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.

themocaw wrote:Didn't Imperial Armor have this thing where they talked about the thickness of a Land Raider's armor, and then described a number that's about equal to a Bradley Fighting Vehicle (WAY thinner than a modern Abrams main battle tank) for one of the most heavily armored vehicles in the setting? That might be a good gauge for how powerful anti-vehicle weapons are.

But a Bradley's armor is not made of adamantium or ceramite alloys.

Because a LR has the same armor thickness does not mean it has the same resistance.

Laodamia wrote:

themocaw wrote:Didn't Imperial Armor have this thing where they talked about the thickness of a Land Raider's armor, and then described a number that's about equal to a Bradley Fighting Vehicle (WAY thinner than a modern Abrams main battle tank) for one of the most heavily armored vehicles in the setting? That might be a good gauge for how powerful anti-vehicle weapons are.

But a Bradley's armor is not made of adamantium or ceramite alloys.

Because a LR has the same armor thickness does not mean it has the same resistance.

No, the number was like, "XX inches of ceramite, equal to YY inches of steel," but the "YY inches of steel" number was laughably small for a main battle tank.

Laodamia wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Look, the IoM has a rep has being primitive but actually Humanity's tech is some of the top in the galaxy. In one catagory in particular Humans take a back seat to no one and that's armour! Humans have the best armour, its what they excel at, and TDA is the best of the best of the best. It is the only armour that can stop a plasma bolt to the heart cold or shrug off a melta blast that could blow up a Land Raider. Most invulnerable saves are provided by energy fields or speed. Terminator armour is the only one that provides invulnerabilty based on sheer 'ardness.

That's a good point.

But there still must be a limit to its resistance. Some weapons can tear through a termy suit. So I guess a few of our most powerful weapons can too.

A grot-built Derringer can kill a Terminator because, you know, happens. But your original question was what can pierce a TDA chest plate. Generally it's proof against all solid rounds and even gives you a chance against some matter -disentigrating energy rounds. Whether or not the wearer can survive these collosal impacts or not is another issue.

Terminator suits were built to use inside working fusion reactors? Really?

Because a fusion reactor would be full of plasma, and plasma seems to ignore armour saves, I would assume even termie armour would be no protection!

I assume the fool wearing the suit wouldn't actually touch the plasma itself.


the suit would be able to survive the radiation is the main point.

That's what the 5+ invuln is.

themocaw wrote:

Laodamia wrote:

themocaw wrote:Didn't Imperial Armor have this thing where they talked about the thickness of a Land Raider's armor, and then described a number that's about equal to a Bradley Fighting Vehicle (WAY thinner than a modern Abrams main battle tank) for one of the most heavily armored vehicles in the setting? That might be a good gauge for how powerful anti-vehicle weapons are.

But a Bradley's armor is not made of adamantium or ceramite alloys.

Because a LR has the same armor thickness does not mean it has the same resistance.

No, the number was like, "XX inches of ceramite, equal to YY inches of steel," but the "YY inches of steel" number was laughably small for a main battle tank.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SciFiWritersHaveNoSenseOfScale

I mentioned it in an earlier post, but I think we can all agree that the terminator suit is far different in the fluff than in the game.

We have precious little to compare our notions of explosives or metallurgy to that of 40k, so we are stuck with simple speculation.

Modern autocannons, gatling guns, artillery resemble their 40k counterpart in only one way, their looks.

I think we can assume that we could blow nice big trench for it to fall in to.

We could possibly overcome it's power generation enough to cause the occupant to buckle at the knees by a large enough blow.

With enough ammo moving at sufficiently high speed and mass one might rip off an arm or leg iif it hit the right weak spot, umm, whatever that might be.

Or, we could, since I think it's even beyond this suits capabilities to increase it's own mass, kick it around a battlefield like an adamantium-ceramite 'can' with a large enough caliber solid shot or explosion. What this would do to the occupant is anyones guess. Physics still rules even in the 40k universe... I think.

Termys have had buildings dropped on them and live i think they can take the artillery shell maybe a direct hit with an amore piecing shell to the head will kill him?

Having a building drop on one and live is easy. People do that all the time IRL.

i always just thort of termanators as a mini 1 man tank but if you hit a tank hard
it ruptures so i think the termanator whould too. but thats only my personal opinion

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:If they don't wear a helm then David with his sling and a pebble from a stream ought do the job.

WIN