kingd:
you are right that the ammo is superior in the a-10, especially with uranium depleted rounds.
you are wrong however to suggest that BMG 50cal ammo (also available in armor piercing) was not used for EVERY PURPOSE you stated and did so effectively.
kong was an areal target. meaning that the pilot could keep him dead on target for the full run instead of having to do a dive/fire/pull-up maneuver that all planes so far have to still do.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
try harder:edit: kongs only guilt was being a poor strategist. climbing that skyscraper was a horrible tactic. not as inane as your's today, but still if he had just layed low like scorpinok, king kong would be a trilogy. but in his defense, he is a dumb ape.
How classy of you, to respond to another's rebuttal with a smartass picture.
I'm going to excuse your d*ckhole behavior and just sum the argument up for you:
Transformers have tanked massed airstrikes, tank volleys and artillery shelling. Even after the humans tailor their tactics and arnaments to kill decepticons, they're still tough to kill.
In the video I produced, Prime casually one-shots 11 of them (who had earlier given Bumblebee and other Autobots significant trouble) with a combination of his guns, swords and bare hands.
Now; do you believe that Kong, an ape made of flesh and blood, can withstand such levels of firepower (more potent than F22 missile strikes) to, say, the face?
Like, if Prime shoots a missile/cannon/whatever-it-is at Kong's skull, do you seriously believe it will bounce off/fail to kill him? When WWII biplanes could, if not kill him through brute force, clearly injure and stun him?
And if so, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?
Originally posted by Master Han
How classy of you, to respond to another's rebuttal with a smartass picture.I'm going to excuse your d*ckhole behavior and just sum the argument up for you:
Transformers have tanked massed airstrikes, tank volleys and artillery shelling. Even after the humans tailor their tactics and arnaments to kill decepticons, they're still tough to kill.
In the video I produced, Prime casually one-shots 11 of them (who had earlier given Bumblebee and other Autobots significant trouble) with a combination of his guns, swords and bare hands.Now; do you believe that Kong, an ape made of flesh and blood, can withstand such levels of firepower (more potent than F22 missile strikes) to, say, the face?
Like, if Prime shoots a missile/cannon/whatever-it-is at Kong's skull, do you seriously believe it will bounce off/fail to kill him? When WWII biplanes could, if not kill him through brute force, clearly injure and stun him?
And if so, [b]WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?
[/B]
nope
also, http://www.hightech-edge.com/general-electrics-a-10-30mm-gatlin-gun/9381/
BMG 50 cal round and the standard 20mm used in the a-10 side by side (thank you google).
the correct answer was: mass.
thats what makes the 20mm superior. hardly a modern breakthrough.
however that DOES NOT RENDER 50 cal INFERIOR....goddamn clown shoes
and keep screaming and crying about how you're not able to lead the discussion like an authoritative posturing gasbag 🙂
Originally posted by focus4chumps
nopealso, http://www.hightech-edge.com/general-electrics-a-10-30mm-gatlin-gun/9381/
BMG 50 cal round and the standard 20mm used in the a-10 side by side (thank you google).
the correct answer was: mass.
thats what makes the 20mm superior.
however that DOES NOT RENDER 50 cal INFERIOR....goddamn clown shoes
Dude, what is it with replies that have no connection with the original post whatsoever?
1. Do you agree that transformers have withstood massed F22 missile strikes, artillery fire and tank volleys?
2. Do you agree that, in the video I produced, Optimus Prime's weapons oneshot said transformers?
-By transitive property, Prime's weapons outclass modern anti-tank arnaments.
3. Do you agree that King Kong could not survive massed F22 missile strikes, artillery fire and tank volleys?
-If not, where is your evidence?
Prime shoots Kong in the face with firepower sufficient to kill tanks and annihilate battalions. Kong is rendered unrecognizable with the first shot. What part of this do you not understand?
the correct answer was: mass.
I understand middle school physics, genius. Hence why your initial "trololol velocity only!" contention baffled me.
good, so its settled that "modern weaponry" was not definitely required to hurt a decepticon and you're full of hot gas. 🙂
you have nothing to oppose the hypothesis that 50 cal rounds could hurt or kill a deception. :'(
therefore it is a possibility 😮
and so moving forward you don't get to win the thread 🙂
isnt logic fun? ^O^
/sarius
Hey, chumps finds another excuse to nitpick and evade the most important contentions in favor of the trivial:
Originally posted by focus4chumps
good, so its settled that "modern weaponry" was not required to hurt a decepticon and you're full of hot gas. 🙂
You don't have a very high respect for standards of evidence. Robtard vaguely mused about an alleged incident, but cannot produce videos or images - why should I take it as evidence?
Now that your strawman-distortion derailment is taken care of, refute this line of logic:
1. Various decepticons tank massive amounts of heavy firepower from bombers, fighter jets, tanks and artillery.
2. Optimus Prime lololol oneshots these decepticons.
3. King Kong is made of flesh and blood
4. Therefore, Prime wins.
So you say "nope" to whether you're evading the argument...and proceed to evade the argument? 😆
Prime's firepower exceeds fighter jets' and tanks', as demonstrated by his ability to one-shot decepticons that otherwise take small armies to take down.
