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.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:I meant "overall smaller" than the rounds an anti-material rifle would fire

Not necessarily. Anti-materiel rifles also have casings they leave behind as well-- we don't know how much of the bolter shell is left behind compared to what is propelled forward.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:it's still heavier

You say that and then qualify i tby saying you don't know how heavy the bolter shell is. So no, I don't award you this point.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:significantly denser

See above. Because obviously the superdense materials that the bolter shell is described as having are less dense than our current, relatively primitive materials.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:and fired at much higher velocities

Wrong, or do you have velocities for a bolter shell, which utilizes futuristic technology and designs, as well as a rocket to propel it to faster speeds over a longer distance? Frankly a bolter's projectile is probably actually higher velocity than an anti-materiel rifle's.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:It's still smaller than the rounds in question, in overall size if not in width.

No it isn't. They're basically interchangeable, much like the variations on the Colt Long .45, which have the same dimensions but different amounts of propellant.

And bolt rounds are not weak at close range. Never have been.

Bolt weapons are not gyrojet weapons. Gyrojets have no recoil, bolt weapons DO. A lot of recoil. Gyrojets don't leave shell casings, bolt weapons DO. Spent bolter shells are considered blessed lucky charms even. What a bolter is, is a multistage weapon. A smokeless powder (or futuristic variant thereof) speeds the bolter shell to lethal speeds, then the rocket kicks in after it leads the barrel and maintains maximum velocity until the point of impact.

I meant "overall smaller" than the rounds an anti-material rifle would fire, despite being wider. I probably should have gone back and edited that part after bothering to look up how large the round itself is, but it's still heavier (well, I can't find anything on bolt weight after a minute of flipping through Dark Heresy, and even if it bothered to list it (it doesn't) it would be about the whole cartridge, not the bolt itself), significantly denser, and fired at much higher velocities, without having to drag its propellant along with it (and using significantly more propellant for a denser round). So it's going to punch through armor instead of exploding on the surface. As bolt weapons are depicted as being enough to kill Space Marines, an anti-material rifle would have a much easier job of it.

Of course, it's not like the whole "the Space Marine chapter would lose" thing hinges entirely on a single, relatively common weapon, since they'd be outnumbered by armored vehicles sporting armaments capable of easily bringing them down, to say nothing of other infantry portable anti-armor weapons.

Care to name these anti-armor weapons? I can guarantee that they wouldn't be even half as effective on a Space Marine as they would be on your typical main battle tank.
Did you ignore my entire two previous posts or something? Anti-material rifles would not be as effective as you say. They are less advanced than a bolter, likely travel slower and with less destructive capability. Sure at point blank a bolt round went straight through, but the rifle is A LOT further away, losing speed as it goes.

I think you and the anti-material rifle ought to go get a room...

Melissia wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:I meant "overall smaller" than the rounds an anti-material rifle would fire

Not necessarily. Anti-materiel rifles also have casings they leave behind as well-- we don't know how much of the bolter shell is left behind compared to what is propelled forward.

I'm a bit sleep-deprived at the moment, so I'm not putting things together as coherently as I intend to. The next sentence should have more clearly stated that that particular statement was wrong, and that I should have gone back and changed it after actually looking up the dimensions of the round itself.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:it's still heavier

You say that and then qualify i tby saying you don't know how heavy the bolter shell is. So no, I don't award you this point.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:significantly denser

See above. Because obviously the superdense materials that the bolter shell is described as having are less dense than our current, relatively primitive materials.

Most of the slightly larger bolt is either fuel or explosives. The fuel would have been largely expended, meaning that's just empty space or low density fuel, and plastic explosives are noticeably less dense than solid metal. So on impact, it's a wider, blunter surface, behind which is a slightly longer round that's now a third empty space, and most of what's left is a tiny wad of explosives. So yeah, I feel pretty confident that, say, an armor piercing .50 BMG (or one of the larger calibers, some of which are larger than bolts) would go straight through at least the helmet of power armor, if not necessarily the chest, which appears to be significantly thicker.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:and fired at much higher velocities

Wrong, or do you have velocities for a bolter shell, which utilizes futuristic technology and designs, as well as a rocket to propel it to faster speeds over a longer distance? Frankly a bolter's projectile is probably actually higher velocity than an anti-materiel rifle's.

