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.

deffskulla wrote:Space Marine recoil, I would say probably next to nothing. For us regular guys and gals, you had better be prepare for one heck of a kick!

As long as there are some IG miniatures lugging around and firing heavy bolters solo (see here), I don't think the smaller calibre boltguns or bolt pistols (which many Commissars seem to have?) are much of an issue to the average human, though I do like the Munitorum Manual's suggestion that you'd have to be very strong or employ augmentation to use them accurately on autofire.

In terms of RL "controllability" comparisons, the 1.00 heavy bolter seems to be supposed to be the 40k equivalent of something like the aforementioned M60D or MG42, whereas for the smaller .75 guns I'd concur with CageUF's shotgun implication.

On the other hand, given the Retributor's description, it does seem to hint at the biggest issue of bolt weapons not being their recoil but their great weight (weight also has a compensating effect for recoil, by the way -> the heavier something is, the more kinetic energy you need to move it).

CageUF wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Kasrkai wrote:Agreed. Not to mention the small initial charge would make negligible recoil, even for a normal human, somewhat like an RPG on auto, which isn't to bad from my experience. Must be including the rate of fire.

There's a HUGE initial charge, not a small one. If it had a small initial charge you could block it by putting a hand up against the exit to the barrel. As it is, the weapon is very powerful at close range AND long range, so having a weak initial charge doesn't make sense.

And it isn't just a grenade. It's closer to a HEAT round with a secondary rocket propulsion. Penetrate THEN explode.

40mm grenade launchers have minimal kick, much less than a shotgun. Well much less than a 10 or 12 gauge. Similar to a 20. I sure as heck wouldn't try blocking it with a body part.

I've shot a full auto 12 gauge and its neigh uncontrollable, I'd say IRL a bolter would be similar to shooting a full auto 10/12 gauge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

starsdawn wrote:

Belexar wrote:As far as I know, Bolters are a bit like mini RPGs. I asume they'd have a similar recoil, though with the armor Marines shouldn't realy feel it. Also have iin mind that Bolters are semi-auto (rapid fire) for a reason. If they didn't had a big recoild, why not make them automatic (assault)?

RPG-7s don't have recoils.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BNAoOaYyEg

The recoil is mostly Hollywood, like how silencers make guns reaaaaally silent and shooting a car would make it go boom.

Um, I have a few NFA items including silencers... and yeah if you use subsonic ammo, they are darn quiet...

My wife can't hear me shooting my ar-15 it in the back yard. Then again its chambered in 9mm but I use subsonic ammo and a big can.
My .22 on the other hand is dead silent, all you hear is the slide moving back and forth. It makes less sound than a cap gun with no caps.

But yeah, cars don't explode when you shoot them and grenade launchers and RPG's don't really have much/any kick.

Compare it to the Hollywood silencers though, where the sound of silenced guns are as soft as the sound of kittens hitting a pillow.

Pretty simple to answer, it´s pure physics.

The recoil of a boltgun would wreak all fluff on guardsmen using them. The recoil would be enough to break bones in "normal" humans.

Acceleration, mass and momentum clearly dictates that it is impossible for the bolts internal charge to propel it to enough velocity on its own to be anything near lethal at point blank ranges. In otehr wordfs it takes time (thus distance) for the bolt to achieve enough speed to be lethal.

Therefore in order for the bolt to be able to kill as well at point blank range as at optimal range an initial charge (shell with propellant) would be required to give it the immediate burst of speed to be able to kill at close range.

The unspent internal bolt propellant could therefore be used in the bots own explosion making it even more lethal at close range.

Now for normal bullets this is not a problem due to their small sizes but the large caliber and mass being small. A bolt shell is a heavy thing though and takes a large amount of force to push out at enough speed.
The only thing able to lessen such a recoil would be a big mass of the bolter itself but again that means normal humans would never find them to be usable in the field where everything needs to be as light and portable as possible.

"Light" and "portable" has, traditionally, been very low on the list of design consideration for military hardware. This has changed some in recent years, but, back in the day, the M2 Browning weighed in at 80 pounds, empty.

Pyriel- wrote:Now for normal bullets this is not a problem due to their small sizes but the large caliber and mass being small. A bolt shell is a heavy thing though and takes a large amount of force to push out at enough speed.

The Soviet KS-23 fires the equivalent of a solid steel caliber 0.9 round (bolter rounds are 0.75) with enough force to wreck an engine block 100 meters away - and that's without the help of an internal propellant and an explosive charge. And without the potential recoil compensation of sci-fi high tech guns and their fictional internal components.

Bolt pistols also fire the exact same rounds as boltguns and are rather popular with Commissars and individual officers. And then we have individual Guardsmen like Ox who haul a caliber 1.00 heavy bolter around, and obviously use them in combat.

I'm sure a bolt weapon has quite a kick to it, but it's nowhere near the devastating bone-breaking effect that is theorized here - unless one really does not know how to use them (I've seen US soldiers getting hurt simply because they underestimated the recoil of a German G3 and thus held it wrong). These guns have been in the Imperial Guard's wargear since many editions past, and GW has never indicated they'd be incredibly difficult to use.

Agreed on the massive weight, though. It'd likely be enough to keep most Guardsmen from even wanting to carry such a beast, not to mention the more complicated mechanics and maintenance requirements as well as the need for a steady supply chain as opposed to simply plugging your lasgun battery into a charger station capable of using on-site resources. Hence they are not standard issue for the rank-and-file but remain optional to individual higher-ups who have the power to procure them.

[edit] Here are some photos. Check out the shells.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?104630-KS-23-collarbone-crusher

"Light" and "portable" has, traditionally, been very low on the list of design consideration for military hardware. This has changed some in recent years, but, back in the day, the M2 Browning weighed in at 80 pounds, empty.

And you saw them mostly mounted on vehicles.

Perfectly ok for a vehicle mounted bolter for IG but that would be it unless you want a 3 person tripod mounted bolter team.
Bolter shells are even more heavy then browning ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Considering the fact that the bolter's caliber is roughly the same size as a slug round fired from a shotgun, the recoil they have it having in fluff is ridiculous. Yes shotguns kick more than a lot of rifles, but its still manageable.

Caliber is completely irrelevant when it comes to recoil. It´s mass and velocity that matters.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Soviet KS-23 fires the equivalent of a solid steel caliber 0.9 round (bolter rounds are 0.75) with enough force to wreck an engine block 100 meters away - and that's without the help of an internal propellant and an explosive charge. And without the potential recoil compensation of sci-fi high tech guns and their fictional internal components.

Do you know if the masses are the same of the soviet round and a bolt shell?

There is no true data on bolt shells so we only have logic and deduction to work with.
I´d say the bolt shell is a lot heavier, it needs to contain a tough casing, it does have a super dense core (heavy), it needs to be large enough to contain a proximity sensor, impact fuse, mass sensor (piezo electric maybe?), propellant charge, reaction charge and on top of all that a mechanism for mass detection and perhaps stabilizing fins as well (unless you want to add friction by having a non smooth barrel).

Further on, what is the purpose of the KS-23, is it a close range shock weapon or is it supposed to take out targets at 300m with accuracy etc etc.
I see it as a low velocity kinetic weapon only whereas the bolter needs to be high kinetic at all ranges up to 300m (or more) plus be highly accurate to boost.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

I'm sure a bolt weapon has quite a kick to it, but it's nowhere near the devastating bone-breaking effect that is theorized here - unless one really does not know how to use them (I've seen US soldiers getting hurt simply because they underestimated the recoil of a German G3 and thus held it wrong).

Hehe, still remember my very first round fired using a scoped rifle, damn that hurt lol.

Bolt pistols also fire the exact same rounds as boltguns and are rather popular with Commissars and individual officers. And then we have individual Guardsmen like Ox who haul a caliber 1.00 heavy bolter around, and obviously use them in combat.

