OT: Deadliest Warrior

[Raellus]

Tonight, here in the U.S., on Spike, the series Deadliest Warrior is airing an episode entitled Green Beret vs. Spetznaz.

It's a pretty silly show, but strangely entertaining. Check it out, if you have the means.

Cheers.

[TiggerCCW UK]

Don't think they show it in the UK. Whats the idea behind it - I'm assuming they haven't actually set some Green Beret's off against Spetsnaz? Is it a historical comparison?

[kato13]

I think it is an extension of what the history channel did with certain computer models of historical conflicts. They take the standard Nerd or Barroom discussion "Who would win in a fight between X and Y" enter some stats into a computer and then simulate the outcome (I believe in live action). Of course they need filler so they give a dramatized video version of the history, weapons and tactics of both parties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadliest_Warrior

Here are the matchups so far
* 3.1 Episode 1: Apache vs Gladiator
* 3.2 Episode 2: Viking vs Samurai
* 3.3 Episode 3: Spartan vs Ninja
* 3.4 Episode 4: Pirate vs Knight
* 3.5 Episode 5: Yakuza vs Mafia
* 3.6 Episode 6: Green Beret vs Spetsnaz
* 3.7 Episode 7: Shaolin Monk vs Māori
* 3.8 Episode 8: William Wallace vs Shaka Zulu
* 3.9 Episode 9: IRA vs Taliban

I did not think I would have much interest in watching until I saw the "Shaolin Monk vs Māori" and then I imagined myself being totally on one side of that argument. Might be intrigued enough to watch that one.

The IRA/Taliban one seems to me to be in bad taste.

[TiggerCCW UK]

Have to agree there, the IRA/Taliban one wouldn't be something I'd watch. Unless of course they were really going to stick Provies and Taliban in a room and make them go at each other for real - that could be interesting.

[Targan]

I did not think I would have much interest in watching until I saw the "Shaolin Monk vs Māori" and then I imagined myself being totally on one side of that argument. Might be intrigued enough to watch that one.Interesting. Having some knowledge of martial arts my logical brain would back the monks but being a New Zealander (and having known many Maori) my heart would back the Maori. Also, once the Maori were introduced to firearms they embraced the the idea enthusiastically. What did the program conclude?

[kato13]

I don't think it has aired yet.

I expected the Maori would have some sentimental backers here. I must state that my backing of the monks is also a bit sentimental. I used to jokingly chastize my mom for not abandoning me at the door or a Shao-lin temple when I was young (like Caine from Kung-Fu). Her respone was always "trust me if I could have found one you would be there" :D

[headquarters]

I don't think it has aired yet.

I expected the Maori would have some sentimental backers here. I must state that my backing of the monks is also a bit sentimental. I used to jokingly chastize my mom for not abandoning me at the door or a Shao-lin temple when I was young. Her respone was always "trust me if I could have found one you would be there" :D

lol

[Canadian Army]

I saw the Green Beret vs. Spetznaz episode, the Spetsnaz was Overall Winner, but what was cool is that they compared their weapons:

Beretta Pistol vs. Makarov Pistol
Mossberg Shotgun vs. Saiga Shotgun
M4A1 Carbine vs. AK74 Carbine
M24 Rifle vs. Dragunov Rifle
E-Tool vs. Ballistic Knife
M67 Grenade vs. RGD-5 Grenade

You got to see what these weapons would do to actual person, in exit wound, blunt force trauma, and broken bones. During the E-Tool demonstration, the Green Beret team “sliced and dice� the dummy’s stomach and head to pieces.

Also I think Episode 9: IRA vs Taliban will be interesting to see.

[TiggerCCW UK]

Also I think Episode 9: IRA vs Taliban will be interesting to see.

Not for me thanks, I'm already far too familiar with the effects of the Provies weapons.

[Raellus]

Yeah, I'm not cool with profiling terrorist's weapons & tactics.

The way the "experts" determine the victors seems pretty unscientific at times. Usually, it's really just a comparison of weapons and the deadlier weapon suite wins the contest. For example, Pirates vs. Knights concluded that Pirates were the deadliest warrior. I'm sorry, but you can't tell me a common criminal who picks on the weak is a superior warrior to a warrior who starts learning his trade as a boy and engages other warriors in ritual and actual combat on a regular basis. It all boiled down to the pirate's gunpowder weapons. So, in effect, the show's usually about the weapons instead of the warrior. It really should be called "Deadliest Weapons".

Anyway, last night's Spetznaz vs. Green Beret bucked the show's conventions by testing not only the weapons, but the warriors themselves. In the Makarov vs. M-9 Beretta contest, the Green Beret's one missed target pretty much sealed the win for the Spetznaz. By all accounts, the Beretta is superior to the Makarov.

Also, the Green Beret's E-tool split a human skull in half cross-wise but the judges gave the win to the Spetznaz's ballistic knife. Really?

The show makes lots of little errors. The AK-74 "carbine" they tested was obviously a full-sized AKM with a folding stock, as opposed to a real AKS-74U. In the Yakuza vs. Mafia episode, they repeatedly showed a Luger but kept labelling it as a Walther P-38.

