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.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
Except for all the fluff presented in third-person omniscient format. If it's stated as a fact, it's a fact.

Now, all the fluff presented from someone's point of view, yes, that might be propaganda, or mis-interpreted, or simply wrong. But there is factual information, as well; and that factual information commonly contradicts what you see on the tabletop. Like I said; the tabletop game has to be balanced, so as to make for a fun game to play. The background fluff is not balanced in the same way.

Actually, there's none of that either. The supposedly omniscient narrator has been known to contradict itself in the same paragraph, and is considered an Unreliable Narrator (and is stated to be such by GW) so, sorry, no, it's not 'factual' either.

Grakmar wrote:

Soladrin wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

Soladrin wrote:

Grakmar wrote:
Right, but the fluff is all considered to be in-universe propaganda. So, gameplay mechanics are the only consistent and reliable information we have.

Nope, rules just doesn't equal facts. Or are you going to tell me an assault cannons rate of fire is only twice as fast as regular automatic weapons?

That is exactly what I'm telling you. The weapons used in 40k are really slow rate of fire, weak, and incredibly limited range.

Yeah, keep on trollin mate.

It's not trolling. I'm simply saying that in the 40k universe, technology is really poor compared to our own in some ways. Weaponry is one of those ways.

So, every time a vehicle runs over a piece of rubble, there is a 1 in 6 chance of it stopping dead in its tracks? Or if I am hiding behind some razor wire, there is a one in six chance of it outright stopping a missile flying at me? Or a vehicle moving at a certain speed straight up can't fire anything? Or the greatest swordsman in the galaxy having a 1/3rd chance in every swing of missing outright against a man who was drafted into the military a day before? The rules are abstractions of what could be happening, not concrete examples of what is going on. So, the rules are, AFAIC, even less valid than the worst fluff.

A spork would do the job

Rules = bad fluff gone off.

And weak weapons? So a .75 automatic RPG is weak is it?

IHateNids wrote:Rules = bad fluff gone off.

And weak weapons? So a .75 automatic RPG is weak is it?

Fired at a low enough velocity it would be

It'll still go 'boom'

but yeah

IHateNids wrote:It'll still go 'boom'

but yeah

Yes, like a firecracker.

Which doesn't actually hurt that much if you hold it in the palm of your hand and don't enclose your fist around it.

This is why boltguns penetrate flak armor. If they did not penetrate flak armor, they'd not hurt guardsmen (flak armor being specifically designed to absorb blasts, shockwaves, and shrapnel, as well as being ablative).

Relatively, your skin is pretty tough, especially wrapped in flak armor. You lose a bit of energy breaking it. But if you can get through it before exploding, all the explosiony goodness can be used on the squishy bits

Randomonioum wrote:
So, every time a vehicle runs over a piece of rubble, there is a 1 in 6 chance of it stopping dead in its tracks? Or if I am hiding behind some razor wire, there is a one in six chance of it outright stopping a missile flying at me? Or a vehicle moving at a certain speed straight up can't fire anything? Or the greatest swordsman in the galaxy having a 1/3rd chance in every swing of missing outright against a man who was drafted into the military a day before? The rules are abstractions of what could be happening, not concrete examples of what is going on. So, the rules are, AFAIC, even less valid than the worst fluff.

Since the rules are designed with tanks in mind, and based on the weights of those tanks relative to their tracks, proportionately.. yeah, 1 in 6 sounds about right for throwing a tred. (and you might laugh, but I've see that missile into razorwire actually happen, not sure what the odds really are though.) Also, where the feth did you get a guy drafted into the military the day before? You might want to check your IG fluff if that's what you think...

IHateNids wrote:
And weak weapons? So a .75 automatic RPG is weak is it?

Because I can load a high X round into a 12 gauge shotgun, and get comparable damage and better range, since a 12 gauge is roughly .74 caliber

IHateNids wrote:I'd say anything to the right places would kill a plain ol SM, but what about being chapter specific? BA feel no pain so it'd be kill em out right or your fethed.

