Deadliest Warrior

[Apocalypse-Now]

anyone watch this show on Spike Channel? it's awesome! WAY better than top shot. no drama, no annoying announcer lol


dummies that they shoot start bleeding, and have meat inside of them. they also have a ballistic gelatin upper body with organs that they test other weapons on. very cool display of different guns and other weapons.

 

[Dr.Rob]

It's amusing, but in previous seasons the guests experts looked like they were ready to kill each other.

The GUN content really changes the outcomes in surprising ways that just don't make sense.

 

[Apocalypse-Now]

really? lol

this is the first season i've seen, the experts don't seem aggressive towards eachother at all. they even have the navy seal guy "mac" from the military channel.


yeah the historical recreation at the end is cheesy, and nonsensical, but the rest is awesome lol

 

[N003k]

Honestly, the only part I DO like is that little recreation. Unless they changed something, I always got annoyed with the vast differences in testing similar things. There was one episode that was SWAT vs GSG9. They had less lethal weapons, SWAT used a Taser, and the test was one of the guys getting tasered. GSG9 used a stingball grenade , which was tested in an open area against like 5 dummies, and since only one had a deep mark on it, they declared the taser the winner.

Like I said, idk if it's changed any, but just seemed they always gave the advantage to whatever weapon they thought was cooler. Too each their own though.

 

[Carter]

The previous seasons had a lot more drama, but it wasn't TOO bad. This season is also a little more realistic in that they evaluate mental health, logistics, training, etc etc. All important aspects that weren't even looked at in the other seasons. However, their measurements aren't exactly....perfect and are up for debate.

Its a fun thought exercise that just happens to have stuff that goes boom, splat, and various swish blade sound effects. Nothing more.

I found it funny how the ar-15 got treated so differently during different episodes. With the IRA it was unreliable, but with various US special ops units it was perfect.

I also thought it was funny how the SWAT vs GSG 9 the SWAT teams used 6.8 AR's. How many SWAT teams use that round? Probably not very many.

Its entertaining, but I wouldn't place any time traveling bets off of it ;-)

 

[Apocalypse-Now]

is it just me, or does the announcer sound like the guy that narrated the movie "300"?

 

[Carter]

It is.

 

[Apocalypse-Now]

cool. he's a good narrator.

i'm watching the swat vs. gsg9 right now. awesome sniper action when they shoot that dummie through the eye lol

that g36 Hk is also pretty wicked

 

[docnyt]

Watching the Spetsnaz vs. USGI was what prompted me to buy a Makarov PM.

 

[Old Dog]

Uh, not to side-track the thread, but what's this "LOL" stuff mean?

 

[docnyt]

LOL is internet lingo for Laughing Out Loud. LOL

 

[JohnBiltz]

I watch the show for the weapons. Not so much the guns but the blades and armor ones are interesting. Not many shows show how well a blade does at chopping a head off.

 

[Tallinar]

I watch that show from time to time if I catch it on. It's entertaining; but completely unscientific. Their comparisons are pretty ridiculous sometimes.

"Today we'll be comparing the slingshot to a V2 rocket as close range weapons."

Slight exaggeration, but that's not too far off.

 

[browneu]

I like the show. They are starting to test the weapons in similar situations. I also think I missed my calling for work. What other job allows you to have that much fun.

Sent from my LG-P999 using Tapatalk

 

[USAF_Vet]

I like the show, but face palmed when I saw what next weeks "special episode" was covering: Vampires vs. Zombies.

I like the historical weapons and the modern day weapons, but fictional stuff... give me a break.

I like to guess before each episode who is going to win, so far I've been wrong only once this season, and that was the Ivan the Terrible vs. Hernan Cortez.

the experts don't seem aggressive towards eachother at all.

The hosts are not the experts. the guys facing off their weapons against the other guys are the experts.

 

[19-3Ben]

It is.

No. It's not. David Wenham narrated 300.

