So, obviously, bolters are rare. They're hard to produce, hazardous to use and generally impractical (high recoil, heavy, unnecassary power).
But then heavy bolters, which are even bigger, more powerful and even harder to produce are readily available to pretty much any tank in the Imperium. Literally, any vehicle except a Rhino. Why?

Why do most modern tanks have a heavy machine gun?

Protection against infantry and light vehicles.

They are far more practical when mounted on a vehicle as opposed to being wielded by a man.

TrollPie wrote:So, obviously, bolters are rare. They're hard to produce, hazardous to use and generally impractical (high recoil, heavy, unnecassary power).
But then heavy bolters, which are even bigger, more powerful and even harder to produce are readily available to pretty much any tank in the Imperium. Literally, any vehicle except a Rhino. Why?

Because they're not actually harder to produce, and nor are Bolters.

The Bolters used by the Astartes aren't "hard to produce", they're just generally produced by the Chapter proper. It gives the weapon a history, rather than a serial number. It's like the difference between an off the shelf rifle and a rifle custombuilt for the individual who will be using it.

I think the question was why a heavy bolter instead of a stubber or autocannon. I'll just make something up about how it fills a need for anti-heavy infantry firepower, if you had a mobile armored force, you'd kind of be stuck with just the flashlights from the troop carriers.

In reality though, I think it's just the rule of cool. Plus bolters are the signature Imperial weapon.

Heavy Bolters in the sponsons and the like are because they can fulfill both a light-anti vehicle or anti-infantry role, and by the standards of sponson weaponry it's fairly easy to transport the ammunition.

An autocannon would require larger cases of ammunition and have a slower rate of fire, and a heavy stubber just wouldn't have the firepower to cut it as a sponson weapon.

I think the TC's point is that one common justification for bolters not being more mainstream is that they're harder and/or more difficult to employ in terms of logistics. This is contradictory in a universe where lowly PDFs have heavy bolters mounted on so many of their vehicles and on stationary turrets and such.

Of course, that's putting mass-stamped bolt weapons in the same category as Astartes-issue ones, but I believe the point still stands.

I think the main reason bolt weaponry isn't used wholesale is because:

1) a bolter is a fair bit heavier than a lasrifle

2) the recoil is much harder to deal with

3) solid ammo is harder to transport over lasclips

now looking at this from an infantry perspective this is obvious however when you look at it from a vehicle viewpoint the first 2 are pretty much irrelevant and the 3rd point matters a whole lot less.

Ronin-Sage wrote:I think the TC's point is that one common justification for bolters not being more mainstream is that they're harder and/or more difficult to employ in terms of logistics. This is contradictory in a universe where lowly PDFs have heavy bolters mounted on so many of their vehicles and on stationary turrets and such.

Of course, that's putting mass-stamped bolt weapons in the same category as Astartes-issue ones, but I believe the point still stands.

Actually, the "common justification for bolters not being more mainstream" is that they require a large amount of logistics and they may not be the best thing to have floating around in huge numbers. The threat of the Astartes arriving is what keeps many Governors from going rogue, and if you have PDFs equipped with huge numbers of them that threat of the Astartes becomes neglible.

Guard fluff used to see veteran units every so often that used boltguns rather than Lasguns, but it was supposed to be a mark of distinction.

Some books also suggest that bolt weapons also employ more complicated mechanics and that they jam easily when not properly maintained - which is something that a common Guardsman apparently cannot do, especially when his unit has been engaged over several months of uninterrupted warfare. Compare this to Marines or Sororitas who simply drop down somewhere, kill some stuff and then return to their base to have an army of skilled servants swarm over their valuable gear.

Ugly Green Trog wrote:3) solid ammo is harder to transport over lasclips

Not to mention that solid ammo requires a steady supply chain. With las weapon power packs, all you need is a portable generator with a charger terminal. Or, hell, a camp fire, if you're in a tight spot.

Ronin-Sage wrote:I think the TC's point is that one common justification for bolters not being more mainstream is that they're harder and/or more difficult to employ in terms of logistics.

... in comparison to lasguns, yes.

TrollPie wrote:So, obviously, bolters are rare.

In comparison to Lasgun, yes.

They're hard to produce, hazardous to use and generally impractical (high recoil, heavy, unnecassary power).

Not that much hard to produce or wield. But they are used by Space Marines and Sisters of Battle. And since their numbers are not so great bolters are rare in comparison to Autoguns and Lasguns.

But then heavy bolters, which are even bigger, more powerful and even harder to produce are readily available to pretty much any tank in the Imperium. Literally, any vehicle except a Rhino. Why?

Because it's much simpler to mount it on the vehicle, hence today 7.92 and .50 call machine guns are rare among infantry and they are on almost every vehicle. And Heavy Bolters mounted on Leman Russ are not the same like those yielded by Astartes. Like SOB and Marine bolter is not the same.

Brother Coa wrote:And Heavy Bolters mounted on Leman Russ are not the same like those yielded by Astartes. Like SOB and Marine bolter is not the same.

Only insofar as Astartes weaponry tends to sport additional armour to increase resistance against combat stress, of course. There's no difference in ammunition, though actual performance may vary from pattern to pattern, as well as any additional features (such as palm sensors on the grip identifying authorized/unauthorized users, or an internal auto-repair mechanism).

Lynata wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:And Heavy Bolters mounted on Leman Russ are not the same like those yielded by Astartes. Like SOB and Marine bolter is not the same.

Only insofar as Astartes weaponry tends to sport additional armour to increase resistance against combat stress, of course. There's no difference in ammunition, though actual performance may vary from pattern to pattern, as well as any additional features (such as palm sensors on the grip identifying authorized/unauthorized users, or an internal auto-repair mechanism).

I thought we discussed in Melisia's thread "Recoil of a Boltgun" that Sisters and Marines use same ammo but different types of bolter?
Because no Human alive can fire Astartes bolter without shattering arm or something...

This question is a little bit like asking "why are iPads expensive and rare" when a desktop with more power is cheaper?

Not all tech gets tougher as scale goes up. Heavy bolters might simply work more consistently than boltguns.

As stated, there are a lot of reasons bolters are rare, from higher unit cost, to difficulties firing them, to supply chain issues, to prestige.

There is historical basis for this, too. The german army of WWII used old bolt action rifels, not because they couldn't build semi-automatics like the Garand, but because they felt the squad's firepower can primarily from the machine guns, and the riflemen were mostly support.

Brother Coa: The standard-issue Astartes boltgun is the Godwyn pattern. Sororitas use a modified version called the Godwyn-Deaz pattern, which is typically longer and more rifle-like than the Godwyn pattern, based on the models and etc.

Astartes boltguns don't have the recoil-reducing features that boltguns made for unaugmented humans have, so it's quite risky for a human to fire them-- without augmentation at least. A bionic arm would be enough, as would power armor, or combat drugs.

As for ammunition, all standard boltguns use .75 caliber, but not all ammunition of the same caliber is the same. Magnum .45 rounds compared to normal .45 for example. Marine rounds are likely magnum compared to guard rounds.

Brother Coa wrote:I thought we discussed in Melisia's thread "Recoil of a Boltgun" that Sisters and Marines use same ammo but different types of bolter?

No worries, the clarification was just to prevent a flawed interpretation of your statement.

(though I have read that at least one pattern of boltgun - the Mars Gamma - was actually issued to both the Astartes and Sororitas, if only on a trial-basis)

Brother Coa wrote:Because no Human alive can fire Astartes bolter without shattering arm or something...

I have yet to see any studio material actually stating or even suggesting this. I know some licensed material claims it, but we also have licensed material stating the opposite, so ... I'll just go with common sense and how it looks like in the GW books.

When there are some human Guardsmen that can operate a heavy bolter solo and unbraced out of the stand, I just don't see why they should have a problem with a Marine gun that is both smaller and lighter and fires a smaller caliber that also does less damage. Just doesn't add up in my mind. From how GW described bolt weapons, the problem with them isn't any supposed recoil, it's their general weight and unwieldiness.

Lynata wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:I thought we discussed in Melisia's thread "Recoil of a Boltgun" that Sisters and Marines use same ammo but different types of bolter?

No worries, the clarification was just to prevent a flawed interpretation of your statement.

(though I have read that at least one pattern of boltgun - the Mars Gamma - was actually issued to both the Astartes and Sororitas, if only on a trial-basis)

Brother Coa wrote:Because no Human alive can fire Astartes bolter without shattering arm or something...

I have yet to see any studio material actually stating or even suggesting this. I know some licensed material claims it, but we also have licensed material stating the opposite, so ... I'll just go with common sense and how it looks like in the GW books.

When there are some human Guardsmen that can operate a heavy bolter solo and unbraced out of the stand, I just don't see why they should have a problem with a Marine gun that is both smaller and lighter and fires a smaller caliber that also does less damage. Just doesn't add up in my mind. From how GW described bolt weapons, the problem with them isn't any supposed recoil, it's their general weight and unwieldiness.

Those are not astartes Heavy Bolters they are fitted with the recoil dampening gear that the astartes don't need. A gaurdsman couldn't pick up a marines boltgun and fire it without breaking an arm.

Nicholas wrote:Those are not astartes Heavy Bolters they are fitted with the recoil dampening gear that the astartes don't need. A gaurdsman couldn't pick up a marines boltgun and fire it without breaking an arm.

You don't know that, though. As far as I'm aware (and please do correct me if you know of actual GW books dealing with this), the whole argument is based on the supposition that Astartes guns absolutely have to have a bigger kick and potentially even do more damage (the latter is actually clearly contradicted by Codex material), else they are apparently "less awesome". It's the same with lots of people claiming Marines are 8 or 9 feet high when GW says that the average is 7. Part of a very resilient mythos, I reckon.

There is no studio material suggesting such difference between Astartes and non-Astartes weapons. I know that FFG's RPG claims there is, but I guess this is because Abnett wrote a lot for it, and in his novels, Marines are also way above the size given by GW. For the record and just to name one of the licensed sources suggesting the opposite, the Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer states that normal humans are completely fine using such weapons - they're just better off with single shots, as the book says you shouldn't use the automatic mode unless you are a Marine or employ enhancements (bionics, power armour). I find that far more believable and fitting to GW's studio material.

Though I have to admit that I wouldn't categorically exclude the possibility of differences in recoil compensation, mind you. Just saying that I'm not yet convinced due to the lack of hints or evidence. I also vaguely recall (long time ago) a Codex including a short story about an Apothecary recruiting new neophytes from a feral world, and they had the youngsters shoot their bolters to see who makes it through without injuries as part of the trial.

Also, there's GW's own Inquisitor RPG, where Marines and normal humans actually do use the exact same patterns of bolt weapons.

PS: I also don't think the average Guardsman could fire a heavy bolter without support, but clearly there is at least one character in the canon who can - I'm merely suggesting that in this aspect the "gap" isn't near as big as some people suggest. Same issue as with the height, basically.

I agree the difference isn't that great as one shot shattering an arm, but I could see a human arm shattering trying to rapid fire an astartes boltgun. Which is why we see Commissars using bolt pistols. Heavy bolters are normally manned by two people or mounted on tanks so the difference between a marine one and a gaurd one would be minimal.

Lynata wrote:

Nicholas wrote:Those are not astartes Heavy Bolters they are fitted with the recoil dampening gear that the astartes don't need. A gaurdsman couldn't pick up a marines boltgun and fire it without breaking an arm.

