I thought it might be fun to have a thread that addresses the many weapons, technologies, etc. that are found in the 40K universe, and try to explain based on a mixture of fluff and modern knowledge of physics/other sciences, how these items might work. Since 40K has a LOT of conflicting fluff, just go with whatever you feel is easiest to explain or has the most support from multiple "fluff sources." Obviously when making the game the designers/writers weren't really thinking "How could these things work in real life?", so if there's no way the weapon could work by the mechanisms proposed in the fluff, an explanation based on real-life science is perfectly acceptable. This isn't necessarily a question of "is it practical" or "could we create something like this today?" It's more about trying to think of the core principles behind each type of technology and perhaps coming up with a blueprint/diagram of how it might work, even if it requires parts that we don't have the capability of producing today - so long as those missing parts could perhaps be made in the future, it counts. A diagram/blueprint isn't necessary of course, I just personally think that'd be rather interesting.
Here are a few to think about, just to get the ball rolling:
Boltguns: There's a lot of info on these considering the posterboys of the whole franchise carry them rather often, but I'd like to see how much details we can figure out. According to the fluff, they fire self-propelled rounds that explode slightly after impact for maximum damage. I was reading stuff about gyrojet ammunition, but I'm wondering if bolts would be more like that, or if they would be more similar to RPG grenades.
Power Armor/Terminator Armor: I'd like to know more about exactly how it protects the user against incredibly hostile conditions, how it enhances strength and other characteristics of the user, and how it manages to display the necessary information to the wearer. If I remember correctly the actual plates of the armor are made of Ceramite, which doesn't exist in the real world. However, perhaps we could think of some existing material or hypothetical material/mixture of materials that would have similar properties.
Power weapons: I'd really like to think about how they produce the electromagnetic field and how it disrupts the matter around it or whatever.
Note that these are just "prompts" - feel free to bring up any type of 40K weapon or technology that you would like to know more about or that you have a good understanding of!
Boltguns are exactly that; Fully automatic miniature RPG's. As impressive as it is, they are completely unrealistic in a real world thoughtframe. The ammo would be so expensive currently that even arming the relatively small marine core would be a chore. We simply dont need that kind of firepower, nor want to pay for it in todays warzones.
Power armor is incredibly compex and has many redundant systems (which is what true battle armor would need). Effectively though, its a full body environmental suit, with exo-skeleton strength buffs, layered in composite Ceramic/steel plating that is powered by a miniature fusion generator. The true perfect armor. Once again, a bit too expensive for widespread use and since we dont actually have footwars anymore, rather pointless in today's society.
Power weapons are straight cyber fantasy wishlisting. They are completely inefficient and incredibly cool.
I'd say the most 'possible' weapons in 40k are Tau. Railgun, EMP, missiles and markerlights already exist. Plasma (and pulse/burst, derivated technology from plasma) is a possibility as well.
Bolters are very possible. They are essentially 40mm grenade launchers with the added benefit of having a rocket on the payload. If you made a sufficiently durable engine or included some sort of wad to carry the round safely from the blast, you could make a bolt round if you wanted. Not sure it is much more effective than other items we arm soldiers with.
Well, chain weapons are... interesting. I'd say unless we can get a much more reliable metal, and motor, the damned thing would get jammed on anything other than ents.
Bolt-rounds are not grenades. They're more like a very large bullet (.75 cal) that explodes when it gets inside you. It is not a gyrojet, as it has a standard explosive charge to propel it down the barrel (and provide lethal velocity at the muzzle), with the second-stage rocket engaging to provide flight-stabilization and greater accuracy.
We wouldn't use these in a modern battlefield as it's simply overkill on a soft target like a regular human being. When we start getting invaded by aliens, then let's consider bolters.
Powerweapons have a "standard" blade of some kind (or mace/hammer head), often of some high-tech alloy or fictional metal, that possesses an emitter for some sort of energy field that destabilizes physical matter on a molecular level. Some powerswords (notably the Sollex-pattern) are just the energy field, having no real blade. This makes them the 40K version of a lightsaber.
Other weird tech:
The Teleportarium: This device opens an unshielded tunnel in the Warp to transport people from the device to a point within LoS of the ship or station the device is located on. Why you would ever want to make an unprotected Warp-Walk is beyond me. These devices are ancient and barely understood in the current era of 40K, and disappearances and accidents are common.
PhillyT wrote: Bolters are very possible. They are essentially 40mm grenade launchers with the added benefit of having a rocket on the payload. If you made a sufficiently durable engine or included some sort of wad to carry the round safely from the blast, you could make a bolt round if you wanted. Not sure it is much more effective than other items we arm soldiers with.
In fact, we could totally replicate Boltguns right now if we wanted to.
They're really nothing more than miniature RPGs that are put inside a large caliber armor piercing bullet.
Power armour is theoretically possible. Even now people are designing exoskeleton and strength enhancing machines. The issue comes from the Black Carapace and humanitarian/human testing issues. The black carapace is required to interlink with the suit and the nervous system and make it move. Once you have that done you can simply create muscle bundles from steel cable (or titanium or whatever) to resemble human musculature, accompanied by hydraulics or pistons to provide the strength. The life support is easy, just a gas mask really with internal heating (from power source) and an airtight seal. Targetting reticules can be installed but without neural interface they would need an onboard computer to pick out hostiles and friendlies, or else a cable running from your weapon to the suit to show you where your round would hit. The main issue it seems with Marine pattern armour is the interface. In 40k it requires a dangerous and often fatal procedure to be conducted on young teenage boys, involving cutting them open and planting new organs and then drilling into the ribs, sternum and spine to install plugs. If it were a full grown adult, it would be incredibly difficult to get approval, but operating on a minor would be shot down with no discussions. Then you wpuld have feminists going on about men giving more power to men and women being excluded and all that. Then you have multiple large barrels of worms to deal with.
Uh, Deadshot? Why are you assuming that it would have to be Astartes Power Armour?
There are plenty of examples of power armour being worn by normal humans in 40k, and even aside from that, the Black Carapace isn't one of the 'gender specific' upgrades. You could implant the Carapace into a woman.
Actually, there are some works on exo-skeletons nowadays. They're all pre-alpha versions, have lots of problems and this problems are currently super-dificult to solve. However, the prototypes can allready be used as strength enchanters but regular means of manipulating heavy objects are just plain easier and cheaper yet.
Furyou Miko wrote: Uh, Deadshot? Why are you assuming that it would have to be Astartes Power Armour?
There are plenty of examples of power armour being worn by normal humans in 40k, and even aside from that, the Black Carapace isn't one of the 'gender specific' upgrades. You could implant the Carapace into a woman.
Because human power armour doesn't provide nearly as many benefits as Astartes pattern, namely the neural integration, including blink-clicking on the HUD, thought-linking to systems and the ability to move the armour as your own body. Without the carapace it's practically just a suit of plate. Asides from that, prove that it is not gender specific, as there is very little information on the actual process, and we know that only men can be Space Marines due to hormonal/chromosome reasons.
Edit: Furthermore, Black Carapace clearly requires the other implants first. The carapace is the very last implant a Marine recieves, after all the others. In addition, Inquisitors would have their own BC if it were possible without the other organs. That's just logic.
Psienesis wrote: Bolt-rounds are not grenades. They're more like a very large bullet (.75 cal) that explodes when it gets inside you. It is not a gyrojet, as it has a standard explosive charge to propel it down the barrel (and provide lethal velocity at the muzzle), with the second-stage rocket engaging to provide flight-stabilization and greater accuracy.
We wouldn't use these in a modern battlefield as it's simply overkill on a soft target like a regular human being. When we start getting invaded by aliens, then let's consider bolters.
well, on could argue, that we already have such an ammunition. depleted uranium shells do excactly this. designed to pierce thick armour, the uranium core will be desintegrated and pulverized form the energy of the impact causing it to burn and explode inside the target.
of course this works only if the target has some form of high dense armour... well like an armoured vehicle...
despite that, there are types of ammunition designed to deform or fragment upon impact to increase the damage done to the internal structore of a "soft-target" like hollow point or hollow-cavity tammunition.
Ratius wrote: Wraithbone. Open to any ideas as to what it would feel like/weigh/maleability etc.
I keep picturing some sort of bendable ivory.
Wraithbone is grown through psychic direction. From what I understand its almost living, capable of naturally growing in any shape with the right psychic shaping, but try to physically bend it would be like trying to bend steel with your bare hands. That being shown by tabletop stats putting it on the same level as Carnifexes in durability (for Wraithguard/blades) and the larger Wraithlords and Knights bordering on Titan levels of durability.
Quick note, FFG has hinted strongly slash outright confirmed that "machine spirits" (which is in fact a sort of primitive AI) does not exist in anything smaller than a Land Raider. Bolters are just that, bolters, not sacred vessels of a massive god of knowledge.
Bronzefists42 wrote: Quick note, FFG has hinted strongly slash outright confirmed that "machine spirits" (which is in fact a sort of primitive AI) does not exist in anything smaller than a Land Raider. Bolters are just that, bolters, not sacred vessels of a massive god of knowledge.
Uh, no? They specifically state that the war-spirit of an Astartes weapon becomes offended if a non-Astartes handles it, and will sometimes refuse to fire, gaining the Unreliable trait when wielded by a non-Astartes. A war-spirit is the Machine Spirit of an advanced, technological weapon.
We could do it but, its just not useful in todays warfare, scouts with cloaks will probably be more deadly in modern times. Remember that they use gentleman's warfare on a large scale in 40k. Power armor would be cool, but not useful, bolters are expensive, a leman russ tank would be good, gravity guns :/, but, I'd like to see how jump packs (how marines survive the drop) work and how gravity chutes work.
Bronzefists42 wrote: Quick note, FFG has hinted strongly slash outright confirmed that "machine spirits" (which is in fact a sort of primitive AI) does not exist in anything smaller than a Land Raider. Bolters are just that, bolters, not sacred vessels of a massive god of knowledge.
Uh, no? They specifically state that the war-spirit of an Astartes weapon becomes offended if a non-Astartes handles it, and will sometimes refuse to fire, gaining the Unreliable trait when wielded by a non-Astartes. A war-spirit is the Machine Spirit of an advanced, technological weapon.
Weird. I remember another book explaining that the unreliable and hard to wield traits came from Astartes weaponry being to large and complicated for any human to properly operate.
An Astartes boltgun is simply a larger version of the "civilian" boltgun that other forces wield. Its size would give it the "Unwieldy" Trait, or would make it require Bracing... but would not take a weapon with the Mastercrafted Trait and make it Unreliable. That's indication of going from Best-of-the-best in quality to the Worst-of-the-Worst.
Besides, FFG also states that Sisters have to earn their helmets through battle, a 'fact' that the Sisters miniatures for 40k clearly refutes, since there are models of Sisters with very few battle honours wearing helmets, and many, many sisters with a lot of battle honours NOT wearing helmets.
Indeed. But the helmet thing has come up before - the helmet with the fleur-de-lys crest on it was stated as being a common mark for Celestians in the old Codex witch hunters.
It's been a thing and will continue to be a thing until some mythical time where the sororitas models get redone, because there are very few models representing a plethora of footslogging squads, and picking out helmeted models as veterans is an easy way to do it.
I'm fully aware that the majority of sisters - veteran or not - in the artwork aren't helmed.
The true perfect armor. Once again, a bit too expensive for widespread use and since we dont actually have footwars anymore, rather pointless in today's society.
Pretty much all of the conflicts happening today rely heavily on infantry. Having virtually invulnerable infantry would be something of an advantage one would think.
I love that this has prompted a good discussion - I'm hoping this thread will continue for a long time as new weapons/technologies are introduced in the 40K universe and perhaps as real-world technology advances we'll learn more.
locarno24 wrote: Indeed. But the helmet thing has come up before - the helmet with the fleur-de-lys crest on it was stated as being a common mark for Celestians in the old Codex witch hunters.
It's been a thing and will continue to be a thing until some mythical time where the sororitas models get redone, because there are very few models representing a plethora of footslogging squads, and picking out helmeted models as veterans is an easy way to do it.
I'm fully aware that the majority of sisters - veteran or not - in the artwork aren't helmed.
The fleur coronet is the bit that is noted as being heavily featured in Celestian squads, not the idea of wearing helmets at all. Sigh.
The models have a way of telling which ones are more experienced, anyway, quite aside from the fleur crest that appears on a grand total of two Sister Superior models - the number of beads on their rosaries, holding the chaplets. They get one bead for every battle they are in.
Another discussion prompt to get it more focused on the actual tech rather than stuff about helmets and who wears them:
In the fluff, it says that their flamers/heavy flamers use "promethium", but as far as I know the actual element Promethium would not be suitable for this role in any way, shape, or form. My guess is that it's really just napalm/something very similar and they called it "promethium" after the guy in Greek mythology who gave humankind fire (flamethrower fuel, makes sense). Am I wrong about this?
Also, just a note for future discussion: the most important thing in terms of fluff for this discussion is WHAT effects the weapon/technology has. If there is a way the technology could work that makes more sense than what the actual fluff says, the former takes precedent.
For example, in this whole power armor discussion the questions are simply: "What does the power armor do? How does/could it be doing that (if possible, try to think of ways that could be recreated today or that we at least know are based on sound scientific principles)?" In this, we know from the fluff that it protects against many different types of attack, as well as providing an internal environment that allows the wearer to survive pretty much regardless of the conditions outside the armor (vacuum, poisonous atmosphere, extreme heat/cold [to a certain degree], etc). The way I see it, it's pretty much an armored spacesuit with a much more intricate connection with the wearer. Even if the fluff says it displays what it displays via the helmet a certain way that we could not replicate today, if anyone can think of ways it could do so that are more realistic those are absolutely encouraged.
Another one I'd REALLY like to know more about: Necron Gauss weaponry. I know about Gauss and the electromagnetic coils and whatnot, but if I remember my reading correctly about the idea of Gauss weaponry they would not have an effect like that of Necron gauss weapons.
"Promethium" in 40k is mined, and is a general purpose fuelstuff used in everything from flamers to motorbikes. The Imperium literally runs on promethium.
Gauss weapons as used by the Necrons are a mystery. They pull objects apart on the atomic level, but it's all fanon as to how they actually work, most of it based purely on the name 'gauss'.
Tesla was nowhere near the super-popular super-scientist he is today when the Necrons were first created, as a faction, and it would have been impossible for GW to predict that he would become as he did when they did, so this is one thing that doesn't make me wonder how GW got caught off-guard by it. I'm not sure that *anyone* ever predicted that Tesla would ever be known by... anyone, really, in the 21st century.
And even still, he's just celebrated by hipsters who overblow his contributions.
A lot of anti-capitalists like a large section of his works, because they make public utilities available to the public, not a private energy-production company.
I had a discussion of this type with a brain box friend of mine not long ago, as I was thinking that Dreadnoughts might be possible with todays technology.
What we lack is the ability to hardwire the human nervous system into a machine. And/or the ability to make such a machine maintain its own balance.
I suspect it would be quite easy to do. It might even be as easy as making wire cables in mirror of nerves, and attaching them via the spinal cord. The main issue would be testing and approval.
Grey Templar wrote: Well just because you've hooked up a mirror of a nerve doesn't mean someone hooked up to it will be able to control it.
You're basically giving someone an appendage the human brain doesn't normally have.
So you reconnect the ends of your fingers to interact with th large mechanical ones...nothing changes. Besides, I said maybe. Its unlikely to be as simple as wiring people up but I suspect it would be far easier to actually do than we might think.
People are also not factoring in the plethora of ethical issues accompanied with Dreadnaught technology. Generally speaking people don't like the ideas of their loved ones as monstrous robot death machines.
well Dreadnaughts have almost dead people in,now we cant even put them in a state like that and THEN conect them their nervoust system.
But older version had normal humans in so why not ? we just need a bit more neurosience
Bronzefists42 wrote: People are also not factoring in the plethora of ethical issues accompanied with Dreadnaught technology. Generally speaking people don't like the ideas of their loved ones as monstrous robot death machines.
pffttt... Speak for yourself!
But yeah, because of stupid hippies, testing that type of technology would be rather difficult to say the least. Personally I think if they did testing in animals first as pretty much any tech is required to do, and any human test subjects knew the potential dangers/damages before signing up and volunteered willingly, it might be possible to do said testing. Still, it might be difficult to get any actual volunteers. Then again, if one were able to do something that could allow a paraplegic/quadriplegic to move again, you might have those people willing to test it because of the possibility of moving again.
I definitely think that type of technology would warrant investigation though due to the potential benefits. Even if you're not making giant kickass robots [although any other application to me seems significantly less important than this], there are other ways you could utilize the technology to help people. If dreadnaughts ended up becoming possible, people could have in any life insurance policy or whatever that if they are severely injured, they wish to be interred in a dreadnaught. I know I would
I do think it'd be cool to make a functional set of power armor at least to the extent that it allows resistance to the same general elements such as toxic atmospheres, extreme heat/cold, that kinda stuff, and obviously protects against impact damage from incoming fire. While we may not have the technology to go all-out with neural integration or enhanced strength, it'd be the "first step" on the way. After all, the carriage was made before the car.
Dreadnought systems could allow paraplegics or indeed any human to manuever and lift heavy equipment with ease. Same with PA. PA could become highly specialised hazmat suits for soldiers working in quarantine zones. Not to mention the military implications.
Not only that, but it actually mean a price drop on GW products as IP cash rolls in.
Trust me, for cybernetics research, all you have to do is ask for volunteers (and get an Ethical approval from the WHO).
You'll get hundreds of medical discharge ex-soldiers queueing out the door, not to mention the number of people with congenital physical disabilities, gathered amputees, and self-sacrificing Human Transcendentalists.
Well, it's not surprising, as it's hardly popular, or famous, but it is hilarious. It's an old UK "Channel 4" sitcom. It's one thing that I think everybody should check out. It's by the same guy who did Father Ted, and Black Books.
lilgammer123 wrote: We could do it but, its just not useful in todays warfare, scouts with cloaks will probably be more deadly in modern times. Remember that they use gentleman's warfare on a large scale in 40k. Power armor would be cool, but not useful, bolters are expensive, a leman russ tank would be good, gravity guns :/, but, I'd like to see how jump packs (how marines survive the drop) work and how gravity chutes work.
If you look at how technology is supposedly treated and not in fact understood, you could surmise that the "machine spirit" of the gun reacting badly is actually the fact that without the correct firing drill, the gun is likely to jam or kick back with sufficient force to break an arm. The placating of the machine spirit is in actuality the steps and processes to ensure the gun works and is braced properly.....
Not only that, but it actually mean a price drop on GW products as IP cash rolls in.
Heinlein Estate holding on line one for you....
heh yeah 40k doesn't have a claim to the orgin of power armor. that'd be Robert Heinlein,.
The first powered exoskeleton was made in the 1890's by a Russian man and was powered by gas bags to passively assist movement. The first appearance in fiction was in the 1930's by Edward Elmer Smith.
Gauss rifles for cron does not make sense as a guass rifle is a mini rail gun.
Laser guns need so much power to be deadly an many lenses to focus on a far away object.
Power weapons look like electrolyzed metal which is deadly to anything with a heart beat but does it do anything to hitting other objects thats not alive?
Bronzefists42 wrote: Quick note, FFG has hinted strongly slash outright confirmed that "machine spirits" (which is in fact a sort of primitive AI) does not exist in anything smaller than a Land Raider. Bolters are just that, bolters, not sacred vessels of a massive god of knowledge.
Uh, no? They specifically state that the war-spirit of an Astartes weapon becomes offended if a non-Astartes handles it, and will sometimes refuse to fire, gaining the Unreliable trait when wielded by a non-Astartes. A war-spirit is the Machine Spirit of an advanced, technological weapon.
Just because "the machine spirit becomes offended" does not mean it has an Artificial Intelligence. It could also be a signature reader of some kind which just prevents usage by simply locking the mechanism.
Even though many peoples phones are "smart" they are no AI either ...yet (thank god).
Bolt weapons: Very much possible. But as stated in this thread already, it'd be extremely overkill, and inefficient weapon in our current engagements.
Power Armour: Soon, but not quite. Suitable powersource is still to be invented.
Bionics: Possible, and in use. (Although not as sophisticated as in 40k 'verse.)
Rail-weapons (Magnetic accelerator weapons in general): Possible, but as with Power Armour, it lacks the efficient powersource. Also the rails lack efficient material. Currently limited to naval applications.
Anything more "primitive" we already have at our disposal, and anything more advanced is science fiction to us.
Edit: Machine Spirit (any kind of AI in general): Research underway. Some primitive versions already exist.
MIU (Black Carapace/Human-Computer Interface in general): Very much true
A few musings on chain weaponry, which on the face of it is fairly ridiculous (if awesome!)
If the weapon weren't powered-up (i.e. moving), it's essentially got a blade with many small points of contact with the material being cut – and therefore applying more pressure at each point than a straight blade. In addition, the points of contact are at a sharper angle to the material being cut, resulting in an action that involves many small splits in the surface of the material being cut, which cumulatively serve to cut the material along the line of the blade.
That to me sounds like a more reliable way to deal with very thick armour than a straight blade, assuming you've got the raw strength behind it to force it in in the first place. So, assuming a marine on marine combat, a chainsword actually seems a better weapon than a combat blade; which, while very sharp, can become lodged in ceramite. If a chainsword gets stuck in your enemy's armour, you can quickly gun the blade to throw them off balance and free the blade.
In addition, the fracturing results of a chainsword blow might result in ceramite splintering (I think it's mentioned somewhere that ceramite armour chips like rock, rather than metal), which helps stop the blade getting stuck in the first place.
Finally, perhaps we accept that ceramite power armour is proof against things like blades and chainswords. In this case, you can aim to hit the opponent while in close, sending the spinning blades skittering across the plate armour towards vulnerable joints and cables. Basically; get it between you and the opponent and rely on your armour to protect you while you tear open vulnerable sections.
Not a perfect argument, I'm aware; but I see chainswords being used more like drills than like a traditional sword.
Chainswords ... they are bad swords, in the sense that they are extremely poorly balanced, because they are very top heavy (compared to a real sword). That means its slower to change directions mid swing, making them bad for fencing/duelling. On the other hand hits have more power to them, alone from the weight in motion itself. The balance is like a medieval falchion. So it basically handles like a club.
