I'm guessing at the very least a 40mm grenade to stun/annoy him, and maybe a AT4/Javelin will kill them. I am pretty sure that a shot from a 120 mm smooth bore might kill one.
A Space Marine is an Olympic body-builder, who is also an Olympic gymnast, wearing a tank. This is assuming that 40k materials can be compared in any way to modern materials, by the way; GW has been notoriously, uh, we'll say 'flexible' on that point.
Assuming that ceramite and adamantine aren't super-materials impenetrable by modern science, a direct hit from a Tomahawk missile SHOULD do it. A glancing hit will not; the jet of plasma that the missile creates needs to go straight through the metal on a perpendicular line, otherwise it'll merely slag the surface of the armor and make the Space Marine warm.
Of course, modern AT missiles can't hit infantry that accurately; so if you were to pit a single Space Marine against, say, the United States Army, I would say that the Space Marine would kill people and blow up vehicles until he was out of bolter ammo, then continue doing so with his chainsword/combat blade/gauntlets until some lucky tank gunner managed to ace him with a 120mm shell to the head.
.50 Cal SLAP rounds. Small Light Armor Piercing rounds. Trust me on this, these will kill about anything, and, from first hand knowledge, have seen the entry and exit holes from an engine block. Pretty useful rounds for the M2.
I don't know, 38000 years into the future? I'm not sure we can compare them... and yes even with the loss of the STC's and all that junk okay so maybe 20000 years into the future. Still that's a long time for technology to progess, and the fact that we've already been discovering new technologies at a pretty quick pace.
I'd say a tank cannon or artillery would definitely kill one (especially if it were a direct hit), other weapons, i'm not so sure unless you brought me some ceramite and adamantium
As a Abrahms tank gunner in real life and I've done two tours in Iraq. I'm 100% sure that a Sabot can kill them one shot. A HEAT round not so much because it may not explode directly. A CAN round which is a giant shot gun prolly stun or may kill him if he don't have a helmet on. OR (obstacle reducing) round will prolly crush him. If everything fails call Chuck Norris.
With helmet on so we cannot see his screaming bald head....A laser guided artillery smart munition (120mm mortar or such, have hit moving vehicles with one ) 1-2km range for spotter in good terrain, and since marines dont really like to hide or use camo...
Without helmet... .50 cal SLAP (Saboted Light Armor Penetrator ) or even better .50, Armor-Piercing-Explosive-Incendiary. shot in his bald head, from a good distance.
But hey these are Astartes after all , they would likely catch the bullet between his teeth and spit it back into chuck norris's ugly mug, then steal chucks truck and go to town for some beer and nudy mags.
A standard run of the mill shotgun would be enough. Lasguns kill them in the fluff, lasguns and shotguns kill them on the tabletop. Not an easy kill, but it CAN do the job.
So I'd say one of those fancy .50 berettas that COD fanboys think they can walk around and fire from the hip would do the job.
Any anti-material rifle that fires .50 caliber or larger will do it. I'm assuming Ceramite is simply a stronger version of the current ceramics we have (a thick sheet can stop one .50 cal shot), so anything over .50 cal should at least fracture the armor.
Assuming Adamantine/Amaranthine (what is that? I read it somewhere) is a stronger titanium, I would think
Also, we have planes that shoot 30mm rounds at 6000 rounds/min and have a range of over 2 miles. I think that would do it.
SwiftLord14 wrote:An A-10 would chew through marines. Fluff wise they would dodge all the thousands of rounds and shot it down with bolt pistol.....with a single round.
Yeah forgot about all the fluff armour, are there any modern weaps that can peirce fluff?
I'm not space marine expert here, but in regards to something in the fluff, aren't things usually lethal to space marine anyways? I mean yes their juggernauts, but from most of the sources I've read they usually don't rush headlong into a wall of gunfire, it's usually a bit more tactical than that. At least I think.
Just saying because in regards to the above post how they would dance around the gunfire, I think a more realistic scenario is they would drop a drop pod on it then explode outward in a rush of anger and chainsword.
but also according to the fluff 1000 marines can defeat an entire planet. So according to the fluff 1000 marines can take on all the combined military forces of our planet.
1 marine = 100,000 soldiers (lets say theres 100,000,000 soldiers)
so one marine can take on 100,000 soldiers. But then the fluff contradicts this with space marines dying to some orks who have big axes...
It would seem that most modern .50 caliber MGs would be capable of killing SMs. Flamers can kill them and i do not think that Promethium burns hotter than the napalm concoction that our Flamethrowers use.
I have a few large rifles....7.62x54 (Mosin Nagant) and 30.06 (7.62, M1 Garand) and those might kill an exposed SM head....but i just do not think they could penetrate the armor.
Any 20mm and up cannon with AP rounds would do the job...those were designed to beat up armored vehicles....but you would need some concentrated hits to guarantee a kill.
120mm Sabot rounds are actually 40mm depleted uranium darts that would easily 1 shot kill any marine without a Iron Halo or a Storm Shield.
Artillery and IED explosions would pulp the SMs without even penetrating the armor.....just the sheer shock could kill them. M1 abrams and Bradleys have been disabled and or their crews killed/injured by BIG IED explosions.
I think most larger Anti-tank missiles/rockets would be able to destroy a SM with a direct hit....say Javelin and larger....
To be honest people, I don't see how Space Marines are so awesome. I mean sure, they can hug a mortar and live, but they can also be killed by a few 5.56mm Brass projectiles (in other words, pathetic bullets) to the chest according to the books... The fluff is very contradictory sometimes. To me, they are just expensive shock troops who rely more on the enemy gaking their pants and making mistakes under pressure rather then super awesome armor and firepower.
Anything that could take out a light armoured vehicle would probably take out a Marine, if it hit.
The thing is, they're not only an armoured target, they're a (roughly) human sized armoured target that are capable of covering ground quickly and possess super-fast reflexes.
Put enough fire into an area and the Marine would die, but I think it would be an expensive exercise.
Then his mates would lay the smack down on you for doing it.
Necroshea wrote:
So I'd say one of those fancy .50 berettas that COD fanboys think they can walk around and fire from the hip would do the job.
By that logic they can hide behind wall when shot and just wait for 5 seconds to heal
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Toast36 wrote:Nuke em!
That would be a little to extreme don't you think?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:A laser guided artillery smart munition (120mm mortar or such, have hit moving vehicles with one ) 1-2km range for spotter in good terrain, and since marines dont really like to hide or use camo...
They actually started to put missile guiding system on artillery shells?
Expensive but genius, I love the idea
To be honest people, I don't see how Space Marines are so awesome. I mean sure, they can hug a mortar and live, but they can also be killed by a few 5.56mm Brass projectiles (in other words, pathetic bullets) to the chest according to the books... The fluff is very contradictory sometimes. To me, they are just expensive shock troops who rely more on the enemy gaking their pants and making mistakes under pressure rather then super awesome armor and firepower.
So as to your question:
Most of them.
Yeah Chuck Norris is currently disposed on the Golden Throne. Im not to sure he would be the one to kill the space marine. However if for some reason he wanted to, the marine would definitely kneel and just let him do it.
He would most likely carve through your car with his chainsword/ power sword and you'd be left feeling in an old 1950's comedy movie
On topic though? Most tank weaponry, I feel our modern day assault rifles and general small arms are useless, arn't marine ribs formed into a breastplate capable of blocking modern day small arms? And last I checked it'd be hard hitting a super mobile target with incredible reflexes with tanks when he's gonna get first shot.
i think you all are overestimating a space marine and underestimating modern day weapons. there are a huge amount of weapons that could kill a space marine, but right now the big question is armour or no armour?
also, how OTT are we going with our weapons? we could launch him into a black hole, we could strap a nuke to his chest, damn, we could also stick him in a partical accelerator...
most guns could easily pop a space marine in the head as long as he's not wearing armour, just remember that the majority of sm weapons are also bullets, granted there like, 1 cal bullets fired from a cannon which explode on impact but still...
dont get me wrong, there are plenty of guns wich he could just lol at, take the .22 rimfire for example, former president reagen or whatever he was called took one of those bullets and diddent even realise till much later -_-
if he was wearing armour then an anti aircraft gun would more then do the job
a space marine is for all intents and purposes, just a really big guy, he is one head higher than the average man, and has very big muscles, but his armour servos do a lot of the job for him. i think a determined body builder could become as strong as a space marine if he tried.
Anti-tank weapons from a smaw upwards. I doubt a LAW could take out a marine. A 50 Cal if you hit a joint, small arms if you aimed for the head or joins.
For insurance I'd want an A-10 strafing run though
shadowsnip wrote:but also according to the fluff 1000 marines can defeat an entire planet. So according to the fluff 1000 marines can take on all the combined military forces of our planet.
In those cases though, they're talking about taking out the local PDF. And in 40k, PDFs are about as lethal as a stoner frat after a one week spring break in Jamaica.
daveNYC wrote:
In those cases though, they're talking about taking out the local PDF. And in 40k, PDFs are about as lethal as a stoner frat after a one week spring break in Jamaica.
This is true to some point. PDF strength depends on world in question. Most of them just serve several years as PDF troopers and never see conflict in life.
Other PDF are elite troops that are even better then some Guard Regiments.
We would be real challenge to Marines since we didn't have a day in past century without a war. And we wage wars occasionally when we are bored, meaning that we are always in top form.
I'm 100% sure that a Sabot can kill them one shot. A HEAT round not so much because it may not explode directly. A CAN round
For the non initiated whats the difference between these? A tank shells going to wreck him anyway no?
What about a minigun?
Would an anti personel mine do the trick too? Would it have to be anti tank size to work?
A Sabot uses kinetic energy to punch through its targets. Its a depleted uranium spear tip i guess. Its about as long as a forearm. It sharpens itself as it passes through armor. Its what we use to kill other tank. A HEAT round is light armored vehicles. It has an explosive tip like an RPG kinda. It hits the tip and it explode on contact. If you hit him in the chest dead on he KIA but if you could glance him. Now that chances of that are slim to none but he it could happen.
Brother Coa wrote:
This is true to some point. PDF strength depends on world in question. Most of them just serve several years as PDF troopers and never see conflict in life.
Other PDF are elite troops that are even better then some Guard Regiments.
We would be real challenge to Marines since we didn't have a day in past century without a war. And we wage wars occasionally when we are bored, meaning that we are always in top form.
Reading this has made me realise that you are right. Soilders modern day are always on top form and we are never not in a war or there is a short period in between. I also feel that a 1000 Space marines would find it hard to defeat our planet. It would be very odd and they would never have experienced our type of warfare. Modern day warfare is very hit and run. Unlike 40k war which is either huge conflicts or they walk around a base shooting whatever shoots back. They are also normally verry close to each other. I would say that we would have no problem enilating 1000 marines. I would say that 3000-5000 moder day soilders armed how they are now with grenades and grenade launchers and such. They could easily kill 1000 marines if it was a straight up battle and we used our hit and run guerilla style warfare.
Brother Coa wrote:
This is true to some point. PDF strength depends on world in question. Most of them just serve several years as PDF troopers and never see conflict in life.
Other PDF are elite troops that are even better then some Guard Regiments.
We would be real challenge to Marines since we didn't have a day in past century without a war. And we wage wars occasionally when we are bored, meaning that we are always in top form.
Reading this has made me realise that you are right. Soilders modern day are always on top form and we are never not in a war or there is a short period in between. I also feel that a 1000 Space marines would find it hard to defeat our planet. It would be very odd and they would never have experienced our type of warfare. Modern day warfare is very hit and run. Unlike 40k war which is either huge conflicts or they walk around a base shooting whatever shoots back. They are also normally verry close to each other. I would say that we would have no problem enilating 1000 marines. I would say that 3000-5000 moder day soilders armed how they are now with grenades and grenade launchers and such. They could easily kill 1000 marines if it was a straight up battle and we used our hit and run guerilla style warfare.
SM specialise in shock tactics, presicion strikes, and hit and run. A full chapter would do considerable damage before they went down though they'd die eventually.
I would agree that many people overestimate the marines. Bolters aren't grenade launchers, and numerous modern day weapons can threaten them, though they are all in the anti-tank range.
But that is kind of the point, if you need to equip your basic infantry with anti tank weaponry to kill the opponents infantry who uses a weapon that will generally incapacitate your own troops if they are hit anywhere, you are screwed.
However, the one that that marines are constantly underestimated for is their ability to survive when taken out. Lots of our weaponry could incapacitate a marine, but most of it wont actually kill them. Their fast clotting, redundant organs, and numerous other enhancements mean they have a very high survivability rate. The marines are notable for just how common cybernetics are among their ranks. It is very common for veterans to be missing eyes, chunks of skulls, and limbs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
redkeyboard wrote:
Reading this has made me realise that you are right. Soilders modern day are always on top form and we are never not in a war or there is a short period in between. I also feel that a 1000 Space marines would find it hard to defeat our planet. It would be very odd and they would never have experienced our type of warfare. Modern day warfare is very hit and run. Unlike 40k war which is either huge conflicts or they walk around a base shooting whatever shoots back. They are also normally verry close to each other. I would say that we would have no problem enilating 1000 marines. I would say that 3000-5000 moder day soilders armed how they are now with grenades and grenade launchers and such. They could easily kill 1000 marines if it was a straight up battle and we used our hit and run guerilla style warfare.
No, that isn't right. Imperial Armour books give a much better overview of how marines fight than their codex or novels do. They are all about hit and run, shadow strikes, and sabotage. And they are very, VERY good at it. Their drop pod tech means you have NO defensive lines, you have to protect everything at all times against an enemy impervious to small arms fire. And we can't use most of our big guns in that situation.
The tabletop game only simulates one kind of warfare in 40k, small, up close battles where air superiority has not been achieved and heavy bombardment isn't an option. It isn't the most common type of warfare. You aren't even fighting full on battles, just a small portion of one battle for a short amount of time.
I just can't see us doing well against marines. It's not that I think a chapter could conquer our planet without orbital support, any more than a seal team could conquer the victorian age british empire, they aren't built for it and don't have the numbers. But WE would be the ones at the receiving end of the guerilla warfare. Just think about it:
* They can launch a full scale assault anywhere on the planet at a moments notice with total impunity
* Their basic weapon will take out any of our solders in a single shot
* Our troops have to use AT weaponry on infantry to threaten them
* They can and do use advanced jamming technology, while we have no way to respond in kind
* they can typically be in and out before we can bring heavy weaponry to bear
* they can choose the battlefield at will, and will likely choose battlefields where we can't bring our heaviest weapons to bear anyways.
In an open field, I'll grant you, the marines are screwed. But, again, that is like saying 1800's Britain could beat us because they could take on navy seals in open field combat. It is a fact that in open field combat 5000 Red Coats with cannon support could defeat a special forces team. So the special forces would never fight that way.
And neither would the marines. Look how they act in Siege of Vraks. The IG is conducting siege warfare, the SM occasionally swoop in, perform surgical strikes, and dissapear within a half hour.
They couldn't conquer us, but we couldn't beat them.
Honestly, I think a lot of people here are downplaying how tough Space Marines are supposed to be.
A bullet penetrates armor through sheer velocity; it dumps enough kinetic energy on a small enough space to punch through what it's aimed at. BUt it's actually pretty simple to prevent that.
Look at a Space Marine model, or pictures of them in the fluff. See how their armor is made? Barrel chest that slopes away to the sides, rounded arms and legs, big round pauldrons. I doubt GW knows much about armor design, but they got that mostly right actually. Those curved plates will shed bullet like raindrops. A curved piece of metal/ceramics/what have you doesn't have to absorb all the kinetic energy of a bullets impact. Instead, it only absorbs part of the energy; enough to deflect the round to the side,, where it continues flying at reduced speed. I think if you opened up on a Space Marine with a .50 cal machine gun you would see a lot of sparks and maybe some surface scarring or cracking on the power armor (depending on the hardness of what it's made of), but you'd have to get quite lucky to actually penetrate the armor and injure him.
This, by the way, is why most modern anti-tank munitions use methods OTHER than kinetic impact to achieve a kill; the armor of a modern tank is designed to ricochet projectiles away rather than absorbing the full force of the impact. If you want to kill a Space Marine, you need to think of him as a tank. Even if you assumed Power Armor was no tougher than modern composites, look at how thick it is; he's WEARING as much armor as a tank!
That being so, the only way to kill him with a pure kinetic projectile would be to either a) use a round so big or fired so fast that it blew through the PA with only a fraction of it's kinetic energy, or b) hit him in one of the non-curved parts of the armor. Now, PA does seem to have quite a few 'bullet traps' in it; a shot that hit one of the eyepieces could do something, the place where the pauldrons meet the chest-plate might be vulnerable, the knee-joints seem somewhat exposed when the Space Marine's legs are bent. But it's an open question how powerful a round you'd need to get one through the armor even in one of those weak spots; I tend to think it would have to be quite powerful, because, well, an M2 is not going to be able to shoot through the armor of an Abrams. . . and I think that's roughly the level of protection PA provides. Perhaps a direct hit on an eyepiece could punch through.
Then you have to contend with the fact that a Space Marine is simply much, much tougher than an ordinary human. Most people, if they took a .50 caliber machine gun round to the shoulder or knee, would be totally disabled or killed outright. A Space Marine? He's not going to go into shock, he's not going to be disabled by the pain, and he's not going to bleed out, so if he's not dead when he hits the ground he's still fighting. Remember, these guys get into drop-pods and are literally FIRED at their target; that alone would shatter every bone in a normal man's body, and Space Marines do it routinely. If you DO get a round through an open knee-joint, you will only slow him down; and it isn't that likely that you will, since while he's a bigger target than a man he's also faster and more agile, with much better reflexes. Not to mention that your fire will likely be somewhat suppressed by the stream of precisely aimed RPG rounds he's firing back at you.
Tl;dr - you need to either use heavy, specialized AT weapons, or literally fill the air with high-caliber machine-gun rounds and play the averages. Normal small arms and grenades will do nothing; Anti-materiel rifles might, but only if you hit him in exactly the right spot. A sniper weapon MIGHT, but once again, only if you hit him in precisely the right place, and even once you pass through the armor most of your shots will only wound him. A radar or laser-guided AT missile will most likely kill or seriously injure a Space Marine, but very little short of that has anything like a good chance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SwiftLord14 wrote:[
A Sabot uses kinetic energy to punch through its targets. Its a depleted uranium spear tip i guess. Its about as long as a forearm. It sharpens itself as it passes through armor. Its what we use to kill other tank. A HEAT round is light armored vehicles. It has an explosive tip like an RPG kinda. It hits the tip and it explode on contact. If you hit him in the chest dead on he KIA but if you could glance him. Now that chances of that are slim to none but he it could happen.
A sabot actually liquifies/vaporizes partially from the force of contact when it hits a target; the heat and pressure wave generated are just as important to the kill as the actual kinetic impact. It's quite possible for an AT round to 'kill' a tank without ever fully penetrating the armor, since the heat and pressure can cause the inner layers of the armor to shatter and spray molten-hot shrapnel across the crew compartment.
