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.

Again, not a physics major, just a 'real-life' gun owner/fanatic. Thought this would be a gun one for me... I was wrong (sigh).

Page 97 Space Marines codex reads

The boltgun, or bolter, fires small missiles, or 'bolts'. Each
self-propelled bolt explodes with devastating effect once it
has penetrated its target, blowing it apart from the inside.

If you read this carefully you may note that the passage dictates that the bolts are self propelled, a term used again in the rouge trader rulebook of 2009. Meaning if they do in fact have an initial charge This charge only gives them some initial velocity Vinitial. While the rocket accelerates them to higher velocities. if the rocket only overcame the force of air resistance it's very unlikely they would be called self propelled as that term indicates that the object itself does most of the work.


The last part says in combination that the bolt penetrates it's targets, blowing them apart from the inside. Meaning it must penetrate at least partially into the chest cavity requiring it to enter or fully penetrate the targets body armor. Meaning that in order explode they must defeate the targets body armor and the more energy the rocket has the higher the chance it's going to defeat said armor. which could mean the difference between detonation and the round bouncing off.

Meanwhile, as I have done my searching the only weapons that even remotely show a difference in destructive potential are the ones for which special rules were made first and the weapons were fitted to the fluff (sometimes poorly done) such as the meltagun. Those that don't have these special rules but DO have range-damage variances, it doesn't mention because it's supposed to be understood that, for autoguns for example, The round looses energy as it travels farther. or a flamer's gout disperses and is less lethal (all beit still very deadly as burning prometheum is basically really good napalm). These books for the most part leave these facts out because they are no brainers, much as it is SUPPOSED to be with bolters, when describing them as miniature missiles that are self propelled. Therefor your point about mine not being valid based on none of the rule books explicitly stating it is invalid.

I have more research to go do as I have heard a friend say that it does explicitly state that they are more powerful at longer ranges in the warhamer 4th edition wargear book. I have to find that before I close my argument.

That video is fan-made as well, not a GW production or worked on by GW (as is the case with the various rpgs produced by FFG, where GW assigned writers to work on it, occasionally even bringing in such big names as Andy Hoare).

Bolts are self-propelled, whoopty doo, now tell us something we don't know already. More importantly, you continue to make the UNPROVEN assumption that just because it is self-propelled that it does not have a significant, non-insubstantial amount of traditional propellant as well. If it were a purely self-propelled round it wouldn't need a shell casing (which it does have, by the way).

Prove your assumption. Go find some actual GW fluff that says it. Just because GW fluff does not say you are wrong does not mean you are right.

it is self-propelled that it does not have a significant, non-insubstantial amount of traditional propellant as well

You know what, I have a feeling it doesn't matter what I say, your just going to come back with the same thing you have all along, "your wrong because GW didn't say it explicitly"

so instead of continuing to argue with a brick wall I leave this thread and you with this: It's initial charge is irrelevant entirely to my point as the rocket will increase it's energy and make it more powerful at longer ranges. that it accelerates is proven by being "self propelled" so therefore I am correct, and you cannot prove me wrong no matter what you do, and have offered ABSOLUTELY NO VALID POINTS OF YOUR OWN OTHER THAN OMG GW DIDN"T SAY IT!!!!!!. Whatever power it has at short range, it has more at long range. I don't really care anymore that you believe me as I know as a matter of fact you are wrong, I have demonstrated this through fluff an physics and yet you rebuke any valid point I make, and twist whatever evidence is there to suit your own point by omiting any evidence contrary to your own. I have a feeling you are arguing just to argue so I'm just going to quit having proven you wrong even if you don't believe it.

gendoikari87 wrote:It's initial charge is irrelevant entirely to my point as the rocket will increase it's energy

You continue to fail physics, congratulations.

A rocket increases its kinetic energy (not actually increasing its energy overall I should note, but rather changing potential energy in the form of fuel into a constant stream of kinetic energy until the fuel burns out)-- which is constantly decreasing because of air resistance.

The logic behind bolter shells is simple:

-- Bullets start out with a high initial speed and then slow down because of their method of propulsion.

-- Rockets have a low initial speed and then speed up because of their method of propulsion.

-- Bolter shells have a high initial speed and then maintain that speed for combining the best aspects of the two methods of propulsion.

Your argument that the bolter shells must have a low initial speed is completely and utterly, wholly and in its entirety, without a single shred or speck of merit, as you have yet to provide any proof of it.

Melissia wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:It's initial charge is irrelevant entirely to my point as the rocket will increase it's energy

You continue to fail physics, congratulations.

A rocket increases its kinetic energy (not actually increasing its energy overall I should note, but rather changing potential energy in the form of fuel into a constant stream of kinetic energy until the fuel burns out)-- which is constantly decreasing because of air resistance.

No you fail, utterly, who here is the physics senior. I am. You are not. Who do you think doesn't know their physics here? if you light a rocket the vehicle accelerates, you CAN cause it to slow down but that requires a controlable rocket which is purely a liquid, bolts are described as being solid rocket propellant. I really can't put it more simply for you than that. Now quit, I proved you wrong, either admit it, or live with it.

