Who would be a bigger threat: Thor vs. Superman

😂

Also I would add that the titanium H1 keeps basing his argument on was an experimental alloy that the actual researchers figured had a much lower BNH value than what they gave. Iirc they figured it was somewhere around 284, which is much lower than true titanium. Also the fact that the bullets were not normal 20mm, and he's ignoring a video of a 1.5 inch block of actual titanium stopping an armor piercing round.
The 3 inch experimental alloy block used actually failed the ballistics tests for a 20mm for its shattering. RHA doesn't.

Among other issues. Lol at him finally conceding after getting raped for 40 pages though. "It was nothing you guys said, I came to it on my own because of THE SHIP"

What a weasel

Originally posted by Nibedicus
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.

For the bifrost feat we have no solid facts about the durability of the glass. For example, Was it stronger than steel? I don't think so. Do you know? and can you prove it? It was incredibly thick (several feet thick at least) which contributes to the toughness of trying to destroy it. That's why it's an opinion. We can calculate the velocity of the shards, which is less than bullet speed. So even if the durability of them is great then the speed is still low.

Why would we see the end of the hole? A cavity is dark and the picture was taken from a distance. There is absolutely no way of knowing whether the penetration was complete.
And where do you get the armor is as thick as a m48? It could be but You are just guessing. The metal part right under the cavity is thin (less than 2in).
But anyway, the point is that we don't know if the penetration was complete.

The Asgardian ship exploding is a far better feat and is what convinced me. Not the bifrost feat.

My question to you is do you believe there exists REAL weaponry in the world that can serious hurt Thor? Honest question.

Originally posted by One Big Mob
😂

Also I would add that the titanium H1 keeps basing his argument on was an experimental alloy that the actual researchers figured had a much lower BNH value than what they gave. Iirc they figured it was somewhere around 284, which is much lower than true titanium. Also the fact that the bullets were not normal 20mm, and he's ignoring a video of a 1.5 inch block of actual titanium stopping an armor piercing round.
The 3 inch experimental alloy block used actually failed the ballistics tests for a 20mm for its shattering. RHA doesn't.

Among other issues. Lol at him finally conceding after getting raped for 40 pages though. "It was nothing you guys said, I came to it on my own because of THE SHIP"

What a weasel

I didn't get raped.
Every argument was faulty except the Asgardian ship one.
The neutron star feat, the bifrost, the Sokovia feats were insufficient or faulty.
And the worst logic was saying that since Thor has greater durability than IM and since IM resisted aircraft bullets (he didn't) then so can Thor.
But why is Thor more durable than someone who tanked aircraft bullets?
Is it because he has feats that are greater than aircraft bullets?
If so then why do we need to compare him to IM (which becomes a circular argument)? We can just argue the feats. Same goes for Hulk. How do we know that Thor is as durable as Hulk or greater? Is it because he has feats greater than Hulk's aircraft bullet feat? If so then why not just argue the feats? Why even talk about the Hulk (which creates a circular argument)?

Obviously there are far more powerful weapons than aircraft bullets. So the spirit of my argument was still sound. Arguing about aircraft bullets is really nitpicking.

I've never seen someone do so bad in an argument and continue on before. Even Quan would have just given up a long time ago if he was saying what you were saying. At no point did you ever have an argument or even prove anything... at all. People only call you a troll because they hope you aren't really that much of an idiot.

Just a multiple weeks long gang rape, and you were the 90 pound girl tied up in the basement.

Originally posted by h1a8
For the bifrost feat we have no solid facts about the durability of the glass. For example, Was it stronger than steel? I don't think so. Do you know? and can you prove it? It was incredibly thick (several feet thick at least) which contributes to the toughness of trying to destroy it. That's why it's an opinion. We can calculate the velocity of the shards, which is less than bullet speed. So even if the durability of them is great then the speed is still low.

Why would we see the end of the hole? A cavity is dark and the picture was taken from a distance. There is absolutely no way of knowing whether the penetration was complete.
And where do you get the armor is as thick as a m48? It could be but You are just guessing. The metal part right under the cavity is thin (less than 2in).
But anyway, the point is that we don't know if the penetration was complete.

The Asgardian ship exploding is a far better feat and is what convinced me. Not the bifrost feat.

My question to you is do you believe there exists REAL weaponry in the world that can serious hurt Thor? Honest question.

If you doubt how hard Thor can hit with a hammer, just watch Ragnarok. That thing withstood 10 direct full strength hits from Thor in the same spot before cracking.

Until you compute the velocity of the shards, you cannot go and say "which are slower than bullet speed". You can say "which might be or could be" or put an "IMO or I think". But for Pete's sake, stop stating speculation as fact.

You've already conceded in the Thor vs aircraft bullet insanity. As such, I will let you have the last word as there is really no more point in me dragging this out any further and you are just rehashing the same dubious opinions. Everyone else is welcome to review my points and the evidence provided and come to their own conclusions at this point.

As for whatever you want to say "convinced you": Hey, whatever makes you sleep at night. /shrug

Finally:

Very few arguments are perfect. Particularly about fiction (where precise data is unavailable). But you defeat the flaws in arguments by coming up with stronger rebuttals and solid proof. You do not defeat them by coming up with ridiculous theories and only artificially sustaining such arguments by using weasely/trolling tactics, nitpicking and double standards. Doing so weakens your arguments, not strengthens it. Not to mention the damage to your credibility. I give this advice for your sake.