For the various reasons cited above, it's hard to take the show seriously, but it's still pretty cool to see what the weapons can do to ballistic gel torsos (with real human skeletons) and pig carcasses.

I enjoyed last night's episode. I found the grenade test to be particularly interesting. Movies always overblow grenade effects. It was cool to see real footage of what real grenades can do.

[Matt Wiser]

That was my view as well; one missed shot and the "experts" judged the Makarov as superior to the M-9. And that business with the spring-loaded knife...a regular fighting knife, yes, but that? One got the impression that the producers of the show had read too much of Viktor Suvorov's book on the Spetsnatz. Now, seeing two terrorist groups decide to take each other out of the gene pool would be interesting to see....

[Legbreaker]

That was my first thought when I read the concept of the show - it's just silly to try comparing warriors from different parts of the world and even sillier to compare them from different times.

How can you possibly put up a Spartan against a Ninja for example? The Spartan, while highly trained, carried bronze age weaponry and used tactics that had no relevance whatsoever to the more modern ninja. I think it's easy to see who's the "winner" between them.

If the show is ever shown here in Australia, I'll be sure to give it a very wide berth.

[weswood]

Yeah, I'm not cool with profiling terrorist's weapons & tactics.

The way the "experts" determine the victors seems pretty unscientific at times. Usually, it's really just a comparison of weapons and the deadlier weapon suite wins the contest. For example, Pirates vs. Knights concluded that Pirates were the deadliest warrior. I'm sorry, but you can't tell me a common criminal who picks on the weak is a superior warrior to a warrior who starts learning his trade as a boy and engages other warriors in ritual and actual combat on a regular basis. It all boiled down to the pirate's gunpowder weapons. So, in effect, the show's usually about the weapons instead of the warrior. It really should be called "Deadliest Weapons".

Anyway, last night's Spetznaz vs. Green Beret bucked the show's conventions by testing not only the weapons, but the warriors themselves. In the Makarov vs. M-9 Beretta contest, the Green Beret's one missed target pretty much sealed the win for the Spetznaz. By all accounts, the Beretta is superior to the Makarov.

Also, the Green Beret's E-tool split a human skull in half cross-wise but the judges gave the win to the Spetznaz's ballistic knife. Really?

The show makes lots of little errors. The AK-74 "carbine" they tested was obviously a full-sized AKM with a folding stock, as opposed to a real AKS-74U. In the Yakuza vs. Mafia episode, they repeatedly showed a Luger but kept labelling it as a Walther P-38.

For the various reasons cited above, it's hard to take the show seriously, but it's still pretty cool to see what the weapons can do to ballistic gel torsos (with real human skeletons) and pig carcasses.

I enjoyed last night's episode. I found the grenade test to be particularly interesting. Movies always overblow grenade effects. It was cool to see real footage of what real grenades can do.

I had the same issues with the show. Plus some of thier tests to determine overall superiority of weapons aren't always equal. Such as the ballistic knife vs an Etool. Totally different weapons. I have to admit though, those damn Spetznaz were good.

[pmulcahy11b]

Maybe we should call the show The Dudliest Warrior?

[Raellus]

How can you possibly put up a Spartan against a Ninja for example? The Spartan, while highly trained, carried bronze age weaponry and used tactics that had no relevance whatsoever to the more modern ninja. I think it's easy to see who's the "winner" between them.


The one bit of the show I actually like is the actually weapons testing. Some of the results have surprised me. For example, the Katana, arguably the best edged weapon ever produced by man, was unable to slash through either the Viking's iron ring mail or the Spartan's bronze shield.

The Spartan was declared the winner on the basis of his head to foot bronze armor (including the shield). That said, I'm still not sure I agree with their overall assessment.

I guess the Spetznaz may actually be better pure fighters than the Green Berets, but it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. Although occasionally tasked with direct action missions, the GB's primary role is to train indigenous troops in counter insurgency warfare. As the operators on the show kept saying, they fight as much with their minds as they do with their bodies. The Spetznaz, at least as exemplified on the show, ...not so much.

A more apt comparison would have been Spetznaz vs. Navy SEALs or Operational Detachment Delta or SAS.

From what I've gleaned here and there, the Spetznaz's combat history has been anything but exemplary. Are there any good, accurate accounts of their operations out there?

[O'Borg]

You can watch some of the shows on Spike TVs website or just hunt them down on YouTube.

There's a thread on RPGNet about the shows and the general consensus is :
It's a load of bollocks. But it's entertaining bollocks, and in the end, isn't that the best kind? The answer, is no.

Some of the weapons tests are unrealistic - sure a Samurai Yuni can shoot out an eyeball at fifty paces, but only if the Viking Berserker is obliging enough to stand very still whilst the samurai aims. Likewise the sword/axe/club penetration tests are usually verses an dummy fixed to a solid mount and devoid of armour. When whacking someone with a big stick, a significant amount of force is going to be absorbed by your target rolling with the blow or getting knocked on his ass.
There's often a disparity in the quality of the 'experts' that baises the tests - the Apache guys were a world champion knife fighter and a US army knife and unarmed combat instructor. The gladiators had a couple of historians who liked to play with weapons. Same with the Samurai - martial arts experts vs two historical re creationists.
And then there's the childish smack talk between the experts which gets old real fast.