-- Bolter shells have a high initial speed and then maintain that speed for combining the best aspects of the two methods of propulsion.

Just... just go read books on energy density. Quit arguing physics. you really are showing you know nothing about it. You don't just keep your current velocity with the larger proportion of your energy density in the rocket, you accelerate. Think for a minute if the main charge was really that powerful with such a small design parameter why would they not make it at least 50/50?

gendoikari87 wrote:No you fail, utterly, who here is the physics senior. I am.

Dude, you don't even know what terminal velocity is, you aren't a physics major, you're just some random dude off the internet that's trying to claim that they're a physics major to attempt to one-up someone they're having an argument with.

Melissia wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:No you fail, utterly, who here is the physics senior. I am.

Dude, you don't even know what terminal velocity is, you aren't a physics major, you're just some random dude off the internet that's trying to claim that they're a physics major to attempt to one-up someone they're having an argument with.

no, YOU are the one who didn't know what terminal velocity it. Now tell me, calculate the terminal velocity in the horizontal direction the one that matters for this argument for a normal bullet. and then for the bolt. it's extremely easy for the first. and not so hard for the second.

see because the force of air resistance on a bullet makes the terminal velocity 0 zip nadda

for a bolt it's when the force of air resisntance equals the rocket and most rockets produce a good amount of thrust so the bolt would have to be going hypersonic before the propellant wouldn't matter. as bolts are rather aerodynamic with a dense tip.

Melissia wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:No you fail, utterly, who here is the physics senior. I am.

Dude, you don't even know what terminal velocity is, you aren't a physics major, you're just some random dude off the internet that's trying to claim that they're a physics major to attempt to one-up someone they're having an argument with.

I lol'd
+1

This has seriously gone on for too long, somebody pm a mod

Dude, you don't even know what terminal velocity is

um... I believe I was the one that CORRECTLY defined it. You keep saying i'm an idiot when I make a good point, and it's really pissing me off. Your using it as an excuse to say i'm wrong when I'm actually right. How you can get people to believe you I do not know. as I said before I quit this is my last post be happy being ignorant of physics.

gendoikari87 wrote:no, YOU are the one who didn't know what terminal velocity it. Now tell me, calculate the terminal velocity in the horizontal direction the one that matters for this argument for a normal bullet. and then for the bolt. it's extremely easy for the first. and not so hard for the second.

I know full well what terminal velocity is. I'm not a math major, but it is not the math that matters-- it's the concept that does. If you are so stuck on the math that you forget to know the concept, you don't really know it.

An object is moving at terminal velocity if its speed is constant due to the resistance exerted by the material it's moving through, IE air, water, or some other fluid or gas. It's really that simple. This can be applied to quite a few things-- the terminal velocity of a jet plane is the speed at which it literally cannot go any faster given infinite fuel and attempted acceleration. The terminal velocity of a rocket is the speed at which it does not accelerate even if it still has fuel left to burn.

I cannot tell you the "terminal velocity of a bullet" because I'm not a mathematics major, and there's hundreds, if not thousands, of different kinds of bullets, each of which will have a different terminal velocity due to their designs and the materials the're made up of (the aerodynamic shape of the bullet, and a dozen other little data bits besides, will effect terminal velocity). For example, the terminal velocity of a skydiver is dependent on the position of their limbs-- this is also shown by the speed of a peregrine falcon as well, when it dives (which can get to over 320 km/h). What I can do is tell you the basic concepts of terminal velocity, which you seem to be completely and utterly ignoring in an attempt to put me on the spot by trying to make me do math.

I'm not falling for it, you should note.

I cannot tell you the "terminal velocity of a bullet" because I'm not a mathematics major

0 there are no forces acting on it in the horizontal direction so it's terminal velocity in the horizontal direction is 0mph/kph or whatever units you use. This is the sort of thing i'm talking about it does not matter what kind of bullet it is unless it has a motor of some kind on it.

gendoikari87 wrote:as I said before I quit this is my last post be happy being ignorant of physics.

LIES!

Which goes nicely with my point that bolter shells DO in fact benefit from having rocket propellant despite having a very high initial velocity... the rocket propellant maintains speed over time until the propellant runs out, extending its effective range by having its speed be stable over it, thus making it more reliably useful over the course of short, medium, and long range. A bullet at extreme ranges loses speed and at some point actually becomes unable to penetrate armor that it could have at close range.

Simply increasing the propellant increases its initial speed, but still means it will slow down over time. The bolter is designed to be useful at all ranges, not just close range. And having more propellant would also mean more recoil as well.

No because the Force of Air resisnance is small compared to any rocket motor including the ones we have today for model rockets. This is the point you aren't getting. go read and get it. I'm done this is my last post.

gendoikari87 wrote:No because the Force of Air resisnance is small

... and yet, it gets high enough to rip apart aircraft that go past certain speeds (depending on the shape of the aircraft and how sturdy its construction of course), or even actually cause them to burn up because of the heat generated by air and wind resistance.