I'm sincerely doubting that it's more than two-to-three times (depending on the cartridge in question) the speed of sound.

Not keen on prolonging the threadjack to being about Marines, not Tau, but just dropping this here:

http://www.mongabay.com/cities_pop_01.htm

If an entire Chapter of Marines were to invade Earth, they might be able to take out high commands, but unless they've got the IoM to provide an Arbites occupation force they then have a serious admin problem in holding their conquered territory...

iproxtaco wrote:Care to name these anti-armor weapons? I can guarantee that they wouldn't be even half as effective on a Space Marine as they would be on your typical main battle tank.

Any rocket propelled grenade with a shaped charge? Anti-tank missiles like the Javelin (assuming power armor puts out enough heat for it to pick up on)? Any form of ordnance a vehicle would carry? A modern tank is something like AV10-11, and power armor is quite a bit worse than that.

Did you ignore my entire two previous posts or something? Anti-material rifles would not be as effective as you say. They are less advanced than a bolter, likely travel slower and with less destructive capability. Sure at point blank a bolt round went straight through, but the rifle is A LOT further away, losing speed as it goes.

Most of a bolter's advanced tech goes into making its ridiculously inefficient method work at all, and most of its destructive capability comes from a simple explosion which, while enough to shred soft targets like unarmored infantry, does much less against proper armor on account of most of the energy being spread out across the surface or directed out to the sides.

People I see that we have gone a little from OP....

From 100 our troops and 100 FW we have move to aircraft ( Ok I mentioned that for use, but I didn't mention Imperial aircraft ), then tanks ( again you mention LRBT, this is Tau people ), then we shift to SPACE MARINES?

This is Tau aginst us thread and not SM against Earth and their bolters vs. anti-material rifle.

Please continue the OP if you can...

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:Care to name these anti-armor weapons? I can guarantee that they wouldn't be even half as effective on a Space Marine as they would be on your typical main battle tank.

Any rocket propelled grenade with a shaped charge? Anti-tank missiles like the Javelin (assuming power armor puts out enough heat for it to pick up on)? Any form of ordnance a vehicle would carry? A modern tank is something like AV10-11, and power armor is quite a bit worse than that.

Did you ignore my entire two previous posts or something? Anti-material rifles would not be as effective as you say. They are less advanced than a bolter, likely travel slower and with less destructive capability. Sure at point blank a bolt round went straight through, but the rifle is A LOT further away, losing speed as it goes.

Most of a bolter's advanced tech goes into making its ridiculously inefficient method work at all, and most of its destructive capability comes from a simple explosion which, while enough to shred soft targets like unarmored infantry, does much less against proper armor on account of most of the energy being spread out across the surface or directed out to the sides.

Fistly, Power armor gives about as much protection as our modern tank armor. That alone makes a lot of our explosive weapons ineffective. Then you move on to things like the Javelin. It relies on a large target. Marines provide a significantly smaller target than a tank. It would not penetrate, but explode on contact, in which the Marines advanced armor and body will protect him from the blast. Not to mention the fact that there are a hundred who would spot and shoot it before impact, using there bolters as portable anti-aircraft batteries and it would be difficult to actually hit them due to the smaller target. Therefore the only weapons we could use are direct fire kinetic or energy weapons, like a pin point hit from an anti-material rifle or direct hit from a Heavy Artillery shell.

Why am I even trying......

Fine. The Tau would win. Superior everything except for their lack of infantry wielded Heavy Weapons, but that's only because they have no Crisis suits.

Brother Coa wrote:This is Tau aginst us thread and not SM against Earth and their bolters vs. anti-material rifle.

Tau battlesuits are basically just large, low-tech suits of power armor, so anti-materiel against power armor is still relevant.