Now about the chain action... It makes a continuous cut. It's good for cutting obviously and may make cutting through soft stuff almost effordless. However things get problematic if it hits hard objects. If it comes in contact with another hard object it "grabs" it, either propelling the object downwards, or letting the chainsword recoil upwards. Doing this repeatedly would offer a good chance to lose alot of the teeth and/or lose the sharpness of the teeth. Monomolecular edges cut well... but they break and deteriorate pretty quick if you bang it on similar hard materials. Depending on the strength and speed of the motor inside the chainsword, it may or may not be possible to simply "grind" against armor with the running chain, the higher both, the stronger it bounces of everything hard basically.
Against hard armor, it's basically like cutting with a knife across it. Terribly inefficient, and good chance of damaging the weapon, at the very least the teeth would get dull pretty quickly. Even superior metals like adamantium don't stay in shape forever.
Another problem is that the blade itself is fairly thick. And since the teeth have to fit inside the "housing" around it, there are parts on the front that do not cut. It's very good against humans. A cut to the arm will propably cut it off, or at the very least the remainder of the arm will just dangle and release the blade eitherway. If you cut into something very big but soft (e.g. a squiggoth... or some tyranid parts for example) the chances are high that the friction with the side of the blade let it get stuck (like a chainsaw in a big tree, if you don't apply proper technique using wedges).
Against power armour its less then ideal, because you have to aim for weakpoints. And stabbing is easier for that, therefore a combat knife is propably easier for H2H Marine-on-Marine combat. Unless you use the chainsword as a club and beat the opponend on the head repeatedly or something.
Yes, I think that using it as a bludgeon is basically what I'm getting at; with the additional advantage that it can be used to throw an opponent off-balance.
Essentially, I'm visualising it not running constantly, but being 'gunned' in order to cause horrendous wounds on unarmoured enemies, or to disarm/off-balance heavily-armoured foes.
The main killing power doesn't then come from the blade so much has simply battering the opponent to the floor.
Finlandiaperkele wrote: Bolt weapons: Very much possible. But as stated in this thread already, it'd be extremely overkill, and inefficient weapon in our current engagements.
Inefficient? INEFFICIENT?!! HERESY!!!
Also, on AI: We already have fully functinal Artificial Intelligences. aka: fake intelligences (see: any FPS, RPG, or RTS video game ever)
Now, having a fully functional synthetic intelligence on the other hand... THAT would be an amazing discovery, and I would sell my right kidney for one.
dusara217 wrote: Also, on AI: We already have fully functinal Artificial Intelligences. aka: fake intelligences (see: any FPS, RPG, or RTS video game ever).
having an AI in a game with very limited ruleset is not the same as having AI in reallife, because its alot more complex in real life. You can't use predefined cover spots, predefined walking paths and so on in real life...
Apologist wrote: A few musings on chain weaponry, which on the face of it is fairly ridiculous (if awesome!)
If the weapon weren't powered-up (i.e. moving), it's essentially got a blade with many small points of contact with the material being cut – and therefore applying more pressure at each point than a straight blade. In addition, the points of contact are at a sharper angle to the material being cut, resulting in an action that involves many small splits in the surface of the material being cut, which cumulatively serve to cut the material along the line of the blade.
That to me sounds like a more reliable way to deal with very thick armour than a straight blade, assuming you've got the raw strength behind it to force it in in the first place. So, assuming a marine on marine combat, a chainsword actually seems a better weapon than a combat blade; which, while very sharp, can become lodged in ceramite. If a chainsword gets stuck in your enemy's armour, you can quickly gun the blade to throw them off balance and free the blade.
In addition, the fracturing results of a chainsword blow might result in ceramite splintering (I think it's mentioned somewhere that ceramite armour chips like rock, rather than metal), which helps stop the blade getting stuck in the first place.
Finally, perhaps we accept that ceramite power armour is proof against things like blades and chainswords. In this case, you can aim to hit the opponent while in close, sending the spinning blades skittering across the plate armour towards vulnerable joints and cables. Basically; get it between you and the opponent and rely on your armour to protect you while you tear open vulnerable sections.
Not a perfect argument, I'm aware; but I see chainswords being used more like drills than like a traditional sword.
Uh.
Chain-weapons are actually the single dumbest thing to be found in 40K and would not function at all similar to the way they are claimed in the lore or gameplay. Chainsaws would make terrible weapons as they can barely cut through flesh without getting clogged (and then your weapon is completely useless if the motor is jammed), not to mention that like in real life, chain weapons in 40K struggle to overcome any actually decent armor unless they're of the specially crafted variety.
Unless you're chopping down trees, chain weapons are just terrible for cutting through metal or flesh. A better weapon would be powered by sonic vibrations, like the vibroswords in Star Wars or the sword Raiden uses. Hit it with the right frequency and the thing will cut through flesh like a hot knife through butter. And it'd certainly cut through armor better then a chainsword.
Even in BL lit chain weapons suck. I'm pretty sure in ADB's books every character who uses a chain weapon ends up discarding it at some point when it gets clogged (which they always do)
Also the blade component of chain weapons are of plot device-tanium and are replaced at regular intervals due to getting messed up all the time.
Rail-weapons (Magnetic accelerator weapons in general): Possible, but as with Power Armour, it lacks the efficient powersource. Also the rails lack efficient material. Currently limited to naval applications.
Ya know, between these and lasers, technology is soon going to make manned air forces obsolete. Cheap swarms of drones're going to be the only thing worth putting up in the air.
Real world 'gauss' weaponry is a form of mass driver or railgun that uses electromagnets to propel a projectile at ridiculous velocities without an explosive charge.
Necron 'gauss' weaponry seems to disassemble matter on a molecular level, possibly by disrupting the strong and/or weak nuclear forces that make things 'stick together'.
In real life plasma is highly unstable and requires some kind of magnetic 'bottle' to keep it coherent. The instant you'd fire a plasma bolt out of a gun it'd start to disperse. Presumably sometime during the Dark Age of Technology someone figured out a way to contain plasma long enough for it to reach a target and damage it.
Tau 'pulse' weaponry is amazingly ill-defined. It seems to be some kind of energy pulse that also requires a solid matter slug. Anyone who can actually explain how pulse weapons work, please help.
Boltguns have been described as gyrojets by some GW sources in the past. Other sources suggest that the .54 caliber shells are initiated by a propellant charge and then 'rocket assisted'. While not technically a gyrojet, they seem to be some kind of hybrid between conventional and gyrojet tech. The type(s) of warhead employed by Boltguns are irrelevant to this part of the discussion.
Lasers are currently under development as naval and tank weaponry. The main issue seems to be weapon size, power generation and storage. Lasers are also subject to degradation by battlefield conditions (smoke, haze, fog, rain, etc.) While the problems preventing deployment today are very real, it's a reasonable assumption that between the 2nd and 30th millenium someone could figure out a way to overcome such technical issues.
Writing lasers off as impractical based on current science is a mite premature. After all, if you can justify Dark Lances, Meltaguns, Tesla weaponry and Shuriken Catapults, why not lasers that are at least based on real world technologies?
Warboss Gorhack wrote: Real world 'gauss' weaponry is a form of mass driver or railgun that uses electromagnets to propel a projectile at ridiculous velocities without an explosive charge.
Necron 'gauss' weaponry seems to disassemble matter on a molecular level, possibly by disrupting the strong and/or weak nuclear forces that make things 'stick together'.
In real life plasma is highly unstable and requires some kind of magnetic 'bottle' to keep it coherent. The instant you'd fire a plasma bolt out of a gun it'd start to disperse. Presumably sometime during the Dark Age of Technology someone figured out a way to contain plasma long enough for it to reach a target and damage it.
Tau 'pulse' weaponry is amazingly ill-defined. It seems to be some kind of energy pulse that also requires a solid matter slug. Anyone who can actually explain how pulse weapons work, please help.
Boltguns have been described as gyrojets by some GW sources in the past. Other sources suggest that the .54 caliber shells are initiated by a propellant charge and then 'rocket assisted'. While not technically a gyrojet, they seem to be some kind of hybrid between conventional and gyrojet tech. The type(s) of warhead employed by Boltguns are irrelevant to this part of the discussion.
Lasers are currently under development as naval and tank weaponry. The main issue seems to be weapon size, power generation and storage. Lasers are also subject to degradation by battlefield conditions (smoke, haze, fog, rain, etc.) While the problems preventing deployment today are very real, it's a reasonable assumption that between the 2nd and 30th millenium someone could figure out a way to overcome such technical issues.
Writing lasers off as impractical based on current science is a mite premature. After all, if you can justify Dark Lances, Meltaguns, Tesla weaponry and Shuriken Catapults, why not lasers that are at least based on real world technologies?
My two teef.
Pulse weapons are probably a two-state plasma weapon that either accelerates or energizes a solid slug to such a state that it becomes a plasma "pulse". Basically it makes a bullet very very hot until it breaks down from matter into plasma.
Warboss Gorhack wrote: Real world 'gauss' weaponry is a form of mass driver or railgun that uses electromagnets to propel a projectile at ridiculous velocities without an explosive charge.
Necron 'gauss' weaponry seems to disassemble matter on a molecular level, possibly by disrupting the strong and/or weak nuclear forces that make things 'stick together'.
In real life plasma is highly unstable and requires some kind of magnetic 'bottle' to keep it coherent. The instant you'd fire a plasma bolt out of a gun it'd start to disperse. Presumably sometime during the Dark Age of Technology someone figured out a way to contain plasma long enough for it to reach a target and damage it.
Tau 'pulse' weaponry is amazingly ill-defined. It seems to be some kind of energy pulse that also requires a solid matter slug. Anyone who can actually explain how pulse weapons work, please help.
Boltguns have been described as gyrojets by some GW sources in the past. Other sources suggest that the .54 caliber shells are initiated by a propellant charge and then 'rocket assisted'. While not technically a gyrojet, they seem to be some kind of hybrid between conventional and gyrojet tech. The type(s) of warhead employed by Boltguns are irrelevant to this part of the discussion.
Lasers are currently under development as naval and tank weaponry. The main issue seems to be weapon size, power generation and storage. Lasers are also subject to degradation by battlefield conditions (smoke, haze, fog, rain, etc.) While the problems preventing deployment today are very real, it's a reasonable assumption that between the 2nd and 30th millenium someone could figure out a way to overcome such technical issues.
Writing lasers off as impractical based on current science is a mite premature. After all, if you can justify Dark Lances, Meltaguns, Tesla weaponry and Shuriken Catapults, why not lasers that are at least based on real world technologies?
My two teef.
Pulse weapons are probably a two-state plasma weapon that either accelerates or energizes a solid slug to such a state that it becomes a plasma "pulse". Basically it makes a bullet very very hot until it breaks down from matter into plasma.
That seems highly improbable, but this is 40k, so it makes sense through the lense of my 40k-goggles.
Just for arguments' sake, wouldn't it take a fair amount of time (even with rediculously advanced tech) for a bullet to pass through three stages of change (melting and, for lack of better terms, gasification, plasmification). Unless you could somehow find a way to heat it so quickly that it skips the phases of liquid and gas, Pulse weapons seem highly improbable for such a young race. Now, if they had found it in a DAoT lab and adapted it to their use, then that would make a LOT more sense. Or even stolen it from the Necrons or bought it from the Eldar. You know what, I'm going to go off of the assumption that they bought it from the Eldar (who were more advanced than the Forerunners).
Warboss Gorhack wrote: Real world 'gauss' weaponry is a form of mass driver or railgun that uses electromagnets to propel a projectile at ridiculous velocities without an explosive charge.
Necron 'gauss' weaponry seems to disassemble matter on a molecular level, possibly by disrupting the strong and/or weak nuclear forces that make things 'stick together'.
In real life plasma is highly unstable and requires some kind of magnetic 'bottle' to keep it coherent. The instant you'd fire a plasma bolt out of a gun it'd start to disperse. Presumably sometime during the Dark Age of Technology someone figured out a way to contain plasma long enough for it to reach a target and damage it.
Tau 'pulse' weaponry is amazingly ill-defined. It seems to be some kind of energy pulse that also requires a solid matter slug. Anyone who can actually explain how pulse weapons work, please help.
Boltguns have been described as gyrojets by some GW sources in the past. Other sources suggest that the .54 caliber shells are initiated by a propellant charge and then 'rocket assisted'. While not technically a gyrojet, they seem to be some kind of hybrid between conventional and gyrojet tech. The type(s) of warhead employed by Boltguns are irrelevant to this part of the discussion.
Lasers are currently under development as naval and tank weaponry. The main issue seems to be weapon size, power generation and storage. Lasers are also subject to degradation by battlefield conditions (smoke, haze, fog, rain, etc.) While the problems preventing deployment today are very real, it's a reasonable assumption that between the 2nd and 30th millenium someone could figure out a way to overcome such technical issues.
Writing lasers off as impractical based on current science is a mite premature. After all, if you can justify Dark Lances, Meltaguns, Tesla weaponry and Shuriken Catapults, why not lasers that are at least based on real world technologies?
My two teef.
Pulse weapons are probably a two-state plasma weapon that either accelerates or energizes a solid slug to such a state that it becomes a plasma "pulse". Basically it makes a bullet very very hot until it breaks down from matter into plasma.
That seems highly improbable, but this is 40k, so it makes sense through the lense of my 40k-goggles.
Just for arguments' sake, wouldn't it take a fair amount of time (even with rediculously advanced tech) for a bullet to pass through three stages of change (melting and, for lack of better terms, gasification, plasmification). Unless you could somehow find a way to heat it so quickly that it skips the phases of liquid and gas, Pulse weapons seem highly improbable for such a young race. Now, if they had found it in a DAoT lab and adapted it to their use, then that would make a LOT more sense. Or even stolen it from the Necrons or bought it from the Eldar. You know what, I'm going to go off of the assumption that they bought it from the Eldar (who were more advanced than the Forerunners).
Warboss Gorhack wrote: Real world 'gauss' weaponry is a form of mass driver or railgun that uses electromagnets to propel a projectile at ridiculous velocities without an explosive charge.
Necron 'gauss' weaponry seems to disassemble matter on a molecular level, possibly by disrupting the strong and/or weak nuclear forces that make things 'stick together'.
In real life plasma is highly unstable and requires some kind of magnetic 'bottle' to keep it coherent. The instant you'd fire a plasma bolt out of a gun it'd start to disperse. Presumably sometime during the Dark Age of Technology someone figured out a way to contain plasma long enough for it to reach a target and damage it.
Tau 'pulse' weaponry is amazingly ill-defined. It seems to be some kind of energy pulse that also requires a solid matter slug. Anyone who can actually explain how pulse weapons work, please help.
Boltguns have been described as gyrojets by some GW sources in the past. Other sources suggest that the .54 caliber shells are initiated by a propellant charge and then 'rocket assisted'. While not technically a gyrojet, they seem to be some kind of hybrid between conventional and gyrojet tech. The type(s) of warhead employed by Boltguns are irrelevant to this part of the discussion.
Lasers are currently under development as naval and tank weaponry. The main issue seems to be weapon size, power generation and storage. Lasers are also subject to degradation by battlefield conditions (smoke, haze, fog, rain, etc.) While the problems preventing deployment today are very real, it's a reasonable assumption that between the 2nd and 30th millenium someone could figure out a way to overcome such technical issues.
Writing lasers off as impractical based on current science is a mite premature. After all, if you can justify Dark Lances, Meltaguns, Tesla weaponry and Shuriken Catapults, why not lasers that are at least based on real world technologies?
My two teef.
Pulse weapons are probably a two-state plasma weapon that either accelerates or energizes a solid slug to such a state that it becomes a plasma "pulse". Basically it makes a bullet very very hot until it breaks down from matter into plasma.
That seems highly improbable, but this is 40k, so it makes sense through the lense of my 40k-goggles.
Just for arguments' sake, wouldn't it take a fair amount of time (even with rediculously advanced tech) for a bullet to pass through three stages of change (melting and, for lack of better terms, gasification, plasmification). Unless you could somehow find a way to heat it so quickly that it skips the phases of liquid and gas, Pulse weapons seem highly improbable for such a young race. Now, if they had found it in a DAoT lab and adapted it to their use, then that would make a LOT more sense. Or even stolen it from the Necrons or bought it from the Eldar. You know what, I'm going to go off of the assumption that they bought it from the Eldar (who were more advanced than the Forerunners).
We've built them. They're not incredibly advanced at all given how small railgun ammunition is compared to the bang you get from it.
Also, outside of the Eldar Empire just before the Fall, when they made the Dread Machine, the Eldar are woefully behind the Forerunners of Halo.
Yeah, I guess that they lost most of their tech by 40k.
Also, any Plasma Gun would require Magnetic Accelerator technology to control the Plasma and fire/launch it. We can barely even create Plasma; let alone do so within milliseconds after pulling a trigger/ hitting a firing stud.
Warboss Gorhack wrote: Real world 'gauss' weaponry is a form of mass driver or railgun that uses electromagnets to propel a projectile at ridiculous velocities without an explosive charge.
Necron 'gauss' weaponry seems to disassemble matter on a molecular level, possibly by disrupting the strong and/or weak nuclear forces that make things 'stick together'.
In real life plasma is highly unstable and requires some kind of magnetic 'bottle' to keep it coherent. The instant you'd fire a plasma bolt out of a gun it'd start to disperse. Presumably sometime during the Dark Age of Technology someone figured out a way to contain plasma long enough for it to reach a target and damage it.
Tau 'pulse' weaponry is amazingly ill-defined. It seems to be some kind of energy pulse that also requires a solid matter slug. Anyone who can actually explain how pulse weapons work, please help.
Boltguns have been described as gyrojets by some GW sources in the past. Other sources suggest that the .54 caliber shells are initiated by a propellant charge and then 'rocket assisted'. While not technically a gyrojet, they seem to be some kind of hybrid between conventional and gyrojet tech. The type(s) of warhead employed by Boltguns are irrelevant to this part of the discussion.
Lasers are currently under development as naval and tank weaponry. The main issue seems to be weapon size, power generation and storage. Lasers are also subject to degradation by battlefield conditions (smoke, haze, fog, rain, etc.) While the problems preventing deployment today are very real, it's a reasonable assumption that between the 2nd and 30th millenium someone could figure out a way to overcome such technical issues.
Writing lasers off as impractical based on current science is a mite premature. After all, if you can justify Dark Lances, Meltaguns, Tesla weaponry and Shuriken Catapults, why not lasers that are at least based on real world technologies?
My two teef.
Pulse weapons are probably a two-state plasma weapon that either accelerates or energizes a solid slug to such a state that it becomes a plasma "pulse". Basically it makes a bullet very very hot until it breaks down from matter into plasma.
That seems highly improbable, but this is 40k, so it makes sense through the lense of my 40k-goggles.
Just for arguments' sake, wouldn't it take a fair amount of time (even with rediculously advanced tech) for a bullet to pass through three stages of change (melting and, for lack of better terms, gasification, plasmification). Unless you could somehow find a way to heat it so quickly that it skips the phases of liquid and gas, Pulse weapons seem highly improbable for such a young race. Now, if they had found it in a DAoT lab and adapted it to their use, then that would make a LOT more sense. Or even stolen it from the Necrons or bought it from the Eldar. You know what, I'm going to go off of the assumption that they bought it from the Eldar (who were more advanced than the Forerunners).
We've built them. They're not incredibly advanced at all given how small railgun ammunition is compared to the bang you get from it.
Also, outside of the Eldar Empire just before the Fall, when they made the Dread Machine, the Eldar are woefully behind the Forerunners of Halo.
Yeah, I guess that they lost most of their tech by 40k.
Also, any Plasma Gun would require Magnetic Accelerator technology to control the Plasma and fire/launch it. We can barely even create Plasma; let alone do so within milliseconds after pulling a trigger/ hitting a firing stud.
Lolwut.
I think you mean electromagnetic field to contain the plasma. Magnetic accelerator is a fancy word for railgun or coilgun.
Well Imperial Plasma guns have a magazine of sorts, and magnetic coils on top (which many people paint glowing blue or green). Presumably, the magazine is a magnetised bottle which stores the plasma. When loaded into the weapon, the much more powerful coils of the gun itself take over and draw the plasma into the chamber, where it "siphons off" a small chunk of the plasma for the shot. It then spins the plasma rapidly which helps it maintain its structure in air ( I believe Fallout 3 used that explanation) and then launches it via magnetism like a railgun does. The spinning and centripedal force as a result helps it maintain integrity until it strikes a target or reaches maximum range where it dissipates due to the spinning stop.
Charging the gun probably just involves a large portion of the plasma and spinning faster and longer before firing, meaning it goes farther and faster and does more damage.
Re: Pulse weaponry; could it be a solid projectile that is struck/propelled by a laser beam as it travels along its path? That'd (potentially) be a way to convert it to a plasma state as it travels, and explains both the extended range (the plasma travelling along an ionised 'tube') and the presence of solid material. Perhaps even a two-stage process, with one stage of heating before it leaves the chamber, and the laser converting it further?
Re: Chainswords; I realise they're basically non-functional as described, but isn't the point of the thread to work out plausible or interesting ways they could be used?
... Chainswords work just fine when you actually know what they are. They are not "just" chainsaws with handles. Each of the teeth on that blade is made of adamantine and given a mono-molecular edge. This means several things: one, the blade isn't going to snag on much of anything. Two, the teeth aren't going to break against much of anything. Three, it's going to mess you up real bad if you get even a glancing hit from one. Four, it's going to feth up almost any weapon used against it real bad.
Against any mundane armor, the chainsword's monomolecular edge, applied to teeth made of one of the strongest metals known to mankind, is going to shear right through. The flesh and bone underneath the armor doesn't have any better of a chance.
Mono molecular edges would break easier surely. If something is one molecule thick, there's not going to be any strength there? I could be wrong, but the thinner you get, the weaker it will be, right?
ImAGeek wrote:Mono molecular edges would break easier surely. If something is one molecule thick, there's not going to be any strength there? I could be wrong, but the thinner you get, the weaker it will be, right?
This is entirely true. It doesn't matter how strong a metal is if isn't even thicker than a single molecule, than it will be sheared off. Even 2,510 molecules would be insanely thin and insanely weak. The only reason that they say things have a "monomolecular edge" is because it sounds cool, not because it would actually be any more effective in battle.