Also Mr T could wipe the floor with a SM.

Poor Draigo

King Pariah wrote:

IHateNids wrote:I'd say anything to the right places would kill a plain ol SM, but what about being chapter specific? BA feel no pain so it'd be kill em out right or your fethed.

Also Mr T could wipe the floor with a SM.

Poor Draigo

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:

IHateNids wrote:
And weak weapons? So a .75 automatic RPG is weak is it?

Because I can load a high X round into a 12 gauge shotgun, and get comparable damage and better range, since a 12 gauge is roughly .74 caliber

I didn't know a 12gauge was that big. Thanks for correcting me thinking it was like a .58

BaronIveagh wrote:Since the rules are designed with tanks in mind, and based on the weights of those tanks relative to their tracks, proportionately.. yeah, 1 in 6 sounds about right for throwing a tred. (and you might laugh, but I've see that missile into razorwire actually happen, not sure what the odds really are though.) Also, where the feth did you get a guy drafted into the military the day before? You might want to check your IG fluff if that's what you think...

Fair enough on the tank tracks point, I don't know too much about tanks or the like, I assumed they would be of sturdier stuff, especially if you look at how wide the tracks are. Im sure that it probably does happen, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that razorwire will magically stop anything you throw at it, pretty much, 1 in every 6 shots. I am also well aware that the imperial guard are well trained, not just picked off the streets and handed a gun, although I can see how you might have reached that conclusion from what I wrote. I was meaning a conscript, who going by the rules, may as well have just been picked up anywhere. Ok, better example. Replace the guardsman with a grot. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that the stats are incredibly coarse. They may be constant, but they sure don't make sense if you were to apply them literally. They were designed to abstract what would be going on in a fight, not be a literal interpretation, as I said in my last post. Sure, you can conclude from the rules that everything in the universe is underpowered, can only fire incredibly slowly, and everyone is just really weak, and that is your opinion. But I personally think it is utterly ridiculous.

Randomonioum wrote:
Fair enough on the tank tracks point, I don't know too much about tanks or the like, I assumed they would be of sturdier stuff, especially if you look at how wide the tracks are. Im sure that it probably does happen, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that razorwire will magically stop anything you throw at it, pretty much, 1 in every 6 shots. I am also well aware that the imperial guard are well trained, not just picked off the streets and handed a gun, although I can see how you might have reached that conclusion from what I wrote. I was meaning a conscript, who going by the rules, may as well have just been picked up anywhere. Ok, better example. Replace the guardsman with a grot. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that the stats are incredibly coarse. They may be constant, but they sure don't make sense if you were to apply them literally. They were designed to abstract what would be going on in a fight, not be a literal interpretation, as I said in my last post. Sure, you can conclude from the rules that everything in the universe is underpowered, can only fire incredibly slowly, and everyone is just really weak, and that is your opinion. But I personally think it is utterly ridiculous.

I always considered the lower cover saves to be just it was harder to hit because the target is obscured (since smoke also gives a cover save) and higher cover as it stopping the round. But that aside. The problem is that as many have pointed out the rules are the only thing that is consistent. After all, some fluff has space wolves leaping thousands of km in a single bound (Take THAT Superman!) while other occasions they die from a simple fall. Captain Ventris briefly holds up a building made from Leman Russ tanks (meaning he's able to lift over 120 tonnes!!!!) without his power armor. Let's not even start on Draigo or the whole Grey Knights bathing in blood thing.

