Yes they explode, but no they don't explode like grenades, they are more like super-hollowpoints. It is like how a firework can blow off fingers in a closed fist but only cause superficial burns in an open palm.
So they do act like and are used like assault rifles, it is just that they have a friggin TON of stopping power, e.g. blowing chunks of flesh out and blowing limbs off, at least on a human sized target. On orks and other space marines who are extra dense and/or wear armor it makes it effective, not amazing like it would be on humans.
Of course this isn't something you can usually illustrate in visual media at a pg-13 rating. The SM video game did it pretty well though. Not perfect, but heads would pop.
Comics, Movies, Video Games....
In every other media Bolters acts like machineguns.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
riplikash wrote:Yes they explode, but no they don't explode like grenades, they are more like super-hollowpoints. It is like how a firework can blow off fingers in a closed fist but only cause superficial burns in an open palm.
Yes, I know, and that is exactly my point. It isn't a grenade, it doesn't have shrapnel casing, the charge isn't that big, and it blows chunks off a target, it doesn't blow torso's off.
It is an armor piercing assault round with fantastic stopping power. When a charge, even a small one, goes off in flesh it causes massive amounts of damage. But it isn't an area affect weapon.
Also flesh doesn't work like it did in that animation, where it crumbled. The bone and deltoid would have held on, so he would have had a big hole in his chest/under his arm, but not lost the whole arm, which would have been danlging by muscle and sinew.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And that is on a human target. GW usually portrays bolts doing exactly that to regular humans. Space marines and orcs are another matter entirely. They are massive enough and dense enough that they are not going to lose a limb, or even be taken out by a single shot in a non vital area. But it will put them down where a traditional round would not have the stopping power.
Bolter has in itself an exploding ammunition, logic is that when round hit something it can't penetrate with ease ( power armor or tank armor ) it explode regardless. Just like an RPG or exploding bullets explode on impact because they carry much more charge then ordinarily ammunition.
And in Space Marine Bolters are like ordinary machine guns, not mini rocket launchers. In "Ultramarines" Severus kills Chaplain with bolt round in the head, I was expecting that head will explode when hit by Botler round.
I would disagree on the space marine game. Guard practically disappear when hit. Orks will have their heads pop. Other CSM don't show any special damage, but then they are wearing armor. Not sure what else people want without a complex damage engine like they had in Wolverine to demonstrate chunks coming off of orks chest.
And they ARE closer to assault rifles with special ammo than min-rocket launchers. They do explode outside of bodies, but the explosion is going to be more like a big fire-cracker than an RPG. Even actual grenades explode with a bang of dust rather than a fiery explosion. Again, a fire cracker exploding in flesh is going to cause tons of damage, it doesn't take much in an enclosed area like that.
Even blowing a space marines head off is more than it would likely do. You would have a hole, a VERY large and bloody wound, but he isn't going to lose his head. And they aren't going to show that in a pg13 movie.
Comics, Movies, Video Games....
In every other media Bolters acts like machineguns.
Video games don't have the graphical power to simulate a small area of an enemy being blown to chunks.
Never seen the space marine movie (though I do have it) but I assume, similar to the video game, they don't have the time or resources to put into simulating thousands of tiny, overlapping explosions on someone's flesh.
Heavy Bolters more or less fulfill the duty of a modern-day heavy machine gun in the Imperial Guard at least. Just it has way more stopping power then even a .50 Cal M2
Space Marine depicted the Bolter pretty well. The one who fumbled was the DoW series where the rate of fire, firing sounds, and damage sustained isn't accurate at all. But for gameplay reasons I guess this was understandable.
Brother Coa wrote:Why then GW present Bolter in every other media as machineguns?
To be fair, I'd say that most of the time it isn't actually GW but someone who got the license, like Relic/THQ. When they can turn meltas into shotguns they can turn bolters into full auto machine guns just as well. Compare that to games such as "Chaos Gate" and you'll see that there are lots of different takes on how bolters work. Weapon sounds/visuals/effects are simply as varied as any other fluff detail depending entirely on who made the product you are looking at. Myself, I kinda like the idea of comparing the boltgun to an AA-12 set to single shot or four round bursts. Just the right RoF, imo.
I think a 300-400 rpm is the best for a bolter. Not having a full automatic weapon would be drastically inefficient for the Astartes, as most of infantry combat is laying down suppressive fire (not hitting the enemy). Of course this is still drastically less rpm then most modern assault rifles.
Harriticus wrote:I think a 300-400 rpm is the best for a bolter. Not having a full automatic weapon would be drastically inefficient for the Astartes, as most of infantry combat is laying down suppressive fire (not hitting the enemy). Of course this is still drastically less rpm then most modern assault rifles.
Having a full automatic weapon would be drastically inefficient for the Astartes. How many rounds do you think they carry with them? Most of infantry combat is killing the enemy; often suppressive fire is part of that; but that's what squad-level automatic weapons (ie, the SAW, or Heavy Bolter) and accurate semi-automatic fire is for.
An M16A4 fires around 800 RPM at cyclic rate, meaning that it could, theoretically, with a large enough magazine and optimum operating conditions fire at that RPM. Firing more than three magazines in a minute, or 90 rounds, would be rather impressive. Let alone firing accurately enough even as "suppressive fire" to make the enemy consider you a threat, and therefor be suppressed.
All in all, there are very sound combat doctrine reasons why the subsequent models of both the M16 and the M4 didn't have automatic fire capabilities.
Burst fire is far more accurate and far less likely to empty the entire magazine in a few seconds in the heat of battle, which is why the M16A2 (the model I carried) and later models do not have full-auto fire. It wasn't necessary when you had a couple guys lugging an M60D or M249 SAW and a few dozen belts of ammo for the same, those guys were your bullet-hoses.
The bolter, as well, doesn't need to be a fully-automatic weapon, though this capability is featured in several fluff sources. This may also be a variance in pattern of the bolters carried between one Chapter and another. However, when a single bolter round is capable of blowing through most body armor worn by the staggering majority of your enemies, penetrate their bodies and then explode inside them... you don't really need to shoot someone twenty-five times to kill them.
In WW2, the German infantry squads were based around the machinegun, not not as modern infantry squads today are, they used the rifle men to surpress the enemy allowing machineguns to get the kill. Now, they put down surpessive fire with weapons such as the Kar 98 and mp 40, note that the Kar98 is a bolt action. You don't need a machinegun to put down surpression.
Now looking at the round in the video there are a number of problems:
1) no way to set off the explosive charge.
2) based on the position of the explosive charge, it is not intended to explode within a target, it is designed to impact a hard surface, detonate, and push the slug through, not explode within.
Now things i found interesting:
1) the rifleing is on the bolt, not the inside of the barrel. this means that when the Marine is cleaning his bolt gun he does not have to wory about damaging the rifleing, making it easier to clean, and more acurate.
2) I noticed that the rocket ports were poorly designed, instead of drilling straight in it would have beem more effiecent to use a nosel.
> < shaped like this, to force the expanding gasses through a smaller area, and focusing them in making more thrust.
then to place the nosels at an agle to direct the flow of gasses to produce a faster spining motion, increaseing acuracy.
3) the flesh, indeed, was not realistic, nor a good representation of the intended target. The boltgun was designed to engage targets with thicker armor.
In conclusion, the bolt guns explosive charge is not built to cause damage, but to increase penetration. its a .75cal projectile, it doesn't need to explode.
How many times have we covered this topic, Coa, and how many times have you just ignored everything that we've said to bring the same exact damned thing up again and again?
I think of a bolter firing as either a slow firing automatic rifle or a semi automatic, firing one or two bullets per second. With a space marine behind it that is all you will need. Precision is everything. I dont think that they fire explosive bullets, sure they might be specialist ammo that covers that but as mentioned earlier I think of it more as a incredible hollow point round with the stopping power of something like the .950 JDJ round. An absolute monster. I would imagine them being about the same size, massive bulky things.
They do fire explosive rounds, the rounds just are more low explosive-- that is, they pop open to create a more deadly wound, they don't explode in a fiery ball of gas, death, and shrapnel.
Basically what a hollow point round will do. They are designed to expand on impact so that a larger area of tissue is damaged. Due to the shape of the tip of the bullet it will expand is size thus causing alot more internal damage to the target. As far as I understand it this is fairly close to what a bolter round does. There is really no need for the explosives. Having worked with commercial grade explosives for over a year now I can safely say that the amount of explosives that would be able to fit into a bolter round is enough to cause massive damage to whatever it hits, military explosives are on a whole other level.
Adding explosives to the bullet would be useless unless you add a significant amount, enough to cause a serious explosion, rather than having a small charge that will simply tear tissue as the hollow point will essentially do that for you. They are also made this way to increase the kinetic force of the round which is exactly what a SM would want.
Im sure in the 40k universe explosives are much more effective than they are now and smaller amounts are needed for the desired effect to occur but I doubt that the round would have a HE effect or anything similar to it.
Basically what im trying to say is why use explosives as a means of doing something when there is already something else on the market doing it for you? Unless ofcourse you want it to be completely overkill which, according to my understanding of the bolter ammunition, it isnt. I believe that was what the OP was trying to ask.