I'm sure the IRA vs Taliban one will be heavily biased, with some 9th generation Irish-American who's never been closer to NI than drinking a pint of Guiness waxing lyrical about those elite, balaclava wearing thugs who regularly got owned by the British Army and Ulster Police is they tried a stand up fight and who's favoured method of attack was carbombing civilians and hoping to catch a couple of bomb disposal guys in the blast or knocking on the door of an off-duty copper and hosing him with autofire in front of his family.

[Legbreaker]

The one bit of the show I actually like is the actually weapons testing. Some of the results have surprised me. For example, the Katana, arguably the best edged weapon ever produced by man, was unable to slash through either the Viking's iron ring mail or the Spartan's bronze shield.
Once again, it's just not a valid comparison. The katana simply isn't intended for use against heavily armoured opponents so it's unsuprising that it wasn't going to cut through virtually any sort of metal. Like all medieval warrior cultures, their were a number of weapons which were designed for such targets though.

Historical accuracy is another grave concern I have for the show. From what I learnt all those years ago in school, classical Greek soliders (including the Spartans) used very little metal as armour instead having not much more than heavily starched linen and leather (or something like that - it's been 20 years....)

[kato13]

I'm sure the IRA vs Taliban one will be heavily biased, with some 9th generation Irish-American who's never been closer to NI than drinking a pint of Guiness waxing lyrical about those elite, balaclava wearing thugs who regularly got owned by the British Army and Ulster Police is they tried a stand up fight and who's favoured method of attack was carbombing civilians and hoping to catch a couple of bomb disposal guys in the blast or knocking on the door of an off-duty copper and hosing him with autofire in front of his family.

I just want to say as someone who has strong Irish roots, that every Irish American I know considers the IRA to be a disgusting embarrassment to Irish history and culture. Even as an American I consider their inclusion to be in worst taste than the Taliban. At least the Taliban have had military engagements against other significant military units.

IMO they should have done Viet Cong versus Mujaheddin (since they each "defeated" a superpower), but there would probably have been too much of a weapons overlap.

[Raellus]

I just want to say as someone who has strong Irish roots, that every Irish American I know considers the IRA to be a disgusting embarrassment to Irish history and culture. Even as an American I consider their inclusion to be in worst taste than the Taliban. At least the Taliban have had military engagements against other significant military units.

IMO they should have done Viet Cong versus Mujaheddin (since they each "defeated" a superpower), but there would probably have been too much of a weapons overlap.

Well said. I agree with you on all points, Kato. There's a huge difference, in my mind at least, between a legitimate guerilla/"freedom fighter" and a terrorist. The latter, IMO, are the scum of the earth. What are they going to do on the show? Suicide bomber at the Afghani girl's school vs. pipe bomb at the pub?

Leg, you are correct. The bronze muscle cuirass was used for a relatively short period of time (including the Persian wars) but had fallen out of fashion for all but officers during the Peloponnesian War and the Hellenistic period. It was replaced by a cuirass made of layered, hardened linen. The "head-to-foot" description refers to the Corinthian helmet, hoplos shield, and leg grieves- a cuirass of one sort or another may or may not be worn but, when crouching, the shield covers the hoplite from chin to shins. In formation, when used properly (i.e. close order phalanx facing the enemy), the panoply (with or without cuirass) presented a nearly unbroken bronze "front". Outflank the hoplite, however, or get behind him... slaughter ensues.

Like I said in the thread starter post, it's a pretty cheeseball, not terribly accurate show, but for some strange reason (appreciation for camp, latent bloodlust, repressed machismo?) I still enjoy it.

[pmulcahy11b]

The one bit of the show I actually like is the actually weapons testing. Some of the results have surprised me. For example, the Katana, arguably the best edged weapon ever produced by man, was unable to slash through either the Viking's iron ring mail or the Spartan's bronze shield.

That reminds me of something I learned in one of my college history courses. During the Crusades, a captured Crusader and the Muslims that captured him were comparing swords. They had a pillow and an iron bar. The Crusader, with his huge broadsword, hacked the iron bar in half with one blow. The Muslim warrior, with his scimitar, sliced the pillow in half after it was thrown into the air. The Crusader's sword simply batted the pillow aside, while the Muslim warrior's scimitar cracked when it hit the iron bar.

[Targan]

IMO they should have done Viet Cong versus Mujaheddin (since they each "defeated" a superpower), but there would probably have been too much of a weapons overlap.
I like it. That's a great idea Kato.

[Matt Wiser]

How about two WW II enemies that never faced each other in combat? I'm talking about the USMC vs. the Waffen-SS. America's and Germany's meanest, thoughest, and most dedicated fighters never did encounter each other in combat. An episode of this show with that premise would be interesting.

[Darksheer]

these shows are unquestionably biased in every aspect and im actually surprised this isnt on fox
the "experts" usually have no formal military training but have either
a: been in the cadets
b: read alot of books
c: got beat up by a real military person for being smarmy
d: failed out of basic and went back to school
e: owned alot of <insert military weapon/hardware here>
f: been related to someone who served

and 90 % of the stuff is garbage
but It does make for a amusing hour

[Raellus]

Tonight's episode- arguably the silliest match up to date. Maori warrior vs. Shaolin Monk.

