my kids as well. I think this episode is what turned me onto collecting Makarovs.

I take it for what it's worth - entertainment - no more no less. At the very least, it provides a springboard for further research.

 

[kingpin008]

It's a TV show. They're not worried about accuracy - it's entertainment.

 

[Jason_W]

Guys, it's on Spike, not history. Spike has never been known for its high brow offerings.

It's a fun show when taken with a grain of salt. I'm jealous of the adult 12 year olds who make money playing a game we all played as kids "Who would win in a fight between . . ."

 

[arizona_cards_11]

Gabe, you are so incredibly right. I may not be incredibly knowledgeable in many areas, but I have a passion for theology and Biblical Christianity. The History Channel is nonsensical.

This has led me to conclude, "If the History Channel is wrong about the things in my area of expertise, they must not be an incredibly accurate or reliable source in other areas in which I have little knowledge." This sentiment may be logically fallacious, but it does make you wonder.

 

[Hatterasguy]

Its simply entertainment to settle bar room discussions.

Doesn't work like that in the real world.

 

[hardluk1]

it's just a stupid time filler on tv

 

[gunnutery]

How do they give a win to the Makarov over the M9??? I know a lot of people don't like the M9, but come on, it wins in ballistics and capacity!!!

They had the show right with the concept, and apparently botched it from there.

(I too concur on the bias against Christianity on the History Channel)

 

[Tim the student]

Um, so TV isn't accurate? Oh noes!!

 

[sherman123]

I've always found the show nonsense and silly based on the fact that they try to determine things like whether a knight would whoop a pirate, whether a Green Beret would whoop a Spetsnaz soldier,etc... with that said I still love the show just for the simple fact that I always learn something about new weapons, whether they're firearms, edged weapons or whatever. I love it and can't wait til the next season.

 

[kayak-man]

ITS on SPIKE, not History...

IIRC, the episode in question is the first one where firearms were used. As the show goes on, it gets a little better.

How do they give a win to the Makarov over the M9??? I know a lot of people don't like the M9, but come on, it wins in ballistics and capacity!!!

They tested it by having two soldiers shoot through a course at night, and the guy with the Makarov out-shot the guy with a Berretta. I think the results would have been different if they had used reactive targets, as it appeared that the Berretta guy lost because he couldn't tell if it was a hit, so he assumed it was and moved on.

The show is kind of like a Hi Point - there are better ones out there, but for what it is, and if you don't expect too much out of it, its not that bad.

Chris "the Kayak-Man" Johnson

 

[brandon_mcg]

its an entertaining show. they had Snipers: Deadliest Missions on the other day and that is some unbelievable stuff.

there have been numerous episodes of deadliest warrior that have complete non-sense.

 

[docnyt]

it's just a stupid time filler on tv

Everything is a stupid time filler on TV.

FIXED

 

[Erik M]

I thought that the IRA vs. Taliban in an urban setting was a laugh. IRA won, but with only one man left standing. It has already been stated however, its just a filler tv show. Being of Norwegian descent I did enjoy the Viking episode.

 

[pitsmile]

Navy SEALS beat the Israeli Commandos.

When they run a competition there is always human error, the results are based on how a person shot or stabbed in ONE turn. It creates a bias in the data. Still interesting.

 

[Sam1911]

TV shows are generally pretty bad, as a matter of course, and both the premise of the show and the premise of this thread are outside our scope of discussion here at THR.org.