Mental note... Late night rambling is not good for you..
Thatguy91 wrote:Basically what im trying to say is why use explosives as a means of doing something when there is already something else on the market doing it for you?
Because explosives also add to the suppression effect, because bolt weapons also get used against lightly armoured vehicles, and because the enemies on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium are occasionally a bit tougher than your squishy contemporary soldier that half the time doesn't even wear flak armour.
This kind of ammunition is also growing popular with today's armies, mind you.
Also, shaped charge ftw. Even when the projectile fails to penetrate and detonate inside the target, you still have the explosion as a secondary effect.
Well, a bolter round is, at the outset, frigging huge. It puts a large hole in the target going in.
Then it explodes.
This makes an even larger hole. Possibly one going in and going out. This generally means that the body part around said hole(s) is no longer attached to the main body of whatever it was just got shot. If that thing was human, this might actually cause its torso to separate at the spine, causing the lower abdomen and the legs to fall off, the upper torso, head and the arms falling away from the other half of the body. Quite literally being blown in half.
In regards to the ROF, The Astartes are not mere men, right? So with their advance technology and physiology wouldn't they be able to fire a fully automatic weapon with significantly less recoil then we're used to seeing a regular human shoot a fully automatic weapon? And also, when you shoot something with a mini rocket and it doesn't die, and keeps barreling at you maybe its to your benefit to be able to hip-fire as fast as you can?
If bolt weapons would pose an issue of recoil, they would have stocks. Limiting the consumption of ammunition in a firefight is a viable theory for why fully automatic fire may be unavailable - then again, you're quite correct regarding the possibility of situations where "firing as fast as possible" would come in handy.
As far as I'm aware, GW themselves never really went into details concerning bolter RoF in the technical sections of their books. They do talk about burst fire in the 3E rulebook (see this scan), but even there it's not really clear whether or not they can be set to another mode by simply flipping a switch. As most of us are aware, licensed publications differ greatly in their portrayal, ranging from single shots only (SSI's computer games) to full-auto machine guns (THQ's computer games), not to mention the many different novels. So it once again comes down to "pick what you like most".
To be fair, bolters do have folding stocks in the non-Astartes variants. It's only the Astartes variants which don't, and that's more because they can do things like "lock" their armor to absorb recoil better per the fluff.
Personally, I've always pictured Space Marines using their bolters on single fire or short bursts and double-tapping their targets. By the time he has power armor and a bolter, a Space Marine has superhumanly keen senses, decades (at a minimum) of combat experience, psychological conditioning (and potentially advanced brain surgery) to repress fear or excitement reactions that commonly throw off accurate shooting, and targeting assistance built into their equipment. Given all that, I don't think accuracy is much of an issue for them, and they're already very well designed as psychological weapons, so the psychological impact of suppressive fire is probably less important to them than to modern soldiers. I think they're more interested in killing the enemy than in forcing them to take cover, which is the main use of full-auto.
They're shock troopers blended together with special forces and ramped up to 11. They don't appear to carry a whole lot of ammunition; 30 rounds per magazine, say they have 6 or 7 magazines stashed away somewhere in that armor, that's only a few hundred rounds per Space Marine. However, given that their assaults are mostly supposed to be quick in-and-out operations and they aren't supposed to miss often if ever, that makes sense. The drop pod lands, the doors blow out, Space Marines charge outside and nail whatever targets they see immediately at hand with rapid, accurate single-fire; one round for goodnight and one more for good luck. They complete the mission as fast as possible, taking out the rebel Governor or military leader or heretic preacher or whoever it is, set whatever they have time for on fire to spread confusion, and then leave as soon as the Thunderhawk arrives. There's more ammo in the Thunderhawk; reload and get replacement magazines in flight, then either get dropped off somewhere else on the planet or return to the Strike Cruiser to be redeployed via drop pod.
That being so, I imagine that bolt rounds ARE designed for massive overkill against a human target. They're a psychological weapon as much as anything; massive gun, eardrum-bursting sound, bullet not only kills the target but also drenches his friends in gore and bone fragments; that's pretty damn scary. Space Marines mostly fight human separatists, and against that kind of enemy the sheer psychological impact of the heavily-armored giant literally exploding people with his side-arm could have a very important effect.
I've never, ever seen a GW miniature that features a bolter with a stock.
Though that is pretty stupid, to be fair. Even with recoil being negligible, a stock always increases accuracy. But for the Space Marines I suppose there's no room for it, anyways. Must be hard enough as it is wielding the gun with that much armour in front of the chest. Limited mobility for the arms and all that.
Lynata wrote:
Though that is pretty stupid, to be fair. Even with recoil being negligible, a stock always increases accuracy. But for the Space Marines I suppose there's no room for it, anyways. Must be hard enough as it is wielding the gun with that much armour in front of the chest. Limited mobility for the arms and all that.
I suppose the Astartes equipment and the armour (and the helmet) itself might compensate for it.
The helmet has been, for a long time, described as incorporating an "autosense" link between the helmet and the bolter itself--essentially "drawing" a reticle for the Astartes where the bolter is aimed.
Kanluwen wrote:You actually have to look for older models. The older "boltgun" styled guns did have stocks.
Phew, you're right - found some pics in the web. Ironically, those were said to be Marine bolters, heh.
But what bikes do you mean? The Astartes ones?
SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:I suppose the Astartes equipment and the armour (and the helmet) itself might compensate for it.
Yeah, even if not all bolters may come equipped with the autosense link - also, I guess the massive pauldrons do lend themselves well to simply resting the stub-butt against it. Or possibly "locking" the arm, as Kanluwen mentioned. For the Marines, aiming their gun is probably just like pointing a finger, whereas normal humans at least have to deal with the immense weight of the weapon.
Ironically, I'm avoiding learning right now by posting here instead of doing homework for a computer class...
But yeah. Bolter stocks have existed, they just don't so much anymore. I think they swapped the looks on Guard ones so it's more recognizably a "bolter" at an easy glance.
Thatguy91: As always you picks your source but the overwhelming bulk going way back describes the standard Bolt as explosive (see Lynata's link). The only source that I can think of that consistently describes Bolts as non-explosive is James Swallow's novels (...).
In terms of the why, and comparing with hollowpoints, instant incap's hard enough with humies, let alone most of the gribblies in the 40kverse; and it's even more important against them, especially when grossly outnumbered as Astartes will tend to be.
A Bolt's large diameter and heavy but way too slow for rapid energy transfer (lots of momentum but not lots of KE). Simply making a wide hole in something doesn't stop it very quickly (unless it hits something in the central nervous system). Tissue is highly elastic so you get a temporary cavity with not much tissue damage which then contracts leaving a permanent cavity (IIRC ~70% the width of the projectile).
To get a bigger permanent cavity (than a hollowpoint of that calibre would produce):-
1 Dump KE into the tissue quickly and perforate the expanded tissue with energetic fragments (inert Bolt too slow for this);
2 Dump KE into the tissue so quickly that the shockwave exceeds the speed of sound through the tissue (overcoming its elasticity) - the temporary cavity in this region becomes permanent (inert Bolt way too slow for this). This method will also shock the fluids in the region causing rupturing of blood vessels and so on, and is more likely to produce the 'hydrostatic shock' distant effects therefore;
3 Place a propellant (not high explosive) in the projectile with enough force to shatter and throw out the projectile's walls (but not set up a supersonic shock wave) and you get > method #1;
4 Place a high explosive in the projectile (which breaks and throws out the projectile's walls) and get >> method #2 plus >>> method #1, plus thermal and chemical effects, plus an extremely versatile round able to damage many types of different targets (in conjunction with the armoured tip).
It really is the one shot stop (against most things, and just as well given how temperamental they are described as being) brutal, horrific, terror weapon that the fluff often describes it as (why Commissars get Bolt Pistols); and that most games notoriously don't match in stats or effect for balance or censorship reasons (see the movie Space Marines article from back in the day where the Bolter should really be an autocannon, in terms of stats).
* * *
As to RoF, I haven't ever come across any figures. The only RoF numbers I've seen for 40k are for the generic Lasgun and Auto Pistol in the Uplifting Primer. These weapons are often described as being able to hose away (especially Auto Pistol, that being its raison d'être) and their stated 'full auto' RoF are (respectively)... 220 shots per minute (cyclic) and... 150 shots per minute... slower than contemporary semi-autos....
I'd expect the Bolter to cycle slower than this for simple mechanical reasons (longer round, bolt and most of the rest of the action larger with more inertia). It'd also make sense given how formidable each Bolt is (neither target effect nor suppression fire requires high RoF with such rounds), and how temperamental the weapons are described as being, plus the horrendous recoil that's often mentioned.
Thatguy91 wrote:Basically what a hollow point round will do.
Except... better.
Why does everyone act as if all wounds are equal?
Not at all what I was trying to imply, sorry if my post was confusing. What I ment was that I think the rounds act like a hollow point in that they expand, explode, whatever, inside of the target rather than the second of impact. Bolter rounds definitely have a small explosive charge in them but not a grenade-like charge nor a HE charge. Thats why I was trying to compare them to hollow points as I think they would behave similarly. Not entirely sure what I was trying to argue with that last post.
