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.

LumenPraebeo wrote:I would think a space marine looks like a more muscular version of that basketball player and not nearly as wide...

They'd need to be a bit wider so that they can have those extra organs.

Also they're depicted as wider anyway.

Still with interlocking plates.... bullet inside.... bounce bounce bounce!!!

And don't forget to go for the joints! Depending on what those joints are made out. What are they made out of anyways?

Rail Guns, they're still in R&D but we have them!

BlapBlapBlap wrote:40K has to hold onto some laws of space and time to make players want to play.

Unless, of course, your an Ork. In which case all laws of space and time go out the window.

Actually, one thing that could be done. A 50 cal round that shatters inside the target. Its been done before.

.22lr round, any bullet will kill a SM when it is shot through an eye.

Enough explosives should do the trick easily. Hmm... they probably weigh enough to trigger anti-tank mines now that I think of it. 9 kilograms on TNT should send a marine hurtling through the air to his death. The power armor might survive but the guy inside will be dead, even with his extra organs.

Best way to kill a Space Marine?

1) brief a squad of soilders on the target(SM) and on the objective a VITAL occult blacksite where research on the supermatural is taking place

2) send squad after SM, console soilders wives

3) SM eats soilders brains, goes to "occult" blacksite

4) have a wing of Reaper UAVs unload on him

5) take SM armor, weapons and disect/reverse-engineer him

Unless he's an ultramarine. then according to Ward he'd do a necron and just get back up again. P.S I'd think He'd spot the UAV either by the engine noise or by visual means

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Golden Sabre wrote:

Uh... yes.

SM Power Armor is being over estimated a lot. SM's are killed by autoguns. Autoguns fire 5.56mm Brass Bullets (Source: Siege of Vraks). This is WEAKER then most firearms. And the 5.56mm Brass Bullets penetrated the space marines chest plate with relative ease. No offense, but your local law enforcement agencies are very capable of bringing down a Space Marine. SM power lies in their tactics, not their armor and weapons.

Two things.

First off, THOSE particular autoguns fire 5.56mm brass bullets. That by no means proves that all, or even a majority, of them do.

Secondly; we don't really know how autoguns work, honestly. That's a small bullet, but it's perfectly possible to get the same kinetic energy from it by increasing the speed; maybe autoguns fire low-caliber but very high-velocity dum-dum rounds, for instance, so they'll punch into the target and then come apart into shrapnel inside the body.

I remember reading that autoguns have a muzzle velocity of 400m/s, firing case-less ammunition . I very much doubt the majority of autoguns fire brass rounds. You would be a bloody idiot to issue that. What this does prove, is that the Imperium just needs to give their men proper ammunition and weapons to make Space Marines obsolete.

Should I also bring up the fact that Space Marines were killed with medieval crossbows?
Face it. Marines are not really that tough. As I have been saying, their true strength is in tactics, and maybe reputation (fear, etc), not armor and weapons.

NL_Cirrus wrote:Rail Guns, they're still in R&D but we have them!

Experimental weapons chump.
But if you look like that we also have teleporters now, few atoms are still few atoms right?

The Crusader wrote:I imagine PA is about as effective as an infantry version of CHOBHAM albeit a slightly less effective version of it.

And balls to your Smooth-bore 120mm, Try a Rifled one like the Challenger 2

I'd rather take something American.

We prolbably could kill space marines with ease. Maybe not our infantry as good as we can but our bradleys, tanks, A-10s, Apaches, Kiowa with hellfires, our naval ships that can fire from the oceans and crush anything on land, and low and behold if all else fails a nuke. We would probably get effed up sooner of later though.

SwiftLord14 wrote:
We prolbably could kill space marines with ease. Maybe not our infantry as good as we can but our bradleys, tanks, A-10s, Apaches, Kiowa with hellfires, our naval ships that can fire from the oceans and crush anything on land, and low and behold if all else fails a nuke. We would probably get effed up sooner of later though.