Truth be told a bolt pistol cannot possible be as powerful as a bolt rifle. And as for big individuals hauling big weapons well fluff *sigh* needs to be taken at what value it really has, none.

Look up IA weapon, wargear and vehicle books, those are a perfect example of the sheer idiocy some authors display. Landraider armour being as durable as a ww2 sherman tank etc, it´s so I weep when I read some of the fluff crap.

Pyriel- wrote:There is no true data on bolt shells so we only have logic and deduction to work with.

Exactly, and given how bolt weapons have always been used in the setting we should look to an explanation that favors its use by normal people instead of fabricating an unearthly recoil out of the very same thin air - one that isn't even backed up by modern day firearms. Note that the KS-23 does not use advanced recoil suppression as it is used in other guns like the AA-12, and it's still usable by human beings (meaning you could theoretically fire even heavier projectiles would you build a "hybrid" out of the two aforementioned weapons).

I'd say a bolt shell is lighter, because it's a lot smaller and 2x8 cm of solid steel sound quite heavy to me, whereas the core of a bolt shell is quite small. All the little gadgets you mentioned would only make it lighter as they limit the space for the deuterium core. We do have official pictures of bolt round cross sections, so we can get a good idea of their overall dimensions by eyeballing the length in comparison to the known caliber - it's definitively smaller than what the KS-23 shoots.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs021.snc4/33404_1155125014767_1726975714_301351_872043_n.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ultramarinesthemovie/4327705706/

Pyriel- wrote:Further on, what is the purpose of the KS-23, is it a close range shock weapon or is it supposed to take out targets at 300m with accuracy etc etc.

Multi-purpose. Can use the following ammunition:

"Shrapnel-10" buckshot round with 10-meter effective range

"Shrapnel-25" buckshot round with 25-meter effective range

"Barricade" cartridge with solid steel projectile able to destroy the engine block of a car at up to 100 meters.

"Wave-R" rubber less-lethal cartridge

"Bird cherry" tear gas grenade with CN agent

"Lilac" tear gas grenade with CS agent

"Star" flash-bang round

The effective range varies between 100 and 150 meters, depending on sub-type of the rifle. Without a bolt round's internal rocket motor. Invent bolt rounds and you'll increase their range further.

Pyriel- wrote:Truth be told a bolt pistol cannot possible be as powerful as a bolt rifle.

Why not? It's the very same ammunition. A bolt pistol would likely have an even stronger kick, though, because it's not as heavy as the larger boltgun.

Pyriel- wrote:And as for big individuals hauling big weapons well fluff *sigh* needs to be taken at what value it really has, none. [...] Look up IA weapon, wargear and vehicle books, those are a perfect example of the sheer idiocy some authors display. Landraider armour being as durable as a ww2 sherman tank etc, it´s so I weep when I read some of the fluff crap.

Well, the canon status of fluff sources varies depending on their origin - but anything coming directly from GW is canon. And though I'm feeling with you when you say that some of it may sound ... weird ... you can't say that bolt weapons have bone-breaking recoil when GW says no - it is them who invented this weapon, after all.

It's just like the whole "Marines can only be male" deal - scientifically it makes no sense whatsoever, but it's just part of the setting (and no I would not want it otherwise!). Bolt weapons having recoil comparable to a modern day shotgun is way more realistic than that.

Incidentally, the M2 Browning was originally a squad automatic weapon, carried by infantry troopers. It was soon adopted for vehicular mounts but remained a crew-served, man-portable support weapon for two and a half wars.

Exactly, and given how bolt weapons have always been used in the setting we should look to an explanation that favors its use by normal people instead of fabricating an unearthly recoil out of the very same thin air - one that isn't even backed up by modern day firearms. Note that the KS-23 does not use advanced recoil suppression as it is used in other guns like the AA-12, and it's still usable by human beings (meaning you could theoretically fire even heavier projectiles would you build a "hybrid" out of the two aforementioned weapons).

I dont agree. The browning M8 for example would have broken your bones if it was fired one hand and the weight of it was reduced to that of a light soviet machine pistol.

Further on to make bolters workable for normal humans just reduce their weight and the mass of the bolt significantly and you are good o go.

I'd say a bolt shell is lighter, because it's a lot smaller and 2x8 cm of solid steel sound quite heavy to me, whereas the core of a bolt shell is quite small. All the little gadgets you mentioned would only make it lighter as they limit the space for the deuterium core.

I am of the contrary opinion, as with all military hardware, the more you stuff into it the more space it requires and the more it weighs.
The eternal dilemma with the space rocket and its fuel.

Multi-purpose. Can use the following ammunition:

Sorry, I was referring to what purpose with only its steel ammo?

We can alter the usability of a bolter by great degrees by using different ammunition like buckshot too so this is irrelevant.

Why not? It's the very same ammunition. A bolt pistol would likely have an even stronger kick, though, because it's not as heavy as the larger boltgun.

Barrel length!

Well, the canon status of fluff sources varies depending on their origin - but anything coming directly from GW is canon. And though I'm feeling with you when you say that some of it may sound ... weird ... you can't say that bolt weapons have bone-breaking recoil when GW says no - it is them who invented this weapon, after all.

I thought we´d stick to universal physics in here, if you want to bring up GW fluff (god no) then anything is possible and all discussions can be made null and void by refering to carious canon fluffs.
GW also "invented" the sci fi "plasma" that floods space ship hulls etc and acts like that weird startrekk stuff. Complete bogus but hey, it´s in the fluff.

We do not have to invent physics to suit GW fluff (and its variations), we could however "invent" real life theories base on what´s in the 40k future, that would be quite fun actually if you have the proper scientific background.

Frankly I find the whole deal with space marine bolters utterly unrealistic and counter productive from a warfare point of view.
There is zero synergy with the astartes physique and the bolter usage and role.

Pyriel- wrote:Further on to make bolters workable for normal humans just reduce their weight and the mass of the bolt significantly and you are good o go.

An unnecessary invention not supported by anything in the existing fluff, on the pretext of invented recoil. Why not just take bolt weapons for what they are? A big gun with a big boom, perfectly capable of being wielded by human beings with a certain amount of training and "Guard-average" muscles.

Pyriel- wrote:I am of the contrary opinion, as with all military hardware, the more you stuff into it the more space it requires and the more it weighs.

Obviously GW does not agree if you look at the pictures - or maybe it's just that in the 41st millennium all those nifty gadgets are not as big and heavy anymore? The picture is official and it won't go away by an attempt of inserting modern day(!) realism into a fantasy setting.

That's also a rather old dilemma, by the way. A mere two centuries back people thought we would use a cannon to fly to the moon. For all we canonically know a bolt weapon has a hypertech "recoil negat-o-mat" that reduces its kick to zero. You can't exclude this option, simply because we do not know better. We only know that ordinary humans in the setting can fire these guns, so obviously there has to be something that allows them to do so. Which means that either the kinetic energy of the initial charge isn't so large, or that the gun itself has some mumbo-jumbo assisting to deal with it.

Pyriel- wrote:Sorry, I was referring to what purpose with only its steel ammo?

Uh, it only says "car-stopping" in all the pages I could dig up on this weapon, so I assume that is this round's intended purpose. But isn't the entire point irrelevant? The question is less what the ammunition is meant for, but more what amount of energy is at play here, and how it could compare to a bolter.

Pyriel- wrote:Barrel length!

Mmhm, depends on how many shots you want to fire. If it's just one it doesn't matter as much - and in this particular capacity, a bolt pistol actually suits nicely to the image of a ceremonial weapon, or one to execute fearful Guardsmen with.

This actually fits nicely to the Munitorum Manual's description of only automatic fire being a problem to normal people unless augmentations are involved.

Pyriel- wrote:We do not have to invent physics to suit GW fluff (and its variations), we could however "invent" real life theories base on what´s in the 40k future, that would be quite fun actually if you have the proper scientific background.