Brother Coa wrote:
This is true to some point. PDF strength depends on world in question. Most of them just serve several years as PDF troopers and never see conflict in life.
Other PDF are elite troops that are even better then some Guard Regiments.
We would be real challenge to Marines since we didn't have a day in past century without a war. And we wage wars occasionally when we are bored, meaning that we are always in top form.
Reading this has made me realise that you are right. Soilders modern day are always on top form and we are never not in a war or there is a short period in between. I also feel that a 1000 Space marines would find it hard to defeat our planet. It would be very odd and they would never have experienced our type of warfare. Modern day warfare is very hit and run. Unlike 40k war which is either huge conflicts or they walk around a base shooting whatever shoots back. They are also normally verry close to each other. I would say that we would have no problem enilating 1000 marines. I would say that 3000-5000 moder day soilders armed how they are now with grenades and grenade launchers and such. They could easily kill 1000 marines if it was a straight up battle and we used our hit and run guerilla style warfare.
SM specialise in shock tactics, presicion strikes, and hit and run. A full chapter would do considerable damage before they went down though they'd die eventually.
You are both right, we can defeat 1000 Marines no problem.
Problem would be if they bring few more Chapters and around 20 Guard Regiments.
Gauss weaponry in Fall of Damnos bounce and deflect off of Space Marine power armor at times. Gauss weaponry.
So yeah they're tough as nails. But there's always the lucky shot or the straight-on shot that penetrates. Plenty of large weaponry in use today that could kill a SM, if that SM was not using battle tactics and just standing in the open.
Nazgren wrote:i think you all are overestimating a space marine and underestimating modern day weapons. there are a huge amount of weapons that could kill a space marine, but right now the big question is armour or no armour?
also, how OTT are we going with our weapons? we could launch him into a black hole, we could strap a nuke to his chest, damn, we could also stick him in a partical accelerator...
most guns could easily pop a space marine in the head as long as he's not wearing armour, just remember that the majority of sm weapons are also bullets, granted there like, 1 cal bullets fired from a cannon which explode on impact but still...
dont get me wrong, there are plenty of guns wich he could just lol at, take the .22 rimfire for example, former president reagen or whatever he was called took one of those bullets and diddent even realise till much later -_-
if he was wearing armour then an anti aircraft gun would more then do the job
a space marine is for all intents and purposes, just a really big guy, he is one head higher than the average man, and has very big muscles, but his armour servos do a lot of the job for him. i think a determined body builder could become as strong as a space marine if he tried.
No normal human can train or body build enough to become as powerful as a Space Marine. Don't forget the Ossmodula which enhances the bones of a SM and encourages the forming bone to accept ceramic-based chemicals. Their bones become bulletproof.
Also it has been surmised that a large SM could weigh more than 800 lbs and it is standard for todays bodybuilders to be able to lift 1.5 to 2 times their own body weight. So... a SM on average might be able to lift 1600 lbs without the assitance of his power armor. That is beyond beastly. It's downright terrifying.
Melissia wrote:A .32 purse gun could kill a marine if it got him in the brain, and could kill him in two hits if it got his hearts.
In armor you'd want an anti-tank weapon.
I honestly doubt a .32 could penetrate a space marines re-enforced skeleton. .32s can have a hard time penetrating regular human bones.
Even if it could, if one guy can hit you in the arm, leg, or even hand and completely incapacitate you with shock and blood loss, and you have to hit him in a 'weak spot', your pretty much screwed. You can't aim like that in actual battle.
Problem is SM are dead 'ard (regarding the prius they would probabbly eat one for breakfast)
you would need an intense amount of trauma to even phase a marine like that of an AT missile
1 on 1 an abrams wouldnt even do the trick because fluff wise marines can rip through tanks with there bare hands
Nazgren wrote:
most guns could easily pop a space marine in the head as long as he's not wearing armour...
dont get me wrong, there are plenty of guns wich he could just lol at, take the .22 rimfire for example, former president reagen or whatever he was called took one of those bullets and diddent even realise till much later -_-
if he was wearing armour then an anti aircraft gun would more then do the job
a space marine is for all intents and purposes, just a really big guy, he is one head higher than the average man, and has very big muscles, but his armour servos do a lot of the job for him. i think a determined body builder could become as strong as a space marine if he tried.
First of all, no, only moderately powerfl rounds cool. A .22 or .32 is going to bounce off a regular human skull, a space marine is going to be virtually impervious to .45's anywhere below the neckline.
A space marine is not just a really big guy. His biggest strengths are going to be how he clots almost instantly and doesn't go into shock when shot. Bleeding and shock are how bullets put you down, you are removing 90% of their effectiveness right there. Add to that their increased density in bone and muscle, and armored rib cage, now you can't even hit vital organs with most pistols.
Now add in his enhanced reflexes, speed, and muscle mass (no, a human body builder cannot achieve the same level of strength). You are going to have a hard time hitting him at all.
Then add in his decades of training and experience. He is more skilled at shooting, hand to hand, tactics, and strategy than anyone alive today.
Again, it isn't that you can't hurt him, it is just how much easier it is for him to hurt you than for you to hurt him. He's smarter, faster, stronger, and has more experience. You have to do catastrophic injury or get very lucky. He just needs to hit you. It is like playing Juggernaught mode against five year olds. Sure they COULD kill you, they technically have the capability, but that is only going to happen if you let that happen.
Without the armor he is already a friggin monster. With the armor? Well, we've discussed that.
Brother Coa wrote:
This is true to some point. PDF strength depends on world in question. Most of them just serve several years as PDF troopers and never see conflict in life.
Other PDF are elite troops that are even better then some Guard Regiments.
We would be real challenge to Marines since we didn't have a day in past century without a war. And we wage wars occasionally when we are bored, meaning that we are always in top form.
Reading this has made me realise that you are right. Soilders modern day are always on top form and we are never not in a war or there is a short period in between. I also feel that a 1000 Space marines would find it hard to defeat our planet. It would be very odd and they would never have experienced our type of warfare. Modern day warfare is very hit and run. Unlike 40k war which is either huge conflicts or they walk around a base shooting whatever shoots back. They are also normally verry close to each other. I would say that we would have no problem enilating 1000 marines. I would say that 3000-5000 moder day soilders armed how they are now with grenades and grenade launchers and such. They could easily kill 1000 marines if it was a straight up battle and we used our hit and run guerilla style warfare.
SM specialise in shock tactics, presicion strikes, and hit and run. A full chapter would do considerable damage before they went down though they'd die eventually.
We wouldn't ever be defeating a full Chapter, simply because they'd have Battle Barges and Strike Cruisers. If we get as far as to actually get the upper hand, even with them deploying via Drop Pod to take out our most important military targets first, there's always the good old "Nuke them from orbit" available for the Astartes. We wouldn't be able to even scratch the paint of their ships.
IronSnake wrote:Gauss weaponry in Fall of Damnos bounce and deflect off of Space Marine power armor at times. Gauss weaponry.
So yeah they're tough as nails. But there's always the lucky shot or the straight-on shot that penetrates. Plenty of large weaponry in use today that could kill a SM, if that SM was not using battle tactics and just standing in the open.
then again:
Necroshea wrote:Soul Eaters book. A SM captain hardened in the heat of hundreds of battles allows a child to just walk up to him and stab him with a needle, killing him.
Coolyo294 wrote:In "Purging of Kadillus", an Assault Marine landed on a rock badly, broke his ankle, and was then killed by Orks.
Void__Dragon wrote:Apparently in the Grey Knights Omnibus, some Grey Knights fight some humans with medieval weaponry.
One of the Grey Knights is killed by a normal sword.
Apparently. Haven't read it myself.
Asherian Command wrote:One of the Astrates in the wanderers threw a grenade it bounced back and killed him.
Also a few astrates deaths were when a marine tripped and landed on a land mine.
Also one of my chapters one time dropped the life eater virus inside one of their ships it destroyed half the chapter....
Da Boss wrote:Crimson Fists have to take the cake. Awesome colour scheme, awesome chapter. Killed by a faulty missile.
Coolyo294 wrote:Don't forget about the Imperial Fist Captain that teleported into a rock...
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
We wouldn't ever be defeating a full Chapter, simply because they'd have Battle Barges and Strike Cruisers. If we get as far as to actually get the upper hand, even with them deploying via Drop Pod to take out our most important military targets first, there's always the good old "Nuke them from orbit" available for the Astartes. We wouldn't be able to even scratch the paint of their ships.
Yes, that is always there, but in these types of discussions it is best to put some limitations on the confrontation. Obviously orbital bombardment always trumps no orbital bombardment, but we are discussing ground forces and tactics.
riplikash wrote:I honestly doubt a .32 could penetrate a space marines re-enforced skeleton.
It wouldn't have to. Marines have eyes that can be shot to.
riplikash wrote:Even if it could, if one guy can hit you in the arm, leg, or even hand and completely incapacitate you with shock and blood loss, and you have to hit him in a 'weak spot', your pretty much screwed. You can't aim like that in actual battle.
In actual battle you'd be using a better weapon anyway.
Marine ribs have been compared to fused brass or something. I can bend brass with my bare hands and I'm hardly the strongest person in the world. The average assault rifle with armor piercing bullets (as we use today to shoot body armor using enemies) wouldn't likely have a problem with it, nice burst aimed at the hearts (IE center of mass) and the marine is dead or crippled without his armor.
With his armor that's an entirely different story. Small arms would have a hard time getting through that. An armor piercing bullet might foul up a joint if it hit in the right spot, but hitting a plate it'd likely just ricochet off.
Brother Coa... of course. Bad luck does happen. While Gauss weaponry glances here and there during Fall of Damnos, there are times when it outright kills and vaporizes.
Overall... SM's are pretty bad dudes. Not immortal, not invincible... but super badass.
riplikash wrote:I honestly doubt a .32 could penetrate a space marines re-enforced skeleton.
It wouldn't have to. Marines have eyes that can be shot to.
Then yes, a pencil is an incredibly deadly weapon. No wait that is silly. A weapon that his to hit you right in the eye is useless. I'm not saying marines are invincible, just that even unarmored small calibre weapons are useless against them.
Marine ribs have been compared to fused brass or something. I can bend brass with my bare hands and I'm hardly the strongest person in the world. The average assault rifle with armor piercing bullets (as we use today to shoot body armor using enemies) wouldn't likely have a problem with it, nice burst aimed at the hearts (IE center of mass) and the marine is dead or crippled without his armor.
You know there kinds of brass, right? Brass was used for armor and weapons for thousands of years, you really can't bend regular brass with your bare hands.
And I specifically said he would be impervious to small caliber weapons and pistols, and that that was very useful. I'm not sure why you are bringing up high caliber, armor piercing weaponry to counter that.
The point was it is easy for him to incapacitate you, and hard for you to incapacitate him. Using the same weapons you are down if you get hit in the leg, arm, stomach, or really, just about anywhere. You have to hit him numerous times in a vital spot. If you don't take out both of the hearts or the head, or fill him with so much lead he begins to fall apart, he is going to keep fighting. He only has to hit you once. That is a pretty huge advantage, hence why I said he was a monster even without his armor. I was not arguing he was invincible.
IronSnake wrote:Brother Coa... of course. Bad luck does happen. While Gauss weaponry glances here and there during Fall of Damnos, there are times when it outright kills and vaporizes.
Overall... SM's are pretty bad dudes. Not immortal, not invincible... but super badass.
They are Humanity finest, our right hand of Justice, our unbreakable warriors and our biggest hope. They are symbol of our strength and real fury of our race.
They can die to, but not before they take large groups of enemies with them ( disregarding "Ultramrines the Movie" and Marines dying like Guardsman ). And boy, they can surely bring doom with them as well.
Well to be honest it wouldn't be our fire power that would beat them it would be our tactics.
We would adapt faster then they would. We would steal their tech and make our own or something like it. While super tough they are very predictable on how they fight and we would use that against them.
we have no problems making,changing, or using diff. tech like they would.
Heck the bait ambush alone would do nasty stuff to them.
I'm more worried about an IG army the SM.
Where a chapter my hurt us we would beat them I think. But a Full blow IG Army that I don;'t know about.
I agree with that. And yeah I saw clips of that Ultramarines CG movie... it looked terrible. SM and CSM's falling after taking just a few bolter rounds. lol
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Steel Angel wrote:Well to be honest it wouldn't be our fire power that would beat them it would be our tactics.
We would adapt faster then they would. We would steal their tech and make our own or something like it. While super tough they are very predictable on how they fight and we would use that against them.
we have no problems making,changing, or using diff. tech like they would.
Heck the bait ambush alone would do nasty stuff to them.
I'm more worried about an IG army the SM.
Where a chapter my hurt us we would beat them I think. But a Full blow IG Army that I don;'t know about.
So wait... wait. Let me get this straight. We could defeat Space Marines but have a hard time with IG. IG who usually count on SM's coming to the rescue when the sh*t really hits the fan?
Steel Angel wrote:Well to be honest it wouldn't be our fire power that would beat them it would be our tactics.
We would adapt faster then they would. We would steal their tech and make our own or something like it. While super tough they are very predictable on how they fight and we would use that against them.
we have no problems making,changing, or using diff. tech like they would.
Heck the bait ambush alone would do nasty stuff to them.
I'm more worried about an IG army the SM.
Where a chapter my hurt us we would beat them I think. But a Full blow IG Army that I don;'t know about.
Huh? Reverse engineering...doesn't work like that. This is a huge pet peeve of mine, but I'll try not to bite your head off. Imagine if a roman found a computer. Could he reverse engineer it? Obviously not. Imagine if Einstein discovered one. He still could not reverse engineer it. If someone in 1980 found a modern computer, they probably STILL could not reverse engineer it. You can only reverse engineer things one or two steps removed from what you already have. We don't have any kind of foundation for understanding imperial tech. It uses biological computers, crystaline analogue circuits, and other technobabel. We don't have the theories in place to even begin to understand it.
Again, pet peeve, sorry. But reverse engineering is one of the most ignorant, over used tropes in sci fi today.
As for tactics, they have, literally, ten thousand years of experience fighting civilizations like ours. The space marines were DESIGNED to fight civilizations like ours. And...we are going to adapt faster and have better tactics?
They are not predictable in how they fight at all, except in the very worst fluff. They are extremely flexible. Each marine has decades of wartime experience, if not centuries. Our best solders have 5 years real war experience tops.
I don't even know where you came up with the ambush doing nasty stuff to them, ambushes are lazy 40k authors favorite things to talk about, it has to be the most over used tactic in 40k literature. Why exactly would they be unprepared for this?
daveNYC wrote:
In those cases though, they're talking about taking out the local PDF. And in 40k, PDFs are about as lethal as a stoner frat after a one week spring break in Jamaica.
This is true to some point. PDF strength depends on world in question. Most of them just serve several years as PDF troopers and never see conflict in life.
Other PDF are elite troops that are even better then some Guard Regiments.
We would be real challenge to Marines since we didn't have a day in past century without a war. And we wage wars occasionally when we are bored, meaning that we are always in top form.
An alternate point of view is that we would get crumped pretty good, since most of the major armed forces on Earth are at the top of the food chain regarding technology, weaponry, air power, etc. Put them up against the end results of 38,000 years of research into warfare and it'd be interesting to see what happens.
Coming to the rescue from deamons nids stuff like that. Plus the IG our us but with better weapons. If the SM attack we would know right of ok there not human lets no fight them like they are.
The IG we would fight as if their just like us till it was to late.
Plus SM got the bigger troops
IGs got the bigger toys
I rather face a Predator then a Leman Russ any day
Plus 1000 SM or 1,000,000 IG to face even if the said one Marine is worth 100 IG troops
Void__Dragon wrote:Apparently in the Grey Knights Omnibus, some Grey Knights fight some humans with medieval weaponry.
One of the Grey Knights is killed by a normal sword.
Apparently. Haven't read it myself.
It's like 25 Grey Knights (if that, certainly not much more at least) versus an entire medieval army. Only instead of horses, most cavalrymen ride giant lizards called Tharr that are the size of a rhino (the animal, not the vehicle) and can chomp a normal person's head off just like that. And they lost ONE guy. In an ambush by said army, when the army was charging downhill.
Steel Angel wrote:Coming to the rescue from deamons nids stuff like that. Plus the IG our us but with better weapons. If the SM attack we would know right of ok there not human lets no fight them like they are.
The IG we would fight as if their just like us till it was to late.
Plus SM got the bigger troops
IGs got the bigger toys
I rather face a Predator then a Leman Russ any day
Plus 1000 SM or 1,000,000 IG to face even if the said one Marine is worth 100 IG troops
Why it is almost like the IG is some sort of front line military while the SM are a special forces organization!
I do agree that the IG would have an easier time conquering us than a SM chapter, just like the army is better at conquering than the Navy SEALS. The IG has bigger toys for the same reason the army does.
But the SM are still going to mess us up, just like the SEALS do, most likely in preparation for the IG to occupy us.
Void__Dragon wrote:Apparently in the Grey Knights Omnibus, some Grey Knights fight some humans with medieval weaponry.
One of the Grey Knights is killed by a normal sword.
Apparently. Haven't read it myself.
It's like 25 Grey Knights (if that, certainly not much more at least) versus an entire medieval army. Only instead of horses, most cavalrymen ride giant lizards called Tharr that are the size of a rhino (the animal, not the vehicle) and can chomp a normal person's head off just like that. And they lost ONE guy. In an ambush by said army, when the army was charging downhill.
Still...kill by a primitives. The most elite Marine in the Imperium. Fail.
Steel Angel wrote:Well to be honest it wouldn't be our fire power that would beat them it would be our tactics.
Huh? Reverse engineering...doesn't work like that. This is a huge pet peeve of mine, but I'll try not to bite your head off. Imagine if a roman found a computer. Could he reverse engineer it? Obviously not. Imagine if Einstein discovered one. He still could not reverse engineer it. If someone in 1980 found a modern computer, they probably STILL could not reverse engineer it. You can only reverse engineer things one or two steps removed from what you already have. We don't have any kind of foundation for understanding imperial tech. It uses biological computers, crystaline analogue circuits, and other technobabel. We don't have the theories in place to even begin to understand it.
Again, pet peeve, sorry. But reverse engineering is one of the most ignorant, over used tropes in sci fi today.
As for tactics, they have, literally, ten thousand years of experience fighting civilizations like ours. The space marines were DESIGNED to fight civilizations like ours. And...we are going to adapt faster and have better tactics?
They are not predictable in how they fight at all, except in the very worst fluff. They are extremely flexible. Each marine has decades of wartime experience, if not centuries. Our best solders have 5 years real war experience tops.
I don't even know where you came up with the ambush doing nasty stuff to them, ambushes are lazy 40k authors favorite things to talk about, it has to be the most over used tactic in 40k literature. Why exactly would they be unprepared for this?
