www.ditl.org

Tsukiyumi wrote:Mongol is f*cked, up close or at a distance.

No, it's not just personal bias; the Comanche were the last tribe to surrender to the US, and our battle tactics were supreme. We just didn't have the numbers or resources to keep fighting.

What were their mounted combat tactics, and what sort of weapons did they use? The key is whether mounted combat was the norm for them, and whether they had compound bows. If not then I'm with Deep on this one, except that I very much doubt it will come the close combat - the Mongol will simply stay clear, put down a deluge of arrows at long range, and the Commanche has had it.

Unless this is in the latter era of the Comanche, where they were using captured American rifles. In that case the Mongol is screwed.

If we're talking "classic" Comanche (ie, no gun), then my money's on the Mongol. They didn't create the second largest empire in the world just through luck.

Sionnach Glic wrote:Unless this is in the latter era of the Comanche, where they were using captured American rifles. In that case the Mongol is screwed.

In that case it might as well be mid-19th century US Army versus Mongols, given that it would be their kit providing the decisive edge.

Mark wrote:Aztec Jaguar vs. Zande Warrior,

This I'll watch just for the Aztec.

Jesse James Gang vs. Al Capone Gang,

Revolvers and lever action guns against Thompsons and semi-autos? Really?

Somali Pirate vs. Medellin Cartel,

Hopefully with a surprise guest appearance by a SEAL sniper.

Nazi SS vs. Viet Cong,

Highly trained well equipped soldier vs. poorly trained jungle fighter in a stand up fight. This will end poorly for the Viet Cong unless they hold it in a jungle.

KGB vs. CIA,

How will this one play out? Through proxies like it usually did?

Tyyr wrote:

Nazi SS vs. Viet Cong,

Highly trained well equipped soldier vs. poorly trained jungle fighter in a stand up fight. This will end poorly for the Viet Cong unless they hold it in a jungle.

Depends which SS and which Viet Cong. A twelve year old with a bolt-action rifle versus an experienced guerilla fighter with an AK-47.

I strong suspect it'll be the SS at it's height. The Viet-Cong were good at what they did, but they were jungle fighters who's main weapon was their ability to use that terrain to their advantage and fight from ambush. In a straight up fight they were not that great. The kind of set ups Deadliest Warrior goes for don't account for terrain I believe and without the benefit of the jungle it'll be ugly. The AK-47 is a good gun but it's main benefits are things Deadliest Warrior doesn't bother with. In terms of what Deadliest Warrior looks at the MP44 isn't going to be at a tremendous disadvantage.

Sionnach Glic wrote:Unless this is in the latter era of the Comanche, where they were using captured American rifles. In that case the Mongol is screwed.

Comanche means "horse people"; we could easily match Mongols on horseback, and our mounted tactics (like sliding over to one side or another of the horse while shooting arrows) were pretty damn extreme. Like I said, there's a reason we were the last tribe to surrender to the US.

Sionnach Glic wrote:If we're talking "classic" Comanche (ie, no gun), then my money's on the Mongol. They didn't create the second largest empire in the world just through luck.

We controlled a territory (the Comancheria) almost the size of Texas in the late 1800's. Personally, I think one of the reasons we gave up was that we realized we were the only ones left fighting. Might also explain why we are the only tribe I can think of that doesn't have a Reservation.

Texas vs most of Asia are two different ballgames. Same as you say the Comanche were the last to give up where the Mongols were the ones expanding.

Sorry Tsu, unless they give your guys firearms then the Comanche are a sure loss.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Comanche means "horse people"; we could easily match Mongols on horseback, and our mounted tactics (like sliding over to one side or another of the horse while shooting arrows) were pretty damn extreme. Like I said, there's a reason we were the last tribe to surrender to the US.

I'm having trouble coming up with anything good on the web, so what sort of gear would a typical Comanche warrior be equipped with? Does he have anything that can match the composite bow the Mongols could field?

Other then muskets, just watch the Apache ep again of Deadliest Warrior. Their kit would be just about the same.

Yeah, but with more skill.

I'm not saying the Mongols weren't serious business. In fact, they're pretty much just another tribe; I'm saying the Comanche were used to fighting superior opponents and winning, and in a one on one fight, the Comanche would probably win. It probably won't end up on horseback, anyways, and there, the Comanche has the advantage of size and ferocity.

Also, if they pit the Mongols at their peak against the Comanche at their peak, they'd have to include firearms, stolen kit or not.

Sounds like a lot of Fanboy Tsu. What do the Comanche have that the Mongols don't? That's the question.

Mongols have superior armor, superior bows, superior melee weapons. At the most, the Comanche MAY have firearms. Even then they may skip the firearms in order to balance things out.

Well, I guess we'll see what criteria they use to determine a winner.

Fanboy? Dude, don't make me come up there.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Well, I guess we'll see what criteria they use to determine a winner.

True enough, if you're lucky they'll give you firearms. In that case it will be a sure win for you.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Fanboy? Dude, don't make me come up there.

Don't get mad at me for your responses.

I understand what you're saying about the Comanche, but I believe you're undervaluing the Mongols at the same time, especially if they get to CQ while still mounted. There's no Comanche (or any Native American Nation) weapon that can stay in a cut as long as an Asian yatagan precursor.