That's true - and I actually like to invent "excuses" to justify things that, on the first glance, may seem odd. Which is why I see no problem with bolt weapon recoil when we already seem to have comparable weapons in real life. It doesn't become a problem unless you want it to be (by making the recoil a problem when all we know of this gun points to the opposite - after all, as you have pointed out, we know little of the round's actual properties).

Pyriel- wrote:Frankly I find the whole deal with space marine bolters utterly unrealistic and counter productive from a warfare point of view.
There is zero synergy with the astartes physique and the bolter usage and role.

Hmm, why so? They do seem like good weapons - armour-piercing, explosive, and the projectile's rocket motor increases its kinetic energy and penetration even more than with just the conventional first-stage charge. The Astartes' physique simply allows them to carry even heavier models of the weapon - heavier not referring to the caliber but to the actual gun, in that the weapon itself can be armoured in a way that would protect it from the severe stress of Marine-style deepstrikes and close combat where lesser weapons would jam.

Not to mention all those nifty gadgets that can find a place in such oversized weaponry. Which works just like their power armour - it isn't bulky because it offers so much more protection than other models, it's bulky because (aside from the Marines themselves being quite big) it contains a ton of useful tools for their campaigns that aid them to stay alive where otherwise they would die or at least become "neutralized".

In short: Astartes physique doesn't mean they have to carry more damaging guns and thicker armour, but better guns and more tools to wage their wars with. It's more complex - and, I would say, more useful - than the admittedly natural thought of simply giving every Marine a cannon. Not that they couldn't do that, too, for it should not be forgotten that heavy weapons normally do require a crew of 2 or more. This is unheard of in the Astartes, which makes them more mobile. Another advantage right there, which synchs nicely with their high mobility role.

An unnecessary invention not supported by anything in the existing fluff, on the pretext of invented recoil. Why not just take bolt weapons for what they are? A big gun with a big boom, perfectly capable of being wielded by human beings with a certain amount of training and "Guard-average" muscles.

Nothing invented by that, just pure logic.
A reason for the weight is at least for marines, to use the weapons in melee. Cant imagine swinging a macmillan rifle at orks and expect it to shoot later

A guardsman doesnt need the melee power so yes, bolt guns could certainly be made lighter and more fragile for them.

Obviously GW does not agree if you look at the pictures - or maybe it's just that in the 41st millennium all those nifty gadgets are not as big and heavy anymore? The picture is official and it won't go away by an attempt of inserting modern day(!) realism into a fantasy setting.

Apparently I dont live in lala land like GW does with unscientific fluff, paper thin tank armour, contradicting fluff (caseless bolters with pics showing casing etc).
I care not for GW flaws, I just want to add some sense and realism to the wargear in 40k.

That's also a rather old dilemma, by the way. A mere two centuries back people thought we would use a cannon to fly to the moon. For all we canonically know a bolt weapon has a hypertech "recoil negat-o-mat" that reduces its kick to zero. You can't exclude this option,

And were the debate is officially over. I can counter each and every of your claims with "it´s 40k, a magical world where everything is possible so if you say I´m wrong I say it´s magic".

Of course I can exclude this option, I follow occhams principle and not some wishlist strawgrasping to support my arguments. In other words I follow the most reasonable path, thus if faced with options like science and probable tech I´ll choose that over "you cant exclude" magic/necron tech/super advanced gadgets never heard of in the fluff etc etc.

We only know that ordinary humans in the setting can fire these guns

We do not know that, GW fluff tells us but then trusting GW fluff is also accepting a landraider tank would get stuck the soon it hit a small fallen tree or collapse under it´s own weight due to to weak armour.
We will also need to trust and accept contradictionary fluff as well as we cannot simply choose to pick bits and pieces of fluff that only support our own points and pretend like the rest isnt there.

obviously there has to be something that allows them to do so. Which means that either the kinetic energy of the initial charge isn't so large, or that the gun itself has some mumbo-jumbo assisting to deal with it.

While you say obviously "something" (like magic, not mentioned super tech etc), I say science and common sense physics.
We really need to agree to disagree here I think.

Uh, it only says "car-stopping" in all the pages I could dig up on this weapon, so I assume that is this round's intended purpose. But isn't the entire point irrelevant? The question is less what the ammunition is meant for, but more what amount of energy is at play here, and how it could compare to a bolter.

It is relevant since the heavy russian rifly bullet is only meant as a slow kinetic close range delivery system while the much more massive bolt shell (again, Occham) is meant to do so much more.
Thus reason states it also suffers from physical drawbacks unless of course you can provide a solid link to clear fluff stating each bolt shell is fitted with microscopical Admech suspensor technology or the equivalent.

Another and not fluff supported solution would be to make the bolt pretty weak kinetically wise (no recoil) and having its killing power depend only on an impact fused shaped charge but then again GW says they are built to p e n e t are a t e armoured targets which means a helluva lot of mass and velocity needs to be applied to the bolt (that is also supposed to do so much more then the soviet light rifle) which means a heafty recoil.

Mmhm, depends on how many shots you want to fire. If it's just one it doesn't matter as much - and in this particular capacity, a bolt pistol actually suits nicely to the image of a ceremonial weapon, or one to execute fearful Guardsmen with.

Nope, you need to read up on physics some more. Try cut of the barrel of a sniper rifle and see how much power is lost.

This actually fits nicely to the Munitorum Manual's description of only automatic fire being a problem to normal people unless augmentations are involved.

A source that lacks all and any form of scientifical backing. Lets talk about imperial armour shall we, we´ll have so much to laugh about as we read on gw fluff being applied on epic scales of ridicule.
Again, my point stands, taking fluff instances and non mentioned super tech, magic, psychic powers, whims of the gods, Emperors miracles etc does nothing but ruin any form of decent discussion as it can be used to prove A N Y point no matter how impossible.

I can claim with a straight face that nekkid sisters of battle can shoot heavy bolters one handed simply because in GW fluff they are subject to tons of miracles and to do so is certainly a miracle and there is nothing you can do to prove me otherwise because this c a n be true, we dont know (your own argumentation).

Quod erat demonstrandum.

That's true - and I actually like to invent "excuses" to justify things that, on the first glance, may seem odd.

I fully agree with you but if this is to work we need to agree to follow a simple set of rules such as:
The "excuse" most logical is true.
No excusing using contradictionary fluff.
Science and facts trump incompetent GW employers dreaming up fluff crap. (if GW says in their fluff that black holes in 40k are actually made of ice cream do we take this and build on it? Seriously?)

Failing that we can talk in circles for years to no end using everything from youknowwhat as excuses to support just about anything even vaguely hinted in the fluff.

Your take on this?

Hmm, why so? They do seem like good weapons - armour-piercing, explosive, and the projectile's rocket motor increases its kinetic energy and penetration even more than with just the conventional first-stage charge. The Astartes' physique simply allows them to carry even heavier models of the weapon - heavier not referring to the caliber but to the actual gun, in that the weapon itself can be armoured in a way that would protect it from the severe stress of Marine-style deepstrikes and close combat where lesser weapons would jam.

Simple.
Marines are geneered to be the perfect long range recon units supposedly operating for long peroids of time behind enemy lines.
This cannot be denied, the facts point to this foremost.
- they have the ability to eat and absorb memories specifically said to make survival easier (where to find clean water etc)
-protection from harmful radiation like UV from the sky (long term benefits)
-stamina that allows for days on running.
-ability to eat all kinds of junk and extract nutrients from it. (long term benefit if proper food is scarse)
-ability to handle poisons from food intake or blood contact (long term benefit is food is scarse and against wild life should armour be discarded)
-ability to track by taste (long term benefit)
-ability to sleep while half awake (long term benefit)
-abiity to breathe poisons, low oxygen atmosphere and I think even water but again, fluff is contradicting here (long term ability if suit is broken or air supply low or tough environment)
-ability to heal almost anything over time, bones mend over days etc.

Basically almost all the biological hardware in a marine is designed for the optimal long range survival unit. You dont need these things in order to do rapid shock assaults onto the bridge of anotehr ship for example, in that case all those memory implants, extra stomachs etc would be better used for even more muscles and such.