You don't know that, though. As far as I'm aware (and please do correct me if you know of actual GW books dealing with this), the whole argument is based on the supposition that Astartes guns absolutely have to have a bigger kick and potentially even do more damage (the latter is actually clearly contradicted by Codex material), else they are apparently "less awesome". It's the same with lots of people claiming Marines are 8 or 9 feet high when GW says that the average is 7. Part of a very resilient mythos, I reckon.

There is no studio material suggesting such difference between Astartes and non-Astartes weapons. I know that FFG's RPG claims there is, but I guess this is because Abnett wrote a lot for it, and in his novels, Marines are also way above the size given by GW. For the record and just to name one of the licensed sources suggesting the opposite, the Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer states that normal humans are completely fine using such weapons - they're just better off with single shots, as the book says you shouldn't use the automatic mode unless you are a Marine or employ enhancements (bionics, power armour). I find that far more believable and fitting to GW's studio material.

Though I have to admit that I wouldn't categorically exclude the possibility of differences in recoil compensation, mind you. Just saying that I'm not yet convinced due to the lack of hints or evidence. I also vaguely recall (long time ago) a Codex including a short story about an Apothecary recruiting new neophytes from a feral world, and they had the youngsters shoot their bolters to see who makes it through without injuries as part of the trial.

Also, there's GW's own Inquisitor RPG, where Marines and normal humans actually do use the exact same patterns of bolt weapons.

PS: I also don't think the average Guardsman could fire a heavy bolter without support, but clearly there is at least one character in the canon who can - I'm merely suggesting that in this aspect the "gap" isn't near as big as some people suggest. Same issue as with the height, basically.

That was exactly what I meant, I only shortened the story. Ordinary Human can't use Astartes boltgun of full auto. As for semi auto it's the same as firing grenade launcher, slow but deadly.

Nicholas wrote:I agree the difference isn't that great as one shot shattering an arm, but I could see a human arm shattering trying to rapid fire an astartes boltgun. Which is why we see Commissars using bolt pistols.

The pistols and the boltguns use the same ammunition, though. Provided that the internal mechanisms work the same (apart from the added automatic fire mode), there would be no change in recoil either.

That said, I can very much agree with your assessment, though I would extend it to all automatic bolt weapons in general, given that GW's own RPG makes no distinction between the two types in that regard. However, whilst there is no actual studio evidence to supports this, I "feel" that a moderately strong recoil is warranted by sheer style - whilst it can still be compensated by various augmentations (bionics, power armour) or mutations (Ogryn).
In short, I like how the IIUM sums it up, but the relative lack of studio material on the subject will mean that there remain a lot of personal interpretations concerning the details. Amongst the players just as much as amongst the authors who are writing the licensed material.

Brother Coa: Gotcha.

The fact of the matter remains, boltguns are used regularly by ordinary, unaugmented humans, but their use is not widespread. Guard officers, Adeptus Arbites, and few others who aren't in power armor have access to them. This probably has less to do with recoil or ease of use, and more to do with maintenance and logistics, and probably manufacture as well. Not that bolters are especially hard, or that maintenance is impossibly difficult, but when you're equipping men on the scale of the IG and the PDFs, you need to think simple, rugged, and cheap, and you need to minimize the amount of ammo you have to move. This only becomes more entrenched once their limited manufacture and issue makes bolters and bolt pistols status symbols and badges of office.

All those are less of a concern for heavy bolters on tanks, where you've already got more substantial supply lines just to keep the vehicles fueled, much less armed. You're mounting your heavy bolter on a big vehicle that already requires considerable maintenance, even as rugged as the Imperium builds them. The fact that heavy bolters are so prevalent among armored vehicles actually eases logistical concerns through commonality. The biggest concern is really designing the vehicle to have adequate firepower within the limited space available. The heavy bolter definitely wins out over the heavy stubber, the autocannon, the multilaser, and so on.

The best explanation I've heard is that bolter ammo requires more miniaturization than its heavy variant. Just like in real life miniaturization is more difficult and expensive.

I have to agree on the logistics issue.

Lasgun, incredibly easy to manufacture, maintain, easily replaced, no recoil and more importantly the ammo consisted of a couple of large batteries. Bolter ammo would be huge and heavy, so where a guardsman can carry 3-4 lasgun cells he may only be able to carry 1-2 bolter clips.

On the argument of 'marines/sobs/guard use different types of bolters, but the codexes/RPG books say they all use the same' I think this isn't so much a background reflection, they just have the same stats for all bolt weapon types so you don't have to remember 3 weapon stats all called 'bolter', it's a simplification for sake of streamlining the rules and doesn't have much bearing on weather a SoB carries a godwyn or godwyn-reaz pattern bolter.

Leigen_Zero wrote:On the argument of 'marines/sobs/guard use different types of bolters, but the codexes/RPG books say they all use the same' I think this isn't so much a background reflection, they just have the same stats for all bolt weapon types so you don't have to remember 3 weapon stats all called 'bolter', it's a simplification for sake of streamlining the rules and doesn't have much bearing on weather a SoB carries a godwyn or godwyn-reaz pattern bolter.

Nah, it's not just the stats - some Codices' fluff sections specifically point it out that they are on the same level. It's just that not all outsourced licensed material or fans take this into consideration when making comparisons. Basically, I'm just trying to fight a perceived trend to make Marines appear even more superior than they already are by default (also see the Marine height thread to see how opinions deviate from actual GW statements), in doing so playing down other armies beyond the gap dictated by studio material.

As for bolter ammo, I don't think it would be that heavy - the ammunition doesn't look very big (judging by official pictures, a bolt round is ~2x5cm) - but the weapon itself looks like it'd weigh a dozen kilos at least, which is much more than any modern assault rifle does. And of course it all adds up, considering that a Guardsman would still have to carry other gear as well...
I also imagine Guardsmen marching a lot more than the more mobile Marines/Sisters, so heavy weight would seriously hamper their efficiency and slowly steal away their strength!

Lynata wrote:
As for bolter ammo, I don't think it would be that heavy - the ammunition doesn't look very big (judging by official pictures, a bolt round is ~2x5cm) - but the weapon itself looks like it'd weigh a dozen kilos at least, which is much more than any modern assault rifle does. And of course it all adds up, considering that a Guardsman would still have to carry other gear as well...
I also imagine Guardsmen marching a lot more than the more mobile Marines/Sisters, so heavy weight would seriously hamper their efficiency and slowly steal away their strength!

But that's ~2x5cm, in clips of 6-12 (IIRC), and you need enough for a battle.

Lasgun power cells are about 1/2 the size of a bolter clip and contain many many more shots (~40 IIRC) and are just as effective in a typical situation for your average guardsman (i.e. they both take down termagaunts/ork boyz just as well)

Techmarines and their STC's!

Heavy bolters are a heavy weapon so it's not entirely an impractical thing for infantry.

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:The fact of the matter remains, boltguns are used regularly by ordinary, unaugmented humans, but their use is not widespread.

... but not the Godwyn pattern. Hell, I doubt a normal human's hands could even comfortably fit around its grip. Keep in mind that there's hundreds if not thousands of patterns of boltguns across the Imperium.

Any source you cite is going to be labeled as non-canon by Lynata, because the codices don't give a damn about this subject, nor do the rulebooks.

Leigen_Zero wrote:On the argument of 'marines/sobs/guard use different types of bolters, but the codexes/RPG books say they all use the same' I think this isn't so much a background reflection, they just have the same stats for all bolt weapon types so you don't have to remember 3 weapon stats all called 'bolter', it's a simplification for sake of streamlining the rules and doesn't have much bearing on weather a SoB carries a godwyn or godwyn-reaz pattern bolter.

Correct. And in the end, the differences are just not enough to bother changing the stats anyway. Hell, Astartes power armor often increases their effective strength by about twenty percent given the various sources that actually talk about the subject (IE ones that Lynata ignotes), and yet an Astartes OUTSIDE of power armor has the same d6 strength value as one inside. The d6 stats are very vague and nebulous things.



As an off topic note:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leigen_Zero wrote:Lasgun power cells are about 1/2 the size of a bolter clip and contain many many more shots (~40 IIRC)

60 is the usual standard.

Leigen_Zero wrote:But that's ~2x5cm, in clips of 6-12 (IIRC), and you need enough for a battle.
Lasgun power cells are about 1/2 the size of a bolter clip and contain many many more shots (~40 IIRC) and are just as effective in a typical situation for your average guardsman (i.e. they both take down termagaunts/ork boyz just as well)

Well, yes, it'd be heavier than lasgun ammo, but not heavy enough to be limited to a single magazine or two.
Overall, yes, of course you'll get way more shots ouf of the same weight in chargepacks than bolter magazines. Like, hundreds of shots more.

Apologies if my statement suggested differently, it was just that you made it sound as if a bolter magazine would weigh several kilos.

For a Guardsman, a bolter would be an extremely situational weapon. It's awesome for the kind of short duration engagement that Marines and Sisters specialize in, but maintenance, logistics and weight simply turn it into a "tactically unwise choice" when you have to lug it around for weeks or months during a prolonged campaign (which the IG often gets stuck in). Apart from also being more expensive in production, I suppose, requiring more manpower, more delicate tools and finer material...

Melissia wrote:

Spoiler:

Also Lynata, you keep claiming the solo pattern boltgun is superior... but no. It's actually considered generally inferior in the lore; essentially a heretek took a bolter shell and built a weapon around trying to fire that with as little mechanics as possible, keeping everything as simple as possible and essentially creating a bolt-action bolter, which can only ever be fired in single fire, and has 1/3rd of the ammunition capacity-- and it's also heavier than the standard boltgun, as it weighs the same with a full magazine despite having less ammunition.

TrollPie wrote:So, obviously, bolters are rare. They're hard to produce, hazardous to use and generally impractical (high recoil, heavy, unnecassary power).
But then heavy bolters, which are even bigger, more powerful and even harder to produce are readily available to pretty much any tank in the Imperium. Literally, any vehicle except a Rhino. Why?

Bolters are not rare. They're just harder to make, harder to supply ammo for and harder to maintain than a Lasgun; hence why they are comparatively uncommon.

But you will find that Bolters are issued to specialists that can be trusted with them.

because they are BFGs (Big Fething Guns) the imperium is obsessed with disproportionately large weapons.

I remember reading that heay bolters were actually simpler to manufacture and maintain than the standard ones. It's like the difference between building a powerful gaming pc and trying to stuff the same amount of electronic power into a laptop or a handheld.

I think the most logical reply to the OP is simply logistics.

Bolters are not denied to guardsmen because they are hard to produce, they are denied because they require maintenance and ammuniton, where lasguns barely do. As any device with lots of moving parts, boltguns often jam etc, which means extra training and time for each guard to learn to clean his weapon and unjam it in case of an emergency. This is much like modern armies, and it takes quite a bit of time. Even more importantly bolt ammunition is expensive and heavy.

Vehicles don't have that problem, they already have to be routenely maintained by specialists, and they can carry lots of ammo. Boltgun technology is ideal for ant personnel use, so they use heavy boltguns.

There is nothing mystical or special about boltguns, or about guardsmen not having them. It's just cheaper to skip the training and resources required to equip people with them, when the lasgun can kill most things almost as effectively AND charge in the sun. Hell, I say the lasguns are actually superior weapons in long engagements, which IG typically finds themselves on. Denying your enemy ammunition and supply is asymmetric warfare 101 after all. If the enemy has practically infinite ammunition for their line troops, it makes a huge difference.

the color purple wrote:I remember reading that heay bolters were actually simpler to manufacture and maintain than the standard ones. It's like the difference between building a powerful gaming pc and trying to stuff the same amount of electronic power into a laptop or a handheld.

more aproprietly it would be impossible to make a handeld minigun of the same power, so the bigger it is, the easier it is to build

Handheld minigun is mostly impossible due to recoil, you'd just break yourself.

