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.

Someone mentioned pointed sticks before

I agree

Anything can kill a marine (eventually), you'll just need someone to do the killing

blazinpsycho&typhooni wrote:Someone mentioned pointed sticks before

I agree

Anything can kill a marine (eventually), you'll just need someone to do the killing

Need someone? With sticks? Oh hell, just a punji pit should the trick, no one has to be around to actually stick the SM

King Pariah wrote:

blazinpsycho&typhooni wrote:Someone mentioned pointed sticks before

I agree

Anything can kill a marine (eventually), you'll just need someone to do the killing

Need someone? With sticks? Oh hell, just a punji pit should the trick, no one has to be around to actually stick the SM

Lol how bout someone or something?

Brother Coa wrote:

purplefood wrote:All anti-tank weapons are gonna have a good chance.

This and those .50 cal sniper rifles. Grenade launchers to. If you get the chance to shoot of course...

Everything else is just going to bounce of it's shiny Ultramarine armor.

Not .50 cal. Bolters don't pierce marine armour, and they are .75 cal diamond tipped self propelled mass reactive warhead bearing shells.

Anyways, I can see AT weapons using their immense kinetic energy and eventually causing more damage than the suit can sustain, but I can't see it being on the first or even fifth hit, because it simply doesn't have the penetrating power.

Look at it this way: how thick is marine armour? Conservative guess: 2-3" or so, liberal, closer to 4", maybe half an inch more. From the description of a Land Raider's armour we can see that ceramite-adamantium alloy is equal to 3.8 times it's thickness in steel and much better where thermal energies are involved. 3.8x3"=11.4 inches of steel is the equivalent. That means 289.56mm of steel armour would offer the protection of PA.

For comparison, the Iosif Stalin line of Heavy Tanks made by the Russian has 30-160mm of armour.

The K-wagen Super Heavy Tank had 30mm of armour.

The Landkreuzer P. 1500, which was a monster design 42m longx18m widex7m height would have had 250mm of armour.

It would take extreme ordinance (aerial bombardment, naval fire support, anti-tank artillery etc.) to pierce 289.56mm of steel. There are bunkers less well protected. That's why in fluff accounts you generally only see marines die when a PW, plasma weapon, heavy ordinance or fellow marine hits them. Or when they are hit in the eye.

im2randomghgh wrote:
Anyways, I can see AT weapons using their immense kinetic energy and eventually causing more damage than the suit can sustain, but I can't see it being on the first or even fifth hit, because it simply doesn't have the penetrating power.

A RPG-7 (what those insurgents run around with) can penetrate a foot of steel.

Power armour strikes me as difficult to get a direct hit on though. Even if an anti-tank round hits it, it probably has a chance of deflecting off.

im2randomghgh wrote:Bolters don't pierce marine armour, [...]

"Against most small arms, the armour reduces the chance of injury by between 50-85%, and it provides some form of protection against all except the most powerful weapons encountered on the battlefields of the 41st millennium."
- Codex: Angels of Death

im2randomghgh wrote:Look at it this way: how thick is marine armour? Conservative guess: 2-3" or so, liberal, closer to 4", maybe half an inch more.

I'm sorry, what? 10 cm? They wouldn't even be able to move their limbs if that were the case. Yes, there actually is the issue of mobility to be kept in mind when designing armour. Unless you really think all Marines awkwardly strut about the battlefield like that B9 robot from the old Lost in Space series.

"Individual plates of armour can be up to an inch thick and have a special honeycomb design which helps to dissipate energy and localise any damage suffered by the suit."
- Codex: Angels of Death

But ... eh, this is 40k, so your interpretation is just as correct and valid as anything printed in a studio book. I don't think it makes much sense in-universe, but that's just my personal opinion.
Just as Coa can, by definition of how the fluff of this franchise is organized, not be wrong by saying that in his interpretation, any .50 cal will punch through Marine armour.

The problem with bringing up the numbers for ceramite vs. steel, unfortunately, is that they're ludicrous.

We have already gone far, far beyond steel. Chobham armor, a modern reactive ceramic composite armor, is about twenty-five times as effective as a steel plate of equal weight against KEWs and HEAT rounds; or, in other words, almost seven times as effective as the armor of a Land Raider is described. An M1 Abrams tank has the equivalent of about 940mm of steel plating on the front of the turret.