Now having established this what weapon systems synergize the best with a long ranged recon unit or a unit made to be out in the field for prolonged periods of time?
Lots of ammunition, light weapons and gear, highly resilent and easy to maintain things, weapons using power or ammo that is easily compatible with most used out in various battlefields etc.

You dont use a 40kg bolter with rounds the size of sausages and ammo magazines weighing in at 7 kg each.
The average long ranged soldier takes around 10 magazines, enough to last an intensive contact and to breake and escape from it. You talk about GW pictures and fluff, how many bolter magazines have you EVER seen or heard of in pictures or fluff?
One magazine holds 30 bolt shells, is huge and heavy like hell and a marine would need about 10 of those to last an intensive engagement against say, traitor marines so he walks aound basically covered with huge extra clips...and then?

Imagine the long range patrol wading through rough terrain or a swamp, each marine weighing in at half a ton, on top of that a 30kg bolter, on top of that 30 clips at 210 kg and then some grenades, extra gear etc, the poor marines would sink instantly and expel so much calories simply moving that a broken power armour would spell starvation.

What happens with the squads ammo supply after only one contact with the enemy? 2 small contacts towards the objective and the squad arrives completely dry. Bolt rounds dont grow on trees, slaughtered heretics, orks, tau, necrons etc dont really carry spares in their pockets.


I´d imagine the bolter being a highly specialized, highly situational weapons, used where short and intense contacts are expected like boarding actions or clear and guaranteed lines of supply can be had.
I still laugh at the GW fluff on Shrike and the raven guards being behind ork lines for 2 years causing all kinds of mayhem...how and with what? After the first ambush not one marine would have any bolt shells left. Did they kidnap a mek and his workshop with helper grots and a local ore mine and made him produce extra ammo?
Or wait, they ran around in the jungles for 2 years ambushing orks with their melee weapons, you know the chainswords etc that they could actually recharge using their power armour generators?

Logically speaking the typical SM squad is equipped with beefed up hellguns that have to all means an inexhaustable amount of ammunition since given some time the power packs and armour henerators will constantly reload the guns.


So here you are, why should the emperor make/invent super warriors and geneer them in all purposes for ultimate long ranged and long time survival and efficiency when their weapons are made for super short engagements.
Thus, screw GW fluff that simply doesnt make any sense. The bolter is eather a weapon used only in rare instances where its humongous drawbacks can be negated OR more likely the bolter does not use supersized and heavy rounds but rather mm sized needle ammunition that penetrate by being fired at hypersonic velocities and cause damage by mass reactive sensors causing internal explosions in the targets.
That would solve all problems, ammo capacity, weight, accuracy, very little initial propellant needed and pretty much no recoil what so ever. It would also be in tune with the bolt rounds restriction in range as light ammo loose power fast.

This is actually how I see the "true" bolter being used and designed and not the unrealistic coca cola bottle fireing crap GW dreamt up just to sound cool.
What are your thoughts on that?

Problem is... Marines generally don't deploy on long-duration missions. They really are shock troops, and generally deploy in small numbers.

They're equipped for the long battles, yes, because when they were first designed, this is what the Legions were facing against the Xeno empires and the Human societies that did not want to join the Imperium. Then the Emperor was interred in the Golden Throne, and he was the one responsible for the design of the Space Marines.

They couldn't (and still can't) change the blue-print of a Space Marine, and so they have all the organs and such necessary for long-term wars while they are also used, primarily, as shock troops, rapid-reaction forces, and small-unit hunter-killer teams. The ability to handle poisons and radiation and other "survival" traits is also of importance when deploying, for a short time, on a planet that doesn't have a human-friendly atmosphere... or being blown out an airlock into space.

The bolter is eather a weapon used only in rare instances where its humongous drawbacks can be negated OR more likely the bolter does not use supersized and heavy rounds but rather mm sized needle ammunition that penetrate by being fired at hypersonic velocities and cause damage by mass reactive sensors causing internal explosions in the targets.

Neither. It's the mainstay weapon of the Adeptus Astartes, firing a .75 calibre rocket-boosted, armor-piercing and mass-reactive explosive round. Spent bolter casings are often collected by common citizens of the Imperium and kept as good luck charms, especially if they were fired from the weapons of the Emperor's own Angels of Death.

Human-scaled bolt weapons, like pistols, are often awarded to people like Commissars, IG and Naval Officers, and Inquisitors as signs of favor and also as symbols that these individuals act with the authority of the Imperium.

Just because the sci-fi weapon doesn't fit what we understand of weapons technology and physics doesn't mean we can discard the established canon of what these weapons are and how they generally function.

We can debate the relative recoil, weight, impact, muzzle velocity and what-all-else of the boltgun all day and night... but we can't really get away from the "facts" already established in canon, as that diverges from anything represented in the game, and becomes... a completely different topic, really.

Though, as far as the IG using boltguns and heavy bolters go, I will point out that these soldiers in the IG are, generally, some truly burly, Rambo/Arnold Schwarzenegger-sized guys out there fighting orks in hand-to-hand and beating back waves of Tyranid and fighting off the Archenemy and so on and so forth... they're not some 120 pound (or even 190 pound) pencil-necked guys out playing paintball.

Pyriel- wrote:Of course I can exclude this option, I follow occhams principle and not some wishlist strawgrasping to support my arguments.

No, you really don't. Occham's principle works by taking into account the existing facts, and this I fear includes those you conveniently dismiss as "GW flaws" because they don't suit your "pure logic" - which is based solely on the premise that bolt weapons absolutely need such a strong recoil it would break normal people's back, in spite of what 20 years of 40k have told us. You say "acceleration, mass and momentum clearly dictate it" and then leave it at that, as if we'd actually have these numbers. I dispute the "clarity" of this claim.

You're putting the cart before the horse. What you are doing is looking at one aspect of the gun (its power) and then apply basic physics (recoil), without having actual numbers to work with and without caring about whether the end result actually "fits in" or creates a conflict. Options to avoid these conflicts - many of which already exist in modern day firearms (mercury recoil suppressors, constant-recoil principle, redirected momentum, etc) - are summarily dismissed as "grasping at straws". This is not "following the most reasonable path", it's constructing a one-way road to a predetermined outcome that clashes with the only information we actually have on this weapon system. My only question is: Why?

My approach is looking at all aspects of the gun (power, design, weight, size and applications as well as techlevel), then take into consideration basic physics (recoil), and come up with theories how these could be combined without breaking any of the facts within the setting.

You may view this approach as flawed because you "don't trust GW fluff" - but then again, if you really want and go ahead deconstructing the entire setting, or building a world of your own, go ahead. Let us agree to disagree, as you proposed. I'll continue to grasp at my straws - but at least my straws are the ones from the books. And a "blast compensator" was mentioned on an official storm bolter cross section, if you've read my post on the previous page where I provided a link to the scan.

I just hope you too see the irony in "not trusting GW fluff" but at the same time citing parts of it as evidence.

Pyriel- wrote:We will also need to trust and accept contradictionary fluff as well as we cannot simply choose to pick bits and pieces of fluff that only support our own points and pretend like the rest isnt there.

Hear, hear. Just that studio canon isn't contradictoryin this case.

Pyriel- wrote:It is relevant since the heavy russian rifly bullet is only meant as a slow kinetic close range delivery system while the much more massive bolt shell (again, Occham) is meant to do so much more. Thus reason states [...]

No. The recoil is from a bolt shell's initial charge - which is meant to do so much less, namely simply pushing that projectile out of the barrel with enough force so that the rocket motor can take over without affecting trajectory. Your reason is flawed. Without the rocket motor, you might have a point.

Pyriel- wrote:Thus reason states it also suffers from physical drawbacks unless of course you can provide a solid link to clear fluff stating each bolt shell is fitted with microscopical Admech suspensor technology or the equivalent.