Should be... interesting.

[Legbreaker]

So.... How many points of IQ are you intending to lose by watching it?

;)

[kato13]

So.... How many points of IQ are you intending to lose by watching it?

;)

I think I'll risk one or two for this one. I have always been a sucker for all information about the Shao-Lin. I am pretty sure I won't really learn anything new but it might have some different interpretations.

[pmulcahy11b]

So.... How many points of IQ are you intending to lose by watching it?

;)

It's like the reason I love slasher movies -- they're funny!

[Raellus]

It's like the reason I love slasher movies -- they're funny!

Yeah, I'll watch it for the comedic value. Plus, I've got plenty of surplus IQ points to spare.:p

[Targan]

Tonight's episode- arguably the silliest match up to date. Maori warrior vs. Shaolin Monk.

Should be... interesting.
I think it would come down to what era each was taken from. Once the Maori had been introduced to the firearm and the New Zealand Wars were underway the Maori fully embraced the gun. The Maori wooden pallisade fort or 'Pa' was also pretty amazing - they could assemble one in a single night and often built them and left them empty, both as decoys and as positions to fall back to. Maori earthworks were very clever, they independently invented the zig-zag trench to prevent invaders shooting straight along trenchlines during storming actions. And in the New Zealand bush the Maori were the absolute masters of their domain.

[pmulcahy11b]

I think it would come down to what era each was taken from. Once the Maori had been introduced to the firearm and the New Zealand Wars were underway the Maori fully embraced the gun. The Maori wooden pallisade fort or 'Pa' was also pretty amazing - they could assemble one in a single night and often built them and left them empty, both as decoys and as positions to fall back to. Maori earthworks were very clever, they independently invented the zig-zag trench to prevent invaders shooting straight along trenchlines during storming actions. And in the New Zealand bush the Maori were the absolute masters of their domain.

That's true of a lot of these warriors they feature -- do you think the Ninja would be using bows, swords, and shuriken today? No, they'd be using silenced pistols, Barrett M-82s with the best optics, and setting up Claymores in front of peoples' houses.

[copeab]

It's like the reason I love slasher movies -- they're funny!

Slasher films are pointless without lots of nekkid women.

:p

[Legbreaker]

Slasher films are pointless without lots of nekkid women.

:p
Isn't life pointless without them? :P

[Targan]

Isn't life pointless without them? :P
Amen brother.

[pmulcahy11b]

Slasher films are pointless without lots of nekkid women.

:p

That's why cable was invented!

[Caradhras]

Although I hate inaccuracies, I would love to see this show for the same probable macho reasons :p

For fun - my versions of likely results

Here are the matchups so far
* 3.1 Episode 1: Apache vs Gladiator - ranged Apache, close Gladiator (that is what he is purely built for!)

* 3.2 Episode 2: Viking vs Samurai - Ranged Samurai, close Viking (armour/shield resisting katana?)

* 3.3 Episode 3: Spartan vs Ninja - Ninja (Spartan built to fight as part of a unit, ninja would use speed/trickery and pick off spartan flank/rear)

* 3.4 Episode 4: Pirate vs Knight - lol, what is a pirate gonna do vs a fully armoured knight unless he uses gunpowder weapons?

* 3.5 Episode 5: Yakuza vs Mafia - pass, dont get this one as fitting

* 3.6 Episode 6: Green Beret vs Spetsnaz - wrong as mentioned before, SAS vs Spetsnaz would be interesting and being English am biased.

* 3.7 Episode 7: Shaolin Monk vs Māori - I cannot comment as dont know much about Maori as warriors.

* 3.8 Episode 8: William Wallace vs Shaka Zulu - interesting, would edge toward Scots more advanced weaponry.

* 3.9 Episode 9: IRA vs Taliban - shouldnt be allowed to be aired.

[Raellus]

The Maori wooden pallisade fort or 'Pa' was also pretty amazing - they could assemble one in a single night and often built them and left them empty, both as decoys and as positions to fall back to. Maori earthworks were very clever, they independently invented the zig-zag trench to prevent invaders shooting straight along trenchlines during storming actions.

I did not know that. Reminds me of Roman legionaire forts.

[Targan]

I did not know that. Reminds me of Roman legionaire forts.
Exactly. For a Stone Age people they adapted their existing military technology very quickly to 19th century warfare and for decades they really gave the British Army a run for its money. At one stage the British Army had between 80,000 and 100,000 troops fighting in the Maori Wars and even brought a couple of steam powered gunboats over from Australia, opposed by less than 10,000 Maori warriors who were all part time warrior/farmers. The British only defeated the Maori in the end because they went into the village areas of the warring tribes, burned or stole their crops and slaughtered their women and children.

One of the most amusing things about the Maori Wars for me is that for a while the Maori had better weapons than the British Army as the Redcoats were still using Brown Bess Muskets but the Maori were being supplied with new fangled rifles being smuggled over from Australia (paid for with good old New Zealand greenstone, a type of jade).

