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.

On topic though, i would say anything smaller than 50 caliber wont do gak. I remember hearing somewhere that a bolter round is somewhere i the .70 caliber range, and even that has prpblems getting through.

Jollydevil wrote:On topic though, i would say anything smaller than 50 caliber wont do gak. I remember hearing somewhere that a bolter round is somewhere i the .70 caliber range, and even that has prpblems getting through.

No it doesn't. A boltgun is very likely to kill or incapacitate a space marine in a single shot.

If you're talking about in heir armor, yes, that's certainly true, but just firing the boltgun at an astartes out of armor, he astartes is probably dead.

Melissia wrote:No it doesn't. A boltgun is very likely to kill or incapacitate a space marine in a single shot.

If you're talking about in heir armor, yes, that's certainly true, but just firing the boltgun at an astartes out of armor, he astartes is probably dead.

This whole thread has made the assumption that the Space Marine is in armor. In fact, that was specifically stated at least once. . . so, yes, we're talking about 'in their armor'.

Anything less than a high-powered anti-materiel rifle is going to have real trouble hurting an armored Space Marine. Assuming they can score a solid hit, aircraft or tank main weapons would do it, but very few infantry-carried weapons would.

The Son Of Russ wrote: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 its just so outdated.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.

Actually the AA-12s grenade rounds would be just about useless as their damage is fragmentary and would be deflected quite easily by the plating on power armor. And the Space Marine's boltgun is linked to the helmet's imaging systems. The point of aim would be displayed in their field of vision. As far as shooting out the lenses, you assume they are made of some kind of fragile glass. There's really no proof they are even "lenses" in the traditional sense since a lot of the images we see of Space Marine field of vision contains none of the field of view restrictions that would be inherent in a small eyelet system like they have. It's more likely that the lenses are more like cameras in the manner of modern conventional thermal or night vision optics. You don't actually look "through" them so much that they project an image on the viewing end.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Coa wrote:

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:

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.

For the uninitiated.

The AK-47 is the poor man's, untrained man's weapon. It has good durability, minimal maintenance requirements, and high tolerances. The problem is, a lot of that works against it too. It's internals are about as tight as the internals of a Thai woman of the night. The AK-47 is the most widely propagated weapon because it is cheap to make and easy to use. Not, as many would like to suggest, because it is the best weapon ever made. There are plenty of modern western weapons that easily eclipse the AK-47. But they are expensive, too. The M-16 is a dated weapon for sure. Its concept was revolutionary at the time, but that was fifty years ago. It's just silly to treat the M-16 as the "standard" for how to evaluate modern Western weapons anymore. Plenty of western rifles are superior to it in every way. Heck, H&K took the M-16's basic shape and controls and created the M416 with its piston based gas system to make a weapon that is theoretically (without any kind of extensive warzone deployment yet it's hard to make solid claims) just as reliable as the AK-47, but as accurate and precise as the M-16.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ronin-Sage wrote:The M4 is selective fire, and a shorter barrel has nothing to do with 'stopping power'.

A round exiting the barrel of the 14.5" M4 barrel does so at over 200 feet per second (64m/s) slower than out of the 20" barrel of the standard M-16. Kinetic energy is determined by Mass multiplied by Velocity.

1: thermite plasma might burn hot enough.


2: Thermobaric/fuel air bomb might have enough pressure.


3: M.O.A.B.?

If you dropped it on his head directly it would squash him for sure.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
This whole thread has made the assumption that the Space Marine is in armor. In fact, that was specifically stated at least once. . . so, yes, we're talking about 'in their armor'.

If we are talking about Astartes in armor then very little weapons ( and don't exagurate with the MOAB, Tzar and NUukes - we wouldn't use them for a single solder ever ).

Most powerful sniper rifles would do the trick, Gatling guns, navy railguns.

But when it all comes down Astartes are fast, tough and zealous. Against Tactical squad we can try to defend, against Assault squad or Terminators however we have nothing. What use is sniper rifle when enemy teleports or jump to your position and slice you with sword that is your size?

McNinja wrote:The Ak-47 7.62mm round has a shorter range than 5.56 NATO rounds. This was proven on Future Weapons on the Discovery Channel a while back.

