Where to begin with this show... Lets start with what I like about it. Learning about the weapons of each group is great, the tests are accurate at measuring damage. The trash talking is kind of funny.
Now what to what I don't like...
They test a lot of one on one battles where as the the groups may not fight in one on one. example *Spoiler* Mongol vs Commanche. The mongols fought as a group and had the largest empire in history, the commanche got pushed out by the US government in a short period of time. Also a skill factor comes in, the mongol warrior was trained in martial arts, none of that was tested or taken into variable.
Other issues include unreasonable testing. Of course the army with steel armor is going to win against the army with leather armor.
*Spoiler* Vlad the Impaler vs Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu was a genius in warfare, Vlad was just a lunatic who killed a lot of people. Strategy in this episode would have been a huge variable. It also was a one on one battle. This is a huge issue, if you wanted to compare them, they should have done at least a 5 man simulation.
Bias is another issue I see in this show *spoiler* Swat vs GSG9 episode.
SWAT are local in any major city in the USA. GSG9 is Germany's elite counter terrorist team. The gave an edge to SWAT for unsound reasons, their assault rifle, and special weapon. Reality is the mid range assault rifles of each group are equal, there is no edge to either. as for the special weapons, the immobile large group stun gun is not versatile like the GSG9 stun grenade. GSG9 was one of the inspirations to Clancy's Rainbow Six. Swat was not. Another issue, GSG9 is a single group, not in every major city, so there is little variation. SWAT is in every major city, and they all vary.
Overall for a show. the weapons testing from a damage point of view is cool, however they don't put in situational and tactical information, and very little history variables. Cool to watch damage testing, bad on validity and accuracy.
Now what to what I don't like...
They test a lot of one on one battles where as the the groups may not fight in one on one. example *Spoiler* Mongol vs Commanche. The mongols fought as a group and had the largest empire in history, the commanche got pushed out by the US government in a short period of time. Also a skill factor comes in, the mongol warrior was trained in martial arts, none of that was tested or taken into variable.
Other issues include unreasonable testing. Of course the army with steel armor is going to win against the army with leather armor.
*Spoiler* Vlad the Impaler vs Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu was a genius in warfare, Vlad was just a lunatic who killed a lot of people. Strategy in this episode would have been a huge variable. It also was a one on one battle. This is a huge issue, if you wanted to compare them, they should have done at least a 5 man simulation.
Bias is another issue I see in this show *spoiler* Swat vs GSG9 episode.
SWAT are local in any major city in the USA. GSG9 is Germany's elite counter terrorist team. The gave an edge to SWAT for unsound reasons, their assault rifle, and special weapon. Reality is the mid range assault rifles of each group are equal, there is no edge to either. as for the special weapons, the immobile large group stun gun is not versatile like the GSG9 stun grenade. GSG9 was one of the inspirations to Clancy's Rainbow Six. Swat was not. Another issue, GSG9 is a single group, not in every major city, so there is little variation. SWAT is in every major city, and they all vary.
Overall for a show. the weapons testing from a damage point of view is cool, however they don't put in situational and tactical information, and very little history variables. Cool to watch damage testing, bad on validity and accuracy.