Why is the deadiest warrior show so inaccurate?

[hell2pay]

Please explain how they came to the conclusion that the Waffen SS from the 40's would beat the Vietcong IN Vietnam when american forces couldnt beat them with a military force that is 20 years more advanced than it was in the time when it beat the nazis in WW2? Its obvious in this match up that whoever has home field advantage would destroy the other force but they dont ever take that into account. Vietcong wouldnt last A day in the open ground battlefield setting of europe vs the military force that nearly spear headed the taking over of the world. And the Waffen SS would get beat faster than america did facing the Vietcong with their gloves off, dirty guerrilla warfare tactics in A jungle where the Waffen SS wouldnt have tanks or the ability to use their classic open ground warfare tactics.
Then, with a samurei vs a viking, why dont they take into account that the average samurai was probably about 5'5'' 120 pounds while a viking was way wayyy bigger and stronger. dont get me wrong, samurais were bad men but Youve got to take into account the physicality of these individuals.
Then they say a pirate who has no armor, no training, and probably has scurvy would beat a Knight whos been trained from day one to pretty much be a terminator, is decked out head toe in full body armor, has a vast assortment of weapons including projectiles such as crossbow which is a hell of alot more accurate than a pirates smooth bore musket would be. Not to mention a knight has a gigantic highly trained friesian war horse bred to kill anyone and everyone in site around them? I dont think so...

 

[JerryL1]

its a good show but weapons make most of the results and damage

 

[DanielGrey]

Because they are stupid and they base all of their results on the weaponry the the warrior itself.
But the show is still entertaining to watch and they are getting better at coming up with accurate results

 

[Diego]

Yes

 

[daniel]

The U.S. didn't exactly lose, they lost tens of thousands of troops while the Vietnamese lost tens of millions. And you have to take into consideration that the war ended with a treaty splitting the country in half with democracy being in the south and Communist being in the north. It ended because it was the 1960's hippie movement where the war was so controversial soldiers were looked down upon and called baby killers. HOWEVER, north Vietnam later invaded south Vietnam and the U.S. chose not to getvinvolved seeing as communism wasn't such a big threat anymore.