As for your last question:

Honestly? In my opinion? None that I can think of atm can seriously hurt him in one hit beyond WMD level weapons. He'd likely get tossed around like a ragdoll by a lot of our conventional weapons but I always see him as being able to just stand up a little annoyed right after. Of course, if you'd have asked me pre-Ragnarok and pre-IW, my answer would have been completely different. As there was an obvious power creep as well as having to contend with some sort of near death healing via Stormbreaker.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
As for your last question:

Honestly? In my opinion? None that I can think of atm can seriously hurt him in one hit beyond WMD level weapons. He'd likely get tossed around like a ragdoll by a lot of our conventional weapons but I always see him as being able to just stand up a little annoyed right after. Of course, if you'd have asked me pre-Ragnarok and pre-IW, my answer would have been completely different.

TBH, I can't really see anything beyond chemical or biological actually working with any clear regularity. Thor's already survived the full force of a star focused into a tight beam going right through him. This pretty much FUBARs thermal, radiological and nuclear weapons. Which pretty much destroys the vast majority of our more powerful and exotic weapon systems. Things like weaponized lasers, microwave emitters, and incindiaries, and even thermobarics are rendered useless.

This leads us back to good old fashioned blunt force trauma, piercing, slicing, concussive, (And as previously mentioned) chemical and biological contaminants. Of these I can't really think of anything we have that may work right out of the gate besides the chem and bio weapons. Unless someone is able to get a lucky hit with one of those battleship mounted rail guns, and even then I am not really sure those would kill Thor. Not if he's surviving hits from Hulk and Thanos, or being run through several times by Hela...

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
TBH, I can't really see anything beyond chemical or biological actually working with any clear regularity. Thor's already survived the full force of a star focused into a tight beam going right through him. This pretty much FUBARs thermal, radiological and nuclear weapons. Which pretty much destroys the vast majority of our more powerful and exotic weapon systems. Things like weaponized lasers, microwave emitters, and incindiaries, and even thermobarics are rendered useless.

This leads us back to good old fashioned blunt force trauma, piercing, slicing concussive, (And as previously mentioned) chemical and biological contaminants. Of these I can't really think of anything we have that may work right out of the gate besides the chem and bio weapons. Unless someone is able to get a lucky hit with one of those battleship mounted rail guns, and even then i am not really sure those would kill Thor, not if he's surviving hits from Hulk and Thanos., or being run through several times by Hela...

Yeah, and don't forget the fact that he can self-heal and survive in space indefinitely. Meaning he doesn't need to breathe (it looks like) so inhalants might not be so effective. We're not even sure if Earthborne pathogens or lethal-to-human chemicals would even affect Asgardian physiology the same way. And even if we hurt him, he can just fly away or portal to space and heal. Thor is pretty OP when you think about the things he can do.

Originally posted by h1a8

Every argument was faulty except the Asgardian ship one.

I will take sole credit for your conversion then.

Jk. Nib brought out the calculations for why that is more impressive than aircraft bullets.

Originally posted by h1a8

And the worst logic was saying that since Thor has greater durability than IM and since IM resisted aircraft bullets (he didn't) then so can Thor.

Ah well that worst logic was also me.

Originally posted by h1a8

But why is Thor more durable than someone who tanked aircraft bullets?
Is it because he has feats that are greater than aircraft bullets?
If so then why do we need to compare him to IM (which becomes a circular argument)? We can just argue the feats. Same goes for Hulk. How do we know that Thor is as durable as Hulk or greater? Is it because he has feats greater than Hulk's aircraft bullet feat? If so then why not just argue the feats? Why even talk about the Hulk (which creates a circular argument)?

Because Power Scaling is just as important as Feats.

Kurse has no feats on inanimate objects. Yet we know how powerful and indestructible he is from powerscaling him to Thor.

I mean heck what feats does Base Thanos have? Its all powerscaling against other characters.

There would be no doubt in anyones mind that both Kurse and Thanos are completely bulletproof despite him having Zero durability feats against weapons of that kind.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Yeah, and don't forget the fact that he can self-heal and survive in space indefinitely. Meaning he doesn't need to breathe (it looks like) so inhalants might not be so effective. We're not even sure if Earthborne pathogens or lethal-to-human chemicals would even affect Asgardian physiology the same way. And even if we hurt him, he can just fly away or portal to space and heal. Thor is pretty OP when you think about the things he can do.

Indeed. There are reasons why Thor and Odin take a fairly high spot on the cosmology scale of Marvel. They arn't Cube Beings or Cosmics, but Skyfather level is nothing to sneeze at.

Asgardian physiology is something I had not considered when I made my opinion on chem and bio weapons either. That's an interesting dilemma, because it is true that we do not know if things that are lethally poisonous to human beings would even affect the average Asgardian. We've already seen Thor's regen when it comes to things like Hela's spears - and of course the utterly insane radiological damage his cells must have sustained from the Neutron Radiation Bombardment. (Seriously people, look up what radiation actually does to living tissue, it is some really f**king scary stuff)

I like how h1 is now trying to save face by going, "but nukes" while ignoring the neutron star feat and the fact that Thor can teleport, meaning the chances of Thor ever being hit by a nuke is pretty much 0%.