[O'Borg]

Maori vs Gurkha would probably be a better matchup.

Though as I said on another forum regarding this show, "Iowa Class Battleship vs Cute Fluffy Kitten" would be about par for the course.

[TiggerCCW UK]

Maori vs Gurkha would probably be a better matchup.

Though as I said on another forum regarding this show, "Iowa Class Battleship vs Cute Fluffy Kitten" would be about par for the course.

I'd watch that one :) I'm not really a cat person, although the feelings are pretty much mutual.

[kato13]

Kinda an odd show. I would need to have an interest in the participants to watch again, but if they do Gurkhas at some point I would watch it.

Apparently I used to play volleyball against a few Maori players. They used to do a similar battle dance before games.

[Targan]

Apparently I used to play volleyball against a few Maori players. They used to do a similar battle dance before games.
That battle dance is called the Haka. The words are usually about how they are going to kill you then eat bits of you. Scary.

[natehale1971]

Has anyone created Maori characters for their games?
'
My 2300ad campaign had several colonies that had been established by the Maori on the Anglo-American and European Arms. Usually these small colonies had gotten their start as 'Special Autonomous Region' (aka Enclaves) that were near the colonies of the Federal Republic of Austraila, the United Kingdom of the British Isles or the British Commonwealth of New Zealand.

Also the British and Australians had developed their own Maori brigades composed of volunteers modeled after the Royal Gurkha Brigades. Of course my 2300ad campaign had alot of foreign volunteer groups in the British Armed Forces.

The Arab Legion (originally formed during operations in the middle east during the twilight war, and continued to be used during the peacekeeping operatins in Arabia)

The African Rifles

The Indian Rifles. The Indian Rifles were created during the aftermath of the Twilight War when the United Kingdom of the British Isles and other nations had volunteered to 'sponsor' several of the Indian successor states. Indian Rifles are very excellent soldiers who have volunteered from any of the Indian (or Pakistani) successor states. Each of the various component units that make-up the Indian Rifles have their own unique uniforms with brightly colored jackets and headgear.

The Royal Gurkha Brigades (i was going to call them a corps, but wasn't sure if i would fit since i don't know as much about the British Armed Forces as i would like)

The Royal German Legion (semi-officially known as the King's Own German Legion, since they had rescued members of the Royal family during the 'pacification campaign' that unified the British Isles during and after the Twlight Wars)

The Royal Irish Rifles (originally the Irish defense forces, by 2300ad the Royal Irish Rifles has become an elite military formation manned entirely by Irish volunteers)

The American Legion (Originally formed by US and Canadian volunteers who are in the service of the British Army during and after the Twilight War, by 2300ad it is almost as illustrious as the Royal German Legion, but instead of being rapid response combatants, they are highly respected as nation builders and peacekeepers)

[Targan]

I played an awesome Maori character (Tane Wherepapa) in a Millenium's End campaign. He was a scary, scary dude.

In my current T2K campaign my younger brother is playing a character who is culturally similarly to a Maori. He is USMC Sgt Urana Ratowi, from American Samoa (he looks like an uglier version of The Rock).

[TiggerCCW UK]

That battle dance is called the Haka. The words are usually about how they are going to kill you then eat bits of you. Scary.

Thats a rough game of volley ball :)

[kato13]

Given most extreme cultural activities get toned down in the US I'm sure they were just saying they were going to beat us on the court and then maybe kill and eat our dogs :D. They were pretty intense guys and they played beyond their height. Didn't have the full facial tattoos but had intricate work on their arms.

[waiting4something]

How about two WW II enemies that never faced each other in combat? I'm talking about the USMC vs. the Waffen-SS. America's and Germany's meanest, thoughest, and most dedicated fighters never did encounter each other in combat. An episode of this show with that premise would be interesting.

Sorry, I'm way late on this topic.:o But, I think that would be a cool fight. The Waffen-SS is like a German version of the Marine Corps. They have a lot of simularities even though some people might find it offensive.:p

The show as a show of truth sucks. It's watchable as long as you can not take it too seriously. I only watched the Green Berets vs. Spetnaz episode and had enough.:( The Spetnaz pair had one Army and one Naval Spetnaz member?:confused: That's like having one Army Special Forces and one Navy Seal and calling them Special Forces. The weapons tests were terrible comparisons. One group shoots a pig and another shoots a dummy, one shoots a balloon with a knife, then the other uses a E-tool on a dummy. Why not use the same control in your test?:confused: As already mentioned why use a AKMS when the gun is supposed to be a AK-74?:confused:

Like people mentioned already why not use a two military foes that have similar tasks. Rangers are more comparable with Army Spetnaz. Or Navy Seals and Naval Spetnaz, Russian Airborne vs. U.S. Airborne, and maybe U.S. Army supply clerk vs. Russian Army supply clerk.:D

Oh and a side note: what's with all the rolling around on the ground that the Spetnaz does. I mean do they think that they are harder hit if they do that, or where they hoping Hollywood would take notice?