You'd have to make it like a .22 cal, not only to reduce the recoil to manageable levels, but to be able to carry an ammunition payload large enough to make use of the weapon's rate of fire.

The Calico M950, though not multi-barreled, has an interesting magazine build that might permit such a thing to exist. These same weapons become absolutely hell-on-wheels when certain, uh, aftermarket modifications are done.

I think the top-load P90 system could also be adapted, although it would probably need a talented gun design crew to manage it.

SSsilverskullSS wrote:

the color purple wrote:I remember reading that heay bolters were actually simpler to manufacture and maintain than the standard ones. It's like the difference between building a powerful gaming pc and trying to stuff the same amount of electronic power into a laptop or a handheld.

more aproprietly it would be impossible to make a handeld minigun of the same power, so the bigger it is, the easier it is to build

If you want a minigun use an assault cannon.

Leigen_Zero wrote:As for bolter ammo, I don't think it would be that heavy - the ammunition doesn't look very big (judging by official pictures, a bolt round is ~2x5cm) - but the weapon itself looks like it'd weigh a dozen kilos at least, which is much more than any modern assault rifle does. And of course it all adds up, considering that a Guardsman would still have to carry other gear as well...
I also imagine Guardsmen marching a lot more than the more mobile Marines/Sisters, so heavy weight would seriously hamper their efficiency and slowly steal away their strength!

Have you been in the military? A full combat load of 5.56 rounds (for an M4 / M16) is heavy. (This is in addition to all of your other gear, to include water which is heavy too) That is .223 caliber or 1/4" (roughly) diameter. Boltgun ammo is .75 caliber, meaning the rounds are 3/4" in diameter. This is a HUGE bullet. It is literally 3 times the width of today's bullet (twice the size if you're former Warsaw Pact and like to run around with AK74s and what not). And, with the way characters fire willy nilly in the fluff, EVERYONE would be out of ammo in the first 12 seconds of combat.

A heavy bolter is 1.00 caliber or 1" in diameter. To put things in perspective, todays machine guns are 7.62 (roughly 30 caliber) and the ma deuce at .50 cal. Have you ever held a .50 caliber round? It is big, fat, and thick. Now, imagine carrying 400 of those. This is why they are belt fed and mounted on vehicles.

Now, back to the original topic, bolters are not issued as common weapons because the logistics of carrying and supplying that kind of ammunition would be unfeasible. Standard combat load is around 400 rounds (in today's terms). Now, triple it in size and multiply by the kabillions of PDF and IG around the universe. It is much simpler to give them recyclable las clips.

Lastly, firing a .75 caliber round would NOT break your arm.... ever. The physics required to generate the necessary kickback from a round of that size would require the bullet to be travelling at extremely high speeds. But, while it would not break your arm, this would be a wild weapon to control on full automatic. (However, this may be controllable as well. Please look at the AA-12 of today. A fully automatic 12 gauge shotgun with zero recoil. If we can do it today, I am sure it is possible in the far flung future of aliens and space travel).

Green is Best! wrote:Have you been in the military?

I have, and my G36 fired the same rounds as your M4/M16 so I know the weight of its ammunition first-hand.
Perhaps "it's not heavy" was a poor choice of words, but the idea that a Guardsman would be overwhelmed by the weight of just "one or two magazines" is still somewhat ridiculous (I doubt it'll be heavier than an entire box of M60 or M249 ammo). Keep in mind that a Commissar's bolt pistol uses identical ammunition, and boltguns are (afaik) still an IG wargear upgrade.

Green is Best! wrote:It is big, fat, and thick. Now, imagine carrying 400 of those. This is why they are belt fed and mounted on vehicles.

Whilst I agree on the general principle on heavy bolters generally being too heavy for people, there's still exceptional individuals like the Last Chancers character Bull who are able to lug one around. In this instance, 40k simply trumps realism, I guess. And in the end, a heavy weapons team still is just two people carrying everything - if two shmocks are supposed to carry a heavy bolter, a tripod and 400 rounds of ammunition then I can believe an obscenely muscular hero carrying just the heavy bolter, no tripod and, say, 100 or 200 rounds of ammunition on his own. Rule of cool.

I pretty much agree with your comment regarding the AA-12, though. For what it's worth, the Soviet Union already used .90 caliber guns (->KS-23), and I doubt those were as advanced.

Lynata wrote: but the idea that a Guardsman would be overwhelmed by the weight of just "one or two magazines" is still somewhat ridiculous (I doubt it'll be heavier than an entire box of M60 or M249 ammo). Keep in mind that a Commissar's bolt pistol uses identical ammunition, and boltguns are (afaik) still an IG wargear upgrade.

Yes, but who would go into combat with only two magazines? One in your rifle. At least six more on your person. Then toss in water, armor, any other equipment, and it all adds up.

Plus, how big would these magazines have to be? They are basically holding 12 gauge shotgun shells. They would be huge and still only hold like 10 rounds.

And, as far as the heavy bolter is concerned, I once carried an entire .50 cal (barrel removed and strapped to my ruck) with the tripod on a gun sling. I carried this on a 12 mile road march. This was to prove a point (and to win a bet). No ammo. Not much else but an MRE and a poncho liner (iirc). It completely kicked my butt (and I am a 6'3" 260 lb - not fat... then - guy). Ammunition would have been impossible. A heavy bolter would be twice the barrel size of a .50 cal. So, definitely some creative license going on here with the ICs in the fiction.

Night's Blood wrote:Why do most modern tanks have a heavy machine gun?

Protection against infantry and light vehicles.

Gotta love that .50 cal!!!

Magtherion_Soulsaver wrote:

Night's Blood wrote:Why do most modern tanks have a heavy machine gun?

Protection against infantry and light vehicles.

Gotta love that .50 cal!!!

M2 for the win. When I was in Korea, we had 4 HMMWVs. Two with .50 cals and two with MK-19 automatic grenade launchers. To this day, I am still not sure which one I like better.

Green is Best! wrote:

Magtherion_Soulsaver wrote:

Night's Blood wrote:Why do most modern tanks have a heavy machine gun?

Protection against infantry and light vehicles.

Gotta love that .50 cal!!!

M2 for the win. When I was in Korea, we had 4 HMMWVs. Two with .50 cals and two with MK-19 automatic grenade launchers. To this day, I am still not sure which one I like better.

M2's on MRAPS for me, and I agree, the only bad thing is the MK19 isn't as "people friendly"

Going back to the OP... I think a different way to think of it is that given the ubiquity of heavy bolters in the Imperial Guard and how many Imperial Guard are in the galaxy it would be fair to say there are more heavy bolters in the galaxy than standard bolters. Their are a million Space Marines... lets say for everyone of them they have 3 bolters (lots of spares)... thats 3 million bolters... SoB their are maybe 300,000 of them and assuming a similar volume of spares... we're still looking at only 4 million bolters. That is in contrast to the Imperial Guard, where underestimating a single company has 10 heavy bolters... meaning you only need 400,000 companies of guardsmen across the galaxy to have more heavy bolters than bolters... and that doesn't count the heavy bolters the SoB or Astartes have in their armories. Given the 71% of Cadia's population of 850,000,000 is Imperial Guard you have enough guardsmen for ~2,000,000 three hundred man companies and that doesn't even consider armored companies.

Green is Best! wrote:
Have you been in the military? A full combat load of 5.56 rounds (for an M4 / M16) is heavy. (This is in addition to all of your other gear, to include water which is heavy too) That is .223 caliber or 1/4" (roughly) diameter. Boltgun ammo is .75 caliber, meaning the rounds are 3/4" in diameter. This is a HUGE bullet. It is literally 3 times the width of today's bullet (twice the size if you're former Warsaw Pact and like to run around with AK74s and what not). And, with the way characters fire willy nilly in the fluff, EVERYONE would be out of ammo in the first 12 seconds of combat.

Well its only a little larger than a 12ga shotgun slug. While bolters are depicted as fully automatic there really isn't a statement to their rate of fire... for example a M16 has a rate of fire of between 700-900 rounds per minute while an AA12 sutomatic shotgun has a rate of fire of ~300 rounds per minute, for the sake of controlability. It's just a necessary detail to really grasp the repercussions. Also while loaded bolters are heavy they wouldn't be that bad for a genetically enhanced power armored super human. What's normally regarded as the weight for a squad support weapon is easily the weight of a Space Marine's bolter... and even then they can comfortably carry 300+ lbs. If bolter shells weigh double that of a shotgun slug... you're looking at ~.175 lbs ... or about 300 rounds at 60lbs. Additionally Marines wear fully environementally sealed armor and can survive without food or water for some time... so there are alot of things they don't have to carry.

Perhaps they should adopt a side fed magazine/belt?

Green is Best! wrote:Yes, but who would go into combat with only two magazines? One in your rifle. At least six more on your person. Then toss in water, armor, any other equipment, and it all adds up.

Absolutely. I was just reacting to another poster claiming one or two magazines would already be too much. For the record, I *did* agree on lasgun magazines giving you much more shots for their weight. "Hundreds more", to quote myself.

Green is Best! wrote:Plus, how big would these magazines have to be? They are basically holding 12 gauge shotgun shells. They would be huge and still only hold like 10 rounds.

That's a good question, but I think the artworks are actually pretty much spot on. I've got an older storm bolter cross section that shows they are actually stacked in a zig-zagging manner instead of shell-to-shell, so whilst the magazine would end up pretty wide (which fits to the weapon, though!), you would probably be able to get to the number of rounds mentioned in the studio material (15 in straight, 20 in sickle, 30 in belt, 40 in drum). It's semi-realistic enough for me, anyways.

Lynata wrote:

Green is Best! wrote:Plus, how big would these magazines have to be? They are basically holding 12 gauge shotgun shells. They would be huge and still only hold like 10 rounds.

That's a good question, but I think the artworks are actually pretty much spot on. I've got an older storm bolter cross section that shows they are actually stacked in a zig-zagging manner instead of shell-to-shell, so whilst the magazine would end up pretty wide (which fits to the weapon, though!), you would probably be able to get to the number of rounds mentioned in the studio material (15 in straight, 20 in sickle, 30 in belt, 40 in drum). It's semi-realistic enough for me, anyways.

A single stack saiga12 10 round magazine... is about 9.75" long... if it were double stacked at the same length you could expect about 18 rounds.

I wonder if standardization might have something to do with the comparative ubiquity of the heavy bolter over the heavy stubber in 40k armies. There are tons of mutually incompatible local variations of the heavy stubber because it's such a simple weapon it can be independently developed anywhere. The heavy bolter seems likely to be an STC so it'd be much more consistent across the galaxy. That's really important for the Guard since they move around a lot. PDF can afford to rely on local supplies so they'd be more likely to use heavy stubbers. PDF will also be more likely to use autoguns over lasguns for similar reasons.

aka_mythos wrote:A single stack saiga12 10 round magazine... is about 9.75" long... if it were double stacked at the same length you could expect about 18 rounds.

Sounds about right for the bolter artworks, then. Thanks for confirming my admittedly very rough guess!

Raxmei: True. I guess bolt rounds are universally compatible, but stub ammunition really varies from world to world?

Green is Best! wrote:Plus, how big would these magazines have to be? They are basically holding 12 gauge shotgun shells. They would be huge and still only hold like 10 rounds.