King Kong would die in seconds to any of the military forces assembled against said Decepticons.
Why?
Because he's made of flesh and blood.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
good, so its settled that "modern weaponry" was not definitely required to hurt a decepticon and you're full of hot gas. 🙂you have nothing to oppose the hypothesis that 50 cal rounds could hurt or kill a deception. :'(
therefore it is a possibility 😮
and so moving forward you don't get to win the thread 🙂
isnt logic fun? ^O^
/sarius
In the first Transformers movie, human artillery was nearly useless against the Decepticons. Blackout took on an entire military base without sustaining damage. Human firepower was unable to stop the Decepticons.
It needed the Autobots working with the humans for the military to come up with the proper arms to deal with the Decepticons. That's why in Transformers 2 and 3, the humans were able to somewhat damage the Decepticons.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Could you show me exactly how "humans were killing" these transformers? Because I'm pretty sure the humans had a harder time killing the Transformers than they did killing Kong.
Oh really?
Look at how easily Frenzy was dismembered. Look at how Sam murdered Starscream. Was it not humans who killed Devastator?
Also the shitty human characters killed those transformers movies. 😛
Originally posted by Lestov16
What this all amounts to is a simple and sad case of a couple of people who have so much hubris and conceit that they will refuse to admit they are wrong, even when all logic and reason points otherwise. They know they're wrong, but they don't want to make a simple admission of error in judgement and be done with it. No. They have some odd desire to be infallible like a bratty child, and it's ironic how they're attempting to save their credibility from sinking to the bottom of the ocean, and in actuality plummeting it to the inner-core of the Earth.
Yes. Its good that you can finally admit it and hopefully the next stage is for you to seek the help you need before you get a face full of earth core..
Originally posted by Master HanKong 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.
So funny that you accused Focus of derailment/strawmannery, yet you seem to debate like Kong is gonna be nailed to the spot or stuck up on that Empire State building roof and unable to defend/evade/manoeuvre and will not shift from that position.
Your constant trying to bottleneck all discussion through that irrelevant filter is both hypocritical and very very revealing of your bias.
Originally posted by Master Han1. Do you agree that transformers have withstood massed F22 missile strikes, artillery fire and tank volleys?
2. Do you agree that, in the video I produced, Optimus Prime's weapons oneshot said transformers?
I don't. The ones that "withstood" were actually destroyed and the ones in DOTM were largely different ones.
List the ones that Prime one shotted in the clip from DOTM, then list where they were in BayTFS1.
Oh. Thats right...asleep on the moon.
I understand middle school physics, genius. Hence why your initial "trololol velocity only!" contention baffled me.
No doubt Focus will answer you, but if you understand Physics then please explain the constant ignoring of it in those movies.
If Physics were applicable, Sam would be dead, and Half of the shit that exploded in those movies shouldn't have.
(Like Megatron swinging his melee bashing weapon into concrete that then promptly explodes into a firey explosion from blunt force trauma. lol)
And if Sam was killed, Megatron would have killed Prime like a ***** at the end of TFS1.
Prime was helpless against Megatron and totally had to have Sam (who might have been kiiled if Bay Megatron wasn't so pathetic and he'd just bunched up a fist and bought it down on the human) complete the Prime's armlength distance to shove the allspark into Megatron's chest.
Without Sam Prime'd be dead.
Originally posted by Sadako of GirthPrime was helpless against Megatron and totally had to have Sam (who might have been kiiled if Bay Megatron wasn't so pathetic and he'd just bunched up a fist and bought it down on the human) complete the Prime's armlength distance to shove the allspark into Megatron's chest.
Without Sam Prime'd be dead.
That was a clearly holding back Optimus. Because in both the second and third movies, when he decided to stop holding back and stop f*cking around, he walked the dog on Megatron every time they fought.
You can laugh, but can you say that Optimus didn't absolutely wreck Megatron every other time they fought? No you can't.
He held back because he didn't want to kill Megatron and he didn't want to get any humans injured or killed in the crossfire.
In the forest, when the only person was Sam and he needed to survive at all costs? Prime took on the 2nd most powerful Decepticon in the series(only after the Fallen), his 2nd in command(Starscream), and Grindor who was in the same class as Blackout. He demolished all three of them at once. Yeah he lost the fight, but that was only because he clearly stopped paying attention(the video makes that clear) and he got blindsided.
In the 3rd movie he carves through 11 Decepticon's like a thanksgiving turkey, then kills Megatron in under 10 seconds with only 1 arm.
And he won't hold back against Kong. There's no humans for him to protect, and this is a forum battle, he'll fight till he wins or until Kong is dead...which is pretty much the same thing.
You're hilarious though. Your dedication to trolling is amazing.