I have a question, for everyone. Please, provide your opinio

[HUnewearl_Meira]

The question is this:

Which do you find to be more intimidating?

Guys with Flame Throwers

OR

Bear Cavalry


Discuss.

[Shadowpawn]

At least you can distract the Bear Cavalry with Salmon. Guys with Flame Throwers ain't have that shit boi!

[BlackHat]

You could distract the guys with flame throwers with the Bear Cavalry.

[Sord]

Bear Calvalry at first, because you immediatly see the danger right of the bat. When a bear comes charging at you (that's not in a zoo,) your first thought is probably going to be "Oh-shit-RUN!" Even with a man on their back, there's still a strong sense of fear instilled by large uncaged animals.

Where as a guys that have flamethrowers, being humans, you may be inclined to wonder as to what their motive is for carrying such weapons, and if they are even a threat to you. Unless you're in a war torn country and think they might possibly be an enemy, they won't be as intimidating... until they finally fire their flamethrowers at you.

Once it is established they are the enemy, then a squadran of flamethrowers would be far more intimidating. Fire spread very quickly, esecially when fuled with napalm or other such accelerants. Huge fires also instinctively cause fear within humans. And in the case of bear cavalry vs. flamethrower squadron, the bears are useless. They would be fried if they got to close. If the riders were equiped with rifles, then they would have to hit the flamethrower squardran before they were within range of the flames. However, that's completely relying on the man, and not on the bear, which makes the idea of a calvary with bears a pointless tactic.

seriousnes, yar

[BlackHat]

I think you think about it to much.

[Shadowpawn]

On 2007-10-27 19:37, BlackHat wrote:
You could distract the guys with flame throwers with the Bear Cavalry.



But who would distract the Sharks with Frickin' Laser Beams on their heads!

[DizzyDi]

I would have to say Bear Calvary.
Humans you see everyday, they aren't out of the ordinary, even with flamthrowers equipped. When you see a squad of flamethrowing dudes running at you, you'll think of ways you could kill them.
Bears on the other hand. Bears are wild ferocious animals, and I'm assuming since humans are riding them into battle, they'd also be battle trained. The roar of the bear, the sound of their paws digging into the ground, the sight of the large bodies charging at you. I'd shit myself.

[BlackHat]

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc277/prittykitty323/dance_evil3.gif

[mizukage]

Guys with Flame Throwers: Use the Fire Extinguisher! http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/anime2.gif
Bear Cavalry: Hmm... I didn't know that Yogi Bear can ride a horse and wield a lance... http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/anime1.gif

[astuarlen]

On 2007-10-27 19:23, HUnewearl_Meira wrote:
Please, provide your opinions.


Apple juice is better than orange juice, except when it's pinapple-orange.

[HAYABUSA-FMW-]

Opinionated question answer on internet #42.

Danny Glover too old for that shat in boxers and in the pouring rain could take out flamethrower man with Gibson psycho-tick-diversion power. Bear Cavalry would require a dozen Chuck Norris' since in Walker Texas Ranger he took out one bear single handedly.

[Moo2u]

http://www.trojanwire.com/football/images/colbert-bears-threatdown.jpg

[Blitzkommando]

Well, flamethrowers have a fatal flaw: You shoot the tank and SHIT FUCKING BLOWS UP! That's why men hated going into battle wearing a flamethrower in WWII and why they are extremely rare today. Too many snipers knew to shoot the tank and not the guy and it would take out the guy and everything around him.

Whereas, you shoot a bear, it's more than likely just going to get even more pissed at you. And, nobody wants a pissed bear with a crazy bastard sitting on it with a gun coming after them.

[HUnewearl_Meira]

Actually, the reason why flame throwers are extremely rare today, is because Flame Throwers are against the Geneva Convention. It is a war crime to use a flame thrower.

[TalHex]

its been a proven fact that Guy is only afraid of women

[Sord]

On 2007-10-28 11:44, HUnewearl_Meira wrote:
Actually, the reason why flame throwers are extremely rare today, is because Flame Throwers are against the Geneva Convention. It is a war crime to use a flame thrower.


doesn't that have more to do with using napalm though, rather than the fact it's a weapon that just uses flame?

[Weeaboolits]

(Polar) bear cavalry with flamethrowers? ;o

[Airalean]

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j81/loveable335/3e621738b7fe09ccb101532a9336f033.jpg

[Sord]

need to find skeleton army or whatever it was, it beats bear cavalry

found it
http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z121/feisord/skeletonarmy.jpg

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sord on 2007-10-28 15:03 ]</font>

[Airalean]

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j81/loveable335/a9c5aaa9d7629667d30d470ca33bc0ce.jpg



But, does it protect against Bear Guns!?!
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j81/loveable335/teddybeargun_1.jpg

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Brittanyy on 2007-10-28 19:21 ]</font>

[Sgt_Shligger]

I got something that could take both of those out...

