User blog comment:Deathblade 100/Over the Top: German Stormtroopers vs Villistas/@comment-4661256-20180331205138/@comment-4661256-20180407231456

1) I'm genuinely unsure as to what you mean by the "shiny boom factor" that I allegedly emphasize at the expense of "practical and human factors". Do I not discuss training and warrior status (i.e. guerrillas vs. special forces)? I will respond to the bit on the Villistas as rugged cowboys in a bit—I will concede that my argument up until this point has focused on the weaponry, but this is because Deathblade's blog gives us very little to work with outside of that realm. Therefore, the basis of my objections to fairness are, again, predicated on the notion that the weapons imbalance is significant.

However, if you want me to get into the warrior ethos and culture here, fine: yes, the Villistas come from rural México and have been competent with weaponry, but I think you are exaggerating the extent to which they were "warriors" before they fought in the Mexican Revolution. Ranch hands, peasants, and the like did not regularly engage in combat. They may have hunted. They may have brawled. They may have been outlaws. That does not inherently make them born-and-bred warriors.

To be fair—the Stormtroopers were just as much civilians-turned-soldiers, but they underwent modern military training and conditioning in a culture that produced relevant military theory. They are purposefully designed to operate effectively in a combat that was not unique in World War I. Trench warfare was used extensively in the Mexican Revolution, and if you look at some of Pancho Villa's greatest defeats like the Battle of Celaya and the Second Battle of Agua Prieta (both in 1915) occurred because he was unable to overcome trenches, barbed wire, and machine guns. This demonstrates that modern, mechanized forces, like those employed by the Germans in the First World War, are very capable of crushing Villa's raiders.

To address your whole "Spetsnaz and Green Berets lost to guerrillas" point: no. If you look at the casualty rates between special forces units (be they Spetsnaz, Green Berets, SS, or the like) and guerrilla opponents (be they Mujahideen, Viet Cong, French partisans, or the like) you will see that the guerrillas always lose far more soldiers. They may wear down the will of the government to continue the fight, but they are not the equals of their special forces opponents qualitatively. Therefore in a 5 v. 5 fight, five Villistas will get shot to pieces by five Stormtroopers. If you had Germany occupying México and the Villistas resisting for years, then sure, the Germans might pull out. But the Villistas will suffer far more casualties in the process.

2) You've made a very generous series of assumptions that help your case but are, in fact, unsubstantiated by Deathblade's blog. Firstly, you claim that "[t]he Villistas on the other hand are... famous for raiding towns and taking over estates," which you liken to "the kind of encounter taking place here." There's absolutely nothing to support this. All it says is that it will be a 5 v. 5 fight between the Villistas and the Stormtroopers somewhere in México. For all we know, it could be a battle in the many trenches that were part of the battlefields of the Mexican Revolution. Obviously I won't hinge my argument on this because that would be making an unfair assumption in my favor—but the point here is that nowhere does it state the terrain will inherently favor the Villistas (and if it did, that would be unfair as well).

If you want to disparage the Stormtroopers for being trained in an emergent form of warfare with experimental weapons and claim this will be a detriment in their battle with Villistas who are using a "tried and true" form of warfare with weapons they have used for decades, then let me again point to the battles Villa fought against the type of "experimental" warfare used in Europe. Villa was torn to pieces in these engagements and his army fell apart as an effective fighting force. Additionally, the Stormtroopers enjoyed success in engagements such as the Battle of Caporetto against the Italians and the Battle of Cambrai against the British (in which the Stormtroopers proved successful in overcoming British tanks). So the historical record demonstrates that Villa had difficulty in overcoming and adapting, while the Stormtroopers were very competent in doing just that. So your whole point about experience (that the Villistas somehow have more of this because they used to be ranch hands and outlaws) doesn't really hold up when you consider that the Stormtroopers literally fought in a ''World War. ''What more experience do you expect?

3) I don't think I'm "helping" the Wiki, but I've helped it a good deal more than you have. I don't understand why you feel the need to pop out of nowhere (you haven't made productive contributions to the Wiki in years) to disparage my credibility and claim I'm running an "Alameinian Inquisition." This is, in fact, a historical Wiki. We can indeed have Jason Bourne vs. Rambo, but this is not Jason Bourne vs. Rambo. This is a battle between historical warriors and so historical accuracy is important. No, nobody is going to reference this in historical papers, but that doesn't mean an egregious lack of research should be taken as Word of God, as it so often does. I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't make too much of a difference to me how people are inclined to take my objections. Nobody besides you has complained, because everyone else knows I don't do this out of ill intent. Deathblade and I have had many productive discussions in chat and around the Wiki. He knows I'm not doing this on some personal vendetta against him. I'm talking about Villistas and Stormtroopers here, not him as an individual or as an author.

Additionally, why are you fretting over what I do, especially on a website where you don't frequently participate? Maybe you should ignore my objections instead of giving me unwarranted advice.