Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Open Forum => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Colin Michael on June 09, 2009, 10:52:15 PM
-
This show wins the internet. Anyone else seen this?
-
I've seen most of them on Spike. They are fun shows with some educational benefits ;). I like how it keeps the winner in suspense until the end of the acting part. I also like the fact that, most of the time, they bring in people connected to the warrior they are using.
-
Good show though 75% of the time they get the winner wrong but oh well :P
-
I love how the Russian Spetznaz beat the Green Berets with completely outdated technology. That's because we Russians are just that awesome.
-
I like the fact that their high tech battle simulator looks exactly like Excel.
-
Good show though 75% of the time they get the winner wrong but oh well :P
Of the 2 shows I've seen....I thought they got the winner right both times. That and the fact, the computer picked the same person I did to win. ;D
-
I love how the Russian Spetznaz beat the Green Berets with completely outdated technology. That's because we Russians are just that awesome.
Wasn't that the show where the winner basically only won by 16 kills?
The Mafia one was one of my top favorites.
-
i personally disliked the mafia and the yakuza one...actually, any of them involving guns...as with any gunfight, the one that usually wins is the one that shoots first. my favorite by far was the ninja/spartan episode. very cool, very epic.
i also wonder how they found their 'expert' for the pirate/knight episode. i imagine the expert they found backing the pirate side was some sheltered pirate fanatic still living in his moms basement playing dungeons&dragons all day long.
-
I love how the Russian Spetznaz beat the Green Berets with completely outdated technology. That's because we Russians are just that awesome.
John Wayne just rolled over in his grave.
Has Ghengis Khan fought yet?
-
i'v only seen some of gladiator VS Apache
-
i'v only seen some of gladiator VS Apache
The funny part of that episode was that the gladiator team talked about the armor that they use but in the end acting, the gladiator basically didn't have armor :P.
-
i'v only seen some of gladiator VS Apache
The funny part of that episode was that the gladiator team talked about the armor that they use but in the end acting, the gladiator basically didn't have armor :P.
yeah
i would have figured the gladiator would have won
-
That show is awesome
-
Oh IRA versus Taliban was a very excellent one.
-
taliban should have won. even my irish roommate agreed. rpg ftw.
-
taliban should have won. even my irish roommate agreed. rpg ftw.
The Irish had so many better weapons and tactics though (even though the CIA did arm the Taliban pretty well). I mean, the Taliban's getting owned right now; the IRA hasn't barely been touched.
-
taliban should have won. even my irish roommate agreed. rpg ftw.
Psh! I may not agree with IRA politics, but my people are a hardy bunch of fighting, drinking, brawling manly-men!
-
taliban should have won. even my irish roommate agreed. rpg ftw.
The Irish had so many better weapons and tactics though (even though the CIA did arm the Taliban pretty well). I mean, the Taliban's getting owned right now; the IRA hasn't barely been touched.
taliban getting 'owned'? are you being serious? and the war against terror has been going on for HOW LONG now? haha yes, clearly we're 'owning' the taliban.
the ira does have better experience in explosives, but seriously, only an idiot would run blindly into a bus and get blown up. the taliban would have just rocketed the entire bus.
-
taliban should have won. even my irish roommate agreed. rpg ftw.
The Irish had so many better weapons and tactics though (even though the CIA did arm the Taliban pretty well). I mean, the Taliban's getting owned right now; the IRA hasn't barely been touched.
taliban getting 'owned'? are you being serious? and the war against terror has been going on for HOW LONG now? haha yes, clearly we're 'owning' the taliban.
the ira does have better experience in explosives, but seriously, only an idiot would run blindly into a bus and get blown up. the taliban would have just rocketed the entire bus.
The re-enactment doesn't actually represent what would have happened. The IRA are far more mechanical in their timing.