100 Firewarriors versus 100 modern soldiers, the designated marksmen would pick off the Tau squad leaders, leaving them helpless and confused, and then pick off the survivors. If the soldiers were armed with something with more punch than modern assault rifles, like almost any rifle from WW2, then they'd all have something that could punch through their armor, in addition to outranging the Tau and their "hot ball of gas" launchers (since firewarriors carry nothing but pulse rifles).

iproxtaco wrote:Fistly, Power armor gives about as much protection as our modern tank armor.

It's a couple of inches of ceramics wrapped in metal. That's worse than conventional tank armor, let alone reactive armor.

That alone makes a lot of our explosive weapons ineffective.

A shaped charge would punch straight through it, filling anyone inside with molten metal and fire.

Then you move on to things like the Javelin. It relies on a large target. Marines provide a significantly smaller target than a tank.

It relies on there being enough heat to contrast with the surrounding environment, and marines are the size of a small car. If the suit produces enough heat to show up, it could still home in on it.

It would not penetrate, but explode on contact, in which the Marines advanced armor and body will protect him from the blast.

It's a shaped charge (two, in fact: one to set off reactive armor, the other to punch through the armor beneath it once that's cleared away). The penetration comes from the explosion, which concentrates the pressure in a very small area, and generally involves some manner of metal that's melted and warped into a superheated stream, which then punches through the armor.

Not to mention the fact that there are a hundred who would spot and shoot it before impact, using there bolters as portable anti-aircraft batteries and it would be difficult to actually hit them due to the smaller target.

Missiles move extremely fast, and the "fill the air with lead" method only works when you can pump out thousands of rounds a second. A bolter certainly couldn't do it.

Therefore the only weapons we could use are direct fire kinetic or energy weapons, like a pin point hit from an anti-material rifle or direct hit from a Heavy Artillery shell.

Or just about any vehicle carried explosive/heavy machine gun (you know those .50 BMG cartridges I was talking about? here's a WWII era heavy machine gun that could fire eight of them per second (of which modern variants are still in use)).

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
1. Tau battlesuits are basically just large, low-tech suits of power armor, so anti-materiel against power armor is still relevant.

2. If the soldiers were armed with something with more punch than modern assault rifles, like almost any rifle from WW2, then they'd all have something that could punch through their armor, in addition to outranging the Tau and their "hot ball of gas" launchers (since firewarriors carry nothing but pulse rifles).

3. It's a couple of inches of ceramics wrapped in metal. That's worse than conventional tank armor, let alone reactive armor.

1. Not really seeing how a Crisis suit is low-tech.

2. Carapace armor (and whatever the Tau wear to get their equivalent armor save) would scoff at a .303 British or thirty-oh-six. That, and the pulse rifle outranges just about every other small arm in 40k; I don't think they'd have a problem with ranger.

3. Ceramite =/= your average ceramic.

Nerivant wrote:1. Not really seeing how a Crisis suit is low-tech.

Tau tech is shiny but comparatively primitive next to Imperial tech. The Imperium closely sequesters knowledge of how to produce their tech, so even the lower techpriests don't understand it, but it's still from a period that makes Tau look like chimpanzees who've just mastered using sticks to fish for termites.

2. Carapace armor (and whatever the Tau wear to get their equivalent armor save) would scoff at a .303 British or thirty-oh-six. That, and the pulse rifle outranges just about every other small arm in 40k; I don't think they'd have a problem with ranger.

Gameplay requires balance. Lasguns would actually be perfectly accurate out to ranges greater than the long edge of a table, but aren't for balance reasons. Pulse rifles fire a tiny blob of superheated gas quickly; that would have an extremely low density, and hence suffer from air resistance worse than a normal bullet would, but would also quickly dissipate.

3. Ceramite =/= your average ceramic.

No, but it's still nothing compared to something that can shrug off a tank shell, as demonstrated by the fact that it can't shrug off a tank shell.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Nerivant wrote:1. Not really seeing how a Crisis suit is low-tech.

