Originally posted by Omega Vision
Even assuming your ballistics maffs are any more reliable than the other crap you spew here, a jet can't effectively engage a grounded target like a tank at speeds anywhere close to Mach 2 with its guns, let alone Mach 3.And tank guns are massively larger than guns mounted on jets.
I think they can. Even so then it is still not impossible, especially with many of them acting at once.
Oh and I know tanks have larger guns but that doesn't mean much when they can only shoot armor piercing rounds only a little faster than a grounded fighter jet. There are some rare handguns that can shoot with higher velocities than some rifles.
Originally posted by h1a8
Oh and I know tanks have larger guns but that doesn't mean much when they can only shoot armor piercing rounds only a little faster than a grounded fighter jet.
you are confusing the purpose of these munitions though.
A tank fires a huge shell for the purpose of taking out groups of infantry, other armour, or for siege. Jets fire small rounds meant to penetrate other jets (in fact, it is rare a plane would engage ground forces with its guns in any event. An F-23 is not an air-to-ground plane).
Not only is the cannon on a tank far more powerful than a gun on a jet, a tank is far sturdier/etc, and is therefore braced for all of its power.
Originally posted by h1a8
There are some rare handguns that can shoot with higher velocities than some rifles.
not at comparable caliber I'd imagine. a .22 pistol isn't going to fire faster or farther than a .22 rifle, same with .50 cal. now, a .50 cal pistol might have more oomph than a .22 rifle, but that is apples and oranges.
Originally posted by CosmicComet
I'm afraid not. Not in the obvious comedic route that he wished to take, nor in a manner that adheres to the rules.Yeah. You you're pretty bright aren't you?
Nice try with the spelling and grammar there... Lmao. Microsoft words auto checker can't help everyone. Lmao.
In comparison to someone pretending to be drunk on a web forum?
Lol. Yes.
Assuming they can't fly, if we were to entrap them in some kind of gelatenous adhesive material we could possibly immobilize them, if not outright put them down. There are some polymers that could be dumped on them to slow them down while further measures are deployed. I don't think conventional weapons like bullets/missiles/etc are our best bet. We'd have to think of containment tactics rather than lethal tactics.
Originally posted by rotiart
Nice try with the spelling and grammar there... Lmao. Microsoft words auto checker can't help everyone. Lmao.In comparison to someone pretending to be drunk on a web forum?
Lol. Yes.
I guess there's always the option of trying to be funny, when initial non sequitur attempts at intelligent condescension ends up face-planting.
I hope to read more fail from you in the future, thanks for the amusement. 🙂
Originally posted by CosmicComet
I guess there's always the option of trying to be funny, when initial non sequitur attempts at intelligent condescension ends up face-planting.I hope to read more fail from you in the future, thanks for the amusement. 🙂
I feel amused at your ill-conceived attempts at taking a higher road. As if your indirect barbs are not plainly obvious and weakly apparent.
I'm glad you picked up a dictionary to at least present the appearance of an obtuse vocabulary. Thesaurus.com helping you much? Feel free to continue with the decomposed sewage you call responses and I shall be here to read them.
To quote Monty python: I fart! in your general direction!
Oh, you do seem upset. As if I would attempt to actually hide anything from your gaze. No no. I don't have to be so direct, I clearly understood that you'd find me out if I presumed to think I could do so.
But, your current position does not follow. As were you not the same chap who brought forth the hobbled comprehension accusation that you could never hope to actually justify when backed into a corner? 🙂
Or can you? I'm still waiting. 🙂
1. Existere did not "pick on" colossus. He asked him to not bring up colossus for no reason.
2. The comic claim is valid as we cannot prove it.
3. You made the claim existere was attacking bigC
4. Your subsequent post has bad grammar.
5. At you: hahaha lol hahaha
6. Okay Mindset I'll stop. Obviously cosmiccomet has lost track of his own posts.
Originally posted by rotiart
1. Existere did not "pick on" colossus. He asked him to not bring up colossus for no reason.
Oh dear. I will ask you to read the name of the topic starter, the discussion topic he set up at hand, the kind of forum we are in, and then read Existere's post again.
To quote a wise man:
Reading comprehension is a skill. Please learn it.
As for the rest. -snip-
6. Okay Mindset I'll stop. Obviously cosmiccomet has lost track of his own posts.
More like that rotiart fellow has lost his feigned intellectual high ground and is bowing out yes? 🙂
Originally posted by CosmicComet
Oh dear. I will ask you to read the name of the topic starter, the discussion topic he set up at hand, the kind of forum we are in, and then read Existere's post again.To quote a wise man:
As for the rest. -snip-
More like that rotiart fellow has lost his feigned intellectual high ground and is bowing out yes? 🙂
I'm glad then you were so intelligent so as to read the op that bigC himself posted which does not mention colossus....
And yet the thread starter suddenly brings him up...
And you act as if that suddenly changes the entire thread or the op?
You chose not to read any posts in the thread and are acting as if you did. So again. Learn to read. Seriously. Your (notice not you're) attempts are laughable.
Originally posted by inimalist
you are confusing the purpose of these munitions though.A tank fires a huge shell for the purpose of taking out groups of infantry, other armour, or for siege. Jets fire small rounds meant to penetrate other jets (in fact, it is rare a plane would engage ground forces with its guns in any event. An F-23 is not an air-to-ground plane).
Not only is the cannon on a tank far more powerful than a gun on a jet, a tank is far sturdier/etc, and is therefore braced for all of its power.
not at comparable caliber I'd imagine. a .22 pistol isn't going to fire faster or farther than a .22 rifle, same with .50 cal. now, a .50 cal pistol might have more oomph than a .22 rifle, but that is apples and oranges.
No. Todays tanks use HEAT and KE to penetrate other tanks along with other type of ammo (like shells). These are not shells but bullets (well the KE looks like a dart).
Of course it depends on the caliber and other factors as well (like the actual technology). The velocity is far more important than the mass of a bullet since kinetic energy = .5mass x velocity^2. Doubling the mass doubles the kinetic energy but doubling the velocity quadruples the kinetic energy.