Apologist wrote:Re: Pulse weaponry; could it be a solid projectile that is struck/propelled by a laser beam as it travels along its path? That'd (potentially) be a way to convert it to a plasma state as it travels, and explains both the extended range (the plasma travelling along an ionised 'tube') and the presence of solid material. Perhaps even a two-stage process, with one stage of heating before it leaves the chamber, and the laser converting it further?
Re: Chainswords; I realise they're basically non-functional as described, but isn't the point of the thread to work out plausible or interesting ways they could be used?
The laser would only melt the projectile, and even with a short charging time it would be highly unlikely that it could even turn the metal into gas (metals have rediculously high melting points and gasifying points). Although, if you're going to be making plasma, you don't really need a metal; just something that melts quickly. I suppose a capsule full of mercury would do the trick; low melting point, gasifies faster, and therefroe plasmifies faster (I understand the Hg is still a metal). But still, that would take take time. If a laser were just passed over it (no matter how hot) it would take some time to turn it into gas, let alone turn it into plasma.
ImAGeek wrote: Mono molecular edges would break easier surely. If something is one molecule thick, there's not going to be any strength there? I could be wrong, but the thinner you get, the weaker it will be, right?
Correct... Especially if you bang it with high speed& frequency against something else that is pretty hard... Power Armour and Terminator armour contain adamantium... So you scratch the material with the same material. That's useless. Also, just because something is of superior material (adamantium) doesnt mean it won't break or deteriorate.
Also, the "flesh cloggs the chain in short time" is not true. You can design chain system with very good selfcleaning abilitiies.
I find power weapons to be way more unbelievable/ridiculous then chainswords actually... Because where the feth do they get incredible power from to cut through everything... And what material is the weapon itself off to not be destroyed by it. Power Swords in particular - which can also be wielded by humans that dont have power armour -> the powerunit needs to be inside the weapon and very tiny.
ImAGeek wrote: Mono molecular edges would break easier surely. If something is one molecule thick, there's not going to be any strength there? I could be wrong, but the thinner you get, the weaker it will be, right?
We have monomolecular blades in real life, they're called scalpels, and it's why you don't even feel them cutting.
Of course, after one use they have to be discarded as they've lost their monomolecular edge.
ImAGeek wrote: Mono molecular edges would break easier surely. If something is one molecule thick, there's not going to be any strength there? I could be wrong, but the thinner you get, the weaker it will be, right?
We have monomolecular blades in real life, they're called scalpels, and it's why you don't even feel them cutting.
Of course, after once use they have to be discarded as they've lost their monomolecular edge.
It would depend on just how strong the molecular bonds between adamantium molecules really are, and given what we know from the setting, its practically indestructible by convential weaponry (Terminator Armour) and requires specialised, unconvential weaponry like power weapons (which disrupt the molecular bonds via hand wavium) and superduper weapons meant to bring down buildings and heavy vehicles. Likely, you could chalk this fictional supermetal up to having such incredible strength of bonding that it can survive numerous used, while not breaking off or blunting because it is simply too strong to break off the molecules along the edge. It is the simple reason that chainswords of today would be impractical. We don't have an indestructible supermetal.
ImAGeek wrote: Mono molecular edges would break easier surely. If something is one molecule thick, there's not going to be any strength there? I could be wrong, but the thinner you get, the weaker it will be, right?
We have monomolecular blades in real life, they're called scalpels, and it's why you don't even feel them cutting.
Of course, after once use they have to be discarded as they've lost their monomolecular edge.
Yeah but, you're just slicing them into flesh, not repeatedly banging them into hard armour plates. And like you say, one use and the edge is lost, and that's just on skin and muscle haha.
Psienesis wrote: ... Chainswords work just fine when you actually know what they are. They are not "just" chainsaws with handles. Each of the teeth on that blade is made of adamantine and given a mono-molecular edge. This means several things: one, the blade isn't going to snag on much of anything. Two, the teeth aren't going to break against much of anything. Three, it's going to mess you up real bad if you get even a glancing hit from one. Four, it's going to feth up almost any weapon used against it real bad.
Against any mundane armor, the chainsword's monomolecular edge, applied to teeth made of one of the strongest metals known to mankind, is going to shear right through. The flesh and bone underneath the armor doesn't have any better of a chance.
Until it hits the side of the chain rail.
the way it is (model wise) the chain would only cut in like an inch and sit there as the sides of the sword are thick as feth. If the chains sat on the outside of the rail like regualr chainsaws do then they could grind through.
Problem here is people are trying to apply modern materials science to a society 38,000 years in our future. Mono-edged weapons could be self-sharpening... or be alloyed with plasmatic diamonds (which is something we do IRL, commonly in the bits for core drills), further increasing both cutting edge strength and power.
With the "tooth" of the chainblade being, basically, triangular (in the same way that an avian talon is triangular), as it cuts, it sweeps the now-separated matter away as the next tooth bites in. This will basically result in a furrow-like trench being carved into whatever you're hitting... and since the blades are continuing to spin, using the weight of the weapon (these are, after all, "choppy" things), along with the strength of the wielder, you're basically wedging whatever you're hitting apart.
Also, notice how hooked those teeth are in most depictions of the chainsword? This thing will, by its own action, be attempting to pull itself forward through whatever you hacked into (don't lose your grip!). With the pressure of the weapon's weight, driven by the strength of the wielder, it's going to dig its way through whatever you've hit, unless and until you start getting out of the arc of your swing. In most cases, however, if it's an Astartes wielding the weapon, that arc is going to be more than sufficient to cut through any target of generally-human proportions.
As to the fragility of the teeth? They're not because we're told they aren't. RL physics has no place in a discussion of 40K. It's a setting written by gamers, not scientists. This is not even a "science-fiction" game, it's "science-fantasy".
Psienesis wrote: Problem here is people are trying to apply modern materials science to a society 38,000 years in our future. Mono-edged weapons could be self-sharpening... or be alloyed with plasmatic diamonds (which is something we do IRL, commonly in the bits for core drills), further increasing both cutting edge strength and power.
With the "tooth" of the chainblade being, basically, triangular (in the same way that an avian talon is triangular), as it cuts, it sweeps the now-separated matter away as the next tooth bites in. This will basically result in a furrow-like trench being carved into whatever you're hitting... and since the blades are continuing to spin, using the weight of the weapon (these are, after all, "choppy" things), along with the strength of the wielder, you're basically wedging whatever you're hitting apart.
Also, notice how hooked those teeth are in most depictions of the chainsword? This thing will, by its own action, be attempting to pull itself forward through whatever you hacked into (don't lose your grip!). With the pressure of the weapon's weight, driven by the strength of the wielder, it's going to dig its way through whatever you've hit, unless and until you start getting out of the arc of your swing. In most cases, however, if it's an Astartes wielding the weapon, that arc is going to be more than sufficient to cut through any target of generally-human proportions.
As to the fragility of the teeth? They're not because we're told they aren't. RL physics has no place in a discussion of 40K. It's a setting written by gamers, not scientists. This is not even a "science-fiction" game, it's "science-fantasy".
Not much to be done about fictional materials but like i pointed out the weapon is still pretty silly in the fact that even if you could cut without ever breaking or dulling the blade, it would never go further than the size of the tooth because of the way the blade it self is built.
None of that explains the fact that the actual cutting part, the teeth, are thinner than the width of the whole weapon, so it would just stop at the depth of the teeth, even when you hand wave away other problems with the weapon because 'physics has no place in a discussion of 40k' (I thought that was the whole point of this thread?)
It functions like a wedge. Once the teeth bite, the rotary blade-action basically allows it to chew through the target, just like a real chainsaw. The rest of the weapon, being dragged into the wound cavity, will press the outer/upper limit of the cavity outward, while pressing the inner limit (the part closest to the teeth) together, like a "V". The teeth then bite into the bottom of that V, and keep pulling in and downward. Then, all of a sudden, it reaches the end of whatever it's carving through, and the whole thing flops off.
Psienesis wrote: It functions like a wedge. Once the teeth bite, the rotary blade-action basically allows it to chew through the target, just like a real chainsaw. The rest of the weapon, being dragged into the wound cavity, will press the outer/upper limit of the cavity outward, while pressing the inner limit (the part closest to the teeth) together, like a "V". The teeth then bite into the bottom of that V, and keep pulling in and downward. Then, all of a sudden, it reaches the end of whatever it's carving through, and the whole thing flops off.
'
What happens when you hit a hard carapace or even power armor ceramics.
It would be understandable that a chain sword could be forcibly pressed into a wound but unless the wielder was strong enough to physically pry apart armored cermite by hand there is no way a chain sword could pull the rest of the weapon into it.
Psienesis wrote: It functions like a wedge. Once the teeth bite, the rotary blade-action basically allows it to chew through the target, just like a real chainsaw. The rest of the weapon, being dragged into the wound cavity, will press the outer/upper limit of the cavity outward, while pressing the inner limit (the part closest to the teeth) together, like a "V". The teeth then bite into the bottom of that V, and keep pulling in and downward. Then, all of a sudden, it reaches the end of whatever it's carving through, and the whole thing flops off.
It would only function like a wedge if it was shaped like a wedge. If the case went in a wedge shape either side of the teeth I could kinda see what you're saying but it's just a rectangular block, it would just stop when the housing hit the armour and wouldn't fo any further. It's like trying to push any rectangular shaped object through armour.
I mean you could hit them hard and have a club like effect with some nasty surface cuts added by the chain, but it's not cutting right through much even if the monomolecular edges stay sharp somehow.
Right, now, look at that picture, and realize that the inner cutting-edge of those teeth are meant to be monomolecular cutting edges, as well as the "flat" edge (the "tip of the claw" so to speak). Ideally, the inside faces of those teeth should be angled like blades, not flat as is depicted (but was probably much, much easier to model).
So these claw downward and basically "gouge" a hunk out of whatever it is you're hitting. And they do it a lot, because these teeth have a few score revolutions per second (might even be hundreds, I don't remember). In that gouging motion, they're pulling the target into them, or themselves into the target.
If it can't "bite", it will skitter and bounce across (this is why they put Power Fields on Eviscerators), probably throwing sparks and such all over the place. If it can, however, it's going to bite as deep as it can (and keep biting) until the physical motion of those involved in the combat pull it free from the trench it just carved. A smart warrior will try to land his next hit immediately next to this trench, because this will force that armor-plate or whatever to basically "throw" that wedge out when the material separates at wherever the two "V"s intersect... leaving a much larger, open area for a telling blow to be struck.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A better picture of the blade:
Notice how pointy the teeth are? The whole profile of the weapon is a wedge between the point of the teeth and the back of the blade-case. Also, note the angles on the blade's case. It's designed to "wedge" in and provide outward pressure (as described above).
Oh maybe if you got two hits next to each other to get a bit of armour off and then a third getting the flesh underneath. My point was that in one blow you wouldn't be able to cut through something, because the housing around the blade would just stop on the armour, seeing as it's wider than the teeth.
If, assuming the monomolecular edges hold, the teeth were as wide as the casing, like an actual chainsaw, maybe it would be a functional weapon. But it just isn't. Any weapon that requires you to make three very accurate hits is just inefficient.
Oh no i wasnt talking about the Teeth. the teeth are free to cut through whatever it wants and it probably will
im talking about the issue that ariese when the depth of the cut hits the side of the guard there are no good GW pictures of that area but model wise they all are like the one i posted. and even the one from SM game
While regular chainsaws ride on the outside of the whole blade allowing it to cut through a tree completely while a chain sword always rides on the inside between two blades making the depth of cut on a non squishy target exactly how far the teeth poke out.
Against a normal human, a single swipe would disembowel them. These teeth are an inch-plus long, and (as the illustrations show) have three or four cutting edges each.
As depicted in a lot of places (DoW opening cinematic, for example, lots of kill-moves in Space Marine, etc) the purpose of a chainsword is to get to soft tissue, like the abdomen. Of course, any swordsman worth the name is going to target weak spots in armor (joints and the like). TDA might be thick, but the guy inside it still needs to be able to bend his elbows and raise his arms.
The wedge-shaped cutting profile of the chainswords that I posted illustrate why. It's a wedge, the pressure of the case being pulled inward/downward basically forces the armor apart. Now, of course, if you are taking your chainsword up against someone in TDA, then you're already at a disadvantage, because chainswords weren't designed for that sort of usage. They're designed for taking on someone in flak or light carapace or other, "mundane" forms of armor, in which case said armor gets shredded to fluff (or plastic shards) and shoved aside by the case (note the reverse-angle on the back of that UM chainblade's case... it's meant for levering it out of a wound cavity).
Did a crappy picture, just showing how the casing on a chainsword would stop it cutting through. The wedge would potentially work, and a proper chainsaw would just go straight through (assuming the teeth cut):
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Psienesis wrote: Against a normal human, a single swipe would disembowel them. These teeth are an inch-plus long, and (as the illustrations show) have three or four cutting edges each.
As depicted in a lot of places (DoW opening cinematic, for example, lots of kill-moves in Space Marine, etc) the purpose of a chainsword is to get to soft tissue, like the abdomen. Of course, any swordsman worth the name is going to target weak spots in armor (joints and the like). TDA might be thick, but the guy inside it still needs to be able to bend his elbows and raise his arms.
I agree, but it was you who was talking about how they could cut through armour...
Psienesis wrote: Against a normal human, a single swipe would disembowel them. These teeth are an inch-plus long, and (as the illustrations show) have three or four cutting edges each.
As depicted in a lot of places (DoW opening cinematic, for example, lots of kill-moves in Space Marine, etc) the purpose of a chainsword is to get to soft tissue, like the abdomen. Of course, any swordsman worth the name is going to target weak spots in armor (joints and the like). TDA might be thick, but the guy inside it still needs to be able to bend his elbows and raise his arms.
It seems like a silly weapon when they could just make adamintine momomolecular daggers and trench blades that any grunt could take a stab wtih.
Lol nice picture Yeah that was what i was getting at. your maxmimum cut on non squishies is 1inch which seems very useless. for the amount of work and time that goes into each weapon.
Haha it's pretty awful but I find the iPad really hard to draw on without a stylus.
All this said though, chainswords definitely are cool. I do like the idea, but the way they are now just wouldn't work. All they'd need to do really is make the blade/housing arrangement more like an actual chainsaw and it would be much more plausible.
They do make those. Astartes Combat Knives, for example.
I agree, but it was you who was talking about how they could cut through armour...
The armor that chainswords are best used against are maybe an inch thick... at best. Those teeth are that long at least, and cut on both the tip and the bias... and are backed by the strength of a Space Marine, which will basically cause the armor to buckle inward. Flak armor that gets cut is basically so much nylon fluff.
Well even if they buckle the armour in you're still just scratching whatever's underneath, because the actual weapon is still stopped by the armour. The teeth will reach slightly further because of the buckling but not much. Surely just making it like a chainsaw means everyone wins? It just would cut straight through as opposed to being limited by the length of the teeth.
On the first picture you show, wouldn't the limited size of the teeth mean that the chainsword would not be able to reach the flesh of someone who wears armour of a certain thickness?
At least in the first picture, it almost looks like Astartes PA would be included in that category...
Then again we never really even talked about how cerimite plating works
Im 90% sure that a space marine can buckle in some light armor and for sure shred through flak
but what are the properties of cerimite? is it possible that with the gouge they can slam it in and shatter it? allow for addition cuts?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: On the first picture you show, wouldn't the limited size of the teeth mean that the chainsword would not be able to reach the flesh of someone who wears armour of a certain thickness?
At least in the first picture, it almost looks like Astartes PA would be included in that category...
Thats the point we been trying to make...
If the chain sword was actually built like a regular chainsaw then there would be no argument or discussion.
I know there's stuff about helmets being shattered with repeated blows so maybe. That's kinda what I meant with the using it like a club and causing nasty surface damage. I just think it would be more efficient to either have a blunt force weapon, or a cutting weapon. Combination weapons seem to compromise too much on something. But maybe a marine would be strong enough to crack through the ceramite.
The double-edged chainswords used by Chaos Marines and the Frost Swords used by the Space Wolves would be the only chainswords that would make ANY sense at all in a combat situation.
Also, Power Armour (ceramite) is made of a metal alloy - not a ceramic material. This is a common misconception, but metal does not "shatter" unless it has been severely frozen and is colder than permafrost. The Power Armour would dent at best.
Even semi-flexible metal can shatter depending on how the force is applied.
Swords tend to be made from multiple types of steel, as would any armor made of multiple composites. That means you can get shattering.
Depends on the sword. Japanese Katanas, which are made of reinforced, hard, alloys that do not bend at all shatter. European swords of the bastard sword/longsword type have flexible blades that don't really shatter so much as they snap.
Grey Templar wrote: Snap, shatter, really the same thing. Just depends on the relative brittleness of the object.
Not at all. Shattering means breaking up into a bunch of little pieces while snap means breaks into two. If you shatter a sword, then it is broken and done-for; almost impossible to repair. If you snap a sword, on the other hand, then you can weld the two pieces together and re-work the blade so that it's almost as strong as when it was new.
Grey Templar wrote: Snap, shatter, really the same thing. Just depends on the relative brittleness of the object.
Not at all. Shattering means breaking up into a bunch of little pieces while snap means breaks into two. If you shatter a sword, then it is broken and done-for; almost impossible to repair. If you snap a sword, on the other hand, then you can weld the two pieces together and re-work the blade so that it's almost as strong as when it was new.
Ummm yeah that would be terrible. the weld becomes a terrible hard spot that will be the first point of break when hit by anything. because when you weld two pieces of metal the center is overall the same composition
The reason a japanese katana works so well is because it is actaully two types of steel forge welded together. a Hard high in carbon outside and and a softer less carbon inside. the reason it has a curve is after the blade is forged the final step is quenching where the softer metal contracts more than the harder front, pulling the blade upwards.
The hard blade lets it keep an edge while the rear softer core keeps it from shattering.
European blades generally didn't do all that and basically was one uniform material throughout. so some times it would be a softer blade that would bend and get dull quick, or a harder metal that would be prone to chipping and breaking but kept a sharpas feth edge.
You all realise that Chainswords are generally speaking not intènded for use against heavily armoured targets? If you are going up against PA or TDA, generally speaking you'll be wanting a power weapon. Chainswords are mostly effective against lihhtly armoured targets like Orks and Guardsmen, where the strength of the swing can break the humans on impact alone, and the tearing edges simply rips them apart. Orks are a little more sturdy, but even in the Space Marine game, it was rare for one of those cinematic executions to actually make the killing strike with the blade. Mostly, Titus used the blade to do a feth-load of damage before punching or slamming them into the ground or their head off.
Deadshot wrote: You all realise that Chainswords are generally speaking not intènded for use against heavily armoured targets? If you are going up against PA or TDA, generally speaking you'll be wanting a power weapon. Chainswords are mostly effective against lihhtly armoured targets like Orks and Guardsmen, where the strength of the swing can break the humans on impact alone, and the tearing edges simply rips them apart. Orks are a little more sturdy, but even in the Space Marine game, it was rare for one of those cinematic executions to actually make the killing strike with the blade. Mostly, Titus used the blade to do a feth-load of damage before punching or slamming them into the ground or their head off.
This.
Chainswords are meant to be used against lightly armoured organic targets.
Deadshot wrote: You all realise that Chainswords are generally speaking not intènded for use against heavily armoured targets? If you are going up against PA or TDA, generally speaking you'll be wanting a power weapon. Chainswords are mostly effective against lihhtly armoured targets like Orks and Guardsmen, where the strength of the swing can break the humans on impact alone, and the tearing edges simply rips them apart. Orks are a little more sturdy, but even in the Space Marine game, it was rare for one of those cinematic executions to actually make the killing strike with the blade. Mostly, Titus used the blade to do a feth-load of damage before punching or slamming them into the ground or their head off.
Except organic targets are the one thing you never want to take a chainsaw type weapon to at all.
Despite what Texas Chainsaw Massacre would have you think, chainsaws are terrible at cutting flesh. The tissue matter just clogs up everything and mucks the whole machine up and ends up jamming stuff.
Deadshot wrote: You all realise that Chainswords are generally speaking not intènded for use against heavily armoured targets? If you are going up against PA or TDA, generally speaking you'll be wanting a power weapon. Chainswords are mostly effective against lihhtly armoured targets like Orks and Guardsmen, where the strength of the swing can break the humans on impact alone, and the tearing edges simply rips them apart. Orks are a little more sturdy, but even in the Space Marine game, it was rare for one of those cinematic executions to actually make the killing strike with the blade. Mostly, Titus used the blade to do a feth-load of damage before punching or slamming them into the ground or their head off.
Except organic targets are the one thing you never want to take a chainsaw type weapon to at all.
Despite what Texas Chainsaw Massacre would have you think, chainsaws are terrible at cutting flesh. The tissue matter just clogs up everything and mucks the whole machine up and ends up jamming stuff.
They don't really work against anything do they. Armour = won't cut through, flesh = gets all gummed up.
Deadshot wrote: You all realise that Chainswords are generally speaking not intènded for use against heavily armoured targets? If you are going up against PA or TDA, generally speaking you'll be wanting a power weapon. Chainswords are mostly effective against lihhtly armoured targets like Orks and Guardsmen, where the strength of the swing can break the humans on impact alone, and the tearing edges simply rips them apart. Orks are a little more sturdy, but even in the Space Marine game, it was rare for one of those cinematic executions to actually make the killing strike with the blade. Mostly, Titus used the blade to do a feth-load of damage before punching or slamming them into the ground or their head off.
Except organic targets are the one thing you never want to take a chainsaw type weapon to at all.
Despite what Texas Chainsaw Massacre would have you think, chainsaws are terrible at cutting flesh. The tissue matter just clogs up everything and mucks the whole machine up and ends up jamming stuff.
They don't really work against anything do they. Armour = won't cut through, flesh = gets all gummed up.
Maybe if there was a Xenos race made of wood...
Perhaps the shape and housing of the sword is self-cleaning? Or the fact these are scalpel shape indestructible blades moves at hundreds of revolutions per minute means they don't have to worry because the flesh is ripped apart before it can jam the teeth. Flesh would be practically liquified and bone would snap by the force of the Marine's blow rather than sawing. And even if it did clog it up, which has happened in fluff, nothing more id really needed to solve the problem except for the marine to rev it and the powerful motor clears it.