Tau tech is shiny but comparatively primitive next to Imperial tech. The Imperium closely sequesters knowledge of how to produce their tech, so even the lower techpriests don't understand it, but it's still from a period that makes Tau look like chimpanzees who've just mastered using sticks to fish for termites.

2. Carapace armor (and whatever the Tau wear to get their equivalent armor save) would scoff at a .303 British or thirty-oh-six. That, and the pulse rifle outranges just about every other small arm in 40k; I don't think they'd have a problem with ranger.

Gameplay requires balance. Lasguns would actually be perfectly accurate out to ranges greater than the long edge of a table, but aren't for balance reasons. Pulse rifles fire a tiny blob of superheated gas quickly; that would have an extremely low density, and hence suffer from air resistance worse than a normal bullet would, but would also quickly dissipate.

3. Ceramite =/= your average ceramic.

No, but it's still nothing compared to something that can shrug off a tank shell, as demonstrated by the fact that it can't shrug off a tank shell.

How is it low tech in regards to power armor?

Las weapons would suffer from diffraction.

That sounds more like a plasma gun, not a pulse rifle.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Melissia wrote:Your love for antimateriel rifles is obvious, but it takes something along the lines of an ATGM to completely cut through power armor reliably. Basically a hellfire or equivalent.

A man-portable rifle that can take out an APC at over a mile. Power armor wouldn't stand up to something that can take out an armored vehicle, and Space Marines wouldn't have any recourse against someone shooting at them from over a mile away, nor are they particularly small targets, nor do they have any conception of cover (presumably a large portion of their brains are replaced with the glands that produce the all-important acid drool, it would certainly explain a lot).

Wholly incorrect. The Codex Astartes is said to contain entire chapters on the effective use and deployment of cover. The Devastator squad, it is said, is to remain in cover while the Tactical squad attracts enemy attention, and lures them out into the kill zone of the Devastator squad's heavy weapons. Scout Marines make use of cover *all the time* in order to recon enemy positions, run sabotage missions, snipe enemy officers, and otherwise fulfill the mission objectives of the Scout squad. The Tau combat philosophy also heavily favors the use of cover, using it to conceal their numbers, their deployment positions, and prepare their strike missions for the most opportune moment.

The anti-material rifle (which is not a missile launcher, it's a rifle) is chambered, generally, for a 12.5mm to 20mm shell, and is designed to punch through, you guessed it, material. It can be, and is often used as, a sniper rifle, with a round using explosive, fragmenting, armor-piercing, incendiary or a mix of these payloads. It is, despite its muzzle brakes, recoil dampners, bipods, tripods, and other nifty tech, an absolutely punishing weapon to operate, and generally requires 2 to 3 man sniper teams to deploy effectively. It is highly effective against armor (hence its name)... but our modern militaries rely on satellites to provide them with the information that a simple helmet-based auspex suite provides almost any special operative soldier in the field in 40k. A team of Fire Warriors or Space Marines moving under cover will quite possibly be invisible to a human sniper team... most likely because the ship that brought them to Earth has already eradicated, or suborned, the satellites over the AO.

Using the SM as an example, if our human sniper team is deploying a McMillan Tac-50 and spies a Space Marine downrange... then they're about to get flanked by the Devastator or Scout squad. The SM downrange already knows they're there (auspex, again), and is bait to draw their attention.

Also, the standard round for a AM rifle is measured in the .50 (12.5mm) calibre, though some do run up to 20mm (~.90 cal). The standard boltgun fires an armor-piercing, high-explosive, mass-reactive .75 calibre round, while the heavy bolter fires a 1.00 calibre round (~25mm). Really, if we are expanding the scope to include 21c soldiers vs Space Marines, here's what we can expect to face: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Boltgun

Also... the bolter makes use of deuterium (in a way not wholly explained, making it something of an "unobtanium" element), that offers superior armor penetration, and does not explode when it strikes a target... it's "mass reactive", which means it explodes inside the target. A SM can also remain combat effective missing one or two limbs or even one of his hearts and a lung... humans are not so durable. A SM expending a 30 round bolt magazine is, in all likelihood, going to inflict 100% casualties on a mass of human troops he's firing upon, killing/maiming one per round. Also, it bears noting that introducing deuterium into a human's system will almost certainly kill them with its toxic properties, regardless of the severity of the wound.

