I agree that the weapon demonstrations are the best part of the show but most of the time I don't agree with their outcomes because human decision making/training isn't taken into account the battle numbers typically are off. If you're going GSG-9 against SWAT and using 1 team of guys for each side that makes good sense, but when you're comparing historical generals I don't see how 4 soldiers is an accurate representation of anything. How is it fair to only use 4 soldiers to simulate battles between Washington and Napoleon? 1 used hit and run tactics, fighting on a much smaller scale, the other used artillery and flanking cavalry attacks in large scale (for the time) warfare. With 4 soldiers how do you know if Washington could have fended off, worn down, and eventually cornered Napoleon? With a much slower rate of fire how would the Continental army have stood up to one of those cavalry charges and overcome the greater range and power of Napoleon's artillery? Historically I'm not sure we can even give credit to Washington for Cornwallis ending up in Yorktown, he was heavily engaged against Howe/Clinton for most of the early part of the war, only slipping out of the north to help with the seige of Yorktown. While he was overall commander, he didn't have a direct hand in many of America's greatest victories during the war. He fought brilliantly at the end of 1776 pushing the British back into New York City for the winter. In 1777 Gates actually had the most success wiping out Burgoyne's army through a series of battles and poor British decisions culminating with the Battle of Saratoga which convinced the French to join the war. At the same time Howe had marced on Philadelphia eventually capturing it though Washington won smaller battles to keep the Briitish confied to Philly for the winter. Clinton then replaced Howe for the British and he abandoned Philly to go back to NY as the French had entered the war. Washington shadowed Clinton back to NY and won a strategic victory at Monmouth, but the northern armies would never square off again in open combat. Clinton sent a detachment of his army from NYC and captured Savannah, GA in the winter of 1778, then he captured Charlestown, SC while wiping out most of the southern Continental Army in 1780. Lt. Gen Cornwallis was appointed commander of the southern British army while Gates was sent down to command what was left of the American forces. Gates was soundly defeated at Camden by Cornwallis and was replaced by Greene, who was actually the general who kept the British occupied and wore them down. Cornwallis was ordered to secure a fortified naval base in VA and he ultimately settled on Yorktown. I think sometimes people think Cornwallis was beaten back and cornered at Yorktown which wasn't the case, it was a tactical move that backfired horribly when the French fleet managed to blockcade the port. Cornwallis lost some 7,000 men at Yorktown but the British still had over 30,000 in NY, however after the British defeat at Yorktown the British Parliament was no longer interested in war with the colonists. Much of the success in the south which utimately led to Cornwallis' defeat at Yorktown was due to Greene and Daniel Morgan, Washington never had the number of troops necessary to challenge the main British army in the north. He did a fantastic job keeping them at bay, but it's hard to say how well Washington would have fared in the large scale European warfare of the time period.