-
haha yes, planting nail bombs in pubs sure is 'mechanical'.
the comparison between assault rifles was also misjudged; many experts would agree an ak47 owns an ar15...reliability wins ANYDAY (i find it comical they arrived at the reverse decision despite the ar15 jamming up). most of the stuff they cover is accurate, but they make some glaring mistakes as well (gb vs spet: a shooting knife beats the entrenching tool? WHAT? for one, who wants to lose their close range weapon, and two, the entrenching tool can cut a mans skull IN HALF. and sure, the spets can roll around and shoot from unorthodox positions, but like the gb said while the russian was doing all that jazzy rolling around, he'd just put a round in him).
-
haha yes, planting nail bombs in pubs sure is 'mechanical'.
the comparison between assault rifles was also misjudged; many experts would agree an ak47 owns an ar15...reliability wins ANYDAY (i find it comical they arrived at the reverse decision despite the ar15 jamming up). most of the stuff they cover is accurate, but they make some glaring mistakes as well (gb vs spet: a shooting knife beats the entrenching tool? WHAT? for one, who wants to lose their close range weapon, and two, the entrenching tool can cut a mans skull IN HALF. and sure, the spets can roll around and shoot from unorthodox positions, but like the gb said while the russian was doing all that jazzy rolling around, he'd just put a round in him).
The Russians were better fighters completely. Did you see the handgun thing?
-
Yeah but for the handgun thing the russian dude was walking really slow the GB guy was like 10 seconds faster.
-
Yeah but for the handgun thing the russian dude was walking really slow the GB guy was like 10 seconds faster.
He was like five seconds faster and missed two targets.
-
bah the 9mm stinks any ways :p
-
haha yes, planting nail bombs in pubs sure is 'mechanical'.
the comparison between assault rifles was also misjudged; many experts would agree an ak47 owns an ar15...reliability wins ANYDAY (i find it comical they arrived at the reverse decision despite the ar15 jamming up). most of the stuff they cover is accurate, but they make some glaring mistakes as well (gb vs spet: a shooting knife beats the entrenching tool? WHAT? for one, who wants to lose their close range weapon, and two, the entrenching tool can cut a mans skull IN HALF. and sure, the spets can roll around and shoot from unorthodox positions, but like the gb said while the russian was doing all that jazzy rolling around, he'd just put a round in him).
The Russians were better fighters completely. Did you see the handgun thing?
so hold on, you're guaging the effectiveness of an entire military division based on handgun marksmanship alone? so? the show failed to mention the m9 beretta carries TWICE as many rounds as the makarov. also, according to the show we have better snipers (which we do...the dragonov is a joke compared alongside the m24, although they misrepresented the fire rate on the show...the m24 is bolt action). the only edge i can honestly give the spets was with their saiga shotgun...its a very, very, very sick shotgun...however i have no idea why the gb used the mossberg in favor of the semi-automatic benelli...
even so, both the spets and gb's have completely different battle tactics...the spets rely more on the individual alone rather than the entire squad, while the gb's general philosophy is to rely on squad tactics and combined firepower. and to put it simply, if you're outmanned and outgunned, you're pretty much screwed. russians 'completely better fighters'? not even close. tell you what, you take your makarov and i'll take the m24 at 300 yards, and we'll see what happens...
-
haha yes, planting nail bombs in pubs sure is 'mechanical'.
the comparison between assault rifles was also misjudged; many experts would agree an ak47 owns an ar15...reliability wins ANYDAY (i find it comical they arrived at the reverse decision despite the ar15 jamming up). most of the stuff they cover is accurate, but they make some glaring mistakes as well (gb vs spet: a shooting knife beats the entrenching tool? WHAT? for one, who wants to lose their close range weapon, and two, the entrenching tool can cut a mans skull IN HALF. and sure, the spets can roll around and shoot from unorthodox positions, but like the gb said while the russian was doing all that jazzy rolling around, he'd just put a round in him).