24 bolter shells is normal.

Melissia wrote:

Green is Best! wrote:Plus, how big would these magazines have to be? They are basically holding 12 gauge shotgun shells. They would be huge and still only hold like 10 rounds.

24 bolter shells is normal.

So. 24 rounds at 3/4" per round means you have 18" of shells alone. This would give you a clip around 1" thick and 20" tall. That is pretty big for a magazine. Even if you cross-stacked (?), you might condense that down to 12", but it would be like 1.5" thick. Either way, big and cumbersome and yet still.... totally awesome.

Just as a little thing for the bullet size thing:

This image is actual size - should match up on screen to irl.
From Left to Right: 6mm, 8mm, 9mm, 10mm, .22cal, .36cal, .45cal, .50cal and 1.2cal Snub

and:

This one isnt actual size, but still to scale.
From Left to Right: 1cal BME, 1.2cal Snub, 9mm Parabelum, .50cal BME.

They are not hard to make.
Think of them as our modern machine guns. Its just many of them are so big, heavy, over powerful against infantry (basically what you said) that they are not used by that many soldiers in ur modern times.

And since they are really good against infantry, why not put them on tanks?

Green is Best! wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Green is Best! wrote:Plus, how big would these magazines have to be? They are basically holding 12 gauge shotgun shells. They would be huge and still only hold like 10 rounds.

24 bolter shells is normal.

So. 24 rounds at 3/4" per round means you have 18" of shells alone. This would give you a clip around 1" thick and 20" tall. That is pretty big for a magazine. Even if you cross-stacked (?), you might condense that down to 12", but it would be like 1.5" thick. Either way, big and cumbersome and yet still.... totally awesome.

While scale in 40k has always been inconsistent... if we assume the Bolter model to be remotely correct the magazine is about ~3" thick and 11+" long. At those dimensions I think its reasonable that by the 41st millenia... they could make reliable tripple stacked magazines for a high caliber weapon like a bolter that holds about 25 rounds; they now have tripple and quad stack M16 rifles that can carry 60 rounds, so its not unrealistic. The only reason shotguns don't have magazines that large is because of rim jamming issues in the magazine that afflicts that type of rimmed cartridges.

Also its big and cumbersome to us because we aren't 7+ foot tall super humans... and because marines where power armor and are as tall the ergonomics are different.

Oh, I was speaking of magazines for bolters used by humans.

Well, the only difference there is that the Marines apparently slap a bit of armour around their magazines. Given that they do the same for their boltguns, it evens out.

Though I suppose it is not inconceivable that many humans will still prefer magazines with a few bolts less, so if the ~20 round sickle mags will be too much, they could always go for the ~15 round straight ones. All depending on the individual, i.e. how big he is by nature and/or if he is wearing power armour or not.

I think its fair to say there is either a compromises made for the sake of a normal person to wield a bolter that brings it down a peg, at least a little bit... or that a large caliber weapon with that much ammo would have to be a little cumbersome for a non-power armored individual.

Also, from what I gather, Marines essentially use magnum ammunition compared to the normal ammunition in most "human" bolters.

Melissia wrote:Also, from what I gather, Marines essentially use magnum ammunition compared to the normal ammunition in most "human" bolters.

Its a semantic point, but I imagine that marine bolters being the most prevelant bolter, its ammo is the convention, while what's used by normal humans is a reduced bolter shell. "Magnum" shells are probably more like some of the special ammunitions that rely on kinetics and not necessarily anything fancy like plasma/posion/toxin/explosive/flachetter/etc. in its warhead. But like I said semantic, with a bit of "chicken or the egg" tossed in.

I will accept ammunition differences between Astartes and normal humans the day that studio material actually hints at them. To date, GW sources flat out state they use the same stuff, it's just FFG's RPG inventing things. And it's by far not the only case where they do this.

Andy Hoare, former GW designer, now writing for FFG wrote:It all stems from the assumption that there’s a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or ‘true’ representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth.

Thanks, but I'll stick with the less silly studio material. >_>

Lynata wrote:I will accept ammunition differences between Astartes and normal humans the day that studio material actually hints at them. To date, GW sources flat out state they use the same stuff, it's just FFG's RPG inventing things. And it's by far not the only case where they do this.

Whether its a 5.7 or 5.56, a .38 or 9mm, a 40x46mm or a 40x53mm grenade... all the same bullet or warhead... just a different length of brass and whatever amount less gunpowder that allows that reduced length. In real life you also have underpowered loads, where its the same projectile and just a reduced quantity of gun powder in the same casing. This could also be a way bolter weapons mitigate the difficulty average humans have firing bolters; with bolters having warheads greatly mitigates the need for velociy that you sacrifice.

To be such a fundamentalist in your interpretation of a fictional universe is silly. The GW writers are simply not diversely experianced enough to ever write so thoroughly on different subjects so specifically as to address these types of things. They have no need to write so technically and it such detail to ever address these types of omissions.

They also don't care enough.

Anything is easy to produce if you have the mass production capabilities, and these weapons have been mass produced for upwards of 10,000 years.

Heavy Bolters are most certaintly made more often then bolters as they are on just about everything.


Its not that bolters are hard to produce, its more that they aren't as practical as the lasgun.

Bolters are rare because the imperium chooses it to be that way. they could arm everyone with a bolter(for humans of course), but it would put massive strains on their supply lines. having to ship billions of bolter rounds to ever freakin warzone. its easier to ship 1 load of lasgun power packs and not have to send any more. it frees up space for food, ammo for guns that do require solid ammo, or more guardsmen.

aka_mythos wrote:In real life you also have underpowered loads, where its the same projectile and just a reduced quantity of gun powder in the same casing. This could also be a way bolter weapons mitigate the difficulty average humans have firing bolters; with bolters having warheads greatly mitigates the need for velociy that you sacrifice.

That's the thing. Why do you even believe that there is anything that needs to be mitigated or sacrificed?

Let's look at a few facts here: We already have guns in real life capable of lobbing a caliber 0.9 solid steel projectile over a distance of 100 meters with enough force to punch through a motor block. 40k bolters add a miniature rocket launcher to the projectile which activates as soon as the bolt leaves the barrel and accelerates the munition further. So why exactly should a caliber 0.75 projectile need more kinetic energy than what we already use in RL?

aka_mythos wrote:To be such a fundamentalist in your interpretation of a fictional universe is silly.

Is it? I just don't think that the gap between humans and Marines needs to be widened even more because some people think Astartes are still not "awsum" enough. This is what I think is silly. It's the very same reason for why various fans and even BL writers seem to make Marines bigger and bigger every year, in spite of what the actual GW designers say.

Hell, it's not even an interpretation, it's what is explicitly written in the studio material. In the end, we could cite real life physics and science all day long, but that doesn't change that we're talking about 40k, which is a sci-fi setting set a couple dozen millennia in the future. It stands to reason that mankind would have developed advanced recoil suppression technology, way above what is already available right now (which is sufficient to negate the recoil of an automatic 12 gauge shotgun on autofire almost entirely, I may add).

In short, the only reason for why those guns should be "too much" for normal people is because some fans say so. But that doesn't make it true.

Lynata wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:In real life you also have underpowered loads, where its the same projectile and just a reduced quantity of gun powder in the same casing. This could also be a way bolter weapons mitigate the difficulty average humans have firing bolters; with bolters having warheads greatly mitigates the need for velociy that you sacrifice.

That's the thing. Why do you even believe that there is anything that needs to be mitigated or sacrificed?

Let's look at a few facts here: We already have guns in real life capable of lobbing a caliber 0.9 solid steel projectile over a distance of 100 meters with enough force to punch through a motor block. 40k bolters add a miniature rocket launcher to the projectile which activates as soon as the bolt leaves the barrel and accelerates the munition further. So why exactly should a caliber 0.75 projectile need more kinetic energy than what we already use in RL?

I've fired a fully automatic shotgun with Frag12 it isn't as easy as an automatic rifle or as accurate. Even if we assume a similar caliber as a 12ga shotgun slug, a bolter round would likely have a greater mass to accomodate its capabilities. A bolter as its described, would likely need a larger powder load than a 12ga shell... and that for the same volume may be accomplished by futuristic gun powders... but the heavier mass combined with an increased load would make for a heavier recoil and less controlability than a modern automatic shotgun.

A miniature rocket might be fine for long range shooting, but marines are described as having these armor penetrating capabilities at close ranges... that to me implies the rocket has more to do with improved accuracy through flight corrections, to correct for trajectory drop off due to gravity and wind, and to correct for air resistance and other forms of deceleration such that muzzle velocity is maintained through a greater portion of its flight... thus giving a greater effective range than a shotgun. A bolter likely has a range similar to that of a battle rifle 500-700 yards while a shotgun becomes inaccurate over 100 yards.

Thats also why a bolter would need more kinetic energy, to keep a .75cal projectile flying level for a standard combat range takes something better than a shotgun. Automatic shotguns are already at the limit of controlability for the average person, so a larger heavier projectile at an automatic rate of fire would be very problematic. For a Space Marine no problem.

Lynata wrote:
Is it? I just don't think that the gap between humans and Marines needs to be widened even more because some people think Astartes are still not "awsum" enough. This is what I think is silly. It's the very same reason for why various fans and even BL writers seem to make Marines bigger and bigger every year, in spite of what the actual GW designers say.
...
In short, the only reason for why those guns should be "too much" for normal people is because some fans say so. But that doesn't make it true.

I'm not trying to widen any gaps, I think what BL writes is often time ridiculous and at best meant to be taken as "realistic" in the same way Greek myths of Hercules are. I'm just speaking from my degree of experiance and expertise designing weapon systems. Could there be macguffin to explain controlability?-Yes... but there isn't any one that's been proposed.

Within the setting bolters have been described as difficult for the average person to fire, so its not unreasonable to justify why it is or how in some instances it is mitigated. Could Arnold Schwarzenegger, or anyone else equally as muscular as GW portrays IG be capable of handling a bolter adequetly?-Yes, but they aren't average. Its even been shown certain uber-humans who aren't Space Marines can shoulder and Rambo it up with a bolter... but that's why I prefaced most of what I said as... "for the average person" or "for anyone not wearing power armor"... so as to say humans who can't just aren't average.

aka_mythos wrote:I've fired a fully automatic shotgun with Frag12 it isn't as easy as an automatic rifle or as accurate.

The AA12 example was just to describe how far "we" advanced in terms of recoil compensation even today, implying how much further the Imperium may have come in another 40.000(!) years. You can shoot that beast one-handed. Heck, you can dual-wield them. Of course, for accuracy you better use both hands.

Everything in your list boils down to individual and subjective assumptions, from the effect of the rocket motor to a lack of futuretech recoil compensation to the actual kinetic energy created in the discharge of the primary propellant*. You simply do not have the necessary data to back up these claims, for the only thing we have is the fluff from the studio material. And the end result of your assumptions is in conflict with said material.
Personally, I'll rather look for potential explanations for why the canon is okay, rather than conjuring potential reasons for why it might not be so.

In the end, you could just as well challenge GW's claim that there cannot be female Space Marines because of hormones. Actually, you'd have a far better chance at this, for here we have sufficient real life science data to prove that the explanation given by GW is silly. But do you really want to go there?

(*: as I said, there already is a real life gun firing a solid steel slug of greater caliber of remarkable penetration power - I would think this monster actually has more recoil than a bolter)

aka_mythos wrote:Could there be macguffin to explain controlability?-Yes... but there isn't any one that's been proposed.