Psienesis wrote: However, when a single bolter round is capable of blowing through most body armor worn by the staggering majority of your enemies, penetrate their bodies and then explode inside them... you don't really need to shoot someone twenty-five times to kill them.
Majority perhaps, but not all. Why not include a fully automatic setting? We're talking about Astartes here, not humans. They have the training and presence of mind to only use automatic fire when it is appropriate.
Thatguy91: Aye, frangible projectile's probably a better model, but with a charge driving the fragments for extra penetration - at the very least (bit more if you find the fluff of folks being blown apart and viscera everywhere more credible) - and with an armour piercing tip that will continue to penetrate deep into larger targets after the detonation and fragmentation of the projectile's body.
Primarily intended to detonate within the target but will still have decent penetration against good armour that resists it with the charge going off outside and driving the tip through (as said).
Good round.
One of the more believable and realistic bits of 40k kit (just take the heinous recoil and depleted deuterium core with some salt and walk by whistling...).
Which recoil? No GW source actually ever talks about it - it's just that some novel authors thought it would be cool were that the case. For what it's worth, I can relate. In pop culture, recoil has come to be regarded as a measure of how powerful a gun is, even though this is a very "gut-feeling" kind of thinking.
But yes, the "depleted deuterium" bit is fun stuff. I've seen someone trying to excuse it as condensed ice or something, but not even I am touching this with a 7-feet-pole, and usually I enjoy finding excuses.
Lynata wrote:I've never, ever seen a GW miniature that features a bolter with a stock.
The plastic boltguns with which accompanied the metal body/plastic arms Mk 7 Marines of 1st and 2nd Edition had stocks. Why they did, I know not, since assembling an armed Marine required trimming the stock straight off.
To return to the general question: who cares? The bolter round's core of 'depleted deuterium' makes no scientific sense whatsoever, but Warhammer 40,000 isn't a hard sci-fi setting.
In regards to what Riplikash was saying in the beginning about the explosive core, and exploding, is it maybe like the XM25? Maybe setup to the SM's targeting in the helmet, and then exploding after a certain distance? That's just me trying to make sense of it, i'm not sure about any official fluff in this regard.
Honestly I think folks make a Bolt round out to be way more complicated than it is, and the bulk of the fluff is pretty explicit in the basic principles. It doesn't have the complicated fusing system of the XM25, since it isn't a grenade designed to airburst at a pre-determined point for sneaky area-effect damage. It's just a hard-hitting direct fire weapon, like our regular, old school, armour piercing high explosive cannon projectiles (in complexity and principle).
Comparatively small charge kicks projectile out of the muzzle and (presumably) provides the gas necessary to cycle the weapon. Projectile's rocket ignites and provides the lion's share of the velocity (so most of the momentum change happens externally to the gun, so not much recoil) and a consistently flat trajectory whilst burning.
It hits something hard (ie with mass) which causes the mechanical detonation process to commence ('mass reactive' - probably designed such that a window wouldn't provide enough resistance to trigger anything) such that there's a miniscule (standard) delay between impact and detonation, allowing the projectile to get deep into the vitals of an averaged roughly humanoid target wearing averaged armour before the explosion.
There's no electronic, digital monkeying about with complicated fusing, since it's a direct fire over-killer with enough yield and ability to send numerous controlled follow on shots rapidly down-range that it doesn't really matter if it detonates a bit prematurely because it hit soft cover, an ammo pouch or an arm first, or detonates a bit later because the target had softer armour and tissue than the averaged figure used. IoM likes standardisation and simplicity.
I've got harder figures knocking around somewhere but just for example:-
Suppose the Bolt will on average be travelling at 300 m/s after it has penetrated average (Flak, say) armour, and is penetrating average humanoid tissue (mean of bone and... some really squishy organ... spot the biologist...), rocket still burning. For the sake of simplicity we'll say that it was also the same speed through the armour, and the armour is 5cm thickness. You want detonation to occur (say) 15 cm into the target itself, with the big dense tip continuing to achieve the FBI recommended 18" minimum total. Make your detonator be triggered by a threaded pin or something that always takes exactly 0.00067 sec to go from projectile initial impact to full detonation and you don't need any additional finicky fuse or whatnot.
Simple and rugged and if circumstances make the actual detonation an inch or two before or after the optimal average figure, then that's why you've got a big fethin warhead (and at least semi-auto RoF in a low recoil [for my money] weapon, and 20-30 round magazine).
Astartes need weapons that drop fools instantly with as much noise and gore as possible whilst they keep the momentum of the assault up - they don't have much use for grenade launchers, especially fiddly and faffy ones that you have to stop to reprogramme.
* * *
EDIT: Summary: Best model is a short ~20 mm armour piercing high explosive cannon projectile (penetrates then explodes, not a grenade) with rocket propulsion, and a small charge just to kick it out of the weapon and cycle the weapon. Penetrates first because the warhead is monstrous inside the target but really feeble outside it.
Melissia wrote:Quite a large charge, actually, as it is instantly lethal at short range as well as long.
Though it has been said that the projectile leaves the barrel at low velocity, only taking up speed after it is free of the weapon.
I suppose it comes down to (a) what is "low velocity", what is (b) "short" and (c) how "lethal" does it have to be. Or even more importantly, how effective is the miniature rocket at propelling the bolt to "lethal" velocity. As always, a matter of interpretations. The way tsz52 described it, it does match GW's version of the fluff.
Lynata wrote:Though it has been said that the projectile leaves the barrel at low velocity
I don't think you ever provided a canon source to this, but even so, nowhere in recent lore has it been depicted as less lethal or able to penetrate less armor at point blank range.
Being of a lower velocity would be less lethal as well as less accurate. This does not match GW's version of the lore.
Melissia wrote:I don't think you ever provided a canon source to this
That bit was in the 2E Wargear book, which had rather extensive descriptions of a lot of stuff. To be fair, I've not seen it printed anywhere else either - that said, such details have always been thrown all over the place in 40k, so I'd not be surprised if it also shows up in some White Dwarf issue or another obscure source. But if so I haven't stumbled over it yet.
Melissia wrote:Being of a lower velocity would be less lethal as well as less accurate. This does not match GW's version of the lore.
Only when we assume that the miniature rocket is unable to kick the projectile to full speed within the blink of an eye. Yes, it may sound crazy, but this is how it was described - it's, simply put, 40k science at work.
For what it's worth, the Deathwatch Kill Team rules in WD #305 also mentioned that Stalker-bolts are subsonic, which means they would have to travel at a velocity lower than ~340 m/s - at maximum speed without, according to the fluff in the very same article, loss of lethalty. Maybe the "diamantine tip" of a bolt round has monomolecular edge treatment or whatever - after all, penetration does not necessarily depend on a projectile's velocity and mass alone, but can be influenced by shape and material as well. Also, penetration does not have to happen 100% of the time, anyways, neatly explaining why not every bolter hit is a guaranteed kill even when facing IG.
I think my own opinion falls somewhere between yours and that of tsz52 in that I compare the initial discharge to a contemporary shotgun - this would fit the aforementioned 340 m/s nicely and be quite lethal at point blank already, with any sort of recoil being rendered a non-issue by the gun's own heavy weight as well as any internal mechanisms (such as, for example, the blast compensator in the 3E rulebook's bolter schematic).
There's room for a lot of speculation/interpretation. Which is probably why their description differs from novel to novel - though I still think that any mention of recoil in a story happens largely due to the "rule of cool" in various action movies. And I will admit that find myself constantly torn between the aforementioned technical description and my own affinity for said rule, too. Fortunately, everything is vague enough to easily allow for a personalized balance between the two.
(fun fact, the necessary push to achieve an acceleration rate of 340 m/s² for a 0.25 kg projectile is approx. 85 newtons - this can be achieved by a modern day class G model rocket engine - the rest is simply a matter of miniaturization)
BeRzErKeR wrote:Personally, I've always pictured Space Marines using their bolters on single fire or short bursts and double-tapping their targets. By the time he has power armor and a bolter, a Space Marine has superhumanly keen senses, decades (at a minimum) of combat experience, psychological conditioning (and potentially advanced brain surgery) to repress fear or excitement reactions that commonly throw off accurate shooting,.
I dont think so, In savage scars it shows that space marines can go into a beserker rage at the drop of a hat.
Alsso i think they do have to power to go rabid fire and full auto. Its just the space marines dont us iit that often. The prefer to go with short bursts to prevent to much recoil.
Also i dont think power armor does much. Scouts, Some IG and others us it just fine w/o power armor.
hotsauceman1 wrote:
I dont think so, In savage scars it shows that space marines can go into a beserker rage at the drop of a hat.
Alsso i think they do have to power to go rabid fire and full auto. Its just the space marines dont us iit that often. The prefer to go with short bursts to prevent to much recoil.
Also i dont think power armor does much. Scouts, Some IG and others us it just fine w/o power armor.