Melissia wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:No because the Force of Air resisnance is small

... and yet, it gets high enough to rip apart aircraft that go past certain speeds, or even actually cause them to burn up because of the heat generated by air and wind resistance.

... still arguing... god here we go. Look planes rip apart because unlike bullets they aren't made of solid metal. A good deal of bullets surpass the speed at which most planes would break up. Bullets were going supersonic before people even though a plane going supersonic was possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also planes have a much larger surface area making the force of AR much larger by several factors. if you were to basically scale down an airplane to a bullet size it'd be made of essentially tin foil. probably thinner. and MUCH MUCH lighter than the bullet so the force of AR would slow it down much faster.

Yes you are, why are you posting when you said it was your last post?

Which means that the speeds of bolter shells would be much higher, but that doesn't mean that the speed of the bolter shell has any significant change over time. Trying to claim that somehow bolter shells are weak at close range defies all known fluff, and for all of your attempts to argue that said weakness exists, you have yet to actually provide any real evidence aside from fan-made material.

Well here's some fan-made material for you.

Once upon a time, there was this one human called Duke Forekedona, who put his finger into a boltgun's barrel and stopped the shell because it wasn't going fast enough. Then the Marine punched him in the face for being impudent and he died. The end.

Well I guess that means your argument is entirely right, after all, there's some fan-made material there as proof!

and for all of your attempts to argue that said weakness exists, you have yet to actually provide any real evidence aside from fan-made material.

no you just refuse to see that I have even though I have done so in many many ways, and you have yet to offer any evidence on your side.

Bolters do not have any benefit in penetrating power or damage potential at longer ranges, no matter the system that they are in-- and that includes all five editions, Inquisitor, the various FFG roleplaying games, and the various video games. Indeed, in Dawn of War 2 they actually have a damage increase at short range, rather than long (most notable on heavy bolters and boltguns, which provide a higher damage output the closer the enemy is). That is more than enough proof that the speed does not increase over time.

We do not know the exact physics of the bolter shell, only vague descriptions, so any supposed fault there is due to said ambiguity. What is not ambiguous, however, is the fact that bolt pistols do not have reduced effectiveness at close range.

Fine you win, you're wrong but you win through sheer perseverance. Congratulations you ignored your way to victory.

U mad bro?

I'm tired of arguing with idiots who refuse to listen.

It's funny that even educated people like gendoikari87 look at a Sci-Fi genre and try to explain why things wouldn't work instead of trying to imagine how they could work. It's almost as if the internet has spawned "Hating", for lack of a better term, as a roadblock to the inovation that it could potentially bring.

I'm not ignoring my way to victory, I'm waiting for you to post some fething proof to support your assumptions.

That's the thing, I could CLAIM that lasguns are actually crossbows, but there's no proof of it, so my claims, no matter how logical it might seem, are unfounded and therefor noone's going to agree with it.

I'm not ignoring my way to victory, I'm waiting for you to post some fething proof to support your assumptions.

Go back and re read the thread I already have.

It's funny that even educated people like gendoikari87 look at a Sci-Fi genre and try to explain why things wouldn't work instead of trying to imagine how they could work. It's almost as if the internet has spawned "Hating", for lack of a better term, as a roadblock to the inovation that it could potentially bring.

Theres a difference between innovation and actually making a bad system worse which is what mellissa is proposing Bolters are. The biggest problem gyrojets had was the initial velocity problems. Bolters psuedo fix that by adding a first inital stage. However big this initial stage is, is independant of the fact that a rocket attached to the projectile will accelerate it and make it go faster. That is unless the initial stage takes it beyond mach 5, at which point worrying about air drag is a moot point and can be fixed by just adding more mass to the projectile.

gendoikari87 wrote:

I'm not ignoring my way to victory, I'm waiting for you to post some fething proof to support your assumptions.

Go back and re read the thread I already have.

No.

You have not.

You have posted only two sources, both of which were fan-made material. They are not canon.


I posted numerous sources, and even cited page numbers which show the complete lack of a weakness you suggest is there. And I don't don't have to prove that it isn't there (proving a negative is nigh-on impossible anyway, especially when it comes to fiction), you have to prove that it is, and you are failing.

Hard.

It would appear that bolter shells would suffer from the lack of speed (and penetration power) that a missile would have just after firing BUT it seems that whoever created the bolter has put an initial charge in the projectile making it a shell, like a normal bullet, and using the rest of it's fuel (or whatever it uses) it maintains it's speed until it runs out of fuel and drops.
Is that what Melissa is saying? Because that sounds correct to me.

Yeah me to. Even though I only study history and math. It sounds right to me.

-2015 Asherian (God Damn I was stupid back then.)

There is a problem with that theory is simple energy density, which i've already stated and shown. most of a bolt shell is made up of the rocket and the initial charge is VERY small in comparison to the rocket.

I posted numerous sources

none that said anything useful. and if you'll look up I did post two sources.