Now, bringing it back to the OP, 100 Tau are not going to take over the planet, but neither are 100 soldiers from any Earth-based military going to effectively defend the planet, or utterly wipe out 100 sci-fi advanced military units. Especially a unit as methodical as the Tau, who make control of the field of battle and exploiting any opportunity provided (and creating them) a core part of their combat philosophy. Overall, this will come down to a battle of tactics and leadership, with a hefty bonus to the Tau given their technological superiority.

As I said the Tau armor is a huge + for the Tau.

But only for small arms fire up and including light mgs.

But I do not in anyway see how some of you guys think it would ever stop any type of anti tank round.
And that goes for the Space Marines as well. I know in game some troops get armor saves for power armor etc.

But if you are going to bring those items into the "real" world then you have to look at it from a realistic point of view.
I know that writers like to make things sound good and wonderful in game and in books, or make it look good on TV or in the movies but in the real world there is no magic pixe dust to save you.

The tec level of 40k is good, but they are just not that far ahead of us as most of you seem to think.
If they where you would be playing Star Trek and not 40k.
You remove all the space ships etc. And get it down on the ground they can be beat.

And some things don't change no matter what your leavel of tec is.
Ill try to explain.

I am not sure but I think a Heavy Bolter would be somewhere around a 25mm auto cannon.
Just with a much less rate of fire. I just don't see a heavy bolter fireing 225+rounds a min. <--and many fire much much faster then that.

Ok ill try not to get to grim here.
I have seen a M242 cut down entire buildings,trees,light and heavy tanks,and people.
And they do not leave much behind when you get hit with one of these.

I have seen 1st hand what a 25mm round can do. Unless there armor has some type of "Force Field" to stop the Kinetic energy from transferring into there body, then they are insta killed.
And I have never read in any codex that says 40k armor has a force field build into it. Maybe they do I just have not read it.
There internal organs would explode on impact, I have seen this done.

The heart and lungs and other organs liquefy and are pushed out any orifice that gives the least resistance.<--Yes its that ugly.
And that is being nice about it.
In sort. If it bleeds you can kill it.

Real war is hell. Don't ever think its not.

And all that would be from a standerd 25mm round. And it only gets worse from there.
A Fin-Stabilized Depleted Uranium Round Would tear right throw most armors in 40k. And if it did not. See the above.

I know most of you will not want to believe that, and I think that it comes from a lack of any real world exp in combat.
And for what its worth I hope you never do..

And as far as cover saves go...
I have seen them rip up all types of strong points/bunkers and earthworks etc.
In short you don't get cover saves in the real world when fighting one of these. Unless you are in a trench.

As I said before, I think the Tau win in a 100vs100 match.
I just see more dead Tau then you do.

There is, however, no man-portable 25mm autocannon in use by any military on Earth. These are vehicle-mounted (usually aircraft mounted) which either falls outside the concern of this debate (which is a straight infantry vs infantry fight) or must bring into the fight the air-space capability of the Tau... which would, basically, end the war from orbit.

Well he said we could use tanks.

I was just stating my exp with a M242 off a Bradley.
I cant say much about the air power.

Other then you never want them coming after you.

While the Bradly certainly brings a significant amount of firepower to the battlefield, the Tau do not fight like the IG does. The IG will generally deploy along standard battlefront lines, using (or creating) whatever cover they can. In these situations, the Bradly is definitely in its element in chewing up that cover and utterly destroying those forces.

The Tau... far more mobile, and far more devious. While the Bradly lights up the squad of FW it sees using some ruined buildings as cover, two other squads are flanking up on it and are about to turn it into slag with pulse-rifle fire. Armor plate is not much of a deterrent to plasma.