Certainly some Space Marines, due to defective geneseed or Chaos corruption, are somewhat uncontrolled in their emotional reactions. But those aren't the majority. The process of creating a Space Marine explicitly includes psychological conditioning (or brainwashing, if you prefer the term) to suppress fear; it's easy to imagine that they might also, while they were at it, remove the physical, uncontrollable reflexes associated with ANY strong emotion, since most of them are a detriment on the battlefield. When you get excited or nervous, your hands tend to quiver, your twitch reflex is magnified, you sweat more (which can be distracting) and you tend to move too fast and over-correct for mistakes. Suppressing those reflexes would be an enormous advantage; essentially, you'd end up with a soldier who was 'in the zone' at all times, functioning at peak performance even under stress. Since the Space Marines are specifically designed to be as effective on a battlefield as the human body can support, I would think that the engineering the Space Marine physiology undergoes would significantly reduce or entirely eliminate most of the things that make accurate and controlled fire so hard for humans (compulsive trigger-jerking, rapid or irregular breathing, adrenaline shivers, etc), even if it doesn't make them not FEEL the emotions associated with those problems.
It's canonical, I believe (though I cannot quote a source at the moment) that Space Marine power armor includes auto-senses and even a direct visual link to the weapon the Space Marine is carrying; that being so, a suit of power armor + the Black Carapace should, indeed, increase the accuracy of a Space Marine significantly. Of course, perhaps they're simply so experienced and naturally accurate that it isn't important in most situations. Combined with their long and frankly brutal training regime, perhaps a full-fledged Space Marine barely even uses his armor's auto-senses, instead snapping off shots from the hip based off instinct just as accurately as a human who takes the time to aim.
Bolters are, in numerous pieces of fluff, depicted as firing either very rapidly in burst mode or in full-automatic. I don't doubt that Space Marines have that capability, since in some situations it would be very useful and Space Marines are supposed to be able to prosecute practically any fight against practically any enemy. If you're facing an Ork horde charging straight at you in a solid mass, accuracy is secondary to rate of fire; you WILL hit the Orks, you just need to put rounds downrange. But I (personally) believe that in most situations, single-fire or perhaps two or three round bursts is far more appropriate, and probably far more commonly used. Most of the time, as I said, Space Marines are fighting humans. Normal humans don't need to be hosed down with bolter fire to die, one or perhaps two in the center of mass will do just fine. Why expend more of the Emperor's holy ammunition when you don't need to? Kill what needs killing, get the job done; Space Marines may be fanatical Knights Templar, but they are also disciplined and professional soldiers.
There is mention of a 'kicker' charge in the ideo describing the bolter. That 'kicker' charge could well provide a decent (albeit brief) burst of suitable velocity before the main rocket charge fired, providing the final boost to speed and sustaining that speed for the duration of the projectiles life.
This is a big difference from the rocket charge only gyrojet which as been known to be stopped by a piece of cardboard over the muzzle of the gun.
Lynata wrote:For what it's worth, the Deathwatch Kill Team rules in WD #305 also mentioned that Stalker-bolts are subsonic, which means they would have to travel at a velocity lower than ~340 m/s - at maximum speed without, according to the fluff in the very same article, loss of lethalty.
Those are specialist rounds, which have a different design than normal bolter rounds and are also more expensive and harder to procure.
Also, since the primary kill mechanism of the bolter is the explosive power, rather than ti's velocity, subsonic isn't quite as big a problem as may be thought. As long as the shell hits going fast enough to penetrate into the target before detonation, the results should be about the same.
Jefffar wrote:Also, since the primary kill mechanism of the bolter is the explosive power
If a bolter shell doesn't penetrate flak armor, it's not killing a guardsman. Flak armor is specifically designed to work well against small blasts and shrapnel. A bolter shell exploding without penetrating flak armor will, at best, cause a broken rib or two, probably just bruising more likely.
Jefffar wrote:Also, since the primary kill mechanism of the bolter is the explosive power
If a bolter shell doesn't penetrate flak armor, it's not killing a guardsman. Flak armor is specifically designed to work well against small blasts and shrapnel. A bolter shell exploding without penetrating flak armor will, at best, cause a broken rib or two, probably just bruising more likely.
Unless the shrapnel shreds his unarmored face. . . or rips up his arms and severs an artery. . . or cuts his (again, unarmored) throat. . . or the bolt bounces downwards, explodes between his legs, and gives him a groin full of red-hot metal.
You see where I'm going. Imperial flak armor works well against small blasts, yes, but I would think that a single bolt shell would do pretty damn serious damage even if it hit at the wrong angle and ricocheted off the armor. If it buried itself in the armor before exploding but without fully penetrating, now, the Guardsman might not be badly hurt but his armor would be ruined around the point of impact. Time to run away!
So far the most accurate representation I have seen in bolter media was in fire warrior, the Tau carrying the weapon could fire 2 shots in a row(burst?), this could be done in succession, but with a pause in between, when I think of a bolter this is how I think of it firing. A Space Marine could probably keep up a higher rate of fire that a simple Tau, but why waste the expensive ammunition? You are a super human, your gun can put just about ANYTHING down in those 2 shots (Anything your size anyway). Marines might never know what might be coming on a hostile planet, or how much ammunition they might require, they make every shot count, because they are the best.
BeRzErKeR wrote:Unless the shrapnel shreds his unarmored face
The weapon does not produce much shrapnel. It is not a fragmentation grenade. Furthermore, in many models the face IS covered by flak armor, via a mask-- and flak armor is resistant to fragmentation weapons.
BeRzErKeR wrote:or rips up his arms and severs an artery
The weapon does not produce much shrapnel. It is not a fragmentation grenade. Furthermore, the arms are covered by flak armor-- and flak armor is resistant to fragmentation weapons.
BeRzErKeR wrote:. . . or cuts his (again, unarmored) throat. . .
The weapon does not produce much shrapnel. It is not a fragmentation grenade. Furthermore in many models the throat IS covered by some form of flak armor-- and flak armor is resistant to fragmentation weapons.
BeRzErKeR wrote: or the bolt bounces downwards, explodes between his legs, and gives him a groin full of red-hot metal.
The weapon does not produce much shrapnel. It is not a fragmentation grenade. Furthermore, the groin is covered by flak armor-- and flak armor is resistant to fragmentation weapons.
Flak armor is designed SPECIFICALLY to protect against shrapnel and blasts. Using a fragmentation effect is the least efficient way to get through flak armor.Lasguns are more efficient at getting through flak armor than fragmentation. Your point is moot.
That said, any explosive device covered in anything will cause shrapnel. Anti-personnel devices simply produce more, increasing the likelyhood of hitting anything even over a distance of several meters. I would say that the fragmenting metal casing of any bolt round being shattered on the target's armoured chest does pose a certain risk to see the poor guy's chin punctured, or more. Though I think the risk for injury is far greater than actual death (if medical attention can be secured).
Also, not all IG regiments actually wear flak (or even any) armour, though this is admittedly besides the point.
Getting a bit more into conjecture, and less consistent sources, now but:-
Melissia: Even a comparatively small kicker charge can be lethal at the muzzle, the Bolt having high sectional density with a fairly pointy tip. It'll hit with all of the extra mass of its unexpended propellant.
And don't forget its dual purpose nature, with the warhead being behind the tip: if Flak stops it, the explosion's effect is still focused into the target by giving the tip a shove forwards (two chances to penetrate), probably whilst the armour is still being pushed and stretched by the initial impact, which will be further stretched and torn by the shock and shrapnel that also goes forwards along with the tip.
[EDIT: Yup, it isn't a fragmentation grenade. But there will still be some shrapnel/fragmentation. And just as explosive and shrapnel effect drops off massively with increased distance, it also increases massively with decreased distance... especially if in direct contact where the target itself (rather than mere air) conducts the shockwave.]
If that still doesn't go through then it's certainly prepared the target nicely for the second Bolt incoming.
Lynata: Sources eh... what are they like?! Anyroad, this is my take:-
Recoil: Not so much a large reaction force (not much initial projectile momentum and heavy weapon, and muzzle brake etc) but the action is big and heavy with a long stroke, and the recoil-axis is pretty high, so there's a lot of mass moving suddenly backwards and forwards high up which makes the weapon a bit jumpy and lively in your hands.
Velocity: Can't find my sourced crunchy numbers but I'd expect standard Bolts to be either defo subsonic or >Mach 1.3, since being transonic is inefficiently draggy and plays hell with accuracy. Since mass, warhead and large diameter seem to be the order of the day, then I'd imagine that standard Bolts avoid being pushed through the turbulent transonic region altogether, to get that bit more range out of the propellant efficiently. And the short stubby cone (as shown) is actually better, aerodynamically, than the long thin cone in the subsonic region.
Since Mach 1 varies so much even on our own single planet, and Boltguns will be used on all kinds of different worlds, it'll likely be < 300 m/s to be defo subsonic most places where they have atmosphere.
For fast running fights, instinctively engaging targets from the hip at all ranges from muzzle to 1 km out, in wildly varying atmospheres and gravities, having a consistent hit point is more important than raw velocity for such a round. You want laser-like flatness of trajectory (though you will have to lead some targets a bit more, with the lower velocity).
Soooo, I'd have a consistent velocity (whilst the rocket is burning) of ~290 m/s (at standard sea level atmospheric conditions on Earth). The rocket isn't needing to provide 290 m/s per s acceleration, but merely counter the drag encountered at 290 m/s (so doesn't need anywhere near as much thrust) for a long ranged, consistent, gentle burn (making your propellant go that bit further, or/and needing less). Any unburned propellant remaining upon impact adds Incendiary to the other attributes, so it's certainly not wasted.