If you take those numbers as accurate, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that EVERY weapon and vehicle in use in the 41st millenium, by every single race, is utterly outclassed by an Abrams. Hell, if you accept those numbers an Abrams would probably be literally unkillable; it would have something like AV21!

So there are two ways to interpret this; either 1) In the grim darkness of the far future, all weapons are Nerf guns and all armor is aluminum foil, or 2) GW knows nothing about materials science, and we can't take the numbers they give us for such things at face value.

BeRzErKeR wrote:The problem with bringing up the numbers for ceramite vs. steel, unfortunately, is that they're ludicrous.

We have already gone far, far beyond steel. Chobham armor, a modern reactive ceramic composite armor, is about twenty-five times as effective as a steel plate of equal weight against KEWs and HEAT rounds; or, in other words, almost seven times as effective as the armor of a Land Raider is described. An M1 Abrams tank has the equivalent of about 940mm of steel plating on the front of the turret.

If you take those numbers as accurate, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that EVERY weapon and vehicle in use in the 41st millenium, by every single race, is utterly outclassed by an Abrams. Hell, if you accept those numbers an Abrams would probably be literally unkillable; it would have something like AV21!

So there are two ways to interpret this; either 1) In the grim darkness of the far future, all weapons are Nerf guns and all armor is aluminum foil, or 2) GW knows nothing about materials science, and we can't take the numbers they give us for such things at face value.

At the same time though, land raider armour is specified as being more resistant to heat and energy based weapons, so abrams would likely crumple uselessly against lascannons, meltas and railguns.

Abrams is the equivalent of 940mm against HEAT and KEWs, but neither of those are present in 40k.

Although if they ever mount the iron curtain on Abrams they could end up being just about immune to krak rounds.

Wouldn't normally comment until I've read every single post in a thread... but I can't read this from what I've seen.

As was mentioned in another thread, against organic targets hard penetration isn't necessary: Anything that can stop a tank will have enough energy - transferred rapidly enough - to turn the SM's fleshy bits into jelly and soup, whether it penetrates the armour or not. You might be able to stop the projectile (or HEAT jet etc) but the concussive force keeps going through the medium into and through his insides; there simply isn't enough thickness or give distance in that armour to attenuate that force meaningfully.

Are folks seriously suggesting that SMs are so awesome! that they can survive being hit by MBT main guns?

Seriously?

Blimey....

BeRzErKeR wrote:In the grim darkness of the far future, all weapons are Nerf guns and all armor is aluminum foil, or 2) GW knows nothing about materials science, and we can't take the numbers they give us for such things at face value.

Number 2. Because number one is incorrect based on the fact that lasguns blow off arms, like high caliber anti-matter rifles.

tsz52 wrote:Are folks seriously suggesting that SMs are so awesome! that they can survive being hit by MBT main guns?

Not surprising, given how they are represented sometimes. Especially in licensed products, stuff like the recent Space Marine computer game.
(at the same time it is conveniently overlooked how quickly they die when seen from the other side and when the focus is on another race, such as in the Firewarrior game )

Lynata wrote:

tsz52 wrote:Are folks seriously suggesting that SMs are so awesome! that they can survive being hit by MBT main guns?

Not surprising, given how they are represented sometimes. Especially in licensed products, stuff like the recent Space Marine computer game.
(at the same time it is conveniently overlooked how quickly they die when seen from the other side and when the focus is on another race, such as in the Firewarrior game )

Well in the Fire warrior game it is because they have no skill at all. They still take a fair amount of pulse rounds to kill (remembering that pulse rounds can destroy Leman Russ tanks from behind.)

im2randomghgh wrote:

At the same time though, land raider armour is specified as being more resistant to heat and energy based weapons, so abrams would likely crumple uselessly against lascannons, meltas and railguns.

Abrams is the equivalent of 940mm against HEAT and KEWs, but neither of those are present in 40k.

Although if they ever mount the iron curtain on Abrams they could end up being just about immune to krak rounds.

That isn't really true. Krak missiles appear to be HEAT munitions, and railguns work entirely by kinetic energy; they're the ultimate in KEWs. You might be able to convincingly handwave meltas and lascannons, but that still leaves what seems to be the majority of AT firepower in 50k unaccounted for.

So yeah, basically it has to be #2; but that also means that you can't use those numbers to SUPPORT anything, because they have to be wrong.

tsz52 wrote:Wouldn't normally comment until I've read every single post in a thread... but I can't read this from what I've seen.

