Originally posted by h1a8
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.
You made a claim, if you don't back it up, you're just proving to everyone that you're a troll.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
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.
Originally posted by Silent Master
You made a claim, if you don't back it up, you're just proving to everyone that you're a troll.
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
HE=HEAT
Moron. Wrong.
HE = High Explosive.
HEAT = High Explosive Anti-Tank
Jeezus. The information is posted with links to the actual ordinance used.
I am now convinced that you are playing dumb and trolling (well, you're always trolling. But now all you've got left is to play dumb). We're done here.
Concession accepted.
With h1's refusal to rebut proof provided, he has now conceded his moronic argument.
We are now free to just ignore him as he screams "bulletsz >>> massive exploszionszz!".
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Moron. Wrong.HE = High Explosive.
HEAT = High Explosive Anti-Tank
Jeezus.[b] The information is posted with links to the actual ordinance used.
I am now convinced that you are playing dumb and trolling (well, you're always trolling. But now all you've got left is to play dumb). We're done here.
Concession accepted.
With h1's refusal to rebut proof provided, he has now conceded his moronic argument.
We are now free to just ignore him as he screams "bulletsz >>> massive exploszionszz!". [/B]
Oh I assumed HE=HEAT because you stated it penetrated tank armor. HE can't penetrate tank armor. That's a fact.
The Shockwave energy from HE can be transfered inside the tank to do damage and kill the operators. But that's not the case in your source.
In your source, it's states armored vehicle, not tank. It differentiates from the two in the article. There is no mention of fragments penetrating tanks. We see pictures of damage to the tracks, guns, etc.
Even if it stated that He fragments penetrated over 100mm of armor then I wouldn't believe it. There is too much evidence against it.
Originally posted by h1a8
Oh I assumed HE=HEAT because you stated it penetrated tank armor. HE can't penetrate tank armor. That's a fact.
The Shockwave energy from HE can be transfered inside the tank to do damage and kill the operators. But that's not the case in your source.In your source, it's states armored vehicle, not tank. It differentiates from the two in the article. There is no mention of fragments penetrating tanks. We see pictures of damage to the tracks, guns, etc.
Even if it stated that He fragments penetrated over 100mm of armor then I wouldn't believe it. There is too much evidence against it.
"Direct hits were not required to damage tanks and other armored vehicles."
Do you speak-a Engrish?
Look at Figure 7. There is a huge hole (more like 2 or 3 plus mangled armor) in the front of the tank (where the armor is by far the thickest) on a near-hit.
Are you even reading the article?
Wow. Full on denial huh? Even when provided evidence you refuse to believe it and are already digging in your heels to deny any future evidence because you don't want to?
Is that all you got left now? No rebuttal, no counterproof? Just "I don't believe it and I won't believe it".
I guess that's your indirect way of admitting that you lost.
shrug
Have a nice day. /s
Originally posted by h1a8
Oh I assumed HE=HEAT because you stated it penetrated tank armor. HE can't penetrate tank armor. That's a fact.
The Shockwave energy from HE can be transfered inside the tank to do damage and kill the operators. But that's not the case in your source.In your source, it's states armored vehicle, not tank. It differentiates from the two in the article. There is no mention of fragments penetrating tanks. We see pictures of damage to the tracks, guns, etc.
Even if it stated that He fragments penetrated over 100mm of armor then I wouldn't believe it. There is too much evidence against it.
How do you define penetrate?
A) Penetrates
B)Misses
C)something else?
Originally posted by Nibedicus
"Direct hits were not required to damage tanks and other armored vehicles."Do you speak-a Engrish?
[b]Look at Figure 7. There is a huge hole (more like 2 or 3 plus mangled armor) in the front of the tank (where the armor is by far the thickest) on a near-hit.
Are you even reading the article?
Wow. Full on denial huh? Even when provided evidence you refuse to believe it and are already digging in your heels to deny any future evidence because you don't want to?
Is that all you got left now? No rebuttal, no counterproof? Just "I don't believe it and I won't believe it".
I guess that's your indirect way of admitting that you lost.
shrug
Have a nice day. /s [/B]
Damage =/= penetrate the armor of tanks.