[Obviously it won't be exactly that simple (still need to get from muzzle velocity up to ~290 m/s etc) but this is just a friendly chat and not an epic patent application. ]
tsz52 wrote:the recoil-axis is pretty high, so there's a lot of mass moving suddenly backwards and forwards high up
Wouldn't the blast compensator grill on top of the bolter's frame account for this? At least partially, and assuming we're going by that 3E schematic now, ofc. Or am I interpreting recoil axis wrong now?
(though the schematic was of a Stormbolter - could be a feature only found on them, to better deal with the "double" recoil of 200% RoF?)
tsz52 wrote:Obviously it won't be exactly that simple (still need to get from muzzle velocity up to ~290 m/s etc) but this is just a friendly chat and not an epic patent application.
All that matters is that it ends up sounding believable enough to the reader, anyways.
tsz52 wrote:[EDIT: Yup, it isn't a fragmentation grenade. But there will still be some shrapnel/fragmentation. And just as explosive and shrapnel effect drops off massively with increased distance, it also increases massively with decreased distance... especially if in direct contact where the target itself (rather than mere air) conducts the shockwave.]
... which is what flak armor is specifically designed to prevent damage from.
Jefffar wrote:Also, since the primary kill mechanism of the bolter is the explosive power
If a bolter shell doesn't penetrate flak armor, it's not killing a guardsman. Flak armor is specifically designed to work well against small blasts and shrapnel. A bolter shell exploding without penetrating flak armor will, at best, cause a broken rib or two, probably just bruising more likely.
This is true, if it can't get through the armour there will be limited effect. That is why in the game permits someone wearing Flak Armour an armour save against bolters.
However given the weight of the projectile and it's partially armour piercing design (I would say that the bolter round is an example of what we term SAPHEI or Semi-Armour Piercing high Explosive Incendiary), the odds of it successfully getting through flak armour before detonation are relatively good (say 2/3rds of the time), even with low muzzle velocities.
The former soviets designed an entire line of subsonic large calibre sub-machineguns and rifles that are described as being very effective at penetrating body armour and even disabling vehicles. The reason for the effectiveness of the weapons at such a low velocity was that they fired a very long, heavy bullet, much like the bolter does. A combination of high sectional density and good momentum allows the rounds to push through what normally would require a high velocity round. The bolter would do much the same, followed by the detonation of the charge to cause maximum wounding potential.
Melissia wrote:The weapon does not produce much shrapnel. It is not a fragmentation grenade. Furthermore, the groin is covered by flak armor-- and flak armor is resistant to fragmentation weapons.
Flak armor is designed SPECIFICALLY to protect against shrapnel and blasts. Using a fragmentation effect is the least efficient way to get through flak armor.Lasguns are more efficient at getting through flak armor than fragmentation. Your point is moot.
Quoted only one of your repetitions, for brevity.
You keep saying that, and it keeps being both 1) unprovable and 2) irrelevant.
First off; it's a .75 caliber round. That's pretty damn big; plenty big enough to have a sufficient amount of explosive to make pieces of the metal attain lethal velocity. Score the casing; that guarantees that it'll break apart along those specific lines, since the round is weakest there, ensuring that every fragment will be deadly sharp. That IS one of the most basic designs for a frag grenade. So no, actually, you're wrong; a bolter shell, by every description of them that we've been given, IS a small fragmentation grenade with armor-penetrating qualities, or can be made into one very, very easily. As in, with a sharp hand tool and ten minutes of work, max.
And second; do you know what the kill radius of a modern frag grenade is? About five meters. That is the KILL radius, ie the radius within which anyone, INCLUDING SOMEONE WEARING BODY ARMOR, can expect to die. A bolter round isn't a frag grenade; it doesn't have to be, because it explodes right next to the target. It isn't five meters away, it's not even 12 inches away, it's literally in contact. Of course it will produce shrapnel; it's explosive wrapped in metal, which will burst when the explosive goes off. Not as much as a purpose-built frag grenade, sure, but it will still exist, and it doesn't really matter if there's 'much' shrapnel when all those red-hot shards of metal are flying apart at high velocity right next to your extremely-permeable skin.
And, furthermore, before you bring up 'flak armor is designed to protect against this', modern military body armor is ALSO designed, specifically, to protect against this. That does not prevent frag grenades from killing, on average, anybody who ends up within 5 meters of one when it goes off. That is because grenades are - gasp! - designed to defeat armor! Since it's not, you know, totally unknown to people doing weapons design work that those they're attacking will probably be protecting themselves. I don't see any particular reason to assume that in Warhammer 40k armor design has greatly outpaced weapons design; rather the opposite, actually, given the vast numbers of weapons that are capable of blowing straight through flak armor and even defeating Space Marine power armor.
So. . . a purpose-built frag grenade will kill most of the people who are within a little over fifteen feet, even when those people are wearing body armor specifically designed to defeat exactly that thing. Why on earth would you assert that a slightly-smaller explosive shell can't kill a person who's half an inch away? The lesser power is more than compensated for by the much, much shorter distance; the fragments have no chance to spread out, and a large fraction of them will go straight into the target's body. Goodnight, sweet prince, and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.
tsz52 wrote:[EDIT: Yup, it isn't a fragmentation grenade. But there will still be some shrapnel/fragmentation. And just as explosive and shrapnel effect drops off massively with increased distance, it also increases massively with decreased distance... especially if in direct contact where the target itself (rather than mere air) conducts the shockwave.]
... which is what flak armor is specifically designed to prevent damage from.
A distant explosion rapidly diffuses its lethal effect as its force is spread out over the surface area of an ever expanding (for simpliclty) sphere. Further, air isn't very good as a medium to propagate force since it's so thin. Flak is designed to protect against this plus the shrapnel riding the fairly slow blast wave.
An explosion in contact can set up a supersonic shockwave through what it hits - which is a whole different bag of bones. Plus the force per square cm (and shrapnel density) is much higher since the radius of the expanding sphere is much smaller (ie zero radius if in contact). Flak isn't designed to protect against this. And again this isn't just an isotropic dispersal but the force is focused in driving the tip forward deeper into the armour - armour being shredded by a supersonic shockwave going through it just before the tip. Even without hard penetration, if that shockwave hits your innards you're in trouble.
Not perfect analogies but think of: throwing a handful of sand at a balloon with all your might (bounce) vs touching it with a pin powered only by your finger tips; a large artillery shell exploding near a tank vs a small HESH round hitting it; a huge explosive going off in the air near a ship vs a smaller explosive going off in contact or even not in contact but under water (water better medium, breaks keel; in air minor damage).
A) Flak armor is designed to protect from explosions like an altilery shell landing a couple of meters away, not blowing up in one's face. Realisticaly, its not going to stop a bolter round so it can explode outside any way.
B) Bolters fire a .75 cal projectile (anyone notice that cal, which is a fraction of an inch, so .50cal = .5 inch(to my understanding) but everything else is in metric.) a .50 cal can put a round through a car, engine block and all. Any amount of armor you could put on a man's chest to protect him from a round like that would crush him.
C)As it has been stated, many types of bolt gun rounds are available, is it not possible that they do have a fragmenation grenade like round, an armour peircer like the one i described earlier, and the hollow point described earlier(by Melissia i think, quotes box doesn't look that far back)
D) Bolt guns are going to have very little recoil. Recoil is infact the force applied to the fire arm in the direction opposite travel of the bullet, you experience recoil because every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Basicaly the firearm has to push you to push itself, hence recoil. Now given that most of the bolt gun's velocity is added after it leaves the barrel( by the rocket) unlike a modern fire arm where the fastest the bullet will ever go is experianced as it leaves the muzzle.
E) Anyone notice the futility of using a flash hidder on a bolt gun, the trail left by the rocket would revial ones position would lead anyone strait to the shooter. Besides every animation I have seen of a bolt gun firing has a massive muzzle blast.
Edit: I could go on about how I think the bolter works for days, including how it cycles, how fast it would potentialy cycle, how reliable it would be based on how it cycles( you would be surprised)...
B) Yup a .50 BMG is pretty fierce but it's got loads of velocity too. The .75 Bolt will have the mass bit covered but may be lacking a bit in velocity (why it has a warhead). Don't forget that kinetic energy goes up only linearly with mass but at ^2 velocity. A Desert Eagle's .50 would have a hard time getting through armour, for instance.
C) I think that folks are more concerned about the standard Bolt at this point, since that's the one most often described and seen in games etc.
D) Agree about the recoil, but as mentioned up there somewhere, the experience of recoil felt by a shooter isn't just down to simple Newtonian reaction but also affected by things like how the action operates (height of recoil axis above hand, mass of reciprocating parts of the action, length of stroke, where reciprocating parts are in relation to centre of balance and grip etc).
E) Think it's more likely a muzzle brake than flash hider (on standard Bolter): reduces felt recoil and muzzle climb.