Well, that old storm bolter cross section does feature a "blast compensator". You could interpret this in a recoilless rifle type of way. And do not forget the simple physical fact that the heavier a weapon is, the less it is affected by recoil / the more kinetic energy it requires to be moved.

aka_mythos wrote:Within the setting bolters have been described as difficult for the average person to fire, so its not unreasonable to justify why it is or how in some instances it is mitigated.

When they have been described as being difficult to fire (where?), then this already implies that there is just one kind of ammunition and people without power armour, bionics or peak strength will simply find it uncomfortable to use. This is entirely in line with my personal interpretation.

aka_mythos wrote:Could Arnold Schwarzenegger, or anyone else equally as muscular as GW portrays IG be capable of handling a bolter adequetly?-Yes, but they aren't average. Its even been shown certain uber-humans who aren't Space Marines can shoulder and Rambo it up with a bolter... but that's why I prefaced most of what I said as... "for the average person" or "for anyone not wearing power armor"... so as to say humans who can't just aren't average.

This is already represented in the setting, though in a different way. The average human cannot wield a heavy bolter by himself, the average Space Marine (even without power armour) can. I don't see why this gap has to be widened even further by violating GW material and inventing two castes of ammunition.

Lynata wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:I've fired a fully automatic shotgun with Frag12 it isn't as easy as an automatic rifle or as accurate.

The AA12 example was just to describe how far "we" advanced in terms of recoil compensation even today, implying how much further the Imperium may have come in another 40.000(!) years. You can shoot that beast one-handed. Heck, you can dual-wield them. Of course, for accuracy you better use both hands.

I'll get to the rest of what you said later... but in all honest the AA12 hasn't really done anything to mitigate recoil than install a larger buffer spring and so drastically cut rate of fire. I know people who can fire a semi-automatic Saiga 12 ga faster than an AA12 fires. The AA12 is really not that great, its built off of a 1960's design with the only modification being to improve cleaning and improve survivability incase too many frag-12 rounds jam up in the barrel. Recoil is a matter of physics and the greatest components are muzzle velocity and the mass of projectiles in the barrel. A bolter round to pierce armor the ways it does has to be, as a matter of physics, heavier and faster... it would have noticably more recoil than a 12ga slug and the rate of fire for bolters to be effective as primary weapon would have to be higher than an AA12. Recoiless rifles are a terrible example of what someone might want to do to mitigate recoil that's why they've been replaced with rocket launchers and RPGs (not roleplaying).

Lynata wrote:
(*: as I said, there already is a real life gun firing a solid steel slug of greater caliber of remarkable penetration power - I would think this monster actually has more recoil than a bolter)

Very nice... but the recoil of something so large in caliber fired at any automatic rate of fire could probably break you wrist. That thing was designed for suppressing prison riots... doesn't really require long range accuracy.

The AA12 is also somewhat unique in the world of CAWS, in that it's pretty damn slow. Some of the FN auto-shotguns and the... I want to say it's an H&K model, but I could be wrong... have higher rates of fire, but much greater recoil, and generally require 2 hands to use to control the muzzle-climb.

This is compensated for, somewhat, by reducing the calibre from 12 to 20 gauge in some models. Still lethal to humans, just not as devastatingly so.

There is also the possibility that the Imperium did have recoil compensation uber-tech, but lost it in the Age of Strife, the Apostasy, the Heresy, some on-going Warp Storm, or because the Magos in charge of the technology accidentally executed command protocol "C:\Format" one morning.

That said, the rate of fire of a bolt weapon is something that, just like the recoil, we too do not know...

But to add yet another argument to the list:
IG heavy bolters are commonly installed on vehicles or used with a tripod - surely there would be no need to use a "de-powered" propellant there. And still there is at least one IG character who wields such a beast solo.

Of course we could come up with a dozen reasons for why a bolt weapon's recoil would be too big for a human, but when you're already going against the studio material you can just as well say that nobody other than Space Marines is able to use bolters at all instead of coming up with two different categories. This at least would be easier to justify than a rather specific massive recoil that is both too much for normal men to fire a pistol in single shot mode, but low enough for non-powerarmoured Marine Scouts to fire heavy bolters on rapid fire without issue...

In the end, this is a sci-fi setting, and though we do not know in great detail how exactly a bolter works and what's in there I have no problem at all to believe that it would be sufficient to deal with recoil to preserve the other rules established by this setting. It doesn't get unrealistic unless you want it to (why?), and in terms of believability there is far worse stuff than bolter recoil in 40k.

aka_mythos wrote:Recoil is a matter of physics and the greatest components are muzzle velocity and the mass of projectiles in the barrel.

Weapon weight is another key factor, and bolters are gakheavy. http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_weight.htm

aka_mythos wrote:Very nice... but the recoil of something so large in caliber fired at any automatic rate of fire could probably break you wrist.

Oh, personally I'm rolling with the description that was given in the Munitorum Manual. It may be a BL book (meaning not canonically binding), but is in line with the rest of the studio material, and I subjectively feel that a good deal of recoil would still be warranted - even though I have yet to see an actual GW book talking about this.

In case you don't have it, it basically mentions that you shouldn't fire a bolt weapon on anything other than the single shot setting unless you are a Space Marine or otherwise enhanced (bionics, power armour, etc).

Addendum: Going back to the aforementioned blast compensator, here is the image I meant, which you may compare to this real life principle.

Addendum #2:

aka_mythos wrote:A bolter round to pierce armor the ways it does has to be, as a matter of physics, heavier and faster...

Stalker bolt rounds travel at a speed below ~330 m/s and still pack their punch. Velocity does not seem to have that much of an impact on their efficiency.

Final Addendum () If you want, we can of course agree that the way that bolt weapons work as described in the GW studio material does not appeal to your personal sense of realism, but that this is just the way they work within the setting. I think there's other stuff that would deserve this label more, but that's pretty much something that everybody has to decide for him- or herself, depending on the individual extent of one's "suspension of disbelief" in the face of alien species, warp magic and the weirdest examples of sci-fi technology.

Kanluwen wrote:

TrollPie wrote:So, obviously, bolters are rare. They're hard to produce, hazardous to use and generally impractical (high recoil, heavy, unnecassary power).
But then heavy bolters, which are even bigger, more powerful and even harder to produce are readily available to pretty much any tank in the Imperium. Literally, any vehicle except a Rhino. Why?

Because they're not actually harder to produce, and nor are Bolters.

The Bolters used by the Astartes aren't "hard to produce", they're just generally produced by the Chapter proper. It gives the weapon a history, rather than a serial number. It's like the difference between an off the shelf rifle and a rifle custombuilt for the individual who will be using it.

Actually, in The Purging of Kadillus, One of the DA explained to a trooper that the reason they don't get arms and armour like astartes is because they are unworthy. he explained that one bolt took more effort to produce than an entire lasgun. The book also explained that the specialized ammunition types for bolters had to be made individually by the Master of the Forge.

I agree with OP. It would make more sense to use simpler point defense weapons that wouldn't be completely overkill. Like their stubber cannons or whatever they're called that are similar to .50cal machine guns.

I believe the "one guy" lugging around a Heavy Bolter is "Try Again" Bragg from the Gaunt's Ghosts novels?

That dude is fething huge. He's not a "normal" human.

Psienesis wrote:I believe the "one guy" lugging around a Heavy Bolter is "Try Again" Bragg from the Gaunt's Ghosts novels?
That dude is fething huge. He's not a "normal" human.

There's another? I was referring to Ox from the Last Chancers.

I just used this character to establish/back up my claim that they use the same ammunition, seeing that there's no reason to lower the recoil of a stationary weapon.
In other words: I know that guy isn't a "normal" human. Normal humans can "only" carry bolters.

When I read about such weapons, what I see is talk about their "weight and cumbersome nature", not recoil.

Ok, there are 3 IG characters who have been mentioned as lugging big guns around.

Bragg from the Ghost novels(although he was lugging around Autocannons, not HBs)

Ox,

and then Gunnery Sergeant Harker in the IG codex(only one with an actual model and rules ATM)

Psienesis wrote:I believe the "one guy" lugging around a Heavy Bolter is "Try Again" Bragg from the Gaunt's Ghosts novels?

That dude is fething huge. He's not a "normal" human.

Plus I do recall Brostin lugging around an auto-cannon in that series too.

Either way though, I think that was a bit of a blunder on Abnett's part, despite him being prolly the best BL author. No matter how big Bragg is, Space Marines in full power armour are slowed significantly by their heavy bolters. He is NOT as strong as a Space Marine, let alone one who is bolstered by his armour's servos. Not even vaguely close. Unless he was secretly an Ogryn and didn't tell anybody...and even then, only just.

Dunno, maybe it was an autocannon. Or an assault cannon. I don't remember, haven't read the GG series in a year or so. I just remember a guy or two lugging around a weapon that no "normal" human has any business lugging around.

Of course, Bragg *was* a terrible shot...

Yeah, an autocannon is getting a bit too much for me, too.

Sometimes, Dan Abnett takes quite some liberty from the studio canon - apparently his Space Marines are also way larger than they are as per GW. Heard good things about his writing style, though. I've got the first GG omnibus lying around here, will touch it once I've finished the Enforcer one.

Grey Templar wrote:and then Gunnery Sergeant Harker in the IG codex(only one with an actual model and rules ATM)

Huh, first time I actually heard of him...
What a badass miniature. Thanks for the hint!

It was an Autocannon. then he gets another autocannon and duct tapes them together McGyver style and dual wields them.

that said, Autocannon is a fairly generic term in the fluff and in modern weapon descriptions.

Fairly generic in the sense that there are lots of calibres of autocannons... none of them small, most requiring at least a tripod if not a truck to mount it on.

Lynata wrote:Yeah, an autocannon is getting a bit too much for me, too.

Sometimes, Dan Abnett takes quite some liberty from the studio canon - apparently his Space Marines are also way larger than they are as per GW. Heard good things about his writing style, though. I've got the first GG omnibus lying around here, will touch it once I've finished the Enforcer one.

Grey Templar wrote:and then Gunnery Sergeant Harker in the IG codex(only one with an actual model and rules ATM)

Huh, first time I actually heard of him...
What a badass miniature. Thanks for the hint!

Abnett legitimately is the best bl writer, with Graham McNeil MAYBE coming close. He DOES disregard canon, and occasionally contradict himself, but only for the purpose of making his stories more involving. And the space marine height thing varies hugely by authors, don't worry about it. I think I like his sizes more.

Especially Dembski-Bowden's SM sizes, in books by this author space marines are 8 and a half feet tall, their armour adds a foot, and terminators are a meter taller than Regular armoured SMs, putting them at roughly ~3.8 meters tall.

I hate when SM are described as "two meters tall", I don't know about you guys but SM are NOT 6'6'' in my head.

Psienesis wrote:Fairly generic in the sense that there are lots of calibres of autocannons... none of them small, most requiring at least a tripod if not a truck to mount it on.

I assume the smallest of autocannons would be small enough that it would be similar to a modern HMG, so it's not *too* ridiculous for one guy to use it. At least that's how I justify it to myself.

im2randomghgh wrote:

Lynata wrote:Yeah, an autocannon is getting a bit too much for me, too.

Sometimes, Dan Abnett takes quite some liberty from the studio canon - apparently his Space Marines are also way larger than they are as per GW. Heard good things about his writing style, though. I've got the first GG omnibus lying around here, will touch it once I've finished the Enforcer one.