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e364/sgtshligger/shark.jpg

[VanHalen]

I choose Bear Cavalry. Sure, bears are dangerous, but a bear with a guy with a gun riding it? That's pretty hax.

[Ketchup345]

On 2007-10-27 23:40, Moo2u wrote:
http://www.trojanwire.com/football/images/colbert-bears-threatdown.jpg
this is all the thread needed to give an answer. Never saw flamethrowers on the Threatdown; have you?

[DonRoyale]

On 2007-10-28 15:29, Sgt_Shligger wrote:
I got something that could take both of those out...

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e364/sgtshligger/shark.jpg



GET THESE MOTHERFUCKIN SHARKS OFF THIS MOTHERFUCKIN PLANE MOTHERFUCKER http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_argh.gif

[Sgt_Shligger]

On 2007-10-28 16:38, DonRoyale wrote:

On 2007-10-28 15:29, Sgt_Shligger wrote:
I got something that could take both of those out...

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e364/sgtshligger/shark.jpg



GET THESE MOTHERFUCKIN SHARKS OFF THIS MOTHERFUCKIN PLANE MOTHERFUCKER http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_argh.gif



THESE MOTHER FUCKIN' SHARKS ARE THE MOTHER FUCKIN' PLANE MOTHERFUCKER!

[ShinMaruku]

Mensch mit Spritzringen des Feuers

[Weeaboolits]

Fire. ;o

[ShinMaruku]

Feuer!

[Weeaboolits]

That's the only word I knew. >_>;

[HUnewearl_Meira]

On 2007-10-28 12:10, Sord wrote:

On 2007-10-28 11:44, HUnewearl_Meira wrote:
Actually, the reason why flame throwers are extremely rare today, is because Flame Throwers are against the Geneva Convention. It is a war crime to use a flame thrower.


doesn't that have more to do with using napalm though, rather than the fact it's a weapon that just uses flame?



As far as I know, Napalm has been used as recently as Vietnam. No, the specific reason why flame throwers are banned is because, "just uses flame" is failing to do justice to the sort of damage a flame thrower does. When you are being confronted by a guy with a flame thrower, you are being confronted with a situation where you will burn to death. The old Stop, Drop 'n' Roll routine hardly does any good when the flame is being used as a continuous projectile upon you. If you're shot, then you either die instantly, peacefully or not at all. If you're attacked with a flame thrower, however, the most likely result is that you die from burns, which is something that does not go down very quickly. That fire is being held on you, and supposing that, by your sheer love of life, you do survive, you will be permanently scarred for the rest of your life. Skin grafts are not fun!

For what it's worth, Napalm and Flamethrowers can still be used against military, that is, non-civilian targets, under certain circumstances, and in certain forms.

[Dre_o]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b101/Flemlazoid/necron.png

Anyways, Flame throwers. They make good bombs.

[Sord]

On 2007-10-29 19:52, HUnewearl_Meira wrote:

On 2007-10-28 12:10, Sord wrote:

On 2007-10-28 11:44, HUnewearl_Meira wrote:
Actually, the reason why flame throwers are extremely rare today, is because Flame Throwers are against the Geneva Convention. It is a war crime to use a flame thrower.


doesn't that have more to do with using napalm though, rather than the fact it's a weapon that just uses flame?



As far as I know, Napalm has been used as recently as Vietnam. No, the specific reason why flame throwers are banned is because, "just uses flame" is failing to do justice to the sort of damage a flame thrower does. When you are being confronted by a guy with a flame thrower, you are being confronted with a situation where you will burn to death. The old Stop, Drop 'n' Roll routine hardly does any good when the flame is being used as a continuous projectile upon you. If you're shot, then you either die instantly, peacefully or not at all. If you're attacked with a flame thrower, however, the most likely result is that you die from burns, which is something that does not go down very quickly. That fire is being held on you, and supposing that, by your sheer love of life, you do survive, you will be permanently scarred for the rest of your life. Skin grafts are not fun!

For what it's worth, Napalm and Flamethrowers can still be used against military, that is, non-civilian targets, under certain circumstances, and in certain forms.


hmm, well then, guess I learn something each day. I was under the impression that napalm was made during or around Vietnam specifically for that war, but then there was alawys "greek fire" long before that. So in retrospect it could have been made sometime before hand. Flamethrowers were also heavily used in Vietnam as well from what I understand, often with napalm jelly for the acellerant. Napalm, being an accelerant, will continue to burn until it's completely gone. You wouldn't have to apply a steady stream of flame on someone, a thin coat of the stuff would provide enough for the person to burn to death. This is however what I believe I remember reading in the past, though it's been quite awhile. I may be wrong. I really should just look it up I guess.