That's not quite how it works. The massive recoil is your hypothesis, so it's up to you to present some evidence here. But given that we lack the necessary data from the projectile, I'd suppose this is a dead end.

Pyriel- wrote:Another and not fluff supported solution would be to make the bolt pretty weak kinetically wise (no recoil) and having its killing power depend only on an impact fused shaped charge but then again GW says they are built to p e n e t are a t e armoured targets which means a helluva lot of mass and velocity needs to be applied to the bolt (that is also supposed to do so much more then the soviet light rifle) which means a heafty recoil.

Forgetting the rocket motor again.

Nope, you need to read up on physics some more. Try cut of the barrel of a sniper rifle and see how much power is lost.

I think you really need to read up on guns some more, or more specifically how recoil is generated.

There isn't actually one recoil when a gun is fired but two - the first when the charge is ignited and the projectile gets pushed down the barrel and the second when the round leaves it. A longer barrel results in greater muzzle velocity, which in turn means greater recoil through momentum. Depending on the weapon, this can be off-set by a longer barrel adding more weight, and a shorter barrel will also result in the gas having a higher pressure when secondary recoil kicks in, so the difference may be negligible and comes down to the individual model as well as the ammunition used. Especially when we compare bolt pistols to boltguns and note that the length isn't drastically different, as all boltguns do is add a foregrip and a longer magazine.

Pyriel- wrote:I can claim with a straight face that nekkid sisters of battle can shoot heavy bolters one handed simply because in GW fluff they are subject to tons of miracles and to do so is certainly a miracle and there is nothing you can do to prove me otherwise because this c a n be true, we dont know (your own argumentation). Quod erat demonstrandum.

No, but thanks for playing. Fluff tells us that heavy bolters are "of great weight and cumbersome nature" (which, by following the laws of physics you hold so dear, would greatly reduce recoil), and that a Sister of Battle is only able to handle such equipment due to her power armour, which augments the wearer's strength.
But I suppose this must be another "GW flaw".

As far as Marine operations are concerned, Psienesis has already delivered a good explanation. Long campaigns is what the Guard is for, why do you think Space Marine ships and company composition (mechanized infantry, airborne transport, DROP PODS) focus on speed?
Marines are equipped for long duration because their most common combat doctrine often results in them getting surrounded by enemies, having to fight without support for an extended duration. What was the longest time? The 3E Codex mentioned something about 3-4 days of continuous fighting, I believe?

Only this:

Pyriel- wrote:It would also be in tune with the bolt rounds restriction in range as light ammo loose power fast.

Again, rocket motor.

Don't make the mistake of taking TT range as absolutes. Apart from the simple difference between game mechanics and fluff, the TT may well use this as an abstraction representing "effective combat range", meaning that while your miniatures may be able to fire further their shots would miss. Just another of my excuses, but I've found they make the setting appear so much more realistic and enjoyable.

Problem is... Marines generally don't deploy on long-duration missions. They really are shock troops, and generally deploy in small numbers.

Yes that is the problem but you fail to see it from the right perspective.
Here, let me clarify it for you:
Why did the big E himself, night infallible, use up tons of resources and time to construct a super soldier geneered to above all else act as a super effective long range recconisance unit when they are in the end almost only used as short range, intense in-and-out units?

That´s the problem in a hutshell.

If the usage of a marine is meant to 80% of the time to be used as a rapid shock trooper and only 20% of the time to be used as an attrition or long range/time unit wouldnt it be better to create them from the start to be better at the 80% of what they do rather the 20%?

They're equipped for the long battles, yes, because when they were first designed, this is what the Legions were facing against the Xeno empires and the Human societies that did not want to join the Imperium. Then the Emperor was interred in the Golden Throne, and he was the one responsible for the design of the Space Marines.

I dont see it as that. The legions acted just like chapters do albeit on a grander scale. Rapid shock assaults onto planets/spaceships, rapid battles, quick victories and then out as fast as possible.

Your entire argument is flawed by the simple fact that planet compliance was supposed to be as fast as possible. Even the Man himself chastised his sons for taking to long in turning over planet victories.
That is anything means the marines were used as rapid shock troops from the very start.

Ergo: GW screws up again by inventing marine fluff and wargear that goes totally against how they were supposedly geneered to be used.

They couldn't (and still can't) change the blue-print of a Space Marine, and so they have all the organs and such necessary for long-term wars while they are also used, primarily, as shock troops, rapid-reaction forces, and small-unit hunter-killer teams. The ability to handle poisons and radiation and other "survival" traits is also of importance when deploying, for a short time, on a planet that doesn't have a human-friendly atmosphere... or being blown out an airlock into space.

So much bio hardware is steered toward long turn survival and efficiency that it is unquestionable that was the marines primary purpose.
Also there are so many instances in the fluff where they are deployed in long term situations like attrition, behind enemy lines, kill teams traveling across whole planets through warzones to kill specific targets (deathwatch etc) and still in every instance we see marines equipped with a 30 round bolter and no spare magazines.
Really, how effective would that be if we equipped all our soldiers with super specialized weapons using super rare ammunition and only gave each soldier a handful of rounds?

Again, there are logically and realistically only two options:
Either the bolter is a very situational weapons or the magazine contains hundreds or thousands of hyper velocity mm sized rounds.
Pick the one that sounds to be the most logical and sane.

Neither. It's the mainstay weapon of the Adeptus Astartes, firing a .75 calibre rocket-boosted, armor-piercing and mass-reactive explosive round

Right, GW fluff. And the land raider gets stuck after 10 meters of driving by the way it is designed. Common, think for yourself, dont use GW bs.

Just because the sci-fi weapon doesn't fit what we understand of weapons technology and physics doesn't mean we can discard the established canon of what these weapons are and how they generally function.

Ah, explained away by "its magical". I see...

but we can't really get away from the "facts" already established in canon, as that diverges from anything represented in the game, and becomes... a completely different topic, really.

Of course we can.
Would you like to debate 40k "plasma" as well? A scientifical joke that can only be excused by "it´s magical"?

The whole established fluff on space marines can be likened with our own medeval knights.
We see shining polished SM carrying gigantic bright banners into battle etc just as we see pics shining, oversized medeval knights on clean horses charging very small castle walls manned by gigantic crossbowmen armed that shoot bolts the size of lances.

In reality the medeval knights were battered, dirty on mud caked horses with to weak legs (historical fact, they had weak leg bones from using them to seldom...a life in the saddle does that)
charging a h gigantic castle wall manned by realistically sized crossbowmen that shoot very small bolts, oh and that supersized banner the shiny knight in the picture is always toting was thrown away a long time ago since all the rain and mud made it weigh a ton and it really hindered the knight in melee.

So how do you thing the "real" space marines are if you can be bothered to look away from GWs flawed "established fluff"?
Probably dirty, blood soaked armour, completely covered with spare ammo magazines (that allow him to stay in a firefight for days rather then waste his 30 sausage sized rounds in under a minute like in the "established" GW fluff)
and arguing really strongly with his seargent about how to assault those heretics hidden on top of that building since the marines weight would make a mockery of any stairs and that only whole concrete stairwell is probably boobytrapped.

I will point out that these soldiers in the IG are, generally, some truly burly, Rambo/Arnold Schwarzenegger-sized guys out there

Yes because it is more probable that the imperial guard uses up years and tons of resources to turn kids into rambo muscled super soldiers rather then simply having bolt weapons mounted on cheap transports that can be shot by a white shield for cheaps.
lol

No, you really don't. Occham's principle works by taking into account the existing facts, and this I fear includes those you conveniently dismiss as "GW flaws" because they don't suit your "pure logic"

No, when "facts" contradict Occham relies on logic and common sense. Thus, what is more probable.
Until you explain away the GW "Fact" that bolters are caseless and the GW pics showing bolters spewing out propellant casings I cant take your argument seriously and that is just the start of it.