[boogiedowndonovan]

Season 2 of Deadliest Warrior starts April 20.

here's the matchups according to wikipedia

SWAT vs. GSG-9
Attila the Hun vs. Alexander the Great
Jesse James vs. Al Capone
Aztec Jaguar vs. Zande Warrior
Nazi SS vs. Viet Cong
Persian Immortal vs. Celt
Roman Centurion vs. India's Rajput Warrior
Somali Pirate vs. MedellÃ*n Cartel
KGB vs. CIA
Vlad The Impaler vs. Sun Tzu
Ming Warrior vs. Musketeer
Comanche vs. Mongol
Navy Seal vs. Israeli Commando

[pmulcahy11b]

Sorry, I'm way late on this topic.:o But, I think that would be a cool fight. The Waffen-SS is like a German version of the Marine Corps. They have a lot of simularities even though some people might find it offensive.:p

Similar-quality training, but not morals...

[Matt Wiser]

One could say that the SS vs. VC has already taken place: at Dien Bien Phu. A lot of those Foreign Legion troopers at DBP were reportedly ex-SS men.

[pmulcahy11b]

One could say that the SS vs. VC has already taken place: at Dien Bien Phu. A lot of those Foreign Legion troopers at DBP were reportedly ex-SS men.

Sort of makes you wonder if the Legion was taking any Japanese WW2 vets at the time.

[Fusilier]

Spetznaz vs. Green Beret?

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/3164/1269110147140.jpg

[waiting4something]

Similar-quality training, but not morals...

Well, yes if you mean working at death camps. But, the U.S. Marines have never had the pleasure of working for weirdo's of the magnitude of Himmler or Hitler. Warriors are warriors we obey orders even though we may not agree or like them sometimes. I wouldn't say the Waffen-SS as a whole was bad or lacking morals. Most were just soldiers fighting other soldiers. The one's that got duty at death camps gave the others a bad name. I'm sure a lot of Waffen-SS guys at the camps didn't like there job there, but it takes a lot of balls to go against the grain especially in the military. I'm not defending the few that did horrible evil things to people and liked it, but I will defend the ones that were just soldiers. Society has giving the Waffen-SS a bad rap as a whole. I don't think that is the case.

I think the Waffen-SS had similar morals to the U.S. Marines. Both considered themselves elite and prided themselves at being under equiped compared to their Army counterparts and dropped into the worst hot spots.

[waiting4something]

One could say that the SS vs. VC has already taken place: at Dien Bien Phu. A lot of those Foreign Legion troopers at DBP were reportedly ex-SS men.

Yeah, you beat me to that one.

[Targan]

I wouldn't say the Waffen-SS as a whole was bad or lacking morals. Most were just soldiers fighting other soldiers. The one's that got duty at death camps gave the others a bad name. I'm sure a lot of Waffen-SS guys at the camps didn't like there job there, but it takes a lot of balls to go against the grain especially in the military. I'm not defending the few that did horrible evil things to people and liked it, but I will defend the ones that were just soldiers. Society has giving the Waffen-SS a bad rap as a whole. I don't think that is the case.

The SS did a whole bunch of horrific things, and not just involving death camps. Society has given them a bad rap because they were really, really bad news. The Wermacht were "just soldiers". The SS were a whole different kettle of fish.

Lets start with the Einsatzgruppen. "Just soldiers fighting other soldiers"? IMO that is historic revisionism of the highest order. Seriously.

You specifically mentioned the Waffen-SS and could argue that I'm pointing out something related but slightly different. Alright then, this according to Wikipedia: "After the war at the Nuremberg Trials, the Waffen-SS was condemned as a criminal organization due to its essential connection to the Nazi Party and its involvement in war crimes." The Waffen-SS are a difficult group to defend I believe.

[kato13]

The SS did a whole bunch of horrific things, and not just involving death camps. Society has given them a bad rap because they were really, really bad news. The Wermacht were "just soldiers". The SS were a whole different kettle of fish.

Lets start with the Einsatzgruppen. "Just soldiers fighting other soldiers"? IMO that is historic revisionism of the highest order. Seriously.

I agree with this assessment. While I am not one to paint every member of any group with the same brush, I think the number of SS members who would be "innocent" in my mind would be smaller than any almost all other groups which fought in WWII. The fact that they did not start as a military unit but rather a group of political enforcers also diminishes them in my eyes when compared to professional soldiers.

[waiting4something]

The SS did a whole bunch of horrific things, and not just involving death camps. Society has given them a bad rap because they were really, really bad news. The Wermacht were "just soldiers". The SS were a whole different kettle of fish.

Lets start with the Einsatzgruppen. "Just soldiers fighting other soldiers"? IMO that is historic revisionism of the highest order. Seriously.

You specifically mentioned the Waffen-SS and could argue that I'm pointing out something related but slightly different. Alright then, this according to Wikipedia: "After the war at the Nuremberg Trials, the Waffen-SS was condemned as a criminal organization due to its essential connection to the Nazi Party and its involvement in war crimes." The Waffen-SS are a difficult group to defend I believe.

