|
|
Post by DedmanWalkin on Sept 1, 2011 17:24:07 GMT -5
I see you sidestepped my request for the actual stats you brought up. A bow can still pierce things that a bullet cannot, silently. I have never claimed that the gun is superior to the bow, just that it is silent and can pierce body armor. You stated categorically that it would take one hell of an arrow to compete with even the cheapest modern bullet. I brought up ways in which it could thus disproving your point. The Cheapest Modern Bullet is the 25 Auto ACP and it won't go through a bullet proof vest whereas most bodkins can do the job. Arrows are also far more silent which is true. The Arquebus could rarely pierce most forms of bullet proof armor at range, it required close quarters to do the job effectively. The term 'Bulletproof' comes from that time period where they would shoot a gun at the plate armor and the dent on the armor was proof it could stop a bullet thus bulletproof. Thanks for the credentials but you have not really brought anything to the table. Convenience always trumps effectiveness. If this were not true, Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Apple, and a whole host of companies would not be as big as they are because they sell convenience not effectiveness. Billions of dollars in their coffers say you are wrong. Your scenario suggests that it takes skill and strength to use a gun, which it does not. So, we would need to subtract both strength and skill from your team. That means you get the equivalent of gang bangers versus my highly skilled, highly fit team of archers. To put it another way, you get some thugs versus Green Arrow. Who do you think wins? |
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Sept 1, 2011 17:40:37 GMT -5
Convenience always trumps effectiveness. If this were not true, Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Apple, and a whole host of companies would not be as big as they are because they sell convenience not effectiveness. Billions of dollars in their coffers say you are wrong. Wall-mart and McDonalds aren't military organizations, unless something has gone horribly wrong with the world and I missed it. As such you can't use them as analogies to military evolution. Really, look at it logically. If bows and arrows were superior to guns in the early days, wouldn't it make sense to keep a special ops regiment of highly trained bowmen for the occasions where guns aren't cutting it? But no, as soon as we went to guns, the bow and arrow were bloody forgotten overnight. |
|
|
|
Post by ckal on Sept 1, 2011 18:20:37 GMT -5
Convenience always trumps effectiveness. If this were not true, Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Apple, and a whole host of companies would not be as big as they are because they sell convenience not effectiveness. Billions of dollars in their coffers say you are wrong. Wall-mart and McDonalds aren't military organizations, unless something has gone horribly wrong with the world and I missed it. As such you can't use them as analogies to military evolution. Really, look at it logically. If bows and arrows were superior to guns in the early days, wouldn't it make sense to keep a special ops regiment of highly trained bowmen for the occasions where guns aren't cutting it? But no, as soon as we went to guns, the bow and arrow were bloody forgotten overnight. McDonald's military tactic is health warfare. So it's not completely out of the question. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 1, 2011 18:25:36 GMT -5
Wall-mart and McDonalds aren't military organizations, unless something has gone horribly wrong with the world and I missed it. As such you can't use them as analogies to military evolution. Really, look at it logically. If bows and arrows were superior to guns in the early days, wouldn't it make sense to keep a special ops regiment of highly trained bowmen for the occasions where guns aren't cutting it? But no, as soon as we went to guns, the bow and arrow were bloody forgotten overnight. McDonald's military tactic is health warfare. So it's not completely out of the question. /Erik bait |
|
|
|
Post by ckal on Sept 1, 2011 19:05:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 1, 2011 19:34:50 GMT -5
McDonald's military tactic is health warfare. So it's not completely out of the question. /Erik bait Mc........Don.......alds........  |
|
|
|
Post by ckal on Sept 1, 2011 19:43:39 GMT -5
Kinda looks like you erik.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 1, 2011 19:46:10 GMT -5
Kinda looks like you erik. That is because you are blackout drunk whenever we skype you alcoholic. |
|
|
|
Post by ckal on Sept 1, 2011 19:51:56 GMT -5
Did you hit your head too many times on the ground while we were skyping or did you forget you were also black out drunk
|
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 1, 2011 19:55:24 GMT -5
Did you hit your head too many times on the ground while we were skyping or did you forget you were also black out drunk Must be why I remember you as Thor. |
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Sept 1, 2011 23:21:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Sept 1, 2011 23:46:07 GMT -5