The Russians were better fighters completely. Did you see the handgun thing?
so hold on, you're guaging the effectiveness of an entire military division based on handgun marksmanship alone? so? the show failed to mention the m9 beretta carries TWICE as many rounds as the makarov. also, according to the show we have better snipers (which we do...the dragonov is a joke compared alongside the m24, although they misrepresented the fire rate on the show...the m24 is bolt action). the only edge i can honestly give the spets was with their saiga shotgun...its a very, very, very sick shotgun...however i have no idea why the gb used the mossberg in favor of the semi-automatic benelli...
even so, both the spets and gb's have completely different battle tactics...the spets rely more on the individual alone rather than the entire squad, while the gb's general philosophy is to rely on squad tactics and combined firepower. and to put it simply, if you're outmanned and outgunned, you're pretty much screwed. russians 'completely better fighters'? not even close. tell you what, you take your makarov and i'll take the m24 at 300 yards, and we'll see what happens...
The Russians were using technology that was decades old. They are the better warrior.
-
...what does that have to do with anything? how old is the ak47 and how long has it been in use? 50-60 years old and STILL going strong. your point has no validity...if both sides have the same arms and firepower, then you must compare battle tactics. again, you do your fancy little rolling around jig, we'll put a slug in you. again, the battle tactics between the two are tremendously different. the spets, although highly trained, their methods are not based on the team reliance and strategy like that of the gb's. and yeah, the spets are highly trained in pain resistance, but thats alot of training time spent on tactics that only become primarily useful if you're captured. in hand to hand, you usually die from a puncture force or blunt trauma at some point, so this type of training is a complete waste of time...almost utterly useless in modern warfare. if the weapons are similiar, or even in some cases inferior, the team that wins the most are the ones that work together and use their mind. gb's will on average win this battle hands down.
-
...what does that have to do with anything? how old is the ak47 and how long has it been in use? 50-60 years old and STILL going strong. your point has no validity...if both sides have the same arms and firepower, then you must compare battle tactics. again, you do your fancy little rolling around jig, we'll put a slug in you. again, the battle tactics between the two are tremendously different. the spets, although highly trained, their methods are not based on the team reliance and strategy like that of the gb's. and yeah, the spets are highly trained in pain resistance, but thats alot of training time spent on tactics that only become primarily useful if you're captured. in hand to hand, you usually die from a puncture force or blunt trauma at some point, so this type of training is a complete waste of time...almost utterly useless in modern warfare. if the weapons are similiar, or even in some cases inferior, the team that wins the most are the ones that work together and use their mind. gb's will on average win this battle hands down.
No way at all. GB's aren't psychopaths, they're cocky Americans. Also, a team of GB's is only as strong as their weakest link. The Russians are all able to independently function by themselves.
-
...what does that have to do with anything? how old is the ak47 and how long has it been in use? 50-60 years old and STILL going strong. your point has no validity...if both sides have the same arms and firepower, then you must compare battle tactics. again, you do your fancy little rolling around jig, we'll put a slug in you. again, the battle tactics between the two are tremendously different. the spets, although highly trained, their methods are not based on the team reliance and strategy like that of the gb's. and yeah, the spets are highly trained in pain resistance, but thats alot of training time spent on tactics that only become primarily useful if you're captured. in hand to hand, you usually die from a puncture force or blunt trauma at some point, so this type of training is a complete waste of time...almost utterly useless in modern warfare. if the weapons are similiar, or even in some cases inferior, the team that wins the most are the ones that work together and use their mind. gb's will on average win this battle hands down.
No way at all. GB's aren't psychopaths, they're cocky Americans. Also, a team of GB's is only as strong as their weakest link. The Russians are all able to independently function by themselves.
gb's have no 'weak link'; they're the best of the best. funny you mention 'cocky', seeing as how spets seem to always want to do things on their own. who cares if they're independent...a squad of highly trained soldiers can easily overcome a renegade rambo wannabe.
-
...what does that have to do with anything? how old is the ak47 and how long has it been in use? 50-60 years old and STILL going strong. your point has no validity...if both sides have the same arms and firepower, then you must compare battle tactics. again, you do your fancy little rolling around jig, we'll put a slug in you. again, the battle tactics between the two are tremendously different. the spets, although highly trained, their methods are not based on the team reliance and strategy like that of the gb's. and yeah, the spets are highly trained in pain resistance, but thats alot of training time spent on tactics that only become primarily useful if you're captured. in hand to hand, you usually die from a puncture force or blunt trauma at some point, so this type of training is a complete waste of time...almost utterly useless in modern warfare. if the weapons are similiar, or even in some cases inferior, the team that wins the most are the ones that work together and use their mind. gb's will on average win this battle hands down.