Do not watch that progaramme it is terrible. And does not show how they would be used accuratley. They once tested a helicopter a while back may have been an Apache or another gunship and they tested it by givign the bloke a 10min head start in a truck. Yeah fair enough. But guess where they were testing it. In a desert. Where there is no other cars vehicles or people. it was pathetic to say something is amazing by doing that for a test. Any helicopter could find a black truck in an empty desert.

EDIT: On topic even though we are talking about a marine i armour I would say if he was out of armour any weapon would kill him, SA80-A2, M-16 Carbine, AK74 all of them could kill him. They can penetrate his skin no? So they could kill him 5-30 5.56 mm bulets hitting you would kill you.

IN FULL BATTLE ARMOR PEOPLE!

A lighter, if you hold it close to the miniature

Kroothawk wrote:A lighter, if you hold it close to the miniature

+1 to that.

Kroothawk wrote:A lighter, if you hold it close to the miniature

That's it!!! Voodoo!!!

McNinja wrote:The Ak-47 7.62mm round has a shorter range than 5.56 NATO rounds. This was proven on Future Weapons on the Discovery Channel a while back.



At equal distances, a 7.62x39 Russian round will do more damage than a 5.56mm NATO round. That's does't make anything better. 5.56 will still put someone down, there just won't be as big a hole in the person.

A longer barrel doesn't have to do with power. It has to do with accuracy and range. A shorter barrel will not prevent a bullet from reaching near-maximum velocity, but because it is not travellingas fast as it could be, the maximum range will be shorter. So many people (many of them play CoD or Battlefield, I'm not saying anyone here does, I'm just generalizing) don't realize that the aummunition is what give a firearm its power. It's like in Black Ops where making a revolver snub-nosed somehow increased its damage by 50%. WTF?
.

You need a ballistic physics lesson. Energy = Mass times velocity squared. In ley mans terms the faster a round travels the farther it goes and the harder it hits.

The longer the barrel the longer a propellent charge has to accelerate a round. A round is constantly being pushed by the propellant charge, accelerating it until it leaves the barrel. Hence the longer the barrel the longer the propellent has act on the round. The faster a round travels the more energy it transfers to the target along with increasing range. Instantly as it leaves the barrel physics dictates that it begins deceleration and begins to be effected by gravity and other forces such as wind and wind resistance.

This one of the reason Bullpub designs are all the rage, maximum barrel length for range and power with minimum weapon length for weight and maneuverability. This is also why the barrel of the GUA avenger used on the a-10 is almost 20 feet long, they figured it needed to be that long in order to reach a muzzle velocity of 3,250 feet per second that would penetrate Tank armor.

Also the 7.62 has a longer range than 5.56, this is why most dedicated sniper rifles still shoot 7.62. The 7.62 carries it's energy better as it has greater wind resistance because it is more massive. Its all physics that you can't really argue with it.

America studied conflicts and found that for the most part battlefield conflicts would no longer require the range of 7.62 and moved to 5.56 so that soldiers could carry more ammo. Rate of fire and ammunition capacity they found were more vital to battlefield conditions than range beyond a certain point. Russia soon followed suit with the AK-74, as accuracy was never a concern for the soviets. So much so that they trained "soldiers" not to aim center mass, but to aim at a targets feet and let muzzle climb handle the rest. 5.56, made even more sense they for them, they were not training marksmen but waves of conscripts to overwhelm the enemy with spray and pray.

7.62 is a much better round against things like hard cover and body armor as it has a much better penetration profile.

There are advantages to 5.56, range and stopping power are not part of that package.One of it's "theoretical"advantages is that instead of blasting through a target like a 7.62 might, the 5.56 is designed to fragment in soft tissue....imparting all of its energy and creating quite a mess as the fragments create separate wound channels.

ON TOPIC, a round from an A-10 warthog would decimate a Space Marine, even in terminator Armour. Hell it would take out most anything on a 40K table.

Andrew1975 wrote:This one of the reason Bullpub designs are all the rage, maximum barrel length for range and power with minimum weapon length for weight and maneuverability. This is also why the barrel of the GUA avenger used on the a-10 is almost 20 feet long, they figured it needed to be that long in order to reach a muzzle velocity of 3,250 feet per second that would penetrate Tank armor.