Grey Templar wrote:and then Gunnery Sergeant Harker in the IG codex(only one with an actual model and rules ATM)

Huh, first time I actually heard of him...
What a badass miniature. Thanks for the hint!

Abnett legitimately is the best bl writer, with Graham McNeil MAYBE coming close. He DOES disregard canon, and occasionally contradict himself, but only for the purpose of making his stories more involving. And the space marine height thing varies hugely by authors, don't worry about it. I think I like his sizes more.

Especially Dembski-Bowden's SM sizes, in books by this author space marines are 8 and a half feet tall, their armour adds a foot, and terminators are a meter taller than Regular armoured SMs, putting them at roughly ~3.8 meters tall.

I hate when SM are described as "two meters tall", I don't know about you guys but SM are NOT 6'6'' in my head.

Not start this debate again, as there's two threads for it, but the cannon height for Marines according to GW is 7'-7'6". 3.8 meters is TWELVE feet. Do you know how big 12 feet is? Especially for a suit of armor apparently designed to work in closed spaces. Terminators wouldn't be able to walk around in buildings without smashing through doors and stooping everywhere. The room I'm sitting in isn't even 12 feet tall.

They wouldn't be able to go around in buildings without destroying the ceilings.

the color purple wrote:

Psienesis wrote:Fairly generic in the sense that there are lots of calibres of autocannons... none of them small, most requiring at least a tripod if not a truck to mount it on.

I assume the smallest of autocannons would be small enough that it would be similar to a modern HMG, so it's not *too* ridiculous for one guy to use it. At least that's how I justify it to myself.

im2randomghgh wrote:

Lynata wrote:Yeah, an autocannon is getting a bit too much for me, too.

Sometimes, Dan Abnett takes quite some liberty from the studio canon - apparently his Space Marines are also way larger than they are as per GW. Heard good things about his writing style, though. I've got the first GG omnibus lying around here, will touch it once I've finished the Enforcer one.

Grey Templar wrote:and then Gunnery Sergeant Harker in the IG codex(only one with an actual model and rules ATM)

Huh, first time I actually heard of him...
What a badass miniature. Thanks for the hint!

Abnett legitimately is the best bl writer, with Graham McNeil MAYBE coming close. He DOES disregard canon, and occasionally contradict himself, but only for the purpose of making his stories more involving. And the space marine height thing varies hugely by authors, don't worry about it. I think I like his sizes more.

Especially Dembski-Bowden's SM sizes, in books by this author space marines are 8 and a half feet tall, their armour adds a foot, and terminators are a meter taller than Regular armoured SMs, putting them at roughly ~3.8 meters tall.

I hate when SM are described as "two meters tall", I don't know about you guys but SM are NOT 6'6'' in my head.

Not start this debate again, as there's two threads for it, but the cannon height for Marines according to GW is 7'-7'6". 3.8 meters is TWELVE feet. Do you know how big 12 feet is? Especially for a suit of armor apparently designed to work in closed spaces. Terminators wouldn't be able to walk around in buildings without smashing through doors and stooping everywhere. The room I'm sitting in isn't even 12 feet tall.

I imagine the Ceiling on a Space Hulk, the quintessential Terminator locale, would be able to accomodate 12 feet. And to be fair, tac Dread armour is supposed to be essentially the result of a Dread and a suit of power armour having a love child.

And SM would still be 8 1/2 feet tall+ because power armour canonically adds a foot to your height.

Also, Mortarion was described as being as tall as a terminator while barefoot...and twelve feet seems plausible for a primarch.

Also, I remember SM have been described as "Head and Shoulders Taller than the tallest man within the crusade" during the heresy, and those had MILLIONS of mortal men, chances are at least one of them was over 7', and a six inch difference isn't "head and shoulders"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:They wouldn't be able to go around in buildings without destroying the ceilings.

Most ceilings are a bit under 7'6"...

And that's before the termie armour.

Also, in battle of the fang, a blood claw had to demolish walls to get to the cockpit of a ship, and ships are where terminators are meant to operate, so demolishing their environment is just part of the job.

Plus building important enough to be held by termies, like cathedrals, would have no problem accommodating them.

Also, as for the height of regular SM, I remember hearing they were half again as tall as a normal man, which favours Abnett's numbers.

im2randomghgh wrote:And SM would still be 8 1/2 feet tall+ because power armour canonically adds a foot to your height.

Um... You can take a look at the lifesize drawing Jes did. His Marine was 7 feet in power armour, and you could guess how much the armour added to that by comparing it to the scale on the left.

im2randomghgh wrote:Also, I remember SM have been described as "Head and Shoulders Taller than the tallest man within the crusade" during the heresy, and those had MILLIONS of mortal men, chances are at least one of them was over 7', and a six inch difference isn't "head and shoulders"

Black Library novels are not canon. Why do you think Abnett or Goto can get away with their artistic freedoms?
Jes even jokes about the height some authors give to their Marines in the 4th GW designer podcast. Because it is silly. Marines do not define themselves just over their height or the ability to shoot guns too big for other people. There's much more to them, and personally I think you are doing them a disservice if you limit them to 2-dimensional 10 meter supermen with chainguns just because it's a Hollywood kind of "cool" and everything has to be oh-so-epic these days. That is not to say that you can still not do that for your own interpretation of the setting, but it's quite simply not what GW presents us.

And keep in mind they also have to fit into a Rhino, a vehicle designed for human proportions (more specifically, the early Terran colonists).

But you can read up on all that in the other thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/387812.page

I assume the smallest of autocannons would be small enough that it would be similar to a modern HMG, so it's not *too* ridiculous for one guy to use it. At least that's how I justify it to myself.

The smallest modern autocannon fires a shell (not a bullet) of at least 20mm diameter. This is a calibre commonly found only in weapons that are vehicle mounted, though there is an experimental 25mm autocannon currently in limited testing, though it requires 2 soldiers to operate it.

So... no, much, much bigger than a HMG, which is ~.50cal. on average, with some examples being smaller calibres, some very few slightly larger (.65 at the largest, if memory serves).

Psienesis wrote:The smallest modern autocannon fires a shell (not a bullet) of at least 20mm diameter. This is a calibre commonly found only in weapons that are vehicle mounted, though there is an experimental 25mm autocannon currently in limited testing, though it requires 2 soldiers to operate it.

Now that you mention it, the first barrels of the 23mm KS-23 shotgun I mentioned earlier actually came from anti-air guns.
But yeah, I guess it'd just be way too uncontrollable if you'd fire something like that fully automatic. First you'd loose accuracy and then the weapon itself...

The thing to remember about Bragg carrying twinned autocannons around is Abnett actually does refer to Autocannons as stubbers and to stubbers as autocannons a couple of times in the books. I think it's just his way of saying 'large automatic solid ammo gun' and using guns that have been given names in 40k.

Bragg also, in the first 3 books, carries a missile launcher with a 4 missile rack, which in Ghostmaker used melta missiles. After they get to Hagia, they're mentioned as using lower tech missile launchers that need to be individually loaded.

Larkins lasgun also takes a few forms, starting off as a longlas without a power slide that uses multi-shot hotshots. Then, on Hagia, he's knocking heads off of small birds and Cuu is firing it on full auto (while specifically being loaded with a hotshot cell, mentioned by Larkin), but on Aexe, he needs to swap to a low volt cell to avoid liquifying a deer. Then by Sabbat Martyr, the Hotshots are suddenly single shot overcharged cells.

The Abnett books are fantastic, but he has a lot of inconsistencies in them, particularly regarding weapons. Hell, in the first book, there's Iron Warriors Space Marines having their heads shot clean off by a lasgun set to full strength.

Using anything from the Abnett books as a reference to official fluff isn't the best way to go.

But lasguns of full power CAN indeed blow a marine's head off.

thats why Hotshot lasguns are Ap3.

Grey Templar wrote:But lasguns of full power CAN indeed blow a marine's head off.

thats why Hotshot lasguns are Ap3.

Hotshots are different. They're wahts used in Longlas'.

In the first few books, lasguns have power sliders. Sliding them to full power was taking the head off a Chaos Marine. That sort of power, equivalent to a Hotshot which is specifically overcharged for that amount of power, coming from standard clip shouldn't be happening.

It's worth noting that when he starts mentioning Hotshots in Longlas' for that kind of power, the power sliders mysteriously disappear from the standard lasguns. I also liked Corbec lamenting his metal skeleton stocked lasgun in Necropolis, while before and after that single reference the Tanith lasguns always had Nalwood furniture.

Just saying, Abnetts stuff, while fantastic, is not a reliable source. He retcons things all the time, even in the space of a couple of books.

No, a Lasgun on full power can take marines out.

The Munitorum doesn't like guardsmen doing this as it burns through their ammo very quickly. as a result, most lasguns do not have a power setting slider and are fixed, but many varities do(There are literally thousands of different lasgun patterns)

Hotshot packs and lasguns are purpose built to be used this way, but that doesn't preclude a normal lasgun being used like this.

The Munitorum Manuel states that Guardsmen should not set their lasguns to full power if the setting is avaliable unless ordered to do so. this is also encouraged by the requirement for a soldier to be able to fire at least 500 rounds at all times, under penalty of 30 lashes.

Lynata wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:And SM would still be 8 1/2 feet tall+ because power armour canonically adds a foot to your height.

Um... You can take a look at the lifesize drawing Jes did. His Marine was 7 feet in power armour, and you could guess how much the armour added to that by comparing it to the scale on the left.

Astartes are giants. Understand this. 7' tall is not a giant, it is tall. There is a difference. I will NEVER take that picture seriously. As a right of initiation, the Iron Snakes kill 500m long Sea Monsters. Without guns. That same Snake wrestled a 1500kg bear to the ground.

It. Is. Canon. That. Power. Armour. Adds. A. Foot.

You seem to be confusing Space Marines with their lesser brethren, the Spartans of Halo.

im2randomghgh wrote:Also, I remember SM have been described as "Head and Shoulders Taller than the tallest man within the crusade" during the heresy, and those had MILLIONS of mortal men, chances are at least one of them was over 7', and a six inch difference isn't "head and shoulders"

Black Library novels are not canon.
* Why do you think Abnett or Goto can get away with their artistic freedoms?*
Jes even jokes about the height some authors give to their Marines in the 4th GW designer podcast. Because it is silly. Marines do not define themselves just over their height or the ability to shoot guns too big for other people. There's much more to them, and personally I think you are doing them a disservice if you limit them to 2-dimensional 10 meter supermen with chainguns just because it's a Hollywood kind of "cool" and everything has to be oh-so-epic these days. That is not to say that you can still not do that for your own interpretation of the setting, but it's quite simply not what GW presents us.

And keep in mind they also have to fit into a Rhino, a vehicle designed for human proportions (more specifically, the early Terran colonists).

But you can read up on all that in the other thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/387812.page

As much as " 10 meter supermen with chainguns" is hyperbole, it is only slightly so; Heavy Bolter=chaingun that fires miniature mass-reactive diamond tipped rockets.

Have you been ignoring all the accounts of space marines ripping tanks apart? shredding battle suits with their bare hands? They are supermen in every sense of the word. Humans lack the basic potential to exceed a space marine in any respect. While the sources are contradictory enough that it's as much an opinion as anything else, it is ridiculous to think that someone only 7' tall is capable of the enormous feats of strength and power the Astartes display.

*They would get away with it anyways, there are a good number of contradictions even in the codices.