The narrator for Deadliest Warrior is Drew Skye. At least based on what I can find on IMDB and Wiki.

They do sound remarkably similar.

 

[ny32182]

I've seen a couple episodes. I think some of their gun demonstrations are entertaining, but the rest of the show and their conclusions strike me as complete BS.

I've only seen a couple episodes of Top Shot as well, but at least there they are able to feign some level of actual competition.

I'll add that overall I'm glad the shows are on since they portray guns in a positive light for the mass market, however, they are definitely "reality shows" designed for the masses, and like any other I suspect they are pretty limited in appeal to anyone who actually knows anything at all about the subject matter.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Deadliest Warrior drives me nuts. The testing is terrible, the ER doc is annoying and totally unnecessary (Do you need an M.D. to tell you that a gigantic spear through a lung and your liver is probably incapacitating?), and some of the comparisons are just wrong.

Like the Spetznaz vs. SEAL one. Makarov vs. Beretta M9?

The Makarov only won because the Spetznaz was a better pistol shot.

Otherwise...

Power: M9 > Makarov
Capacity: M9 > Makarov
Ease of shooting: Equal at worst

???

And the gimmicky melee weapon thing... the ballistic knife? ***? E-tool? Derp.

 

[ny32182]

They don't discuss how much the weapons weigh into their "formula", but if it is anywhere near the percentage of time they spend discussing them on the show, they are probably giving WAY too much weight to the miniscule realistic performance difference between a G19 and a P226, for instance (example from one episode I saw)... They have one guy shoot a stage in 13 seconds, and another guy shoot it in 20 seconds, and come to the conclusion that the gun must be the difference.

 

[parsimonious_instead]

I'd like to see them to take their "statistical modeling" in a slightly different direction on occasion. What about using it to see how many Zulu warriors with arrows, Assegais, and Knobkerrys it would take, for example, to overwhelm a squad of US Marines defending a static position.
Asymmetric armaments with numbers that are ratcheted up (or down) to even things out could spice things up without having to delve into wackiness like supernatural creatures.

As for the trauma doc, I think that's actually a good idea. Certain wounds depicted in the show are literal no-brainers as to whether the target would die, but I like the way he'll explain why certain wounds are survivable and why (or why not)

 

[JEB]

what really ticks me off is when they are testing a striking weapon of some kind, rather than just hit the target and see what kind of damage it can do, they go nuts and beat the crap out of the dummy with whatever they are using. who knew that if you hulk out and beat the holy crap out of the target, that you will eventually leave a fatal wound. big surprise.

 

[USAF_Vet]

what really ticks me off is when they are testing a striking weapon of some kind, rather than just hit the target and see what kind of damage it can do, they go nuts and beat the crap out of the dummy with whatever they are using. who knew that if you hulk out and beat the holy crap out of the target, that you will eventually leave a fatal wound. big surprise.

This year isn't so bad about that. The one dude spray paints a target on three vital areas of a pig carcass (areas that represent where there would be exposed flesh if the target were wearing armor). If the wielder of the weapon misses the target zone, the doc checks the wound to determine if it's a kill or not.

This is vastly improved over previous seasons where they would just whack the crap out of a dummy and check numbers from pressure sensors and accelarometers.

But the show, like Mythbusters, is pseudo science for the purpose of entertainment. It's all very subjective.

If you watch the show with that caveat in mind, it's enjoyable. Approach the show as if everything presented is considered 100% science and nothing else, you'll be disappointed when you realize it's not.

 

[ny32182]

Mythbusters is infinitely.... infinitely more scientific in their approach to problem solving than what I have seen from Deadliest Warrior.

 

[USAF_Vet]

Yet it is still psuedo science for the purpose of entertainment.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

I think it's a fun show to watch and don't take it too seriously.
I would love to have some of those ballistic gel dummies with organs and fake blood they use. Would be worlds better and much more fun for practice than paper humanoid silhouettes.