Not only that, but you are comparing slightly different things. Chainsaws have basically squarish teeth and are designed for a clean cut through wood at a reasonably slow pace. Chainswords are weapons of war designed to feth you up on a big way.
Deadshot wrote: You all realise that Chainswords are generally speaking not intènded for use against heavily armoured targets? If you are going up against PA or TDA, generally speaking you'll be wanting a power weapon. Chainswords are mostly effective against lihhtly armoured targets like Orks and Guardsmen, where the strength of the swing can break the humans on impact alone, and the tearing edges simply rips them apart. Orks are a little more sturdy, but even in the Space Marine game, it was rare for one of those cinematic executions to actually make the killing strike with the blade. Mostly, Titus used the blade to do a feth-load of damage before punching or slamming them into the ground or their head off.
Except organic targets are the one thing you never want to take a chainsaw type weapon to at all.
Despite what Texas Chainsaw Massacre would have you think, chainsaws are terrible at cutting flesh. The tissue matter just clogs up everything and mucks the whole machine up and ends up jamming stuff.
They don't really work against anything do they. Armour = won't cut through, flesh = gets all gummed up.
dusara217 wrote: This is why I wish that they had a tea of good authors who actually collaberate with eachother to make a good setting.
The setting is fine but its not like they are mechanical scientist or anything. they are just writers that want to write cool things. dont let physics get into that
Grey Templar wrote: Snap, shatter, really the same thing. Just depends on the relative brittleness of the object.
Not at all. Shattering means breaking up into a bunch of little pieces while snap means breaks into two. If you shatter a sword, then it is broken and done-for; almost impossible to repair. If you snap a sword, on the other hand, then you can weld the two pieces together and re-work the blade so that it's almost as strong as when it was new.
Ummm yeah that would be terrible. the weld becomes a terrible hard spot that will be the first point of break when hit by anything. because when you weld two pieces of metal the center is overall the same composition
The reason a japanese katana works so well is because it is actaully two types of steel forge welded together. a Hard high in carbon outside and and a softer less carbon inside. the reason it has a curve is after the blade is forged the final step is quenching where the softer metal contracts more than the harder front, pulling the blade upwards.
The hard blade lets it keep an edge while the rear softer core keeps it from shattering.
European blades generally didn't do all that and basically was one uniform material throughout. so some times it would be a softer blade that would bend and get dull quick, or a harder metal that would be prone to chipping and breaking but kept a sharpas feth edge.
I see you've bought into the mystique of the Katana.
The Katana was actually made of very poor quality steel, then only good steel was the very blade itself. This made the katana very brittle.
By the late middle ages, European steel manufacturing was the best in the world. The best swords ever made were made in Toledo. They were flexible and lightweight and would spring back after bending.
Japan has done a good job of marketing their culture, and that includes elevating the Katana to more than it actually was. The Katana was great at cutting through flesh, but it failed miserably against any good quality armor.
Grey Templar wrote: Snap, shatter, really the same thing. Just depends on the relative brittleness of the object.
Not at all. Shattering means breaking up into a bunch of little pieces while snap means breaks into two. If you shatter a sword, then it is broken and done-for; almost impossible to repair. If you snap a sword, on the other hand, then you can weld the two pieces together and re-work the blade so that it's almost as strong as when it was new.
Ummm yeah that would be terrible. the weld becomes a terrible hard spot that will be the first point of break when hit by anything. because when you weld two pieces of metal the center is overall the same composition
The reason a japanese katana works so well is because it is actaully two types of steel forge welded together. a Hard high in carbon outside and and a softer less carbon inside. the reason it has a curve is after the blade is forged the final step is quenching where the softer metal contracts more than the harder front, pulling the blade upwards.
The hard blade lets it keep an edge while the rear softer core keeps it from shattering.
European blades generally didn't do all that and basically was one uniform material throughout. so some times it would be a softer blade that would bend and get dull quick, or a harder metal that would be prone to chipping and breaking but kept a sharpas feth edge.
I see you've bought into the mystique of the Katana.
The Katana was actually made of very poor quality steel, then only good steel was the very blade itself. This made the katana very brittle.
By the late middle ages, European steel manufacturing was the best in the world. The best swords ever made were made in Toledo. They were flexible and lightweight and would spring back after bending.
Japan has done a good job of marketing their culture, and that includes elevating the Katana to more than it actually was. The Katana was great at cutting through flesh, but it failed miserably against any good quality armor.
Actually no im aware of the fact that the material they had was gak. but it is still hard around soft steel that was the point.
(the at the time kinda situation)
Lets not just start assuming things shale we?
Edit: Actually the whole katana thing was for wyzillas comment on katanas.
Why has no one addressed the issue that if two people are fighting using chainswords the weapons are likely to clash when parrying one another.... regardless if the chainsword teeth are super strong and sharp, wedge like or block like... that equals two broken swords.
Chainsword is a horrendous weapon, and would probably never work. Not any better than a Chain Saw would. Which makes the sword itself redundant. and Chain saw rifles like in Gears of War much more sensical if you ignore the fact that the game clearly clashes them... even though they would break. The only way the two swords wouldn't destroy each other when snagging on each others super awesome teeth is if one had a more powerful motor and just over powered the other sword, rendering only one broken sword.
NauticalKendall wrote: Why has no one addressed the issue that if two people are fighting using chainswords the weapons are likely to clash when parrying one another.... regardless if the chainsword teeth are super strong and sharp, wedge like or block like... that equals two broken swords.
Chainsword is a horrendous weapon, and would probably never work. Not any better than a Chain Saw would. Which makes the sword itself redundant. and Chain saw rifles like in Gears of War much more sensical if you ignore the fact that the game clearly clashes them... even though they would break. The only way the two swords wouldn't destroy each other when snagging on each others super awesome teeth is if one had a more powerful motor and just over powered the other sword, rendering only one broken sword.
Chain Axe on the other hand, different story.
It would depend on the strength of the links more than the blades really. cant imagine the forces involved
There's only 2 possibilities if you have a form lock between a chainsword and something solid/another chainsword
Either both motors stop instantly, or something breaks. There's no other solution to keep the thing rotating but locking into each other at the same time.
Also, like any good soldier you'd know that parrying with the sharp edge of your sword (chain or no chain) is retardäd... I put those absolutely stupid "locked chain swords against each other" pictures into the hollywood trophe box with the rest of the silly "heroic/epic" moments and blame the artists...
Grey Templar wrote: Snap, shatter, really the same thing. Just depends on the relative brittleness of the object.
Not at all. Shattering means breaking up into a bunch of little pieces while snap means breaks into two. If you shatter a sword, then it is broken and done-for; almost impossible to repair. If you snap a sword, on the other hand, then you can weld the two pieces together and re-work the blade so that it's almost as strong as when it was new.
Ummm yeah that would be terrible. the weld becomes a terrible hard spot that will be the first point of break when hit by anything. because when you weld two pieces of metal the center is overall the same composition
The reason a japanese katana works so well is because it is actaully two types of steel forge welded together. a Hard high in carbon outside and and a softer less carbon inside. the reason it has a curve is after the blade is forged the final step is quenching where the softer metal contracts more than the harder front, pulling the blade upwards.
The hard blade lets it keep an edge while the rear softer core keeps it from shattering.
European blades generally didn't do all that and basically was one uniform material throughout. so some times it would be a softer blade that would bend and get dull quick, or a harder metal that would be prone to chipping and breaking but kept a sharpas feth edge.
I see you've bought into the mystique of the Katana.
The Katana was actually made of very poor quality steel, then only good steel was the very blade itself. This made the katana very brittle.
By the late middle ages, European steel manufacturing was the best in the world. The best swords ever made were made in Toledo. They were flexible and lightweight and would spring back after bending.
Japan has done a good job of marketing their culture, and that includes elevating the Katana to more than it actually was. The Katana was great at cutting through flesh, but it failed miserably against any good quality armor.
People tend to forget that the Katana was just a backup weapon for the spears Samurai wielded.
Grey Templar wrote: Snap, shatter, really the same thing. Just depends on the relative brittleness of the object.
Not at all. Shattering means breaking up into a bunch of little pieces while snap means breaks into two. If you shatter a sword, then it is broken and done-for; almost impossible to repair. If you snap a sword, on the other hand, then you can weld the two pieces together and re-work the blade so that it's almost as strong as when it was new.
Ummm yeah that would be terrible. the weld becomes a terrible hard spot that will be the first point of break when hit by anything. because when you weld two pieces of metal the center is overall the same composition
The reason a japanese katana works so well is because it is actaully two types of steel forge welded together. a Hard high in carbon outside and and a softer less carbon inside. the reason it has a curve is after the blade is forged the final step is quenching where the softer metal contracts more than the harder front, pulling the blade upwards.
The hard blade lets it keep an edge while the rear softer core keeps it from shattering.
European blades generally didn't do all that and basically was one uniform material throughout. so some times it would be a softer blade that would bend and get dull quick, or a harder metal that would be prone to chipping and breaking but kept a sharpas feth edge.
I see you've bought into the mystique of the Katana.
The Katana was actually made of very poor quality steel, then only good steel was the very blade itself. This made the katana very brittle.
By the late middle ages, European steel manufacturing was the best in the world. The best swords ever made were made in Toledo. They were flexible and lightweight and would spring back after bending.
Japan has done a good job of marketing their culture, and that includes elevating the Katana to more than it actually was. The Katana was great at cutting through flesh, but it failed miserably against any good quality armor.
Ai, that's the sad truth about the katana. It wasn't any different to the European sword, except slightly worse at dealing with armor.
The viking Ulthbert is a superior sword; it's highly flexible, can hold a pretty sharp edge and is a solid piece of steel, as opposed to 2 layers of two types of steel.
Still, the fact that the Japanese smiths could create a functional blade with what terrible materials they had available is impressive.
NauticalKendall wrote: Why has no one addressed the issue that if two people are fighting using chainswords the weapons are likely to clash when parrying one another.... regardless if the chainsword teeth are super strong and sharp, wedge like or block like... that equals two broken swords.
Chainsword is a horrendous weapon, and would probably never work. Not any better than a Chain Saw would. Which makes the sword itself redundant. and Chain saw rifles like in Gears of War much more sensical if you ignore the fact that the game clearly clashes them... even though they would break. The only way the two swords wouldn't destroy each other when snagging on each others super awesome teeth is if one had a more powerful motor and just over powered the other sword, rendering only one broken sword.
Chain Axe on the other hand, different story.
...you always parry with the flat of the blade...The Imperial Chainsword is not unlike a large falchion, with a sharp edge and a wide, blunt backside for weight and power. But like any sword, hitting edge on edge will damage the blade, unless 1 is vastly superior to the other (ie, a Chainsword vs a wooden toy, or a steel sword vs one made of tin). Like the falchion, the chainsword would parry the other weapon by hitting the flat side of your weapon against the flat side of your opponent's, knocking it off its intended trajectory, rather than flat out stopping it, which is an awful idea in istelf because your body then absorbs the force and is now strength vs strength. Parrying, proper parrying that is, is redirecting the momentum of the opponent's attack so that their energy is wasted, dually tiring them and saving yourself, whilst also putting off balance and into a vulnerable position.
Boltguns: There's a lot of info on these considering the posterboys of the whole franchise carry them rather often, but I'd like to see how much details we can figure out. According to the fluff, they fire self-propelled rounds that explode slightly after impact for maximum damage. I was reading stuff about gyrojet ammunition, but I'm wondering if bolts would be more like that, or if they would be more similar to RPG!
I believe that power armor is just around the corner, probably in the next 10 years. I wouldn't be suprised if some form of it wasn't already in use by special forces.
The Teleportarium: This device opens an unshielded tunnel in the Warp to transport people from the device to a point within LoS of the ship or station the device is located on. Why you would ever want to make an unprotected Warp-Walk is beyond me. These devices are ancient and barely understood in the current era of 40K, and disappearances and accidents are common.
This does bring up an interesting fluff-point here. If it must be in the LoS of the ship, and there is a risk of losing the cargo, i.e primarchs, terminators, sacred space marine relic weapons, then why does the IoM use the teleportarium instead of a drop pod? Nobody/almost nobody can shoot down a drop pod, and you don't get the daemon risk with the Warp/Teleportation devices
The Teleportarium: This device opens an unshielded tunnel in the Warp to transport people from the device to a point within LoS of the ship or station the device is located on. Why you would ever want to make an unprotected Warp-Walk is beyond me. These devices are ancient and barely understood in the current era of 40K, and disappearances and accidents are common.
This does bring up an interesting fluff-point here. If it must be in the LoS of the ship, and there is a risk of losing the cargo, i.e primarchs, terminators, sacred space marine relic weapons, then why does the IoM use the teleportarium instead of a drop pod? Nobody/almost nobody can shoot down a drop pod, and you don't get the daemon risk with the Warp/Teleportation devices
The Teleportarium: This device opens an unshielded tunnel in the Warp to transport people from the device to a point within LoS of the ship or station the device is located on. Why you would ever want to make an unprotected Warp-Walk is beyond me. These devices are ancient and barely understood in the current era of 40K, and disappearances and accidents are common.
This does bring up an interesting fluff-point here. If it must be in the LoS of the ship, and there is a risk of losing the cargo, i.e primarchs, terminators, sacred space marine relic weapons, then why does the IoM use the teleportarium instead of a drop pod? Nobody/almost nobody can shoot down a drop pod, and you don't get the daemon risk with the Warp/Teleportation devices
Its quicker, and at 30k time, there was no risk of Daemons or getting lost at such short a distance. At 30k time is was safest, and 40k sometimes means its the only option. However, Terminator Armour along is used for most chapters, to protect them, as opposed to 30k where they use PA and TDA for teleports.
Raven911 wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0-esAq-pbd4
AA-12 loaded with frag 12 ammo. Boltgun mk1. Ammo also comes in armor peircing.
AA-12 Armour Piercing rounds are using shaped charges for their piercing ability. Whereas Boltrounds use their kinetic energy for armour piercing ability, and then explode inside. This is alot more effective for disabling armored targets, because you have an explosion inside the armor. A Heat round only makes a hole and has some fragmentation from the molten metal (which is also deadly/very dangerous, but not quite as deadly as a direct explosion). AA-12 also has very short range and very low kinetic energy. It does everything with the explosive. It's not a bad weapon, but the bolter would be better.
In fact, i think the best internal mechanism that would fit to a bolter/ heavy bolter is actually the WW2 MK108 30mm machinecannon in use in Late-War German Figherplanes. Obviously, it is has a larger caliber but i'm talking about the way how it works Why? Because it is very leightweight (for it's caliber) weapon, that fires at a high rate of fire. The muzzlevelocity is low, but this is no problem because the projectiles are have a rocketmotor that increase the velocity further. The bolt (the thing that moves the projectile and blocks the rear of the barrel)does not lock physically. As it slams forward with the projectile, the projectile is ignited by an electric fuze. The energy of the forward moving bolt must be overcome by the propellant expansion, before the bolt moves back again. At that time when it starts to move back, the projectile has already left the barrel. This allows a fast rate of fire (but only a low muzzle velocity), and has a short barrel. Alternatively it could have a higher muzzle velocity, longer barrel, but slower fire rate, because the weight of the bolt would have to be heavier.
The fast rate of fire and low weight (compared to other, more "conventional" designs) are not the only advantage. You have way less moving parts-> easier to manufacture and most important of all: Alot less material wear, which increases the lifetime and reliability.
As the ignition used in the mechanism is electric, implementing a lock-feature that prevents use from any other then the rightfull Spacemarine owner is very easy - just cut off the electric circuit.
SirSertile wrote:This does bring up an interesting fluff-point here. If it must be in the LoS of the ship, and there is a risk of losing the cargo, i.e primarchs, terminators, sacred space marine relic weapons, then why does the IoM use the teleportarium instead of a drop pod? Nobody/almost nobody can shoot down a drop pod, and you don't get the daemon risk with the Warp/Teleportation devices
First of all Drop pods take some time to reach their target. Second of all, Drop Pods can't get through spaceship/building walls that easily. They can get through the outer hull/wall and fight inwards of course (basic boarding action) but you can't just fly straight into the command room with the pod. Therefore you have to pass every defence they put up. In case of teleporting you only have to deal with the command room itself.
So a lot of reasons why teleporting is tactically superior. But since it's dangerous you don't want/can't afford to to use it for everything (also would destroy almost every plot. Teleport, kill and done.)
HH series had a situation where DA accidentally STHEL RHEN into macragg and was mentioned would become toast from the AA guns and the massive void shield. Also nothing could stop teleportation into areas so they decided to point some sensors inwards to keep an eye out. So a DP isnt really intercept proof
Teleportation also needs you to know exactly where you want to go and that's there's enough room for you not to end up with part of you in the walls or ceiling.
Raven911 wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0-esAq-pbd4
AA-12 loaded with frag 12 ammo. Boltgun mk1. Ammo also comes in armor peircing.
AA-12 Armour Piercing rounds are using shaped charges for their piercing ability. Whereas Boltrounds use their kinetic energy for armour piercing ability, and then explode inside. This is alot more effective for disabling armored targets, because you have an explosion inside the armor. A Heat round only makes a hole and has some fragmentation from the molten metal (which is also deadly/very dangerous, but not quite as deadly as a direct explosion). AA-12 also has very short range and very low kinetic energy. It does everything with the explosive. It's not a bad weapon, but the bolter would be better.
In fact, i think the best internal mechanism that would fit to a bolter/ heavy bolter is actually the WW2 MK108 30mm machinecannon in use in Late-War German Figherplanes. Obviously, it is has a larger caliber but i'm talking about the way how it works Why? Because it is very leightweight (for it's caliber) weapon, that fires at a high rate of fire. The muzzlevelocity is low, but this is no problem because the projectiles are have a rocketmotor that increase the velocity further. The bolt (the thing that moves the projectile and blocks the rear of the barrel)does not lock physically. As it slams forward with the projectile, the projectile is ignited by an electric fuze. The energy of the forward moving bolt must be overcome by the propellant expansion, before the bolt moves back again. At that time when it starts to move back, the projectile has already left the barrel. This allows a fast rate of fire (but only a low muzzle velocity), and has a short barrel. Alternatively it could have a higher muzzle velocity, longer barrel, but slower fire rate, because the weight of the bolt would have to be heavier.
The fast rate of fire and low weight (compared to other, more "conventional" designs) are not the only advantage. You have way less moving parts-> easier to manufacture and most important of all: Alot less material wear, which increases the lifetime and reliability.
As the ignition used in the mechanism is electric, implementing a lock-feature that prevents use from any other then the rightfull Spacemarine owner is very easy - just cut off the electric circuit.
SirSertile wrote:This does bring up an interesting fluff-point here. If it must be in the LoS of the ship, and there is a risk of losing the cargo, i.e primarchs, terminators, sacred space marine relic weapons, then why does the IoM use the teleportarium instead of a drop pod? Nobody/almost nobody can shoot down a drop pod, and you don't get the daemon risk with the Warp/Teleportation devices
First of all Drop pods take some time to reach their target. Second of all, Drop Pods can't get through spaceship/building walls that easily. They can get through the outer hull/wall and fight inwards of course (basic boarding action) but you can't just fly straight into the command room with the pod. Therefore you have to pass every defence they put up. In case of teleporting you only have to deal with the command room itself.
So a lot of reasons why teleporting is tactically superior. But since it's dangerous you don't want/can't afford to to use it for everything (also would destroy almost every plot. Teleport, kill and done.)
Bolts are not short, this is an actual proper model of a bolt that isn't just slowed in design like the tiny bolts seen in the Ultramarines movie.
Actual proper bolts would resemble something akin to 20mm anti aircraft rounds used in autocannons in WWII, which would also explain the range and potency of bolters.
the video is just another artists version...
But i agree, yes it makes more sense to have bolts that are longer -> can contain more explosive and also more propellant. Just look at the Mk108 shell the dude is holding there - i think it makes a good bolter round (proportions wise at least. Size is likely smaller)
The images we know from FW and other sources (like the one above) Would make it fairly weak. Plus remember how big marines are and that the bolt is just of ~20mm diameter. If it was that short as well, it would be like a pistol round to them... Then the reallife Bolter would be out of proportion in relation to the ammunition it uses. Using pistol sized rounds (relative to marine your size) but wielding a huge chunk of metal around thats not awesome.
Chainswords: have you ever used an electric chainsaw? super torquey, really light. I wouldn't want to wield one though. Only practicality i could see is getting through kevlar armor.
Power "blades": The closest thing I think we have are vibroblades/microtomes. Small dissection tools that vibrate so fast they saw and gently peel into tissue. Doesn't work so great scaled up though I would think.
Power "hammer/maul": Now I think this is doable in a cool way! Make a giant chunk of an object that has a rediculous capacitor inside. Swing it and the current grounds out through the target. It would be like hitting someone with a sledge hammer and lighting. Just insulate yourself and the system REALLY well so you don't go pop!
Ceramite: if you can manipulate the molecular structure of carbon you can get super strong material that is very light. We can make diamonds for goodness sake. Look at what we are doing with carbon composites in ar-15 parts all the way to $600 road cycling shoes. need impact absorption and flexibility? Look at hockey sticks. Slap this all over a Ratheon Sarcos exo skeleton and BOOM, power armor...at least hardware wise...
Power "hammer/maul": Now I think this is doable in a cool way! Make a giant chunk of an object that has a rediculous capacitor inside. Swing it and the current grounds out through the target. It would be like hitting someone with a sledge hammer and lighting. Just insulate yourself and the system REALLY well so you don't go pop!
Even the finest insulant won't protect you from the momentum that is a fast swung giant ball (or cube) of mass...
Power "hammer/maul": Now I think this is doable in a cool way! Make a giant chunk of an object that has a rediculous capacitor inside. Swing it and the current grounds out through the target. It would be like hitting someone with a sledge hammer and lighting. Just insulate yourself and the system REALLY well so you don't go pop!
Even the finest insulant won't protect you from the momentum that is a fast swung giant ball (or cube) of mass...
The insulator I believe is for the wielder to protect them from the electrical discharge from the capacitor in the weapon. I think that's what skysky meant.
The insulator I believe is for the wielder to protect them from the electrical discharge from the capacitor in the weapon. I think that's what skysky meant.