As far as the omniscient narrator, I can point to books printed within a month of each other that directly contradict, because the narrator will ALWAYS make the current codex army out to be the baddest asses in the universe.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Randomonioum wrote:
Fair enough on the tank tracks point, I don't know too much about tanks or the like, I assumed they would be of sturdier stuff, especially if you look at how wide the tracks are. Im sure that it probably does happen, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that razorwire will magically stop anything you throw at it, pretty much, 1 in every 6 shots. I am also well aware that the imperial guard are well trained, not just picked off the streets and handed a gun, although I can see how you might have reached that conclusion from what I wrote. I was meaning a conscript, who going by the rules, may as well have just been picked up anywhere. Ok, better example. Replace the guardsman with a grot. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that the stats are incredibly coarse. They may be constant, but they sure don't make sense if you were to apply them literally. They were designed to abstract what would be going on in a fight, not be a literal interpretation, as I said in my last post. Sure, you can conclude from the rules that everything in the universe is underpowered, can only fire incredibly slowly, and everyone is just really weak, and that is your opinion. But I personally think it is utterly ridiculous.

I always considered the lower cover saves to be just it was harder to hit because the target is obscured (since smoke also gives a cover save) and higher cover as it stopping the round. But that aside. The problem is that as many have pointed out the rules are the only thing that is consistent. After all, some fluff has space wolves leaping thousands of km in a single bound (Take THAT Superman!) while other occasions they die from a simple fall. Captain Ventris briefly holds up a building made from Leman Russ tanks (meaning he's able to lift over 120 tonnes!!!!) without his power armor. Let's not even start on Draigo or the whole Grey Knights bathing in blood thing.

As far as the omniscient narrator, I can point to books printed within a month of each other that directly contradict, because the narrator will ALWAYS make the current codex army out to be the baddest asses in the universe.

Im not debating that the rules are consistent, and that the fluff isn't. What I am saying is that if you WERE to take the rules to be the gospel of what the universe is like, then it ends up being a pretty bizarre universe. Go ahead, continue to believe it if you want, it sounds like you enjoy it. But I don't treat the rules in any way as fluff, because I personally think it is silly. I don't think either of us are going to convince the other, but hey, we can continue to bat the arguments back and forth if you like.

As an aside, it says at the start of the 5th ed rule book that the most important rule is that the rules aren't important, fun is Not strictly on topic, but I feel its worth mentioning if we are going to take the rules as truth.

There are lots of different 'gauges' of shotgun, so they can be of different size.

Again, its going to matter more where you hit the marine than the weapon neccesarily. You have to overcome their natural toughness and redundancy and ability to heal/coagulate. That's why headshots tend to be so favored.

Randomonioum wrote:
Im not debating that the rules are consistent, and that the fluff isn't. What I am saying is that if you WERE to take the rules to be the gospel of what the universe is like, then it ends up being a pretty bizarre universe.

I think if you accept anything they write about 40k outside some of FFG's stuff (that makes a little sense), it's a pretty bizarre universe.

I mean, stop and think about it:

Space is flat and starships don't have guns that face up or down or backwards?

All learning everywhere is somehow prevented?

Hiveworlds in a setting where space travel is less than reliable?

That's not even getting into some of the more esoteric stuff, like the fact that close air support has been up till now a near unknown, even in fluff, (though with fliers in 6th I'm betting that changes) or why titans are able to walk at all, not due to their composition, but because unprepared ground won't support that much weight.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Randomonioum wrote:
Im not debating that the rules are consistent, and that the fluff isn't. What I am saying is that if you WERE to take the rules to be the gospel of what the universe is like, then it ends up being a pretty bizarre universe.

I think if you accept anything they write about 40k outside some of FFG's stuff (that makes a little sense), it's a pretty bizarre universe.

I mean, stop and think about it:

Space is flat and starships don't have guns that face up or down or backwards?

All learning everywhere is somehow prevented?

Hiveworlds in a setting where space travel is less than reliable?

That's not even getting into some of the more esoteric stuff, like the fact that close air support has been up till now a near unknown, even in fluff, (though with fliers in 6th I'm betting that changes) or why titans are able to walk at all, not due to their composition, but because unprepared ground won't support that much weight.