You're putting the cart before the horse. What you are doing is looking at one aspect of the gun (its power) and then apply basic physics (recoil), without having actual numbers to work with and without caring about whether the end result actually "fits in" or creates a conflict.

Again, gw "fact" inconsistencies.
A marine bolter being held one handed by a normal human?

You tell me to only use established facts but yourself excuse your arguents by mercury recoil mechanisms, really stop being such a hypocrite and show me the established GW "facts" on bolter mercury recoil suppressors and what else have you made up.
Again, we follow the same rules or no rules at all, which one is it?

Sure, we can add those to bolters and simply make an assumption they are there but that means you acknowledge my assumptions not seen in the fluff as well!

My approach is looking at all aspects of the gun (power, design, weight, size and applications as well as techlevel), then take into consideration basic physics (recoil), and come up with theories how these could be combined without breaking any of the facts within the setting.

That sounds cool, lets give it a try.
First fact first:
1 bolter is quite heavy to be durable, survive fiend treatment and be useful as a club in melee.
2: Initial propellant is very powerful to give the large bolt mass enough force to be lethal at point blank.
3: This created a helluva recoil.
4: Now what? What can we put into the bolter or it´s ammo to ease the recoil to managable levels so that the weak limbed lIG eutenant can fire it as well?
There are as you say tons of modern day toys to add, do your best and we´l go from there.

but at least my straws are the ones from the books.

Make my day, try to strawgrasp-excuse the landraider to actually be able to roll across rough terrain without changing any of GWs fluff

Hear, hear. Just that studio canon isn't contradictoryin this case.

You still havent excused the bolt casing vs caseless contradictionary fluff.

What about Guilliman, the IG commander...or wait, was it the primarch, I dont know, what canon fluff and I supposed to follow again?

Lets discuss the fang, the SW super fortress shall we and how it can be breached.
Thing is do we discuss the super high mountain peek on fenris or that funny sandy french legionary alike mini bunker onto of that little mountain that is also the canon SW home fortress a little while back.

No. The recoil is from a bolt shell's initial charge - which is meant to do so much less, namely simply pushing that projectile out of the barrel with enough force so that the rocket motor can take over without affecting trajectory. Your reason is flawed. Without the rocket motor, you might have a point.

Nope, your wrong here.
The initial charge being only enough to propel it out of the barrel as you claim would leave the bolt totally harmless at point blank. In fact I would stand nekking right infront of the barrel and at most get a rib broken.
Your lack of grasp of physics is frightening. it takes time for the bolt pulse rocket to imbue it with enough velocity to be lethal and time + velocity = range.
The very same problem remains if you choose to magically lessen the mass of the bolt, the kinetic energy will remain just as low.

To be lethal at close/point range the bolt already HAS to be as fast enough as it will be after the rocket has had enough time to effect it.

If we remove the rocket the initial charge will give the bolt the same power at very close range but due to its mass and size (drag) it will very quickly loose its power (and accuracy) and here is where the rocket comes in, as it starts to rapidly loose power the rocket kicks in and keeps it up for those 300meters or whatever GW said.

With no rocket and only propellant the charge would have to be very high and the barrel very long in order to get the bolt to have killing power at long ranges. Thus the mixture of initial propellant and rocket needs to be balanced to that the bolt has equal the killing power from the moment it leaves the barrel to where it reaches it´s range limit.

Forgetting the rocket motor again.

Forgetting physics ABC again?

I think you really need to read up on guns some more, or more specifically how recoil is generated.

Aw, dont avoid the question. Please provide me an answer why a very short barrel will produce the same power as a long one if all things like mass, caliber and charge remain the same.

No, but thanks for playing. Fluff tells us that heavy bolters are "of great weight and cumbersome nature" (which, by following the laws of physics you hold so dear, would greatly reduce recoil), and that a Sister of Battle is only able to handle such equipment due to her power armour, which augments the wearer's strength.
But I suppose this must be another "GW flaw".

But...but...but gw fluff (that you hold so dearly) clearly states that sisters are subject to miracles thus I´m in the right, a sister can shoot a heavy bolter one handed since that is a miracle

Now you understand the idiocy of slavically following established GW fluff?

As far as Marine operations are concerned, Psienesis has already delivered a good explanation. Long campaigns is what the Guard is for

Not at all. Compliance was planned to be made as quickly as possible, marines went in, ruined the defenses and guard took over the time consuming mopping up that the marines were actually geneered to do best.

Marines are equipped for long duration because their most common combat doctrine often results in them getting surrounded by enemies, having to fight without support for an extended duration. What was the longest time? The 3E Codex mentioned something about 3-4 days of continuous fighting, I believe?

lol Having to fight for extended periods without support with what exactly? 30 bolt rounds? This is my ponit exactly, thankyou.

Longest I remember right now in the codex is 2 years by the way, cant imagine how long 30 bolt rounds last but if they shoot one every month they might even have some ammo left at the end of that engagement.

Again, rocket motor.

Don't make the mistake of taking TT range as absolutes.

Again, physics ABC.

I take the data from the RPG books, rouge trader, deathwatch etc, at least there is some data there while in GW fluff we only get 12 inches and 24 inches lol

now that...is a wall of text

Pyriel- wrote:No, when "facts" contradict Occham relies on logic and common sense. Thus, what is more probable.

What facts are contradicting here? The fact is you don't know how much kinetic energy is in a bolt weapon's discharge. You are assuming, but that doesn't make your claims any more solid. The actual facts we have (the "GW BS") paint a fairly consistent image. You just don't seem to like it.

Pyriel- wrote:Until you explain away the GW "Fact" that bolters are caseless and the GW pics showing bolters spewing out propellant casings I cant take your argument seriously and that is just the start of it.

Where exactly is bolt ammunition actually being described as caseless? I've heard that bit a lot, but have yet to see an actual source for this. In the end it's just another community myth like the impossible recoil or Marine height inflation.

But hey, it's actually fairly easy to explain it away even if it were official. Different Forgeworlds, different weapon patterns. There, problem solved.

A marine bolter being held one handed by a normal human?

Depends on the human, I'd say. Didn't the 3E Space Marine Codex describe a Chapter doing bolter drills with youngsters to see who would be a worthy recruit?

Pyriel- wrote:You tell me to only use established facts but yourself excuse your arguents by mercury recoil mechanisms, really stop being such a hypocrite and show me the established GW "facts" on bolter mercury recoil suppressors and what else have you made up.

As I said: "Blast Compensator". It's on the official cross section image. Look it up.

Pyriel- wrote:Sure, we can add those to bolters and simply make an assumption they are there but that means you acknowledge my assumptions not seen in the fluff as well!

Hey, I'm just delivering a possible explanation as to why canon facts aren't as stupid as you think. What you are doing is constructing scenarios that absolutely have to result in an unnecessary conflict. Again: Why?

We could also drop both our arguments and go back to just what the books show us. That would leave me content (as nothing changes), but you probably not.

Pyriel- wrote:That sounds cool, lets give it a try.
First fact first:
1 bolter is quite heavy to be durable, survive fiend treatment and be useful as a club in melee.
2: Initial propellant is very powerful to give the large bolt mass enough force to be lethal at point blank.
3: This created a helluva recoil.
4: Now what? What can we put into the bolter or it´s ammo to ease the recoil to managable levels so that the weak limbed lIG eutenant can fire it as well?
There are as you say tons of modern day toys to add, do your best and we´l go from there.

I've already named several components that are *missing* from an already existing gun that fires a larger and more massive projectile. Anything that can wreck an engine block at 100 meters away is surely sufficiently lethal in close combat before a bolt's rocket motor kicks in.

I'd actually consider it interesting to calculate the exact recoil (there are even programs for it!) - but at the end of the day, we are missing the numbers and have to gauge. Nothing that I have seen convinces me that a bolt's initial recoil is bigger than that of a shotgun, though I am somewhat undecided myself what the best RL comparison might be. I've chosen to stick with the Munitorum Manual's description, which - despite only being a licensed product and not true studio material - fits best to my personal interpretation, because while I would consider it entirely possible that a bolt weapon's recoil is even lower there's a part of me that simply thinks these guns should have a proper kick to them.

