Originally posted by Master Han
did focus4chumps just ask for proof that modern bullets travel faster than ones from 1933? 😆 😆 🤣It’s a bit of a sad joke that somebody would actually ask for evidence for such, but here it is: [/derp, etc]
so i guess the burden of proof has once again been inappropriately assigned to the denier than the one who enforces the assertion. how christian of you.
the browning, In service since 1919, commonly used on biplanes in that era:
Muzzle velocity: 2,800 ft/s (850 m/s)
and the minigun born in 1963:
Muzzle velocity: 2,800 ft/s (850 m/s)
there we are then. so now you feel like a complete ass, yes?
or do you need to strut and posture some more with nothing to contribute except for baseless and authoritative assertions on the topic?
The XM214 Microgun which was developed by the US in 1966 had muzzle velocity of 3250 ft/s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM214_Microgun
The M61 Vulcan developed in 1960(?) had a muzzle velocity of 3,450 ft/s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan
I think RPM should also be taken into account as well (since more shots fired at you makes it more difficult to dodge).
The Browning in your link had a max RPM of 600 rpm. The modern minigun has max of 6000 rpm.
focus4chumps, I am in no mood to fancy your attempts to stupidly derail the topic of discussion with an entirely useless argument. Now, I have pointed out the irrelevance of your rantings on two occasions, but you have the strange habit of snipping inconvenient arguments in your rebuttal.
Now, let's presume, for just a second, that you were right - bullet velocity has remained constant over several decades (which you sought to "prove" by cherrypicking singular guns).
What does this mean?
Kong was killed by WW1 biplanes; logically, Prime's heavy ranged firepower, capable of one-shotting transformers that can tank modern, aircraft launched missiles and bombs, should cut him into mincemeat.
Your derailment is only relevant if you can establish that Kong could dodge his era's gunfire. ...he couldn't.
Why don't your responses ever have any coherency or relevance?
Red. Herring. Look it up. My refusal to debate the point any further has nothing to do with conceding (hat-tip to FrostByte's producing evidence), but with the fact that, for the fourth time, your argument had nothing to do with the debate whatsoever.
Even if bullet speed hasn't changed, Kong still can't dodge them, since he couldn't dodge the bullets of his day. Nor can he survive guns that can oneshot transformers earlier having tanked multiple missile strikes and bombing runs. Especially given his dying to biplanes.
Our conversation looks like this -
Me: The Empire State Building is far, far taller than the Egyptian pyramids.
You: No, they aren't.
Me: Yes, they are, <insert measurements>.
You: They aren't nearly as cool looking.
Me: WTF does that have to do with their height?
You: no u!
Originally posted by Master Han
^…did focus4chumps just ask for proof that modern bullets travel faster than ones from 1933? 😆 😆 🤣
you're whole ignorant misinformed narrative of "1930's machine guns and ammo were weak and laughable next to modern weapons" is shot to pieces.
the brownings in king kong not only had an equal muzzle velocity to a mini-gun, but that those 'laughable' weapons are still in service and likely will always be.
so it is precisely on topic, you are behaving like a whining sniveling baby as well as a faux-moderator.
get madder and embarrass yourself more.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
so i guess the burden of proof has once again been inappropriately assigned to the denier than the one who enforces the assertion. how christian of you.the browning, In service since 1919, commonly used on biplanes in that era:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1919_Browning_machine_gun
and the minigun born in 1963:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minigun
there we are then. so now you feel like a complete ass, yes?
or do you need to strut and posture some more with nothing to contribute except for baseless and authoritative assertions on the topic?
😂
both with a muzzle velocity: 2,800 ft/s 🙂
both still in service.
oh and to the glittery accusation of me using a 'red herring': is that your expression for proving a stupid assertion utterly wrong?
Originally posted by Master Han
^…did focus4chumps just ask for proof that modern bullets travel faster than ones from 1933? 😆 😆 🤣
You don't understand what a "red herring" means, do you?
You seem to be more interested in harping on being right* on an irrelevant point than actually supporting your overarching contention (ie., that Kong could defeat Prime). How does muzzle velocity relate to the topic? Prime still wins either way.
*which you are not, BTW. I just see no need to debate you on a topic that has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread. If you want to argue muzzle velocity, PM me or start another thread.