If we're going to compare an M242 to a HB (and from Snogs' description, I'd say that's a fair comparison), then I have to shudder at the amount of devastation a Burst Cannon or, Emperor forbid, a Railgun would cause.

Bringing tanks into play, hammerheads, skyrays, and devilfish would cause an unbelievable amount of devestation, from highly mobile fighting platforms. I in no way discount the sheer awesomeness of the Abrams or the Bradley (which are amazing bits of destructive engineering), but I think even they would be hard pressed to compete with Tau tanks.

I would agree, the Railgun the Tau use would bring the pain vs our tanks.

Id have to find me a nice Abrams to hide behind.
Its bigger so maybe he would fire on it first

Id have to find me a nice Abrams to hide behind.
Its bigger so maybe he would fire on it first

yeah, but I hate to consider one of those plasma rounds from the pulse rifle lighting up the ammo-loader or the fuel tank...

The Tech level in 40k is far beyond what we have now. Don't confuse the styl and appearance of warfare with tech levels. LRBT look like ww1 tanks but they are made from materials stronger than anything we have now.

If Railguns can punch through imperial tanks, come clean out the otherside and still keep going they will wreck anything we have.

Tau plasma cuts through PA which is far superior to anything we have. Tau infantry weapons would pose a real threat to our most armoured vehicles.

4M2A wrote:
Tau plasma cuts through PA which is far superior to anything we have. Tau infantry weapons would pose a real threat to our most armoured vehicles.

I saw that plasma bounced off from SoB power armor...

Brother Coa wrote:

4M2A wrote:
Tau plasma cuts through PA which is far superior to anything we have. Tau infantry weapons would pose a real threat to our most armoured vehicles.

I saw that plasma bounced off from SoB power armor...

Her armor is contempt.

There's no beating that save. Once a woman has decided to hold you in contempt, you might as well swallow that plasma gun, because it doesn't matter what you do, she's only ever going to give you the Eye of Terror if you even happen to set foot on the same block her favorite restaurant is located on.

Psienesis wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:

4M2A wrote:
Tau plasma cuts through PA which is far superior to anything we have. Tau infantry weapons would pose a real threat to our most armoured vehicles.

I saw that plasma bounced off from SoB power armor...

Her armor is contempt.

There's no beating that save. Once a woman has decided to hold you in contempt, you might as well swallow that plasma gun, because it doesn't matter what you do, she's only ever going to give you the Eye of Terror if you even happen to set foot on the same block her favorite restaurant is located on.

Space Marine Power Armor is stronger than that of Sisters.
So Tau Weapons would have no effect on it at all....

Yes... but they're not female.

Brother Coa wrote:Why am I even trying......

What this thread should have said is "100 of some army from 40k against us because that is what it will turn in to in the end."

From what I have read in this thread is two things , "USA USA USA" and "SPEHSS MAHREENS!"

As for 100 vs 100 I say that we would lose in terms of;

Armor vs Armor - fast skimmers with a railgun, A RAILGUN. An M1A1 would be dead before it could get it's main gun pointed at a Hammerhead.

Air Support - Manta anyone? (It does have shield read IA3 I think)

Air to Air - stealth drones and Barracudas would do a fair bit of damage to us.

Troops - FW are not push overs when it comes to a fight. Many have seen REAL combat (Orks, IoM, Eldar?), as well as have advance tech that out classes ours by how many years? As for the fight it depends on the location, the Commander may fight using Mont'ka (Killing Blow). Plan the attack then strike swiftly when the opportunity show (like our forces). Or he may fight using Kauyon (Patient Hunter), which is to lure the enemy into a trap. (I have my codex beside me)

Well thats my 2 cents

Deleted by Manchu

Hate to point this out but technologically inferior foes have stopped world powers before. Tau might have tech but they really don't seem to have a lot of different strategy's. What would happen if none of there advanced tech worked due to an EMP burst, something we use now to disrupt our enemy's.