No way at all. GB's aren't psychopaths, they're cocky Americans. Also, a team of GB's is only as strong as their weakest link. The Russians are all able to independently function by themselves.
gb's have no 'weak link'; they're the best of the best. funny you mention 'cocky', seeing as how spets seem to always want to do things on their own. who cares if they're independent...a squad of highly trained soldiers can easily overcome a renegade rambo wannabe.
According to trained experts, they can't.
And yes, a squad of crappy American soldiers could maybe be an even match for a Russian (which is what you said).
-
...what does that have to do with anything? how old is the ak47 and how long has it been in use? 50-60 years old and STILL going strong. your point has no validity...if both sides have the same arms and firepower, then you must compare battle tactics. again, you do your fancy little rolling around jig, we'll put a slug in you. again, the battle tactics between the two are tremendously different. the spets, although highly trained, their methods are not based on the team reliance and strategy like that of the gb's. and yeah, the spets are highly trained in pain resistance, but thats alot of training time spent on tactics that only become primarily useful if you're captured. in hand to hand, you usually die from a puncture force or blunt trauma at some point, so this type of training is a complete waste of time...almost utterly useless in modern warfare. if the weapons are similiar, or even in some cases inferior, the team that wins the most are the ones that work together and use their mind. gb's will on average win this battle hands down.
No way at all. GB's aren't psychopaths, they're cocky Americans. Also, a team of GB's is only as strong as their weakest link. The Russians are all able to independently function by themselves.
gb's have no 'weak link'; they're the best of the best. funny you mention 'cocky', seeing as how spets seem to always want to do things on their own. who cares if they're independent...a squad of highly trained soldiers can easily overcome a renegade rambo wannabe.
According to trained experts, they can't.
And yes, a squad of crappy American soldiers could maybe be an even match for a Russian (which is what you said).
trained experts? somewhat. i've already pointed out many glaring mistakes and flaws. the show is primarily for entertainment value.
A (denoting singularity, one, lone, independent) russian soldier will die easily to a TEAM (denoting plurality, more than one, not alone) of gb's. i suggest picking up some simple rts' or even fps' to learn simple warfare strategy as such.
-
...what does that have to do with anything? how old is the ak47 and how long has it been in use? 50-60 years old and STILL going strong. your point has no validity...if both sides have the same arms and firepower, then you must compare battle tactics. again, you do your fancy little rolling around jig, we'll put a slug in you. again, the battle tactics between the two are tremendously different. the spets, although highly trained, their methods are not based on the team reliance and strategy like that of the gb's. and yeah, the spets are highly trained in pain resistance, but thats alot of training time spent on tactics that only become primarily useful if you're captured. in hand to hand, you usually die from a puncture force or blunt trauma at some point, so this type of training is a complete waste of time...almost utterly useless in modern warfare. if the weapons are similiar, or even in some cases inferior, the team that wins the most are the ones that work together and use their mind. gb's will on average win this battle hands down.
No way at all. GB's aren't psychopaths, they're cocky Americans. Also, a team of GB's is only as strong as their weakest link. The Russians are all able to independently function by themselves.
gb's have no 'weak link'; they're the best of the best. funny you mention 'cocky', seeing as how spets seem to always want to do things on their own. who cares if they're independent...a squad of highly trained soldiers can easily overcome a renegade rambo wannabe.
According to trained experts, they can't.
And yes, a squad of crappy American soldiers could maybe be an even match for a Russian (which is what you said).
trained experts? somewhat. i've already pointed out many glaring mistakes and flaws. the show is primarily for entertainment value.
A (denoting singularity, one, lone, independent) russian soldier will die easily to a TEAM (denoting plurality, more than one, not alone) of gb's. i suggest picking up some simple rts' or even fps' to learn simple warfare strategy as such.
