Ludendorff vs Valkyrie

Originally posted by FrothByte
@h1, here's your scene:
https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11112/111120360/6128948-0233025686-59701.gif

That’s kind of weak. He bent the knife against the flat side mostly. Yes Thor can do that.

Breaking a steel gun in pieces >>>>>>>> breaking a knife >>>>>>bending a knife flat side.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Just like you haven't posted the scene where he destroys the gun, so it doesn't count either.

Sure, it survived being hit by a multi-ton engine blades moving at high speed. now it's your turn. prove that solid steel could survive that.

YouTube video

YouTube video

The blades knocked him around a bit. He had some visible damage.
The showing doesn’t prove his armor is more than twice as durable as solid steel though.

Now it's your turn. prove that solid steel could survive that.

@h1, please have your eyes checked. If you check the gif again, you'll see that the Asgardian bent the knife forward along its edge before he bent it against its flat. Stop being a troll.

A knife blade is a solid piece of high-carbon steel, whereas guns are 1. hollow 2. made of different materials, not all of which are steel and 3. the steel parts (mostly the barrel) are made of stainless steel, gun metal, mild steel, or some other alloy that are all weaker than the kind of steel tactical blades are usually made of. Basically, if you melted down the steel in a gun and made it into a knife, you'd end up with a crappy knife.

So if you want to claim that bending a gun is harder to do than bending a knife blade along its edge, please back this up with proof.

h1 overhyping his feats while massively downplaying everyone else's is SOP.

Originally posted by FrothByte
@h1, please have your eyes checked. If you check the gif again, you'll see that the Asgardian bent the knife forward along its edge before he bent it against its flat. Stop being a troll.

A knife blade is a solid piece of high-carbon steel, whereas guns are 1. hollow 2. made of different materials, not all of which are steel and 3. the steel parts (mostly the barrel) are made of stainless steel, gun metal, mild steel, or some other alloy that are all weaker than the kind of steel tactical blades are usually made of. Basically, if you melted down the steel in a gun and made it into a knife, you'd end up with a crappy knife.

So if you want to claim that bending a gun is harder to do than bending a knife blade along its edge, please back this up with proof.

No he didn’t. It was bent along the flat.
A gun is thicker, especially the barrel. And He broke it casually like a fortune cookie. It’s multiple times easier bending a knife than a barrel of a handgun. That’s just plain common sense. No science needed.
Crumpling it takes even astronomical more force.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Now it's your turn. prove that solid steel could survive that.

To quantify the feat we have to be sure exactly what happened.

But my argument isn’t that the handgun is more durable. It’s something else entirely.

^ Yeah, now you're just flat out lying. You can clearly see he bent the knife along its edge first. So that's how it is now eh H1? You're just going to lie in every single one of these threads?

I also see that you know nothing about metal compositions and the different kinds of steel. No surprise there.

Originally posted by h1a8
Those propellers just knocked IM around a little. We can’t see exactly what was done to IM other than him bouncing around. Plus they are not harder than steel.

To quantify the feat we have to be sure exactly what happened.

But my argument isn’t that the handgun is more durable. It’s something else entirely.

Prove it.

Originally posted by FrothByte
^ Yeah, now you're just flat out lying. You can clearly see he bent the knife along its edge first. So that's how it is now eh H1? You're just going to lie in every single one of these threads?

I also see that you know nothing about metal compositions and the different kinds of steel. No surprise there.

The composition only plays a small part. The big part is the shape and how much damage was done. We clearly see the guy bending the knife against its flat edge. If you insist on him initially bending it at the edge then how much did it bend at the edge?

The barrel of a gun is several times thicker than that knife. And you are still ignoring the fact that he crumpled it like a fortune cookie.

Edit: I’m sorry but that’s a shitty feat. I’m not going to argue about it anymore. It’s pure shitty. Look at it again

In IM1, Tony got hit by an M1A1 Abrams tank shell and sustained no serious injury/damage to the suit or himself. So trying to lowball how durable the suit is silly and retarded. As is trying to lowball Thor's physical strength and he only started to crush the suit with effort, despite his massive levels of physical strength.

Originally posted by h1a8
The composition only plays a small part. The big part is the shape and how much damage was done. We clearly see the guy bending the knife against its flat edge. If you insist on him initially bending it at the edge then how much did it bend at the edge?

The barrel of a gun is several times thicker than that knife. And you are still ignoring the fact that he crumpled it like a fortune cookie.

Edit: I’m sorry but that’s a shitty feat. I’m not going to argue about it anymore. It’s pure shitty. Look at it again

Lol. That tactical knife was abou 1-2 inches wide. There's no way the pistol that Luddendorf crumpled had a 1 inch thick barrel. Again, you're flat out lying or being a troll. There's no other explanation.

IM from the first movie >>>>>>>> All other movies in durability. Plus IM had bullet holes. Plus shelll traveled a distance fighting gravity and wind resistance to get to IM. Plus that was his chest armor, not his wrist armor.

And again what’s with the trying to prove the armor is more durable than a steel gun? That’s not the point.

1. Its far more impressive to lift 1 ton very casually and throw it 100 ft away then it is to lift 2 tons 3 ft in the air while straining. This is an analogy for the two feats in question.

2. Doing something casually means that you have multiple times more strength than the feat requires. It doesnt take multiple times more force to SLIGHTLY bent IM wrist armor than to crumple a gun.

3. Doing far more damage takes way more force than doing less damage to a similar object. Im not saying the gun is more durable (its not far off if it isnt). I’m saying that doing significantly more damage to a less durable object can take more force than doing significantly less damage to a more durable object

Yeah, no. His latest armor withstood a blast from the Power Stone, but even then you're making Thor's strength more impressive now. What you said trying to downplay a tank shelling from an M1A1 Abrams tank was ridiculous and I sincerely hope you're trying to troll again. Cos otherwise...

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, no. His latest armor withstood a blast from the Power Stone, but even then you're making Thor's strength more impressive now. What you said trying to downplay a tank shelling from an M1A1 Abrams tank was ridiculous and I sincerely hope you're trying to troll again. Cos otherwise...

So you basically ignored everything I said? How can we have a discussion if you do that?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Prove it.

Originally posted by h1a8
So you basically ignored everything I said? How can we have a discussion if you do that?

You ignore everything everyone else says.

Originally posted by KingD19
You ignore everything everyone else says.

False. I address EVERYTHING they said when I respond to their post.

Originally posted by h1a8
So you basically ignored everything I said? How can we have a discussion if you do that?

False. I countered what you said and them smugly dismissed the nonsense parts

Originally posted by h1a8
False. I address EVERYTHING they said when I respond to their post.

Yes, you address them with lies and made-up numbers. You never back yourself up with any proper proof or even proper logic.

Originally posted by Robtard
False. I countered what you said and them smugly dismissed the nonsense parts

So it's all about durability? Effort and total damage doesn't play a role?
That would be nonsense to consider?