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.

Ogiwan wrote:*snip*

Which is why no one pays attention to the GW figures. They're stupid. Forge World and GW if anything are WW2 buffs, and back in WW2 350 mm of sloped armor would be great. However, they don't pay attention to the modern world so they say '400 mm of steel armor sounds good!' not paying attention to the fact that by that standard, modern weaponry makes a mockery of the armor of the Imperial Guard.

As for the battlegroup quote, I never understood that to be a quote describing an entire crusade force, I understood it to be more of an armygroup that would be deployed to a small~ish world to protect it and/or a minor part of a crusade.

Given that we've been assuming we're fighting an American army, we've been using the equivalent IG force, e.g. the Cadians. Bear in mind that similar vagaries in discipline and command adn control function apply to Earths militaries as well. Sure most of the modern Western style militaries are equivalent, but if you're saying that we have to consider that the IG might send ill disciplined units to Earth, you also have to contend with the fact that they could be fighting similarly ill disciplined armies and militias.

NOt to mention it's been long agreed that a lasgun > a modern assault rifle, and flak armor > body armor. Yes, autoguns and assault rifles are vaguely similar, but a lasgun is more powerful than an autogun. We know this from the roleplaying games. Even saying that it's only as powerful as an autogun still leaves the fact that the lasgun is easy to supply. Every time an autogun shoots, a new bullet has to be made, and delivered for the front line. Every time a lasgun fires, its battery needs to spend some more time recharging in the sun.

As for flak armor, it's clear. Heavy stubber ~= heavy machine gun (.50 cal). Heavy stubbers can not reliably pierce flak armor. Can modern body armor stand up to heavy machine gun fire? I doubt it.

Ogiwan wrote:Now, as for the Imperium having a clear material edge, I'm not so sure about that. I do not see how Autoguns are clearly superior to modern assault rifles; in fact, I'm fairly sure that I've read that Guard Autoguns are equivalent to modern assault rifles. Sadly, though, I cannot cite anything specific. Now, modern body armor has a pretty good chance of stopping bullets; I had an ROTC instructor who saw someone take 3 AK rounds (7.62x39) to the chest, fall down, get back up again, and kill the guy who shot him. When the vest doesn't prevent a casualty, well, that's when you fail your armor save.

Autoguns are, at the least, equal to the old BAR, which fired rounds with roughly 4,000 Joules, twice that of modern assault rifles. The main advancement of infantry rifles over the past century has been in making them lighter, smaller, more accurate, and more reliable, cutting the power down to what's needed to reliably cause enough of an injury to take someone out of the fight. Autoguns are basically assault rifles, yes, but they're much higher caliber than those currently in service, so they hit with significantly more force. A lasgun is somewhere a little above that, only without the ammunition, recoil, air-resistance/wind, or gravity problems a conventional firearm would have.

ChrisWWII wrote:Which is why no one pays attention to the GW figures. They're stupid. Forge World and GW if anything are WW2 buffs, and back in WW2 350 mm of sloped armor would be great. However, they don't pay attention to the modern world so they say '400 mm of steel armor sounds good!' not paying attention to the fact that by that standard, modern weaponry makes a mockery of the armor of the Imperial Guard.

True freaking story. On all accounts.

As for the battlegroup quote, I never understood that to be a quote describing an entire crusade force, I understood it to be more of an armygroup that would be deployed to a small~ish world to protect it and/or a minor part of a crusade.

I didn't interpret it as an entire crusade force either; I just interpreted it as some dude bragging about the combat power he had.

NOt to mention it's been long agreed that a lasgun > a modern assault rifle, and flak armor > body armor. Yes, autoguns and assault rifles are vaguely similar, but a lasgun is more powerful than an autogun. We know this from the roleplaying games. Even saying that it's only as powerful as an autogun still leaves the fact that the lasgun is easy to supply. Every time an autogun shoots, a new bullet has to be made, and delivered for the front line. Every time a lasgun fires, its battery needs to spend some more time recharging in the sun.

I'm going to disagree. Now, I'm not disagreeing about the logistical superiority of the lasgun; I wrote a master's thesis about logistics in the First Gulf, and I will be the first to sing praises about the lasgun's light logistical tail. However, the claim that a lasgun is more powerful than an autogun according to the given stats in the RPG is flat-out unsustainable.

On page 130 of the Dark Heresy book, Lasguns are given the following stats: 100m range, Single and 3-round-burst Rate of Fire, dealing 1d10+3 Energy damage, 0 Armor Penetration, a 60 round clip, the Reliable special rule, and weighing 4 kg.
The stats for the Autogun are as follows: 90m range, Single, 3-round-burst, and 10-round-burst (automatic?) Rate of Fire, dealing 1d10+3 Impact damage, 0 Armor Penetration, a 30 round clip, no special rules, and weighing 3.5 KG.

So, the difference is that....a Lasgun is slightly more accurate, can't do Rock-And-Roll, is reliable, and has double the ammo. Sure, don't get me wrong, the lasgun is a better weapon, but it is not any more powerful than an autogun. Even in the codicies, we see both the Lasgun and Autogun listed as S3 AP-.