BeRzErKeR wrote:You keep saying that, and it keeps being both 1) unprovable
Dark Heresy page page 144 states exactly what I have stated. In fact, against shrapnel and blasts, flak armor is equivalent to carapace armor.
"Comprised of layers of ablative and impact-absorbent material, flak armor is effective against small arms, shrapnel, and proximity blasts. Flak armor counts as [Armor Point 5, equivalent to carapace] against any hit from a weapon with the Blast quality". And this is against weapons which have far better blast power than a boltgun does, such as grenades, rocket launchers, and so on.
BeRzErKeR wrote:2) irrelevant.
So what if it's a big round?
The armor protects against the shrapnel. That is what it is specifically designed for. You can argue the impact would cause broken ribs or somesuch, but the armor itself is more than enough to block the very small explosion and limited from a bolter round which is not designed as a fragmentation weapon, and therefor inefficient at it.
But this is irrelevant because it is NOT low velocity despite what older lore says. There's no depictions of it in lore as low velocity upon exiting the barrel except for that one statement. In fact, its recoil is notable in mediums where you see animations, and that's with a power armored marine holding it. Its initial velocity after the gun fires is enough to penetrate flak armor.
Melissia wrote:
The armor protects against the shrapnel. That is what it is specifically designed for. You can argue the impact would cause broken ribs or somesuch, but the armor itself is more than enough to block the very small explosion and limited from a bolter round which is not designed as a fragmentation weapon, and therefor inefficient at it.
Do try to at least read the whole post you're responding to, or you risk repeating a point that's already been countered and making yourself look quite foolish.
BeRzErKeR wrote:And second; do you know what the kill radius of a modern frag grenade is? About five meters. That is the KILL radius, ie the radius within which anyone, INCLUDING SOMEONE WEARING BODY ARMOR, can expect to die. A bolter round isn't a frag grenade; it doesn't have to be, because it explodes right next to the target. It isn't five meters away, it's not even 12 inches away, it's literally in contact. Of course it will produce shrapnel; it's explosive wrapped in metal, which will burst when the explosive goes off. Not as much as a purpose-built frag grenade, sure, but it will still exist, and it doesn't really matter if there's 'much' shrapnel when all those red-hot shards of metal are flying apart at high velocity right next to your extremely-permeable skin.
And, furthermore, before you bring up 'flak armor is designed to protect against this', modern military body armor is ALSO designed, specifically, to protect against this. That does not prevent frag grenades from killing, on average, anybody who ends up within 5 meters of one when it goes off. That is because grenades are - gasp! - designed to defeat armor! Since it's not, you know, totally unknown to people doing weapons design work that those they're attacking will probably be protecting themselves. I don't see any particular reason to assume that in Warhammer 40k armor design has greatly outpaced weapons design; rather the opposite, actually, given the vast numbers of weapons that are capable of blowing straight through flak armor and even defeating Space Marine power armor.
So. . . a purpose-built frag grenade will kill most of the people who are within a little over fifteen feet, even when those people are wearing body armor specifically designed to defeat exactly that thing. Why on earth would you assert that a slightly-smaller explosive shell can't kill a person who's half an inch away? The lesser power is more than compensated for by the much, much shorter distance; the fragments have no chance to spread out, and a large fraction of them will go straight into the target's body. Goodnight, sweet prince, and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.
Melissia wrote:
But this is irrelevant because it is NOT low velocity despite what older lore says. There's no depictions of it in lore as low velocity upon exiting the barrel except for that one statement. In fact, its recoil is notable in mediums where you see animations, and that's with a power armored marine holding it. Its initial velocity after the gun fires is enough to penetrate flak armor.
Fair enough. I never said bolters were low velocity. I was disputing your statement that "If a bolter shell doesn't penetrate flak armor, it's not killing a guardsman".
BeRzErKeR wrote:Do try to at least read the whole post
I did. The shrapnel is still not going to penetrate flak armor.
Yes, modern body armor is designed to protect against it... but modern body armor is vastly inferior to flak armor, both in coverage, weight, and arguably effectiveness as well. Flak armor can be made out of clothing too, it's just that the hardened version (IE the "armor") is better against small arms. Both the clothing and the armor parts are equally effective against blasts and shrapnel. Those cadian sniper models with camo cloaks? Those cloaks are flak armor. And for weight, a full suit of flak armor, including boots, greaves, breast and back plate, helmet, pauldrons, and gauntlets/bracers, weights less than a modern body armor vest, and covers far more, nevermind the lighter and more mobile clothing style of flak armor.
Melissia wrote:I did. The shrapnel is still not going to penetrate flak armor.
Yes, modern body armor is designed to protect against it... but modern body armor is vastly inferior to flak armor, both in coverage, weight, and arguably effectiveness as well. Flak armor can be made out of clothing too, it's just that the hardened version (IE the "armor") is better against small arms. Both the clothing and the armor parts are equally effective against blasts and shrapnel. Those cadian sniper models with camo cloaks? Those cloaks are flak armor. And for weight, a full suit of flak armor, including boots, greaves, breast and back plate, helmet, pauldrons, and gauntlets/bracers, weights less than a modern body armor vest, and covers far more, nevermind the lighter and more mobile clothing style of flak armor.
This is, of course, leaving aside the point that bolter shells are likely to be just as superior to modern explosives as flak armor is superior to modern body armor. That was the point of the sentence about weapon vs. armor development; they're both going on all the time, and there's no sign that one has outstripped the other in 40k. It's almost certain that by the year 40,000, material sciences have vastly advanced; and those advances are going to apply just as much to bolter shells and grenades as they are to body armor.
That being so, probably flak armor provides no more RELATIVE benefit against far-future weapons than modern body armor provides against modern weapons.
BeRzErKeR wrote:That being so, probably flak armor provides no more RELATIVE benefit against far-future weapons than modern body armor provides against modern weapons.
It provides HUGELY more benefit merely by the nature of how much of the body it covers for how much it weighs.
We're comparing a modern body armor vest to an entire suit of armor and clothing which weighs less than the vest. Even if they are equivalent (I see no reason to believe that) the latter is still better.
Melissia wrote:It provides HUGELY more benefit merely by the nature of how much of the body it covers for how much it weighs.
We're comparing a modern body armor vest to an entire suit of armor which weighs less than the vest. Even if they are equivalent (I see no reason to believe that) the latter is still better.
RELATIVELY equivalent. A bolter would blow through a modern vest like it was made of tissue paper. So, probably, would an Imperial frag grenade.
Yes, in general, armor that weighs less is better for a multitude of reasons. That doesn't mean that it's capable of stopping (equally advanced) weapons any better.
It weighs less AND covers more. There's less vulnerable space on a guardsman for shrapnel to hit (in fact, on Cadians, only the face is vulnerable, as they are wearing the full body armor including flakweave clothes).
Yes, even if a modern vest stops shrapnel directly hitting it, the shrapnel could very well hick an artery on a leg or arm., because those places aren't armor. But hitting the same places on a Cadian? Those spots are armored. The shrapnel would have to cut through both body armor and skin, not just clothes and skin, to get to the extremities unless the guardsman was from a unit whom didn't have full body armor like the catatchan. And even they have flakweave pants, so the shrapnel flying towards their legs would face off against body armor on the legs.
This is precisely why the bolter explodes after penetrating rather than before. It's almost 100% lethal that way, the "pop" of the bolter adding to the hydrostatic shock effect along with greatly damaging local tissue and organs.
Those all look very much to me like very limited areas of hard-shell plates which will certainly stop high-speed, low-weight, non-penetrative fragments quite effectively, and large areas of loose cloth, which will not. Cloth or thin wire, pretty much regardless of material, is quite hard to break by pulling along the length of the strand (high tensile strength) but very easy to cut (low shear strength). A fast-moving piece of low-weight metal, the kind of thing that a frag grenade throws out, is hardly ever going to be stopped by cloth of basically any kind. Even if it was woven out of metal threads, the aggregate would still have less deflective power against this kind of a hit than a solid plate.
Now, a low-velocity but high-mass BULLET might not break through cloth, funnily enough, because a bullet is not sharp and so stretches the cloth rather than cutting it. There are confirmed accounts of people surviving musket-balls in the 1700s and 1800s because of silk undergarments; the bullets went into the flesh but did not snap the cloth, and so could be taken out easily by just pulling the cloth out of the wound. But when we're talking about shrapnel, we're referring to a low-weight, high-speed cutting or piercing wound; it's more like a sword-slash than a bullet, in many ways. That's exactly the kind of trauma that flexible cloth will NOT protect against.
I suppose interpretations concerning flak armour will vary as much as those on bolt weapons.
Here's some stuff from the ole' RT book and another bit from 2E Wargear, both written directly by the guys at GW:
"This is a common type of body armour often worn by civilians with dangerous manual jobs. It has an outer layer of ablative material. If struck by an energy weapon this will burn away, dissipating most of the damaging heat. The middle layer comprises a honeycomb of interconnected air bubbles, which absorb the energy of a physical blow. The inner lining is a special, thick plastic. Under normal conditions this is fairly pliable, somewhat like canvas, but it responds to physical pressure by becoming hard and tough. It is very effective at stopping shots already slowed down by the outer layers."