I know, but even if the fluff meant that powered hammer/mauls are electroshock weapons, if you compare the practical effect of the concussive impact to electrical shock, you'd realize to the infantry, that extra bit of energy flow meant very little. Once made impact, the weigh and speed of the weapon would have meant instant death if not massive internal bleeding. Making it an incredible waste of resource to construct such a thing (barring the Arbites Power Maul, which might be of a lesser mass and its electricity would sever a double purpose of incapacitating rioters -- then again, we already have electric shock baton).
I never said if power hammers/mauls are electric shock weapons, they cannot be made; I was just (half-jokingly) pointing out how few sense it'd make to make such weapons (again, excepting electric shock baton)
if you compare the practical effect of the concussive impact to electrical shock, you'd realize to the infantry, that extra bit of energy flow meant very little. Once made impact, the weigh and speed of the weapon would have meant instant death if not massive internal bleeding.
Well lets not forget that there are more dangerous and resilient things in 40k then humans. It's also usefull against vehicles...
The same applies to power and chain fists... For killing humans and oder small crop, there are better weapons. And i think even the tabletop rules represent that fairly well.
Sorry to raise an old thread, but I figured since I was the one who made it and didn't want to start an entire new one since this has some good posts I'd just renew it.
I'm currently in a physics course in college, and I've been seriously considering attempting to make a real life bolter. This thread has really helped me get the basic info I've needed but the main thing that I've been talking to my professor about and that he said he'd be willing to help me with (I told him about my idea for the weapon design, he thought it would be really cool and coming from a Russian physicist who does know a considerable amount about weapons that was pretty cool, plus he said he'd be willing to help me implement it). Since I know the idea of how a bolter works, and how an assault rifle works, the obvious issue is figuring out how I'd be able to make the parts required, since a .75 caliber assault rifle wouldn't be able to use the same size parts and whatnot as a different rifle. Right now, my main concern is making something that actually works, so I'm only taking the "science" part of the lore that actually makes sense and ignoring all the mumbo-jumbo. If I need to make changes to the design that contradict something in the lore that's fine.
I was also thinking about the thunder hammer, and from what I've seen in Space Marine and DOW it basically seems like a shockwave effect occurs upon impact (perhaps that's why it's called a thunder hammer). I'd like to know if there would be some way to actually create something like that.
Again, keep in mind that for this thread, fluff is only important in terms of what the technology DOES - the fluff behind how it does it isn't relevant unless it actually makes sense.
You should probably start with the bolts to see if it would even be viable (range and accuracy wise and if the rocket part does a damn) then build around that.
The rifle part of it basically works like a automatic grenade launcher that already exists.
Start with just making the rifle part. Once you have a working .75 cal gun and ammo then you can work on the rocket ammo and the exploding round.
If you need more space for the internal workings of the bullet, make it longer. Basically the difference between a .50 cal for a desert eagle and a M2 is the length of the casing and the bullet. thats where you'll need to experiment.
Awesome! Thanks. The main thing I need to figure out in terms of the rifle part itself is how the individual parts of the actual mechanism need to be scaled up or altered in order to accommodate the larger size of the bolt. That's essentially what my physics professor said he could help with - he was actually very close to a lot of Nuclear physicists (who may or may not have been doing atomic weapons research at some point), and at one point during our class he was telling us about the applications of what we were learning and one of the ones he mentioned was "calculating the trajectory of a missile launched from Russia towards the US" or something along those lines, so I think if he considers the core concept worthwhile enough to devote some of his time to helping me with it, it's probably pretty good.
I'll admit I'm no gun expert, but I learn things VERY quickly and if I have access to relevant information I can figure things out fairly rapidly. Hopefully, if I can make a regular bolter successfully, I could even try to make some of the other forms of boltguns like storm bolters and bolt pistols.
Grey Templar wrote: .75 cal isn't that huge. We have many larger sized weapons in existence.
Size isn't an issue beyond the caliber not being used by existing weapons meaning all parts related to that will need to be designed from scratch.
That's what I meant - since each of the parts would need to be designed from scratch I don't know what the sizes of those custom parts would be (or specifically which parts need to be altered in relation to the caliber, as opposed to in relation to the difference in shape/size of the gun itself). I've been trying to find that information but haven't had much luck.
Codex: Blood Angels's entry on the Hand Flamer makes mention of casings in relation to the weapon. Seeing as how it's both a handheld flamethrower and has no obvious ejection ports, this makes absolutely no bloody ( ) sense.
That's what I meant - since each of the parts would need to be designed from scratch I don't know what the sizes of those custom parts would be (or specifically which parts need to be altered in relation to the caliber, as opposed to in relation to the difference in shape/size of the gun itself). I've been trying to find that information but haven't had much luck.
You won't find that information, because you need to figure that out yourself. Nobody has built a functional bolter yet Do you want to make a Bolter for space marines or for humans?
Bolters do not just come in .75 cal size. Forgeworld for example has a .6 cal Bolter in one of the pre heresy books, and i find it only makes sense if you look at this artwork for SOB for example.
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/123441/2652728-sisters_of_battle_gear_3rd.jpg I really like this artwork, because the bolter looks like it can work without too much suspension of disbelief. It's obvious that those bullets in the mag can't be .75cal. A smaller caliber allows you to carry more ammo, and for humans its easier to handle. Also remember, the magazine should have 20 to 30 rounds in it - so you are limited in caliber by the form factor. .75cal for a bolter for human sized hands won't allow you to put 30 rounds in it, at least not without a very long and thick magazine (which wouldn't match the Artwork) All that for a gun that is essentially with the form factor of a submachinegun / a pretty short assault rifle. Truth be told, it looks more like conventional ammo in the artwork...
Smaller (standard)caliber for humans also explains why astartes bolters are supposedly stronger.
If we are talking about a real weapon with present day propellants and explosives though... i don't think it makes much sense. It makes more sense to have a unpropelled projectile with more explosive. Because the more propellant you put into the projectile the less explosive it can take. The more propellant you put into the bolt however, the less initial charge you need, reducing recoil, which you need for automatic/semi-automatic firing. First you need to mock up the gun to figure out how large the projectile would be/could be, how long the barrel approximately is, how much it weighs approx. Then you need to figure out how much recoil would be acceptable, then come up with a good ratio for powder to rocketpropellant to explosive to "dead" projectile mass. Then you design the real ammo, then the real rifle. And calculate again what you have and readjust again. It's an iterative process and if you are not into real engineering... don't waste your time. It's not as easy as putting some rough measures together.
Here is my current state for a human held bolter after the SOB Godwyn Deaz Style in .6cal. The left side is a mag with 30 rounds and the right how a 20round mag would approximately be - closer to the artwork (though it would be slightly longer because it needs a strong spring). Bullet/Shell sizes based not based on any calculation whatsoever.
You could totally fit 30 rounds in a bolter magazine. .75 cal is not that big. It would be fairly large as far as weapon mags go, but its well'within possibility.
Still big enough to beat someone to death with. Although, I didn't know three in a row mags would work. I thought they could only do that with 2 in s row.
Grey Templar wrote: You could totally fit 30 rounds in a bolter magazine. .75 cal is not that big. It would be fairly large as far as weapon mags go, but its well'within possibility.
-.-" of course you can fit ammo with .75cal projectile into a 30 round mag, its just too large to a) handle b) carry alot of them c) fit the artwork for humans! It's not like i haven't tried, but .75 cal for a human bolter with 30 round mag is too big (therefore heavy) to be feasible as a weapon for non-Marine-sized Characters.
3 in a row mags would be more prone to jamming, but the larger bullets would make it easier to fix the jam, and its consistent with the fluff.
Then please make some scale images to prove that its feasible for the artwork we are dealing with...
Grey Templar wrote: You could totally fit 30 rounds in a bolter magazine. .75 cal is not that big. It would be fairly large as far as weapon mags go, but its well'within possibility.
-.-" of course you can fit ammo with .75cal projectile into a 30 round mag, its just too large to a) handle b) carry alot of them c) fit the artwork for humans! It's not like i haven't tried, but .75 cal for a human bolter with 30 round mag is too big (therefore heavy) to be feasible as a weapon for non-Marine-sized Men.
I think you are seriously overestimating the size of .75 cal rounds.
Well, TBF, I have a .50 round, and the casing it'self is probebly around .75-1.0 inches. If you scaled that up it would make the rounds be 1.125-2 inches thick. That could mean a 6"/10" mag.
Its probably a .50 cal armor piercing round with the casing being much wider than the bullet, right? Bolters would have normal casings roughly the same width as the bullet.
Grey Templar wrote: How large are your rounds then? BTW: CAD is still just estimating, its just putting a visual onto the estimation.
I'm an engineer, you dont need to explain to me what CAD is or isn't. Entering exact measurements isn't estimating...
The round i have in that image is 15.25mm in caliber and 71mm long (base to tip). The projectile itself is 51.4mm long.
The reason why the casing is not thicker is so that more bullets fit into the magazine... if the casing would be much thicker (like for regular small arms bullets), even fewer rounds would fit into the magazine.
The 30rd magazine would be 282mm heigth, 36mm width, 157mm length... thats very large. The 20rd mag would be 200mm in heigth
I'll admit I'm not an engineer, but I'd certainly be willing to learn or perhaps if I could find someone with that kind of experience to work with me and try to make it happen that would be a super cool project to undertake in my opinion.
What type of weapon is the Emperor's sword, anyway? Some depictions seem to indicate it's similar to a Loi-pattern power weapon, while 6E's Codex: Space Marines has a picture that makes it look like a force weapon.
.75 cal rounds are not at all outside the realm of feasibility. The magazines to bolt-weapons *are* big and chunky, and hold 24 rounds (boltgun) or 8 rounds (boltpistol), which is within the depictions of the artwork.
Plasma weapons work in a feasible way.
A pellet heavy with fusion reactants is launched and has intense heat imparted onto it by a sort of action mechanism right before leaving the barrel causing it to almost immediately turn into a dense ball of incredibly hot gas.
ThePrimordial wrote: Plasma weapons work in a feasible way.
A pellet heavy with fusion reactants is launched and has intense heat imparted onto it by a sort of action mechanism right before leaving the barrel causing it to almost immediately turn into a dense ball of incredibly hot gas.
Yup, such a weapon is theoretically possible if you manage to build a containment system for it that is also small enough to be practical as a weapon. Plasma can also be manipulated using magnetic fields, so a projected magnetic tunnel could deliver a "bolt" of plasma to a target(instead of it immediately dissipating if it had no containment, likely injuring the wielder and/or making it more akin to a flame thrower)
RaptorusRex wrote: What type of weapon is the Emperor's sword, anyway? Some depictions seem to indicate it's similar to a Loi-pattern power weapon, while 6E's Codex: Space Marines has a picture that makes it look like a force weapon.
Well, assuming its the actual Burning Blade, imIIRC it was forged by the Emperor himself and probably imbued with his own power. So a magic sword.
RaptorusRex wrote: What type of weapon is the Emperor's sword, anyway? Some depictions seem to indicate it's similar to a Loi-pattern power weapon, while 6E's Codex: Space Marines has a picture that makes it look like a force weapon.
Definitely a force weapon. No way the most powerful psyker in history doesn't have a force weapon.
Plus I've seen artwork where it's covered in flames/lightning, stuff power swords don't do.
RaptorusRex wrote: So, what exactly are the differences between the Godwyn pattern and similar-looking weapons, like the Baal or the Ultima patterns?
Likely just cosmetics or minor changes to suit the individual chapter, like making it lighter to hold in one hand or something. The only pattern that seems significantly different is the Hesh pattern, which is shorter, almost the same size as a bolt pistol but with the power and range of a Bolter.
RaptorusRex wrote: So, what exactly are the differences between the Godwyn pattern and similar-looking weapons, like the Baal or the Ultima patterns?
Aside from cosmetics, there are likely smaller subsystems in each bolter that are different.
We know bolters contain targeting, stabilization, ammo counter, and multiple other misc systems. Different bolter patterns will have different systems integrated into them.
There is no functional difference on the table top, but in the RPG and fluff there will be differences in the bolter patterns.
So, what exactly are the differences between the Godwyn pattern and similar-looking weapons, like the Baal or the Ultima patterns?
Imo the they should look different as well... because what they did in the codices is just pointless. Putting a different name on an gun that just has a different color.
I think the ones responsible just didnt have any guts whatsoever to try and change the artwork/design.
The only pattern that seems significantly different
Look at forgeworlds bolter patterns. They did a vastly better job there then GW - not a surprise.
So I've been working a little on a bolter schematic, and I've got what I think would be most of the stuff. Main thing I'm trying to get now is the ejection mechanism for the cartridges, I can't really find any good diagrams to help me figure out where exactly that would go in the design itself. I can see the ejection port obviously, but would that little part that slides back along the ejection port have some part that extends down to the barrel and hooks to the lip of the casing? I'll post a pic of the drawing I've been doing in a little bit.
I've also been working on a suit of terminator armor, with my goal being to make it as comfortable to wear as possible (ie not overheating in 10 minutes). I'm thinking that I could have some sort of power source in the backpack area, and there are so many vent openings on the armor itself that could be used to help circulation and whatnot. Ideally I'd like to have additional systems like small motors/an armature to take some of the weight off the wearer, but that's secondary.
Here's the rough diagram I came up with. Note that I'm not exactly a great artist or super knowledgeable about guns so suggestions/critique are encouraged. I also need to draw in the cartridge ejection mechanism so recommendations are needed.
I based the labels and everything off of a gas system diagram I found on HowStuffWorks. Once I've got the full details of the diagram, knowing all the parts I'd need and where they'd go, I can start figuring out how large they'd need to be so I can actually make them, and also how to actually make them :p
Still looking for help with the cartridge ejection mechanism, and if I'm missing any other critical parts to the mechanism certainly let me know. Feel free to take and modify the "blueprint" I posted above if you want to save time or something.
Also, another 40K weapon that would be rather easy to make due to the fact that we already have them is the heavy flamer. There are a few questions I have regarding specifics, though. They say the flamers use promethium as a fuel, but Promethium is a non-flammable radioactive element so they're obviously talking about some other compound/element and named it after the Greek demigod Promethium due to his association with fire. What modern compound or mixture could be used as an equivalent? Also, what are those holes in the side of the rectangular "barrel" of the flamer for? If they're used to vent some of the heat, how do they do so? If they just went all the way through on both sides that would just result in fuel going everywhere instead of being aimed at a target.
I was doing a bit of work earlier and, with some scaling, math, and guesswork, came up with an approximate bolter clip size. With a bolt+casing size of around 2 1/8", and 35 round (being 11 rows of 3, and one of 2), It comes out with a height of 9 7/8", a width of 2 3/8" and a length of 2 1/4". It's a brick, but it's not too big to use.
Interestingly enough, Elmer's school glue is almost the exact size that bolts would be.
reptilelover1995 wrote: Still looking for help with the cartridge ejection mechanism, and if I'm missing any other critical parts to the mechanism certainly let me know. Feel free to take and modify the "blueprint" I posted above if you want to save time or something.
Did you include the rifling? As per the 3rd edition diagram for storm bolters, bolters have rifling. Why a supposedly rocket-propelled round would need rifling is another mystery (especially given the short barrel), but its there. My guess would be bolters aren't strictly rocket propelled or gyrojet, but may be related to the travelling charge concept, although it may use rocket assist to sustain range and velocity (rifling would provide the initial velocity and spin and likely would explain any recoil they supposedly have.)
It's really hard to guess at the loading mechanism because it looks really weird. I'd guess maybe that the lil spiky bits are part of the 'piezo-electric ignition chamber' (which is ironic because there is an ignition like that but its used for completely mundane rathr than ballistic purposes. Trying to salvage I might guess electrical ignition, with the electrical bit being provided by the mechanical action of the weapon - sort of a 'regenerative' effect I guess.) The spiky bit is pushed forward into the back of the round to ignite it, and on ignition it pulls back (I'm guessing the ejected bit - the 'case' we see in artwork or sometimes in fluff, might be akin to the metallic bit on the end of a combustble cartridge Not entirely caseless in that case but nearly so and its possible like autoguns you get 'cased' and 'caseless' bolter varieties. The end cap would likely be used to seal the chamber for the time needed to push the round. ) Anyhow, when the spiky bit pulls back it carries the end bit of the cartridge with, dropping it onto those little half cylinders labeled the 'multi direcitonal ejection port' - maybe they're what push the catridge out? I'd guess also 'multi-directional' refers to the fact that its a two barreld gun it will have ejection ports on both sides.
Another interesting point is the blast compensator on top, which likely is for venting the propellant gases of the bolt charge. Having them vent upwards is interesting, as that might help to counteract any tendency for the ewapon to recoil upwards (it will 'push' the weapon down.) which might help, although I'm not entirely sure about positioning in that regard (having it closer ot the barrel like some muzzle brakes do would probably be more useful.)
The above is a horrible bastaridzation of concepts and entirely speculative, but it MIGHT work for the bolter. Might. I'm sure it will provoke disagreement and/or outrage though, so bear that in mind too. The way bolters work is as contested as most things in 40K after all.
Also, another 40K weapon that would be rather easy to make due to the fact that we already have them is the heavy flamer. There are a few questions I have regarding specifics, though. They say the flamers use promethium as a fuel, but Promethium is a non-flammable radioactive element so they're obviously talking about some other compound/element and named it after the Greek demigod Promethium due to his association with fire. What modern compound or mixture could be used as an equivalent? Also, what are those holes in the side of the rectangular "barrel" of the flamer for? If they're used to vent some of the heat, how do they do so? If they just went all the way through on both sides that would just result in fuel going everywhere instead of being aimed at a target.
Promethium can literally mean anything. In most cases its basically a fossil fuel, but it can be liquid, gaseous or even solid (Space coal, space oil, space propane.) And even in some cases its used in starship reactors and can be found in gas giants (thank you, Shield of Baal!) which means it may also be hydrogen. Actually that would be hilarious on so many levels given how utterly energetic hydrogen is (it might also explain why some meltaguns became basically fusion flamethwoers. And some plasma guns for that matter.) Especially as they may be using metastable/metallic hydrogen at least in some forms lol.
Not sure how dense metallic hydrogen is, incidentally, but that is what I've speculated the 'depleted deuterium' core migth be. It supposedly could be used as an explosive, and if dense enough it might even add to penetration (AP cored round, maybe?) But that's entirely speculative and possibly even outright pseudoscience so you should take that conjecture with a large rock of salt.
Thanks for the advice. I may need help drawing up a revised diagram to show more detail for those other parts, and other opinions or ideas are always welcome and encouraged to get more than one perspective.
I don't think that metallic hydrogen would be feasible within something that small, just because you'd have to somehow generate the immense pressures found within a gas giant in order to compress the hydrogen enough to make metallic hydrogen. Plus, I'm pretty sure that the expansion once the target was hit would be so massive it would pose a danger to anyone within a significant radius. I don't know for sure though.
reptilelover1995 wrote: Still looking for help with the cartridge ejection mechanism, and if I'm missing any other critical parts to the mechanism certainly let me know. Feel free to take and modify the "blueprint" I posted above if you want to save time or something.
Did you include the rifling? As per the 3rd edition diagram for storm bolters, bolters have rifling. Why a supposedly rocket-propelled round would need rifling is another mystery (especially given the short barrel), but its there. My guess would be bolters aren't strictly rocket propelled or gyrojet, but may be related to the travelling charge concept, although it may use rocket assist to sustain range and velocity (rifling would provide the initial velocity and spin and likely would explain any recoil they supposedly have.)
It's really hard to guess at the loading mechanism because it looks really weird. I'd guess maybe that the lil spiky bits are part of the 'piezo-electric ignition chamber' (which is ironic because there is an ignition like that but its used for completely mundane rathr than ballistic purposes. Trying to salvage I might guess electrical ignition, with the electrical bit being provided by the mechanical action of the weapon - sort of a 'regenerative' effect I guess.) The spiky bit is pushed forward into the back of the round to ignite it, and on ignition it pulls back (I'm guessing the ejected bit - the 'case' we see in artwork or sometimes in fluff, might be akin to the metallic bit on the end of a combustble cartridge Not entirely caseless in that case but nearly so and its possible like autoguns you get 'cased' and 'caseless' bolter varieties. The end cap would likely be used to seal the chamber for the time needed to push the round. ) Anyhow, when the spiky bit pulls back it carries the end bit of the cartridge with, dropping it onto those little half cylinders labeled the 'multi direcitonal ejection port' - maybe they're what push the catridge out? I'd guess also 'multi-directional' refers to the fact that its a two barreld gun it will have ejection ports on both sides.
Another interesting point is the blast compensator on top, which likely is for venting the propellant gases of the bolt charge. Having them vent upwards is interesting, as that might help to counteract any tendency for the ewapon to recoil upwards (it will 'push' the weapon down.) which might help, although I'm not entirely sure about positioning in that regard (having it closer ot the barrel like some muzzle brakes do would probably be more useful.)
The above is a horrible bastaridzation of concepts and entirely speculative, but it MIGHT work for the bolter. Might. I'm sure it will provoke disagreement and/or outrage though, so bear that in mind too. The way bolters work is as contested as most things in 40K after all.
Also, another 40K weapon that would be rather easy to make due to the fact that we already have them is the heavy flamer. There are a few questions I have regarding specifics, though. They say the flamers use promethium as a fuel, but Promethium is a non-flammable radioactive element so they're obviously talking about some other compound/element and named it after the Greek demigod Promethium due to his association with fire. What modern compound or mixture could be used as an equivalent? Also, what are those holes in the side of the rectangular "barrel" of the flamer for? If they're used to vent some of the heat, how do they do so? If they just went all the way through on both sides that would just result in fuel going everywhere instead of being aimed at a target.
Promethium can literally mean anything. In most cases its basically a fossil fuel, but it can be liquid, gaseous or even solid (Space coal, space oil, space propane.) And even in some cases its used in starship reactors and can be found in gas giants (thank you, Shield of Baal!) which means it may also be hydrogen. Actually that would be hilarious on so many levels given how utterly energetic hydrogen is (it might also explain why some meltaguns became basically fusion flamethwoers. And some plasma guns for that matter.) Especially as they may be using metastable/metallic hydrogen at least in some forms lol.
Not sure how dense metallic hydrogen is, incidentally, but that is what I've speculated the 'depleted deuterium' core migth be. It supposedly could be used as an explosive, and if dense enough it might even add to penetration (AP cored round, maybe?) But that's entirely speculative and possibly even outright pseudoscience so you should take that conjecture with a large rock of salt.
Bolters are indeed rifled, simply because that is necessary for accuracy. Why wait for the rocket to begin rotational stabilization when it can have it right out of the barrel? It just makes sense.
Because they hate CSM a lot, and plasma is the most effective special weapon type against them.
Or because their local forge world favours it?
You're on the money with the first one. Dark Angels take such a specialized loadout because they will drop everything to go fight CSM or Fallen no matter how important the current mission. I know there's a story in the codex about them abandoning an entire hiveworld in order to chase a rumor about a Fallen.
reptilelover1995 wrote: Still looking for help with the cartridge ejection mechanism, and if I'm missing any other critical parts to the mechanism certainly let me know. Feel free to take and modify the "blueprint" I posted above if you want to save time or something.
Did you include the rifling? As per the 3rd edition diagram for storm bolters, bolters have rifling. Why a supposedly rocket-propelled round would need rifling is another mystery (especially given the short barrel), but its there. My guess would be bolters aren't strictly rocket propelled or gyrojet, but may be related to the travelling charge concept, although it may use rocket assist to sustain range and velocity (rifling would provide the initial velocity and spin and likely would explain any recoil they supposedly have.)
It's really hard to guess at the loading mechanism because it looks really weird. I'd guess maybe that the lil spiky bits are part of the 'piezo-electric ignition chamber' (which is ironic because there is an ignition like that but its used for completely mundane rathr than ballistic purposes. Trying to salvage I might guess electrical ignition, with the electrical bit being provided by the mechanical action of the weapon - sort of a 'regenerative' effect I guess.) The spiky bit is pushed forward into the back of the round to ignite it, and on ignition it pulls back (I'm guessing the ejected bit - the 'case' we see in artwork or sometimes in fluff, might be akin to the metallic bit on the end of a combustble cartridge Not entirely caseless in that case but nearly so and its possible like autoguns you get 'cased' and 'caseless' bolter varieties. The end cap would likely be used to seal the chamber for the time needed to push the round. ) Anyhow, when the spiky bit pulls back it carries the end bit of the cartridge with, dropping it onto those little half cylinders labeled the 'multi direcitonal ejection port' - maybe they're what push the catridge out? I'd guess also 'multi-directional' refers to the fact that its a two barreld gun it will have ejection ports on both sides.
Another interesting point is the blast compensator on top, which likely is for venting the propellant gases of the bolt charge. Having them vent upwards is interesting, as that might help to counteract any tendency for the ewapon to recoil upwards (it will 'push' the weapon down.) which might help, although I'm not entirely sure about positioning in that regard (having it closer ot the barrel like some muzzle brakes do would probably be more useful.)
The above is a horrible bastaridzation of concepts and entirely speculative, but it MIGHT work for the bolter. Might. I'm sure it will provoke disagreement and/or outrage though, so bear that in mind too. The way bolters work is as contested as most things in 40K after all.
Also, another 40K weapon that would be rather easy to make due to the fact that we already have them is the heavy flamer. There are a few questions I have regarding specifics, though. They say the flamers use promethium as a fuel, but Promethium is a non-flammable radioactive element so they're obviously talking about some other compound/element and named it after the Greek demigod Promethium due to his association with fire. What modern compound or mixture could be used as an equivalent? Also, what are those holes in the side of the rectangular "barrel" of the flamer for? If they're used to vent some of the heat, how do they do so? If they just went all the way through on both sides that would just result in fuel going everywhere instead of being aimed at a target.
Promethium can literally mean anything. In most cases its basically a fossil fuel, but it can be liquid, gaseous or even solid (Space coal, space oil, space propane.) And even in some cases its used in starship reactors and can be found in gas giants (thank you, Shield of Baal!) which means it may also be hydrogen. Actually that would be hilarious on so many levels given how utterly energetic hydrogen is (it might also explain why some meltaguns became basically fusion flamethwoers. And some plasma guns for that matter.) Especially as they may be using metastable/metallic hydrogen at least in some forms lol.
Not sure how dense metallic hydrogen is, incidentally, but that is what I've speculated the 'depleted deuterium' core migth be. It supposedly could be used as an explosive, and if dense enough it might even add to penetration (AP cored round, maybe?) But that's entirely speculative and possibly even outright pseudoscience so you should take that conjecture with a large rock of salt.
Bolters are indeed rifled, simply because that is necessary for accuracy. Why wait for the rocket to begin rotational stabilization when it can have it right out of the barrel? It just makes sense.
Not really. A rocket kicking in on an already spinning object is more likely to destabilize the projectile. Besides, there are plenty of modern weapons without rifling - in fact most main battle tanks are smooth bores.
RaptorusRex wrote: So does a Jump Pack literally allow a user to hit the ground running?
I imagine it depends on how high their forward velocity is when they come down. It the user is transiting I can see that coming down running would be useful. When bouncing into combat the DoW2 style stomp landing might be more effective.
Well isn't there a dangerous terrain roll with potential for wounds? I'd say they allow the user to hit the ground running but at the risk of killing it.
So in theory what caliber would the Ork shoota line be?
Slugga - 12" S4 AP6 Pistol (I consider it part of this line)
Shoota - 18" S4 AP6 Assault2
Big Shoota - 36" S5 AP5 Assault3
Supa Shoota - 36" S6 AP4 Assault3
Co'tor Shas wrote: I was doing a bit of work earlier and, with some scaling, math, and guesswork, came up with an approximate bolter clip size. With a bolt+casing size of around 2 1/8", and 35 round (being 11 rows of 3, and one of 2), It comes out with a height of 9 7/8", a width of 2 3/8" and a length of 2 1/4". It's a brick, but it's not too big to use.
Interestingly enough, Elmer's school glue is almost the exact size that bolts would be.
It's not too big to use the mag and move it with your hands... Indeed. Now draw what you have figured out on a piece of paper in 1:1 scale. Then, draw the weapon around it, with the mag beeing in proportion in size to the rest of the gun. Then make a paper model of it. If that's not enough to show that it would be way too heavy because it's so big... you'd have to go all the way and built it in steel. Add to that a mag full of those big rounds. Then imagine that you need more then 1 mag (no infinite ammo cheat in real life) to go into battle. If you hit a human with it, it's overkill. If you miss you wasted one of the few rounds you can carry.
So in theory what caliber would the Ork shoota line be?
The biggest possible that an ork can handle... a caliber doesnt tell you anything about the power of a gun. Just like the amount of cylinders of a car engine doesnt tell you the acceleration and top speed of it. There is more stuff to it.
Besides, there are plenty of modern weapons without rifling - in fact most main battle tanks are smooth bores
comparing a battletank cannon to a handheld gun is a bit of a stretch isn't it? Last time i checked most pistols and assaultrifles are still rifled... and rocket propelled stuff uses fins to make them spin. That 20mm Frag-12 ammo also uses fins for stabilization to achieve extra range, because shotguns aren't rifled (afaik), as shooting shot shells isn't so great for the barrel if it has rifling
I did draw the clip (that's how I got the size). It truly is a weapon for the genetically engineered. It's going to be like a SAW with less recoil for un-aided humans.
yeah well for space marines it's a good fit i think - no argue about that
for regular humans, smaller bolter rounds seem to be more suitable - that was my argument earlier.
I've always argued that SM bolters have higher firepower than human bolters.
We have numerous mentions of SM bolters being too big for normal humans to lift unaided, and if you are going to bother with making supersoldiers that are great platforms for heavier weapons then giving them heavier weapons is probably a good idea.
I think the problem is that you assume a bigger gun means a more powerful gun. As they use the same bolts as far as we know they will do the same damage per shot. SM bolters will probably have different mechanical operations (they may fire faster, or have bigger mags), but they will still do the same damage per shot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Keep wrote: well good luck wielding a 25kg weapon with the kick of a mule and prohibitively heavy ammo.
Actually, the design of bolts was to allow humans to use them, that's why they have the rocket propulsion (IIRC). They have a smaller kick than an actual .75 round, as that part is only to eject it from the gun to load a new one.
and if you are going to bother with making supersoldiers that are great platforms for heavier weapons then giving them heavier weapons is probably a good idea.
indeed...
They have a smaller kick than an actual .75 round, as that part is only to eject it from the gun to load a new one.
Well nice and dandy, except bolters where built with close range in mind. And just ejecting a tiny bit doesnt give any advantage that would justify having such an initial charge (which is btw not confirmed in canon that this even exists afaik) If you want any close range penetration you need kinetic energy. Besides that Bolters are said to be loud and terrifying when firing... which would not be the case if it's a tiny charge
Actually, the design of bolts was to allow humans to use them, that's why they have the rocket propulsion
Not all bolts are 0.75 Expecting to see a weapon type in only a single caliber is silly. That's like saying there is only 1 autocannon or heavy machine gun round.
Exactly. And there is more that contributes to the feasibility as a weapon - not just weight. Not just recoil.
Maximum ammo capacity is a big deciding factor. Dimensions are a big factor. It's simply not ergonomic to use a weapon as a "child" with 1.8m average size compared to an "adult" in massive armor and at least triple bodymass with ~ 2.2m average size
Ashiraya wrote: I've always argued that SM bolters have higher firepower than human bolters.
We have numerous mentions of SM bolters being too big for normal humans to lift unaided, and if you are going to bother with making supersoldiers that are great platforms for heavier weapons then giving them heavier weapons is probably a good idea.
Human and Astartes bolters have the same ammunition and caliber(confirmed fact), but the weapons are different in other respects.
Obviously, the grips and triggers will be differently sized. The marine bolter can also have extra subsystems and other add-ons the human versions can't. The Marine bolter will also actually have less recoil due to its increased weight, which also makes it useful as a bludgeoning weapon.
The increased mass will also make the bolter more rugged. Marines are probably pretty hard on their weaponry, so they need to be durable. When you can bend steel with your bare hands your gun needs to be large to take the punishment.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I think the problem is that you assume a bigger gun means a more powerful gun. As they use the same bolts as far as we know they will do the same damage per shot. SM bolters will probably have different mechanical operations (they may fire faster, or have bigger mags), but they will still do the same damage per shot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Keep wrote: well good luck wielding a 25kg weapon with the kick of a mule and prohibitively heavy ammo.
Actually, the design of bolts was to allow humans to use them, that's why they have the rocket propulsion (IIRC). They have a smaller kick than an actual .75 round, as that part is only to eject it from the gun to load a new one.
No, the key difference is that they can utilize longer rounds with more powder/fuel stuffed into the cartridge/shell than a normal human could tolerate without their shoulder being liquified. Like hypersonic special ammunition bolts. Damage with firearms is not linear, and is affected by modifiers such as width, length, velocity, mass, tip structure (hollow point, steel core, etc), and then there's the actual warhead, which could be anything from HEAT to a SABOT that relies on kinetic energy to penn instead of superheated streams of metal. 5.56x45mm Hollow Point is going to do terrible things to flesh yet fail to penetrate some body armor, while 5.56x45mm steel core is going to shred body armor but won't expand while penetrating tissue.
Ashiraya wrote: I've always argued that SM bolters have higher firepower than human bolters.
We have numerous mentions of SM bolters being too big for normal humans to lift unaided, and if you are going to bother with making supersoldiers that are great platforms for heavier weapons then giving them heavier weapons is probably a good idea.
Human and Astartes bolters have the same ammunition and caliber(confirmed fact), but the weapons are different in other respects.
Obviously, the grips and triggers will be differently sized. The marine bolter can also have extra subsystems and other add-ons the human versions can't. The Marine bolter will also actually have less recoil due to its increased weight, which also makes it useful as a bludgeoning weapon.
The increased mass will also make the bolter more rugged. Marines are probably pretty hard on their weaponry, so they need to be durable. When you can bend steel with your bare hands your gun needs to be large to take the punishment.
It still makes no sense to me. SM are big enough to carry around and fire these weapons
Spoiler:
By hand. So if you make such an extremely sturdy firing platform extremely well suited to accurately wielding and firing weapons far more powerful than normal men can, why would they waste that and give them a gun Joey McRedshirt could use?
'Imperium is stupid' is not an option since Marines have walked around with those bolters since the Great Crusade, and rarity is not a concern either since Marines are rarer than almost all Imperial weapons anyway!
It'd be like outfitting a Tiger II turret with an MG42.
Bolters are not a common weapon for IG. There is a huge difference. Heavy Bolters are made for everything, it's not hard to adapt one variant (such as a Leman Russ sponson) to accomodate a bipod and attach a two-man gunner/loader team. But bolters only come in one style, personal weapon, and for the stock IG such a weapon's value far outstrips its usefulness as most IG won't survive long enough to make the investment worthwhile.
Its the difference between the Russian army of WW2 outfitting their troops with top-of-the-line modern assault rifles (or what passed for ARs then) vs the bolt action rifle from WW1 with no ammo. The modern guns will be better, but the man carrying it won't live long enough for it to matter, and then the weapon is lost, captured or generally a waste of investment.
With the heavy bolter, its the case of the Russian army using WW1 machine guns. Archaic? Yes. But its effectiveness is much more, as even a WW1 gun allows a team to hold a chokepoint against a much strong force and put out a much higher K/D ratio than were they armed with those ARs, with less people dying on the Russian/IG (closest approximation) side and loads more dying on the German/Xenos/Heretic side.
Also, Wyzilla
: you comment about the type and core of the round. While not much is shown in detail the consistant detail is that the round penetrates the target (and is armour penetrating) and then explodes once inside. This implies there is some sort of sensor or mechanism that is activated when the tip strikes a target that ignites the explosives inside on a delayed fuse, to give time to penetrate first. This would also mean its likely to be a steel core round to provide the penetration as you say, but with the explosive doing the main damage to flesh instead of the hollow point on other rounds as you also mention.
...It still doesn't answer the question of why you'd invest so much in making a superstrong supersoldier with strength-enhancing armour and then not give him a gun with more firepower than what anyone could wield.
Ashiraya wrote: ...It still doesn't answer the question of why you'd invest so much in making a superstrong supersoldier with strength-enhancing armour and then not give him a gun with more firepower than what anyone could wield.
...they do? What, are you thinking any old schmuck in the Guard with 6 weeks basic training could handle a bolter? Space Marines train 24/7, literally to become proficient with it. Its not feasible to equip everyone with Heavy Bolters. Why?
1) more expensive. Bigger gun, bigger ammo, higher rate of consumption of ammo, more cost.
2) Weight. Its not too mobile, even on a SM
Think of who in the IG actually get bolters. Senior officers. Commissioned. People with status and family connections and a lifespan longer than a goldfish. Who can afford to get Bolters and training with them.
Bolters be much stronger in fluff than in crunch as well. though considerably inconstant.
as well consider that AP5 goes straight through flak level armor. if we are to believe that that is equivalent to today flak/armored vests. than even that cant stop it.
On top of that. the SM are shock troops. designed to go in and feth up the HQ. most things they are probably going in to feth up are human insurrections. and other heresy type things.
Not sure what the numbers would be for chaos space marines though.
Ashiraya wrote: I've always argued that SM bolters have higher firepower than human bolters.
We have numerous mentions of SM bolters being too big for normal humans to lift unaided, and if you are going to bother with making supersoldiers that are great platforms for heavier weapons then giving them heavier weapons is probably a good idea.
Human and Astartes bolters have the same ammunition and caliber(confirmed fact), but the weapons are different in other respects.
Obviously, the grips and triggers will be differently sized. The marine bolter can also have extra subsystems and other add-ons the human versions can't. The Marine bolter will also actually have less recoil due to its increased weight, which also makes it useful as a bludgeoning weapon.
The increased mass will also make the bolter more rugged. Marines are probably pretty hard on their weaponry, so they need to be durable. When you can bend steel with your bare hands your gun needs to be large to take the punishment.
It still makes no sense to me. SM are big enough to carry around and fire these weapons
Spoiler:
By hand. So if you make such an extremely sturdy firing platform extremely well suited to accurately wielding and firing weapons far more powerful than normal men can, why would they waste that and give them a gun Joey McRedshirt could use?
'Imperium is stupid' is not an option since Marines have walked around with those bolters since the Great Crusade, and rarity is not a concern either since Marines are rarer than almost all Imperial weapons anyway!
It'd be like outfitting a Tiger II turret with an MG42.
You are ignoring the other limitations of the bolter. Namely its expense to operate and manufacture. Thats why only marines and SoB get it and not guardsmen.
And sure, marines can carry Heavy Bolters around. So what? He isn't carrying it like soldiers today would carry a SAW, he's carrying it like the mini-guns in all those old 80s movies were carried. Its still not a light thing for the marine to carry. The fact he can brace it at all is a testament to his strength when normally it requires a tripod.
It would be like a human today carrying a mortar around and firing it from his back.
Ashiraya wrote: ...It still doesn't answer the question of why you'd invest so much in making a superstrong supersoldier with strength-enhancing armour and then not give him a gun with more firepower than what anyone could wield.
...they do? What, are you thinking any old schmuck in the Guard with 6 weeks basic training could handle a bolter? Space Marines train 24/7, literally to become proficient with it. Its not feasible to equip everyone with Heavy Bolters. Why? 1) more expensive. Bigger gun, bigger ammo, higher rate of consumption of ammo, more cost. 2) Weight. Its not too mobile, even on a SM
Think of who in the IG actually get bolters. Senior officers. Commissioned. People with status and family connections and a lifespan longer than a goldfish. Who can afford to get Bolters and training with them.
No, it still doesn't make sense. You're just thinking from a 'who gets trusted with what' perspective. I said it's a gun anyone could wield, not that anyone does wield. The problem is that you're going to great pains to making your Space Marine ridiculuously strong and extremely suited to carrying more powerful weapons, without exploiting that investment. Your LMG may be a top-of-the line gun that's really expensive, but it's still a waste to put it in the turret of a Tiger II.
Cost is a non-issue. Making a Marine is a lot of time and money to begin with. Arming him properly is proportionately a minor concern.
As for weight, well, just arm him with some bolt weapon between a bolter and heavy bolter in size. Something heavy and powerful enough to warrant his massive strength and ability to keep much larger weapons stable, but still somewhat mobile.
A Space Marine is strong enough to rip sponsons off tanks and tear up walls. I think swinging a demi-heavy bolter would be a non-issue for him.
You are ignoring the other limitations of the bolter. Namely its expense to operate and manufacture. Thats why only marines and SoB get it and not guardsmen.
And sure, marines can carry Heavy Bolters around. So what? He isn't carrying it like soldiers today would carry a SAW, he's carrying it like the mini-guns in all those old 80s movies were carried. Its still not a light thing for the marine to carry. The fact he can brace it at all is a testament to his strength when normally it requires a tripod.
It would be like a human today carrying a mortar around and firing it from his back.
It's not about the cost, it's about making proper use of the platform. Autocannons are huge and are dirt cheap enough to issue down to the chaff Guardsmen squads. Something larger than a Bolter to properly exploit the wielder's stability does not have to be much more expensive, not in the light of who is wielding it.
Heavy bolters can also be carried by normal men like Harker. Harker may be special, but he is explicitly carrying it like he'd carry a lasgun. That is obscene and far too much to handwave away due to him eating his spinach every day. And I doubt Harker's strength could match that of a Marine. So heavy bolters are not a problem.
Remember marines also have that huge backpack of ammo they're carrying. Harker isn't carrying any ammo at all besides that belt. Obviously he gets followed around by someone to feed him ammo.
How much is that backpack going to weigh, 30 kilograms?
That won't bog down a guy who can lift a car without problems.
Anyway, my argument is not to give them heavy bolters, but rather something between heavy bolters and bolters to properly exploit their stability and ability to carry more firepower without sacrificing accuracy.
Giving them more firepower (and both you and I know that Space Marines can carry bigger guns than normal humans without encumberance) would not be adverse to their shock troop role.
Grey Templar wrote: Why exactly do you think the Bolter is not a good choice?
Its the perfect size for them.
1. Astartes bolters and human bolters allegedly have equal firepower.
2. Humans are perfectly able to use human bolters. They are seen both among inquisitorial acolytes and guard officers.
3. Space Marines are way way stronger and more stable than humans, allowing them to use bigger and more powerful guns without sacrificing stability, accuracy and mobility.
Ergo
4. Space Marines do not properly use their capacity to use bigger guns, wasting a major use for their superhuman strength. In fact, that capacity is sacrificed to make all non-relevant parts of the gun larger, making it more tough for melee use... except that should never be a priority, especially not since they are all carrying combat blades and/or chainswords if melee becomes prudent!
Why do they have to max out their strength with their basic firearm? Why not give them a weapon they'd have way more control over, giving them unparalleled accuracy?
They don't have to max out their strength. Even if the bolter was the limit of what they could use with 'unparallelled accuracy' (which it isn't - they are pretty damn accurate with lascannons too), it's still horribly inefficient to give them bolters that are 5% gun and 95% junk to make them sturdier as melee weapons.
Not only could they easily use bigger weapons with great accuracy, they should also use weapons that are more gun, less melee weapon, and let their standard issue melee weapons do that job instead.
Grey Templar wrote: Human and Astartes bolters have the same ammunition and caliber(confirmed fact), but the weapons are different in other respects.
Where does it say that they have the same ammunition ? Caliber, i've seen that some bolters are 0.75, but ammo i can not recall. It's also fact that there exist other bolter then "THE bolter caliber" and "THE heavy bolter caliber"
Why do they have to max out their strength with their basic firearm? Why not give them a weapon they'd have way more control over, giving them unparalleled accuracy?
because unparalleled accuracy does not allow them to penetrate through thicker armor?
"Sir, my gaze does not penetrate steel plate!" ... "just gaze harder!"
And the SM did have a better weapon, volkalite weapons. But they couldn't supply enough of them to the legions.
The Space Marines no longer rampantly grow in number like they used to. Volkite is lost tech so it's a no-go, but otherwise it's the kind of thing that would be ideal.
Marines don't give a gak about the tech-heresy of inventions, so building a demi-heavy bolter should be simple enough.
Where does it say that bolters don't all use the same ammo? Where is the myth of different calibers coming from?