Also the 7.62 has a longer range than 5.56, this is why most dedicated sniper rifles still shoot 7.62. The 7.62 carries it's energy better as it has greater wind resistance because it is more massive. Its all physics that you can't really argue with it.

Except that the AK-47 fires the 7.62x39mm round which was underpowered and unstable in flight which made it less accurate at longer ranges compared to 5.56x45mm which was more aerodynamic and had a higher powder to projectile ratio. The Russian sniper rifles used 7.62x54mm, an entirely different cartridge. American 7.62 rifles use a x51mm cartridge, again entirely different from the round the AK-47 fired.


Barrel length is also only relevant to the amount of propellant and the size of the round. Eventually the round will accelerate beyond the expansion of the gasses. Barrel length on rifles or cannons comes to a point of diminishing returns.

Bullpups were popular for a while, and still are in some circles, but their design has disadvantages too, which is why most modern rifles are still designed and manufactured in the standard configuration.

Expand on the disadvantages of bullpup design please.

Certain designs are difficult to fire lefthanded and the magazin change is awkward

Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:This one of the reason Bullpub designs are all the rage, maximum barrel length for range and power with minimum weapon length for weight and maneuverability. This is also why the barrel of the GUA avenger used on the a-10 is almost 20 feet long, they figured it needed to be that long in order to reach a muzzle velocity of 3,250 feet per second that would penetrate Tank armor.

Also the 7.62 has a longer range than 5.56, this is why most dedicated sniper rifles still shoot 7.62. The 7.62 carries it's energy better as it has greater wind resistance because it is more massive. Its all physics that you can't really argue with it.

Except that the AK-47 fires the 7.62x39mm round which was underpowered and unstable in flight which made it less accurate at longer ranges compared to 5.56x45mm which was more aerodynamic and had a higher powder to projectile ratio. The Russian sniper rifles used 7.62x54mm, an entirely different cartridge. American 7.62 rifles use a x51mm cartridge, again entirely different from the round the AK-47 fired.


Barrel length is also only relevant to the amount of propellant and the size of the round. Eventually the round will accelerate beyond the expansion of the gasses. Barrel length on rifles or cannons comes to a point of diminishing returns.

Bullpups were popular for a while, and still are in some circles, but their design has disadvantages too, which is why most modern rifles are still designed and manufactured in the standard configuration.

There is a point of diminished return on barrel length, but it certainly has never been attained by a battle rifle. That length is far greater than 14 or even 24 inches.

Not withstanding the AK round does go farther and hits harder. It's effective range is not as good as an M-16 because the M-16 is a more accurate weapon. This is not a contradiction as the Ak was never intended to be an accurate weapon it was intended to be a cheap easy to produce weapon put into the hands of millions of untrained (minimally trained) conscripts who hose a battlefield with lead that can penetrate sandbags and bodyarmor.

The M-16 can be considered a marksmen's weapon. One of the Marine corps mottos is "everyman a marksman". The m-16 gives them that ability. However most real marksmen would prefer a m14 with the 7.62. because the ballistics are much better. This is why the M-14 and it's contemporaries continue to be used as dedicated marksmens weapons even though it was replaced by the M-16 for line troops.

I think one key thing people are missing here is that power armor is not monolithic, i.e., there are weak points and there are strong points.

The large plates on a marine (chest, shoulder pads, greaves, etc) are probably extremely thick, highly advanced ceramic composite armor, and will stop light anti-tank weapons with no trouble.

The joints? The gauntlets? The helmet, even? These are either thinner ceramite, or in the case of the flexible joints, an entirely different material, probably more akin to modern day kevlar except far more advanced. I imagine the thinner plates would be easily penetrated by .50 cal anti-material rounds and any other high caliber, high velocity rounds. The joints? They could probably be penetrated by a rifle round, although they would have spent much of their energy already and the marine would easily shrug off the wound. Likewise, a lucky shot from an armor piercing rifle round would probably go through a marine's helmet, but I seriously doubt it would have the power left to kill him. Anything larger than that, though, and there are going to be brains all over the inside of that helmet.