And Melissia if you start with ur "Commissars is pwnz SM" stuff again then I will quit...the internet. Life. Everything.

the thing that makes me laugh at that Jess drawing is the fact that his scale starts at 2 and goes up by 1.

im2randomghgh wrote:

Lynata wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:And SM would still be 8 1/2 feet tall+ because power armour canonically adds a foot to your height.

Um... You can take a look at the lifesize drawing Jes did. His Marine was 7 feet in power armour, and you could guess how much the armour added to that by comparing it to the scale on the left.

Astartes are giants. Understand this. 7' tall is not a giant, it is tall. There is a difference. I will NEVER take that picture seriously. As a right of initiation, the Iron Snakes kill 500m long Sea Monsters. Without guns. That same Snake wrestled a 1500kg bear to the ground.

It. Is. Canon. That. Power. Armour. Adds. A. Foot.

You seem to be confusing Space Marines with their lesser brethren, the Spartans of Halo.

im2randomghgh wrote:Also, I remember SM have been described as "Head and Shoulders Taller than the tallest man within the crusade" during the heresy, and those had MILLIONS of mortal men, chances are at least one of them was over 7', and a six inch difference isn't "head and shoulders"

Black Library novels are not canon.
* Why do you think Abnett or Goto can get away with their artistic freedoms?*
Jes even jokes about the height some authors give to their Marines in the 4th GW designer podcast. Because it is silly. Marines do not define themselves just over their height or the ability to shoot guns too big for other people. There's much more to them, and personally I think you are doing them a disservice if you limit them to 2-dimensional 10 meter supermen with chainguns just because it's a Hollywood kind of "cool" and everything has to be oh-so-epic these days. That is not to say that you can still not do that for your own interpretation of the setting, but it's quite simply not what GW presents us.

And keep in mind they also have to fit into a Rhino, a vehicle designed for human proportions (more specifically, the early Terran colonists).

But you can read up on all that in the other thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/387812.page

As much as " 10 meter supermen with chainguns" is hyperbole, it is only slightly so; Heavy Bolter=chaingun that fires miniature mass-reactive diamond tipped rockets.

Have you been ignoring all the accounts of space marines ripping tanks apart? shredding battle suits with their bare hands? They are supermen in every sense of the word. Humans lack the basic potential to exceed a space marine in any respect. While the sources are contradictory enough that it's as much an opinion as anything else, it is ridiculous to think that someone only 7' tall is capable of the enormous feats of strength and power the Astartes display.

*They would get away with it anyways, there are a good number of contradictions even in the codices.

And Melissia if you start with ur "Commissars is pwnz SM" stuff again then I will quit...the internet. Life. Everything.

This is Shaq, Shaq is 7'1", Shaq is huge, Space Marines are huge too, therefore space marines must be about 7' tall.

a Fallacious comparason.

both the Empire State Building and the Eiffel Tower are "Huge". Does that mean they are the same size?

Grey Templar wrote:No, a Lasgun on full power can take marines out.

Which is even stated in the 2E Marine Codex in the part where they explain power armour. They still go into a bit more detail there than in the new books. Nowadays they really loathe to give any numbers or hard facts, it seems, leaving more open to interpretation. But judging from Andy Hoare's comment on Aaron Dembski-Bowden's blog, I guess this is working as intended.

Lasgun power sliders are actually from studio material, too. The rulebook from GW's Inquisitor RPG mentions it for one of its patterns. It is capable of increasing the standard firepower by up to ~33%, but of course burns more energy per shot.

im2randomghgh wrote:Astartes are giants. Understand this. 7' tall is not a giant, it is tall. There is a difference. I will NEVER take that picture seriously. As a right of initiation, the Iron Snakes kill 500m long Sea Monsters. Without guns. That same Snake wrestled a 1500kg bear to the ground.
It. Is. Canon. That. Power. Armour. Adds. A. Foot.

Eh, Games Workshop decides what is "canon" and what isn't, not Dan Abnett and not you. If you take your personal interpretation as being above GW, go ahead, but then we're simply not operating on "common ground"! Enjoy your novels and their contradictions and how they portray Space Marines as immortal 10 feet supermen, but that is quite simply not the world as presented in the studio material, and personally I like it way more this way. It's more grimdark and less Hollywood Mary-Sue'ish and avoids a ton of inconsistencies like that little Rhino-issue.

Height isn't everything. Seriously, listen to this podcast, it's quite cool how Jes explains it.

Grey Templar wrote:the thing that makes me laugh at that Jess drawing is the fact that his scale starts at 2 and goes up by 1.

Yeah, he fethed up on that, he even mentions that in the podcast. Apparently he only noticed that a full year later.

Grey Templar wrote:a Fallacious comparason.

both the Empire State Building and the Eiffel Tower are "Huge". Does that mean they are the same size?

I was being silly but still look how tall shaq is compared to everyone, I don't think there's any reason to have Space Marines any bigger than 7ft - 7ft 6in that's plenty big imo you have to remember that space marines

need to fight in a wide variety of environments so sizing is important.

Grey Templar wrote:No, a Lasgun on full power can take marines out.

The Munitorum doesn't like guardsmen doing this as it burns through their ammo very quickly. as a result, most lasguns do not have a power setting slider and are fixed, but many varities do(There are literally thousands of different lasgun patterns)

Hotshot packs and lasguns are purpose built to be used this way, but that doesn't preclude a normal lasgun being used like this.

The Munitorum Manuel states that Guardsmen should not set their lasguns to full power if the setting is avaliable unless ordered to do so. this is also encouraged by the requirement for a soldier to be able to fire at least 500 rounds at all times, under penalty of 30 lashes.

It would still have to find a weak spot. I recall a situation where a lascannon struck terminator armour head on and failed to kill the wearer.

Even hotshot rounds fail to down a SM unless he was either struck in a joint, eye lens or was wearing carapace armour at the time. Pulse rounds, which are more powerful than hotshot rounds by orders of magnitude, generally cannot tear through PA with a single shot.

If what you said were true, Astartes would be nigh useless against IG.

im2randomghgh wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:No, a Lasgun on full power can take marines out.

The Munitorum doesn't like guardsmen doing this as it burns through their ammo very quickly. as a result, most lasguns do not have a power setting slider and are fixed, but many varities do(There are literally thousands of different lasgun patterns)

Hotshot packs and lasguns are purpose built to be used this way, but that doesn't preclude a normal lasgun being used like this.

The Munitorum Manuel states that Guardsmen should not set their lasguns to full power if the setting is avaliable unless ordered to do so. this is also encouraged by the requirement for a soldier to be able to fire at least 500 rounds at all times, under penalty of 30 lashes.

It would still have to find a weak spot. I recall a situation where a lascannon struck terminator armour head on and failed to kill the wearer.

Even hotshot rounds fail to down a SM unless he was either struck in a joint, eye lens or was wearing carapace armour at the time. Pulse rounds, which are more powerful than hotshot rounds by orders of magnitude, generally cannot tear through PA with a single shot.

If what you said were true, Astartes would be nigh useless against IG.

Well Space Marines are pretty much useless for anything other than quick surgical strikes.

Cheesecat wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:a Fallacious comparason.

both the Empire State Building and the Eiffel Tower are "Huge". Does that mean they are the same size?

I was being silly but still look how tall shaq is compared to everyone, I don't think there's any reason to have Space Marines any bigger than 7ft - 7ft 6in that's plenty big imo you have to remember that space marines
At
need to fight in a wide variety of environments so sizing is important.

Also remember that the Space Marine, in addition to being Shaq tall, would be twice as broad. He'd have a whole second Shaq's worth of entirely muscle packed around him.

I think the people who insist on ridiculous, door-bursting space marines don't really have any conception of how big 8, 9, or 10+ feet is. Like the 12 foot Terminator guy. 12' feet is the height of an average building. On the OUTSIDE. It's giraffe tall. It's "break everything not built to accomodate the comical giant" tall.

Who needs walls anymore.

Cheesecat wrote:Well Space Marines are pretty much useless for anything other than quick surgical strikes.

Quite right.

As to the lasgun-vs-marine discussion ...

"The most important element in the construction of a suit of Space Marine power armour is the large ceramite plates which provide the main form of protection against enemy attack. Individual plates 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. 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."

From the "Codex: Angels of Death". That book had an entire page devoted solely to power armour fluff. Good times...

the color purple wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:a Fallacious comparason.

both the Empire State Building and the Eiffel Tower are "Huge". Does that mean they are the same size?

I was being silly but still look how tall shaq is compared to everyone, I don't think there's any reason to have Space Marines any bigger than 7ft - 7ft 6in that's plenty big imo you have to remember that space marines
At
need to fight in a wide variety of environments so sizing is important.

Also remember that the Space Marine, in addition to being Shaq tall, would be twice as broad. He'd have a whole second Shaq's worth of entirely muscle packed around him.

I think the people who insist on ridiculous, door-bursting space marines don't really have any conception of how big 8, 9, or 10+ feet is. Like the 12 foot Terminator guy. 12' feet is the height of an average building. On the OUTSIDE. It's giraffe tall. It's "break everything not built to accomodate the comical giant" tall.

Yeah picture Charles Atlas crossed with Shaq.

Basically this - was already linked in the other thread.

Cheesecat wrote:

the color purple wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:a Fallacious comparason.

both the Empire State Building and the Eiffel Tower are "Huge". Does that mean they are the same size?

I was being silly but still look how tall shaq is compared to everyone, I don't think there's any reason to have Space Marines any bigger than 7ft - 7ft 6in that's plenty big imo you have to remember that space marines
At
need to fight in a wide variety of environments so sizing is important.

Also remember that the Space Marine, in addition to being Shaq tall, would be twice as broad. He'd have a whole second Shaq's worth of entirely muscle packed around him.

I think the people who insist on ridiculous, door-bursting space marines don't really have any conception of how big 8, 9, or 10+ feet is. Like the 12 foot Terminator guy. 12' feet is the height of an average building. On the OUTSIDE. It's giraffe tall. It's "break everything not built to accomodate the comical giant" tall.

Yeah picture Charles Atlas crossed with Shaq.

Nah, its more like 2 Arnolds on as many Steroids as you can pump them with crossed with Shaq and made a foot taller for good measure.

Cheesecat wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:a Fallacious comparason.

both the Empire State Building and the Eiffel Tower are "Huge". Does that mean they are the same size?

I was being silly but still look how tall shaq is compared to everyone, I don't think there's any reason to have Space Marines any bigger than 7ft - 7ft 6in that's plenty big imo you have to remember that space marines

need to fight in a wide variety of environments so sizing is important.

Any building where they can't smash the walls out of their way is probably something their scouts are better suited for.

Nothing else to it.

The reason that it only makes sense for them to be 8ft+ is because they are superhuman they are taller than humans. NOT "taller than an average human. They are taller than any human is physically capable of becoming. Anything else is silly.

Has anyone ever seen astartes described as super-most-human?

the closest I have seen is in the Ravenor and Eisinhorn series.

there is one planet where the people are described as being as tall as astartes, but they are slight and slim(but strong)

It does go into detail that these ladies are freakin tall, outside of what is normal for any human. this puts them in the 8ft zone.

Lynata wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:Well Space Marines are pretty much useless for anything other than quick surgical strikes.

Quite right.

As to the lasgun-vs-marine discussion ...

"The most important element in the construction of a suit of Space Marine power armour is the large ceramite plates which provide the main form of protection against enemy attack. Individual plates 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. 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."

From the "Codex: Angels of Death". That book had an entire page devoted solely to power armour fluff. Good times...