As was mentioned in another thread, against organic targets hard penetration isn't necessary: Anything that can stop a tank will have enough energy - transferred rapidly enough - to turn the SM's fleshy bits into jelly and soup, whether it penetrates the armour or not. You might be able to stop the projectile (or HEAT jet etc) but the concussive force keeps going through the medium into and through his insides; there simply isn't enough thickness or give distance in that armour to attenuate that force meaningfully.

Are folks seriously suggesting that SMs are so awesome! that they can survive being hit by MBT main guns?

Seriously?

No. Or at least, I haven't. My stance is that small-arms and probably even heavier anti-infantry weapons like most SAWs would have a very, VERY difficult time hurting a Marine even if they hit him squarely. Heavier weapons such as very high-caliber rifles, tank weaponry, missiles, etc, all of those could and would do a number on a Space Marine if they nailed him; but, as someone pointed out earlier, if your enemy has to deploy anti-tank weapons to deal with infantry, that's a very, very bad situation for him to be in.

Combined with the fact that the Space Marines never engage without space superiority and thus can very nearly always choose their battles carefully with near-perfect information, the fact that most enemy infantry won't really be able to hurt them without making an incredibly lucky shot is enough to ensure that their losses are extremely low, and make them a viable fighting force.

im2randomghgh wrote:Well in the Fire warrior game it is because they have no skill at all. They still take a fair amount of pulse rounds to kill (remembering that pulse rounds can destroy Leman Russ tanks from behind.)

Pulse rounds seem to be fairly weak in that game in general, I did not expect them to take 8, 9 shots to kill a Storm Trooper. On the other hand, boltgun versus Marine looked like 3-4 shots. Guy on youtube seemed to be a lousy shot.

In any case, I do believe you missed the point of my post, which was about the issue of perception and tunnel vision - not some numbers pulled from a video game whose mechanics are focused on gameplay experience, balancing and making a single player feel good.
It should be common sense that anything whose narrative centers on seeing some hero character survive until the credits start rolling should not be taken at a straight face.
You'd still be free to form your interpretation of the setting around it, of course, but I would deem awareness that it is just one of many interpretations, and that it is not more correct than another poster's opinion, to be a rather important thing for such discussions.

Lynata wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:Well in the Fire warrior game it is because they have no skill at all. They still take a fair amount of pulse rounds to kill (remembering that pulse rounds can destroy Leman Russ tanks from behind.)

Pulse rounds seem to be fairly weak in that game in general, I did not expect them to take 8, 9 shots to kill a Storm Trooper. On the other hand, boltgun versus Marine looked like 3-4 shots. Guy on youtube seemed to be a lousy shot.

In any case, I do believe you missed the point of my post, which was about the issue of perception and tunnel vision - not some numbers pulled from a video game whose mechanics are focused on gameplay experience, balancing and making a single player feel good.
It should be common sense that anything whose narrative centers on seeing some hero character survive until the credits start rolling should not be taken at a straight face.
You'd still be free to form your interpretation of the setting around it, of course, but I would deem awareness that it is just one of many interpretations, and that it is not more correct than another poster's opinion, to be a rather important thing for such discussions.

No, I understood what you meant, I just posted what I posted for the sake of making every point, I'm a completionist

That isn't really true. Krak missiles appear to be HEAT munitions, and railguns work entirely by kinetic energy; they're the ultimate in KEWs.

I wasn't implying that they (Railguns) are energy based weapons, though I suppose the way I phrased that would lead one to believe I had been. I was saying that Railguns would make a mockery of an Abrams tank, with modern ones having force equivalent to a tomahawk missile while only being a small magnetized slug propelled to hyper-velocity. This force is concentrated on a smaller area than a tomahawk missile, meaning more penetration and more damage in this localized area. The disastrous effects of tau railguns are shown in this quote from Codex: Tau Empire pg. 14

One of their light walkers carried a weapon of lethal effect. It fired a form of ultra-high velocity projectile. I saw one of our tanks after having been hit by it. There was a small hole punched in either flank-one the entry point, one the exit. The tiny munition had passed through the whole vehicle with such speed that everything within the hull not welded down had passed through the vehicle with such speed that everything had been sucked out through the exit hole. Including the crew. We never identified their bodies, for all that remained of them was a red stain upon the ground, extending some twenty meters from the wreck.