Perhaps. But I'm willing to accept these things, because they make for a good story, although I have varying opinions on some of those points, I'm not going to bring that up here because its not relevant. The idea that the rules are the constants of the universe doesn't sit well with me, I don't much like it. And being as there has been no official comment that, yes, the rules are the universe's truth, all this is just opinion. And my opinion is that 40k would be more badass with awesome guns. As interesting as your hypothesis is, thats all it is - a hypothesis. Theres no hard evidence backing your side up, just as there is no evidence disproving it. Until there is, this is all meaningless :')

Killing a marine is all fair and well... but this is just a single marine... But a single terminator? They can survive the foot falls of titans... We can't compare to that...

Von Chogg wrote:Killing a marine is all fair and well... but this is just a single marine... But a single terminator? They can survive the foot falls of titans... We can't compare to that...

I wouldn't get too happy there: that was due to plot armor more then Terminator armor. In stories that are less about how uber SM are, they get peeled open by genestealers on a regular basis. I think something that can be torn apart by chitin and brute strength can probably be penned by a anti-material rifle.

BaronIveagh wrote:

I wouldn't get too happy there: that was due to plot armor more then Terminator armor. In stories that are less about how uber SM are, they get peeled open by genestealers on a regular basis. I think something that can be torn apart by chitin and brute strength can probably be penned by a anti-material rifle.

Not necessarily.

Point one; Genestealers have just as much handwavey sci-fi magic as Terminators do. They, and tyranids in general, routinely do things that should be flatly impossible for biological organisms as we understand them.

Point two; A Genestealer can dig its claws into a ridge or the lip of a plate, and if it's strong enough, tear the plate off. A bullet cannot; it has to break through the plate.

Point 3; A Genestealer strikes multiple times. Terminators are not simply wtfpwnt by a single claw strike; rather, the inhumanly-fast Genestealers swarm over them, peel them open, and kill them. A bullet, by contrast, expends its energy in a single impulse and then is done. You could certainly argue that an anti-material round would do DAMAGE to Terminator armor, or even that it could slam right through if it struck a weak point, but really, Terminator armor is ludicrously tough.

I mean, take the weakest numbers for 40k armor; you know, the ones that indicate that a Land Raider is less well-armored than a modern IFV. The indication there (which, I should point out, most people seem to dismiss as ludicrously weak compared to the fluff) is that 1mm of Land Raider armor is worth 3mm of RHA, the standard for measuring modern tank armor in terms of thicknesses of steel. Terminator armor is made of ceramite, plasteel and adamantine, the same stuff Land Raiders are.

So. . . just from looking at pictures of Terminators, I would guesstimate that it's at least six or seven inches thick. That would be 150-175mm, which would (once again, according to the weakest comparison) provide protection equal to 450-525mm of RHA.

This is a good place to note that the side armor of the T-44 MBT, which was actively in service through the end of the 1970s, was 75mm thick and composed of RHA steel. That armor was completely invulnerable to the anti-tank rifles of the time. According to this highly conservative, back-of-the-envelope calculation, Terminator armor is approximately six or seven times as resilient. That would indicate that the VERY WEAKEST parts of the armor literally cannot be penetrated by anything short of an anti-tank rocket. It also, incidentally, would seem to indicate that just regular old power armor is immune to small-arms; even if you asserted that PA is only, say, one-fifth as protective as Terminator armor, it would still be the equivalent of about 90mm of RHA. Good luck finding a modern infantry rifle that can punch through five inches of steel. And once again, remember that these are the WORST numbers, the ones that make 40k tanks out to be far, far more poorly armored than modern vehicles.

I'm not seeing how this supports the assertion that modern infantry could fight Space Marines.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

I wouldn't get too happy there: that was due to plot armor more then Terminator armor. In stories that are less about how uber SM are, they get peeled open by genestealers on a regular basis. I think something that can be torn apart by chitin and brute strength can probably be penned by a anti-material rifle.

Not necessarily.

Point one; Genestealers have just as much handwavey sci-fi magic as Terminators do. They, and tyranids in general, routinely do things that should be flatly impossible for biological organisms as we understand them.