I love this topic!:D War criminals? In who's eyes, the people that just got done fighting and getting shot at by them. The same people that dropped the Jews in the meat grinder with the Palestine's. Vietnam vets are called war criminals by some, but I don't think that's true either. The men under General Sherman's that burned Atlanta are war criminals to some people to this day. But, I'm not gonna blast the whole Union Army. What you had was a bunch of pissed off people that needed a someone to point a finger at like always, so you point at one group to focus your rage on. That group has to be one that stands out. The Nazis used the same tactic with pointing out the Jews for being the heel. The Waffen-SS is hard to defend because they have been played the bad guys over and over. I'll defend them, hell somebody has to.

And as far as Einsatzgruppen as I recall from WW2 history class in college, these people were not given that assignment, because they were top notch soldiers. They usually ended up in that outfit as a punishment or because they were seen as probelm children. So you got the bottom of the barrel doing bottom of the barrel jobs and everyone in the Waffen-SS is a criminal.

[waiting4something]

I agree with this assessment. While I am not one to paint every member of any group with the same brush, I think the number of SS members who would be "innocent" in my mind would be smaller than any almost all other groups which fought in WWII. The fact that they did not start as a military unit but rather a group of political enforcers also diminishes them in my eyes when compared to professional soldiers.

It was the SA that was the brown shirted political enforcer/thugs. The SS came into play later. There was two types of SS, the Waffen was the Armed or combat troops. Most these poor bastards went to the eastern front and didn't have time to be gasing and burning people. They did have time to get shot at, freeze to death, bayoneted, etc...etc... It funny to me how we as people are such pack animals. It's like MR. Pink in Reservior Dogs says, "tip these guys over here, but not these guys over here".

[Targan]

War criminals? In who's eyes, the people that just got done fighting and getting shot at by them.Well yes, and me.
The same people that dropped the Jews in the meat grinder with the Palestine's.I don't really understand what you mean here.
Vietnam vets are called war criminals by some, but I don't that's true either.Well some were war criminals, that is a matter of public record, but a tiny minority. There are bad eggs in every basket. I know that some Commonwealth soldiers have done terrible things too at times.
What you had was a bunch of pissed off people that needed a someone to point a finger at like always, so you point at one group to focus your rage on.Actually in terms of WWII there are a number of groups we could point the finger at, not just the SS. But they are a good example of a group that was rotten to the core. Remember, "just following orders" isn't a valid defence and the version of history that most informed people accept is the one in which the SS were a really nasty organisation.
The Nazis used the same tactic with pointing out the Jews for being the heel.Umm, the Nazis demonised the Jews through rampant anti-semitism that had little or no basis in fact. I and others demonise the SS because, well, they did really bad things. I would venture that the two examples are very different.
The Waffen-SS is hard to defend because they have been played the bad guys over and over. I'll defend them, hell somebody has to.Well if you want to play the devil's advocate for the purposes of discussion, fair enough.
And as far as Einsatzgruppen as I recall from WW2 history class in college, these people were not given that assignment, because they were top notch soldiers. They usually ended up in that outfit as a punishment or because they were seen as probelm children. So you got the bottom of the barrel doing bottom of the barrel jobs and everyone in the Waffen-SS is a criminal.Not everyone in the Waffen-SS was a criminal, but everyone in the Waffen-SS who was given an illegal order and followed it was (technically). I have no doubt that many of the forced conscripts serving in the Waffen-SS didn't want to be there but as I said earlier in this post "just following orders" isn't a valid defence. Just sayin'.

[waiting4something]

Damn. Maybe there should be just a thread on Nazi Germany alone!:D Some guys in Vietnam were war criminals sure, like a good chunk by your account. Guys in the Pheonix Program or guys that went outside of Vietnam's borders weren't following "legal" orders.

What I meant by the same guys that said the Waffen-SS are all criminals, are the same guys that said let's put all the Jews in this country already occupied with people that resent them and call it Israel. Bad judgement- I think so. The war drums still beat in Israel, because what these master minds did.

I think the Nazi's would not have been able to explot the Jews to have been evil if there weren't that feeling there already. Not dogging the Jews by any means, but they have been disliked by many over a long period of time. We all have heard the expression "are you jewing me." No I don't think Jews are any worse then anyone else, but right or wrong society has seen them in a bad light when it comes to money, which is a negative stereo type.

War is ugly, but I'm not gonna nail a trooper to the cross if he does something like shoots a POW because he can't afford to baby sit him. And that is seen as wrong too. Society has no probelm being a bunch of Jackals as long as it isn't their ass.

[headquarters]

Were a mixed bag ,Gentlemen.

Their cause they will forever be linked to is the inhuman fantasies of Adolf Hitler.It is hard to defend them as they fought for unacceptable goals.For sure the waffen ss was a nazi army .In fact they were elite nazies.

But , and I say this only because there is ALWAYS a but in war:

The organization as a whole was diverse in as much as this :
it spanned regular military units that were considered elite on the German side as well as running political schools,sports clubs,youth organizations,death camps,secret police,civillian enterprises in construction and research,political bureaus etc etc .The personell involved were different.The elite units had rigorous requirements to join.

The Waffen SS were mainly a military organization that conducted regular warfare .It participated in a number of war crimes,notably in Russia and Belaurs -but it was not an organization that was mainly used for such activities.(Waffen means weapon/armed SS as opposed to the other branches or the Algemeine SS ).