Yes, however, Russians still win in squad on squad.
-
if you're trained to fight independently, how can you possibly fight as a team? i find it amusing how loosely you use the term 'squad' in regards to the spets.
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdarkphetus.rayd.org%2Fimages%2Ffunny%2FSpetsnaz.jpg&hash=dd932ffcfebbedf959b95f7ba3340aeb88ec0f28)
I watched that episode though... That ballistic knife is rediculous. lol.
Still, it bugged me that they didnt run both of each weapon type in the SAME way. GB's just had to stand and fire at a pig point blank, while the spetsnaz was doing an actual combat scenerio.
-
they do that alot. which is why i say the show is more for entertainment value than being fair to both participants.
-
if you're trained to fight independently, how can you possibly fight as a team? i find it amusing how loosely you use the term 'squad' in regards to the spets.
They used the term squad. The Russians work better independently; thus, a "squad" of Spetsnaz is going to have the advantage of being multipule targets working independently, as opposed to just a single target which can be taken out with one frag.
-
Main Entry: squad
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: team, crew
Synonyms: band, battalion, company, division, force, gang, group, regiment, squadron, troop
anyways.
just because the gb work together extraordinarily better than the spets does not mean they would all be grouped together to be taken out by a single frag. where did you EVER draw that correlation?
-
I just watched it,
The ballistic knife is officially the coolest thing ever
-
i have a problem with losing my close range weapon after just one use. its seriously one of the most useless weapons i've seen on the show.
-
i have a problem with losing my close range weapon after just one use. its seriously one of the most useless weapons i've seen on the show.
You don't always shoot it, you just CAN shoot it if you need to. Stop being whiny just because your country lost. All professional experts agree with me. Also, it's no surprise that Russian forces would trump American forces; Americans may be trained to think, but Russians are far more intelligent than Americans genetically. We've also seem that the Russians are incredibly better trained. The rifles and pistols are practically equal; however, the Spetsnaz are better trained with both (as was shown). The GB's have a better sniper rifle, which makes sense because of technology. Also, if you remember, the GB's said that they used the same grenades as the Spetsnaz a decade ago (showing another temporal technological advantage).
-
... Russians are far more intelligent than Americans genetically ...
And the proof of that is?
-
... Russians are far more intelligent than Americans genetically ...
And the proof of that is?
The only proof that he needs is that he's Colin and we're inferior. ::)
(Major sarcasm for those who don't know me or didn't read it in the statement.)
-
All professional experts agree with me.
Quoted for lies.
-
... Russians are far more intelligent than Americans genetically ...
And the proof of that is?
Americans are mutts; Russians have pure Russian, and therefore less anomalous, DNA.
-
This show kind of reminds me of Anachronism......
-
All professional experts agree with me.
Quoted for lies.
quoted for truth.
genetically superior? it amazes me how ignorant people truly can be.
-
All professional experts agree with me.
Quoted for lies.
quoted for truth.
Quoted.
-
genetically superior? it amazes me how ignorant people truly can be.
Ignorant of what? Nice appeal to modesty, by the way.
-
genetically superior? it amazes me how ignorant people truly can be.
Ignorant of what? Nice appeal to modesty, by the way.
ignorant to pretty much everything? i've provided countless specifics and facts on why the gb would literally tear apart the spets, and the best you can ever provide is 'nuh uh, no way, no they cant' with no substantiating evidence WHATSOEVER and this completey asinine claim to 'genetic superiority'. you've been outsmarted and outclassed in nearly EVERY aspect regarding this subject (not just by me, but by others as well), and your feeble attempts at constructing anything even REMOTELY valid is just further hurting your credibility. seriously, just give it up while you're not ahead.
-
genetically superior? it amazes me how ignorant people truly can be.