YOU made the assertion.
you said that the weapons in kong were inferior to modern weapons, yet its still in service and equals the velocity of a mini-gun.
a browning is not simply the "a pre-ww2 weapon" you attempted to conflate it as, its a weapon currently in service that was invented in 1919.
now chimp-out and humiliate yourself more.
LOL, let's assume for a moment that you are right on muzzle velocity (you're not - M16 vulcan).
The minigun you cited has 5 to 10 times the rate of fire. Hardly surprising, given that it's powered by an electric motor.
Just why do you think we ever bothered developing new weapons if old ones were just as good? Like, it baffles me that you're even going down this line of argument.
Especially since you entirely skipped over FrothByte's pointing out the M61 vulcan, which has a higher muzzle velocity, higher rate of fire, and higher caliber than the browning.
Especially since browning machine guns WERE ALREADY ENOUGH TO KILL KONG.
-----
Another fail on your part:
You conveniently interpreted my initial evidence to use "modern" to connote the turn of the 20th century, while ignoring the fact that the muzzle velocities cited were higher than that of the browning. Geez, I wonder why?
rate of fire does not denote impact velocity and force, especially in the 'a-10 spanks skorpinok" scene in TF1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Weapons
the a-10 warthog armed with the standard:
Rate of fire: up to 4,200 rpm
Muzzle velocity: 3,500 ft/s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger
they were only able to hit with a quick spray since thats how the a-10 is used when gunning ground targets, as is depicted in TF1. the target is sprayed for not even 2 seconds, as is painfully obvious in the film.
and the browning m2 (candidate 2 for "what guns were used in kong"😉:
In service 🙂 1933 🙂 – present
Rate of fire; 1,200 rounds/min (AN/M3)
Muzzle velocity 2,910 ft/s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning
wow the a-10's gun has almost FOUR TIMES the rate of fire. but again; how long did it hit the target for? 1 second. 2:34 scorpinok gets its ass bounced off the ground.
-kong was attacked SIX planes for a total of 6 twin-brownings (thus 12 brownings) firing 1200 rounds each. but wait...wouldnt that be 2400rpm since they are twin brownings? yup 🙂
-over the duration kong had far more bullets put in him than scorpinok. 🙂
-he did this while hanging from a skyscraper and didnt get knocked off. 🙂
-you dont get to just arbitrarily decide that 600 fps more than a browning is the exact prerequisite of what is required to damage a transformer. 🙂
-this is not to "win" the topic. im just pointing out how laughably ignorant your obsessively conflating assertions are 🙂
But the difference between the Browning ammo and the Warthog ammo(.30-06 vs 30mm) is that the Browning ammo is used against infantry and either unarmored, or lightly armored vehicles.
30mm rounds fired from a Warthog and other aircraft are used as Anti-Material or Armor Piercing Rounds as well as able to be used against Heavy Armored Vehicles like tanks and Fortified Bunkers.
30mm rounds also come in AP(Armor Piercing) and HE(High Explosive) variants.
So yeah, you're comparing rifle ammo used to mow down foot soldiers and punch holes in unarmored jeeps and maybe some half-tracks, to ammo used to punch holes in tanks and buildings with several foot thick stone or metal protection and blow up hard targets like AA guns and mortar emplacements.
If just one Warthog did a strafe run on Kong, the result would have been that he died a lot quicker. Because he either would have had massive holes in him, or he would have been exploded into chunks.
Also a Warthog gun run can last for several seconds depending on line of sight and distance from the target. Clearly Scorponok was a hard target to hit as he was underground a majority of the time and they needed a smoke marker. Kong is huge and wouldn't be trying to avoid the shots. He'd get lit up from hundreds of feet away until they passed over.
The smackdown (again)
Originally posted by focus4chumps
rate of fire does not denote impact velocity and force, especially in the 'a-10 spanks skorpinok" scene in TF1
Irrelevant. You've claimed:
Originally posted by focus4chumps
you said that the weapons in kong were inferior to modern weapons,
Originally posted by focus4chumps
you're whole ignorant misinformed narrative of "1930's machine guns and ammo were weak and laughable next to modern weapons" is shot to pieces.
You allegedly responded to my claim that modern/near-future guns > 1933 guns. It was on you to arbitrarily limit the discussion to muzzle velocity, and not RoF, accuracy, effective range, muzzle KE, penetrating capability, reliability, explosive properties, etc.