Point two; A Genestealer can dig its claws into a ridge or the lip of a plate, and if it's strong enough, tear the plate off. A bullet cannot; it has to break through the plate.

Point 3; A Genestealer strikes multiple times. Terminators are not simply wtfpwnt by a single claw strike; rather, the inhumanly-fast Genestealers swarm over them, peel them open, and kill them. A bullet, by contrast, expends its energy in a single impulse and then is done. You could certainly argue that an anti-material round would do DAMAGE to Terminator armor, or even that it could slam right through if it struck a weak point, but really, Terminator armor is ludicrously tough.

I mean, take the weakest numbers for 40k armor; you know, the ones that indicate that a Land Raider is less well-armored than a modern IFV. The indication there (which, I should point out, most people seem to dismiss as ludicrously weak compared to the fluff) is that 1mm of Land Raider armor is worth 3mm of RHA, the standard for measuring modern tank armor in terms of thicknesses of steel. Terminator armor is made of ceramite, plasteel and adamantine, the same stuff Land Raiders are.

So. . . just from looking at pictures of Terminators, I would guesstimate that it's at least six or seven inches thick. That would be 150-175mm, which would (once again, according to the weakest comparison) provide protection equal to 450-525mm of RHA.

This is a good place to note that the side armor of the T-44 MBT, which was actively in service through the end of the 1970s, was 75mm thick and composed of RHA steel. That armor was completely invulnerable to the anti-tank rifles of the time. According to this highly conservative, back-of-the-envelope calculation, Terminator armor is approximately six or seven times as resilient. That would indicate that the VERY WEAKEST parts of the armor literally cannot be penetrated by anything short of an anti-tank rocket. It also, incidentally, would seem to indicate that just regular old power armor is immune to small-arms; even if you asserted that PA is only, say, one-fifth as protective as Terminator armor, it would still be the equivalent of about 90mm of RHA. Good luck finding a modern infantry rifle that can punch through five inches of steel. And once again, remember that these are the WORST numbers, the ones that make 40k tanks out to be far, far more poorly armored than modern vehicles.

I'm not seeing how this supports the assertion that modern infantry could fight Space Marines.

One, the RussianT-44 was classified as a medium tank, not an MBT. And it's unknown if it was invulnerable to anti-tank rifles of the time, as it never saw combat, and was never tested against anti-tank rifles, because it was quickly replaced by the T-54/55 (which is still used in some placed today.)

Two: In The Emperor's Finest a genestealer neatly bites through the helmet of a terminator in one nice neat crunch. Indeed, he was wtfpwned.

Three: This theory would hold together except I own a few terminators and compared them to the Mk7 armor. While there is superior protection to the chest, shoulders, and shins, the thighs are just as thin as on a regular SM Mk 7. The tac dread also has the same lack of armor in many of the joints. Also, since the mk 7 is not appreciably thicker then the mk 6...



You may notice that SM armor is not solid, but rather a thin layer of armor over a more complex layer that includes microservos and life support functions. (This is also mentioned in The Killing Ground about how complex the inner workings of a SM armor are, and how thin the armor itself really is)

Even if we take your 3 to 1 numbers into account, your SM in mk 6 and 7 is protected by...about the same as modern body armor with trauma plates installed, it just covers the whole body.

BTW: IRL Landraiders would be deathtraps for the people inside, not due to their armor being strong or weak, but because they have no spall liners to protect the troops awaiting deployment.

FuryTheBerserker wrote:You can't kill a Space Marine you runty gits A Space Marine kills you

Unless you are Russian

Connor MacLeod wrote:*sigh* shot placement matters. You can kill a Space Marine with a pointy wooden stick (well okay a spear) if you aim for the right area and you hit him just right or hard enough. It even happened in First HEretic. But that doesn't mean it would always happen. Same with gunfire of any kind.

Except that marine bodies alone would be capable of blocking most/all damage from a wooden spear, and even their joints are armoured.

How long do we get?