Though I would like to point out there is at least one painful way of dying by gun shot, losing to much blood. It may take more then one bullet, or even a shotgun blast to an otherwise nonfatal area, but you can definitly be shot amd feel plenty of pain before dieing.

[mizukage]

On 2007-10-29 19:52, HUnewearl_Meira wrote:
As far as I know, Napalm has been used as recently as Vietnam. No, the specific reason why flame throwers are banned is because, "just uses flame" is failing to do justice to the sort of damage a flame thrower does. When you are being confronted by a guy with a flame thrower, you are being confronted with a situation where you will burn to death. The old Stop, Drop 'n' Roll routine hardly does any good when the flame is being used as a continuous projectile upon you. If you're shot, then you either die instantly, peacefully or not at all. If you're attacked with a flame thrower, however, the most likely result is that you die from burns, which is something that does not go down very quickly. That fire is being held on you, and supposing that, by your sheer love of life, you do survive, you will be permanently scarred for the rest of your life. Skin grafts are not fun!



The military had placed most of these weaponry in the rusty storage a long time ago. With ballistic missiles, who would want to go running around as an open target using a lame flamethrower? In fact, the soldiers who get to wield flamethrowers should consider themselves to be unlucky. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_lol.gif

[HUnewearl_Meira]

You should understand how flamethrowers are used. First of all, modern flamethrowers are mounted devices. They don't shoot small, melee-range streams. They use a combustible gel that's thick enough to launch it hundreds of yards. Second of all, man-mounted flame throwers are used in a rather strict fashion. You don't just run out into enemy gunfire wearing a flamethrower. They're used from trenches, in ambush situations, and also to "clean up" after a chemical gas attack.

[Shadowpawn]

It's scary that you and two knives...er sord happen to know so much about military weaponry. Seriously, you're freaking me out d00d. :/

[Sord]

I've always had a particular intrest in war. While I admit I haven't gone much further then what is taught in a history class, I store most of what I read better than others. War fascinates me, despite it's morbidity (or maybe because it's morbid, I can't really explain my morbid streak.) From weapons to propaganda, to the inticacies that led to battle, to how it ended, and often times, how it was ended leads to yet more war further down the road.

[HUnewearl_Meira]

As for me, I have a fairly broad range of knowledge, which can be hastily augmented by readily available reference materials.

[BlackHat]

I used to be able to guess what people looked like in real life based on what they said or typed online.

[Blitzkommando]

Still, wearing a flamethrower is just asking someone to pick a shot off at the tank.

Napalm has been around for a long while now, it was first used against the Japanese in the Pacific. Napalm is possibly one of the worst ways to go in a war. Not only does it burn with the fire, but the chemicals themselves are corrosive and damage the skin. Not to mention much of its use up through Vietnam it was with dummy bombs. Nothing like getting hit by your own fiery goo-bomb.

Still, even with advancements in flamethrower technology they're still very volitile weapons systems. A single well-placed shot can literally send the whole thing up in smoke. Also, you did specify 'guys with flamethrowers' not 'flamethrower tanks' or other armored flamethrower vehicles. Between guys, soldiers, with flamethrowers and bear cavalry, I've got to say that the bear cavalry is going to win. Now, if it were between not just guys with flamethrowers, but tanks and other armored vehicles AND guys with flamethrowers I'd say it might just be enough to turn the sides in favor of them.

As for legal status, flamethrowers are completely legal in international law and in US rules of war. However, they were deemed ineffective, a PR nightmare, and again potentially risky for use and thus the US voluntarily removed them (for the most part) from (military) service.

"Incendiaries, to include napalm, flame-throwers, tracer rounds, and white phosphorous, are not illegal per se or illegal by treaty. The only US policy guidance is found in paragraph 36 of FM 27-10 which warns that they should "not be used in such a way as to cause unnecessary suffering.""

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/incendiary-legal.htm

Also, federal law currently has nothing stating civilians cannot own personal flamethrowers. That has been deemed to be left up to the States, which in most cases have no laws on the subject either. They're often used for various civilian tasks (snow removal, control burns, defoliating, hampering animal or plant disease spread, etc) although these type devices usually aren't quite the same as the types used by the military the concept is the same.

[Skuda]

http://www.pbfcomics.com/archive/PBF019AD-Sgt_Grumbles.jpg

[Blitzkommando]

I wish PBF updated more often.

[Sord]

On 2007-10-30 01:02, Norvekh wrote:

Also, federal law currently has nothing stating civilians cannot own personal flamethrowers. That has been deemed to be left up to the States, which in most cases have no laws on the subject either. type devices usually aren't quite the same as the types used by the military the concept is the same.


thank god for super-soakers, eh?

http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sord on 2007-10-30 17:47 ]</font>