So, honestly, if both the 40k rulebook AND the RPG rulebook both list Lasguns and Autoguns as equivalent, where are you getting the argument that the Lasgun is more powerful than the Autogun?

As for flak armor, it's clear. Heavy stubber ~= heavy machine gun (.50 cal). Heavy stubbers can not reliably pierce flak armor. Can modern body armor stand up to heavy machine gun fire? I doubt it.

Sure, modern body armor can't stand up to a .50. However, Ma Deuce (the Browning .50 Caliber Machine Gun) is given as being able to penetrate 22mm of armor with the old-school M1 Ball ammo, and can do 34mm with the SLAP round. Seeing as the same Chapter Approved that I cited in my last post gives the Rhino's minimum armor as 30mm, the M2 is capable of penetrating AV 9 and 10. Now, if something can penetrate over an inch of steel armor, I fail to see how that 5+ flak vest can also protect it. I kinda doubt that S4 AP6 can mess up vehicles, but bounce off of troops.

Oh wait, i can believe that. Its 40k. The writers are clueless.

edit: removing extraneous parenthesis.

Ogiwan

You are correct.
I was going to go into much of what you said in your post. But you beat me to it.

As for the other guns/armor of the IG

Well start with the mighty Heavy Stub Gun: What Cal. is this gun?
Most on these forums seem to think its a .50 cal.<-----why?
I don't think GW has ever said what cal. it is.
It could be a .50 or it could be a .22 cal. chain gun with a fire rate of a 1000 rpm.
Or it could be .30 cal. Vickers they riped off a old by-plane. They just want it to be a .50 cal.

No one knows for sure as GW are retards when it comes to real world comparisons.

I think people just like to think of it as a .50 because there know the .50 is a big gun. And it looks good.
But most things that are blood and bone are not that hard to kill so a .50 is very much overkill.

As for armor: You guys have no idea how many of our casualties come from hits that do not even hit the armor.
Legs,arms,hands,feet,face/head.
And that does not even count all concussions etc.

And going by the armor on the figs in this game,and the artwork/fluff. Just look at the cover of the codex. All those guys storming out of those drop ships would be dead and be dead fast.
They seem to be just landing right on top of who/whatever they are fighting. Not very smart. But that is how they seem to like it.
If they attempted to make a landing like that on our lines in Desert Storm the death toll they would have taken would been Biblical.

Anyway back to armor.
I think they have better armor, I just know it would not work as good in the field as some of you think.
And it dos not seem to stop a stub gun to well. And that is what we would be throwing at them.
So its not all that.

100vs100 We win fighting the Guard.
We have better tanks<---So so much better. You just have no idea really.
We have better support
We have far better command and control
We have far better training,<----FAR FAR Better. Anyone who does not think so has no clue as to how a real army works.


Now this is only for 100vs100 soldiers on the ground,with say a few tanks, and some light support.

Not space warfare.

Ogiwan wrote:Now, as for the Imperium having a clear material edge, I'm not so sure about that. I do not see how Autoguns are clearly superior to modern assault rifles

Larger caliber, faster rate of fire, more reliable and rugged, more accurate at range (it's comparable to a lasgun, which has no recoil and has essentially perfect aim every time with no bullet deviation due to using a projectile which travels at the speed of light), easier to produce, easier to maintain (makes the kalosh look delicate), etc.

Yeah. Go right ahead.

I will.

The thing is, that Chapter Approved book is over a decade old, and, as you noted, it was written buy a bunch of sci-fi nerds who know nothing about real military tactics and equipment, guys who at the time didn't even have wikipedia to look up factoids for their little science fiction project.

It's why using the armor values is rather nonsensical-- a better idea is to use penetration values of weapons. In the lore, there are RPG launchers (these are inferior to the game's missile launchers I should note) used by less well equipped forces. Let's assume that modern anti-tank missile launchers are roughly equivalent to these RPG Launchers' krak rounds. Now, these launchers have roughly a penetration of AP4, converting it from Dark Heresy's AP system to tabletop's AP system (in that it can penetrate carapace armor fully with no protection from a direct hit but power armor still provides protection). This puts the RPG's effectiveness at basically the same as the Imperial Guard's military-grade grenade launcher's krak round.

In comparison, the missile launcher used by the Imperial Guard has a krak round powerful enough that it gives no protection to power armor, and can devastate all but the heaviest of tanks with ease. But it would still have a hard time doing any meaningful damage to a Land Raider or the front (or sides, given the small chance of penetrating AV13) of a Leman Russ. Meanwhile, that RPG's krak round, roughly equivalent to S6 AP4 would be able to take out a modern tank just like modern anti-tank missiles can, putting them at probably about the Chimera's level of armor at best.

In truth, a heavy bolter does just shy of that much damage and penetration but more reliably and at a better rate of fire, the only reason that forces used the RPG is because of its versatility (it can fire any kind of grenade with a properly fitted rocket) and its (and its ammunition's) cheapness compared to the heavy bolter and appropriate ammunition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Snogs wrote:Most on these forums seem to think its a .50 cal.<-----why?