Remember that marines are not ACTUALLY supposed to walk through a hail of fire to get to grips with their enemy. They're highly trained super-soldiers. If marines were real, they'd be doing everything a normal human would do to avoid being shot (using cover, suppressing the enemy before advancing, deploying by surprise right in their face whenever possible). The difference is, if you do manage to hit them, chances are slim you'll even hurt them. And when they get to you, they're turning you into a pile of mush.

-------

TL;DR - Even an infantryman's rifle might make it through the joints in a marine's armor, and a lucky shot, say to the neck, might actually kill him. Otherwise I agree with previous commenters - 0.50 cal anti-material would head-shot a marine in armor, and could even penetrate some of the thinner plates. Anti-tank weapons bigger than that, a good shot is going to fairly reliably kill or incapacitate.

The Crusader wrote:Certain designs are difficult to fire lefthanded and the magazin change is awkward

Agreeded the SA80-A2 is atualy imposible to fire left handed due to the cartriges being ejected on the left side not below. So if uyou were to fire it left handed then you would have burining hot metal hitting you in the face. But reloading is not an issue unless you are trying to hold it into your shoulder when reloading which you should not be doing. the advantage of bullpup is the ability to make a short weapon with a long barrel this keeps it mavouverable and easy to handle.

It's easier to use in close in battles, easier to transport when you are running out of cramped vehicles, lighter weight (not always a plus), can be given to crews of said cramped vehicles instead of submachine guns relieving you of the logistics of purchasing and dispensing two separate weapons systems with different size rounds.

Hw is a lighter gun not always a plus. The reason the M-16 is made of alot of plastic is due to them making it lighter.

redkeyboard wrote:Hw is a lighter gun not always a plus.

Some people like a heavier gun because it absorbs the kick better, more mass for the propellent charge to move = less movement. Essentially the heavier the weapon the more stable it is.

The reason the M-16 is made of alot of plastic is due to them making it lighter.

Most modern guns replace the parts that were once wood with plastic, this is not to save weight but to ease manufacturing, consistency and also durability. Wood when exposed to constant heat and temperature changes/extremes is bad; it changes shape and breaks down. These changes can at least effect accuracy and at most cause major problems with the weapons functionality.

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:I think one key thing people are missing here is that power armor is not monolithic, i.e., there are weak points and there are strong points.

The large plates on a marine (chest, shoulder pads, greaves, etc) are probably extremely thick, highly advanced ceramic composite armor, and will stop light anti-tank weapons with no trouble.

The joints? The gauntlets? The helmet, even? These are either thinner ceramite, or in the case of the flexible joints, an entirely different material, probably more akin to modern day kevlar except far more advanced. I imagine the thinner plates would be easily penetrated by .50 cal anti-material rounds and any other high caliber, high velocity rounds. The joints? They could probably be penetrated by a rifle round, although they would have spent much of their energy already and the marine would easily shrug off the wound. Likewise, a lucky shot from an armor piercing rifle round would probably go through a marine's helmet, but I seriously doubt it would have the power left to kill him. Anything larger than that, though, and there are going to be brains all over the inside of that helmet.

Remember that marines are not ACTUALLY supposed to walk through a hail of fire to get to grips with their enemy. They're highly trained super-soldiers. If marines were real, they'd be doing everything a normal human would do to avoid being shot (using cover, suppressing the enemy before advancing, deploying by surprise right in their face whenever possible). The difference is, if you do manage to hit them, chances are slim you'll even hurt them. And when they get to you, they're turning you into a pile of mush.

-------

TL;DR - Even an infantryman's rifle might make it through the joints in a marine's armor, and a lucky shot, say to the neck, might actually kill him. Otherwise I agree with previous commenters - 0.50 cal anti-material would head-shot a marine in armor, and could even penetrate some of the thinner plates. Anti-tank weapons bigger than that, a good shot is going to fairly reliably kill or incapacitate.

This pretty much sums up the answer. Great post. Spot on.