BeRzErKeR [Your post had too many quotes from different folks for me to quote properly]:-

Railguns: Difficult to know without the velocity figure but past a certain point the projectile vapes when it hits: if it's an uber-railgun then it's effectively thermal in target effect - more plasma weapon (upon impact) than solid object going fast weapon. This is in regard to your debate about the armour properties of 40k vehicles re hard vs thermal effects.

Your reply to me: Some folks really are suggesting that if it doesn't penetrate the SM's armour he's fine (and using tank armour figures and such to prove that). I appreciate that you're not, sensible and knowledgeable chap that you are.

But if we're talking modern weapons vs SMs well most of the squadies I've conversed with who've fought in our contemporary wars have told me that nearly all of the actual killing is accomplished by air strikes, mortars and shoulder launched missiles, then a bit by artillery and the heavy and medium MGs, with everything less (with the exception of grenades, now and then) doing not much more than suppress (to allow those 'proper' weapons to work).

So you're not having to wheel these weapons out specially just to fight the dread SMs - a modern military fights pretty much that way already. There're a few bits of doctrine that you'd have to tweak (eg most small arms won't suppress SMs) but not much.

Space Superiority: Whomever's got that wins: End of. Imperial Navy wins.

But that invalidates just about every 40k warfighting premise... so should be used sparingly in such a debate as this.

Gah... I'm going to have to read the thread aren't I?

Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt a railgun utilize magnets to launch projectiles?
In real that is. One would think that the real and one in 40K are at least a bit similar.

Jollydevil wrote:Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt a railgun utilize magnets to launch projectiles?
In real that is. One would think that the real and one in 40K are at least a bit similar.

Yes, the magnets launch the slug to hypersonic speeds.

Railguns: Difficult to know without the velocity figure but past a certain point the projectile vapes when it hits: if it's an uber-railgun then it's effectively thermal in target effect - more plasma weapon (upon impact) than solid object going fast weapon. This is in regard to your debate about the armour properties of 40k vehicles re hard vs thermal effects.

The slug doesn't break down but does form a plasma tail. Here's a stillshot of a railgun being test-fired by the US navy:

Jollydevil wrote:Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt a railgun utilize magnets to launch projectiles?
In real that is. One would think that the real and one in 40K are at least a bit similar.

That's more a coilgun really. A railgun passes an electrical current from one rail through the projectile's base to the other rail. Railgun's a lot more simple (though erosion of the rails is a problem - there's a lot of waste heat - as are the forces acting on the rails which can push them out of proper alignment) and lighter, though a coilgun would yield higher performance.

It'd be slick if Tau get Coilguns in their next Codex!

If you're interested, there's plenty of good info on the net about these weapons [atomicrockets always a winner! for a nice place to start]. Railgun's worth checking out if you have any interest in contemporary US Naval affairs and emerging (problematic) tech.

EDIT: Im2randomghgh: Fast enough and the slug does break down on impact - that's why Whipple Shields are more useful against extremely high velocity impacts than slabs of armour are.

tsz52 wrote:

Jollydevil wrote:Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt a railgun utilize magnets to launch projectiles?
In real that is. One would think that the real and one in 40K are at least a bit similar.

That's more a coilgun really. A railgun passes a current from one rail through the projectile's base to the other rail. Railgun's a lot more simple (though erosion of the rails is a problem - there's a lot of waste heat - as are the forces acting on the rails which can push them out of proper alignment) and lighter, though a coilgun would yield higher performance.

It'd be slick if Tau get Coilguns in their next Codex!

If you're interested, there's plenty of good info on the net about these weapons [atomicrockets always a winner! for a nice place to start]. Railgun's worth checking out if you have any interest in contemporary US Naval affairs and emerging (problematic) tech.

EDIT: Im2randomghgh: Fast enough and the slug does break down on impact - that's why Whipple Shields are more useful against extremely high velocity impacts than slabs of armour are.

wow that's cool. Looks like I learned something new today!

tsz52 wrote:

Jollydevil wrote:Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt a railgun utilize magnets to launch projectiles?
In real that is. One would think that the real and one in 40K are at least a bit similar.

That's more a coilgun really. A railgun passes an electrical current from one rail through the projectile's base to the other rail. Railgun's a lot more simple (though erosion of the rails is a problem - there's a lot of waste heat - as are the forces acting on the rails which can push them out of proper alignment) and lighter, though a coilgun would yield higher performance.