Pyriel- wrote:Make my day, try to strawgrasp-excuse the landraider to actually be able to roll across rough terrain without changing any of GWs fluff

Hmm, what are you referring to? I'm not that familiar with all details of Astartes fluff, focusing mainly on IG and SoB.

Pyriel- wrote:What about Guilliman, the IG commander...or wait, was it the primarch, I dont know, what canon fluff and I supposed to follow again?

Huh? Space Marines were in command of the Imperial Army during the Great Crusade. This is nothing new and not contradictory at all. It's why the Imperial Guard split in two during the Heresy.

Pyriel- wrote:Lets discuss the fang, the SW super fortress shall we and how it can be breached.

Ugh. No. SW fluff is broken, I'll admit that much.

Pyriel- wrote:Your lack of grasp of physics is frightening.

Before you throw around insults: It's not my mistake when you do not read the thread. I do not feel like reiterating every detail I have already mentioned before. You don't even have to read everything, though - my first post in this topic already mentioned that which you wanted to "lecture" me about.

Pyriel- wrote:Aw, dont avoid the question. Please provide me an answer why a very short barrel will produce the same power as a long one if all things like mass, caliber and charge remain the same.

What do you even mean with power? The bullet's power (muzzle velocity) or the gun's kick (recoil)? Of course a longer barrel makes the bullet travel faster, what I'm argueing is that you are seriously overestimating the difference in recoil. Both factors are related, but they do NOT stand in direct relation to each other.

Pyriel- wrote:But...but...but gw fluff (that you hold so dearly) clearly states that sisters are subject to miracles thus I´m in the right, a sister can shoot a heavy bolter one handed since that is a miracle Now you understand the idiocy of slavically following established GW fluff?

What? Where did a Sister fire a heavy bolter one-handed?

Pyriel- wrote:lol Having to fight for extended periods without support with what exactly? 30 bolt rounds? This is my ponit exactly, thankyou.

20-30 bolt rounds per magazine, 60 for a drum, with a Marine carrying several magazines with him. And you know, it doesn't take that much imagination to consider that a Rhino or a Drop Pod might actually include some extra ammo. An entire company being cut off doesn't mean that every Astartes has only 30 shots and then has to switch to melee, y'know. Especially since supply drops could theoretically still be made even in hostile zones.

Pyriel- wrote:Longest I remember right now in the codex is 2 years by the way, cant imagine how long 30 bolt rounds last but if they shoot one every month they might even have some ammo left at the end of that engagement.

2 years without a base or anyone bringing supplies? Source pls.

I take the data from the RPG books, rouge trader, deathwatch etc, at least there is some data there while in GW fluff we only get 12 inches and 24 inches lol

The TT numbers are made for TT game mechanics, the RPG numbers are made for RPG game mechanics. But apart from licensed products not being hard canon and the RPG suffering from some serious contradictions (both with itself as well as with GW fluff), in what way is that data "better"? It's in meters, but it's still an abstraction. Maximum range for a bolt pistol is capped at 120 meters. For the the very same projectile as the one from a boltgun, whose range is capped at 360 meters. Not to mention that a rocket propelled projectile would fly much further than that (for comparison, an M82 sniper rifle has an effective range of 1.800 meters).

Incidentally, the Fang, as a super-huge mountain, has been the canonical home of the Space Wolves since I played table-top, and that's nearly 20 years ago now.

Yes because it is more probable that the imperial guard uses up years and tons of resources to turn kids into rambo muscled super soldiers rather then simply having bolt weapons mounted on cheap transports that can be shot by a white shield for cheaps.

What resources?

"You! Soldier! Drop and give me a hundred!"

... keep doing that, every day, for months, if not years... you're going to be a burly SOB, and I don't mean a Sister of Battle. Guardsmen get very little leave time/R&R, and while in transit to the next war-front, they spend their transit time training. A soldier's life is spent in training, in preparation for the next battle. Training never, ever stops.

There's also the 40K art we have to base our understandings of the "average" Guardsman on. Take a look at the front cover of the IG Omnibus, Volume 1.

So how do you thing the "real" space marines are if you can be bothered to look away from GWs flawed "established fluff"?
Probably dirty, blood soaked armour, completely covered with spare ammo magazines (that allow him to stay in a firefight for days rather then waste his 30 sausage sized rounds in under a minute like in the "established" GW fluff)
and arguing really strongly with his seargent about how to assault those heretics hidden on top of that building since the marines weight would make a mockery of any stairs and that only whole concrete stairwell is probably boobytrapped.

There's no argument. You send the Tactical Squad forward under cover to begin drawing the attention of the defenders. When the defenders start shooting at the Tactical Squad, thus giving away their position by muzzle-flash or silhouette, the Devastator Squad opens up with the heavy weapons.

If the stairs up to the top of the wall are trapped? You send in the Assault Marines on jump-packs. Feth the stairs. If you're fighting humans or human-scaled xenos? So much the better, you can kill two or three just landing on them.

Now that the enemy forces are pressed in melee, dying in droves as a pack of nine-foot-tall giants are cleaving them limb from limb with chainsaws-on-a-stick, your Tactical Squad can provide fire support, launch magna-grapples to climb the wall, make use of their flamer or missile launcher or melta-bombs or krak grenades or what-have-you to breach the gates/walls and move in under cover from the Devastator Squad.

As far as carrying extra ammo? Yeah, it's done by mag-plates mounted on various points on the armor. They carry their boltguns in the same manner, no holsters required, though some do make use of shoulder slings, by personal peference. Just slap it against your leg, or under your arm, and it sticks there. Some Marines even have mag-plates mounted in their gloves. This way, they can, by the flick of a mental switch, reverse the polarity of the mag-plates on the armor, causing their weapon to fly off the armor and into their hands... going from unarmed to unleashing torrents of explosive, armor-piercing death in the blink of an eye. They don't carry just the one magazine. There's also storage space built into the armor on either side of the powerplant exhaust manifold on the back.

Do they get dirty and covered in blood? Sure. Warfare is not a clean endeavor, and not at all the place for people worried about the dry cleaning bill. I don't believe that SM art implies anything differently.

Also, when you're sawing xeno and heretic scum in half with a chainsaw, there's going to be a bit of splatter.

Would you like to debate 40k "plasma" as well? A scientifical joke that can only be excused by "it´s magical"?

No, because it's science fiction. It doesn't matter to me how plasma works IRL, because we're not debating RL applications. In 40K, it's a super-heated ball of energy contained within a decaying magnetic shell. When it strikes something, the magnetic shell collapses in on itself and the now-uncontained plasma charge explodes with the fury of a very small star.

Until you explain away the GW "Fact" that bolters are caseless and the GW pics showing bolters spewing out propellant casings I cant take your argument seriously and that is just the start of it.

Bolters haven't been canonically caseless in... decades, actually. When they were caseless, caseless ammunition was a new thing in the world of sci-fi, it was the brand-new shiny gee-gaw that captured the imaginations of many... so GW used the term, however incorrectly.

The fluff changes from one edition to the next. What is said in one Codex may not hold true when the same Codex comes out in a new edition. It's just the way GW works.

4: Now what? What can we put into the bolter or it´s ammo to ease the recoil to managable levels so that the weak limbed lIG eutenant can fire it as well?
There are as you say tons of modern day toys to add, do your best and we´l go from there.

A suspensor unit, for starters. These bits of wargear have made appearances in a number of sources throughout the game's history. This does not, of course, exist IRL.

Could also put springs in the stock, if you're firing the weapon from the shoulder, though this is not going to open the weapon up to being fired by small people without worry.

Barrel venting to reduce muzzle-climb. Weighted barrels for the same thing.

