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.

Catyrpelius wrote:

- Rockets do not nessacarily increase acceleration they can also be used to maintain velocity. Effectivly rendering the acceleration of a system 0.

This is correct however for a dense core tip projectile like a bolt, The air resistance isn't going to be equal to the force the rocket puts out unless either the rocket is a small, SLOW burn. OR the initial velocity is extremely high like, low railgun speeds at which point were not talking a need for explosives. OR bolts use a THV tip, which they don't unfortunately. as we have it, a bolt is relatively aero dynamic, not the best shape but it's okay. The rocket takes up about 3/4 of the space availible propellant the other quarter is for the main kicker charge. so one could say about 2/3's of the bolts energy comes from the rocket (due to the rocket being less efficient than the main charge)

Finally, we have to note that we don't know everything about 41st millenium technology, and our analysis here only goes so far. If the fluff says something works like X, then it works like X regardless of what we think SHOULD happen. Just because modern materials science and ballistics suggests one thing, there's no reason why there can't be some kind of strange technology that allows the weapon to defy the modern prediction, and instead act the way it does in the fluff.

The point isn't that the fluff contradicts it, it's that it says nothing about it one way or another. and this goes for other weapons as well. The only thing it does say is that they are self propelled. a solid bullet slows down over time, but you don't hear the fluff mentioning that or showing that with the autoguns. so we are left with anecdotal evidence which in this case due to the design we can gleam a lot about it.

But in all honesty, Melissia's in the right here. The tabeltop game and DoW not having bolters deal higher damage is something I can understand. Who wants to have to deal with all those extra complications while trying to play a game? But the fact that the RPGs do not include such a mechanism is pretty damning. RPGs are meant to come as close to real world as they can. Moreover, it doesn't make sense from a fluff perspective either.

actually warhammer is very abstract and 40k even more so. I mean a single ordinace direct hit to a unit in cover still grants a 4+ save so that half the soldiers will survive, but in reality that blast is going to blow apart most cover or at least something like a basilisk will, and a picket fence will grant a 5+ save... I dont know about you but I would trust a picket fence to stop 1/3 of the shots coming my way or cover enough of me to disrupt aiming that muc. That they don't include it isn't damning at all as the profiles used are more than likely an average, s at say 12 feet they'd be between a str 3-4 and at 200 feet something like 4-5. At low range they wouldn't be quite low enough to call them str 3 and at long not quite strong enough to call them str 5 but averaging something close to str 4.

If bolters really did more and more damage as range increased, wouldn't Space Marine tactics and the Index Astartes take note of this fact?

No, as seen here

Drive me closer I want to hit them with my sword.

Finally, we have to note that we don't know everything about 41st millenium technology, and our analysis here only goes so far. If the fluff says something works like X, then it works like X regardless of what we think SHOULD happen.

Problem is, that it does not say that it works like x, or like Y just that it works. and in honesty this is where the case of "It's 40,000 years in the future tech is more advanced" actually makes sense. I mean modern model rocket engines easily overcome high air drag, and those are only .50 caliber equivalent, I can only imagine what a larger more advanced formula rocket can do.

sorry if this has already been posted, but there is no way I would ever read eight pages so...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAiJLdQQZz4

bolter if I've ever seen one

add a rocket to the grenade rounds and a diamante tip and basically yes.

also

Miniature assault cannon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIqTO6mVJyg&feature=related

Probably an approxamate equivalent to a 40k assault cannon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S21EG5cACQA&feature=related

and the vulkan mega bolter equivalent using solid shells. (Seriously if the human race is still around in 40,00 years the Gau-8 will probably be also)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBXrogB8L08&feature=related

Bolter weakness? The need for ammunition.

undivided wrote:Bolter weakness? The need for ammunition.

well yes that too but I think space marines have their own miniature forges don't they? Not too sure on that one. but that would make it less of a drawback. Besides they're space marines they have to be as gory as they can. and exploding your head from inside out is good way to do that.

gendoikari87 wrote:

Drive me closer I want to hit them with my sword.

You didn't seriously just quote that right?
That's meant to be a joke.

Meant to be, yes, but it's not a joke in the 40k game and universe where hitting people in the face with chainsaw blades is considered a good tactical strategy. It's specifically a joke making fun of how impractical 40k tactics and strategy are. I mean I asked my military buddies what military CQC was like hoping to learn some good karate or krav magra stuff, and he flat out told me military CQC was there just to keep you alive long enough to allow your buddy to come over and blast the guy in the head.

Moral of the story you don't need to punch a guy in the face when you can pop a cap in his head.

gendoikari87 wrote:Meant to be, yes, but it's not a joke in the 40k game and universe where hitting people in the face with chainsaw blades is considered a good tactical strategy. It's specifically a joke making fun of how impractical 40k tactics and strategy are. I mean I asked my military buddies what military CQC was like hoping to learn some good karate or krav magra stuff, and he flat out told me military CQC was there just to keep you alive long enough to allow your buddy to come over and blast the guy in the head.

