www.ditl.org

Mark wrote:Modern match results

Spetsnaz Kills IRA Kills
Close Range-----------Makarov Pistol 20-------------Webley Revolver ---------8
Mid Range-------------Saiga Shotgun 92--------------LPO-50 Flamethrower---11
Long Range -----------AK74 Carbine --472-------------AR-15 ArmaLite--------175
Dragonov Rifle-120-------------HK G3 Sniper Rifle------47
Special Weapons------Ballistic Knife-----6--------------Slingshot-----------------3
Explosive Weapons---RGD-5 Grenade---7--------------Nail Bomb 20
Totals----------------------------717--------------------------------264


For long range automatic rifles, the footage of season one reviewed the AR-15 Armlite and AK-74 Carbine. It was agreed that the Armlite was the more accurate weapon, but the AK-74 was the more durable weapon; hence, the result was a draw.
For mid range weaponry, footage for season one reviewed the IRA's LPO-50 Flamethrower against the Spetsnaz's Saiga Shotgun. While the Saiga was quick and deadly, the LPO-50 Flamethrower brought a psychological advantage. Additionally, burn injuries were deemed to be far worse than gun shot wounds, giving the IRA the edge.
For long range sniper rifles, the IRA's the HK G3 was paired against the Dragonov. While both weapons had high kill ratios, the Dragonov was deemed faster and more accurate in terms of execution and given the edge.
For special weapons, season one footage reviewed the IRA's sling shot and Spetsnaz's ballistic knife. The ballistic knife was determined as having the advantage due to the weapon's killing power.
For explosives, the nail bomb and RGD-5 Grenade were reviewed from the season one footage. While the RGD-5 was powerful at a wide range, the Nail Bomb (despite being an improvised weapon) was given the advantage due to the high killing power of its shrapnel.
For short range weapons, the Makarov was pitted against the IRA's side arm, the Webley Revolver. Despite the Webley being a more powerful pistol, the Makarov was given the advantage due to the pistol carrying more ammo than the six bullets in the Webley.

Sionnach Glic wrote:Where on Earth are they getting their weapons from? I've never heard of the IRA using flamethrowers, let alone slingshots.

Personaly I think it would have been more interestin if they'd pitted the original 1920's IRA against a law enforcement group from the same period. I'd be interested in seeing how the Flying Columns would match up against 1920's SWAT, or other such groups.

Lighthawk wrote:Well they had an IRA "expert" who I believe was also a decentant of IRA memebrs. So I assume he brought the weapons.

Lighthawk wrote:They seem to be against that kind of pair up. The more unlikely it ever happening in real life, the better they seem to like it.

Sionnach Glic wrote:1920's IRA fighting 1920's US police is just as unlikely (if not more so) than the modern IRA fighting against the modern day Spetznatz.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Sionnach Glic wrote:1920's IRA fighting 1920's US police is just as unlikely (if not more so) than the modern IRA fighting against the modern day Spetznatz.

It would also, I suspect, be somewhat one-sided. This is the bunch that gave veterans of the 1918 British Army a bloody nose.

Sionnach Glic wrote:Prohibition was in place around that time, right? How about the Mafia of the prohibition era (which was, AFAIK, their high point) against the IRA of the same period?

Sionnach Glic wrote:Good point, Reliant

Sionnach Glic wrote:While I certainly won't argue with you there ( ), I doubt armies of that era were really organised or trained with dealing with an insurgency in mind.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Sionnach Glic wrote:While I certainly won't argue with you there ( ), I doubt armies of that era were really organised or trained with dealing with an insurgency in mind.

There was one army that had ample experience of dealing with insurgencies - us, on the north-west frontier. Unfortunately the experience wasn't very useful in Ireland, because it was aimed at containing the insurgency rather than eliminating it. SOP was to respond to serious drama by marching in, slapping the offenders about a bit, and then getting out. Trying to actually hold territory against an insurgency is quite another matter.

Sonic Glitch wrote:Seems the U.S. is learning that now... *cough* Did I say that? I really shouldn't say such things.. [/sarcasm]

Captain Seafort wrote:

Sonic Glitch wrote:Seems the U.S. is learning that now... *cough* Did I say that? I really shouldn't say such things.. [/sarcasm]

Learned. The US Army finally managed to get a grip on counterinsurgency around 2007, once they finally managed to get it through their collective skull that you essentially need two things - local support and a lot of people.

Sonic Glitch wrote:And how're we doing with those?