Then this would happened:

I can't see them going as fast as our jets. There no way that a jet pack like that could go as fast a jet engine.

Well Lighting is 2.4 Mach with operational range of 8.000 km ( Imperial armory I ) while Thunderbolt is 2.2 Mach with operational range of 12.000 km ( Imperial Armory I ).

F-22 Raptor is 2.25 Mach with operational range of 2,960 km with wo external fuel tanks ( http://www.af.mil, http://www.flightglobal.com ) while MiG-35 is 2.25 Mach with operational range of 3,100 km with 3 external fuel tanks ( http://www.migavia.ru, http://www.airforce-technology.com ).

Hope this answer your question.

An AA12 with grenade rounds. one dead space marine. For 38000 years to develop new technology, id say that we have nearly caught up with them already. "futuristic" for games workshop is imo perhaps 2050. We have weapons atm that are greater than boltguns. I mean no sight on the boltgun? pretty poor. its just so outdated. Any gun you shoot at the space marine in the head with will take him out. shoot him through the lens of his helmet and hes good as dead.

The Son Of Russ wrote:I mean no sight on the boltgun?

I thought the Boltgun was linked to the power armor targeting system which is why they do not require sights...

SwiftLord14 wrote:

The Crusader wrote:I imagine PA is about as effective as an infantry version of CHOBHAM albeit a slightly less effective version of it.

And balls to your Smooth-bore 120mm, Try a Rifled one like the Challenger 2

I'd rather take something American.

We prolbably could kill space marines with ease. Maybe not our infantry as good as we can but our bradleys, tanks, A-10s, Apaches, Kiowa with hellfires, our naval ships that can fire from the oceans and crush anything on land, and low and behold if all else fails a nuke. We would probably get effed up sooner of later though.

Ummm... actually parts of the Abram are made in Great Britain... Including part of the barrel....

Just like my kevlar vest had a tag saying Made In China

Just sayin. the Challenger 2 has the better gun. Also the west makes THE worst assault rifles ever. I'd stake my life On an AK-47 much more readily than the M-16. Namely because the AK-47 is "Squaddie proof". For those of you less aquainted with british slang I'll explain with a joke:

3 men are captured by the enemy. They're a magician, a mathematician and a squaddie (soldier). They're sent to a POW camp where the Camp commander says " Here are 3 solid steel balls. You have 24 hours to do something amazing with them. If you can you may go free. The 3 men are placed in seperate empty rooms. 24 hours later the commander goes to the magician who makes one ball levitate, one ball disappear and the last one expand. commander says "thats amazing, you're free to go." Commander then goes to the mathematician whom has been calculating for the 24 hours. The mathematician places 1 ball in the exact center of the room, throws 1 ball and rolls the other and they ricochet around the room and come to rest in the center of the room. "thats amazing, you're free to go". finally gets to the squaddie who is just holding the one steel ball. Commander says "what happened to the other 2?". Squaddie replies " I dunno what happened but I lost one and broke the other."

Meaning that to make something Squaddie proof, one must make it as simple as humanly possible. otherwise the squaddie will break it. Which is what Eugene Stoner failed to forsee when he designed the M-16. Kalashnikov obeyed the K.I.S.S. rule (Keep It Simple, Stupid)

The Crusader wrote:Just sayin. the Challenger 2 has the better gun. Also the west makes THE worst assault rifles ever. I'd stake my life On an AK-47 much more readily than the M-16. Namely because the AK-47 is "Squaddie proof". For those of you less aquainted with british slang I'll explain with a joke:

3 men are captured by the enemy. They're a magician, a mathematician and a squaddie (soldier). They're sent to a POW camp where the Camp commander says " Here are 3 solid steel balls. You have 24 hours to do something amazing with them. If you can you may go free. The 3 men are placed in seperate empty rooms. 24 hours later the commander goes to the magician who makes one ball levitate, one ball disappear and the last one expand. commander says "thats amazing, you're free to go." Commander then goes to the mathematician whom has been calculating for the 24 hours. The mathematician places 1 ball in the exact center of the room, throws 1 ball and rolls the other and they ricochet around the room and come to rest in the center of the room. "thats amazing, you're free to go". finally gets to the squaddie who is just holding the one steel ball. Commander says "what happened to the other 2?". Squaddie replies " I dunno what happened but I lost one and broke the other."