"Flak armour comprises several layers of different ablative and impact absorbent materials which should absorb the majority of energy from a shot or blow. The protection it offers against a direct hit is somewhat questionable at the best of times, but it is more effective against proximity blasts and the shrapnel from explosions. Flak armour does have the advantage of being vastly cheap and easy to produce, requiring a very low technology base."
Unfortunately, the more recent studio material gets more and more vague with the tech stuff - either due to GW simply wanting to save space or actively encouraging personal interpretation rather than proposing hard facts, or simply because it's easier for them to keep stuff in line (less detail means less potential conflicts). This is all the 5E Guard 'dex has to say about flak armour:
"Cheap and easy to produce, flak armour comprises several layers of ablative thermoplast materials and impact absorbent carbifibres."
BeRzErKeR wrote:
My pictures look broken to me, although I can still see them if I right-click and open another tab. Is that happening for anyone else?
BeRzErKeR wrote:Cloth or thin wire, pretty much regardless of material, is quite hard to break by pulling along the length of the strand (high tensile strength) but very easy to cut (low shear strength).
Eeeexcept for flak-weave which is designed to be resistant to shrapnel, and has the same effectiveness against shrapnel as full flak armor plates. The armor plates provide better protection against direct fire ballistic weapons and energy weapons like lasguns, compared to the flak-weave, but both are equivalent against blasts and shrapnel.
That is to say, this is the ACTUAL effectiveness of it regardless of our theoretical understanding of it.
Melissia wrote:Eeeexcept for flak-weave which is designed to be resistant to shrapnel, and has the same effectiveness against shrapnel as full flak armor plates. The armor plates provide better protection against direct fire ballistic weapons and energy weapons like lasguns, compared to the flak-weave, but both are equivalent against blasts and shrapnel.
That is to say, this is the ACTUAL effectiveness of it regardless of our theoretical understanding of it.
All of these discussions, when we're talking about technical details or effectiveness of thus-and-such against so-and-so, can only go one of two ways.
1) We can make statements and assumptions based off of physics as we understand them, and so can reasonably talk about how these things might work. In this case, if there's a piece of fluff that contradicts what we know about reality, we have to reject it or at least find a different way to interpret it. For instance, in some places it's stated that Imperial warships are powered by fusion reactors. However, these ships also possess both shielding and weaponry far, far more powerful than could be powered by any conceivable fusion reactor that would fit inside the hull. That means we MUST reject the assertion that the ships are powered by fusion, if we're using the laws of physics.
2) We take every piece of fluff at face value, unless they contradict each other, and simply ignore the fact that many things don't fit our understanding of the physical sciences. The problem with this is that technical discussions are no longer possible. If we go this route, we cannot use our own understanding of science to back up our positions; we can't say that bolter rounds are or are not like frag grenades, simply because the words 'shell' and 'grenade' and indeed 'fragmentation' no longer have any objective points of reference. The laws of physics have been revoked, under this system; Imperial technology is magic, it does exactly what it says it does but we don't know how, and that's all we can say. It's no longer possible to make any inferences at all, and so discussion is not really possible.
I prefer the first method, simply because if we use the second method there's no point talking about these things, and that's really, really boring. But if we're applying real physics to this fictional universe, that means that we have to reconcile our understanding of the universe with what we are told and shown, even if that means reinterpreting some of the fluff. In this particular case, that does necessarily mean that we have to say that cloth-covered portions of human anatomy are going to be more vulnerable than plate-covered portions of anatomy to high-speed, sharp-edged projectiles; that's an inevitable consequence of how the density and makeup of a flexible cloth interacts with a cutting action versus the density and makeup of a solid, rigid plate. As long as the materials in question are anything LIKE comparable, that's inevitable; a plywood breastplate will stop an arrow, or a fragment of shrapnel, better than a single layer of titanium-weave cloth will.
So, in this discussion; are we applying physics, or magic? So long as we stick with one explanation consistently, either is fine; but we've been going with 'physics' so far, and that was the assumption I was proceeding under. If we switch to 'magic' now, then this entire thread is a waste of time.
Brother Coa wrote:Bolter has in itself an exploding ammunition, logic is that when round hit something it can't penetrate with ease ( power armor or tank armor ) it explode regardless. Just like an RPG or exploding bullets explode on impact because they carry much more charge then ordinarily ammunition.
And in Space Marine Bolters are like ordinary machine guns, not mini rocket launchers. In "Ultramarines" Severus kills Chaplain with bolt round in the head, I was expecting that head will explode when hit by Botler round.
The explosion isn't massive, in fact it's quite small. You wouldn't see it through power armour. The sheer size of a bolt is what would give it it's stopping power, because a .50 bullet can blow an entire arm off easily, and is just not something you survive direct hits from on anything that isn't redundant. This is .75.
Also, your video is wrong. The tip of a bolt is not adamantine, it is diamantine.
I think they portrayed the bolt correctly in space marine the video game, but ultramarines was kinda plot-armour-ish and warped.
I do, however, disagree with how Storm Bolters are done in Space Marine. They made them faster but weaker per bolt than other bolt weapons, which is incorrect. The reason they are so fearsome is that they are faster, deadlier versions of bolters, which is also why there are vehicle mounted storm bolters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
BeRzErKeR wrote:Cloth or thin wire, pretty much regardless of material, is quite hard to break by pulling along the length of the strand (high tensile strength) but very easy to cut (low shear strength).
Eeeexcept for flak-weave which is designed to be resistant to shrapnel, and has the same effectiveness against shrapnel as full flak armor plates. The armor plates provide better protection against direct fire ballistic weapons and energy weapons like lasguns, compared to the flak-weave, but both are equivalent against blasts and shrapnel.
That is to say, this is the ACTUAL effectiveness of it regardless of our theoretical understanding of it.
Their clothing appears to be normal uniform though, I don't remember any reference to the actual uniform being flak-weave. That would make it closer to fire warrior armour in terms of protection, which is decidedly better.
BeRzErKeR: You're almost certainly correct about the fusion plant in ships and I agree with the general point that you made, but just out of interest have you ever tried to do the numbers on that one? Matter and antimatter annihilation is technically fusion, and if they'd found a way to use 100% of the products (them pesky gammas etc), they might just be able to squeak it (though if even a Destroyer blew up it'd take out everything within at least a million miles radius... which the fluff doesn't have them doing...).
Hmmm, might have a crack at that as a little project....
tsz52 wrote:BeRzErKeR: You're almost certainly correct about the fusion plant in ships and I agree with the general point that you made, but just out of interest have you ever tried to do the numbers on that one? Matter and antimatter annihilation is technically fusion, and if they'd found a way to use 100% of the products (them pesky gammas etc), they might just be able to squeak it (though if even a Destroyer blew up it'd take out everything within at least a million miles radius... which the fluff doesn't have them doing...).
Hmmm, might have a crack at that as a little project....
Sorry folks, carry on.
I was paraphrasing, actually; I believe the quote I'm referring to mentioned plasma reactors specifically, which even cuts out that small potential loophole. If you want me to find the specific quote, I'll look for it after I get home tonight; I'm on-campus right now, and don't have access to any of my 40k resources.
There are people on different sites who have run numbers; I believe there was a series of very long and involved threads about analyzing 40k physics on stardestroyer.net a couple of years back. The universal conclusion was that either physics is radically different in the 40kverse (in which we must fall back on 'magic', and can't have technical discussions) or there are words in Imperial Gothic that simply don't mean what they mean in English. If 'plasma' is actually High Gothic jargon for 'controlled miniature white holes', then that solves the problem neatly, since modern physics simply has no idea how much energy white holes radiate; they're only theoretical at present. Incidentally, that also provides a possible answer for why plasma weapons are so destructive, since in reality firing a blob of plasma any distance should dissipate the heat through the atmosphere and leave you with only a thin fog of relatively harmless particles.
I am not, of course, suggesting that this IS the answer; I'm merely giving an example of one possible way to reconcile what we know of reality with what we're told about 40k, and thus a way to continue holding these kinds of fascinating technical discussions without having to simply throw up our hands, announce that the Imperium of Man is run by wizards, and be unable to advance arguments.
Lynata wrote:I've never, ever seen a GW miniature that features a bolter with a stock.
Most of the models just had them cut off because the old arms fit so poorly that there was no room for them. But there were several single piece models over the years that had the stocks intact.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tsz52 wrote: Even without hard penetration, if that shockwave hits your innards you're in trouble.
THis is pretty much what most people don't realize. Explosions kill as often with concussive force as they do with shrapnel. Flak armor may stop the fragments (ie, the flak) from tearing into the body, but overpressure can still jelly your internal organs. Less risk of such with a frag grenade given its smaller charge, but he is correct, the kill radius of modern frag grenades is 5m, whether or not the target is armored. Sure, certain variables like slope of the ground, the grenade landing in a depression (or you being in a depression), and just blind, stupid luck can influence individual survivability, but we're talking a law of averages here.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Most of the models just had them cut off because the old arms fit so poorly that there was no room for them. But there were several single piece models over the years that had the stocks intact.
Yes, Kanluwen already cleared that up earlier - thanks for providing these new pictures, though. A "blast from the past" is always interesting, imo.
Shame they did away with it. It actually looks kind of cool.