Ignorant of what? Nice appeal to modesty, by the way.
ignorant to pretty much everything? i've provided countless specifics and facts on why the gb would literally tear apart the spets, and the best you can ever provide is 'nuh uh, no way, no they cant' with no substantiating evidence WHATSOEVER and this completey asinine claim to 'genetic superiority'. you've been outsmarted and outclassed in nearly EVERY aspect regarding this subject (not just by me, but by others as well), and your feeble attempts at constructing anything even REMOTELY valid is just further hurting your credibility. seriously, just give it up while you're not ahead.
You seem to be under the false impression that I'm taking this argument seriously. You also seem to be under the false impression that you've constructed a good argument.
-
genetically superior? it amazes me how ignorant people truly can be.
Ignorant of what? Nice appeal to modesty, by the way.
ignorant to pretty much everything? i've provided countless specifics and facts on why the gb would literally tear apart the spets, and the best you can ever provide is 'nuh uh, no way, no they cant' with no substantiating evidence WHATSOEVER and this completey asinine claim to 'genetic superiority'. you've been outsmarted and outclassed in nearly EVERY aspect regarding this subject (not just by me, but by others as well), and your feeble attempts at constructing anything even REMOTELY valid is just further hurting your credibility. seriously, just give it up while you're not ahead.
You seem to be under the false impression that I'm taking this argument seriously. You also seem to be under the false impression that you've constructed a good argument.
if you're not taking it seriously, then why post? you're wasting your own time, but more importanty everyone elses. whether or not you seem to think i've constructed a good argument is subjective and furthermore irrelevant to me...you've already hurt your credibility.
-
if you're not taking it seriously, then why post? you're wasting your own time, but more importanty everyone elses.
I'll remember this for the next time you make a joke, which is what Colin was doing.
-
riiiiiiiiiiight, im failing to see the 'haha' part of his 'joke'. he's fabricated a slew of incorrect assertions, and i've proved his statements otherwise. but go ahead and make a mental note diablo, i really care less.
-
riiiiiiiiiiight, im failing to see the 'haha' part of his 'joke'. he's fabricated a slew of incorrect assertions, and i've proved his statements otherwise. but go ahead and make a mental note diablo, i really care less.
I'm smarter than you.
I'm Russian, you're American.
Ergo....
I win the internet.
In other news (more along the explanation side), messing with people is more humourous to me than traditional knock-knock jokes and the like. I also personally dig the fighting style of the Spetsnaz more than that of the Green Berets.
-
you're assuming im american. im actually russian.
-
you're assuming im american. im actually russian.
Then you're a traitor.
-
I still find this argument humoous due to the fact that the russians only won by seven points outside the standard diviation :P
-
Spetnaz stinks. My Call of Duty 4 game proves it.
-
Spetnaz stinks. My Call of Duty 4 game proves it.
That game is amazing and no it doesn't. If you have it on Wii I'll prove it.
My name online is "Bodaylavsky".
-
I'm a 360 soul Colin. Sorry.
P.S. SAS is the best.
-
P.S. SAS is the best.
Gosh, thanks! No one has ever said that about me before. ;)
-
Spetnaz stinks. My Call of Duty 4 game proves it.
That game is amazing and no it doesn't. If you have it on Wii I'll prove it.
My name online is "Bodaylavsky".
cod4 isn't on wii...
-
Spetnaz stinks. My Call of Duty 4 game proves it.
That game is amazing and no it doesn't. If you have it on Wii I'll prove it.
My name online is "Bodaylavsky".
cod4 isn't on wii...
My bad. Call of Duty Five (the good one).
-
Spetnaz stinks. My Call of Duty 4 game proves it.
That game is amazing and no it doesn't. If you have it on Wii I'll prove it.
My name online is "Bodaylavsky".
cod4 isn't on wii...
My bad. Call of Duty Five (the good one).
now this is a joke. i got the haha of this one! :D
-
Spetnaz stinks. My Call of Duty 4 game proves it.
That game is amazing and no it doesn't. If you have it on Wii I'll prove it.
My name online is "Bodaylavsky".
cod4 isn't on wii...
My bad. Call of Duty Five (the good one).
now this is a joke. i got the haha of this one! :D
Sorry.
The ONLY good one (made especially good because it's voiced by Kiefer Sutherland).