The average dakkadakka forum user could kill a space marine if enough of us were armed.

Average dakkadite=IG conscript stats

Those with police/military background=guardsmen stats

All modern small arms=stubbers=same stats as a flashlight.
The advantage of flashlights over stubbers is purely logistical, which is huge at the strategic level, but not the tactical.

50 cal=heavy stubber

RPG=krak grenade

Hellfire missile=krak missile

10 kilograms of C4 strapped to your chest=ig demo charge.

An entire chapter of space marines would have a hard time destroying the armed forces of North Korea.

schadenfreude wrote:
An entire chapter of space marines would have a hard time destroying the armed forces of North Korea.

In a head on fight, certainly. That is kind of the point. They really aren't supposed to act as a front line, conventional warfare army. Obviously in a head on head confrontation they would fare poorly against any conventional military. While they are virtually immune to small arms fire (not totally obviously), against many of the heavy weaponry a conventional military can bring to bear they have little defense. Most special forces teams suffer similar weaknesses. That doesn't make the Navy SEALS, Army Rangers, or British SAS any less useful, it just means they have to be carefully applied to the correct situation.

Which is why they are a rapid strike, special forces group. Heavy weapons take a certain amount of coordination to use, and SMs meant to utilize rapid insertion and deep striking to make that impossible. When drop pods land in your base, or in the midst of your lines you can't use artillery, tanks, air support, or even most forms of anti-tank weaponry.

When they strike where and how they are meant to they will rarely have to deal with more than small arms fire. And not concentrated small arms fire, which might pose a threat, but disorganized, panicked small arms fire.

So while they would certainly lose in a head on confrontation with North Korea, that is the type of fight they wouldn't engage in. They would strike at infrastructure and leadership positions. True conquest would be performed by the IG.

So to answer the original question, for the hundredth time, What modern weapons could kill a SM? Most anti tank weaponry will have little problem. Small arms have a small chance of kill them, but not reliable. But most modern, centeralized militaries would have a difficult time dealing with their rapid insertion tactics.

BaronIveagh wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

I wouldn't get too happy there: that was due to plot armor more then Terminator armor. In stories that are less about how uber SM are, they get peeled open by genestealers on a regular basis. I think something that can be torn apart by chitin and brute strength can probably be penned by a anti-material rifle.

Not necessarily.

Point one; Genestealers have just as much handwavey sci-fi magic as Terminators do. They, and tyranids in general, routinely do things that should be flatly impossible for biological organisms as we understand them.

Point two; A Genestealer can dig its claws into a ridge or the lip of a plate, and if it's strong enough, tear the plate off. A bullet cannot; it has to break through the plate.

Point 3; A Genestealer strikes multiple times. Terminators are not simply wtfpwnt by a single claw strike; rather, the inhumanly-fast Genestealers swarm over them, peel them open, and kill them. A bullet, by contrast, expends its energy in a single impulse and then is done. You could certainly argue that an anti-material round would do DAMAGE to Terminator armor, or even that it could slam right through if it struck a weak point, but really, Terminator armor is ludicrously tough.

I mean, take the weakest numbers for 40k armor; you know, the ones that indicate that a Land Raider is less well-armored than a modern IFV. The indication there (which, I should point out, most people seem to dismiss as ludicrously weak compared to the fluff) is that 1mm of Land Raider armor is worth 3mm of RHA, the standard for measuring modern tank armor in terms of thicknesses of steel. Terminator armor is made of ceramite, plasteel and adamantine, the same stuff Land Raiders are.

So. . . just from looking at pictures of Terminators, I would guesstimate that it's at least six or seven inches thick. That would be 150-175mm, which would (once again, according to the weakest comparison) provide protection equal to 450-525mm of RHA.

