Commando Archive

---

Cymene wrote:

---

For the record, napalm doesnt really affect a tank, unless you pour it into the engine exaust.

Napalm or gas on a object is the same. Reason napalm is worse is that it sticks to the human skindue to tar. Napalm is a antipersonal weapon, it have same effect as gas on vehicles.

If you still are in doubt, go take a physics class or 2

---

Actually, you are wrong. Gasoline is a solution of saturated hydrocarbons ranging from C5 to C18, is highly inflammable, and has a low flash point, but not as low as diethyl ether which has a flash point of 24 deg. C. The reasons for making napalm in the first place was to make it safe so it won't combust when you don't want it to, but will burn when you want to deploy it, and also importantly to make it burnLONGER and HOTTER thereby doing more damage to your target. The original Napalm was developed by the famous chemist and professor from Harvard, Louis Fieser, (who happened to marry one of his graduate students, and in 1968 started the quintesential series of books by Fieser and Fieser), was composed of aluminum palmitate and aluminum naphthoate. This is then mixed with gasoline to make a gel. Imentioned in a previous post what is used now in a previous post. This sticks to anything and burns for 30 secs which is much longer than gas. It also burns much hotter above 3000 deg. F. I'm not sure what you are refering to as 'tar', but as far as I know tar is what is left from the fractional distiallation and cracking of crude petroluem. It could mean something else, I just don't know what you mean by that. Perhaps you are refering to the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons due to the lack of any intramolecular oxidizers, which will lead to the formation of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, elemental carbon (soot), and water? This property makes flamethrowers very useful against enclosed spaces.

I believe in a previous post I said that napalm BOMBS are one of the best weapons against tanks, and that I would not be willing to run up to a tank with a flamethrower Tanks are suseptable to flamethrowers at theirrear where they are vulnerable. TheRussians in Afghanistanand Chechnya use a one shot disposable 'flamethrower' with an effectiverange of 600m, the RPO-A Schmel thermobaric round. (Thermobaric is another word for fuel-air, which is what napalm bombs are). These RPO-A flamethrowers can be used against armored vehicles, but the crew usually survived to return fire even though the damage. Vehicles with reactive armor would survive but shots on other armored vehicles to the flanks or top would do damage to them.

I took modern physics I and II as an undergrad and it is not useful in this discussion. The one year of physical chemistry I had was more cogent, but it was still not as pertinent as the year of chemical physics I had in grad school. To be honest with you I think physics s**ks b**ls, chemistry is where it's at. Not everything burns at the same temperature, to oversimplify it, it's dependent on the amount of energy in the bonds of the compounds. The more exergonic a reaction, in this case combustion which can be thought of as a runaway chain reaction, will depend on the heat of combustion of the compound. Since gasoline is a saturated hydrocarbon, (it only has sigma bonds), it will not release as much energy per mole as the polystyrene,( a long chain polymermade fromof vinylbenzene(styrene), and benzene, ( a 6 carbon aromatic hydrocarbon. This is what modern napalm is made from. Polystyrene and benzene both are aromatic which gives these molecules great stability and therefore will release more energy. If this is wrong feel free to correct me, I couldnt find a CRC handbook of chem and phy lying around and i'm not interested enough to get one from the library.

---

Oh my... someone got smacked down!

---

Xodarap777 wrote:

---

Nipple wrote:

Spasmolytic

---

Skinny Puppy ROCK (They're back together...)

---

/hi5

That makes you the third person to recognize that in this game, and the first on the forums -- kudos to you! It's too bad that I couldn't use my in-game name as my forum name, for whatever reason. Sheer desperation and frustration led me to choose the name "Nipple," hah.

I'm a bit apprehensive about the new album coming out, considering the amount of people involved in the effort, and the fact that most band-revival attempts have failed miserably. And me being apprehensive about a Skinny Puppy release is no small feat, considering how much of a fan I am of the band.

---

AT-ST's cost way too much for what they are now, the dev's should lower the cost of them to 1000 fp's so imps will use them constantly in pvp and you rebs can have the fun of taking them out

---

/agree!

im new to the whole commando thing but doesn't the flame DOT ignore armor and resists? so wouldn't it be WORSE for them to have more hit points now? since the armor didn't even matter before?

and its worse for rocket launchers too since they were vulnerable before anyways.... but now have more hitpoints to soak shots...

just wondering

---

Greatjon wrote:

im new to the whole commando thing but doesn't the flame DOT ignore armor and resists? so wouldn't it be WORSE for them to have more hit points now? since the armor didn't even matter before?

and its worse for rocket launchers too since they were vulnerable before anyways.... but now have more hitpoints to soak shots...

just wondering

---

Correct, Sir!

Precisely the point I was attempting to make.