The Arquebus could rarely pierce most forms of bullet proof armor at range, it required close quarters to do the job effectively. The term 'Bulletproof' comes from that time period where they would shoot a gun at the plate armor and the dent on the armor was proof it could stop a bullet thus bulletproof. again demonstrating armchair scholar rather then actual knowledge. Armor barely whitstood hand held firearms in it's earliest incarnations. By the late 1500's to early 1600's. Firearms had totally outclasses the bow. Hells, even before firearms, crossbows had outclassed the bow as the favorite ranged weapon for accuracy and power. By the 1700s, elite trained firearms units not only beat arrows in range of effectiveness but also close ranged combat and introduced combined arms fire which made bow units a relic of the past. Thanks for the credentials but you have not really brought anything to the table. Convenience always trumps effectiveness. If this were not true, Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Apple, and a whole host of companies would not be as big as they are because they sell convenience not effectiveness. Billions of dollars in their coffers say you are wrong. This is so ridiculous as an argument if I were you I'd be ashamed. Bows are cheaper to mass make and they aren't harder to master. That's a pop culture myth. True military class rifleman units were as trained as bowmen and they beat them, with smaller numbers. Often 3 to 1. Why because the gun was superior. That's how it was, the fact that you argue otherwise shows a blatant ignorance The mere fact that you equate the evolution of military tactics and the history of warfare with Mcdonalds shows you have no grasp of the topic. Serious military strategies in the eras of firearms knew just as much as eras before the value of crack teams of elite soldiers. And with that in mind, they gave them better weapons: guns. Also arrow effectiveness historically against armor is nothing like you suggest. There are hundreds of verified accounts from the early crusade era (pre- full plate mail) of crusader knight, shrugging off arrows with nothing but chain a leather, even from the deadly arabic composite bow. You're just wrong, you know nothing of what you're talking about. Your scenario suggests that it takes skill and strength to use a gun, which it does not. hahahahahaha on man. Wow. That's so stupid a comment I should just stop there. First off soldier strenght does matter with guns as does stamina. Because of firearm recoil and weight of the weapon. This is why firearm technicians are always trying to make a lighter gun with less recoil. Also being actually competent with a gun requires real skill and long training. Guns are no easier to master then bows. You asserting this not only shows you know nothing of modern warfare. But also blatant ignorance of the basics of firearm use. To put it another way, you get some thugs versus Green Arrow. Who do you think wins? If you think using a fictional character who survives because of writer fiat supports your argument. I don't know what to say to you. |
|
|
|
Post by DedmanWalkin on Sept 2, 2011 3:21:30 GMT -5
It takes no leap in logic to equate military evolution with business evolution because evolution is evolution. Tell me what you believe is different between the two.
Guns don't take much more strength or skill than I can muster and I am somewhat good. I am unfit and untrained and yet I can nearly hit a bullseye. I have tried my next door neighbor's bow and I can just barely draw the string back enough to put an arrow anywhere but a couple feet. Before you call bull, I live in Texas. Within a week of trying a gun I can do some damage but the same is not true of the bow. Maybe I am some sort of gun prodigy?
I like how you sidestepped my request for stats again and also sidestepped me proving your initial claim false which was my initial goal. Thanks for admitting defeat via silence. Also, you keep going on about how I apparently think the bow is superior to gun when I have made no such claim. Allow me to quote myself, "I have never claimed that the gun is superior to the bow, just that it is silent and can pierce body armor." Having proved that, I need not continue this argument.
Crom, I would love for you to bring those credentials with you when it comes to the MK Tourney, as the first round pits Hawkeye's bow and arrow against Jason Todd's guns. Can I count on your vote?
Does Erik not like McDonalds? At least there is one thing we can agree upon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Purrpura Bastette on Sept 2, 2011 16:02:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Purrpura Bastette on Sept 2, 2011 16:13:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Sept 2, 2011 16:19:15 GMT -5
I have to say they al look bloody awesome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Sept 2, 2011 18:53:50 GMT -5
What is it about that Chris Evans that reminds me so much of a Ken doll  |
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Sept 2, 2011 19:04:08 GMT -5
What is it about that Chris Evans that reminds me so much of a Ken doll The Ken doll was based off of Captain America so there you go. |
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Sept 2, 2011 19:05:29 GMT -5
The Ken doll was based off of Captain America so there you go. that would make sense, except neither steve rogers out of suit in the comics, nor in suit remind me of a ken doll  |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 2, 2011 19:05:35 GMT -5
It's funny that Renner looks like he's in better shape than Evans.
Barton > Rogers!
|
|