That said, how common were they actually in GW's line? These look older and they don't have stocks, in fact even the ancient 1st Edition Rogue Trader rulebook shows stockless bolters. Was that just some sort of "quick fashion wave" that disappeared as quickly as it came somewhere during 2E? Would probably explain why I've never noticed it before.
That sprue is actually mine. Found it cleaning some stuff out recently. The old arms were terrible. I used to shave the front of the shoulder off of the right arm just so the model could properly grip the bolters with a shoulder pad sitting on it. I also have that old Captain model but didn't have a picture of it handy.
Though I do miss one thing about the old sprues. Lots of extras, and the weapons weren't molded to them so you weren't stuck with having to heavily convert if you didn't like the default weapon arrangements. Those Marines are from Space Crusade and are about as old as it gets, lol. Can't really tell you about the stocks. Seems like someone thought they would be a good idea so put them on the sprues. Then later, they decided they weren't a good idea since most players just had to cut them off anyway. These days the bolters would probably look more functional and "realistic" if they had them. After all, plasma guns come with stocks for some unknown reason, lol.
Lexicanum:
Flak armour consists of multiple layers of different ablative and impact absorbent materials designed primarily to deflect or absorb the majority of the force from a shot or blow. It is meant to provide defence against low-velocity, dispersed damage, such as explosions, shrapnel and ricochet material, rather than to protect against a direct impact, in which case the armour's protection is almost negligible. The ablative characteristics of the armour provide further defence against heat and energy based damage. Some layers commonly used include Carbon-fibre, Plasfibre and Thermoplas strips, although a number of specialised materials can be integrated in non-standard suits. Most guardsmen wear Flak Armour, a cheaply produced, lightweight armour vest provided en-masse to Imperial Guard units. A flak vest consists of a skeleton of lightweight, flexible metal. This skeleton is then wrapped in multiple layers of a high-tensile fabric that is the main protective component of the armour. After multiple layers of fabric are affixed to the skeleton,the vest is given its toughened outer shell. The same principle is used in the production of Guardsman helmets and bracers. Guards for knees and legs are also produced. Thermal-absorbent materials, applied to reduce the thermal signature of the infantry, help with staying invisible during night recon missions. Rarer still, Cameleoline is incorporated into the outermost layer of some Imperial Guard Regiments' fatigues providing yet more concealment.
Although it is a relatively ineffective armour, it is incredibly cheap and easy to make, requiring only a very low technology base, putting it among the most popular in the galaxy with a variety of races.
Does not protect against direct impact. Protection is almost negligible. Further protection from heat and energy damage.
Thank you all for your comments and replies, they were great and of great help
And for the flak armor thing. It is not T-Shirt like most people believe, they are just outclassed when they are compared to the rest of the galaxy. Just like Mobile Infantry armor from Starship Troopers, it is design to stop bullets not giant bug claws tearing trough it. And I am quite sure that it can stop most of the minor shrapnel's that hit it.
Don't want to spoil the natural conclusion, especially with an 'off topic' but did want to thank BeRsErKeR for getting back to me on the plasma reactor. Cheers for offering to find the source but I'll be grand for now (still got plenty of my old info where the lovely ships are concerned, so I'll dig it out if I ever decide that my wonderous and unfathomable God-Machine ships need to be a bit 'harder', like my Bolters). Cheers again.
BeRzErKeR wrote:
1) We can make statements and assumptions based off of physics as we understand them, and so can reasonably talk about how these things might work. In this case, if there's a piece of fluff that contradicts what we know about reality, we have to reject it or at least find a different way to interpret it. For instance, in some places it's stated that Imperial warships are powered by fusion reactors. However, these ships also possess both shielding and weaponry far, far more powerful than could be powered by any conceivable fusion reactor that would fit inside the hull. That means we MUST reject the assertion that the ships are powered by fusion, if we're using the laws of physics.
Alot of this depends on the numbers you accept, and that's far from granted. Isolated numbers can run from terawatts to something approaching or exceeding what our sun puts out each second as far as power generation goes. Some numbers are more consistent with performance with fusion (which also depends on the kind of performance you're thinking - efficiencies vary.) As well as how one is assuming such ships/vechiles/whatever actually work - we don't know so there is tremendous latitude in how they may or may not work, especially given the technological inconsistency across the Imperium. And that's the problem with this method - it requires you either ignore people who will object (and people WILL object) or it requires achieving some sort of consensus (which introduces complicatiosn of its own) in order for it to work.
On top of that is the simple fact that you can try to apply physics but it will only work up to a point. How far one can go or wants to go depends on the individual, but certain hard limits (like FTL or time travel) are going to be difficult or impossible to make work with 'physics' as we understand them and will simply be a black box.
2) We take every piece of fluff at face value, unless they contradict each other, and simply ignore the fact that many things don't fit our understanding of the physical sciences. The problem with this is that technical discussions are no longer possible. If we go this route, we cannot use our own understanding of science to back up our positions; we can't say that bolter rounds are or are not like frag grenades, simply because the words 'shell' and 'grenade' and indeed 'fragmentation' no longer have any objective points of reference. The laws of physics have been revoked, under this system; Imperial technology is magic, it does exactly what it says it does but we don't know how, and that's all we can say. It's no longer possible to make any inferences at all, and so discussion is not really possible.
There's nothing wrong with taking all the fluff at face value - it's the interpretations where the problems and contradictions will arise. People (and this includes the writers, authors, artists etc.) will all - out of universe - put their spin on 40K and that invariably is going to lead to conflicts. But there is also no clear cut canon policy (which is actually a *good* thing, as arguing over canon gets boring and is needlessly restrictive.) And isn't neccesarily 'black or white' either - there's plenty of latitude between 'take everything seriously' and 'take nothing seriously' - it just requires that a person look at multiple examples of the same thing to find the answers, and the ones that seem to pop up most often are more likely true. Furthermore, given that the bulk of 'evidence' is either artwork or dialogue, you almost have to ignore the idea of 'literal' because of multiple definitions (which is where multiple references, and context become important.) This actually isn't a bad thing, as having an open ended approach and multiple intepretations can do much to solve apparent inconsistencies.
Example: you mention fusion reactors are mentioned on some starships (nick Kyme and James Swallow are notorious for this) - and the same applies with Titans (fission or fusion). That isn't neccesarily a contradiction, depending on the specific assumptions and parameters you are working with (numbers, etc.) For one thing, some depictions of 40K fusion are downright 'magical' either in the materials they use or what they do (meaning it isn't nuclear fusion. I've heard some people describe antimatter as fusion before, btw - and that works based on the definition of 'fusion' you use - eg joining together.) Alternately, starships might run multiple, redundant reactor systems for different reasons (fusion reactors could be used for some kinds of systems, whilst plasma reactors are used for others. Or the fusion reactors may be a component in plasma reactor functioning - we don't really KNOW what is involved in a plasma reactor.) Thirdly, fusion reactors and plasma reactors may just be the same thing - 40K plasma is weird stuff and one of its properties has been matter to energy conversion, which could be a form of 'fusion.'
The real problem is that 'analysis' is never going to be simple or straightfiorward or something you can condense into little bite sized tidbits for easy consumption. It's going to be long, convoluted, messy and full of compromise. And with the evolving nature of the universe, it is quite likely to change at least in small ways with each new addition. But that's the price you pay when there is no clear canon, when things are constantly added, and there's a heap of myth and interpretation added in. One also has to remember that as far as sci fi goes, the bar for precision is very low. It doesn't have to be precise, it just has to be 'close enough' because we can't do quite the same things with sci fi (EG testing theories) that we can IRL. In that respect its alot more like archeology than anything. But if you're pretty flexible about it and aren't too picky, a vague sort of consistency can be achieved.
So, in this discussion; are we applying physics, or magic? So long as we stick with one explanation consistently, either is fine; but we've been going with 'physics' so far, and that was the assumption I was proceeding under. If we switch to 'magic' now, then this entire thread is a waste of time.
Functionally its the same thing. We're not going for 'reality' we're going for plausibility. The difference is that the latter is alot more flexible and forgiving, as long as it is 'possible' that works. If we go for reality then you're really no better off than if you take everything as arbitrary, because nothing is going to conform perfectly to reality. You can even analyze 'magic' as long as you aren't going completely off the deep end and being arbitrary or dishonest about it.
There are people on different sites who have run numbers; I believe there was a series of very long and involved threads about analyzing 40k physics on stardestroyer.net a couple of years back. The universal conclusion was that either physics is radically different in the 40kverse (in which we must fall back on 'magic', and can't have technical discussions) or there are words in Imperial Gothic that simply don't mean what they mean in English. If 'plasma' is actually High Gothic jargon for 'controlled miniature white holes', then that solves the problem neatly, since modern physics simply has no idea how much energy white holes radiate; they're only theoretical at present. Incidentally, that also provides a possible answer for why plasma weapons are so destructive, since in reality firing a blob of plasma any distance should dissipate the heat through the atmosphere and leave you with only a thin fog of relatively harmless particles.
I have a feeling that was my stuff under discussion. That may be a thread I'll want to avoid because I'm sure it made me out to be some sort of lunatic.
]