+1

@ Surgical Strike, that was why entire planets were taken in weeks during the GC. Normally a few squads pacify a world, but then tens of thousands of space marines attacked in concert...awesome times

Plus, the space marines have the added bonus of even without their armour being nearly invincible versus small arms, barring plasma and bolt.

Obviously we should divide the 40k setting into GW-world and the Marinesverse...

It does go into detail that these ladies are freakin tall, outside of what is normal for any human. this puts them in the 8ft zone

You're talking about Arianhrod, the Carthae. She was only 2 meters tall, directly quoted to both Eisenhorn's and Ravenor's observances. She was *slightly* taller than Harlon Nayl.

Yes, her people are tall, but they aren't 8+ feet tall. 2 meters is 6'6" and a tiny bit extra.

Psienesis wrote:

It does go into detail that these ladies are freakin tall, outside of what is normal for any human. this puts them in the 8ft zone

You're talking about Arianhrod, the Carthae. She was only 2 meters tall, directly quoted to both Eisenhorn's and Ravenor's observances. She was *slightly* taller than Harlon Nayl.

Yes, her people are tall, but they aren't 8+ feet tall. 2 meters is 6'6" and a tiny bit extra.

im2randomghgh wrote:

Lynata wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:Well Space Marines are pretty much useless for anything other than quick surgical strikes.

Quite right.

As to the lasgun-vs-marine discussion ...

"The most important element in the construction of a suit of Space Marine power armour is the large ceramite plates which provide the main form of protection against enemy attack. Individual plates 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. 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."

From the "Codex: Angels of Death". That book had an entire page devoted solely to power armour fluff. Good times...

+1

@ Surgical Strike, that was why entire planets were taken in weeks during the GC. Normally a few squads pacify a world, but then tens of thousands of space marines attacked in concert...awesome times

Plus, the space marines have the added bonus of even without their armour being nearly invincible versus small arms, barring plasma and bolt.

even during the Great Crusade, Marines were used as Shock Troops. they would drop down in massed numbers, but each squad would be acting with a surgical precision to attack specific targets. they wouldn't line up like the current IG does and advance into no-man's land(thats what the Imperial Army was for)

Space Marines were like our current marines, they would open up the beech head and weaken the enemy so the Army units could deploy and take on the, significantly weakened, enemy.

That and Marines had significant shock value at the time, even more then now, because they had never been encountered before by their enemies(and were therefore a strange foe to fight)

Grey Templar wrote:the closest I have seen is in the Ravenor and Eisinhorn series.

there is one planet where the people are described as being as tall as astartes, but they are slight and slim(but strong)

It does go into detail that these ladies are freakin tall, outside of what is normal for any human. this puts them in the 8ft zone.

That's because they have adapted to a different gravity. They are not standard, baseline humans. Their having adapted to the gravity of another world is not different to how Ogryns or ratlings did. They are abhuman. And their description almost reminded me of kroot.

Grey Templar wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

Lynata wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:Well Space Marines are pretty much useless for anything other than quick surgical strikes.

Quite right.

As to the lasgun-vs-marine discussion ...

"The most important element in the construction of a suit of Space Marine power armour is the large ceramite plates which provide the main form of protection against enemy attack. Individual plates 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. 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."

From the "Codex: Angels of Death". That book had an entire page devoted solely to power armour fluff. Good times...

+1

@ Surgical Strike, that was why entire planets were taken in weeks during the GC. Normally a few squads pacify a world, but then tens of thousands of space marines attacked in concert...awesome times

Plus, the space marines have the added bonus of even without their armour being nearly invincible versus small arms, barring plasma and bolt.

even during the Great Crusade, Marines were used as Shock Troops. they would drop down in massed numbers, but each squad would be acting with a surgical precision to attack specific targets. they wouldn't line up like the current IG does and advance into no-man's land(thats what the Imperial Army was for)

Space Marines were like our current marines, they would open up the beech head and weaken the enemy so the Army units could deploy and take on the, significantly weakened, enemy.

That and Marines had significant shock value at the time, even more then now, because they had never been encountered before by their enemies(and were therefore a strange foe to fight)

Plus they don't have the resources nor manpower to fight like guard anyways.

im2randomghgh wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:the closest I have seen is in the Ravenor and Eisinhorn series.

there is one planet where the people are described as being as tall as astartes, but they are slight and slim(but strong)

It does go into detail that these ladies are freakin tall, outside of what is normal for any human. this puts them in the 8ft zone.

That's because they have adapted to a different gravity. They are not standard, baseline humans. Their having adapted to the gravity of another world is not different to how Ogryns or ratlings did. They are abhuman. And their description almost reminded me of kroot.

True enough,

but they are still human enough to be *ahem romantically compatable. I would think they could still breed successfully.

Grey Templar wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

Lynata wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:Well Space Marines are pretty much useless for anything other than quick surgical strikes.

Quite right.

As to the lasgun-vs-marine discussion ...

"The most important element in the construction of a suit of Space Marine power armour is the large ceramite plates which provide the main form of protection against enemy attack. Individual plates 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. 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."

From the "Codex: Angels of Death". That book had an entire page devoted solely to power armour fluff. Good times...

+1

@ Surgical Strike, that was why entire planets were taken in weeks during the GC. Normally a few squads pacify a world, but then tens of thousands of space marines attacked in concert...awesome times

Plus, the space marines have the added bonus of even without their armour being nearly invincible versus small arms, barring plasma and bolt.

even during the Great Crusade, Marines were used as Shock Troops. they would drop down in massed numbers, but each squad would be acting with a surgical precision to attack specific targets. they wouldn't line up like the current IG does and advance into no-man's land(thats what the Imperial Army was for)

Space Marines were like our current marines, they would open up the beech head and weaken the enemy so the Army units could deploy and take on the, significantly weakened, enemy.

That and Marines had significant shock value at the time, even more then now, because they had never been encountered before by their enemies(and were therefore a strange foe to fight)

Plus They were led by Primarchs, and Some sources have said that the marines of the 31st millennium were physically more powerful due to their gene-seed being direct from their primarch rather than diluted by generations of users.

Also, they had titan support and, occasionally, custodian support

Psienesis wrote:

I assume the smallest of autocannons would be small enough that it would be similar to a modern HMG, so it's not *too* ridiculous for one guy to use it. At least that's how I justify it to myself.

The smallest modern autocannon fires a shell (not a bullet) of at least 20mm diameter. This is a calibre commonly found only in weapons that are vehicle mounted, though there is an experimental 25mm autocannon currently in limited testing, though it requires 2 soldiers to operate it.

So... no, much, much bigger than a HMG, which is ~.50cal. on average, with some examples being smaller calibres, some very few slightly larger (.65 at the largest, if memory serves).

If we were to make the modern parallel, an "autocannon" is probably comparable to the 25mm variety of autocannon, while reaper autocannons are the lighter 20mm.

I don't think its impossible to have man portable versions of these caliber of weapons, they just haven't been developed. Presently the most mature efforts have been the XM307 which despite being labeled a grenade launcher has alot in common with an auto-cannon. It doesn't really compare, as its really somewhere in between a grenade launcher and an autocannon you see on vehicles but is used in a role portable autocannons were used when other nations have had them, comparatively lacking velocity. The US until more recently has seen little need due to the prevalence of vehicles with cannons and air support... but the marines now really want it due to their greater emphasis on distributed warfare in which there is a greater distance between units.

a man portable 20mm wouldn't be outside the realm of possability. by that I mean a Tri-pod version carried by a team of 2-3 guys.


a single dude could, concievably, carry the whole deployed tri-pod around. stopping and bracing to fire.

the descriptions of Bragg lugging around an Autocannon wouldn't be too far beyond realisim, especially if you imagine that the gun likely has had some awsome future recoil dampners built in.

And Bragg was considered hugely strong and strongly huge.

Based off of the models (yes, I know, not to scale)...



... they look more like they're actually cannons which happen to be autoloaders. Likely it varies from unit to unit.

Melissia wrote:And Bragg was considered hugely strong and strongly huge.

Based off of the models (yes, I know, not to scale)...



... they look more like they're actually cannons which happen to be autoloaders. Likely it varies from unit to unit.

naturally he wouldn't be lugging one of those around.


the ones on Tri-pods actually look managable, and in DoW2 Retribution the autocannon teams have 1 guy carry the gun and one carry the ammo.

Yep. This one is obviously a heavy autocannon of sorts, while Bragg's was a light autocannons. I think the tripod mounted version or the carriage mounted version are probably the norm, with the Ghosts using the lighter version because they're a scout regiment.

Melissia wrote:Yep. This one is obviously a heavy autocannon of sorts, while Bragg's was a light autocannons. I think the tripod mounted version or the carriage mounted version are probably the norm, with the Ghosts using the lighter version because they're a scout regiment.

Actually I believe he was carrying an assault cannon, even lighter than a light autocannon, though still enormously heavy.

I think the consideration needs to be made... how heavy is an autocannon? and how heavy is a assault cannonr? The closest thing to a modern man portable autocannon is about 75lbs, but even still a mini-gun is only about 35lbs. Caliber has a larger impact on weapon weight than almost anything else. Single-handedly operating an assault cannon is thus easier to believe. A light autocannon would have to be in the neighborhood of 40lbs for even an above average person to effectively shoulder and fire it accurately.

75 pounds is well within the range for a really buff guy to carry around, especially if he has some shoulder straps to dispirse the weight.

Sure, but try carrying that around all day long.

AND the ammuniion needed to fire it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, assault cannons are 60 kg, while a man-portable autocannon is 55kg. The assault cannon also costs about seven times as much, heh. As I suggested, Bragg was likely using a much lighter version because the Ghosts are a scout regiment.

Which translates to roughly 132 lbs for the assault cannon and 121 lbs for the Autocannon.

Melissia wrote:Sure, but try carrying that around all day long.

AND the ammunition needed to fire it.

Also, assault cannons are 60 kg, while a man-portable autocannon is 55kg. The assault cannon also costs about seven times as much, heh. As I suggested, Bragg was likely using a much lighter version because the Ghosts are a scout regiment.

Which translates to roughly 132 lbs for the assault cannon and 121 lbs for the Autocannon.

Bragg was using one "lifted" from a defensive emplacement established by a previous regiment.

It's safe to say that it's not a "light" autocannon. The Ghosts do have autocannons proper though, just they forego the heavy tripods and use bipods instead.

Ok, Abnett took some liberties with the Autocannon.

He might have meant Heavy Stubber. he appears to use the 2 terms fairly interchangably.

Grey Templar wrote:Ok, Abnett took some liberties with the Autocannon.

He might have meant Heavy Stubber. he appears to use the 2 terms fairly interchangably.

No, he really doesn't.

He makes references to stubbers mostly in Eisenhorn and the Gereon arc of books. They're not very good against anything with decent armor.

Autocannons are almost exclusively mentioned in the Ghosts, and they're almost always something where one person carries the gun(usually a brawnier member) and the other carries the ammunition. The weapons teams are almost always mentioned as being dug into crude foxholes, usually with their camo cloaks draped over the foxhole for extra cover.

Bragg is the only person who Gaunt has seen firing an autocannon, while moving and hefting it, without the assistance of power armor or bracing.

I suppose so.

either way, darn awsome books.

I think that's an important distinction to make, frankly.

Bragg was supposed to be a big beefy dude, much like Harker. They're able to move a heavy weapon and fire it without bracing or power armor. Are they accurate? No, not really. But they have a buttload of ammunition to use.

Right, Bragg was supposed to be a beast of a man.

Cause they're friggin awesome

DakkaDakka wrote: