Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

gendoikari87 wrote:

it has more than enough force behind the initial firing of the bolt weapon to penetrate any target the bolt could likely penetrate after the rocket portion ignites.

So? Your point? just because it's still lethal at close range doesn't mean it's not more so at long range?

Fail.. That sounded like really really not well thought out. If it is good at medium range, and close range! then it must suck at long range! Well heres the thing. No. It stays consistant throughout the shot. Bolter Shells are well known for keep on going until the hit something or until they hit their maximum range.

purplefood wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:Other than the conversion beamer which is somewhat of a joke.

Why?

read it. it's just there to be OMG THE UBER!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asherian Command wrote:

purplefood wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:Other than the conversion beamer which is somewhat of a joke.

Why?

Wait what? A conversion beam a joke?!?!?!? If you focus a thing of pure light into a small area it will grow into power? Have you not been looking at military TECH AT ALL!?!??!

Doesn't the conversion beamer work on antimater?

Asherian Command wrote:

purplefood wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:Other than the conversion beamer which is somewhat of a joke.

Why?

Wait what? A conversion beam a joke?!?!?!? If you focus a thing of pure light into a small area it will grow into power? Have you not been looking at military TECH AT ALL!?!??!

Can't tell if serious...
It "induces a controlled subatomic reaction in the target, converting its mass into energy." Goes on to say that the further away the target, the more deadly the blast "as the beam has time to grow in power." lol

Cantus wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:

purplefood wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:Other than the conversion beamer which is somewhat of a joke.

Why?

Wait what? A conversion beam a joke?!?!?!? If you focus a thing of pure light into a small area it will grow into power? Have you not been looking at military TECH AT ALL!?!??!

Can't tell if serious...
It "induces a controlled subatomic reaction in the target, converting its mass into energy." Goes on to say that the further away the target, the more deadly the blast "as the beam has time to grow in power." lol

Sorry I was reading a Space Hulk Reference XD and no I was not being serious.

And your complete and utter lack of evidence is more than enough for me to say that you've beamed aboard this vessel.

I do not have to prove your point for you. Go on. Provide some evidence for your point. Your claims are completely and utterly without substance, and you have not given a single reason for anyone to believe in the supposed weakness you claim the weapon has.

Melissia wrote:And your complete and utter lack of evidence is more than enough for me to say that you've beamed aboard this vessel.

I do not have to prove your point for you. Go on. Provide some evidence for your point. Your claims are completely and utterly without substance, and you have not given a single reason for anyone to believe in the supposed weakness you claim the weapon has.

Who me?!?!?!? D: Because I Base it on fluff. Like from the heresy.

I never said it sucks at long range I said it's more powerful at long range. Also Mellissa tell me where in the fluff that solid projectile weapons are less effective and where it says lasers keep their effectiveness over all ranes and I will concede your point. you WON"T find it because they don't go into detail about it.

You're not the one that's claiming that bolters are somehow weaker at close range

I'm arguing that any difference in speed and force between short, medium, and long range for the bolter (until it runs out of fuel of course) is minimal at best (to the point of bieng insignificant) because it launches the shell with such force that it is at or near terminal velocity for an Earth-type atmosphere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gendoikari87 wrote:I never said it sucks at long range I said it's more powerful at long range.

Prove it.

Go on boyo, I've been waiting for you to do this.

I challenge you to prove your point, or just stop saying it.

gendoikari87 wrote:If the rocket is only there to counteract the force of drag, it's going to be very small and have no effect over the short range. Meaning it'd be better to use that volume to have More explosive.

Having more explosive would mean that the weapon has more chance to inflict friendly casualties in close combat. Having more non-rocket propellant means that it loses accuracy and speed over time far faster. Having rocket propellant allows it to maintain speed and course over long distances, allowing for greater accuracy.

This means the bolter is useful at all ranges. Which is why it's the primary weapon of tactical Marines...

I'm arguing that any difference in speed and force between short, medium, and long range for the bolter (until it runs out of fuel of course) is minimal at best

Then there is no point in the rocket.

also.


These arise not from individual mechanics of OUR universe but as a constant across all universes that work on a spacelike system which 40k is.

now show me where it says solid shell projectiles are less effective at longer ranges, lasers keep their effectiveness over all ranges and I will concede your point. and hit modifiers don't count, thats to hit not damage.

Asherian Command wrote:

Cantus wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:

purplefood wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:Other than the conversion beamer which is somewhat of a joke.

Why?

Wait what? A conversion beam a joke?!?!?!? If you focus a thing of pure light into a small area it will grow into power? Have you not been looking at military TECH AT ALL!?!??!

Can't tell if serious...
It "induces a controlled subatomic reaction in the target, converting its mass into energy." Goes on to say that the further away the target, the more deadly the blast "as the beam has time to grow in power." lol

Sorry I was reading a Space Hulk Reference XD and no I was not being serious.

I was asking a serious question and i still don't see why it's a joke considering you have ships that jump into a different dimension for travel. It seems to fit the universe fine, i honestly don't understand peoples need to rationalise sci-fi stuff but there you go the world would be boring if we were all the same.

gendoikari87 wrote:Then there is no point in the rocket.

Bullets slow down over time due to drag. Rockets don't, even at terminal velocity, until their fuel runs out. That's the entire point of terminal velocity even-- the point at which drag matches acceleration.

Duh.

Being a supposed physics major, you should supposedly be able to understand this.

purplefood wrote: I was asking a serious question and i still don't see why it's a joke considering you have ships that jump into a different dimension for travel. It seems to fit the universe fine, i honestly don't understand peoples need to rationalise sci-fi stuff but there you go the world would be boring if we were all the same.

Well I think he was saying not to use it as an example because they're debating it using real world physics- which the beamer doesn't seem to very well fit into.
And dunno, I think it's cool when you can quantify how things in sci-fi universes work. It sort of bothers me when shows/books/whatever just make cool things happen and then don't give explanations. It's not as interesting to me unless it could really happen.

And now it seems like a dozen posts are missing in this thread.

Screw it, I don't have the patience needed to type it back out again. Suffice it to say, you're using an incredibly bad false dichotomy argument there and I will have nothing of it.

Hang on...

Wait what just happened?

There are different types of bolter ammunition. so what type are you guys arguing about?

and stop calling it a clip its a magazine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A MAGAZINE!!!!!!!!!!!!



=D

Melissia wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:Then there is no point in the rocket.

Bullets slow down over time due to drag. Rockets don't, even at terminal velocity, until their fuel runs out. That's the entire point of terminal velocity even-- the point at which drag matches acceleration.

Duh.

Being a supposed physics major, you should supposedly be able to understand this.

... you do realise you can counter that by replacing some of the rocket fuel by the supposed super gun powder and make it much much faster making it much better at short ranges and giving it overall the same range. As I said before, if you don't want it to go faster as time evolves theres no point in a rocket unless you want it guided. Have you even studied physics, your knowledge seems to be very poor in this manner. I don't mean that as an insult it just seems your arguing against the basic principals upon which physics is founded.

If the rocket is only there to counteract the force of drag, it's going to be very small and have no effect over the short range. Meaning it'd be better to use that volume to have More explosive.

Another point The fluff never states the rocket is for just overcoming air drag, where are you getting this. it states they are rockets, which are known to go accelerate. so where is your fluff for stating it's just there to overcome drag. that they are stronger is therefore implied by calling them small rockets.

also as Stated before terminal velocity of a bullet in the horizontal direction is 0.

I'm going to work on a much longer post to proove my point tomorrow which means I have to go through as much of the fluff tonight. But I still challenge you to find me examples in the fluff where the damage over the range is expressed expressly elsewhere, not the accuracy but the damage. Other than the conversion beamer which is somewhat of a joke.

Edit: just noticed this

That's the entire point of terminal velocity even-- the point at which drag matches acceleration.

it's the point at which the air drag matches the other FORCES on it, not the acceleration. a small difference mostly in nomenclature but it can and sometimes does matter.

This thread is suffering a temporal paradox... I wonder if we should get a mod to lock it before it breaks the forum...

gendoikari87 wrote:Other than the conversion beamer which is somewhat of a joke.

Why?

Blank

Someones screwing with us. ....

Well I think he was saying not to use it as an example because they're debating it using real world physics

basically yeah, but also I think because the rules came before the fluff for it.

Melissia wrote:This thread is suffering a temporal paradox... I wonder if we should get a mod to lock it before it breaks the forum...

I think in much of the world there's a daylight savings change tonight.. is this a UK site?

I think so...

I bet that's it..

Wait ... I don't think so because I think UK sites end their names i .uk like warhammer.org.uk ... which is a good site by the way check it out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also mellissa I can't find the inq and dark heresy stuff do you mind posting their descriptions here or PMing me?

gendoikari87 wrote:Basically this thread comes out of a disscussion between myself and another but I thought I would expand the discussion into a wide range of 40k tech that bugs people

first off the basics with real life counterpoints and my personal thoughts/knowledge

Autoguns- These are basically Marginally stronger than modern assault rifles, and depending on the fluff, about as strong as lasguns, or "stronger" i.e. penetrate better. Though some fluff has lasguns destroying tanks (think C.S. Goto like fluff knowledge)
Heavy stubbers- Machine guns of all kinds from MG42's to MH2B's
Autocannons- just that 20-30mm autocannons (though the OLD OLD OLD OLD wargear book says they are basically modern tank cannons, most of the new stuff puts them at around the level of a high end bushmaster)

Boltguns- and heres where the main discussion comes from, Bolt weapons are described as what is basically and advanced gyrojet system, with the bolt being propelled by a small charge to get it out of the gun before it's main rocket motor fires off. I still think that like gyrojets, they are more powerful at longer ranges due to higher veolocity but in either case the standard bolt also has an explosive charge (set to explode after penetration).

Missiles- These I would greatly like to know more about, everything I have read would put them as Generation II shaped charges, which are significantly less powerful than current modern generation III copper lined linear shaped charges. but I need more info.

If I have missed anything and I know I have, feel free to post.

On Boltguns, the German Company Heckler & Koch actually developed a Assault Rifle prototype in the early 90's that shot single bullets without the use of gunpowder. It utilized a propellent stored in the butt of the bull pup design that shot standard bullets, aka bullets that had no gunpowder and didn't make such a loud bang. However just like every other sweet and amazing H&K prototype they had to scrap it because my american bretheran (sigh) thought it was a dumb idea and would't purchase it, just like we won't puchase most of their amazing guns because we are so cheap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Please allow me to say... GET BACK ON TOPIC!!! thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GamzaTheChaos wrote:There are different types of bolter ammunition. so what type are you guys arguing about?

and stop calling it a clip its a magazine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A MAGAZINE!!!!!!!!!!!!



=D

I do not claim to be a Physics Major, however I am a weapons man. Not hunting... weapons. Big difference, and yes it is called a magazine, a clip is for an SKS russian semi-auto assault rifle or an M1. A magazine is for holding bullets in a nice nifty order to keep them clean and easy to use. A clip is just to keep the damn things together and hate yourself when you use them.

while I'm working on my final and I mean FINAL argument about bolts, open your mind and watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnHyEhS1lSM

while I'm at it can anybody find a copy of warhammer wargear book from 4th and PM me what it says about bolts?

Thats cool, but I thought I was supposed to relate to a real gun. My bad.

in the most simplistic sense bolts are basically gyrojets with an initial charge.