This is a good place to note that the side armor of the T-44 MBT, which was actively in service through the end of the 1970s, was 75mm thick and composed of RHA steel. That armor was completely invulnerable to the anti-tank rifles of the time. According to this highly conservative, back-of-the-envelope calculation, Terminator armor is approximately six or seven times as resilient. That would indicate that the VERY WEAKEST parts of the armor literally cannot be penetrated by anything short of an anti-tank rocket. It also, incidentally, would seem to indicate that just regular old power armor is immune to small-arms; even if you asserted that PA is only, say, one-fifth as protective as Terminator armor, it would still be the equivalent of about 90mm of RHA. Good luck finding a modern infantry rifle that can punch through five inches of steel. And once again, remember that these are the WORST numbers, the ones that make 40k tanks out to be far, far more poorly armored than modern vehicles.

I'm not seeing how this supports the assertion that modern infantry could fight Space Marines.

One, the RussianT-44 was classified as a medium tank, not an MBT. And it's unknown if it was invulnerable to anti-tank rifles of the time, as it never saw combat, and was never tested against anti-tank rifles, because it was quickly replaced by the T-54/55 (which is still used in some placed today.)

Two: In The Emperor's Finest a genestealer neatly bites through the helmet of a terminator in one nice neat crunch. Indeed, he was wtfpwned.

Three: This theory would hold together except I own a few terminators and compared them to the Mk7 armor. While there is superior protection to the chest, shoulders, and shins, the thighs are just as thin as on a regular SM Mk 7. The tac dread also has the same lack of armor in many of the joints. Also, since the mk 7 is not appreciably thicker then the mk 6...



You may notice that SM armor is not solid, but rather a thin layer of armor over a more complex layer that includes microservos and life support functions. (This is also mentioned in The Killing Ground about how complex the inner workings of a SM armor are, and how thin the armor itself really is)

Even if we take your 3 to 1 numbers into account, your SM in mk 6 and 7 is protected by...about the same as modern body armor with trauma plates installed, it just covers the whole body.

BTW: IRL Landraiders would be deathtraps for the people inside, not due to their armor being strong or weak, but because they have no spall liners to protect the troops awaiting deployment.

@the italisized part, irrelevant, as Main battle tank is a role classification, a main battle tank can be light, medium, heavy or even super heavy.

@ the bold part, they have acid saliva of undocumented strength, for all we know it could be ridiculously powerful, plus they have magical hand-waivium plot armour (if they never made termies die ever it would get silly)

@the rest, your image clearly shows that PA is very thick. we can see that the breast plate is at least two inches thick if not more. The ridiculous thickness, paired with the complex internal workings, and with the additional factor of the strength of these sci-fi materials...

You may notice that SM armor is not solid, but rather a thin layer of armor over a more complex layer that includes microservos and life support functions

...if it was solid, there wouldn't be room for a marine to wear it...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

riplikash wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:
An entire chapter of space marines would have a hard time destroying the armed forces of North Korea.

In a head on fight, certainly. That is kind of the point. They really aren't supposed to act as a front line, conventional warfare army. Obviously in a head on head confrontation they would fare poorly against any conventional military. While they are virtually immune to small arms fire (not totally obviously), against many of the heavy weaponry a conventional military can bring to bear they have little defense. Most special forces teams suffer similar weaknesses. That doesn't make the Navy SEALS, Army Rangers, or British SAS any less useful, it just means they have to be carefully applied to the correct situation.

Which is why they are a rapid strike, special forces group. Heavy weapons take a certain amount of coordination to use, and SMs meant to utilize rapid insertion and deep striking to make that impossible. When drop pods land in your base, or in the midst of your lines you can't use artillery, tanks, air support, or even most forms of anti-tank weaponry.

When they strike where and how they are meant to they will rarely have to deal with more than small arms fire. And not concentrated small arms fire, which might pose a threat, but disorganized, panicked small arms fire.

So while they would certainly lose in a head on confrontation with North Korea, that is the type of fight they wouldn't engage in. They would strike at infrastructure and leadership positions. True conquest would be performed by the IG.

