|
Post by Subuatai on May 16, 2009 7:19:35 GMT -5
Thanks for the correction Btw M4 uses 5.56mm, AK74 use 5.45mm, roughly the same. Heh if you want light and easy-to-fire, try the F88 Austeyr, feels like a freakin' plastic BB gun. Prefered the F89 Minimis for some reason, guess cause it felt like a 'real gun' haha (these are modified Australian rifles based on the AUG series and M249 LMGs).
|
|
|
Post by Groink on May 16, 2009 13:38:00 GMT -5
Thanks for the correction Btw M4 uses 5.56mm, AK74 use 5.45mm, roughly the same. aw, see what happens when i'm too quick to correct someone? I really like most of Fabrique Nationale's designs. The FN-FAL was a fav of mine. The closest I've gotten to one was looking at a Springfield Armory version (SAR-4800). Sadly discontinued.
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on May 17, 2009 12:48:00 GMT -5
FAL was really inspirational, it inspired the Israeli Galil rifle for example. You have a great taste, too bad we're too far away to meet up for a rifle session. Heh I miss Western Australia to be honest, here in New South Wales, everything on guns is WAY TOO STRICT!!!!
|
|
|
Post by volume on May 17, 2009 12:53:14 GMT -5
Counter-Strike says that they use 7.62mm rounds.
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on May 17, 2009 13:03:23 GMT -5
AK47 uses 7.62mm, AK74 uses 5.45mm, same caliber as Makarov pistols. Counterstrike is a game -.-
|
|
|
Post by volume on May 17, 2009 13:21:50 GMT -5
AK 47 uses 7.62mm, AK 74 uses 5.45mm, same caliber as Makarov pistols. Counterstrike is a game -.- Oh wait, totally didn't see that, now I've just made myself look retarded. Pic posted before is the AK-47. P.s cs4lyf, cs=lyf
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on May 17, 2009 13:40:08 GMT -5
Heh, no worries mate
|
|
maow
Full Member
Posts: 363
|
Post by maow on May 20, 2009 0:56:49 GMT -5
Just watched the Russian Spetnatz vs Green Beret online at Spike TV, pretty good but I was hoping to see some one on one unarmed combat!
|
|
|
Post by amalgam on May 20, 2009 8:37:30 GMT -5
AK 47 uses 7.62mm, AK 74 uses 5.45mm, same caliber as Makarov pistols. Counterstrike is a game -.- Oh wait, totally didn't see that, now I've just made myself look retarded. Pic posted before is the AK-47. P.s cs4lyf, cs=lyf OM_G CS: S r0X0rZZz TEH BIG ONE!!111ONEONE__... Sorry, had to say.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on May 21, 2009 21:27:07 GMT -5
Shaolin monk FTW
I really thought they'd go with Maori as Maori won 3 out of 4 weapons matchups (the most lop-sided to date on the show) but the steel hooking swords just owned the Maori's non-steel primitive weaponry. Interestingly they featured a 5'9 Maori earlier on against a 5'6 monk - thought the Maori was kind of small given the size of some of those guys today, though maybe that's modern nutrition for you (anyone know how big they were pre-European arrival?). I guess the Maori would still kill in a Rugby match, unless they develop Shaolin rugby. I'm also guessing the matchup would depend a lot on age in real life- Maori's have an early edge due to more real combat experience, and it would take quite a few years for the training and conditioning of the Shaolin to make him a better fighter.
|
|
|
Post by i move the stars for no one on May 21, 2009 22:36:57 GMT -5
i don't watch the show on a regular basis,i just watched this round because of the Maori.i have to say,i'm really surprised they got the edge in weaponry.granted the demonstrations showed how useful the weapons were,but i really thought that the shaolins would have had the advantage,especially with the hooking swords and the emei piercers.i mean,the mere was brutal,but the piercers somehow just seemed more lethal.i guess it's because being Polynesian myself getting hit in the head with blunt objects doesn't seem like such a big deal. the only one where i thought they had a clear advantage was the taiaha over the staff. in the end,i'm not surprised to monk won.the maori guys sounded just like all my Samoan family members,though-like they've never met something they couldn't crush underfoot.. ::)i don't think the arrival of europeans had all that much to do with any increase in size.since Polynesians are theoretically descended from asians i would love to know more about how the adaptations came about that basically changed them into a new race.i've also noticed that polynesian guys may be sizeable but they're not always tall.most of the men in my family (and i'm including my 60 odd uncles and cousins) are 6 foot or less.granted,they're all linebackers,but not all that tall when you think about it. but that's kinda far afield from the thread topic.
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on May 22, 2009 8:21:30 GMT -5
Maoris are Polynesians, they evolved over millenias as humans do. As for their Asian heritage it's theorical due to the fact that they have similar genetics to Siberian and Ainu people, but they aren't from East Asia. Their typical build is not always tall sure, but large body mass which is akin to Mongols. They also eat Taro, scientifically proven to be a natural growth stimulant.
As for the round, I'm not surprised either. I've seen a Shaolin monk show before, and even a Shaolin kid could perform physical feats that seemed not humanly possible. I've also seen one pinch a piece of glass off a glass panel without breaking it, not to mention their amazing striking and evasive ability. Still, I've fought with strikers all my life, once I get a grip on them fight's all over.
Btw, LOL at the end; "Computer's probably Chinese!"
|
|
|
Post by betahat on May 22, 2009 11:10:24 GMT -5
^Still, I've fought with strikers all my life, once I get a grip on them fight's all over.
True, though that is less likely to happen when fighting someone with hooked swords UFC + edged weapons = less man-humping on the ground
The height vs. weight match-up is interesting. Subuatai, I know you've mentioned in the past how you think size is a fairly important dimension in warfare, but how do you compare height and reach versus weight? Is a warrior of equal height but with more weight necessarily better than a thinner, lighter opponent, even with deadly weapons (so grappling and even weapon power are less important)? If you could trade off some weight for some height, which do you think gives an advantage?
I loved the Maori guys sense of humor! I wanted more cannibalism jokes too.
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on May 22, 2009 11:35:50 GMT -5
Ok, last post, then I gotta sleep, another dam shift tomorrow...
Yeah those hooked swords are real nasty, I even used to carry a meathook in my youth during my times on the street. A pulling-slashing weapon is not only intimidating and versatile, it is deadly; I'm not surprised that it was given the proper credit during the show. Dacians in modern day Hungaria used curved swords which were designed to slice with a pulling and hooking motion. Legionaries had a lot of tough time with them.
As for height vs weight match-up; I'm the shortest bloke in my family at 182 cm (1cm short of 6 feet) and weight only 74 kg, but my cousins are 6 feet+ to 7'2" and weigh average 120kg. So I tend to believe in both, but favor weight. Perhaps it's our particular tribal background but we are not sure. I've also seen very huge Mongols, but also heard of one who is 5'1 - but still at 80 kg of pure muscle who participates in Naadam wrestling.
From my experience in wrestling however; anchor weight is important, height and reach is an advantage but I've fought against strikers who were taller, as once I had a grip, it's over; Even if they had weapons which some prefered to fight with. Also, the tallest man in the world who was Mongol; he was a stick, I believe any other Mongol would be able to take him on.
Equal height and weight? I believe weight will have the obvious advantage. But of course, one's own individual skill must be taken to account. But anchor weight and muscle mass has natural physical superiority over a slimmer and lighter opponent. But in the terms of weaponry - reach gives the superior advantage. Reality is that unarmed combat is rarely fought on serious fights. Outnumbered on the streets in the past , I still resorted to a bike-chain which ran from under my jacket down my sleeve for easy usage. I believe that "whip-chain" in that show was totally under-rated.
As for Maoris, I'm very biased. I love their people, their culture, their traditions, and hell everything about them. I call their country Aotearoa, and my respect of them is utterly concrete.
|
|
|
Post by attilathehun513 on Jun 3, 2009 23:50:46 GMT -5
damn I missed this week's episode!
|
|