Moral of the story you don't need to punch a guy in the face when you can pop a cap in his head.

When you can make armour that effectively makes you almost invulnerable to small arms fire then close combat seems lie a perfectly fine idea.

Especially when the other guy has that armor too.

When you can make armour that effectively makes you almost invulnerable to small arms fire then close combat seems lie a perfectly fine idea.

Sure you go put on that power armor and charge be with a sword, mean while I'll pull out my AA12 or XM25 and put a round directly into your helmet. Probably your eye socket if it's an xm 25 heck even a good ol M203 would do the job but that'd be overkill.

And then the helmet deflects the AA12 because it's an overhyped piece of gak

Also, getting headshots on moving targets in close combat is far harder than you think it is.

An 8 foot tall Power Armoured Super Human with a Chainsaw Sword is alot more intimidating then a guy with a gun.

Catyrpelius wrote:An 8 foot tall Power Armoured Super Human with a Chainsaw Sword is alot more intimidating then a guy with a gun.

So? a 7' tall MMA fighter with his fists is a lot more intimidating than a 5' tall little girl with a 9mm but guess who i'd rather go up against? Yeah I'm gunna take my chances with the MMA guy. Just because I can run away, and even if I can't a fist is going to do a lot less damage than a 9mm hollow point.

And then the helmet deflects the AA12 because it's an overhyped piece of gak

Also, getting headshots on moving targets in close combat is far harder than you think it is.

Lol 40k fanboyisms... NO an aa12's grenade is not going to deflect it will explode because we were smart enough to make it blow on impact, and headshots on something moving toward you isnt that hard or at least upper torso isn't that hard and an none of those really need direct head shots. for power armor they might require contact but that's about it. Besides you can always hide and snipe or run, you can't run any faster in power armor than you can on foot. or just wait for the power armor to run out of power.

also a side arm to a space marines main camera would probably suck for him.

In reality the age of sword fighting is over, in 40k however where imagination can take over it's fine simply because it's fun.

Except not everyone in the 40k univese is a frail human.

Space Mariens - There bodies have very few week points where a normal could actually kill them, more then likely you'd hurt them but it would just piss them off more. If there armor can withstand hits from an Autocannon, then its pretty good against anything we could field.

Orks - Da Green Tide

Tyrnid - Swarms

etc.etc.etc

Bullets do not solve anything, but a chain sword or a power weapon does.

gendoikari87 wrote:and headshots on something moving toward you isnt that hard

Here's someone that has been playing far too many FPS games and doesn't know what it's like to fire a weapon at someone IRL.

Drive me closer I want to hit them with my sword!

that really says it all. The only reason we don't have bigger weapons is we don't need them. if we were to face space marines using nothing but close combat we could make an infantry gun that would easilly down them. As seen in the AA12 miniature grenades are possible, which would make miniature shaped charges possible as well to some extent. and those would eat a marine alive. Now if the space marines were to pick up lasguns THEN we might be screwed.

you said you worked on the XM25 didn't you?

When blades are better at penetrating armor then I'm going to hit you with it.

In the universe that is 40k Power Weapons regardless of what form they are in are the most destructive man portable weapons out there.

Melissia wrote:And then the helmet deflects the AA12 because it's an overhyped piece of gak

Well one of my co-workers designed one of the rounds intended for that... he says it can penetrate 1.5" steel plate with a .4" hole on the rear side. I don't think thats "overhyped." Most infantry armored transports are .5" to 1" hardened aluminum, so it can penetrate vehicle armor.

gendoikari87 wrote:

Drive me closer I want to hit them with my sword!

that really says it all. The only reason we don't have bigger weapons is we don't need them. if we were to face space marines using nothing but close combat we could make an infantry gun that would easilly down them. As seen in the AA12 miniature grenades are possible, which would make miniature shaped charges possible as well to some extent. and those would eat a marine alive.

you said you worked on the XM25 didn't you?

The US Military would never mass field an infantry weapon system with a ammunition cost so high. Our currently level of technology is great at penetrating armor, if that armor is ceramic and kevlar. Not solid Adamantium plate. For all we know a 105mm Depleted Uranium Sabot would stop cold upon hitting Adamantium.

Which isn't all that surprising, considering FMJ bullets of rifle caliber can do something quite similar as far as penetration goes.

What range was that taken at by the way?

In the universe that is 40k Power Weapons regardless of what form they are in are the most destructive man portable weapons out there.

yeah but that's the 40k universe where such tactics are still valid

Well one of my co-workers designed one of the rounds intended for that... he says it can penetrate 1.5" steel plate with a .4" hole on the rear side. I don't think thats "overhyped." Most infantry armored transports are .5" to 1" hardened aluminum, so it can penetrate vehicle armor.