Of course explosives can damage tanks, especially the tracks.
You were making it out as they penetrated the armor of a heavy armored tank.
Figure 7 does not show penetration of heavy thick armor.
He don't penetrate heavy armored tanks. They damage them yes. Most sources confirms this.
Originally posted by h1a8
Damage =/= penetrate the armor of tanks.
Of course explosives can damage tanks, especially the tracks.
You were making it out as they penetrated the armor of a heavy armored tank.Figure 7 does not show penetration of heavy thick armor.
He don't penetrate heavy armored tanks. They damage them yes. Most sources confirms this.
The evidence is there (front of tank has the heaviest armor, everyone knows this and I'm sure you do, too. You're just acting dumb again.). Everyone can look at the pictures and see the mangled armor and baseball size holes on the front.
Figure 7 shows exactly what I said it did. Everyone can just take a look at it. You are simply closing your eyes and refusing to accept proof.
Figure 8 on a direct hit completely annihilated the tank.
You have no argument and are just denying evidence at this point.
Dude. You're just stalling now to keep the troll going. Unless you present anything new on your next reply, I will simply copy paste this:
You have no argument so you are now just playing dumb and denying evidence. I win, you lose.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
The evidence is there (front of tank has the heaviest armor, everyone knows this and I'm sure you do, too. You're just acting dumb again.). Everyone can look at the pictures and see the mangled armor and baseball size holes on the front.Figure 7 shows exactly what I said it did. Everyone can just take a look at it. You are simply closing your eyes and refusing to accept proof.
Figure 8 on a direct hit completely annihilated the tank.
You have no argument and are just denying evidence at this point.
Dude. You're just stalling now to keep the troll going. Unless you present anything new on your next reply, I will simply copy paste this:
You have no argument so you are now just playing dumb and denying evidence. I win, you lose.
Start of post:
Really!
You are just guessing at this point.
1. That doesn't look like a m-48 tank. M-48 tanks were said to be used in the first test. The 2nd and 3rd tests (which were done over a long period of time after the 1st) said tanks, but didn't classify which ones.
2. Yes there are two dark looking cavities but we do not know whether the cavities lead all the way through the armor,or just partially.
Bottomline: HE attacks are not the same as random explosions. Just because HE fragmentation can penetrate armor to a certain degree doesn't mean that random explosions can. Those shells are compromised of steel. And the explosives used produce great velocities on the steel (larger than a bullet). Also 20mm and 30mm were shown to penetrate 3in titanium (stronger than steel). The bifrost explosion (the glass shards) doesn't appear to be capable of penetrating 3in titanium. The velocity of the shards do not appear to be multiple times faster than a 20mm bullet (the velocity appears many times slower than a bullet) and the durability of the glass shards is unknown to as tough as steel. The explosion of the ship wasn't a true explosion as in the detonation didn't start where Thor was. Thanos charged the walls of the ship and caused the ship to explode OUTWARDS RADIALLY.
End of post:
Upon further consideration, Thor is highly resistant to aircraft bullets due to the explosion feat of the ship (but they will hurt him somewhat). But Thor will eventually lose to the military (due to nuclear bombs, HE attacks, etc). Superman can lose too if he doesn't always operate at top speed when an attack comes.
Superman lasts longer, not because of durability, but because of his speed and extra senses.
I would say durability between the two is a wash (Superman has slightly better blunt durability and Thor better energy and heat durability).
Thor is extremely powerful and I give him props. Thanks for the debate. I'm now convinced.
Originally posted by h1a8
Please read this entire post. You will be shocked at the end.Start of post:
Really!
You are just guessing at this point.
1. That doesn't look like a m-48 tank. M-48 tanks were said to be used in the first test. The 2nd and 3rd tests (which were done over a long period of time after the 1st) said tanks, but didn't classify which ones.