Electric trigger assembly to minimize trigger-pull on affecting accuracy... also reduces (however slightly) the weight of the weapon because it removes the physical components of a firing pin and related materials.

Gyro-stabilization harness for the heavy bolter.

Though, speaking of the bolt-pistol (which is what the IG looey is going to be carrying)... it's just a pistol. Modern military officers, in some armies, can select to carry a .50cal handgun instead of their normal 9mm or .45ACP side-arm (officers do not, generally speaking, carry assault weapons). The recoil is stiff... but not so much that it can't be operated by a normal human.

Incidentally, a RL tank is not at all good at smashing through obstacles. The engine power is devoted into moving it forward, not pushing the tracks over fallen trees or concrete barriers or, hell, even tree stumps of a couple of feet thick and high. If the track has to attempt to pull the 80+ ton weight of the tank up a near-vertical surface (like a fallen tree)... the tank stops moving, and the obstacle will need to be cleared by hand.

Tanks are "road clearers" in the sense that parked cars get pushed out of the way or, if they're a smaller passenger car and will fit, in one dimension or another, under the curvature of the track, flattened (bumpers are very good at sliding under tracks, shortly followed by the rest of the car... God help anyone in the car at the time). It is the rare tree that is used as a tank-trap that is less than a meter and a half in diameter, and that is too high for the track to fit over.

Tank-traps are easily built by two guys with a pair of shovels, a few bags of concrete, and a couple of hours to kill.

However, it makes great dramatic imagery in a sci-fi action setting to have tanks crushing everything before them under their tracks and smashing through walls and buildings, burning down women, kids, houses and villages and creating a nuisance at every turn because, well, it just looks cool.

But...but...but gw fluff (that you hold so dearly) clearly states that sisters are subject to miracles thus I´m in the right, a sister can shoot a heavy bolter one handed since that is a miracle

Not even Space Marines fire a heavy bolter in one hand. Could a Sister of Battle, under the effects of a miracle provided by the God-Emperor, fire a heavy bolter in one hand? Sure... but don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen. Without the miracle taking place, she's going to need to be in her power armor... or be some Amazonian Feral Worlder that could snap normal men like twigs.

Not really sure what your point is with the statement, since you're requiring the application of a Miracle in order to allow the Sister to do this. It's a miracle, Jim... anything can happen. She might, under a miracle granted by the Emperor, pick up two CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORTS, one in each hand, and proceed to beat the ass of a Daemon Prince like a set of bongos. That doesn't mean that this is a normal occurrence or anything short of, well, a miracle.

Miracles defy all scientific and rational explanation, yet they happen anyway. This is why they call them miracles.

It's also important to remember that this setting is a sci-fi game written by a bunch of sci-fi geeks, not engineers, scientists, physicists or anything of the sort. It's meant to look and sound cool, first and foremost, and if it also matches real science? That's a bonus, not a design feature.

Psienesis wrote:She might, under a miracle granted by the Emperor, pick up two CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORTS, one in each hand, and [...]

This made me lol.

I'm growing way too fond of this meme.

"The fluff changes from one edition to the next. What is said in one Codex may not hold true when the same Codex comes out in a new edition. It's just the way GW works. "

And therein lies the problem. What I feel is the root of the canon - Ian Watson's Space Marine - isn't even considered canon any more! What we've got here is constantly evolving science fiction, some of it based on very poorly thought-out principles, some of it never explained at all, and we're all trying to apply RL values to it.

Indeed... that's why I really try not to think too terribly hard about this stuff. That way lies madness.

Except when it comes to the CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORT meme. Like Frank's Red Hot Sauce, I put that *beep* on everything.

In False Gods the astartes bolter is described as having a huge recoil, although BL is hardly canon.

My $0.02

Melissia wrote:So here goes, finally found a source, while going through Dark Heresy's stuff to add something new to a roleplay.

From the Inquisitor's Handbook, page 173:

"Indeed a human trying to fire such a weapon [Astartes Bolt weapon of some sort) would likely suffer recoil of such strength that it would rip their arm out of their sockets."



I believe that they were talking about Godwyn ( and Stalker) pattern bolters, there are lower power bolters in existence which are used by officers frequently...

You have read the thread, haven't you?

Similar to BL novels, BI's and FFG's interpretation of the setting often goes against details of established GW canon, the invention of two weapon classes ("civilian" and "Astartes") being amongst the major differences. This thread is about the setting as promulgated by GW, though, whose own RPG (Inquisitor) had Marines use the very same guns as everyone else. Not to mention what's said in the WH Codex.

[delete: this thread's too old anyway.]


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lynata wrote:the invention of two weapon classes ("civilian" and "Astartes") being amongst the major differences.

There's no invention. It's always been such that there's many, many patterns of boltguns.

Get it out of your head that all Imperial equipment is the same. The existence of wide varieties of patterns of equipment is older than the date in which you were first interested interest in 40k

Different patterns, but all being usable by everyone. The Inquisitor RPG - which was really produced by GW themselves - did not make this distinction between Astartes and normal humans, and I've never seen any other studio material that would say otherwise either. So it's an invention. That also happens to contradict the WH Codex line about SoB guns being equal to Marine ones.

But it's probably really, really the best if the two of us do not get into an argument about the validity of FFG's RPG, for neither of us will back down on this.

it makes sense to me that boltguns have more recoil because of the self propelled ammunition

then again, I still need to take my physics class so I don't want to say much..

So just a quick note which has, multiple times, been mentioned, but again, just a quick physics thing.
As the bolt round is self propelled, it is feasible that, given an efficient propulsion system, the bolt round could ignite its second stage of boosters outside of the barrel, drastically reducing recoil. And let us not forget that given current advances in plastics and firing mechanisms, much of the energy outputted from some weapons can be absorbed by gun (though this is moot, as the force needed to 'merely' eject the bolt from its barrel [i.e. only taking it to the end of the barrel] does not have to be very powerful.) As well, such an ignition could have no feasible loss in effectiveness at close range, as this factor would only depend on how fast the bolt-round accelerates via its 'post-barrel-accelerator'. It is, in fact, even possible that the bolt round, upon being ejected from the barrel, could have an initial burst (a charge for fast acceleration) followed by a continuous, low energy propulsion source capable of keeping the bolter moving, while simultaneously being used to counter air-friction.
Either way: no need for the bolter (via physics) to have an incredibly powerful recoil. Maybe it does, but that, then is only a matter of what is considered canon.

Yes there is. Because it needs to be lethal at point blank range. If the boltgun cannot achieve a velocity needed to penetrate flak armor, it won't do anything against the guardsmen except toss him around and maybe break a few ribs (flak armor is specifically designed to protect against blasts-- a bolter shell exploding OUTSIDE the armor would be working towards Flak Armor's strengths, which is why bolter shells penetrate and THEN explode).

Well first a clarification then a question:
Clarification: A single explosion outside of a bolter's barrel, if directed by a secondary casing, could easily accelerate a bolt to the max velocity (of extremely close to max velocity). The explosion is not the explosive shell, but rather an acceleration burst. In fact, the explosion could happen in the perforated area at the end of the barrel, as is seen in the miniatures themselves, which would help to reduce any shockwaves from said acceleration burst. This could then still launch the bolt into a target at roughly point blank range with near maximum velocity (not to mention the addition of superheated gasses being ejected from the barrel)

The question I have, though, is, given the abrupt push to max velocity from the initial burst near (or post) the barrel, why this would diminish combat effectiveness. In fact, as long as the bolter is pushed to high velocity from this burst, the shell would have the penetrative force at pointblank range roughly equaling that at are further distance

Because it still needs to actually penetrate the armor, which is capable of providing some protection even against standard bullets which are specifically designed to be armor-piercing.

Seriously, flak armor isn't as bad as people make it out to be.

And why would the Imperium need to include recoil-reducing features in an Astartes boltgun? Even outside of power armor Marines are capable of wielding cannons that any normal human would have to use a tripod to wield. In power armor they're autostabilized...