Ever read the world war books by turttle dove. Try an ambush like this " send in a troops to protect a big target say norrad .SM drop pob down to capture it. blow the nuke the you set there"
As a response to the question I would say anything above 50cal would do the job. In the fluff marines are able to shrug off an odd bolter shell but cant stand up to a continuous hale. If a 50cal round from most snipers were to hit him in the chest plate say, it would probably stop the round but the marine would deffinatly be staggered. If he was bathed in fire from a 50cal machine gun or hit in the neck he's a dead man.
In regards to the "invasion" question (again), a single marine chapter would not be able to take modern earth. In the great crusade era when most of the said conquering was done you would ideally have several thousand marines from a few different legions supported by several million imperial army troops.
Again it all depends on the type of invasion they are going for. If they dont care about preserving infrastructure, just EMP the planet from orbit and its a walkover (why dont aliens ever do this in Sci Fi?).
Steel Angel wrote:Coming to the rescue from deamons nids stuff like that. Plus the IG our us but with better weapons. If the SM attack we would know right of ok there not human lets no fight them like they are.
The IG we would fight as if their just like us till it was to late.
Plus SM got the bigger troops
IGs got the bigger toys
I rather face a Predator then a Leman Russ any day
Plus 1000 SM or 1,000,000 IG to face even if the said one Marine is worth 100 IG troops
Why it is almost like the IG is some sort of front line military while the SM are a special forces organization!
I do agree that the IG would have an easier time conquering us than a SM chapter, just like the army is better at conquering than the Navy SEALS. The IG has bigger toys for the same reason the army does.
But the SM are still going to mess us up, just like the SEALS do, most likely in preparation for the IG to occupy us.
My point SM are shock troops and special forces. You don't use them to take a planet you use them to take out Norrad.
Steel Angel wrote:
Ever read the world war books by turttle dove. Try an ambush like this " send in a troops to protect a big target say norrad .SM drop pob down to capture it. blow the nuke the you set there"
So...your saying our scary tactics that would totally demolish them is killing thousands of our own troops and infrastructure. Uh, yay us?
That is assuming they have no military intelligence, can't detect nukes with their advanced sensor systems, we can limit the targets enough to know where they will attack, and we are willing to rig all of these important places with nukes. Oh, and they have to commit all their forces to this one strike, because it isn't going to work twice. And lets not even consider the morale issues or political fallout.
And lets hope they aren't attacking military command, civilian centers, parlament, the white house, etc. Because then we would sure have egg on our face.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be mean, but that is a crap tactic, not a creative one. It doesn't work on intelligent enemies, only in stories, where the author can control the actions of both sides.
BlapBlapBlap wrote:Also, any weapon really can harm a SM. If you pull off a strong hit in the armour joins, they will feel it.
Uh. . . no.
Put it this way. An Ork, your average Ork, is very likely just about as strong as the strongest man in the world. He is born with the reflexes, skill, and intuitive knowledge of a master hand-to-hand fighter, and only get better as they get older. An average Ork is armed with a pistol so large, firing a bullet so heavy, that a human would very likely shatter their wrists if they tried to fire it, and a sharpened blade long and broad enough that a human would have trouble carrying it around, let alone swinging it with any kind of effective stroke, for any length of time. An enraged Ork is perfectly capable of cutting an unarmored human in half, bones and all. With one hand.
Space Marines kill these monsters on a regular basis. Because they are tougher, stronger, and faster, armed with weapons capable of blowing their inhumanly-tough bodies apart, and protected by armor tough enough to shed bullets that would blast right through modern 'bulletproof' materials like a knife through paper.
Void__Dragon wrote:Apparently in the Grey Knights Omnibus, some Grey Knights fight some humans with medieval weaponry.
One of the Grey Knights is killed by a normal sword.
Apparently. Haven't read it myself.
It's like 25 Grey Knights (if that, certainly not much more at least) versus an entire medieval army. Only instead of horses, most cavalrymen ride giant lizards called Tharr that are the size of a rhino (the animal, not the vehicle) and can chomp a normal person's head off just like that. And they lost ONE guy. In an ambush by said army, when the army was charging downhill.
Still...kill by a primitives. The most elite Marine in the Imperium. Fail.
They're drowned in bodies until they can't fight back because the pressure of the enemy corpses is too big, and they still only lose one to the dinosaur-riding Chaos worshippers. It's not so much the "primitives" riding the beasts as the beasts themselves.
That one scene is what is responsible for me hating Purifiers BTW, Cleansing Flame is clearly Holocaust ripped off and given to something else.
The Crusader wrote:An AC-130U Spectre Gunship Should do the job.
Pretty much explains it
But...the Imperium has similar craft which are much tougher and better armed. It can take an hour to get these into the air and within firing range. The Imperium will have air superiority.
I mean, yeah, if it is there already and ready and the Imperium doesn't call in any air support, sure it could kill a marine. But that is like saying light cavalry is an effective way to attack a modern military. Sure in ideal circumstances, if they got into melee range at full change, they could be very effective. But there is so much more too fighting a modern military than just being able to technically kill someone.
BlapBlapBlap wrote:Also, any weapon really can harm a SM. If you pull off a strong hit in the armour joins, they will feel it.
Uh. . . no.
Put it this way. An Ork, your average Ork, is very likely just about as strong as the strongest man in the world. He is born with the reflexes, skill, and intuitive knowledge of a master hand-to-hand fighter, and only get better as they get older. An average Ork is armed with a pistol so large, firing a bullet so heavy, that a human would very likely shatter their wrists if they tried to fire it, and a sharpened blade long and broad enough that a human would have trouble carrying it around, let alone swinging it with any kind of effective stroke, for any length of time. An enraged Ork is perfectly capable of cutting an unarmored human in half, bones and all. With one hand.
Space Marines kill these monsters on a regular basis. Because they are tougher, stronger, and faster, armed with weapons capable of blowing their inhumanly-tough bodies apart, and protected by armor tough enough to shed bullets that would blast right through modern 'bulletproof' materials like a knife through paper.
Wait, so an axe in the unarmoured join covering their neck has no chance of killing them? Think about it. Even if they were armoured by a tank, the tank would have weak spots. A good blow will harm a marine if struck at the right place with enough strength. Guardsmen can kill marines in assault, and they're regular humans. So .
Several stories involve barbarian humans getting marines in the eye with a lucky strike.
Marines bleed. If it bleeds we can kill it.
They actually don't bleed, at least not for long. They clot within seconds. That's one of the problems.
And, again, never argued marines were invincible, but if you have to rely on hitting him in the eyes and he can kill you by hitting you anywhere, you are screwed. A weapon that has to hit someone in the eye is not a dangerouse, effective military weapon. Pencils aren't dangerous weapons. Yes someone with sufficient skill could kill you with a pencil. That is not a testiment to the killing power of the pencil.
Orks are tougher than Space Marines, actually, and can easily survive far tougher injuries than any Marine can. Such as decapitation.
BeRzErKeR wrote:stronger
Not really, certainly not to any great degree. Orks are equally capable of grabbing a man's hand and crushing it like like a grape. In fact, Orks were considered so strong that in second edition Ork choppas were given a bonus to penetrating armor because of the raw brute strength of the Ork.
Though I will agree that Marines tend to have finer control over their muscles.
BeRzErKeR wrote:and faster
Arguably, I suppose, but not really faster than he average combat veteran human. The black carapace does not make marines lightning fast, it merely makes using their power armor more intuitive, and it is not the only means to do so in 40k (Inquisition, Mechanicus, and Sisters can have similar results). Orks have an instinctive sense for combat and especially melee, and the Ork's chance of landing a blow against a marine and vice versa is roughly equivalent in both tabletop and the FFG roleplays. They understand combat like humans know how to breathe, so one can easily underestimate an Ork's speed.
BeRzErKeR wrote:armed with weapons capable of blowing their inhumanly-tough bodies apart
An Ork is armed with a weapon that does an equivalent amount of damage. An unarmored marine being hit by a shoota is likely to be splattered against the ground behind him.
BeRzErKeR wrote:, and protected by armor tough enough to shed bullets that would blast right through modern 'bulletproof' materials like a knife through paper.
This is the only part of your statement that isn't arguable. Power armor IS quite good.
Wait, so an axe in the unarmoured join covering their neck has no chance of killing them? Think about it. Even if they were armoured by a tank, the tank would have weak spots. A good blow will harm a marine if struck at the right place with enough strength. Guardsmen can kill marines in assault, and they're regular humans. So .
The key is "with enough strength".
I just really doubt that in any but the strangest circumstance, most small-arms or hand weapons would HAVE 'enough strength'.
And yes, BL loves to kill Marines off. They want to write about Marines because Marines are 40ks poster-boys, but you can't really have a dramatic war story if none of the protagonists are ever threatened.
BlapBlapBlap wrote:Wait, so an axe in the unarmoured join covering their neck has no chance of killing them? Think about it. Even if they were armoured by a tank, the tank would have weak spots. A good blow will harm a marine if struck at the right place with enough strength. Guardsmen can kill marines in assault, and they're regular humans. So .
Firstly, their joints aren't unarmored, they are less armored, and they can take the average axe blow fairly easily.
Secondly, CC in the game does not represent stabbing with knives, it represents all matter of close quarters combat, cinematic and regular. They may be stuffing grenades in their faces, or shooting into holes blown in their armor during battle. You can't use TT rules to compare fuff.
Yes a good blow will harm them in the right place, no one ever, ever denied this, I don't know why people keep bringing it up. But it is still a linebacker vs a ten year old child. Sure he could get lucky. He's still screwed.
The Crusader wrote:An AC-130U Spectre Gunship Should do the job.
Pretty much explains it
But...the Imperium has similar craft which are much tougher and better armed. It can take an hour to get these into the air and within firing range. The Imperium will have air superiority.
No they don't. Not even one plane in Imperium's armory matched the use and firepower of AC-130 Spectre Gunship. Imperium only have fighters and bombers. Not flying ground supporting fortresses.
"The Imperium will have air superiority." - similar thing was told to Guardsman on Taros, oh well....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DeffDred wrote:
Pencils aren't dangerous weapons.
The pen is mightier than the sword.
QFT, sword can kill you but professor with a pen can make your whole life miserable. And I know that from personal experiences.
Orks are tougher than Space Marines, actually, and can easily survive far tougher injuries than any Marine can. Such as decapitation.
BeRzErKeR wrote:stronger
Not really, certainly not to any great degree. Orks are equally capable of grabbing a man's hand and crushing it like like a grape. In fact, Orks were considered so strong that in second edition Ork choppas were given a bonus to penetrating armor because of the raw brute strength of the Ork.
Though I will agree that Marines tend to have finer control over their muscles.
BeRzErKeR wrote:and faster
Arguably, I suppose, but not really faster than he average combat veteran human. The black carapace does not make marines lightning fast, it merely makes using their power armor more intuitive, and it is not the only means to do so in 40k (Inquisition, Mechanicus, and Sisters can have similar results). Orks have an instinctive sense for combat and especially melee, and the Ork's chance of landing a blow against a marine and vice versa is roughly equivalent in both tabletop and the FFG roleplays. They understand combat like humans know how to breathe, so one can easily underestimate an Ork's speed.
BeRzErKeR wrote:armed with weapons capable of blowing their inhumanly-tough bodies apart
An Ork is armed with a weapon that does an equivalent amount of damage. An unarmored marine being hit by a shoota is likely to be splattered against the ground behind him.
BeRzErKeR wrote:, and protected by armor tough enough to shed bullets that would blast right through modern 'bulletproof' materials like a knife through paper.
This is the only part of your statement that isn't arguable. Power armor IS quite good.
Orks are far superior to normal Human.
But Marines should be equal to Orks when we compare them.
Brother Coa wrote:
No they don't. Not even one plane in Imperium's armory matched the use and firepower of AC-130 Spectre Gunship. Imperium only have fighters and bombers. Not flying ground supporting fortresses.
Yes, they do have flying fortresses, though they don't appear at the scale most of 40k is played at for obvious reasons. The FFRPG's have numerous lighters, gunships, fighters, and describe there being thousands more designs.
ForgeWorld has aeronautica imperialis gunships that fit the bill perfectly. Just because it isn't represented in the core game does not mean it doesn't exist.
But they aren't. Orks are definitely tougher in almost every conceivable way, for example. Marines and Orks have different kinds of strengths, whereas orks are basically slabs of muscle and raw power marines have finer control over their muscles (and tend to think faster), allowing them to exert that muscle far more effectively than the average Ork would.
Melissia wrote:
Pfeh. Use a real aircraft-- go with the A10,
A-10 are awesome to But imagine firing Vanquisher round at Ork positions from 30,000 ft. Add Heavy Bolter shells t oit and Plasma Cannon and you get some serious firepower.
The Crusader wrote:An AC-130U Spectre Gunship Should do the job.
Pretty much explains it
But...the Imperium has similar craft which are much tougher and better armed. It can take an hour to get these into the air and within firing range. The Imperium will have air superiority.
No they don't. Not even one plane in Imperium's armory matched the use and firepower of AC-130 Spectre Gunship. Imperium only have fighters and bombers. Not flying ground supporting fortresses.
"The Imperium will have air superiority." - similar thing was told to Guardsman on Taros, oh well....
Oh, also, I think you'll find that Autocannons, Lascannons and, God forbid, FRIGGIN' TURBOLASER DESTRUCTORS are MORE than a match for the firepower of a Spectre.
riplikash wrote:
Yes, they do have flying fortresses, though they don't appear at the scale most of 40k is played at for obvious reasons. The FFRPG's have numerous lighters, gunships, fighters, and describe there being thousands more designs.
ForgeWorld has aeronautica imperialis gunships that fit the bill perfectly. Just because it isn't represented in the core game does not mean it doesn't exist.
Never saw or heard about one. I thought that they only have fighters, bombardiers, drop ships and star ships. Not any kind of craft that is similar to role of Spectre.
An A-10 can carry 18 laserguided bombs and something like a couple of thousand rounds for the GAU-8. the flip side is A. some one needs todesignate the SM. B. The Spectre can stay on station longer and out-ranges the A-10 with the 105mm. Either way, I'd cack my pants if I was on the recieving end of either of them
Oh, also, I think you'll find that Autocannons, Lascannons and, God forbid, FRIGGIN' TURBOLASER DESTRUCTORS are MORE than a match for the firepower of a Spectre.
Drop ship and Heavy Bombarder, not a Gunship. Next!
The point of Spectre that it can circle over an area and fire heavy cannons on enemy more accurately them field artillery. And to provide heavy support for troops on the ground.
I don't know any kind of Imperial craft that can do that, as they all preform like a bombers. Excluding Valcury who has the role of Apache.
Oh, also, I think you'll find that Autocannons, Lascannons and, God forbid, FRIGGIN' TURBOLASER DESTRUCTORS are MORE than a match for the firepower of a Spectre.
Drop ship and Heavy Bombarder, not a Gunship. Next!
The point of Spectre that it can circle over an area and fire heavy cannons on enemy more accurately them field artillery. And to provide heavy support for troops on the ground.
I don't know any kind of Imperial craft that can do that, as they all preform like a bombers. Excluding Valcury who has the role of Apache.
You do realize that Thunderhawks are called Thunderhawk Gunships, yes? The Titan-class it carries on it's back sure as hell isn't there for show, and since it's a VTOL vehicle it could easily double as a ground support vehicle.
There's also the Vultures, but they're also more like Apache Gunships.
Melissia wrote:
Pfeh. Use a real aircraft-- go with the A10,
A-10 are awesome to But imagine firing Vanquisher round at Ork positions from 30,000 ft. Add Heavy Bolter shells t oit and Plasma Cannon and you get some serious firepower.
Imagine firing a vulcan mega-bolter at orks positions from the same position.
The main reason they use AC130s is because it's cheaper to refit an old plane than to make new ones (Also because the air force for some reason has a serious hate-on for the A-10 despite the fact that no aircraft has yet to be designed that can surpass it at its job. Its proposed replacements fail time and time again no matter how much the air force hates that craft).
Dead Space is what has fuelled my paranoia to make sure everything is dead. I have a "the Bad Lieutenant" thing going:
Kill him again.
What? Why?
His Soul is still dancing!
It also educated me on the "Dead Man's Click". Its called that for a reason
Melissia wrote:The A-10's primary armament is more powerful.
The main reason they use AC130s is because it's cheaper to refit an old plane than to make new ones (Also because the air force for some reason has a serious hate-on for the A-10 despite the fact that no aircraft has yet to be designed that can surpass it at its job. Its proposed replacements fail time and time again no matter how much the air force hates that craft).
I to love A-10, since I saw him first time in C&C: Generals. There is something when he fires that cannon, you see all dead and after that you hear rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.....
DAKKA! DAKKA! DAKKA!...I'm sure a hail of automatic gunfire would bring down a marine if the guns in question were military grade weapons. Besides, if Cadian Guardsmen can match Chaos Marines in hand to hand (provided they outnumber them, we can just swamp them!
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:With helmet on so we cannot see his screaming bald head....A laser guided artillery smart munition (120mm mortar or such, have hit moving vehicles with one ) 1-2km range for spotter in good terrain, and since marines dont really like to hide or use camo...
Without helmet... .50 cal SLAP (Saboted Light Armor Penetrator ) or even better .50, Armor-Piercing-Explosive-Incendiary. shot in his bald head, from a good distance.
But hey these are Astartes after all , they would likely catch the bullet between his teeth and spit it back into chuck norris's ugly mug, then steal chucks truck and go to town for some beer and nudy mags.
Hi My Name is Captain Kavaana Shrike Its time we had a conversation about us not 'hiding' or striking from the shadows. You know not all of us are like the space wolves you know. By the way the Entire Codex Astrates chapters want to have a word with you.
.... ... .. . .. .. .
According to the codex. Marines wear camo according to campagins. They paint their armor accordingly. Examples Babab War, Raptors Legion, Mentors, Mantis Warriors, helk even the space marines send in their scouts.
BTW you guys do realize that space marines during the great crusade fought during nuclear blasts right? And these nukes are several hundred times stronger than ours? Right?
Yes I do think a .50 cal weapon and above will kill them. In the fluff some space marines just don't die!
Plus once you kill one battle brother oh well. Land Raiders, Space marine company comes in mops up the Marines.
I figure if you treat a Space Marine like a light armored vehicle, you've got it about right. They are going to shrug most small arms unless they get hit in an unprotected joint, but even then that armor is probably at least somewhat resistant. A tank round is probably going to kill them most of the time, hence the stat line of the Battle Cannon. Lesser weaponry like most assault rifles, analogous to autoguns, probably not. Even .50 rifles are only going to be penetrating vulnerable areas, but getting deflected off of the chest or shoulder plating.
Really, there's nothing I've seen to indicate a Space Marine could endure a few shots from a .50 Cal Machine Gun. I've seen these things in action in the Israeli Army and they're penetrate anything short of a APC., and they'll shred up a vehicle with as much armor as your standard Humvee. Anything above the level of firepower of a M2 or Dashka would do the job against a Marine. People in this thread are vastly overestimating Marine Power Armor/Endurance.
As for AC-130 Imperial equivalents, the Marauder Destroyer is probably the closest thing they have to it and indeed surpasses the AC-130 in firepower. x6 Autocannons, x2 Assault Cannons, x2 Heavy Bolters, x8 Hellstrike Missiles. That's far greater than the firepower an AC-130 can lay down, though my guess is the Marauder-Destroyer can't rotate around the battlefield as accuracy or cleanly.
The analogy to a modern LAV has been made for the toughness of Power Armor, which is as tough or tougher than an APC, so there you go. The Ma Deuce could punch a hole in the soft armor, but probably not the ceramite plating. Considering both autocannons and heavy stubbers exist in the game which are analogous to heavy machineguns, and they only have AP4, and we know weapons are more powerful in the game than in the fluff (unless a weak author who hasn't given much thought to his novel needs Space Marines to be cheaply and conveniently fragile)...
BlapBlapBlap wrote:Also, any weapon really can harm a SM. If you pull off a strong hit in the armour joins, they will feel it.
Uh. . . no.
.
Uh... yes.
SM Power Armor is being over estimated a lot. SM's are killed by autoguns. Autoguns fire 5.56mm Brass Bullets (Source: Siege of Vraks). This is WEAKER then most firearms. And the 5.56mm Brass Bullets penetrated the space marines chest plate with relative ease. No offense, but your local law enforcement agencies are very capable of bringing down a Space Marine. SM power lies in their tactics, not their armor and weapons.
Have enough soldiers fire 30 caliber machine guns at him for a while and he'll fall. That, or 50 cals, which we mount on all sorts of things, so it isn't unreasonable that we'd have some serious fire power against him.
Our military would have a ball being able to fire large volumes into a single target Who wouldn't, as long as he isn't charging towards you, or withing bolter range. I have my doubts his ammunition would last very long.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Golden Sabre wrote:
BeRzErKeR wrote:
BlapBlapBlap wrote:Also, any weapon really can harm a SM. If you pull off a strong hit in the armour joins, they will feel it.
Uh. . . no.
.
Uh... yes.
SM Power Armor is being over estimated a lot. SM's are killed by autoguns. Autoguns fire 5.56mm Brass Bullets (Source: Siege of Vraks). This is WEAKER then most firearms. And the 5.56mm Brass Bullets penetrated the space marines chest plate with relative ease. No offense, but your local law enforcement agencies are very capable of bringing down a Space Marine. SM power lies in their tactics, not their armor and weapons.
Autoguns shoot M16 rounds? I was expecting 7.62, at least.
Wonder what autocannons fire Maybe the same, with a higher ROF?
BlapBlapBlap wrote:Also, any weapon really can harm a SM. If you pull off a strong hit in the armour joins, they will feel it.
Uh. . . no.
.
Uh... yes.
SM Power Armor is being over estimated a lot. SM's are killed by autoguns. Autoguns fire 5.56mm Brass Bullets (Source: Siege of Vraks). This is WEAKER then most firearms. And the 5.56mm Brass Bullets penetrated the space marines chest plate with relative ease. No offense, but your local law enforcement agencies are very capable of bringing down a Space Marine. SM power lies in their tactics, not their armor and weapons.
That is sad. Just sad. If that's a 3+ armor save, then I could punch a Gaurdian into submission. And in a month I would be able to take on a Space Marine (when I have enough money for an AR).
That really puts into perspective the materials of the 40k universe. Either that or the writer was a moron.
Samus_aran115 wrote:Have enough soldiers fire 30 caliber machine guns at him for a while and he'll fall. That, or 50 cals, which we mount on all sorts of things, so it isn't unreasonable that we'd have some serious fire power against him.
Our military would have a ball being able to fire large volumes into a single target Who wouldn't, as long as he isn't charging towards you, or withing bolter range. I have my doubts his ammunition would last very long.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Golden Sabre wrote:
BeRzErKeR wrote:
BlapBlapBlap wrote:Also, any weapon really can harm a SM. If you pull off a strong hit in the armour joins, they will feel it.
Uh. . . no.
.
Uh... yes.
SM Power Armor is being over estimated a lot. SM's are killed by autoguns. Autoguns fire 5.56mm Brass Bullets (Source: Siege of Vraks). This is WEAKER then most firearms. And the 5.56mm Brass Bullets penetrated the space marines chest plate with relative ease. No offense, but your local law enforcement agencies are very capable of bringing down a Space Marine. SM power lies in their tactics, not their armor and weapons.
Autoguns shoot M16 rounds? I was expecting 7.62, at least.
Wonder what autocannons fire Maybe the same, with a higher ROF?
I was expecting that autocannons fired something like 60mm rounds or something, but now I really doubt they fire anything higher than 20mm.
Autoguns shoot M16 rounds? I was expecting 7.62, at least.
Wonder what autocannons fire Maybe the same, with a higher ROF?
I honestly have no clue what autocannons fire, although they are often compared to the main gun of your abrams tank.
And as for M16 rounds, not only are they 5.56mm, but the bullets are made out of brass. Brass!
I wish GW would retcon a lot of the really stupid deaths that they put marines through. I mean, if your going to have them die from any bullet, at least make an armor penetrating explosive incendiary or something...
I would think that simple torrent of fire would do the trick. A marine sans armor should be able to survive a few SAW rounds, but an entire belt's worth would put paid to him. Ma Deuce should be able to grease one given enough rounds or the right kind of ammo once he's armored up, and I think 25mm rounds should also do pretty well also.
Any marine fighting us here on old modern Earth (Terra), would lay his weapons down and immediatly and completely surrender, for somewhere amongst our teeming populace resides the once and future Emperor from which they all descend, and any stray bolt or otherwise marine driven aggresion could potentially endanger the future monarch and make them all cease to exist.
So we dont even need to kill one of the bloody Astartes, just find jumbo size cots for them.
McNinja wrote:@Harriticus It really depends on the calibers of those weapons. AC-130 loadouts:
AC-130A Project Gunship II 4× 7.62 mm GAU-2/A miniguns
4× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61 Vulcan 6-barreled Gatling cannon
AC-130A Surprise Package, Pave Pronto, AC-130E Pave Spectre 2× 7.62 mm GAU-2/A miniguns
2× 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannon
2× 40 mm (1.58 in) L/60 Bofors cannon
AC-130E Pave Aegis 2× 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannon
1× 40 mm (1.58 in) L/60 Bofors cannon
1× 105 mm (4.13 in) M102 howitzer
AC-130H Spectre (Prior to c. 2000)
2× 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannon
1× 40 mm (1.58 in) L/60 Bofors cannon
1× 105 mm (4.13 in) M102 howitzer
(Current Armament)
1× 40 mm (1.58 in) L/60 Bofors cannon
1× 105 mm (4.13 in) M102 howitzer
AC-130U Spooky II 1× General Dynamics 25 mm (0.984 in) GAU-12/U Equalizer 5-barreled gatling cannon
1× 40 mm (1.58 in) L/60 Bofors cannon
1× 105 mm (4.13 in) M102 howitzer
unless Autocannons are greater than 40mm cannons, an AC-130 would be at the very least on par with a Marauder Destroyer.
Well you have more weapons stations on a Marauder Destroyer, plus things Missile Pylons (which an AC-130 doesn't have any tremendously upgrades firepower).
As for autocannons, they are certainly higher then 40mm. They seem roughly analogous to something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/57_mm_AZP_S-60. My guess is anywhere between 57mm and 76mm for caliber. Your basic Boltgun is .76 Cal so even basic weapons in the world of 40k pack a big slug.
Well, considering that the orks have a change at gunning down a space marine in shooting, I would say that a .44 magnum could at least injure a SM at close range.
Denel NTW-20
XM-109
The Beowulf .50 cal upper receiver variant for the M4
XM25
Those could probably do it with relative ease, I wouldn't be surprised if an AP 7.62mm popped them.
And a bullet proof bones? Just have to get one round to penetrate the gaps in the ribcage and let it bounce around inside of him tearing up all his vital organs, have fun with that.
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:Any marine fighting us here on old modern Earth (Terra), would lay his weapons down and immediatly and completely surrender, for somewhere amongst our teeming populace resides the once and future Emperor from which they all descend, and any stray bolt or otherwise marine driven aggresion could potentially endanger the future monarch and make them all cease to exist.
Uh...... If marines ever invade our planet that would mean one thing only - this is not Earth at all. But some random lost Human colony that we call Earth to.
killykavekommando wrote:Well, considering that the orks have a change at gunning down a space marine in shooting, I would say that a .44 magnum could at least injure a SM at close range.
Honestly? I would think that shootas are more like M2s than anything else in the modern arsenal.
I mean, think about it. Orks are significantly larger and tougher than humans. They also have a strong, strong tendency to carry around the biggest, loudest, shootiest weapon that they can. Furthermore, as primitive as they may seem, Meks are basically born knowing everything that most engineers go to college to learn, plus a significantly larger amount directly relating to metallurgy and weapons-making. So I'm pretty sure that a shoota is more like an HMG than any kind of human small arm. Similarly, your average slugga probably fires a very high caliber bullet with a LOT of propellant behind it.
A 30-strong mob of Orks all opening fire at once have a chance to shoot down a couple Space Marines because they're literally filling the air with long, wildly uncontrolled bursts of heavy machine-gun fire.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Golden Sabre wrote:
Uh... yes.
SM Power Armor is being over estimated a lot. SM's are killed by autoguns. Autoguns fire 5.56mm Brass Bullets (Source: Siege of Vraks). This is WEAKER then most firearms. And the 5.56mm Brass Bullets penetrated the space marines chest plate with relative ease. No offense, but your local law enforcement agencies are very capable of bringing down a Space Marine. SM power lies in their tactics, not their armor and weapons.
Two things.
First off, THOSE particular autoguns fire 5.56mm brass bullets. That by no means proves that all, or even a majority, of them do.
Secondly; we don't really know how autoguns work, honestly. That's a small bullet, but it's perfectly possible to get the same kinetic energy from it by increasing the speed; maybe autoguns fire low-caliber but very high-velocity dum-dum rounds, for instance, so they'll punch into the target and then come apart into shrapnel inside the body.
An unarmoured marine? In theory and with some luck pretty much any modern military rifle or, if the marine is truly unlucky, even more "primitive" weapons. I know, i know, they are geneenhanced and the best thing since sliced bread but some parts of a marine's body are just as vulnerable as the same parts of a normal human being. Spinal damage will incapacitate the marine and so will a headwound ( even 150kg of pure muscle need to use their brain once in a while ).
And armoured marine is quite a bit different and will probably require something heavier to take down. Since we don't have any idea what a marine's armour is capable of ( at least in relation to modern weapons )
i can't give any answer to that question.
King Pariah wrote:Denel NTW-20
XM-109
The Beowulf .50 cal upper receiver variant for the M4
XM25
Those could probably do it with relative ease, I wouldn't be surprised if an AP 7.62mm popped them.
And a bullet proof bones? Just have to get one round to penetrate the gaps in the ribcage and let it bounce around inside of him tearing up all his vital organs, have fun with that.
King Pariah wrote:Denel NTW-20
XM-109
The Beowulf .50 cal upper receiver variant for the M4
XM25
Those could probably do it with relative ease, I wouldn't be surprised if an AP 7.62mm popped them.
And a bullet proof bones? Just have to get one round to penetrate the gaps in the ribcage and let it bounce around inside of him tearing up all his vital organs, have fun with that.
There are no gaps in a SM's rib cage...
None? Then how do they manage to breath? Kinda need seperation of ribs for the ribcage to expand when inhaling. And a fused ribcage would seriously limit your upper body mobility. So suddenly Space Marines have turned into slow walking tanks with a hard time breathing. God forbid they over exert themselves.
shadowsnip wrote:but also according to the fluff 1000 marines can defeat an entire planet. So according to the fluff 1000 marines can take on all the combined military forces of our planet.
1 marine = 100,000 soldiers (lets say theres 100,000,000 soldiers)
so one marine can take on 100,000 soldiers. But then the fluff contradicts this with space marines dying to some orks who have big axes...
If that math is correct this it the first time that an American will say that he is glad the Chinese and North Koreans have just about every able bodied 20 something year old man in their military. Gonna need a lot of fodder to drop 1000 marines at that rate.
King Pariah wrote:Denel NTW-20
XM-109
The Beowulf .50 cal upper receiver variant for the M4
XM25
Those could probably do it with relative ease, I wouldn't be surprised if an AP 7.62mm popped them.
And a bullet proof bones? Just have to get one round to penetrate the gaps in the ribcage and let it bounce around inside of him tearing up all his vital organs, have fun with that.
There are no gaps in a SM's rib cage...
Well then, he can't breath, can't move his torso and his entire ribcage is far more rigid as a single whack will shatter the entire arangment.
Still, in theory any weapon could take down a SM. Those who say otherwise are probably Fanboys of EPIC proportions to actually argue about marines in tank armour.
Is their armor mechanically driven by a powersource or do they wear it like medevil armor? If it is mechanical and has a power source of some kind to run systems like resporatory systems then a timely placed EMP blast should do the trick.
Brother Coa wrote:Uh...... If marines ever invade our planet that would mean one thing only - this is not Earth at all. But some random lost Human colony that we call Earth to.
They could have managed to go back in time due to the Warp (or, hell, Trazyn playing merry tricks).
BlapBlapBlap wrote:
Well then, he can't breath, can't move his torso and his entire ribcage is far more rigid as a single whack will shatter the entire arangment.
Still, in theory any weapon could take down a SM. Those who say otherwise are probably Fanboys of EPIC proportions to actually argue about marines in tank armour.
Astartes have a solid stronger-than-normal ribcage and can still breathe (more efficiently than a normal human) and are very agile and tough. It's the way 40K works.
In theory yes. But we might as well try to discuss the weapons that would have a decent chance, rather than go for far-fetched scenarios.
MakersHitstheMark wrote:Is their armor mechanically driven by a powersource or do they wear it like medevil armor? If it is mechanical and has a power source of some kind to run systems like resporatory systems then a timely placed EMP blast should do the trick.
It is powered by a power source but I'm not sure how vulnerable it is to an EMP blast. They can also still move without the power source, just more slowly and with more effort.
IronSnake wrote:There are no gaps in a SM's rib cage...
If there's no gaps in the SM's ribcage, then the SM would be less agile than a human. Their ability to twist/turn their torsos, bend over, lean to the the side, their ability to take in a full breath, etc would all be inferior to humans.
Golden Sabre wrote:I honestly have no clue what autocannons fire, although they are often compared to the main gun of your abrams tank.
Not a very good comparison. They are probably closer to the 25mm gun you see on LAVs and Bradleys. The Battlecannon is probably the closest equivalent to the 120mm smoothbore on the M1 and other similar tanks.
Compel: Black Library uathors strike me as not necessarily having the soundest grasp of modern military capabilities and tactics.
Consideing most of the time he enemies of the Space Marines make utterly stupid tactical errors in situations where if they had acted intelligently they'd have inflicted some massive damage...
BlapBlapBlap wrote:
Well then, he can't breath, can't move his torso and his entire ribcage is far more rigid as a single whack will shatter the entire arangment.
Still, in theory any weapon could take down a SM. Those who say otherwise are probably Fanboys of EPIC proportions to actually argue about marines in tank armour.
Astartes have a solid stronger-than-normal ribcage and can still breathe (more efficiently than a normal human) and are very agile and tough. It's the way 40K works.
In theory yes. But we might as well try to discuss the weapons that would have a decent chance, rather than go for far-fetched scenarios.
Just because they are Space Marines does not change the way that anatomy works. Anything with a fused set of bones will be slower, but will have increased protection. For example, the Tortoise.
Look at this picture. There are clearly gaps in his ribcage. I'm not saying that this is proof, but 40K has to hold onto some laws of space and time to make players want to play.
As for being far-fetched, this entire thread is. We will never meet true Space Marines, and anything can happen. Even a well placed shot from a handgun could potentially incapacitate a Marine should it breach the armour.
King Pariah wrote:Denel NTW-20
XM-109
The Beowulf .50 cal upper receiver variant for the M4
XM25
Those could probably do it with relative ease, I wouldn't be surprised if an AP 7.62mm popped them.
And a bullet proof bones? Just have to get one round to penetrate the gaps in the ribcage and let it bounce around inside of him tearing up all his vital organs, have fun with that.
There are no gaps in a SM's rib cage...
None? Then how do they manage to breath? Kinda need seperation of ribs for the ribcage to expand when inhaling. And a fused ribcage would seriously limit your upper body mobility. So suddenly Space Marines have turned into slow walking tanks with a hard time breathing. God forbid they over exert themselves.
Good lord you guys. Just stick to your ork, eldar, necron... whatever knowledge I guess. Or do some reading?
Phase 2: A small, complex, tubular organ, the ossmodula secretes hormones that both affect the ossification of the skeleton and encourages the forming bone growths to absorb ceramic-based chemicals that are laced into the Marine's diet.1 This drastically alters the way a Space Marine's bones grow and develop. Two years after this implant is first put in the subject's long bones will have increased in size and strength (along with most other bones), and the rib cage will have been fused into a solid mass of bulletproof, interlocking plates.
There you go.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DeffDred wrote:
There are no gaps in a SM's rib cage...
Space Marine ribs grow double-wide, then overlap.
Like a window shade.
There is space between the ribs, but those spaces are tiny and face downward not forward.
Yes correct. Interlocking plates. Not the standard human design. In essence they are a solid mass.
And SM's also have two lungs (if breathing becomes a problem or if one lung is destroyed). Some of you need to read the link I posted above.
IronSnake wrote:
And SM's also have two lungs (if breathing becomes a problem or if one lung is destroyed). Some of you need to read the link I posted above.
Hate to break it to ya, but so do I, and the vast majority of humanity.
Thanks for clarifying that it's interlocking sliding plates instead of a fused ribcage, now that makes a bit more sense then being an unwieldy buffoon.
And I think you meant second set of lungs Maybe you should just stick to your ork, eldar, necron... whatever knowledge I guess. Or do some reading?
Enough explosives should do the trick easily. Hmm... they probably weigh enough to trigger anti-tank mines now that I think of it. 9 kilograms on TNT should send a marine hurtling through the air to his death. The power armor might survive but the guy inside will be dead, even with his extra organs.
Unless he's an ultramarine. then according to Ward he'd do a necron and just get back up again. P.S I'd think He'd spot the UAV either by the engine noise or by visual means
SM Power Armor is being over estimated a lot. SM's are killed by autoguns. Autoguns fire 5.56mm Brass Bullets (Source: Siege of Vraks). This is WEAKER then most firearms. And the 5.56mm Brass Bullets penetrated the space marines chest plate with relative ease. No offense, but your local law enforcement agencies are very capable of bringing down a Space Marine. SM power lies in their tactics, not their armor and weapons.
Two things.
First off, THOSE particular autoguns fire 5.56mm brass bullets. That by no means proves that all, or even a majority, of them do.
Secondly; we don't really know how autoguns work, honestly. That's a small bullet, but it's perfectly possible to get the same kinetic energy from it by increasing the speed; maybe autoguns fire low-caliber but very high-velocity dum-dum rounds, for instance, so they'll punch into the target and then come apart into shrapnel inside the body.
I remember reading that autoguns have a muzzle velocity of 400m/s, firing case-less ammunition . I very much doubt the majority of autoguns fire brass rounds. You would be a bloody idiot to issue that. What this does prove, is that the Imperium just needs to give their men proper ammunition and weapons to make Space Marines obsolete.
Should I also bring up the fact that Space Marines were killed with medieval crossbows?
Face it. Marines are not really that tough. As I have been saying, their true strength is in tactics, and maybe reputation (fear, etc), not armor and weapons.
The Crusader wrote:I imagine PA is about as effective as an infantry version of CHOBHAM albeit a slightly less effective version of it.
And balls to your Smooth-bore 120mm, Try a Rifled one like the Challenger 2
I'd rather take something American.
We prolbably could kill space marines with ease. Maybe not our infantry as good as we can but our bradleys, tanks, A-10s, Apaches, Kiowa with hellfires, our naval ships that can fire from the oceans and crush anything on land, and low and behold if all else fails a nuke. We would probably get effed up sooner of later though.
SwiftLord14 wrote: We prolbably could kill space marines with ease. Maybe not our infantry as good as we can but our bradleys, tanks, A-10s, Apaches, Kiowa with hellfires, our naval ships that can fire from the oceans and crush anything on land, and low and behold if all else fails a nuke. We would probably get effed up sooner of later though.
Well Lighting is 2.4 Mach with operational range of 8.000 km ( Imperial armory I ) while Thunderbolt is 2.2 Mach with operational range of 12.000 km ( Imperial Armory I ).
An AA12 with grenade rounds. one dead space marine. For 38000 years to develop new technology, id say that we have nearly caught up with them already. "futuristic" for games workshop is imo perhaps 2050. We have weapons atm that are greater than boltguns. I mean no sight on the boltgun? pretty poor. its just so outdated. Any gun you shoot at the space marine in the head with will take him out. shoot him through the lens of his helmet and hes good as dead.
The Crusader wrote:I imagine PA is about as effective as an infantry version of CHOBHAM albeit a slightly less effective version of it.
And balls to your Smooth-bore 120mm, Try a Rifled one like the Challenger 2
I'd rather take something American.
We prolbably could kill space marines with ease. Maybe not our infantry as good as we can but our bradleys, tanks, A-10s, Apaches, Kiowa with hellfires, our naval ships that can fire from the oceans and crush anything on land, and low and behold if all else fails a nuke. We would probably get effed up sooner of later though.
Ummm... actually parts of the Abram are made in Great Britain... Including part of the barrel....
Just like my kevlar vest had a tag saying Made In China
Just sayin. the Challenger 2 has the better gun. Also the west makes THE worst assault rifles ever. I'd stake my life On an AK-47 much more readily than the M-16. Namely because the AK-47 is "Squaddie proof". For those of you less aquainted with british slang I'll explain with a joke:
3 men are captured by the enemy. They're a magician, a mathematician and a squaddie (soldier). They're sent to a POW camp where the Camp commander says " Here are 3 solid steel balls. You have 24 hours to do something amazing with them. If you can you may go free. The 3 men are placed in seperate empty rooms. 24 hours later the commander goes to the magician who makes one ball levitate, one ball disappear and the last one expand. commander says "thats amazing, you're free to go." Commander then goes to the mathematician whom has been calculating for the 24 hours. The mathematician places 1 ball in the exact center of the room, throws 1 ball and rolls the other and they ricochet around the room and come to rest in the center of the room. "thats amazing, you're free to go". finally gets to the squaddie who is just holding the one steel ball. Commander says "what happened to the other 2?". Squaddie replies " I dunno what happened but I lost one and broke the other."
Meaning that to make something Squaddie proof, one must make it as simple as humanly possible. otherwise the squaddie will break it. Which is what Eugene Stoner failed to forsee when he designed the M-16. Kalashnikov obeyed the K.I.S.S. rule (Keep It Simple, Stupid)
The Crusader wrote:Just sayin. the Challenger 2 has the better gun. Also the west makes THE worst assault rifles ever. I'd stake my life On an AK-47 much more readily than the M-16. Namely because the AK-47 is "Squaddie proof". For those of you less aquainted with british slang I'll explain with a joke:
3 men are captured by the enemy. They're a magician, a mathematician and a squaddie (soldier). They're sent to a POW camp where the Camp commander says " Here are 3 solid steel balls. You have 24 hours to do something amazing with them. If you can you may go free. The 3 men are placed in seperate empty rooms. 24 hours later the commander goes to the magician who makes one ball levitate, one ball disappear and the last one expand. commander says "thats amazing, you're free to go." Commander then goes to the mathematician whom has been calculating for the 24 hours. The mathematician places 1 ball in the exact center of the room, throws 1 ball and rolls the other and they ricochet around the room and come to rest in the center of the room. "thats amazing, you're free to go". finally gets to the squaddie who is just holding the one steel ball. Commander says "what happened to the other 2?". Squaddie replies " I dunno what happened but I lost one and broke the other."
Meaning that to make something Squaddie proof, one must make it as simple as humanly possible. otherwise the squaddie will break it. Which is what Eugene Stoner failed to forsee when he designed the M-16. Kalashnikov obeyed the K.I.S.S. rule (Keep It Simple, Stupid)
And that 's why the AK-47 is the best assault rifle in the world for over 60 years now.
Ah' and thats whyen I beg to differ. The AK-47 fires both a larger round: the 7.62mm to the M-16's 5.56. The 7.62 was designed to kill the target outright whereas the 5.56 was designed to warp and disintergrate causing massive bodily harm, thus placing a demand on medical resources as a result. They have also shown that the AK-47 can be buried in sand, mud, run over by a jeep and still work perfectly. In Vietnam, the M-16 used to jam because of the mud and the humidity. And if you still don't believe me, Gunnery Sergeant R. Lee Ermyruns a competiition in which he demonstrates the AK's ease of field stripping and the power of the round.
However the bigest piece of dog gak in the modern(ish)world was the French Chauchat
And the M4 is even less effective:
shorter barrel so less stopping power
shorter range
same caliber
full auto: burns through ammo quicker
less accurate
The Crusader wrote:And the M4 is even less effective:
shorter barrel so less stopping power
shorter range
same caliber
full auto: burns through ammo quicker
less accurate
The M4 is selective fire, and a shorter barrel has nothing to do with 'stopping power'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Brother Coa wrote:And that 's why the AK-47 is the best assault rifle in the world for over 60 years now.
By no means is it better. It's a heavy clunky piece of generic crap, not some ultraspecial omgwtfawesome rifle.
A better weapon would be like the FN SCAR-H, for example.
The AK I admit is significantly more durable to unnecessary abuse. However the main factor to me is accuracy. And I have never seen anyone having a jamming issue with any M4 or M16 variant as long as they maintained their weapon.
Melissia wrote:By no means is it better. It's a heavy clunky piece of generic crap, not some ultraspecial omgwtfawesome rifle.
A better weapon would be like the FN SCAR-H, for example.
It's good because it is easy to use, maintain and it hold powerful shot. It is not ultra powerful but ultra reliable - just like Lasgun.
Even if I admit that Tar-21 is far better then AK-47 I will always choose AK, primary because it is my national rifle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
King Pariah wrote:And I have never seen anyone having a jamming issue with any M4 or M16 variant as long as they maintained their weapon.
The Crusader wrote:Just sayin. the Challenger 2 has the better gun. Also the west makes THE worst assault rifles ever. I'd stake my life On an AK-47 much more readily than the M-16. Namely because the AK-47 is "Squaddie proof". For those of you less aquainted with british slang I'll explain with a joke:
3 men are captured by the enemy. They're a magician, a mathematician and a squaddie (soldier). They're sent to a POW camp where the Camp commander says " Here are 3 solid steel balls. You have 24 hours to do something amazing with them. If you can you may go free. The 3 men are placed in seperate empty rooms. 24 hours later the commander goes to the magician who makes one ball levitate, one ball disappear and the last one expand. commander says "thats amazing, you're free to go." Commander then goes to the mathematician whom has been calculating for the 24 hours. The mathematician places 1 ball in the exact center of the room, throws 1 ball and rolls the other and they ricochet around the room and come to rest in the center of the room. "thats amazing, you're free to go". finally gets to the squaddie who is just holding the one steel ball. Commander says "what happened to the other 2?". Squaddie replies " I dunno what happened but I lost one and broke the other."
Meaning that to make something Squaddie proof, one must make it as simple as humanly possible. otherwise the squaddie will break it. Which is what Eugene Stoner failed to forsee when he designed the M-16. Kalashnikov obeyed the K.I.S.S. rule (Keep It Simple, Stupid)
Well sorry to inform you Crusader but the Challenger 2 will be swaping its rifled 120mm for the new german 120mm L/55 smoothbore that exeeds the rifled one in all areas of performance, as per my latest Janes Armor update.
And the best Assault rifle in current usage is the G36 in all its itterations, utterly reliable, light and accurate, the 5.56mm is a meh round but it is the current west standard, my M4A1 did ok by me , but I had to put alot of aftermarket parts on it for my piece of mind.
Shorter Barrel=less pressure build up=less range because the round leavesthe barrel with less force thus reducing the STOPPING POWER. Enfield skirted around the problem by making the weapon a Bullpup. why Britain changed to the SA-80A1 in the first place instead of sticking with the L1A1 SLR is beyond me
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:
And the best Assault rifle in current usage is the G36 in all its itterations, utterly reliable, light and accurate, the 5.56mm is a meh round but it is the current west standard, my M4A1 did ok by me , but I had to put alot of aftermarket parts on it for my piece of mind.
I love that German assault riffle to, I am building a Lasgun using model of that rifle.
I haven't found M-16's to be hard to maintain but that may be because I've only handle the a4's. Sigh, though I do wish the US would switch over to something piston operated rather than gas operated, like the XM-8, that gun was smexy. But I'll be damned if I touch an AK, those clunkers are overrated. Though I will give them a thumbs up for being piston operated.
personally I was very happy the enemy shot at me with AKs ... and since I am sitting here typing this demonstrates the fact they did not hit me.
Reliable is nice..rugged is nice, and if I am even a 10 year old 3rd world combatant that can barely remember to clean my weapon and has little to no formal training the AK-47 would be my very first choice.
But seeing as I am not and I know how to maintain and service my issued weapons, then I will take a bit of finicky, for alot of accuracy, you have to hit something to kill it, and I own several weapons including a excellent east german AK-47 and a AK-74 and even a 7.62mm SCAR and I will tell you in a second I will take the SCAR anytime over the AKs.
Now my SVD is another matter, excellent weapon, highly accurate very nice weapon, possibly my favorite Russian/Warsaw pact system, but I will still take my 7.62mm SCAR over it.
And when if ever they release the G36 (other than its planet of the apes SL-8 version) I will scoop it up and play, but the 416 and 417 are basically G36 disguised as M4/M16 , sneaky germans....
King Pariah wrote:But I'll be damned if I touch an AK, those clunkers are overrated.
Top millitary experts disagree with you. As do most world military's.
Hey, I'm going off of personal experience. But if you want a dirt cheap weapon which has it's durability making it a top rated weapon, I'm not stopping you. This is my opinion. Sorry that I find need of accuracy more important than durability and price. And frankly I don't give gak about what "top military experts" think or say. I find Kalashnikovs to be innaccurate durable clunkers. That is my opinion.
The Ak-47 7.62mm round has a shorter range than 5.56 NATO rounds. This was proven on Future Weapons on the Discovery Channel a while back.
The M-16 is more accurate, and has more complex interal mechanics. The AK-47 was designed to be cheap and easy to use. The M-16/M4 is designed to be used by professional soldiers who know how to maintain their firearms.
The AK-47 also has bolt wiggle, which also decreases accuracy.
At equal distances, a 7.62x39 Russian round will do more damage than a 5.56mm NATO round. That's does't make anything better. 5.56 will still put someone down, there just won't be as big a hole in the person.
A longer barrel doesn't have to do with power. It has to do with accuracy and range. A shorter barrel will not prevent a bullet from reaching near-maximum velocity, but because it is not travellingas fast as it could be, the maximum range will be shorter. So many people (many of them play CoD or Battlefield, I'm not saying anyone here does, I'm just generalizing) don't realize that the aummunition is what give a firearm its power. It's like in Black Ops where making a revolver snub-nosed somehow increased its damage by 50%. WTF?
We also now have the ACR, which is also a fantastic weapon. There's also the HK 416, which you can freeze, sink in mud, cover in sand, and it will still operate. There's also the HK G11, which has outstanding accuracy and actually fires caselss ammunition (not sure if it is still in use, though). The HK G36 series of rifles are among the best series of weapons in the world.
Brother Coa wrote:AK is also over 60 years old. The time has come for it to be changed.
Or for us to make infantry energy based weapon at last.
Um it has changed, many times. AKM, AK-74 and many more times. AK-74 went down to a smaller round similar to the standard NATO 5.56 but uses pneumatic rounds "Staining rounds" (essentially filling any flesh cavity with air like a balloon causing massive internal damage) which are actually pretty bad ass, but not very effective against armor. The AN-94 being generally based on the same principle is the best. The ability to put two rounds in the exact same place will penetrate most any armor, however this ability made the weapon over complex and hard to service in the field. No the best idea for a conscripted army, so it's only used by special forces.
Brother Coa wrote:AK is also over 60 years old. The time has come for it to be changed.
Or for us to make infantry energy based weapon at last.
G3 and FAL are almost as old and I would still take either over a AK.
Naw dont need energy...we need mini rail guns, now that would be fun. That and puke lasers for everyone, enemy cant shoot when puking .
Mass Effect, anyone? Every single gun is a miniature rail gun. Pistol? Mini rail gun. Rifle? Larger mini-rail gun. There's also a heavy weapon that shoots black holes, another that shoots lightning, and another that shoots nukes. Then there's a particle weapon that's a sniper rifle with energy beams.
I meant, to get from AK and it's variants to some other gun.
Like Americans from M1 Garand to M14 and finally M16.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
McNinja wrote:Mass Effect, anyone? Every single gun is a miniature rail gun. Pistol? Mini rail gun. Rifle? Larger mini-rail gun. There's also a heavy weapon that shoots black holes, another that shoots lightning, and another that shoots nukes. Then there's a particle weapon that's a sniper rifle with energy beams.
But not very powerful. Zaeed survived shot in the head wit that "miniature railgun" pistol.
Brother Coa wrote:I meant, to get from AK and it's variants to some other gun.
Like Americans from M1 Garand to M14 and finally M16.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
McNinja wrote:Mass Effect, anyone? Every single gun is a miniature rail gun. Pistol? Mini rail gun. Rifle? Larger mini-rail gun. There's also a heavy weapon that shoots black holes, another that shoots lightning, and another that shoots nukes. Then there's a particle weapon that's a sniper rifle with energy beams.
But not very powerful. Zaeed survived shot in the head wit that "miniature railgun" pistol.
Yeah, just because one badass Merc survived being shot in the face doesn't mean the pistols are weak, he just got extremely lucky. People in real life have survived getting shot in the head, does that mean pistols are useless?
As far as I understood it (and I am by no means experienced) these are the virtues of the AK-47:
- Cheap to mass produce
- Extremely reliable, replacement parts are readily available, more so than allot of other assault rifles.
- Fires a decent round and therefore packs a decent punch.
However
- Most other assault rifles are more accurate
- Some others fire a round with equal or greater stopping power than the AK.
- Allot of others have a greater effective range than the AK.
If you had a choice between an AK and a gun which is better in combat terms but difficult to maintain, you would choose according to your situation. If you had little knowledge how to service a rifle/you would be in a position where you couldn't service it effectively you would choose the AK. On all other occasions you would choose the other rifle.
If i remember correctly, the AK isnt widely military used anyways anymore, accept buy those who cant afford to mass manufacture anything else. The main reason its still used is because of how mass produced it was, and that there are so many that its the easiest to get ahold of.
But it is a hell of a lot more robust than nearly any other weapon. I'm not saying it doesnt jam, It just jams a helluva lot less. The History/discovery channel buried it in sand, then put it in a puddle then ran over it in a Toyota Pick-up truck. AND IT STILL WORKED! I'd like to see an M4 do that
Well, not exactly lucky, no. The AK series has always had a reputation for dependability in adverse conditions. These are rifles that, yes, can be submerged underwater, buried in mud, rained on, dropped, kicked, knocked about against rocks and trees, and still be expected to fire. If it had failed to operate, that would be more of an unlucky occurrence, rather than the rifle functioning as expected. If you did this with a '16, then you would be lucky if it fired. It's not expected to operate after all of that.
Of course, these aren't optimal firing conditions, but that's not unusual in combat. It's less accurate and has a shorter range than most standard assault rifles, yes... but most firefights don't happen at optimal range. Or even at long range. A couple hundred meters, at most, is the average, with current conflicts beginning to skew the average towards much closer-range affairs.
Most real soldiers would prefer to use something other than an AK-47 and do. Very few real professional soldiers use AK-47, they may use an AKM or 74 or one of the other better modern interpretations of the gun. The very first soviet ak-47 were very good actually, but they then found ways to make them cheaper the trade off being that they were not quite as accurate. This made little difference because they were not being supplied to REAL soldiesr so accuracy was not a real concern. The loose tolerances also made it very forgiving and a perfect weapon to hand to untrained 10 year olds.
It is a militia rifle not a true soldiers rifle.
You can do almost anything to them, the most that is usually required is to kick the bolt, if you can get it to cycle you are golden.
This reminds me of the 'best weapon in 40K' thread that showed up not long ago. Same thing basically - it's going to depend entirely on the sorts of criteria you're using to evaluate the weapon(s) by, and there is almost certainly a measure of personal preference and opinion tied ot that. It reminds me a bit of some of those 'Dragon Skin vs Interceptor' body armour debates I've seen around sometimes.
On topic though, i would say anything smaller than 50 caliber wont do gak. I remember hearing somewhere that a bolter round is somewhere i the .70 caliber range, and even that has prpblems getting through.
Jollydevil wrote:On topic though, i would say anything smaller than 50 caliber wont do gak. I remember hearing somewhere that a bolter round is somewhere i the .70 caliber range, and even that has prpblems getting through.
No it doesn't. A boltgun is very likely to kill or incapacitate a space marine in a single shot.
If you're talking about in heir armor, yes, that's certainly true, but just firing the boltgun at an astartes out of armor, he astartes is probably dead.
Melissia wrote:No it doesn't. A boltgun is very likely to kill or incapacitate a space marine in a single shot.
If you're talking about in heir armor, yes, that's certainly true, but just firing the boltgun at an astartes out of armor, he astartes is probably dead.
This whole thread has made the assumption that the Space Marine is in armor. In fact, that was specifically stated at least once. . . so, yes, we're talking about 'in their armor'.
Anything less than a high-powered anti-materiel rifle is going to have real trouble hurting an armored Space Marine. Assuming they can score a solid hit, aircraft or tank main weapons would do it, but very few infantry-carried weapons would.
The Son Of Russ wrote:An AA12 with grenade rounds. one dead space marine. For 38000 years to develop new technology, id say that we have nearly caught up with them already. "futuristic" for games workshop is imo perhaps 2050. We have weapons atm that are greater than boltguns. I mean no sight on the boltgun? pretty poor. its just so outdated. Any gun you shoot at the space marine in the head with will take him out. shoot him through the lens of his helmet and hes good as dead.
Actually the AA-12s grenade rounds would be just about useless as their damage is fragmentary and would be deflected quite easily by the plating on power armor. And the Space Marine's boltgun is linked to the helmet's imaging systems. The point of aim would be displayed in their field of vision. As far as shooting out the lenses, you assume they are made of some kind of fragile glass. There's really no proof they are even "lenses" in the traditional sense since a lot of the images we see of Space Marine field of vision contains none of the field of view restrictions that would be inherent in a small eyelet system like they have. It's more likely that the lenses are more like cameras in the manner of modern conventional thermal or night vision optics. You don't actually look "through" them so much that they project an image on the viewing end.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brother Coa wrote:
The Crusader wrote:Just sayin. the Challenger 2 has the better gun. Also the west makes THE worst assault rifles ever. I'd stake my life On an AK-47 much more readily than the M-16. Namely because the AK-47 is "Squaddie proof". For those of you less aquainted with british slang I'll explain with a joke:
Meaning that to make something Squaddie proof, one must make it as simple as humanly possible. otherwise the squaddie will break it. Which is what Eugene Stoner failed to forsee when he designed the M-16. Kalashnikov obeyed the K.I.S.S. rule (Keep It Simple, Stupid)
And that 's why the AK-47 is the best assault rifle in the world for over 60 years now.
For the uninitiated.
The AK-47 is the poor man's, untrained man's weapon. It has good durability, minimal maintenance requirements, and high tolerances. The problem is, a lot of that works against it too. It's internals are about as tight as the internals of a Thai woman of the night. The AK-47 is the most widely propagated weapon because it is cheap to make and easy to use. Not, as many would like to suggest, because it is the best weapon ever made. There are plenty of modern western weapons that easily eclipse the AK-47. But they are expensive, too. The M-16 is a dated weapon for sure. Its concept was revolutionary at the time, but that was fifty years ago. It's just silly to treat the M-16 as the "standard" for how to evaluate modern Western weapons anymore. Plenty of western rifles are superior to it in every way. Heck, H&K took the M-16's basic shape and controls and created the M416 with its piston based gas system to make a weapon that is theoretically (without any kind of extensive warzone deployment yet it's hard to make solid claims) just as reliable as the AK-47, but as accurate and precise as the M-16.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ronin-Sage wrote:The M4 is selective fire, and a shorter barrel has nothing to do with 'stopping power'.
A round exiting the barrel of the 14.5" M4 barrel does so at over 200 feet per second (64m/s) slower than out of the 20" barrel of the standard M-16. Kinetic energy is determined by Mass multiplied by Velocity.
BeRzErKeR wrote:
This whole thread has made the assumption that the Space Marine is in armor. In fact, that was specifically stated at least once. . . so, yes, we're talking about 'in their armor'.
If we are talking about Astartes in armor then very little weapons ( and don't exagurate with the MOAB, Tzar and NUukes - we wouldn't use them for a single solder ever ).
Most powerful sniper rifles would do the trick, Gatling guns, navy railguns.
But when it all comes down Astartes are fast, tough and zealous. Against Tactical squad we can try to defend, against Assault squad or Terminators however we have nothing. What use is sniper rifle when enemy teleports or jump to your position and slice you with sword that is your size?
McNinja wrote:The Ak-47 7.62mm round has a shorter range than 5.56 NATO rounds. This was proven on Future Weapons on the Discovery Channel a while back.
Do not watch that progaramme it is terrible. And does not show how they would be used accuratley. They once tested a helicopter a while back may have been an Apache or another gunship and they tested it by givign the bloke a 10min head start in a truck. Yeah fair enough. But guess where they were testing it. In a desert. Where there is no other cars vehicles or people. it was pathetic to say something is amazing by doing that for a test. Any helicopter could find a black truck in an empty desert.
EDIT: On topic even though we are talking about a marine i armour I would say if he was out of armour any weapon would kill him, SA80-A2, M-16 Carbine, AK74 all of them could kill him. They can penetrate his skin no? So they could kill him 5-30 5.56 mm bulets hitting you would kill you.
McNinja wrote:The Ak-47 7.62mm round has a shorter range than 5.56 NATO rounds. This was proven on Future Weapons on the Discovery Channel a while back.
At equal distances, a 7.62x39 Russian round will do more damage than a 5.56mm NATO round. That's does't make anything better. 5.56 will still put someone down, there just won't be as big a hole in the person.
A longer barrel doesn't have to do with power. It has to do with accuracy and range. A shorter barrel will not prevent a bullet from reaching near-maximum velocity, but because it is not travellingas fast as it could be, the maximum range will be shorter. So many people (many of them play CoD or Battlefield, I'm not saying anyone here does, I'm just generalizing) don't realize that the aummunition is what give a firearm its power. It's like in Black Ops where making a revolver snub-nosed somehow increased its damage by 50%. WTF?
.
You need a ballistic physics lesson. Energy = Mass times velocity squared. In ley mans terms the faster a round travels the farther it goes and the harder it hits.
The longer the barrel the longer a propellent charge has to accelerate a round. A round is constantly being pushed by the propellant charge, accelerating it until it leaves the barrel. Hence the longer the barrel the longer the propellent has act on the round. The faster a round travels the more energy it transfers to the target along with increasing range. Instantly as it leaves the barrel physics dictates that it begins deceleration and begins to be effected by gravity and other forces such as wind and wind resistance.
This one of the reason Bullpub designs are all the rage, maximum barrel length for range and power with minimum weapon length for weight and maneuverability. This is also why the barrel of the GUA avenger used on the a-10 is almost 20 feet long, they figured it needed to be that long in order to reach a muzzle velocity of 3,250 feet per second that would penetrate Tank armor.
Also the 7.62 has a longer range than 5.56, this is why most dedicated sniper rifles still shoot 7.62. The 7.62 carries it's energy better as it has greater wind resistance because it is more massive. Its all physics that you can't really argue with it.
America studied conflicts and found that for the most part battlefield conflicts would no longer require the range of 7.62 and moved to 5.56 so that soldiers could carry more ammo. Rate of fire and ammunition capacity they found were more vital to battlefield conditions than range beyond a certain point. Russia soon followed suit with the AK-74, as accuracy was never a concern for the soviets. So much so that they trained "soldiers" not to aim center mass, but to aim at a targets feet and let muzzle climb handle the rest. 5.56, made even more sense they for them, they were not training marksmen but waves of conscripts to overwhelm the enemy with spray and pray.
7.62 is a much better round against things like hard cover and body armor as it has a much better penetration profile.
There are advantages to 5.56, range and stopping power are not part of that package.One of it's "theoretical"advantages is that instead of blasting through a target like a 7.62 might, the 5.56 is designed to fragment in soft tissue....imparting all of its energy and creating quite a mess as the fragments create separate wound channels.
ON TOPIC, a round from an A-10 warthog would decimate a Space Marine, even in terminator Armour. Hell it would take out most anything on a 40K table.
Andrew1975 wrote:This one of the reason Bullpub designs are all the rage, maximum barrel length for range and power with minimum weapon length for weight and maneuverability. This is also why the barrel of the GUA avenger used on the a-10 is almost 20 feet long, they figured it needed to be that long in order to reach a muzzle velocity of 3,250 feet per second that would penetrate Tank armor.
Also the 7.62 has a longer range than 5.56, this is why most dedicated sniper rifles still shoot 7.62. The 7.62 carries it's energy better as it has greater wind resistance because it is more massive. Its all physics that you can't really argue with it.
Except that the AK-47 fires the 7.62x39mm round which was underpowered and unstable in flight which made it less accurate at longer ranges compared to 5.56x45mm which was more aerodynamic and had a higher powder to projectile ratio. The Russian sniper rifles used 7.62x54mm, an entirely different cartridge. American 7.62 rifles use a x51mm cartridge, again entirely different from the round the AK-47 fired.
Barrel length is also only relevant to the amount of propellant and the size of the round. Eventually the round will accelerate beyond the expansion of the gasses. Barrel length on rifles or cannons comes to a point of diminishing returns.
Bullpups were popular for a while, and still are in some circles, but their design has disadvantages too, which is why most modern rifles are still designed and manufactured in the standard configuration.
Andrew1975 wrote:This one of the reason Bullpub designs are all the rage, maximum barrel length for range and power with minimum weapon length for weight and maneuverability. This is also why the barrel of the GUA avenger used on the a-10 is almost 20 feet long, they figured it needed to be that long in order to reach a muzzle velocity of 3,250 feet per second that would penetrate Tank armor.
Also the 7.62 has a longer range than 5.56, this is why most dedicated sniper rifles still shoot 7.62. The 7.62 carries it's energy better as it has greater wind resistance because it is more massive. Its all physics that you can't really argue with it.
Except that the AK-47 fires the 7.62x39mm round which was underpowered and unstable in flight which made it less accurate at longer ranges compared to 5.56x45mm which was more aerodynamic and had a higher powder to projectile ratio. The Russian sniper rifles used 7.62x54mm, an entirely different cartridge. American 7.62 rifles use a x51mm cartridge, again entirely different from the round the AK-47 fired.
Barrel length is also only relevant to the amount of propellant and the size of the round. Eventually the round will accelerate beyond the expansion of the gasses. Barrel length on rifles or cannons comes to a point of diminishing returns.
Bullpups were popular for a while, and still are in some circles, but their design has disadvantages too, which is why most modern rifles are still designed and manufactured in the standard configuration.
There is a point of diminished return on barrel length, but it certainly has never been attained by a battle rifle. That length is far greater than 14 or even 24 inches.
Not withstanding the AK round does go farther and hits harder. It's effective range is not as good as an M-16 because the M-16 is a more accurate weapon. This is not a contradiction as the Ak was never intended to be an accurate weapon it was intended to be a cheap easy to produce weapon put into the hands of millions of untrained (minimally trained) conscripts who hose a battlefield with lead that can penetrate sandbags and bodyarmor.
The M-16 can be considered a marksmen's weapon. One of the Marine corps mottos is "everyman a marksman". The m-16 gives them that ability. However most real marksmen would prefer a m14 with the 7.62. because the ballistics are much better. This is why the M-14 and it's contemporaries continue to be used as dedicated marksmens weapons even though it was replaced by the M-16 for line troops.
I think one key thing people are missing here is that power armor is not monolithic, i.e., there are weak points and there are strong points.
The large plates on a marine (chest, shoulder pads, greaves, etc) are probably extremely thick, highly advanced ceramic composite armor, and will stop light anti-tank weapons with no trouble.
The joints? The gauntlets? The helmet, even? These are either thinner ceramite, or in the case of the flexible joints, an entirely different material, probably more akin to modern day kevlar except far more advanced. I imagine the thinner plates would be easily penetrated by .50 cal anti-material rounds and any other high caliber, high velocity rounds. The joints? They could probably be penetrated by a rifle round, although they would have spent much of their energy already and the marine would easily shrug off the wound. Likewise, a lucky shot from an armor piercing rifle round would probably go through a marine's helmet, but I seriously doubt it would have the power left to kill him. Anything larger than that, though, and there are going to be brains all over the inside of that helmet.
Remember that marines are not ACTUALLY supposed to walk through a hail of fire to get to grips with their enemy. They're highly trained super-soldiers. If marines were real, they'd be doing everything a normal human would do to avoid being shot (using cover, suppressing the enemy before advancing, deploying by surprise right in their face whenever possible). The difference is, if you do manage to hit them, chances are slim you'll even hurt them. And when they get to you, they're turning you into a pile of mush.
-------
TL;DR - Even an infantryman's rifle might make it through the joints in a marine's armor, and a lucky shot, say to the neck, might actually kill him. Otherwise I agree with previous commenters - 0.50 cal anti-material would head-shot a marine in armor, and could even penetrate some of the thinner plates. Anti-tank weapons bigger than that, a good shot is going to fairly reliably kill or incapacitate.
The Crusader wrote:Certain designs are difficult to fire lefthanded and the magazin change is awkward
Agreeded the SA80-A2 is atualy imposible to fire left handed due to the cartriges being ejected on the left side not below. So if uyou were to fire it left handed then you would have burining hot metal hitting you in the face. But reloading is not an issue unless you are trying to hold it into your shoulder when reloading which you should not be doing. the advantage of bullpup is the ability to make a short weapon with a long barrel this keeps it mavouverable and easy to handle.
It's easier to use in close in battles, easier to transport when you are running out of cramped vehicles, lighter weight (not always a plus), can be given to crews of said cramped vehicles instead of submachine guns relieving you of the logistics of purchasing and dispensing two separate weapons systems with different size rounds.
redkeyboard wrote:Hw is a lighter gun not always a plus.
Some people like a heavier gun because it absorbs the kick better, more mass for the propellent charge to move = less movement. Essentially the heavier the weapon the more stable it is.
The reason the M-16 is made of alot of plastic is due to them making it lighter.
Most modern guns replace the parts that were once wood with plastic, this is not to save weight but to ease manufacturing, consistency and also durability. Wood when exposed to constant heat and temperature changes/extremes is bad; it changes shape and breaks down. These changes can at least effect accuracy and at most cause major problems with the weapons functionality.
CalgarsPimpHand wrote:I think one key thing people are missing here is that power armor is not monolithic, i.e., there are weak points and there are strong points.
The large plates on a marine (chest, shoulder pads, greaves, etc) are probably extremely thick, highly advanced ceramic composite armor, and will stop light anti-tank weapons with no trouble.
The joints? The gauntlets? The helmet, even? These are either thinner ceramite, or in the case of the flexible joints, an entirely different material, probably more akin to modern day kevlar except far more advanced. I imagine the thinner plates would be easily penetrated by .50 cal anti-material rounds and any other high caliber, high velocity rounds. The joints? They could probably be penetrated by a rifle round, although they would have spent much of their energy already and the marine would easily shrug off the wound. Likewise, a lucky shot from an armor piercing rifle round would probably go through a marine's helmet, but I seriously doubt it would have the power left to kill him. Anything larger than that, though, and there are going to be brains all over the inside of that helmet.
Remember that marines are not ACTUALLY supposed to walk through a hail of fire to get to grips with their enemy. They're highly trained super-soldiers. If marines were real, they'd be doing everything a normal human would do to avoid being shot (using cover, suppressing the enemy before advancing, deploying by surprise right in their face whenever possible). The difference is, if you do manage to hit them, chances are slim you'll even hurt them. And when they get to you, they're turning you into a pile of mush.
-------
TL;DR - Even an infantryman's rifle might make it through the joints in a marine's armor, and a lucky shot, say to the neck, might actually kill him. Otherwise I agree with previous commenters - 0.50 cal anti-material would head-shot a marine in armor, and could even penetrate some of the thinner plates. Anti-tank weapons bigger than that, a good shot is going to fairly reliably kill or incapacitate.
This pretty much sums up the answer. Great post. Spot on.
Alright, basicaly you're trying to compare weapons of 2012 to armour of >40000, tech will be so far superior to our own that only bombs and other big fekking weapons will be able to hurt him, not puny .50 cals
for example, a 30/06 caliber round made today will be better than one made in 1908, weapons in the far future will be many millions of times better then our own
Outcast115 wrote:Alright, basicaly you're trying to compare weapons of 2012 to armour of >40000, tech will be so far superior to our own that only bombs and other big fekking weapons will be able to hurt him, not puny .50 cals
for example, a 30/06 caliber round made today will be better than one made in 1908, weapons in the far future will be many millions of times better then our own
Really, Mr. Browning and his many still in use guns would like to talk to you, especially his Ma Deuce.
Outcast115 wrote:Alright, basicaly you're trying to compare weapons of 2012 to armour of >40000, tech will be so far superior to our own that only bombs and other big fekking weapons will be able to hurt him, not puny .50 cals
for example, a 30/06 caliber round made today will be better than one made in 1908, weapons in the far future will be many millions of times better then our own
Really, Mr. Browning and his many still in use guns would like to talk to you, especially his Ma Deuce.
Not sure what you're trying to say but I love the M2 browning. Heavy barrel for the win! I still don't see them punching rounds through space marines plate though.
Outcast115 wrote:Alright, basicaly you're trying to compare weapons of 2012 to armour of >40000, tech will be so far superior to our own that only bombs and other big fekking weapons will be able to hurt him, not puny .50 cals
for example, a 30/06 caliber round made today will be better than one made in 1908, weapons in the far future will be many millions of times better then our own
Really, Mr. Browning and his many still in use guns would like to talk to you, especially his Ma Deuce.
Not sure what you're trying to say but I love the M2 browning. Heavy barrel for the win! I still don't see them punching rounds through space marines plate though.
I'm saying that the blue print for the M2 browning and most brownings were laid out in the early 1900s 1911-1919 to be exact depending on model. They have changed little since, including ammunition. 30/06 has not drastically changed since 1908 unless you are using special match grade or something is my point.
Outcast115 wrote:Alright, basicaly you're trying to compare weapons of 2012 to armour of >40000, tech will be so far superior to our own that only bombs and other big fekking weapons will be able to hurt him, not puny .50 cals
for example, a 30/06 caliber round made today will be better than one made in 1908, weapons in the far future will be many millions of times better then our own
yeah I made that point before but looking at it now.... even a sharpened rock from the stone ages on a stick can still cut someone up pretty badly, heck in First Heretic a Chaplain had his throat torn out by a native with a spear! I mean it's a viable point, who knows what kind of tech they have but a weapon is a weapon, if anything weapons in 40k got bigger and badder while armour has lagged slightly behind. It's always easier to blow gak up than keep gak alive.
I think it really does depend a great deal on the situation. But here's my basic opinions; assuming that a Space Marine is in the open, near the edge of the weapons effective engagement range and closing at full speed but not returning fire, while the modern weapon is being used by your standard US Army grunt;
1. Basic infantry rifle; not a chance. Only an exceptionally lucky shot to one of the weakest areas will penetrate at all, and those rounds which penetrate will not inflict serious injury. Headshots are ineffective, only a shot to the inside of one of the large joints might go through. The soldier would have to be insanely lucky to disable the Space Marine before he reaches melee range and beats the soldier to death with his bolter.
2. Hand grenades; Ha! The Space Marine is on top of them before they even get thrown, and the shrapnel is totally ineffective. Might manage to irritate him, or maybe give him an itchy little cut if a fragment gets jammed in a joint, but the poor schmuck who threw the grenade is dead, dead, dead within seconds.