So to answer the original question, for the hundredth time, What modern weapons could kill a SM? Most anti tank weaponry will have little problem. Small arms have a small chance of kill them, but not reliable. But most modern, centeralized militaries would have a difficult time dealing with their rapid insertion tactics.

I feel like it would take ridiculous amounts of small arms fire to fell a marine because we saw in the dark hunters short that a full lasgun clip (lasguns being worse at penetrating and better at unarmoured damage than regular weapons) to the torso of an unarmoured marine failed to kill him, along with the fact that they are not just standing still, along with the fact that better penetration=less damage and vice versa, and as a final point, modern military doctrine would have no ready response to such attackers would make small arms a very small factor.

Though I agree they are not invincible.

Also, tanks would have a difficult time fighting them; usually, tanks rely on their secondary, automatic weapons for dealing with infantry. Those guns would have little effect against them, and the larger guns would have a hell of a time hitting them, plus a melta gun would wreak HAVOC against tanks (even bolters would likely be able to incapacitate most tanks <45 tons à la penetrating and detonating amongst the crew).

The amount of force North Korea would have to marshall in one place would be near total to defeat an entire chapter, though I agree that most larger nations would be a hell of a fight for a single chapter.

Toast36 wrote:Nuke em!

Preferably from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

im2randomghgh wrote:
@the italisized part, irrelevant, as Main battle tank is a role classification, a main battle tank can be light, medium, heavy or even super heavy.

@ the bold part, they have acid saliva of undocumented strength, for all we know it could be ridiculously powerful, plus they have magical hand-waivium plot armour (if they never made termies die ever it would get silly)

@the rest, your image clearly shows that PA is very thick. we can see that the breast plate is at least two inches thick if not more. The ridiculous thickness, paired with the complex internal workings, and with the additional factor of the strength of these sci-fi materials...

@Tank classification: WRONG. You're combining the old classification system and the modern one. (Current system separates lights from MBT)

@the genestealers, yes, but acids take more then a split second to work. This thing jumps down the from the ceiling and bites right through. Even powerful acids take longer then that through regular metals.

@ The rest: Very thick and very hollow. Which seems to escape you. Oh, it's 2 inches thick! Yes, but that 2 inches is not made up of the armor, which is only a thin outer layer. Those tubes and servos are not going to provide as much protection as you seem to think...

im2randomghgh wrote:
...if it was solid, there wouldn't be room for a marine to wear it...

Technically there isn't room of them to wear it anyway.

BaronIveagh wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
@the italisized part, irrelevant, as Main battle tank is a role classification, a main battle tank can be light, medium, heavy or even super heavy.

@ the bold part, they have acid saliva of undocumented strength, for all we know it could be ridiculously powerful, plus they have magical hand-waivium plot armour (if they never made termies die ever it would get silly)

@the rest, your image clearly shows that PA is very thick. we can see that the breast plate is at least two inches thick if not more. The ridiculous thickness, paired with the complex internal workings, and with the additional factor of the strength of these sci-fi materials...

@Tank classification: WRONG. You're combining the old classification system and the modern one. (Current system separates lights from MBT)

@the genestealers, yes, but acids take more then a split second to work. This thing jumps down the from the ceiling and bites right through. Even powerful acids take longer then that through regular metals.

@ The rest: Very thick and very hollow. Which seems to escape you. Oh, it's 2 inches thick! Yes, but that 2 inches is not made up of the armor, which is only a thin outer layer. Those tubes and servos are not going to provide as much protection as you seem to think...

im2randomghgh wrote:
...if it was solid, there wouldn't be room for a marine to wear it...

Technically there isn't room of them to wear it anyway.

@the tank part, so now tanks that are light enough to be light tanks cannot be MBT's regardless of their role?

@the genestealer part, this is magical 40k acid, and magical 40k stuff is magical.

@the rest, not hollow. You can clearly see on the breast plate 2+ inches of armour which is what I was referring to.

ANd yes, there is room for them to wear it. If there wasn't...they wouldn't be able to wear it.