Who would be a bigger threat: Thor vs. Superman

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Watch, I'll predict what his next reply will be and the flaw behind it.

Basically, it would be him making himself out as the sole arbiter of what the "writer's intent" is.

Bet you that's next.

Normally, I'd wait til he post but at this point he's not even trying to avoid his old know-tactics that I've already listed.

I reckon he will say: But Superman took an aircraft bullet, so the logic im applying to Thor wont apply to him..

Will wait and see which of us knows him better 😉

Originally posted by Darth Thor
It blew up the whole Asgardian space ship.

Shall we get out specs for will Durability of real life space shuttles?

Also why are you pretending he didnt get touched by the explosion that blew up Slovakia?

Do you know that there wasn't an explosive mechanism (like a bomb) inside the ship, where Thor was, that pushed outward against the ship?

Basically Thanos charged the walls of the ship and had the ship explode mostly from the walls. The majority of the force acted on the walls, not on Thor or inside where Thor was. If a metal slab of 3in titanium was inside the ship with Thor then you would have to prove that it would get greatly damaged to have a point. Problem was that Thor was injured from this as well.

And spacecraft/aircraft are light. Metal skin are usually less than 0.1 inch thick.

US military has shit that can penetrate many inches of solid steel. And they have shit that can blow up huge structures like nothing.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Yes, I was mocking you. That was not debating because I wasn't debating against him. Try and keep up.

That is the dumbest, most arbitrary proof requirement I have ever encountered. Basically:

Predictable. No, I feel that my logic that a 150kg explosive attached to a guidance system+propulsion > 30mm shells is sufficient to convince everyone here. Til a non-troll questions it, I have no need to produce any more evidence to a known-troll.

Fact: A-10s use their AGM-65 missiles against Heavy Battle Tanks because their main 30mm cannon isn't as effective/guaranteed to score a kill on hit (even after a full strafe). Because missiles are far more effective. A simple google search will lead everyone to the same information needed if they feel the need for clarification.

It is literally your logic that -> running away from it = writer's intent that it can hurt him.

I literally just proved how wrong your logic is. If you can't get why, then you're either a liar or a moron. Thanks for playing.

Missiles have HEAT tech, which uses the Munroe effect to penetrate more than 6 inches thick of armor. Nothing else can do that. But nowadays, military has developed a top secret composite armor which is resistant against Heat weapons. Hell Thor may or may not be able to damage such tanks.

You guys have to stop committing these no limit fallacies. US military has shit that can even hurt Superman. Real life military >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>movie military.
In such a manner that they can kill most top movie heroes if they went to war with them.

H1 and his retardation continues.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
What it did is besides the point. Thor also stood in the line of fire with nothing happening. Point is Superman CLEARLY evaded the bullets being hit once.

If Thor was shown to get hit by such bullets without damage then the scene was running from them gets dismissed.

But the problem is that aircraft bullets aren't the most powerful shit the military has.

Originally posted by h1a8
If Thor was shown to get hit by such bullets without damage then the scene was running from them gets dismissed.

But the problem is that aircraft bullets aren't the most powerful shit the military has.

How did Quicksilver die?

I called it:

Originally posted by h1a8
If Thor was shown to get hit by such bullets without damage then the scene was running from them gets dismissed.

But the problem is that aircraft bullets aren't the most powerful shit the military has.

Logic is either true or false.

Your logic is clearly a fail.

Good bye troll.

You and Quan carry on seeking attention and proving how mentally challenged you both are.

Originally posted by h1a8
Missiles have HEAT tech, which uses the Munroe effect to penetrate more than 6 inches thick of armor. Nothing else can do that. But nowadays, military has developed a top secret composite armor which is resistant against Heat weapons. Hell Thor may or may not be able to damage such tanks.

You guys have to stop committing these no limit fallacies. US military has shit that can even hurt Superman. Real life military >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>movie military.
In such a manner that they can kill most top movie heroes if they went to war with them.

Some missiles have shaped charge (w/c uses a much smaller warhead). Some penetrating blast fragmentation. Look at the AGM missile variants and see for yourself.

Nice red herring. Your logic is either true or false. You accept that running away -> writer's intent that character is vulnerable to bullets or you do not. You do not suddenly make up your own rules on what writer's intent means. Thanks for playing.