And how does this matter when 1933 weapons were enough to kill Kong?
Transformers > groups of F22s (pre-adaptations) > 6 1933 biplanes > Kong.
Prime's guns can one-shot robots that can take massed artillery fire.
Do you seriously think a flesh and blood ape could take him out?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Weaponsthe a-10 warthog armed with the standard:
Rate of fire: up to 4,200 rpm
Muzzle velocity: 3,500 ft/shttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger
they were only able to hit with a quick spray since thats how the a-10 is used when gunning ground targets, as is depicted in TF1. the target is sprayed for not even 2 seconds, as is painfully obvious in the film.
And said spray is more than capable of taking out King Kong. Those are tank killers for f*ck's sake. Why do you continue to deny the deadliness of modern weapons against a giant ape?
Yeah, brownings can fire longer. But try to stay relevant to the topic; a browning can fire at the front of an abrams tank for hours on end and do literally nothing, while a few 1 second bursts from an A10 would disable, if not destroy, the MBT.
Similarly, Optimus Prime has several massive guns on his arms that can take out transformers we earlier see tanking airstrikes.
and the browning m2 (candidate 2 for "what guns were used in kong"😉:
In service 🙂 1933 🙂 – present
Rate of fire; 1,200 rounds/min (AN/M3)
Muzzle velocity 2,910 ft/shttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning
wow the a-10's gun has almost FOUR TIMES the rate of fire. but again; how long did it hit the target for? 1 second. 2:34 scorpinok gets its ass bounced off the ground.
Yes, and those were armor piercing rounds. Guess what would happen, ****achumps, if an A10 fired a 1 second burst on King Kong?
Now, realize that Prime's weapons are more potent than A10s, because we see massed airstrikes fail to take down transformers, yet Prime routinely oneshots them.
-kong was attacked SIX planes for a total of 6 twin-brownings (thus 12 brownings) firing 1200 rounds each. but wait...wouldnt that be 2400rpm since they are twin brownings? yup 🙂
So what? Blackout and various other baddies were fired on by dozens of F22s, and certainly didn't die easily.
Guess what? Prime has oneshot plenty of these fools.
F22s >>>>>>> biplanes.
-over the duration kong had far more bullets put in him than scorpinok. 🙂
😉Scorpinok had 1000 lb+ (IIRC) bombs dropped on it.
-he did this while hanging from a skyscraper and didnt get knocked off. 🙂
So what? Blackout took down an entire military base without the slightest difficulty. Before humans adapted with sabot rounds and explicitly trained and prepped against the aliens, the decepticons were taking on entire battalions and air squadrons.
Prime then comes in and kills 11 of them with laughable ease.
When will you realize that King Kong is facing against a guy who can take on entire armies of modern weapons and air support?
You do realize that King Kong would die in seconds against any of the dedicated combat forces the Transformers come up against in the series, right? Could you imagine if Kong were dropped off where Blackout took down the military base?
He's a giant ape. Granted, he's unrealistically strong, fast and intelligent. But he's still made of flesh and blood, and he still died to browning machine gun fire.
Prime has weaponry capable of taking out guys waaayyy out of his league.
-you dont get to just arbitrarily decide that 600 fps more than a browning is the exact prerequisite of what is required to damage a transformer. 🙂
Except that Transformers have survived modern airstrikes and tank rounds, whereas Kong has died to 1933 biplanes.
-this is not to "win" the topic. im just pointing out how laughably ignorant your obsessively conflating assertions are 🙂
And you attacked ridiculous strawman positions. Go figure.
King Kong is FAR out of his league here. Transformers have taken down aircraft carriers and entire squadrons, but apparently, you think a giant ape is going to intimidate Optimus Prime. Even if we strip him of his ranged armaments:
You see that blade? Yeah, Kong doesn't stand a chance here in any capacity.
Even in pure H2H combat, you haven't yet produced evidence that Kong can even bend metal that can tank missile fire. And no - that he can rip apart standard steel doesn't count. I just have to throw these disclaimers out there, in case if you pull another round of stupid shit out of your ass in a desperate attempt to convince the board that your favorite giant ape can take on an advanced, sentient alien robot. It's part delusional, part inspiring to observe your passion and denial.