It'd be slick if Tau get Coilguns in their next Codex!

If you're interested, there's plenty of good info on the net about these weapons [atomicrockets always a winner! for a nice place to start]. Railgun's worth checking out if you have any interest in contemporary US Naval affairs and emerging (problematic) tech.

EDIT: Im2randomghgh: Fast enough and the slug does break down on impact - that's why Whipple Shields are more useful against extremely high velocity impacts than slabs of armour are.

Yeah, but whipple shields are useless against them. Whipple shield protects against 3-18 km/s, whereas railguns tested have achieved speeds of 20 km/s+

Also, "Utilize magnets to launch a projectile" describes coilguns and railguns in equal mesure. Railgun use two electromagnetic rails to fire a magnetically charged projectile down the length of the "barrel" (pair of rails). Coil gun uses a similar concept, but instead of the charge being lit all the way down the length of the "barrel" it is a series of "loops" that are electromagnetically charged as the projectile reaches them and shutting off as it passes them. Also, the tau are never getting coilguns ever. Do you know why? Because another name for coilgun is "gauss gun" and that is pretty thoroughly covered in 40k, even though GW seems to be unaware of what a gauss gun is.

Trust me, I know my stuff here, I had a several-dozen page arguement about what a railgun/coilgun/Mass accelerator is and what the differences are on dakka about 6 months ago and really don't want to get any further into it this time than I already have.

Cheers.

EDIT: Was thinking of something else for the speed. Anyways, they go SLOWER than the 3km/s at which the shield can help.

EDIT 2: TO clarify: I was talking about a non weaponized railgun that has been tested to launch objects at 20km/s, the weaponized ones are likely going to be 2-3.5km/s, which will, in time, likely be able to match the speeds of their orbital launcher brethren

I'm sure that I can kill a Space marine with a grill lighter and an aerosol can.

But for a true, non-trolling response, I think that any level of anti-tank could seriously injure a space marine, and possibly embed enough shrapnel into their body to rip them to pieces.

Im2randomghgh: Cheers for the edits [I actually went off and gave you time to do that specifically - I hoped you would]: I'm not one for calling folks on stuff when they've said they don't want to discuss it further but I was really going to have to ask for a source on that tested at 20 km/s+ thing.

You know your stuff, and I know mine, and I would quibble with some of your statements (railguns don't use magnetic projectiles but coilguns can, so coilguns are 'more magnetic' in nature and operation than railguns are), but won't out of respect for your wish to not discuss this. There's a bit of at cross purposes here re the real weapons vs the 40k ones too. Just a few things (and for anyone else who might be reading):-

1 Past a certain speed, physical objects do break down upon impact (why would they be immune to this?); they function gradually (as velocities increase) less as physical objects punching through the target and more as fast balls of plasma, explosives (KE dump so fast that it causes a supersonic shockwave), and get into proper relativistic speeds and the mass converts itself into nuke-yield energy. The projectile does not survive any of this whole.

This will cause problems when we weaponise space, where it may well be better to reduce velocity to achieve better penetration (to prevent the projectile from destroying itself as it hits with massive superficial damage, instead of holding together and going deeper). Hence my Whipple Shield point - 'past a certain velocity...'.

But we don't know what velocities Tau Railguns run at (?), so this might be academic but I wanted to just point that out to BeRsErKeR as a possibility (and it benefited your argument, by the way);

2 A Tau Coilgun would be a 40k Tau Coilgun, and would be referred to as such. It self-evidently isn't a 40k Gauss gun in any way, and nobody would call it one nor get them confused. That a tiny number of people in the world might call an actual Coilgun a Gauss gun needn't impact too greatly upon the Studio's creativity. I'd like to see Coilguns in the new 'dex since it adds further verisimilitude (show don't tell) to their pretty unique attribute of having evolving tech - and that's precisely how their tech would evolve. Plus score a few 'GW isn't totally clueless about weapons tech after all' points for whatever that would be worth to them..;

3 Always tricky when dealing with a 'I have stated my disagreement and now don't want to discuss this further' post, since every statement deserves a right to reply... errrm but I'm happy to leave it there if you want.... But if it isn't too much trouble would you mind dropping a link to that technical description thread of yours? I'd like to read it, and obviously you'll be safe from any response from me to anything therein given the threadomancy rules (plus my respect for your reason to not want to discuss this).