Alright, basicaly you're trying to compare weapons of 2012 to armour of >40000, tech will be so far superior to our own that only bombs and other big fekking weapons will be able to hurt him, not puny .50 cals
for example, a 30/06 caliber round made today will be better than one made in 1908, weapons in the far future will be many millions of times better then our own

Outcast115 wrote:Alright, basicaly you're trying to compare weapons of 2012 to armour of >40000, tech will be so far superior to our own that only bombs and other big fekking weapons will be able to hurt him, not puny .50 cals
for example, a 30/06 caliber round made today will be better than one made in 1908, weapons in the far future will be many millions of times better then our own

Really, Mr. Browning and his many still in use guns would like to talk to you, especially his Ma Deuce.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Outcast115 wrote:Alright, basicaly you're trying to compare weapons of 2012 to armour of >40000, tech will be so far superior to our own that only bombs and other big fekking weapons will be able to hurt him, not puny .50 cals
for example, a 30/06 caliber round made today will be better than one made in 1908, weapons in the far future will be many millions of times better then our own

Really, Mr. Browning and his many still in use guns would like to talk to you, especially his Ma Deuce.

Not sure what you're trying to say but I love the M2 browning. Heavy barrel for the win! I still don't see them punching rounds through space marines plate though.

Sovereign6 wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Outcast115 wrote:Alright, basicaly you're trying to compare weapons of 2012 to armour of >40000, tech will be so far superior to our own that only bombs and other big fekking weapons will be able to hurt him, not puny .50 cals
for example, a 30/06 caliber round made today will be better than one made in 1908, weapons in the far future will be many millions of times better then our own

Really, Mr. Browning and his many still in use guns would like to talk to you, especially his Ma Deuce.

Not sure what you're trying to say but I love the M2 browning. Heavy barrel for the win! I still don't see them punching rounds through space marines plate though.

I'm saying that the blue print for the M2 browning and most brownings were laid out in the early 1900s 1911-1919 to be exact depending on model. They have changed little since, including ammunition. 30/06 has not drastically changed since 1908 unless you are using special match grade or something is my point.

Outcast115 wrote:Alright, basicaly you're trying to compare weapons of 2012 to armour of >40000, tech will be so far superior to our own that only bombs and other big fekking weapons will be able to hurt him, not puny .50 cals
for example, a 30/06 caliber round made today will be better than one made in 1908, weapons in the far future will be many millions of times better then our own

yeah I made that point before but looking at it now.... even a sharpened rock from the stone ages on a stick can still cut someone up pretty badly, heck in First Heretic a Chaplain had his throat torn out by a native with a spear! I mean it's a viable point, who knows what kind of tech they have but a weapon is a weapon, if anything weapons in 40k got bigger and badder while armour has lagged slightly behind. It's always easier to blow gak up than keep gak alive.

I think it really does depend a great deal on the situation. But here's my basic opinions; assuming that a Space Marine is in the open, near the edge of the weapons effective engagement range and closing at full speed but not returning fire, while the modern weapon is being used by your standard US Army grunt;

1. Basic infantry rifle; not a chance. Only an exceptionally lucky shot to one of the weakest areas will penetrate at all, and those rounds which penetrate will not inflict serious injury. Headshots are ineffective, only a shot to the inside of one of the large joints might go through. The soldier would have to be insanely lucky to disable the Space Marine before he reaches melee range and beats the soldier to death with his bolter.

2. Hand grenades; Ha! The Space Marine is on top of them before they even get thrown, and the shrapnel is totally ineffective. Might manage to irritate him, or maybe give him an itchy little cut if a fragment gets jammed in a joint, but the poor schmuck who threw the grenade is dead, dead, dead within seconds.

3. SAW/light MG; Almost certainly not. Still not powerful enough to penetrate even light plating, only effective against areas where the armor is practically non-existent (ie the inside of elbow and knee joints, possibly the neck, and possibly the groin connections between thighguards and pelvic plates). A lucky machine-gunner might injure the Space Marine some, but not fast enough or badly enough to save himself from being snapped in half.

4. HMG/vehicle mounted machine gun; Possibly, though unlikely. Bullets still can't go through heavy plates like the chest and back armor, greaves, thighguards, vambraces and helmet, but can likely crack or deform lighter-armored areas and cause enough flesh trauma to at least slow the Space Marine down. A lucky and accurate gunner might put enough rounds into the leg-joints to cripple the Space Marine's running, or enough rounds into the head to start splintering the helmet, distort his vision, and maybe inflict some damage to the head. Might be able to kill him with luck, if he manages to slow the advance early and then keep up heavy and accurate fire; this is the weakest weapon powerful enough to warrant any tactical consideration by the Space Marines.