The only stated caliber of bolters and bolt pistols(and stormbolters) is .75 cal. Until you have a canon source saying there are other calibers all normal bolt weapons(except heavy bolters) are .75 cal.
Ashiraya wrote: They don't have to max out their strength. Even if the bolter was the limit of what they could use with 'unparallelled accuracy' (which it isn't - they are pretty damn accurate with lascannons too), it's still horribly inefficient to give them bolters that are 5% gun and 95% junk to make them sturdier as melee weapons.
Not only could they easily use bigger weapons with great accuracy, they should also use weapons that are more gun, less melee weapon, and let their standard issue melee weapons do that job instead.
They are not Orks.
If you look at older schematics of bolters, you'll see that there is actually a lot of stuff inside there. Its not just ablative material. There are targeting, self-repair, unjamming, and multiple other mechanisms in a bolter.
If you look at older schematics of bolters, you'll see that there is actually a lot of stuff inside there. Its not just ablative material. There are targeting, self-repair, unjamming, and multiple other mechanisms in a bolter.
Neuro connected sights, Finger print sensors to keep baddies from using the gun ala that one scene from Judge dread, targeting computers and such as well IIRC
The bolter is a perfectly acceptable weapon. Just because its lackluster in the game doesn't mean its bad in the fluff. Game =/= fluff.
In Deathwatch the bolter is pretty damn good. It actually does more damage on average to soft targets than a Plasma gun does(2D10+5 vs 1D10+9). It just has a better Pen value. Bolters also roll an additional D10 for damage and drop the lowest because they have the Tearing rule.
Grey Templar wrote: Where does it say that bolters don't all use the same ammo? Where is the myth of different calibers coming from?
Forgeworld Heresy Books, Phobos Pattern Bolter is 0.6 cal. It's in one of the first 3, don't remember and am too lazy too look now. One of the reddish armour schemes with weapons next to them.
I dont recall exactly, but i think one of the boltpistols was 0.5 cal
Grey Templar wrote: The bolter is a perfectly acceptable weapon. Just because its lackluster in the game doesn't mean its bad in the fluff. Game =/= fluff.
In Deathwatch the bolter is pretty damn good. It actually does more damage on average to soft targets than a Plasma gun does(2D10+5 vs 1D10+9). It just has a better Pen value. Bolters also roll an additional D10 for damage and drop the lowest because they have the Tearing rule.
Yeah, I play Deathwatch a lot. I am a GM. The Deathwatch bolters are perfect, just how SM bolters should be.
Do note that they are significantly more powerful than human bolters, though. Human bolters only roll 1d10 for damage. The difference is considerable.
The plasma gun is also very powerful once you count in maximal mode.
Grey Templar wrote: Where does it say that bolters don't all use the same ammo? Where is the myth of different calibers coming from?
Forgeworld Heresy Books, Phobos Pattern Bolter is 0.6 cal. It's in one of the first 3, don't remember and am too lazy too look now. One of the reddish armour schemes with weapons next to them.
I dont recall exactly, but i think one of the boltpistols was 0.5 cal
Interesting. I'd chalk it up to GW not knowing their own fluff.
Interesting. I'd chalk it up to GW not knowing their own fluff.
Why? It makes no bloody sense to have just one caliber for a given weapon type. It's also uninspired and boring.
And that's what forgeworld recognized and changed. Well done forgeworld, once more you produced background information that is feasible and makes sense... because apparently nobody else has the capability to come up with feasible technical NEW information... or has the guts
Also... fluff changes over time. Bolts aren't exclusively caseless rocket propelled projectiles anymore, they have cases that eject. Bolters that do exclusively have casless rpp's may still be around however, it's never been falsified.
You keep arguing that it's a waste of a Marine's strength because a normal man can fire them...
How long do you think those normal men are going to be able to fire them? Space Marines are massively strong and have Power Armour, with strength-enhancing servos and recoil compensators. The handful of humans, such as Senior Officers, have had years of training with a bolter, and will rarely use it as they lead from the rear. Likewise, Inq retinues are bodyguardsm neither are involved in protracted engagements like the standard IG. Trying to use a bolter for days or months at a time would likely end ip taking the shoulder off a normal man, especially considering it has no stock to brace against. Then all the accuracy, ammo and morale goes out the window.
Bolters are fine for Space Marines. Its the perfect medium between accuracy, firepower, mobility, RoF and ammo consumption.
They have a version for higher RoF, the stormbolter. Its widely inacurate compared to the standard bolter, with a much higher consumption of the same ammo, and judging by the Sternguard Vets rules, it's likely the ammo consumption is too high to justify the use of Special Ammo.
A more mobile version is the pistol, with lower everything else.
A Heavy Bolter is the next stage, with much higher Firepower and RoF but ammo consumption is much higher, mobility limited, expensive and tactically limiting.
Grey Templar wrote: Where does it say that bolters don't all use the same ammo? Where is the myth of different calibers coming from?
Forgeworld Heresy Books, Phobos Pattern Bolter is 0.6 cal. It's in one of the first 3, don't remember and am too lazy too look now. One of the reddish armour schemes with weapons next to them.
I dont recall exactly, but i think one of the boltpistols was 0.5 cal
The Phobos pattern is most commonly associated with the Mk2 Crusade Armour, according to FW website IIRC. Its shown being held by the Mk2 in the last 2 SM codexes, certainly. That would suggest its a much earlier version of the current weapon. Perhaps GW mean .75 and focus specifically on the Godwyn, seeing as its common with Mk7 armour, and apparently only Mk6 and 7 exist to GW.
Marine armour is powered by a fusion reactor. It would seem a waste to arm them with anything less than multi-lasers. If jetbikes can do it
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Marines are armed with bolters because they have always been armed with bolters. It deosn't have to make sense because its part of the original aesthetic. The background fluff has crept up around and about the original design decisions from Rogue Trader where Marines were not what they are now and bolters were used because they were loud messy and effective, rather than being the precisely perfect weapon to arm post-human mega-super-soldiers with.
You keep arguing that it's a waste of a Marine's strength because a normal man can fire them...
How long do you think those normal men are going to be able to fire them? Space Marines are massively strong and have Power Armour, with strength-enhancing servos and recoil compensators.
No you dont understand - i argued that IF a human would be able to use a regular marine bolter, it would indicate that the marine doesn't have a weapon that is not properly scaled to him. Ergo, since the later is not so likely, and stuff related to 0.75 is too big [and heavy ]to be handled by humans (see my post couple of pages back) with any good effect, human bolters would use weaker and smaller ammunition (for more reasons then just weight). That is the conclusion i have. Not that Marine bolters are not enough for Marines - so we are actually on the same page here.
The Phobos pattern is most commonly associated with the Mk2 Crusade Armour
So? That doesn't change the fact that different calibers have existed. Therefore they are still around in some numbers at least. Including the Tigris pattern and the Boltpistol. Those are only the patterns we know about. There may be more patterns, which could pop up at any time from FW. If different calibers exist for marine bolters, it is certainly a thing for non-PA human bolters as well. And other weapons (heavy stubber for example) as well.
You keep arguing that it's a waste of a Marine's strength because a normal man can fire them...
How long do you think those normal men are going to be able to fire them? Space Marines are massively strong and have Power Armour, with strength-enhancing servos and recoil compensators.
No you dont understand - i argued that IF a human would be able to use a regular marine bolter, it would indicate that the marine doesn't have a weapon that is not properly scaled to him. Ergo, since the later is not so likely, and stuff related to 0.75 is too big [and heavy ]to be handled by humans (see my post couple of pages back) with any good effect, human bolters would use weaker and smaller ammunition (for more reasons then just weight). That is the conclusion i have. Not that Marine bolters are not enough for Marines - so we are actually on the same page here.
The Phobos pattern is most commonly associated with the Mk2 Crusade Armour
So? That doesn't change the fact that different calibers have existed. Therefore they are still around in some numbers at least. Including the Tigris pattern and the Boltpistol. Those are only the patterns we know about. There may be more patterns, which could pop up at any time from FW. If different calibers exist for marine bolters, it is certainly a thing for non-PA human bolters as well. And other weapons (heavy stubber for example) as well.
There are many more patterns. There is the Umbra pattern which replaced the Phobos, the Umbra-Ferrox, common with the MkIV armour and featuring a large box magazine, and the Tigrus which went with the Mk4 but then the Mk5 during the HH.
reptilelover1995 wrote: Thanks for the advice. I may need help drawing up a revised diagram to show more detail for those other parts, and other opinions or ideas are always welcome and encouraged to get more than one perspective.
I don't think that metallic hydrogen would be feasible within something that small, just because you'd have to somehow generate the immense pressures found within a gas giant in order to compress the hydrogen enough to make metallic hydrogen. Plus, I'm pretty sure that the expansion once the target was hit would be so massive it would pose a danger to anyone within a significant radius. I don't know for sure though.
It might not at all be feasible, which is why I added the caveat, but its also a possible way to reconcile all the differences in the fluff WRT bolters. 'depleted deuterium' is a bit hard to explain away, especially when you have FFG and Forgeworld (in the Imperial armour suppelment for Space Marines) both saying that bolter cores are dense (with FW adding that the core adds to penetration, and FFG saying its 'metallic.') THere's also the issue that with some observed results of bolters you need a pretty powerful explosive (eg blowing apart the entire upper torso, even after penetration. Mythbusters has tested that informally in years past and you need roughly something on the order of a stick of dynamite or a grenade to accomplish.) You might be able to handwave it as being some sort of 'reactive metal' material (tehre has been speculation on making high density reactive materials that mean you could build a shell out of 'explosive/incendiary' material in addition to its explosive charge, but nothing exactly 'dense core' or even explosive, at least as I understand it.)
Otherwise I guess you start have to selectively picking and choosing what the 'true' fluff is, but I think threads of this nature show not everyone will agree what the 'truth' in such matters is and that will also get in the way of making an argument that will persuade a broad cross-section of people. Also, I'm not sure what you consider a 'significant radius' for danger though or why it would be any more dangerous than an explosive of comparable power.
Interesting. I'd chalk it up to GW not knowing their own fluff.
Why? It makes no bloody sense to have just one caliber for a given weapon type. It's also uninspired and boring.
And that's what forgeworld recognized and changed. Well done forgeworld, once more you produced background information that is feasible and makes sense... because apparently nobody else has the capability to come up with feasible technical NEW information... or has the guts
Also... fluff changes over time. Bolts aren't exclusively caseless rocket propelled projectiles anymore, they have cases that eject. Bolters that do exclusively have casless rpp's may still be around however, it's never been falsified.
And the other way too. Xenos Hunters clarified some boltguns are .998 caliber (cue discussion over validity of BL sources):
"More effective is the 0.998 calibre boltgun. Standard issue within the Adeptus Astartes, although rarely employed elsewhere within the Imperial military. Observe."
The attachment on the servo-arm blazed away, chugging mass-reactive shells at the creature. They impacted and shredded the gaunt’s talon arm from its body almost as an afterthought; the scything blade-limb clattered to the deck as the alien obscenity screeched in instinctual fury rather than pain. Its shoulder was nothing more than a ruined stump of spurting gristle."
I'd guess it depends on what they're going for. Most assault rifles I know of can be rechambered for different calibers just by swapping out components, so I imagine bolters can be as well. It would explain the highly variable effects and performance of the weapon at least.
As an aside, was that the same book (or even page) that had the AStartes meltagun with the megathule rating? I kind of broke out cackling when I saw that and how that might be interpreted.
0.998 seems a bit large though, especially since heavy bolters are supposed to be 1.0 calabre.
Really, I don't see why most imperium owned bolters having the same bolts is that unbelievable. It's like NATO standardization, but at a much larger scale.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Really, I don't see why most imperium owned bolters having the same bolts is that unbelievable. It's like NATO standardization, but at a much larger scale.
Because letting Imperial soldiers throw expensive astartes grade ammunition around seems like a waste of valuable ressources. Much more sensible to have cheaper and less complex ammo, suited to IA's particular needs, particulary since Heavy Bolters are ammo-hungry and often used.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: No it does not. Heavy bolters are powerful enough that even space marines have to brace them, normal humans require a tripod or alike to fire them.
Elysians dont use a tripod. Steel legion doesnt use a tripod either. So either they use a smaller round then space marines and the other heavy bolters. Or Cadians are a bunch of whimps and Marines just like to act cool and rambo
No, you have to spend half an action to brace the weapon. And then fire. Or move-brace-aim-shoot.
You'll be firing at a rather nasty penalty if you're unbraced, and on top of that, there's a quite a few heavy weapons that are full auto only, meaning more penalties.
Edit: Unless you're a sentry, I think they can have their companion brace the weapon for e'm, letting them do brace-aim-fire in a turn.
A heavy bolter is mostly just heavy and cumbersome. The round itself, despite being very wide, has almost no charge. The recoil would be hefty but might not be as bad as even a .50 BMG. It's just enough charge to give lethal velocity out of the barrel before the self propellant kicks in and stabilizes while accelerating further.
On the subject of different bolts for different guns, I can imagine with a cult as devoted as the mechanicum that each bolter model has a special bolt that works best with it. The charge for each bolt is probably designed to have a "slow burn" so that it burns itself entirely out exactly as the bolt leaves the barrel of the chosen bolter.
Bobthehero wrote: No, you have to spend half an action to brace the weapon. And then fire. Or move-brace-aim-shoot.
You'll be firing at a rather nasty penalty if you're unbraced, and on top of that, there's a quite a few heavy weapons that are full auto only, meaning more penalties.
Edit: Unless you're a sentry, I think they can have their companion brace the weapon for e'm, letting them do brace-aim-fire in a turn.
Except as a heavy weapons guy you can access Bulging Biceps right from the start.
Bobthehero wrote: Elysians have bipods, which is close enough. And the Steel Legion brace it on the ground or sandbags.
Close enough? Mount a 50cal or a Mk19 on a bipod, add a stock and try your luck. I don't think you would say "close enough" after that experience.
They have visually different Heavy Bolters then the plastic cadians have. Cadian Hvy Weapon team Hvy Bolters are huge compared to other heavy bolters.
reptilelover1995 wrote: Thanks for the advice. I may need help drawing up a revised diagram to show more detail for those other parts, and other opinions or ideas are always welcome and encouraged to get more than one perspective.
I don't think that metallic hydrogen would be feasible within something that small, just because you'd have to somehow generate the immense pressures found within a gas giant in order to compress the hydrogen enough to make metallic hydrogen. Plus, I'm pretty sure that the expansion once the target was hit would be so massive it would pose a danger to anyone within a significant radius. I don't know for sure though.
It might not at all be feasible, which is why I added the caveat, but its also a possible way to reconcile all the differences in the fluff WRT bolters. 'depleted deuterium' is a bit hard to explain away, especially when you have FFG and Forgeworld (in the Imperial armour suppelment for Space Marines) both saying that bolter cores are dense (with FW adding that the core adds to penetration, and FFG saying its 'metallic.') THere's also the issue that with some observed results of bolters you need a pretty powerful explosive (eg blowing apart the entire upper torso, even after penetration. Mythbusters has tested that informally in years past and you need roughly something on the order of a stick of dynamite or a grenade to accomplish.) You might be able to handwave it as being some sort of 'reactive metal' material (tehre has been speculation on making high density reactive materials that mean you could build a shell out of 'explosive/incendiary' material in addition to its explosive charge, but nothing exactly 'dense core' or even explosive, at least as I understand it.)
Otherwise I guess you start have to selectively picking and choosing what the 'true' fluff is, but I think threads of this nature show not everyone will agree what the 'truth' in such matters is and that will also get in the way of making an argument that will persuade a broad cross-section of people. Also, I'm not sure what you consider a 'significant radius' for danger though or why it would be any more dangerous than an explosive of comparable power.
Part of the point of this thread is simply to look at the supposed effects, and think of ways that modern technology could replicate those devices (if possible of course). If that contradicts existing fluff, that doesn't matter because here we're talking with function in mind rather than just writing about what sounds coolest. I'd love to come up with a functioning bolter, but I really need that help. At this point I think fluff can be thrown out the window because the rest of the work is functional and we know what to device does, we just need to figure out how to get it to do it.
Also, I'm working on a heavy flamer schematic, since that technology obviously exists in modern times. I'm just wondering about the internal mechanics of the flamethrower, and what those holes are for on the end of the nozzle. I thought they might help vent the heat buildup, but that would mean that the flamer fuel would be spraying out of those as well as out of the end of the weapon, leading to a very bad day for whoever's wielding it. Suggestions and whatnot are appreciated.
With regards to the flamer, I suspects its similar to air-cooled MGs like the M1919. The holes arn't actually part of the barrel of the weapon. If we were to remove the big block at the end of the flamer it would likely look nuch like a rifle barrel. Those holes then go through that block to bring cold air to the outside of the cylinder of the barrel. The block itself acts as the heatsink, meaning the ferocious heat of the flamer is not focused on a tiny tube of a barrel but instead on a thick block of plasteel and so won't melt, as well as being highly exposed to the air.
On the other hand, it could be the holes don't reach the barrel at all but actually suck in air for the pilot light.
rifled ammunition (that is, something that uses spin stabilization) has certain length to diameter limits in order to actually work. Typically its around 5 or 6 to 1 - or rather, if you have a 20mm bolt round or so, the maximum length you could have for rifled ammo is 100-120mm, if that. In theory (and that is THEORY) you can stabilize it better if you spin it much faster (different rifling) but I'm not sure a.) how fast you have to spin b.) if it actually works, c.) the short barrels of bolters could make it work.) although some gun launched anti-tank missiles have achieved greater L/D ratios (but most if not all also had fins I believe. Shillelagh might not have, I'd have to go back and check, but evne if not they're also guided and most bolt rounds aren't.)
25mm isn't that much bigger than 20mm really (literally a few mm) as far as caliber goes, but I suppose you could say .75 cal is strictly for astartes grade caliber and other human-sized bolters typically either are designed around astartes ammo (making sacrifices to do so) or use lower caliber ammo (.50 or .60 cal, say.) Probably would have to do that to have any number of shots in the gun and have a normal person able to carry it that way, anyhow. I should also note 25mm is also considered the minimum acceptable effective 'grenade' caliber - 20mm are simply too small and light to be effective (and even 25mm needs to be guided to optimize detonation distance, as I recall.)
Part of the point of this thread is simply to look at the supposed effects, and think of ways that modern technology could replicate those devices (if possible of course). If that contradicts existing fluff, that doesn't matter because here we're talking with function in mind rather than just writing about what sounds coolest. I'd love to come up with a functioning bolter, but I really need that help. At this point I think fluff can be thrown out the window because the rest of the work is functional and we know what to device does, we just need to figure out how to get it to do it.
Understood, but in my experience you can't disregard people's perceptions of what is the 'correct' fluff in these things because it will simply bog down attempts at analysis as disputes break out and the 'value' of an answer will invariably rely on consensus if it is meant to be publicly displayed. I mean look at the 'caliber' issue above. Additionally, there has to be limits to disregarding fluff not only just because it can provoke disputes, but also because at some point the 'analysis' will become completely arbitrary. I mean how far do you disregard fluff to make a 'bolter' work, and yet still have it be in a sense a bolter and not just a really large-caliber slugthrower?
I'd say that the vast majority of stuff in 40K could be rationalized 'somehow' even with inconsistencies (like most weapons represent a category of weapons. Like how auto- and stub- and missile/grenade weapons can represent an entire series of calibers, features, designs, weighs/sizes, etc. rather than a single weapon, you can have bolters, lasguns, plasma, melta, etc. all resemble the similar. That idea along with the technological variation/inconsistency across the Imperium gives tons of rationale for explaining things, but not everyone will neccesarily 'agree' that it is the right answer unless you present it a certain way or make allowances. It's kind of a juggling contest.
Also, I'm working on a heavy flamer schematic, since that technology obviously exists in modern times. I'm just wondering about the internal mechanics of the flamethrower, and what those holes are for on the end of the nozzle. I thought they might help vent the heat buildup, but that would mean that the flamer fuel would be spraying out of those as well as out of the end of the weapon, leading to a very bad day for whoever's wielding it. Suggestions and whatnot are appreciated.
I suppose it depends on where the flamer in question originates from. We know there are some designs that closely approximate the real life equivalents in effect and design, but on the other hand you have tons of examples that have flamethrowers that can cremate people, or can be miniaturized down to rifle, pistol, or even digital weapon sizes yet function well (even if its just inflicting burns.) The far end (in either or both cases) requires a vastly better level of 'tech' in flamers than what we likely have and may even border on raygun. (like for the cremation flamers, I suspect they may be able to induce organic targets to spontaneously combust, contributing their own energy reserves to the cremation process in addition to whatever the flamer contributes. That could also help explain the ability ot miniaturize them as well, actually.) Think of a phaser that jets jellied incendiary fuel and slowly burns you to death rather than disintegration in seconds.
Wyzilla wrote: 40K flamers are nothing like modern day flamers. They work on the same concept, but 40K "prometheium" can mean anything from gasoline to reactor fuel.
Actually they're exactly like modern day flame throwers.
Promethium = Any fuel derived from fossil fuels. Its very specific.
However, most Imperial vehicles run on Multi-fuel instead. Which does indeed cover a wide array of flammable liquids, ranging from artificially synthesized petrochemicals to biofuels to alcohol based fuels. Only important vehicles are run on Promethium, like Rhinos or Bikes. Most promethium is reserved for either use in weaponry or more important manufacturing processes, like lubrication. Its too rare to waste as a fuel for everything.
25mm isn't that much bigger than 20mm really (literally a few mm) as far as caliber goes, but I suppose you could say .75 cal is strictly for astartes grade caliber and other human-sized bolters typically either are designed around astartes ammo (making sacrifices to do so) or use lower caliber ammo (.50 or .60 cal, say.) Probably would have to do that to have any number of shots in the gun and have a normal person able to carry it that way, anyhow.
Well difference is "just" +25% in diameter, but +56% in volume (cylinder with same heigth). So you can roughly have +56% more explosive. That's significant imo.
Connor MacLeod wrote: I should also note 25mm is also considered the minimum acceptable effective 'grenade' caliber - 20mm are simply too small and light to be effective (and even 25mm needs to be guided to optimize detonation distance, as I recall.)