Meaning that to make something Squaddie proof, one must make it as simple as humanly possible. otherwise the squaddie will break it. Which is what Eugene Stoner failed to forsee when he designed the M-16. Kalashnikov obeyed the K.I.S.S. rule (Keep It Simple, Stupid)

And that 's why the AK-47 is the best assault rifle in the world for over 60 years now.

Still ugly as the butt of a monkey imo,

And not that great imho

Ah' and thats whyen I beg to differ. The AK-47 fires both a larger round: the 7.62mm to the M-16's 5.56. The 7.62 was designed to kill the target outright whereas the 5.56 was designed to warp and disintergrate causing massive bodily harm, thus placing a demand on medical resources as a result. They have also shown that the AK-47 can be buried in sand, mud, run over by a jeep and still work perfectly. In Vietnam, the M-16 used to jam because of the mud and the humidity. And if you still don't believe me, Gunnery Sergeant R. Lee Ermyruns a competiition in which he demonstrates the AK's ease of field stripping and the power of the round.

However the bigest piece of dog gak in the modern(ish)world was the French Chauchat

Bobthehero wrote:Still ugly as the butt of a monkey imo,

Automatically Appended Next Post:

King Pariah wrote:And not that great imho

Military experts disagree with you.




Still better then M-16.

And the M4 is even less effective:
shorter barrel so less stopping power
shorter range
same caliber
full auto: burns through ammo quicker
less accurate

Brother Coa wrote:And that 's why the AK-47 is the best assault rifle in the world for over 60 years now.

By no means is it better. It's a heavy clunky piece of generic crap, not some ultraspecial omgwtfawesome rifle.

A better weapon would be like the FN SCAR-H, for example.

Melissia wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:And that 's why the AK-47 is the best assault rifle in the world for over 60 years now.

By no means is it better. It's a heavy clunky piece of generic crap, not some ultraspecial omgwtfawesome rifle.

A better weapon would be like the FN SCAR-H, for example.

"Best" is too subjective, the most "widely used" would be a better description of the AK 47. It all depends how you define "Best".

The Crusader wrote:And the M4 is even less effective:
shorter barrel so less stopping power
shorter range
same caliber
full auto: burns through ammo quicker
less accurate

The M4 is selective fire, and a shorter barrel has nothing to do with 'stopping power'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:And that 's why the AK-47 is the best assault rifle in the world for over 60 years now.

By no means is it better. It's a heavy clunky piece of generic crap, not some ultraspecial omgwtfawesome rifle.

A better weapon would be like the FN SCAR-H, for example.

Wow, I actually agree Melissia :p

Guys Guys, please. Stop Fussing. Its really quite cute, actually. And now to show you the best weapon that has ever been created. THE SA-80!

The AK I admit is significantly more durable to unnecessary abuse. However the main factor to me is accuracy. And I have never seen anyone having a jamming issue with any M4 or M16 variant as long as they maintained their weapon.

Melissia wrote:By no means is it better. It's a heavy clunky piece of generic crap, not some ultraspecial omgwtfawesome rifle.

A better weapon would be like the FN SCAR-H, for example.

It's good because it is easy to use, maintain and it hold powerful shot. It is not ultra powerful but ultra reliable - just like Lasgun.
Even if I admit that Tar-21 is far better then AK-47 I will always choose AK, primary because it is my national rifle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

King Pariah wrote:And I have never seen anyone having a jamming issue with any M4 or M16 variant as long as they maintained their weapon.

It's very hard to maintain an M-16...