3. SAW/light MG; Almost certainly not. Still not powerful enough to penetrate even light plating, only effective against areas where the armor is practically non-existent (ie the inside of elbow and knee joints, possibly the neck, and possibly the groin connections between thighguards and pelvic plates). A lucky machine-gunner might injure the Space Marine some, but not fast enough or badly enough to save himself from being snapped in half.
4. HMG/vehicle mounted machine gun; Possibly, though unlikely. Bullets still can't go through heavy plates like the chest and back armor, greaves, thighguards, vambraces and helmet, but can likely crack or deform lighter-armored areas and cause enough flesh trauma to at least slow the Space Marine down. A lucky and accurate gunner might put enough rounds into the leg-joints to cripple the Space Marine's running, or enough rounds into the head to start splintering the helmet, distort his vision, and maybe inflict some damage to the head. Might be able to kill him with luck, if he manages to slow the advance early and then keep up heavy and accurate fire; this is the weakest weapon powerful enough to warrant any tactical consideration by the Space Marines.
5. Heavy anti-materiel or sniper rifle; Maybe, maybe not, hard to say. Likely strong enough to punch through joints at any angle with enough power to seriously damage the bone and muscle, or crack the helmet with a solid hit. A shot that lands right on an eyepiece might punch through and partially blind the Space Marine. Still can't go through solid breastplate or thicker limb armor, though it might crack or deform them a little after a few solid hits. In the hands of a skilled user, could inflict significant injury on the Space Marine at relatively close range (a few hundred yards or less), and the risk of death is no longer trivial. Still, a single SM vs. a single sniper almost certainly wins out.
6. RPG/bazooka/recoil-less rifle/other infantry-carried AT weapon; The Space Marine in the situation above probably will win, but may well be injured, and the possibility of dying can't be discounted entirely. On a direct hit, probably powerful enough to do serious damage even to the thicker armor. A single headshot will kill a Space Marine most of the time, a single shot to the torso likely will leave him more or less injured and with impaired function but not yet incapacitated. Essentially a single-shot heavy bolter. If the gunner gets one good hit before the SM closes in, he might be staggered enough that the gunner can get off another shot and finish the job.
7. Indirect, anti-infantry artillery fire; Not a threat to Space Marines. Shells designed to explode over a wide area and incapacitate lightly-armored infantry will simply be shrugged off by power armor; only an actual direct hit by the shell might injure the Space Marine, and even then it likely wouldn't be incapacitating. As soon as he can pinpoint where the fire is coming from, the gunner is a dead man.
8. Laser or radar-guided AT artillery/missiles; Space Marine is probably fethed. These weapons are designed to annihilate things tougher and faster (though less agile) than he is; a direct hit will unfailingly blow him to pieces, and a near-miss will still be quite painful. Targeting systems will most often be able to hit at least close, even given the Space Marines superhuman reflexes and long experience in not being blown up; his chances of survival are basically identical with how fast he can get to some cover that confuses the targeting system even a little, because while he can't survive the missile he CAN survive a collapsing building, or a shockwave blowing through a heavily-wooded area. This is probably the weapon that's MOST likely to kill a single Space Marine, at least without leveling the entire surrounding area.
9. MBT main weapons; Depends entirely on accuracy, but I think I'll actually give this one to the Space Marine. A direct hit will blow right through the armor and kill him immediately, but a near-miss probably won't, and the main cannons of tanks are not designed to score direct hits against rapidly-evading infantry. The Space Marine (still considering both tank and Space Marine in isolation) may well be able to reach the tank and kill it with grenades or even his hands, as hilarious as that must sound to any military veterans here.
10. High-yield bombs/nuclear bombardment; Depends on the type of munition. Fuel-air bombs will NOT significantly injure a Space Marine, although the shockwave may well toss him around and/or do some damage to his armor. Conventional high explosives will usually not injure him seriously if he's further away than a few yards, though once again they might send him flying; if he's too close, he may well be hurled into a solid object hard enough to do damage. Tactical nukes will have a kill-radius of a few dozen yards or maybe less. A full-scale nuclear weapon will instantly kill any Space Marine within several hundred yards of ground zero, but beyond the zone where the heat of the explosion literally cooks/vaporizes them in their armor, the damage done will drop off rapidly due to the superhuman physiology of a Space Marine; overpressure, heat, and blunt trauma simply hurt them much, much less than they hurt humans.
For Terminator armor; ignore everything before number 6 and also ignore number 7 as simply incapable of penetrating. RPGs have a very, very slim chance to kill a Terminator with repeated hits in the same place, Anti-tank weapons might do it, but will be much less reliable than against power armor; basically, the only reliable way for a modern force to disable a Terminator would be with nukes, and even then you might just fuse the joints together and force the Space Marine to get out of the armor.
TBH high-end kinetic weapons would probably be better against Terminator Armour than a tactical nuke, considering they're designed to withstand extreme heat. Then there's the force field to take into account, and Emperor save you if the dude's got a Storm Shield!
Not saying that a 30/06 is a whole lot better now, in fact, bad example, the 5.56mm round, one from the 60s is much worse than it is today, my point is after 38000 years things will be incredibly improved
Andrew1975 wrote:I'm saying that the blue print for the M2 browning and most brownings were laid out in the early 1900s 1911-1919 to be exact depending on model. They have changed little since, including ammunition. 30/06 has not drastically changed since 1908 unless you are using special match grade or something is my point.
And for those thinking about the 7.62x54R used in Russian sniper rifles to this day... the Tzar was about to discontinue the round as obsolete in the 1890s. ;-)
Thing is, while gun manufacturers like inventing new calibers people like to stick with those that work well enough. Every new caliber is a solution is search of a problem, and we already have plenty of proven solutions on the market.
Most guns could, if you were very lucky with them.
Hell, aim for his eye-lenses with a rifle and you may get a bullet through into his brain.
"Hard to kill" doesn't mean "Invincible."
I dunno, I think people are giving Space Marines a bit too much credit... They're tough but they're not gods. Depending on what fluff you go with they're capable of wounds through the torso you can see through, or they die from a lucky shot in the soft armor of their joints. A large caliber rifle with a trained marksman, aiming at soft armor like the neck or eyes I feel would be sufficient.
AtariAssasin wrote:I dunno, I think people are giving Space Marines a bit too much credit... They're tough but they're not gods. Depending on what fluff you go with they're capable of wounds through the torso you can see through, or they die from a lucky shot in the soft armor of their joints. A large caliber rifle with a trained marksman, aiming at soft armor like the neck or eyes I feel would be sufficient.
I also think that people are giving them way too much. Their armor is strong, yes I'll conceed that point. But many of you are saying that weapons that can shoot through modern tanks, or go through four people at once would just bounce off/ stun one of these guys. Think about it, if they couldn't be killed by direct 50 cal shots, tank rounds, or a myriad of other lethal modern weapons; then what hope does any army have of defeating a space marine squad, let alone an entire company.
If a bolt pistol can explode the head of a helmated astartes, then a 40mm grenade can surely do the same.
And by the way, a rifle can only be improved so much before it reaches its maximum potential. Which I would argue we are close to today.
I am not sure about the maxing out rifles but maybe moving to new designs of guns and ammo. Originally it was thought snipers had reached their max range but Barret developed a round to have the same punch but at almost twice the distance accurately. I think it all depends on the creativity of the gun developers. But one thing is certain, we are much better at killing things then protecting them ie body armor etc.
The problems in killing a Marine are less the armour (bolters can penetrate and they aren't exactly heavy weapons and with multiple hits can penetrate or injure armour if the shots are tightly spaced and at close enough range.) in that the shot has to be definitely incapacitating or lethal. With their pain tolerance, organ redundancy, regenerative abilities and rapid clotting of wounds they're very hard to decisively injure by a good many weapons. Armour makes that harder as it (and the fused ribs and the black carapace) cover the vital organs. Add to that Space Marine speed and reactions (which makes it hard to draw a bead on them) and any available cover and they can be very hard to kill. On top of that, they often deploy in ways that protect them until they are close up with the enemy (Thunderhawk, drop pod, or Rhino) which can reduce the time the enemy has to engage them.
In theory any weapon can kill a marine if it hits in the right location and in the right way (pointy sticks, primitive weapons, etc. - it's all happened at least once - even the pointy stick even if it was a wooden spear.) but the difference is it relied on hitting a weak spot generaly in the head/neck region (which is about the only 'guaranteed kill' zone if you can hit it) and a good deal of luck. In most cases a Marine isn't going to just sit still and let the enemy pick them off. But it tells us that if you aim right you could probably kill them with any weapon (EG shooting for the neck) - its only a matter of number of shots/kind of gun and ammo. Volume of fire can of course do it too, but the armour/agility/redudancy makes that the less efficient road, especially if the Marine starts in close. (more likely is you incapacitate them by crippling the legs or something, although even then the Marine is going to crawl his way towards you if he's dead set on killing you.)
Let's see, the average trained man with a bayonetted assault rifle regardless of actual caliber...
Let's assume an assault rifle is like the Autogun.
The Autogun, according to *several* Forgeworld books and some Black Library fluff, is a very loose category for a wide range of weapons between 5.56 brass and heavy-caliber stubbers with HEAP rounds. And they are ultimately just equivalent to Lasguns stat-wise.
That means that a trained modern soldier has something equivalent to the chance of a guardsman to take down the Marine. So a roughly 5.5% chance per bullet salvo/bayonet stab of incapacitating a Space Marine. After the incapacitation, obviously, a kill is easy to confirm.
Where does 5.5% come from?
Let's assume there is a weapon that always kills every man and never misses. It has a 100% chance of killing a Marine.
A trained guardsman with a lasgun has a 50% chance of hitting per salvo, so ignoring fortitude and armor he has a 50% chance.
Now, a lasgun has a one in three chance of actually doing something worthwhile. That 50% chance is now 16.66%, or a 1/6 chance.
Now, the armor has a two thirds chance to stop it (that's your super-invulnerable ultra-OP tank armor of fanboy doom, people, a 66.66% chance of stopping the average bullet). The 1/6 chance becomes a 1/18 chance.
100/18=5.55555~, round to 5.5.
We know that small arms fire CAN and WILL wound and kill a Space Marine from various forms of fluff, and the actual games (which one? ALL OF THEM!), but this USUALLY requires very large numbers. Usually. We can find fluff examples in both directions, so let's try to assume that the fluff is meant to SOMEWHAT follow what we see in the various games. Seems more sane that way.
There you have it. No ultra-invulnerable mega-dega-super-duper-special armor that laughs at your puny rifles and lets the Marine pull his willy out and wave it at your silly mortar strikes.
Just keep shooting and you'll eventually hit something vital enough that the Marine drops and is unable to keep fighting. The kill is easy to do after that.
People really do overestimate marine armor. Guess it's to be expected, with how GW themselves seem to want to have their cake and eat it.
But when every game, the only movie, and a whole lot of fluff all show that small arms fire will suffice?
I have to assume that small arms fire will, in fact, suffice.
AtariAssasin wrote:I dunno, I think people are giving Space Marines a bit too much credit... They're tough but they're not gods. Depending on what fluff you go with they're capable of wounds through the torso you can see through, or they die from a lucky shot in the soft armor of their joints. A large caliber rifle with a trained marksman, aiming at soft armor like the neck or eyes I feel would be sufficient.
I also think that people are giving them way too much. Their armor is strong, yes I'll conceed that point. But many of you are saying that weapons that can shoot through modern tanks, or go through four people at once would just bounce off/ stun one of these guys. Think about it, if they couldn't be killed by direct 50 cal shots, tank rounds, or a myriad of other lethal modern weapons; then what hope does any army have of defeating a space marine squad, let alone an entire company.
If a bolt pistol can explode the head of a helmated astartes, then a 40mm grenade can surely do the same.
And by the way, a rifle can only be improved so much before it reaches its maximum potential. Which I would argue we are close to today.
Science fiction power armor goes a long way. Ceramite is pretty stout stuff. It's bad enough to deflect gauss weaponry at times.
And yet ork weapons, which are essentially just extreme-caliber versions of the guns of today, can and do kill Marines all the time.
Hell, even Grot blasters do it on occasion.
Basically, there's altogether too much overestimation in here.
IronSnake wrote:Of course. It's not invincible. That's already been covered.
Indeed, I'm just saying that some of the assumptions people are making in the thread are pretty impressive. Seems there's enough people saying "that's ridiculous" to balance it out, though.
When shooting down a space marine, there are only 2 effective ways to do it in my opinion. 1 way is just a hail of fire, even a space marine cannot weather hundreds to thousands of bullets, all the weak points will be hit, and he will be incapacitated and eventually killed. The other option is missile weapons. Missiles would be effective because you could fire multiples, the first one to stagger and injure, the second missile to kill. A missile will blow the marine to pieces, a direct hit with a predator will be lethal, it comes from above, destroying the armour and the body inside, shrapnel may be ineffective but shock and explosive damage will kill.
Hmmm very interesting. considering the training, the surgicly implanted implants and the armour with all is shenaingins, you better make the first shot a good one, because if you dont kill him out right your really just going to have a 8ft tall really pissed off tank trying to kill you. considering space marines can survive the void of space, the crushing depth of the ocean and the loss of half of their face, killing a marine would be harder than what one would expect
redkommando wrote:because if you dont kill him out right your really just going to have a 8ft tall really pissed off tank trying to kill you.
Maybe he'll be alright if he's only challenging GW's 7 feet tall Marines. I heard they aren't quite as invincible as the 8 or 9 feet types in some novels.
If the joints are flexible enough for a very strong human to move, then the joints will shift enough with a pressure wave of an explosion to hurt what's behind them. Soft spots will deform in a pressure wave and injure/kill the space marine.
If any part of the armor is described as "soft" by human standards, then a pressure wave will sufficiently deform it to reach the flesh regardless of its tensile strength.
I've got to say, I think 40k has always got to 'win' in these sort of discussions. Whether it's Space Marines V The US Marines, or The Imperium V The Federation.
Basically, the 40k universe will (almost) always win out, simply because, it is just that over the top.
The story, the background, the characters, the spaceships, the cities, the heroes and villains, they are just that far out there. And, to be honest, pretty much, that's why many people find it fun.
The only time I've ever really reached the same level of OTTness in a Sci Fi discussion is in a conversation about Dr Who and the Daleks...
purplefood wrote:All anti-tank weapons are gonna have a good chance.
This and those .50 cal sniper rifles. Grenade launchers to. If you get the chance to shoot of course...
Everything else is just going to bounce of it's shiny Ultramarine armor.
Not .50 cal. Bolters don't pierce marine armour, and they are .75 cal diamond tipped self propelled mass reactive warhead bearing shells.
Anyways, I can see AT weapons using their immense kinetic energy and eventually causing more damage than the suit can sustain, but I can't see it being on the first or even fifth hit, because it simply doesn't have the penetrating power.
Look at it this way: how thick is marine armour? Conservative guess: 2-3" or so, liberal, closer to 4", maybe half an inch more. From the description of a Land Raider's armour we can see that ceramite-adamantium alloy is equal to 3.8 times it's thickness in steel and much better where thermal energies are involved. 3.8x3"=11.4 inches of steel is the equivalent. That means 289.56mm of steel armour would offer the protection of PA.
For comparison, the Iosif Stalin line of Heavy Tanks made by the Russian has 30-160mm of armour.
The K-wagen Super Heavy Tank had 30mm of armour.
The Landkreuzer P. 1500, which was a monster design 42m longx18m widex7m height would have had 250mm of armour.
It would take extreme ordinance (aerial bombardment, naval fire support, anti-tank artillery etc.) to pierce 289.56mm of steel. There are bunkers less well protected. That's why in fluff accounts you generally only see marines die when a PW, plasma weapon, heavy ordinance or fellow marine hits them. Or when they are hit in the eye.
im2randomghgh wrote:
Anyways, I can see AT weapons using their immense kinetic energy and eventually causing more damage than the suit can sustain, but I can't see it being on the first or even fifth hit, because it simply doesn't have the penetrating power.
A RPG-7 (what those insurgents run around with) can penetrate a foot of steel.
Power armour strikes me as difficult to get a direct hit on though. Even if an anti-tank round hits it, it probably has a chance of deflecting off.
"Against most small arms, the armour reduces the chance of injury by between 50-85%, and it provides some form of protection against all except the most powerful weapons encountered on the battlefields of the 41st millennium." - Codex: Angels of Death
im2randomghgh wrote:Look at it this way: how thick is marine armour? Conservative guess: 2-3" or so, liberal, closer to 4", maybe half an inch more.
I'm sorry, what? 10 cm? They wouldn't even be able to move their limbs if that were the case. Yes, there actually is the issue of mobility to be kept in mind when designing armour. Unless you really think all Marines awkwardly strut about the battlefield like that B9 robot from the old Lost in Space series.
"Individual plates of armour can be up to an inch thick and have a special honeycomb design which helps to dissipate energy and localise any damage suffered by the suit." - Codex: Angels of Death
But ... eh, this is 40k, so your interpretation is just as correct and valid as anything printed in a studio book. I don't think it makes much sense in-universe, but that's just my personal opinion.
Just as Coa can, by definition of how the fluff of this franchise is organized, not be wrong by saying that in his interpretation, any .50 cal will punch through Marine armour.
The problem with bringing up the numbers for ceramite vs. steel, unfortunately, is that they're ludicrous.
We have already gone far, far beyond steel. Chobham armor, a modern reactive ceramic composite armor, is about twenty-five times as effective as a steel plate of equal weight against KEWs and HEAT rounds; or, in other words, almost seven times as effective as the armor of a Land Raider is described. An M1 Abrams tank has the equivalent of about 940mm of steel plating on the front of the turret.
If you take those numbers as accurate, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that EVERY weapon and vehicle in use in the 41st millenium, by every single race, is utterly outclassed by an Abrams. Hell, if you accept those numbers an Abrams would probably be literally unkillable; it would have something like AV21!
So there are two ways to interpret this; either 1) In the grim darkness of the far future, all weapons are Nerf guns and all armor is aluminum foil, or 2) GW knows nothing about materials science, and we can't take the numbers they give us for such things at face value.
BeRzErKeR wrote:The problem with bringing up the numbers for ceramite vs. steel, unfortunately, is that they're ludicrous.
We have already gone far, far beyond steel. Chobham armor, a modern reactive ceramic composite armor, is about twenty-five times as effective as a steel plate of equal weight against KEWs and HEAT rounds; or, in other words, almost seven times as effective as the armor of a Land Raider is described. An M1 Abrams tank has the equivalent of about 940mm of steel plating on the front of the turret.
If you take those numbers as accurate, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that EVERY weapon and vehicle in use in the 41st millenium, by every single race, is utterly outclassed by an Abrams. Hell, if you accept those numbers an Abrams would probably be literally unkillable; it would have something like AV21!
So there are two ways to interpret this; either 1) In the grim darkness of the far future, all weapons are Nerf guns and all armor is aluminum foil, or 2) GW knows nothing about materials science, and we can't take the numbers they give us for such things at face value.
At the same time though, land raider armour is specified as being more resistant to heat and energy based weapons, so abrams would likely crumple uselessly against lascannons, meltas and railguns.