Ok, enough speculation.

Here is a test conducted using High Explosive artillery rounds vs various vehicles, including M-48 tanks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M48_Patton) w/c has an armor thickness (depending on the angle) of 110-220mm (178mm on the frontal turret). A GAU8 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger) has a penetration of about 76mm.

Here is the test: https://imgur.com/gallery/gIjCo

They used 155mm HE projectiles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M107_projectile) and used M109 Howitzer batteries to fire them.*

*-seeing as this was done in 1988, I don't think they'd be using the newer M795 shells (from what I found the newer ordinance replaced the M107 somewhere in the mid-90s. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m795.htm)

The results and I quote:

"The model predicted 30 percent damage to armored vehicles and tanks; however, 67 percent damage was achieved. Fragmentation from the HE rounds penetrated the armored vehicles, destroying critical components and injuring the manikin crew."

"...none of the damage to the armored vehicles were the result of direct hits-all the damage was caused by near hits."

"This test confirmed that US Army models did not accurately portray artillery effectiveness. Direct hits were not required to damage tanks and other armored vehicles"

I underlined "injuring the manikin crew" as it would need full penetration of the fragments through the armor to achieve this result.

These are shells with 22 lbs explosives.

H1 is trying to make us believe that Thor surviving explosions (w/c would include fragmentation along with the explosion) thousands of times more powerful is less than getting shot by a 30mm cannon (w/c used to be 20mm, but h1 is prone to move goalposts).

Hopefully this puts to rest the absolutely moronic opinion of bullets > explosions.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
These are shells with 22 lbs explosives.

Edit. Sorry, I mean 12 lbs explosives. Typo.

12.7 lbs to be more accurate.

Originally posted by Nibedicus

Hopefully this puts to rest the absolutely moronic opinion of bullets > explosions.

You are a bigger man than I am actually proving that.

I just plane out refused and compared it to someone asking me to prove Mike Tyson punches harder than the average 12 year old.

I mean he was inside the Asgardian ship when it exploded. We literally saw debris and fragments everywhere that would have hit Thor with the force of that explosion.

Anyway his whole premise of Thor not being bullet proof because he evaded the bullets has gone to shit now, now that he concedes Superman also evaded bullets.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
You are a bigger man than I am actually proving that.

I just plane out refused and compared it to someone asking me to prove Mike Tyson punches harder than the average 12 year old.

I mean he was inside the Asgardian ship when it exploded. We literally saw debris and fragments everywhere that would have hit Thor with the force of that explosion.

Anyway his whole premise of Thor not being bullet proof because he evaded the bullets has gone to shit now, now that he concedes Superman also evaded bullets.

Another example would be the Bifrost explosion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE8HuCVAamg

At (0:59) we see Thor and Loki at ground zero getting hit by a HUGE amount of Bifrost fragments (a glass-like shard-y material that took Thor many direct hammer hits to just crack) just as the explosion happened (and before h1 goes on his "slow explosion" BS, this shot was done in slo-mo starting at (0:56)). This proves without a shadow of a doubt that Thor WAS hit by (highly durable) explosion fragments from ground zero of a far far far farx100 more powerful explosion.

This would be enough proof for every normal person. H1, of course, will most likely fall back on more of his BS tactics. So I'm not expecting miracles.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Ok, enough speculation.

Here is a test conducted using High Explosive artillery rounds vs various vehicles, including M-48 tanks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M48_Patton) w/c has an armor thickness (depending on the angle) of 110-220mm (178mm on the frontal turret). A GAU8 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger) has a penetration of about 76mm.

Here is the test: https://imgur.com/gallery/gIjCo

They used 155mm HE projectiles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M107_projectile) and used M109 Howitzer batteries to fire them.*

*-seeing as this was done in 1988, I don't think they'd be using the newer M795 shells (from what I found the newer ordinance replaced the M107 somewhere in the mid-90s. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m795.htm)

The results and I quote:

"The model predicted 30 percent damage to armored vehicles and tanks; however, 67 percent damage was achieved. Fragmentation from the HE rounds penetrated the armored vehicles, destroying critical components and injuring the manikin crew."

"...none of the damage to the armored vehicles were the result of direct hits-all the damage was caused by near hits."