2. Yes there are two dark looking cavities but we do not know whether the cavities lead all the way through the armor,or just partially.Bottomline: HE attacks are not the same as random explosions. Just because HE fragmentation can penetrate armor to a certain degree doesn't mean that random explosions can. Those shells are compromised of steel. And the explosives used produce great velocities on the steel (larger than a bullet). Also 20mm and 30mm were shown to penetrate 3in titanium (stronger than steel). The bifrost explosion (the glass shards) doesn't appear to be capable of penetrating 3in titanium. The velocity of the shards do not appear to be multiple times faster than a 20mm bullet (the velocity appears many times slower than a bullet) and the durability of the glass shards is unknown to as tough as steel. The explosion of the ship wasn't a true explosion as in the detonation didn't start where Thor was. Thanos charged the walls of the ship and caused the ship to explode OUTWARDS RADIALLY.
End of post:
Upon further consideration, Thor is highly resistant to aircraft bullets due to the explosion feat of the ship (but they will hurt him somewhat). But Thor will eventually lose to the military (due to nuclear bombs, HE attacks, etc). Superman can lose too if he doesn't always operate at top speed when an attack comes.
Superman lasts longer, not because of durability, but because of his speed and extra senses.
I would say durability between the two is a wash (Superman has slightly better blunt durability and Thor better energy and heat durability).Thor is extremely powerful and I give him props. Thanks for the debate. I'm now convinced.
1) You know h1, I COULD simply just research the turret configuration for the tank and find out (easily) if it is an M48. I COULD argue that regardless of class of tank, the size of the turret shows that it is a main battle tank and that those still carry thick frontal armor close to that of the M48 (or more).
2) I could also argue that those look like compete penetration to me as we do not even see the bottom of the hole.
I could argue that this is just an attempt to create ambiguity as you always do and I could state that you would have gotten respect points had you not tried this already tired old tactic.
I could but that would be moot at this point, you've clearly made your concessions and so that would be a waste of time.
And titanium is not "stronger" than RHA (it is much more complicated than saying w/c is stronger). It is lighter and more resistant to corrosion but has comparable strength (but AFAIK much more expensive). Anyway, that is moot.
The GAU-8 30mm are rated for RHA penetration of 76mm at best (w/c is 3 inches, so that number would be correct). 20mm about 13mm (.5 inches) vs RHA. Those are the numbers the military use and were likely come upon via countless tests. Base your arguments on those next time.
A fragmentation explosive is simply explosives contained within a shell that fragments on explosion (the compaction optimizes the use of energy). That is exactly like when the explosion happened inside the Bifrost (w/c acted like a shell) when the energies contained within it were violently unleashed in an explosion, propelling shards strong enough that it took Thor many hits to simply crack. It is not exact, but it is close enough.
You cannot go around saying "appears to be" like it's some sort of fact. That is your opinion. Me? I can probably tear up your Bifrost durability downplay logic pretty easily by calculating yield from fireball size and shockwave size then calculating shard velocities using already existing online calculators. But again, you've made your concessions so that would be a waste of time.
If you just skipped to your End-of-post instead of going passive-aggressive and using your old "opinion is fact" and "place ambiguity on evidence" tactics. You would have gotten some solid props.
In fairness, your concession at the end does make me disrespect you less. And your conclusions are something that I can somewhat agree with (or at least not disagree with enough to argue against). So I will let this be the end of it.
For now. But due to past experiences, I will remain wary.
As it is, I will grade your final reply (and just that) as follows:
Pluses
+3 providing concession
+1 actually reading material in-depth this time
+1 no attempts to insult even indirectly
+2 made an agreeable conclusion
Minuses
-2 used opinion-is-fact downplay tactic
-2 used create evidence ambiguity tactic
Total: 3/10. Well, it's better than your usual average of -5/10 to -10/10. So I will say it is a big improvement. But your average kinda drags you down. Hoping you can keep this up, but kinda doubting it til you can (hopefully) prove my doubts wrong.
So I will continue to be wary but I will keep an open mind.
Good day.
Edit. I would like to add that I do disagree about their durability being a wash . But you are entitled to your own opinion and I do not find it unreasonable. Personally, I see averages as being a wash (with Thor, IMO, edging out just a bit due to more recent showings) while Thor has the much higher high end "feats".