WHOLY MOTHER OF COPPER!!! is the grenade round already a shaped charge?

The US Military would never mass field an infantry weapon system with a ammunition cost so high. Our currently level of technology is great at penetrating armor, if that armor is ceramic and kevlar. Not solid Adamantium plate. For all we know a 105mm Depleted Uranium Sabot would stop cold upon hitting Adamantium.

I'm sure if they faced an enemy where it was deemed nescessary they would. also I can't remember which of the imperial armor books says it but they give the equivalent of land raider armor as 305mm?? or RHA. Not sure on the exact equivalent I'll have to look it up, it's been a while.

If we were hit by an enemy that was far enough ahead of us to require a special round to take out. Then we would loose due to our inability to field the system quickly.

The US army just started fielding 30,000 XM25s. So I wouldn't say its not impossible.

You have to remember there was a time when muskets were the normal weapon and rifles were considered too expensive to field in numbers... then rifles became the common weapons and infantry automatic weapons were invented but were considered too expensive for every man... now automatic rifles are the standard weapon and the XM25 and other grenade launchers are the specialized weapon considered too expensive to field enmasse. The trend is such that better technology always starts as a specialized weapon that gains wider use and is eventually modified and adapted to even wider use. The XM25 and AA12 are the first steps towards the eventual adoption of grenade based technologies by utilizing ammunition with a variaty of warheads. A third program is DARPA's high calibre target correcting round for a sniper rifle, which will also take advantage of a warhead... I think it should be called the Exitus if you ask me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:
What range was that taken at by the way?

Because its an impact detonated explosive it doesn't really matter how far away its fired. I imagine like any other shotgun slug, from the stand point of just its mass effectively taking down the target 100 yards away; but that doesn't take into consideration the explosive.

A mere 1.5" of steel would be a 6+ armor save in 40k. Common Ork Boyz wear that kind of armor.

aka_mythos wrote: A third program is DARPA's high calibre target correcting round for a sniper rifle, which will also take advantage of a warhead... I think it should be called the Exitus if you ask me.

Nope, the name is to cool, more then likely it will be givin an M designation. Lol

Army wide adoption takes a long time, costs need to be reduced, ammo needs to be reworked for reliability reasons...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:I didn't ask you

A mere 1.5" of steel would be a 6+ armor save in 40k. Common Ork Boyz wear that kind of armor.

Its Adamantium Baby!

And flak armor is better than that 1.5" of forged steel plate. Fun times!

Material Science is one of the few areas in 40k where you can't draw any conclusions from modern technology.

Melissia wrote:A mere 1.5" of steel would be a 6+ armor save in 40k. Common Ork Boyz wear that kind of armor.

not really a LOT of the orks body is left un protected. if I have an adamantium helmet it's not going to save me from a shot to the chest. and vice versa


also found the equivalents of adamantium.

93mm Adam = 365mm Steel
3.6 in Adam = 14.37 in Steel

On top of new Materials, you also have shielding and pshycic abilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gendoikari87 wrote:

Melissia wrote:A mere 1.5" of steel would be a 6+ armor save in 40k. Common Ork Boyz wear that kind of armor.

not really a LOT of the orks body is left un protected. if I have an adamantium helmet it's not going to save me from a shot to the chest. and vice versa


also found the equivalents of adamantium.

93mm Adam = 365mm Steel
3.6 in Adam = 14.37 in Steel

There are alot of places you can shoot an Orc without really actually hurting him. He is a giant mushroom man after all.

Melissia wrote:A mere 1.5" of steel would be a 6+ armor save in 40k. Common Ork Boyz wear that kind of armor.

Except they only wear a few pieces... all the exposed green is what makes it 6+... ork nobz in full suits of 1.5" steel heavy armor are 4+ saves.

It would be something like a Rng24 Str3 AP4 Rapid Fire.

Its a high temperature thermal jet that literally melts through the steel before the primary charge explodes.

Catyrpelius wrote:
Army wide adoption takes a long time, costs need to be reduced, ammo needs to be reworked for reliability reasons...

The biggest driving force is that even with a dedicated facility churning out 5.56 ammo at a rate of millions of rounds a day we still have to purchase 40% of ammunition from foriegn allies and commercial sources. Its a demand for reliable lethality, in Vietnam it took an average of 10,000 rounds per enemy kill. The goal is to push the metric closer to one to one, rounds fired to enemy kills... not necessarily to achieve that ratio but to get closer to it. I don't think we'll see these sorts of weapons as fully automatic weapons any time soon and that machine guns and other fire suppression weapons will still benefit from low cost ammunition.