Abrams is the equivalent of 940mm against HEAT and KEWs, but neither of those are present in 40k.
Although if they ever mount the iron curtain on Abrams they could end up being just about immune to krak rounds.
Wouldn't normally comment until I've read every single post in a thread... but I can't read this from what I've seen.
As was mentioned in another thread, against organic targets hard penetration isn't necessary: Anything that can stop a tank will have enough energy - transferred rapidly enough - to turn the SM's fleshy bits into jelly and soup, whether it penetrates the armour or not. You might be able to stop the projectile (or HEAT jet etc) but the concussive force keeps going through the medium into and through his insides; there simply isn't enough thickness or give distance in that armour to attenuate that force meaningfully.
Are folks seriously suggesting that SMs are so awesome! that they can survive being hit by MBT main guns?
BeRzErKeR wrote:In the grim darkness of the far future, all weapons are Nerf guns and all armor is aluminum foil, or 2) GW knows nothing about materials science, and we can't take the numbers they give us for such things at face value.
Number 2. Because number one is incorrect based on the fact that lasguns blow off arms, like high caliber anti-matter rifles.
tsz52 wrote:Are folks seriously suggesting that SMs are so awesome! that they can survive being hit by MBT main guns?
Not surprising, given how they are represented sometimes. Especially in licensed products, stuff like the recent Space Marine computer game.
(at the same time it is conveniently overlooked how quickly they die when seen from the other side and when the focus is on another race, such as in the Firewarrior game )
tsz52 wrote:Are folks seriously suggesting that SMs are so awesome! that they can survive being hit by MBT main guns?
Not surprising, given how they are represented sometimes. Especially in licensed products, stuff like the recent Space Marine computer game.
(at the same time it is conveniently overlooked how quickly they die when seen from the other side and when the focus is on another race, such as in the Firewarrior game )
Well in the Fire warrior game it is because they have no skill at all. They still take a fair amount of pulse rounds to kill (remembering that pulse rounds can destroy Leman Russ tanks from behind.)
At the same time though, land raider armour is specified as being more resistant to heat and energy based weapons, so abrams would likely crumple uselessly against lascannons, meltas and railguns.
Abrams is the equivalent of 940mm against HEAT and KEWs, but neither of those are present in 40k.
Although if they ever mount the iron curtain on Abrams they could end up being just about immune to krak rounds.
That isn't really true. Krak missiles appear to be HEAT munitions, and railguns work entirely by kinetic energy; they're the ultimate in KEWs. You might be able to convincingly handwave meltas and lascannons, but that still leaves what seems to be the majority of AT firepower in 50k unaccounted for.
So yeah, basically it has to be #2; but that also means that you can't use those numbers to SUPPORT anything, because they have to be wrong.
tsz52 wrote:Wouldn't normally comment until I've read every single post in a thread... but I can't read this from what I've seen.
As was mentioned in another thread, against organic targets hard penetration isn't necessary: Anything that can stop a tank will have enough energy - transferred rapidly enough - to turn the SM's fleshy bits into jelly and soup, whether it penetrates the armour or not. You might be able to stop the projectile (or HEAT jet etc) but the concussive force keeps going through the medium into and through his insides; there simply isn't enough thickness or give distance in that armour to attenuate that force meaningfully.
Are folks seriously suggesting that SMs are so awesome! that they can survive being hit by MBT main guns?
Seriously?
No. Or at least, I haven't. My stance is that small-arms and probably even heavier anti-infantry weapons like most SAWs would have a very, VERY difficult time hurting a Marine even if they hit him squarely. Heavier weapons such as very high-caliber rifles, tank weaponry, missiles, etc, all of those could and would do a number on a Space Marine if they nailed him; but, as someone pointed out earlier, if your enemy has to deploy anti-tank weapons to deal with infantry, that's a very, very bad situation for him to be in.
Combined with the fact that the Space Marines never engage without space superiority and thus can very nearly always choose their battles carefully with near-perfect information, the fact that most enemy infantry won't really be able to hurt them without making an incredibly lucky shot is enough to ensure that their losses are extremely low, and make them a viable fighting force.
im2randomghgh wrote:Well in the Fire warrior game it is because they have no skill at all. They still take a fair amount of pulse rounds to kill (remembering that pulse rounds can destroy Leman Russ tanks from behind.)
Pulse rounds seem to be fairly weak in that game in general, I did not expect them to take 8, 9 shots to kill a Storm Trooper. On the other hand, boltgun versus Marine looked like 3-4 shots. Guy on youtube seemed to be a lousy shot.
In any case, I do believe you missed the point of my post, which was about the issue of perception and tunnel vision - not some numbers pulled from a video game whose mechanics are focused on gameplay experience, balancing and making a single player feel good.
It should be common sense that anything whose narrative centers on seeing some hero character survive until the credits start rolling should not be taken at a straight face.
You'd still be free to form your interpretation of the setting around it, of course, but I would deem awareness that it is just one of many interpretations, and that it is not more correct than another poster's opinion, to be a rather important thing for such discussions.
im2randomghgh wrote:Well in the Fire warrior game it is because they have no skill at all. They still take a fair amount of pulse rounds to kill (remembering that pulse rounds can destroy Leman Russ tanks from behind.)
Pulse rounds seem to be fairly weak in that game in general, I did not expect them to take 8, 9 shots to kill a Storm Trooper. On the other hand, boltgun versus Marine looked like 3-4 shots. Guy on youtube seemed to be a lousy shot.
In any case, I do believe you missed the point of my post, which was about the issue of perception and tunnel vision - not some numbers pulled from a video game whose mechanics are focused on gameplay experience, balancing and making a single player feel good.
It should be common sense that anything whose narrative centers on seeing some hero character survive until the credits start rolling should not be taken at a straight face.
You'd still be free to form your interpretation of the setting around it, of course, but I would deem awareness that it is just one of many interpretations, and that it is not more correct than another poster's opinion, to be a rather important thing for such discussions.
No, I understood what you meant, I just posted what I posted for the sake of making every point, I'm a completionist
That isn't really true. Krak missiles appear to be HEAT munitions, and railguns work entirely by kinetic energy; they're the ultimate in KEWs.
I wasn't implying that they (Railguns) are energy based weapons, though I suppose the way I phrased that would lead one to believe I had been. I was saying that Railguns would make a mockery of an Abrams tank, with modern ones having force equivalent to a tomahawk missile while only being a small magnetized slug propelled to hyper-velocity. This force is concentrated on a smaller area than a tomahawk missile, meaning more penetration and more damage in this localized area. The disastrous effects of tau railguns are shown in this quote from Codex: Tau Empire pg. 14
One of their light walkers carried a weapon of lethal effect. It fired a form of ultra-high velocity projectile. I saw one of our tanks after having been hit by it. There was a small hole punched in either flank-one the entry point, one the exit. The tiny munition had passed through the whole vehicle with such speed that everything within the hull not welded down had passed through the vehicle with such speed that everything had been sucked out through the exit hole. Including the crew. We never identified their bodies, for all that remained of them was a red stain upon the ground, extending some twenty meters from the wreck.
BeRzErKeR [Your post had too many quotes from different folks for me to quote properly]:-
Railguns: Difficult to know without the velocity figure but past a certain point the projectile vapes when it hits: if it's an uber-railgun then it's effectively thermal in target effect - more plasma weapon (upon impact) than solid object going fast weapon. This is in regard to your debate about the armour properties of 40k vehicles re hard vs thermal effects.
Your reply to me: Some folks really are suggesting that if it doesn't penetrate the SM's armour he's fine (and using tank armour figures and such to prove that). I appreciate that you're not, sensible and knowledgeable chap that you are.
But if we're talking modern weapons vs SMs well most of the squadies I've conversed with who've fought in our contemporary wars have told me that nearly all of the actual killing is accomplished by air strikes, mortars and shoulder launched missiles, then a bit by artillery and the heavy and medium MGs, with everything less (with the exception of grenades, now and then) doing not much more than suppress (to allow those 'proper' weapons to work).
So you're not having to wheel these weapons out specially just to fight the dread SMs - a modern military fights pretty much that way already. There're a few bits of doctrine that you'd have to tweak (eg most small arms won't suppress SMs) but not much.
Space Superiority: Whomever's got that wins: End of. Imperial Navy wins.
But that invalidates just about every 40k warfighting premise... so should be used sparingly in such a debate as this.
Gah... I'm going to have to read the thread aren't I?
Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt a railgun utilize magnets to launch projectiles?
In real that is. One would think that the real and one in 40K are at least a bit similar.
Jollydevil wrote:Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt a railgun utilize magnets to launch projectiles?
In real that is. One would think that the real and one in 40K are at least a bit similar.
Yes, the magnets launch the slug to hypersonic speeds.
Railguns: Difficult to know without the velocity figure but past a certain point the projectile vapes when it hits: if it's an uber-railgun then it's effectively thermal in target effect - more plasma weapon (upon impact) than solid object going fast weapon. This is in regard to your debate about the armour properties of 40k vehicles re hard vs thermal effects.
The slug doesn't break down but does form a plasma tail. Here's a stillshot of a railgun being test-fired by the US navy:
Jollydevil wrote:Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt a railgun utilize magnets to launch projectiles?
In real that is. One would think that the real and one in 40K are at least a bit similar.
That's more a coilgun really. A railgun passes an electrical current from one rail through the projectile's base to the other rail. Railgun's a lot more simple (though erosion of the rails is a problem - there's a lot of waste heat - as are the forces acting on the rails which can push them out of proper alignment) and lighter, though a coilgun would yield higher performance.
It'd be slick if Tau get Coilguns in their next Codex!
If you're interested, there's plenty of good info on the net about these weapons [atomicrockets always a winner! for a nice place to start]. Railgun's worth checking out if you have any interest in contemporary US Naval affairs and emerging (problematic) tech.
EDIT: Im2randomghgh: Fast enough and the slug does break down on impact - that's why Whipple Shields are more useful against extremely high velocity impacts than slabs of armour are.
Jollydevil wrote:Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt a railgun utilize magnets to launch projectiles?
In real that is. One would think that the real and one in 40K are at least a bit similar.
That's more a coilgun really. A railgun passes a current from one rail through the projectile's base to the other rail. Railgun's a lot more simple (though erosion of the rails is a problem - there's a lot of waste heat - as are the forces acting on the rails which can push them out of proper alignment) and lighter, though a coilgun would yield higher performance.
It'd be slick if Tau get Coilguns in their next Codex!
If you're interested, there's plenty of good info on the net about these weapons [atomicrockets always a winner! for a nice place to start]. Railgun's worth checking out if you have any interest in contemporary US Naval affairs and emerging (problematic) tech.
EDIT: Im2randomghgh: Fast enough and the slug does break down on impact - that's why Whipple Shields are more useful against extremely high velocity impacts than slabs of armour are.
wow that's cool. Looks like I learned something new today!
Jollydevil wrote:Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt a railgun utilize magnets to launch projectiles? In real that is. One would think that the real and one in 40K are at least a bit similar.
That's more a coilgun really. A railgun passes an electrical current from one rail through the projectile's base to the other rail. Railgun's a lot more simple (though erosion of the rails is a problem - there's a lot of waste heat - as are the forces acting on the rails which can push them out of proper alignment) and lighter, though a coilgun would yield higher performance.
It'd be slick if Tau get Coilguns in their next Codex!
If you're interested, there's plenty of good info on the net about these weapons [atomicrockets always a winner! for a nice place to start]. Railgun's worth checking out if you have any interest in contemporary US Naval affairs and emerging (problematic) tech.
EDIT: Im2randomghgh: Fast enough and the slug does break down on impact - that's why Whipple Shields are more useful against extremely high velocity impacts than slabs of armour are.
Yeah, but whipple shields are useless against them. Whipple shield protects against 3-18 km/s, whereas railguns tested have achieved speeds of 20 km/s+
Also, "Utilize magnets to launch a projectile" describes coilguns and railguns in equal mesure. Railgun use two electromagnetic rails to fire a magnetically charged projectile down the length of the "barrel" (pair of rails). Coil gun uses a similar concept, but instead of the charge being lit all the way down the length of the "barrel" it is a series of "loops" that are electromagnetically charged as the projectile reaches them and shutting off as it passes them. Also, the tau are never getting coilguns ever. Do you know why? Because another name for coilgun is "gauss gun" and that is pretty thoroughly covered in 40k, even though GW seems to be unaware of what a gauss gun is.
Trust me, I know my stuff here, I had a several-dozen page arguement about what a railgun/coilgun/Mass accelerator is and what the differences are on dakka about 6 months ago and really don't want to get any further into it this time than I already have.
Cheers.
EDIT: Was thinking of something else for the speed. Anyways, they go SLOWER than the 3km/s at which the shield can help.
EDIT 2: TO clarify: I was talking about a non weaponized railgun that has been tested to launch objects at 20km/s, the weaponized ones are likely going to be 2-3.5km/s, which will, in time, likely be able to match the speeds of their orbital launcher brethren
I'm sure that I can kill a Space marine with a grill lighter and an aerosol can.
But for a true, non-trolling response, I think that any level of anti-tank could seriously injure a space marine, and possibly embed enough shrapnel into their body to rip them to pieces.
Im2randomghgh: Cheers for the edits [I actually went off and gave you time to do that specifically - I hoped you would]: I'm not one for calling folks on stuff when they've said they don't want to discuss it further but I was really going to have to ask for a source on that tested at 20 km/s+ thing.
You know your stuff, and I know mine, and I would quibble with some of your statements (railguns don't use magnetic projectiles but coilguns can, so coilguns are 'more magnetic' in nature and operation than railguns are), but won't out of respect for your wish to not discuss this. There's a bit of at cross purposes here re the real weapons vs the 40k ones too. Just a few things (and for anyone else who might be reading):-
1 Past a certain speed, physical objects do break down upon impact (why would they be immune to this?); they function gradually (as velocities increase) less as physical objects punching through the target and more as fast balls of plasma, explosives (KE dump so fast that it causes a supersonic shockwave), and get into proper relativistic speeds and the mass converts itself into nuke-yield energy. The projectile does not survive any of this whole.
This will cause problems when we weaponise space, where it may well be better to reduce velocity to achieve better penetration (to prevent the projectile from destroying itself as it hits with massive superficial damage, instead of holding together and going deeper). Hence my Whipple Shield point - 'past a certain velocity...'.
But we don't know what velocities Tau Railguns run at (?), so this might be academic but I wanted to just point that out to BeRsErKeR as a possibility (and it benefited your argument, by the way);
2 A Tau Coilgun would be a 40k Tau Coilgun, and would be referred to as such. It self-evidently isn't a 40k Gauss gun in any way, and nobody would call it one nor get them confused. That a tiny number of people in the world might call an actual Coilgun a Gauss gun needn't impact too greatly upon the Studio's creativity. I'd like to see Coilguns in the new 'dex since it adds further verisimilitude (show don't tell) to their pretty unique attribute of having evolving tech - and that's precisely how their tech would evolve. Plus score a few 'GW isn't totally clueless about weapons tech after all' points for whatever that would be worth to them..;
3 Always tricky when dealing with a 'I have stated my disagreement and now don't want to discuss this further' post, since every statement deserves a right to reply... errrm but I'm happy to leave it there if you want.... But if it isn't too much trouble would you mind dropping a link to that technical description thread of yours? I'd like to read it, and obviously you'll be safe from any response from me to anything therein given the threadomancy rules (plus my respect for your reason to not want to discuss this).
[EDIT: If it was in the Background bit of the forum then don't bother trying to find it since I'm working backwards through all those pages anyway - I'll get to it eventually.]
tsz52 wrote:
But if we're talking modern weapons vs SMs well most of the squadies I've conversed with who've fought in our contemporary wars have told me that nearly all of the actual killing is accomplished by air strikes, mortars and shoulder launched missiles, then a bit by artillery and the heavy and medium MGs, with everything less (with the exception of grenades, now and then) doing not much more than suppress (to allow those 'proper' weapons to work).
So you're not having to wheel these weapons out specially just to fight the dread SMs - a modern military fights pretty much that way already. There're a few bits of doctrine that you'd have to tweak (eg most small arms won't suppress SMs) but not much.
Space Superiority: Whomever's got that wins: End of. Imperial Navy wins.
But that invalidates just about every 40k warfighting premise... so should be used sparingly in such a debate as this.
Gah... I'm going to have to read the thread aren't I?
I think you're spot on with this, but I echo the previous poster who said "if you have to bring anti-tank to fight infantry, you're in trouble", because Astartes, pretty much by definition, would not be lining up and waiting for you to call in support weapons. Nor would they be suppressed by any fire a modern infantry squad could put out, so good luck pinning them down long enough to get your air support lined up.
I think we can safely ignore tabletop 40k in discussions like this. Lining up and charging across open fields - t's just WHFB in space. If you want to talk about "real" space marines, it's 7.5' tall bipedal light tanks deploying directly from orbit into your backyard, killing your governor/president/whatever, then being airlifted back out before anyone really knows what's going on. Or, if you're crewing an enemy spacecraft, and you enjoy the sensation of being alive, you had better arm yourselves with HEAT RPGs and train to fire them down hallways at rapidly advancing walls of armor firing .70 cal RPGs back at you, or else you and your whole bridge crew will be piles of goo.
For the purposes of this thread we can discuss all the various ways in which a .50 cal or a 120mm artillery shell would kill a marine, but if a space marine finds himself squaring off against an enemy who is ready and able to bring heavy weapons to bear across open ground, he's already screwed the pooch. If the Adeptus Astartes did exist, they would outgun, outlast, and outmaneuver a modern military force the same way NATO forces outfight the Taliban in Afghanistan. Space Marines, like any soldier from any time, would do everything within their power to avoid a "fair" fight and bring all their advantages to bear as ruthlessly as possible.
All armor still has soft spots for movement and they all still have dudes in them. The same basic weaknesses apply. Kinetic force from sufficiently large anti-tank rounds and explosive pressure waves close enough to the softer spots should be sufficient to damage the tissue inside the armor even without penetrating it.
Have you ever skinned your knee through your pants without tearing them? Think about that only much more upscaled and involving explosives.
Terminators would be a great deal more difficult to fell with small-arms fire, as that is precisely what they are designed to withstand, and there are sources where even light mortar fire won't bother them.
However, that does not mean they cannot be killed with such a weapon, however unlikely. As the point of the thread is "what can kill," not "What can kill effectively or reliably," that's all that matters.
Ooh, EMP, that's a good one. I'm sure the armor is hardened against EMP in general, since even contemporary military equipment is. Really concentrated, directed, or localized stuff (like the equivalent of a haywire grenade, if you could build one) would probably work though. Does anything like that actually exist? Don't cops have EMP-type traps they lay for fleeing suspects to kill the engines in their cars?
Maybe the same, with a higher 
to do with power. It has to do with accuracy and range. A shorter barrel will not prevent a bullet from reaching near-maximum velocity, but because it is not travellingas fast as it could be, the maximum range will be shorter. So many people (many of them play 