5. Heavy anti-materiel or sniper rifle; Maybe, maybe not, hard to say. Likely strong enough to punch through joints at any angle with enough power to seriously damage the bone and muscle, or crack the helmet with a solid hit. A shot that lands right on an eyepiece might punch through and partially blind the Space Marine. Still can't go through solid breastplate or thicker limb armor, though it might crack or deform them a little after a few solid hits. In the hands of a skilled user, could inflict significant injury on the Space Marine at relatively close range (a few hundred yards or less), and the risk of death is no longer trivial. Still, a single SM vs. a single sniper almost certainly wins out.

6. RPG/bazooka/recoil-less rifle/other infantry-carried AT weapon; The Space Marine in the situation above probably will win, but may well be injured, and the possibility of dying can't be discounted entirely. On a direct hit, probably powerful enough to do serious damage even to the thicker armor. A single headshot will kill a Space Marine most of the time, a single shot to the torso likely will leave him more or less injured and with impaired function but not yet incapacitated. Essentially a single-shot heavy bolter. If the gunner gets one good hit before the SM closes in, he might be staggered enough that the gunner can get off another shot and finish the job.

7. Indirect, anti-infantry artillery fire; Not a threat to Space Marines. Shells designed to explode over a wide area and incapacitate lightly-armored infantry will simply be shrugged off by power armor; only an actual direct hit by the shell might injure the Space Marine, and even then it likely wouldn't be incapacitating. As soon as he can pinpoint where the fire is coming from, the gunner is a dead man.

8. Laser or radar-guided AT artillery/missiles; Space Marine is probably fethed. These weapons are designed to annihilate things tougher and faster (though less agile) than he is; a direct hit will unfailingly blow him to pieces, and a near-miss will still be quite painful. Targeting systems will most often be able to hit at least close, even given the Space Marines superhuman reflexes and long experience in not being blown up; his chances of survival are basically identical with how fast he can get to some cover that confuses the targeting system even a little, because while he can't survive the missile he CAN survive a collapsing building, or a shockwave blowing through a heavily-wooded area. This is probably the weapon that's MOST likely to kill a single Space Marine, at least without leveling the entire surrounding area.

9. MBT main weapons; Depends entirely on accuracy, but I think I'll actually give this one to the Space Marine. A direct hit will blow right through the armor and kill him immediately, but a near-miss probably won't, and the main cannons of tanks are not designed to score direct hits against rapidly-evading infantry. The Space Marine (still considering both tank and Space Marine in isolation) may well be able to reach the tank and kill it with grenades or even his hands, as hilarious as that must sound to any military veterans here.

10. High-yield bombs/nuclear bombardment; Depends on the type of munition. Fuel-air bombs will NOT significantly injure a Space Marine, although the shockwave may well toss him around and/or do some damage to his armor. Conventional high explosives will usually not injure him seriously if he's further away than a few yards, though once again they might send him flying; if he's too close, he may well be hurled into a solid object hard enough to do damage. Tactical nukes will have a kill-radius of a few dozen yards or maybe less. A full-scale nuclear weapon will instantly kill any Space Marine within several hundred yards of ground zero, but beyond the zone where the heat of the explosion literally cooks/vaporizes them in their armor, the damage done will drop off rapidly due to the superhuman physiology of a Space Marine; overpressure, heat, and blunt trauma simply hurt them much, much less than they hurt humans.

For Terminator armor; ignore everything before number 6 and also ignore number 7 as simply incapable of penetrating. RPGs have a very, very slim chance to kill a Terminator with repeated hits in the same place, Anti-tank weapons might do it, but will be much less reliable than against power armor; basically, the only reliable way for a modern force to disable a Terminator would be with nukes, and even then you might just fuse the joints together and force the Space Marine to get out of the armor.

TBH high-end kinetic weapons would probably be better against Terminator Armour than a tactical nuke, considering they're designed to withstand extreme heat. Then there's the force field to take into account, and Emperor save you if the dude's got a Storm Shield!