[EDIT: If it was in the Background bit of the forum then don't bother trying to find it since I'm working backwards through all those pages anyway - I'll get to it eventually.]

Cheers.

Let me raise stakes here.

Let us replace Astartes with:

-an Terminator.

-an Grey Knight.

-an Custodes.

And in the end let us compare Primarchs to.

What now can kill those guys?

tsz52 wrote:
But if we're talking modern weapons vs SMs well most of the squadies I've conversed with who've fought in our contemporary wars have told me that nearly all of the actual killing is accomplished by air strikes, mortars and shoulder launched missiles, then a bit by artillery and the heavy and medium MGs, with everything less (with the exception of grenades, now and then) doing not much more than suppress (to allow those 'proper' weapons to work).

So you're not having to wheel these weapons out specially just to fight the dread SMs - a modern military fights pretty much that way already. There're a few bits of doctrine that you'd have to tweak (eg most small arms won't suppress SMs) but not much.

Space Superiority: Whomever's got that wins: End of. Imperial Navy wins.

But that invalidates just about every 40k warfighting premise... so should be used sparingly in such a debate as this.

Gah... I'm going to have to read the thread aren't I?

I think you're spot on with this, but I echo the previous poster who said "if you have to bring anti-tank to fight infantry, you're in trouble", because Astartes, pretty much by definition, would not be lining up and waiting for you to call in support weapons. Nor would they be suppressed by any fire a modern infantry squad could put out, so good luck pinning them down long enough to get your air support lined up.

I think we can safely ignore tabletop 40k in discussions like this. Lining up and charging across open fields - t's just WHFB in space. If you want to talk about "real" space marines, it's 7.5' tall bipedal light tanks deploying directly from orbit into your backyard, killing your governor/president/whatever, then being airlifted back out before anyone really knows what's going on. Or, if you're crewing an enemy spacecraft, and you enjoy the sensation of being alive, you had better arm yourselves with HEAT RPGs and train to fire them down hallways at rapidly advancing walls of armor firing .70 cal RPGs back at you, or else you and your whole bridge crew will be piles of goo.

For the purposes of this thread we can discuss all the various ways in which a .50 cal or a 120mm artillery shell would kill a marine, but if a space marine finds himself squaring off against an enemy who is ready and able to bring heavy weapons to bear across open ground, he's already screwed the pooch. If the Adeptus Astartes did exist, they would outgun, outlast, and outmaneuver a modern military force the same way NATO forces outfight the Taliban in Afghanistan. Space Marines, like any soldier from any time, would do everything within their power to avoid a "fair" fight and bring all their advantages to bear as ruthlessly as possible.

Brother Coa wrote:Let me raise stakes here.

Let us replace Astartes with:

-an Terminator.

-an Grey Knight.

-an Custodes.

And in the end let us compare Primarchs to.

What now can kill those guys?

Purge them in nuclear fire!

Brother Coa wrote:Let me raise stakes here.

Let us replace Astartes with:

-an Terminator.

-an Grey Knight.

-an Custodes.

And in the end let us compare Primarchs to.

What now can kill those guys?

All armor still has soft spots for movement and they all still have dudes in them. The same basic weaknesses apply. Kinetic force from sufficiently large anti-tank rounds and explosive pressure waves close enough to the softer spots should be sufficient to damage the tissue inside the armor even without penetrating it.

Have you ever skinned your knee through your pants without tearing them? Think about that only much more upscaled and involving explosives.

Terminators would be a great deal more difficult to fell with small-arms fire, as that is precisely what they are designed to withstand, and there are sources where even light mortar fire won't bother them.
However, that does not mean they cannot be killed with such a weapon, however unlikely. As the point of the thread is "what can kill," not "What can kill effectively or reliably," that's all that matters.

Ha raise the stakes you say? Fine, Thunder Warriors.

As for grey knights, terminators and what not, EMP blast them first, and then barrage them in a hail of mortar strikes. Pretty sure that'll end them.

Ooh, EMP, that's a good one. I'm sure the armor is hardened against EMP in general, since even contemporary military equipment is. Really concentrated, directed, or localized stuff (like the equivalent of a haywire grenade, if you could build one) would probably work though. Does anything like that actually exist? Don't cops have EMP-type traps they lay for fleeing suspects to kill the engines in their cars?