Other parts of the SS handled the more organized type warcrimes such as round ups,concentration camps ,penal expeditions etc .

Many units in the SS had excellent records of discipline and combat professionalism.And to shake the boat even further - not all were nazies (!).
Some were nationalists trying to fight the Red Army occupants any way they could.Other were anti communist of some variety .Dont forget there were two madmen with huge armies mucking about on killing sprees at the time -Stalin was a real treath as well..Alot of them were adventurous youth stuck in occupied Europe.Some joined for percieved economical benefits.

They fought on the wrong side - as we well know today .Back then it might not have been as black and white .Not all of them were the demons that they are made out to be today.

But nuances in the case of the SS is rarely accepted due to the horror it was fighting for.And maybe they cant be accentuated either -because important principles might get lost if things start to get to murky and grey area.

Lastly -war crimes investigations are rarely conducted towards units on the winning side -even when they are as plain as day as was the case in WWII.
The Waffen SS undoubtedly participated in its share and many got sentences for their part .On the other hand , profiled units on the allied side that conducted well documented indiscriminate massacres on civillians and used weapons of mass destruction on civillian population centers was treated quite the opposite.

[copeab]

Well some were war criminals, that is a matter of public record, but a tiny minority. There are bad eggs in every basket. I know that some Commonwealth soldiers have done terrible things too at times.


All armies have individual soldiers and even units that commits atrocities. What matters most is whether or not the actions are part of am organized policy from a higher command.

On a related note, from what I've heard, it's probably best the Japanese tended to go out in banzai charges rather than surrender in large numbers ...

Actually in terms of WWII there are a number of groups we could point the finger at, not just the SS. But they are a good example of a group that was rotten to the core. Remember, "just following orders" isn't a valid defence and the version of history that most informed people accept is the one in which the SS were a really nasty organisation.


For example Japan's Unit 731.

[waiting4something]

All armies have individual soldiers and even units that commits atrocities. What matters most is whether or not the actions are part of am organized policy from a higher command.

On a related note, from what I've heard, it's probably best the Japanese tended to go out in banzai charges rather than surrender in large numbers ...



For example Japan's Unit 731.

Unit 731 you must be a Slayer fan.:D

[simonmark6]

There are always exceptions to rules, but to use those exceptions to try to re-write history and say that the Waffen SS were roughly morally analogous the the United State marine Corps is, in my opinion not being a Devil's Advocate, it is downright insulting to the Marines.

Even discounting the concentration camps and the fact that many Waffen SS men recovered from their wounds by serving in the Death Camps, main line Waffen SS units were deemed responsible for a minumum of 65,000 war criminal murders and up to about 120,000-150,000, over the course of the war. That amounts to between .06 and .15 murders for every man that served in the Waffen SS.

True, even the War Crimes Commission excluded the conscripted members of the Waffen SS that were allocated to the unit after 1943 from the label of War Criminals, but to say that the Waffen SS were a bunch of regular guys in a tough situation and that they are just like the US Marine Corps is bordering on denial, not fair advocacy.

I understand that people do bad things during war, but to say that they do it time and a gain and should be forgiven for it because, hey, people tend to blame others so we shouldn't jump on the band wagon. Some people and some groups do deserve villification and in my opinion the Waffen SS as a group have the blood of millions on their hands. To try and cast this aside as a frippery is insulting to the millions that died in the and the men that gave their lives so that we could engage in such a debate.

[waiting4something]

There are always exceptions to rules, but to use those exceptions to try to re-write history and say that the Waffen SS were roughly morally analogous the the United State marine Corps is, in my opinion not being a Devil's Advocate, it is downright insulting to the Marines.

Even discounting the concentration camps and the fact that many Waffen SS men recovered from their wounds by serving in the Death Camps, main line Waffen SS units were deemed responsible for a minumum of 65,000 war criminal murders and up to about 120,000-150,000, over the course of the war. That amounts to between .06 and .15 murders for every man that served in the Waffen SS.

True, even the War Crimes Commission excluded the conscripted members of the Waffen SS that were allocated to the unit after 1943 from the label of War Criminals, but to say that the Waffen SS were a bunch of regular guys in a tough situation and that they are just like the US Marine Corps is bordering on denial, not fair advocacy.

I understand that people do bad things during war, but to say that they do it time and a gain and should be forgiven for it because, hey, people tend to blame others so we shouldn't jump on the band wagon. Some people and some groups do deserve villification and in my opinion the Waffen SS as a group have the blood of millions on their hands. To try and cast this aside as a frippery is insulting to the millions that died in the and the men that gave their lives so that we could engage in such a debate.

It's not really insulting at all. It's just a observation. To go along with not really thinking about something and join the popular crowd is how bad things like genecides happen. The point a finger at a whole group instead of individuals, that is just foolish. Freedom is here so we can speak with are minds, not go along with what everyone else that has been brain washed with thinks.

[simonmark6]

Your first point may not have been insulting, calling me foolish and brain washed is.

[kato13]

Ending another thread. This is veering towards insults.