Yes for airburst/shrapnel 20mm wasn't deemed good enough. However, if the round only explodes on impact (as bolters supposedly do), that's a big difference. There are also explosive rounds for Nato 12.7mm rounds for example. So even with a smaller caliber bolt round, they would be pretty devestating (blowing arms off etc).
Co'tor Shas wrote: 0.998 seems a bit large though, especially since heavy bolters are supposed to be 1.0 calabre.
Really, I don't see why most imperium owned bolters having the same bolts is that unbelievable. It's like NATO standardization, but at a much larger scale.
The IoM is in no way standard. They have some units fighting with rocks and sticks
Gaurd, no, but space marines. There are 10 million space marines (if that). It would make everything much eaier if they were standardized, so you don;t have to build very special stuff for a mere 100 marines.
25mm isn't that much bigger than 20mm really (literally a few mm) as far as caliber goes, but I suppose you could say .75 cal is strictly for astartes grade caliber and other human-sized bolters typically either are designed around astartes ammo (making sacrifices to do so) or use lower caliber ammo (.50 or .60 cal, say.) Probably would have to do that to have any number of shots in the gun and have a normal person able to carry it that way, anyhow.
Well difference is "just" +25% in diameter, but +56% in volume (cylinder with same heigth). So you can roughly have +56% more explosive. That's significant imo.
Connor MacLeod wrote: I should also note 25mm is also considered the minimum acceptable effective 'grenade' caliber - 20mm are simply too small and light to be effective (and even 25mm needs to be guided to optimize detonation distance, as I recall.)
Yes for airburst/shrapnel 20mm wasn't deemed good enough. However, if the round only explodes on impact (as bolters supposedly do), that's a big difference. There are also explosive rounds for Nato 12.7mm rounds for example. So even with a smaller caliber bolt round, they would be pretty devestating (blowing arms off etc).
Penetrate of im0act implies they blow as soon as they strike the target. They are consistantly noted in fluff to penetrate, then explode, so there is also some sort of delayed fuse.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Gaurd, no, but space marines. There are 10 million space marines (if that). It would make everything much eaier if they were standardized, so you don;t have to build very special stuff for a mere 100 marines.
1 million, divided into 1000 chapters of 1000 guys each. Every chapter is independent and has its own engineers and craftsmen. Variety is inevitable.
Keep wrote: Well difference is "just" +25% in diameter, but +56% in volume (cylinder with same heigth). So you can roughly have +56% more explosive. That's significant imo.
Yeah it is, but I wanted that 'significant' detail to reflect the differences between the 'overpowered' Astartes weapons vs the 'normal' human grade ones - not just in recoil or how big an explosion it makes but also the size of the round, especially given rifled ammo will have the afroementioned L/D ratio limits (meaning you just can't make the round arbitrarily long without destabilizing it in all probability. Unless bolt rounds happen to have fold out fins we just happen to never see.)
Yes for airburst/shrapnel 20mm wasn't deemed good enough. However, if the round only explodes on impact (as bolters supposedly do), that's a big difference. There are also explosive rounds for Nato 12.7mm rounds for example. So even with a smaller caliber bolt round, they would be pretty devestating (blowing arms off etc).
Some bolt rounds do have close proximity effect, like the mass reactives in Angel Exterminatus and Nemesis. Besides which there are bolt rounds like that (the metalstorm rounds) which are the same size as bolt rounds and would still suffer from that limit even if bolt rounds themselves normally were fine.
Ashiraya wrote: [1 million, divided into 1000 chapters of 1000 guys each. Every chapter is independent and can has its own engineers and craftsmen. Variety is inevitable.
In addition to the above you can add the differences/variations in technology available to forge worlds (given they don't exactly share with each other well and technology/knoweldge is as much power within the Cult Mechanicus as it is to the Imperium as a whole.)
Connor MacLeod wrote: Yeah it is, but I wanted that 'significant' detail to reflect the differences between the 'overpowered' Astartes weapons vs the 'normal' human grade ones - not just in recoil or how big an explosion it makes but also the size of the round, especially given rifled ammo will have the afroementioned L/D ratio limits (meaning you just can't make the round arbitrarily long without destabilizing it in all probability. Unless bolt rounds happen to have fold out fins we just happen to never see.)
The rocket propulsion system could be arranged in such a way that it makes the projectile spin without fins... Slightly bigger caliber could just be part of the astartes advantage. They can handle higher recoil, so their initial charge can be higher, therefore the bullet can have alot more kinetic energy and penetration power (velocity goes quadratic into kinetic energy) Since boltrounds dont have a big explosive load (they have rocket propellant in them as well after all) they are only fully effective if they penetrate before the explosion.
And since Astartes Boltrounds have more kinetic energy on the start they don't need as much rocket assistance, so the bolt could have less rocket propellant in favor of more explosive. If their bullets are faster it's also easier to hit with and offers increased range
Deadshot wrote:Penetrate of im0act implies they blow as soon as they strike the target. They are consistantly noted in fluff to penetrate, then explode, so there is also some sort of delayed fuse.
Impact fuze doesnt mean it explodes right away. It just means it's activated/triggered by the physical impact, instead of other methods, say, time-based for example.
Is anyone going to take into account the variant bolts? Obviously some are a bit out there, such as Vegeance Rounds "Unstable flux core" and Hellfire rounds with "Mutagenic acid", but could others work?
For example, there are Metalstorm Frag rounds which essentially shatter on impact and spray the target with shrapnel shards.
Dragonfire rounds which released high-pressure gas at extreme temperatures instead of explosive.
Kraken Rounds, which are implied to have less explosive, but explicitly have more propellant and a "diamantine" (diamond+adamantium compound perhaps) tip for increase penetration.
Hellfire rounds I suppose could use something like Hydrochloric acid instead of this superacid stuff but obviously against Geneva in modern terms.
Any of these ideas sound viable or even realistically possible?
Deadshot wrote: For example, there are Metalstorm Frag rounds which essentially shatter on impact and spray the target with shrapnel shards.
Dragonfire rounds which released high-pressure gas at extreme temperatures instead of explosive.
Kraken Rounds, which are implied to have less explosive, but explicitly have more propellant and a "diamantine" (diamond+adamantium compound perhaps) tip for increase penetration.
Hellfire rounds I suppose could use something like Hydrochloric acid instead of this superacid stuff but obviously against Geneva in modern terms.
Dragonfire sounds kinda like a Thermobaric explosive.
Kraken - well that's just your regular Armor piercing weapon round, with High density and high strength Penetrator
Metalstorm frag could be either just regular frag ammo - that means there are many small cylinders of high density metal, which are placed around the explosive and then produce a nice pattern. Or it could be flechettes instead of cylinders, so more penetration but less coverage.
Keep wrote: The rocket propulsion system could be arranged in such a way that it makes the projectile spin without fins... Slightly bigger caliber could just be part of the astartes advantage. They can handle higher recoil, so their initial charge can be higher, therefore the bullet can have alot more kinetic energy and penetration power (velocity goes quadratic into kinetic energy) Since boltrounds dont have a big explosive load (they have rocket propellant in them as well after all) they are only fully effective if they penetrate before the explosion.
And since Astartes Boltrounds have more kinetic energy on the start they don't need as much rocket assistance, so the bolt could have less rocket propellant in favor of more explosive. If their bullets are faster it's also easier to hit with and offers increased range.
The recoil and the 'spin-stabilization'/rifling is why I was thinking bolters operate on a travelling charge concept perhaps with additional rocket assist. This is how Jane's Technology of Tanks described it:
The one exception to this is a two-stage liquid propellant gun with regenerative injection devised by General Electric which exploits the travelling charge concept. In this gun only one half of the charge is burnt in the chamber; the rest burns as it moves with the projectile. The result of this is considerably higher muzzle velocities for a given propellant mass, the increase over comparable solid propellant guns and charges being of the order of 30 per cent at velocities of about 2500 m/s.
That is describing the concept in use with liquid propellant, but it has been used on solid propellants as well. From here:
Originally proposed by Langwailer in the early 1940's, the traveling charge concept (or 'impulse gun') is a solid propellant propulsion technique thought by ballisticians to offer the prospect of muzzle exit velocities in the 2 to 3 km/s range without the high breech pressures (700-1000 MPa) required of conventional gun propulsion systems. Resulting advantages of velocities of this magnitude have been discussed by various authors and can be summarized as improved delivery range, increased target penetration due to higher kinetic energy of the projectile, and enhanced hit probability resulting from the decreased time-of-flight from muzzle to target.
An idealized description of the traveling charge effect has been presented in an earlier work by Smith and is shown in Figure 1. The process is in two stages. Ignition of a conventional granular booster charge is used to rapidly pressurize the chamber and accelerate both the projectile and a very high burning rate (VHBR) traveling cbarge, (TC) attached to the base of the projectile. At some point during this initial pressurization, usually past the peak pressure due to the booster charge, the traveling charge is ignited. Subsequent idealized burning of the TC is tailored to eject combustion products at sufficient velocity so as to maintain constant thrust/pressure on the base of the projectile until burnout of the propellant is achieved. In a conventional gun, high velocities can be achieved by using more propellant. As the projectile leaves the gun, a considerable amount of the chemical energy has gone into accelerating the combustion gases.
This causes a large pressure gradient between the chamber and the projectile. In the traveling charge concept the TC propellant is burning such that the gas velocities at muzzle exit are reduced compared with the conventional charge. Consequently, less chemical energy is used in accelerating the combustion gases. Thus at very high velocities, the traveling charge is expected to be more efficient than conventional propelling charges.
And a smaller blurb from here (Requires PDF reader and a download of the link):
A simplistic view of the traveling charge concept is pictured in Figure 1. A traveling charge (TC) propellant is shown attached to the base of the projectile. The TC projectile is given an initial acceleration from a conventional booster propellant. The TC propellant then ignites after a slight delay to increase the dcwn-bore base pressure on the projectile until muzzle exit.
Basically that could describe what is going on with bolter rounds (as well as potentially expalining why there is a 'casing' at all, why there is recoil and rifling, etc.) I would expect one could modify the concept to add 'rocket-assist' like some artillery has (or gyrojet, I suppose) to maintain the velocity across extended ranges. It wouldn't require much additional thrust (so you could use the rounds even at close range, something that was a drawback with gyrojets) and the rifling already provides stabilization, so no need to muck around with angled thrust vents/ports (again like Gyrojet.) or fins. It would also be much more efficient than conventional solid propellant guns (like stubbers and autoguns) which further distinguishes bolters from other such weapons (and fits with the IA fluff regarding bolters and similar rocket-boosted ammo like baneblade cannon shells which sound like giant bolt rounds.)
As far as 'explosive' goes, I'd have to check my Hague convention history, but I'm pretty sure even expanding/fragmenting bullets have been called 'explosive' in the past. It could be that the explosive component of the bolter isn't really meant to create blast effects but rather to reliably fragment the round inside the target (maybe providing a bit extra velocity on top of what the KE already has). This enables the round to be usefully armor piercing as well as have significant kinetic effects, but also enables it to create large wound channels to reliably incapacitate or kill (which is something you can't do with non-FMJ or yawing ammunition today.) Shrapnel is generally a btter kill mechanism in soft tissues (which are significantly water and rather elastic) than blast effects anyhow (why frag grenades are used more than concussion grenades.)
Mind you, if we're going for really over the top bolter calcs, there's no reason it can't have significant blast AND fragmentation effects (hence a large explosive charge.) but its useful to consider that alternative because it is rather hard to make up a sufficiently powerful/effective chemical explosive that can simulate the required level of damage in that compact a manner (as I said earlier it may require going into 'exotic' territory.)
Edit: Bear in mind I'm not saying bolter rounds HAVE to work the way I described, its just an alternate explanation to cover all possible angles. And in reality, bolter ammo is so variable already that the two kinds are not mutually exlcusive, anyhow.
Warhammer 40K doesn't address one of the most deadly forces in the universe - Radiation.
Most areas of the universe have heavy exposure to radiation and a relatively small blast of radiation is enough to decimate entire cities for decades to come.
Doesn't matter if you're eldar or tyrnaid - if you're organic radiation is going to get you.
Space Marines could combat this by having powerful magentic field generators in their power armor which reflects radiation.
For a long time I imagined bolter rounds as gyrojet rounds with explosive tips, for obvious reasons.
More and more I prefer to think of them as kinetic kill vehicle's with a payload of some sort. So much prettier and fancy. And actually makes the ammunition SEEM as important as (some) fluff indicates.
Omnissiah_40K wrote: Warhammer 40K doesn't address one of the most deadly forces in the universe - Radiation.
Most areas of the universe have heavy exposure to radiation and a relatively small blast of radiation is enough to decimate entire cities for decades to come.
Doesn't matter if you're eldar or tyrnaid - if you're organic radiation is going to get you.
Space Marines could combat this by having powerful magentic field generators in their power armor which reflects radiation.
Well...
Space Marines, Eldar and Tau, as well as other well off Imperials, have the technology and armour to be Rad-protected. Orks have huge regenerative abilities, and likely don't even understand radiation so its not going to effect them going off the Orky belief rule. Tyranids are massive adapt and foreign. Its possible they can adapt a biological system to deal with radiation effects. I remember in 4th Ed there was an upgrade that secreted waxy residue that protected against radiation (+1T I think).
IG, no one cares enough to give them more than a rebreather and say "Don't you even think about dying without permission!"
And seriously? Orks don't beleive it so it stop effecting them? That's... gak son...
They can survive hard vacuum because they pay it no mind. They can make useless scrap into workable war machines that is still useless scrap. Is it really so hard to believe they can shrug off something they don't even know exists?
Ferros wrote: For a long time I imagined bolter rounds as gyrojet rounds with explosive tips, for obvious reasons.
More and more I prefer to think of them as kinetic kill vehicle's with a payload of some sort. So much prettier and fancy. And actually makes the ammunition SEEM as important as (some) fluff indicates.
Not to mention that in BL (and iirc in some(FW?) texts) bolter rounds often specifically described as rocket-assisted.
They can survive hard vacuum because they pay it no mind. They can make useless scrap into workable war machines that is still useless scrap. Is it really so hard to believe they can shrug off something they don't even know exists?
Didn't read latest Ork 'dex, but afair in BL Orks can survive SHORT exposure to vacuum - just like SMs with functional and activated corresponding organ. Though IIRC on several occasions they were as vulnerable to vacuum as humans. Prolonged exposure is deadly to baseline Ork, so they're using force-fields (mostly Meks' though somewhere it may be Waagh!-based) to form air bubbles if hull is not sealed.
As for 'workable war machines' from 'useless scrap'...you didn't pay attention to RW - places like ME, Africa and Ukraine. Lot of ork 'wagons' look more sound (though more decorated) than 'vehicles' created there.
And unlike humans Orks have embedded genetic memory thus in right 'trance' state are comparable or better than most RW human engineers or M40s low-rank AMs. In RW qualified engineer with workman skills can build a lot from scrap - but almost everyone lack either said skills,need A LOT of reference materials or not interested in spending so many workhours to build 'off the shelf' parts. I work in heavy industry so often see techological charts for '50s-'60s designs - lot of that can be done (NOT time or cost efficiently) by skilled hands, esp. if you're not value part interchangeability. If you, like Meks, have 'gut feeling' for material and design - you can skip a lot of hassle. Just look how car mechanics balance wheels with lead weights - and then imagine that Ork can see/feel disbalance without equipment during wheel disk manufacturing.
For my view on Orks - read Niven/Pournelle's 'A Mote in God's Eye' book (esp. parts 'bout Engineer and Watchmakers), it definitely influenced WH40K Ork Meks' (and grot) description.
Omnissiah_40K wrote: Warhammer 40K doesn't address one of the most deadly forces in the universe - Radiation.
Pretty sure it has. Was a big deal in the Shield of Baal.
Most areas of the universe have heavy exposure to radiation and a relatively small blast of radiation is enough to decimate entire cities for decades to come.
We get hit by doses of radiation every day. Its called 'sunlight'. And its only a problem if you spend far too much time in it without adequate cover or protection (known as 'sunblock' or 'clothing'.) Cities seem to do well in it as well.
Doesn't matter if you're eldar or tyrnaid - if you're organic radiation is going to get you.
Radiation is hazardous, but then again so is drinking and overeating and smoking. Too much of anything can be fatal.
Space Marines could combat this by having powerful magentic field generators in their power armor which reflects radiation.
Which might block charged particle radiation (alpha and beta rays, for example) but it's going to do f'in all against x-rays, gamma-rays (or any other form of electromagnetic radiation), not to mention nothing against neutrons (as in enhanced radiation weapons. Neutron bombs.)
Radiation is dangerous, but there's usually specific issues tied to how/why it is dangerous. Like, alpha rays are fatal if they manage to get inside your body, but they actually have horrible penetration and can be stopped by skin and clothing, IIRC.
RaptorusRex wrote: Is a Narthecium's Reductor capable of piercing Terminator armor?
In fluff, TDA is so strong that if you manage to kill the marine insides there's not going to be much left to retrieve. Plus, in standard Marine chapters, Termies take on missions far too dangerous to even contemplate sending such an important member alongside them, like boarding Nid ships. Grey Knights instead give them a bodyguard and the armour themselves because they all have the same mission.
Alcibiades wrote: If Orks could make useless scrap work by the power of belief, there would be no point in Mekboyz.
No, there's exactly a point in Mekboyz. Mekz build the gak, believe it works because Orky, tells the other boyz it works, they all believe it because Orkz and so it works.
Alcibiades wrote: If Orks could make useless scrap work by the power of belief, there would be no point in Mekboyz.
No, there's exactly a point in Mekboyz. Mekz build the gak, believe it works because Orky, tells the other boyz it works, they all believe it because Orkz and so it works.
Alcibiades wrote: If Orks could make useless scrap work by the power of belief, there would be no point in Mekboyz.
No, there's exactly a point in Mekboyz. Mekz build the gak, believe it works because Orky, tells the other boyz it works, they all believe it because Orkz and so it works.
We has a winnar.
And there would be no point in this. There would be no point in building anything. They would need convincing orators, not Mekboyz.
More importantly, I don't believe it is stated anywhere in the fluff. Orks, as currently described, create technology using genetically coded knowledge. The do not understand what they are doing, which is why everything looks ramshackle and slapped together. Rather like Moties in the Mote in God's Eye -- which come to think of it is likely the origin of the GW's idea...
They do not pick up sticks and bullets come out of them through the power of belief.
At least, this idea is not anywhere in the 5th ed. codex. Red-painted vehicles go slightly faster and... that's it.
Alcibiades wrote: If Orks could make useless scrap work by the power of belief, there would be no point in Mekboyz.
No, there's exactly a point in Mekboyz. Mekz build the gak, believe it works because Orky, tells the other boyz it works, they all believe it because Orkz and so it works.
We has a winnar.
And there would be no point in this. There would be no point in building anything. They would need convincing orators, not Mekboyz.
More importantly, I don't believe it is stated anywhere in the fluff. Orks, as currently described, create technology using genetically coded knowledge. The do not understand what they are doing, which is why everything looks ramshackle and slapped together. Rather like Moties in the Mote in God's Eye -- which come to think of it is likely the origin of the GW's idea...
They do not pick up sticks and bullets come out of them through the power of belief.
At least, this idea is not anywhere in the 5th ed. codex. Red-painted vehicles go slightly faster and... that's it.
You misinterpret everything I said.
For a start, they don't need skilled orators. They need Meks. Why? Because Orkz.
Every Ork knows that da Mekz build the stompies and the shootas and they da best at it. So if a Mek build a Stompa, which by all laws of physics should not be able to move, be it be design or the inefficiency of using all its fossil fuel in one minute, as well as the favt it should destroy itself by moving due to the ramshackle nature, but that Mek tells the boyz it should work, they will not question it, because Mekz know that stuff best and Orkz just want to focus on the krumpin'
Second, I didn't say they picked up sticks and made bullets fly out. Why? Because they don't believe bullets should fly out! They could however, cut out a section for a belt feed to pass through, add a grip and a trigger, and it still work, despite lacking a hammer or automatic reloading system, because it looks like a gun innit? So it's gonna shoot like a shoota and go bang like a shoota and kill humies dead like a shoota! Simple!
No, just no, its like that idiocy where Orks don't know waht radition is so it can't affect them.
They're going to need a functionning system for their gun to fire, maybe they can use random ammo and not care, and maybe it works better than it should, but no, a stick with a trigger and a belt will do exactly nothing for the Orks no matter how strong they beleive.
Bobthehero wrote: No, just no, its like that idiocy where Orks don't know waht radition is so it can't affect them.
They're going to need a functionning system for their gun to fire, maybe they can use random ammo and not care, and maybe it works better than it should, but no, a stick with a trigger and a belt will do exactly nothing for the Orks no matter how strong they beleive.
Maybe it's telekinesis, a large scale telekinesis ability specifically moves bullets, shells, slugs, cannon balls and rockets. Ever thought of that?
Here's the logic: The premises: 1. 40K is a universe where psychic powers exists. These powers can bend the laws of physics because the power themselves are the stuffs that make up a realm that have no physical presence. The psychic powers are "channeled" through a median in the real-space, through their minds. The energy of the warp, through the channeler that connects the realspace and the immaterium can affect the physical properties of objects, against the laws of physics, and even influence the minds of others. 2. Orks have mass psychic fields powered by their sheer presence. And as the Waaagh! gathers the strong this phenomena grows. Potent Ork psykers like the Weirdboy can actually harness these powers to devastating (an potentially hilariously disastrous) effects. 3. Ork Technologies are crude yet surprisingly effective. And in other races' hands their effect arbitrarily diminishes despite theirs are just a barrel and a trigger.
reasoning: because a mechanical weapon would function, under the same circumstances, functions with a high level of consistency i.e.: similar outcome regardless of users, the Ork weapons are not mechanically sound. The basic Ork weapon behavior is consistent with the Orks, but not with non-Orks. Therefore the Ork weapons does not obey the laws of physics in its entirety. The effects of the Ork items are subjective to the identities of their users, the effects of warp powers are subjective to the will of the psykers that channels them.
Celestine and the Living Saints did confound me at first, whether they used tech or some wibbly-wobbly-faith/magic/sorcery/whatever to shoot fire and so on.
But... I mean, it's clearly something very odd here.
Spoiler:
She also shoots fire without a flamer and flies without a jump pack.
thats not awesome.