"This test confirmed that US Army models did not accurately portray artillery effectiveness. Direct hits were not required to damage tanks and other armored vehicles"

I underlined "injuring the manikin crew" as it would need full penetration of the fragments through the armor to achieve this result.

These are shells with 22 lbs explosives.

H1 is trying to make us believe that Thor surviving explosions (w/c would include fragmentation along with the explosion) thousands of times more powerful is less than getting shot by a 30mm cannon (w/c used to be 20mm, but h1 is prone to move goalposts).

Hopefully this puts to rest the absolutely moronic opinion of bullets > explosions.

Lol you are slow.
Explosions have nothing to do with HEAT tech. Otherwise a phucking bomb will end a tank. Ever heard of the Munroe principle?

Anyway, you have to show that Thor tanked shit that can penetrate punch through or break 3in titanium.

Both 20mm and 30mm did that.

Give me the explosion you think proves it and we can discuss this from there.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Another example would be the Bifrost explosion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE8HuCVAamg

At (0:59) we see Thor and Loki at ground zero getting hit by a HUGE amount of Bifrost fragments (a glass-like shard-y material that took Thor many direct hammer hits to just crack) just as the explosion happened (and before h1 goes on his "slow explosion" BS, this shot was done in slo-mo starting at (0:56)). This proves without a shadow of a doubt that Thor WAS hit by (highly durable) explosion fragments from ground zero of a far far far farx100 more powerful explosion.

This would be enough proof for every normal person. H1, of course, will most likely fall back on more of his BS tactics. So I'm not expecting miracles.

You know that's a shitty explosion. Really! Who are you trying to fool?
That explosion can't even punch through 3in titanium.

Are you an idiot? Wait, don’t answer, we know you are. I just posted an entire experiment that used High Explosive shells. None of those has HEAT tech.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Are you an idiot? Wait, don’t answer, we know you are. I just posted an entire experiment that used High Explosive shells. None of those has HEAT tech.

HEAT penetrates COMPLETELY.
Damage a tank could mean scratch. The level of damage matters.
And you still having shown any explosions Thor took that can break through 3in of titanium.

Missiles =/= explosions

Originally posted by h1a8
HEAT penetrates COMPLETELY.
Damage a tank could mean scratch. The level of damage matters.
And you still having shown any explosions Thor took that can break through 3in of titanium.

Read the freakin study. It says right there what happened.

LOL. You are just down to handwaving away evidence now and simply trolling.

You are beaten.

Check and mate.

Originally posted by h1a8
You know that's a shitty explosion. Really! Who are you trying to fool?
That explosion can't even punch through 3in titanium.

Prove it.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Read the freakin study. It says right there what happened.

LOL. You are just down to handwaving away evidence now and simply trolling.

You are beaten.

Check and mate.

I did. You ignored what I said. HEAT missiles can penetrate MANY inches of steel (more than 6in). They use the Munroe effect to achieve this. I stated this from the very beginning.
What are you not understanding?
These missiles are not equivalent to random explosions. The weight of the amount of explosives is irrelevant as many random explosions can't do shit to many inches of solid steel.

Nowadays, tanks use composite armor to defend against HEAT weapons. Such armor is very effective against HEAT weapons.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Prove it.

I don't have to.
The claim is that the bifrost explosion >>>>>>getting hit with a 30mm round.
I gave feats for the 30 and 20mm round.
Claiming Bifrost is greater is claiming that it can penetrate or break a slab of 3in titanium.

Originally posted by h1a8
I did. You ignored what I said. HEAT missiles can penetrate MANY inches of steel (more than 6in). They use the Munroe effect to achieve this. I stated this from the very beginning.
What are you not understanding?
These missiles are not equivalent to random explosions. The weight of the amount of explosives is irrelevant as many random explosions can't do shit to many inches of solid steel.

Nowadays, tanks use composite armor to defend against HEAT weapons. Such armor is very effective against HEAT weapons.

You did not read the study I posted. The study didn’t use missiles and they didn’t use HEAT ordinance.

You did not read my reply that clarified this if you cannot understand now that I’ve underlined it, then you are simply acting dumb and trolling.

One last chance, if you cannot post a rebuttal, I’ll consider that your concession.