It was rather specifically mentioned to be similar to our HMGs/MMGs in Imperial Armour.

Well thats thats stupidest summary I've seen today.

The Imperium has far better tanks. A Leman Russ is faster, better armored and better armed, as well as a whole lot more reliable. It will run off of nearly anything you throw in it's engine.
The Imperium has far better support, if you mean logistics, air and ground amour and portable heavies, in which case they would have superior by a vast margin.
They have better command and control. Officers are the creme de la creme of the Guard, trained to be extremely good commanders.
They have equal or superior training. Each guardsman is taken, trained for about 6 months initially, trained on the journey to his first engagement, and constantly trains throughout his career, and gains experience far greater than anyone on Earth could ever hope to achieve against enemies thousands of time more deadly than a marine. Take the Cadians, a force of billions of better armed, armored, disciplined and trained Special Forces.

The Guard do not fight in space.

Snogs wrote:As for armor: You guys have no idea how many of our casualties come from hits that do not even hit the armor.

I don't? Oh wait. I do.

Flak armor covers more of the body than modern armor does while being almost half the weight of merely the VEST of a set of modern body armor. Keep in mind that flak armor can be woven into a fabric-- providing slightly less protection but provides more mobility. So basically, those shirts and pants of the Imperial Guard? That's ALSO part of flak armor. Those overcoats that DKoK wear? That's flak armor.

I think they have better armor, I just know it would not work as good in the field as some of you think.

Yes it does. Flak armor is EXTREMELY reliable in all terrain, it's part of why the Guard uses it (and the lack of this quality is the reason why the army doesn't use dragonskin).

And it dos not seem to stop a stub gun to well.

Yes it does, in fact, it works SPECTACULARLY well against stub weapons. Stop pulling things out of your backside.

We have better tanks

No we don't.

We have better support

Orbital bombardment > all our support. Imperial Navy > our planes. Imperial Artillery > our artillery. Imperial heavy weapons > our heavy weapons (a heavy bolter alone would destroy not only our infantry but also our vehicles).

We have far better command and control

No we don't. Imperial Guard has better communications equipment than we do, as well as greater discipline.

We have far better training

We can't even keep our soldiers' disciplined enough to keep them from raping eachother. Meanwhile the Imperial Guard has regiments with both genders in it which do not have this problem due to superior discipline and training.

Imperial Armour says a Heavy Stub Gun is "similar" to a HMG/MMG


So you are agreeing with me that it could be a .30 cal vickers
Or a .22 chain feed sweeper.
Or even a 1876 Gatling gun

Or as you say it could be a .50
Blame GW M8

Snogs wrote:Imperial Armour says a Heavy Stub Gun is "similar" to a HMG/MMG

Which at the time of print was most commonly a .50 cal M2 Browning.

Or are you going to continue this line of stupid arguments and insist that they meant some weapon manufactured decades ago which noone used at the time of print?

Hay im just saying, you plop down a .69 cal hand turned gatling gun that can fire 150 rounds a min.

Well that sounds like a heavy stub gun to me.
It will kill you just as dead.

You seem to be the one geting upset
Maybe you should take a break from 40k

Snogs wrote:You seem to be the one geting upset
Maybe you should take a break from 40k

Obstinate ignorance does indeed annoy me a bit, but it is not linked exclusively to 40k. Either way, that modern HMG equivalent does not penetrate flak armor reliably. Have fun with that.

Melissia

Im starting to feel sorry for you.

Here it comes, another one of these 'oh you get too excited by a fictional universe' people. Move along.

Melissia wrote:

Snogs wrote:Imperial Armour says a Heavy Stub Gun is "similar" to a HMG/MMG

Which at the time of print was most commonly a .50 cal M2 Browning.

Or are you going to continue this line of stupid arguments and insist that they meant some weapon manufactured decades ago which noone used at the time of print?

The M2 Browning was designed just before WWI ended, and entered production in the twenties, and has been used ever since. Of course, there are other heavy machine guns in use, some of which aren't nearly as impressive, and I believe the key word there was "similar" which could mean anything from "similar specifications" to "fills a similar role".

Well if he shoe fits.

But for real, I was starting to worry a bit for her/him.

Snogs wrote:Well if he shoe fits.

But for real, I was starting to worry a bit for her/him.

You can't develop an accurate psychological profile of someone based on their posts on a wargaming forum.

Stop acting like you can.

Snogs wrote:Well if he shoe fits.

But for real, I was starting to worry a bit for her/him.

Keep moving.

I just said I feel sorry for someone.

Fan boy/girl thinking is a ugly thing to befall someone.
It corrupts ones thinking and thought patterns as you can so clearly see.

I think that it was Sir Pseudonymous that went so far as to make a psychological profile of someone. Not I.

But you are correct.
So I will try to be more gentle in the future.

But the fan boy/girl love in here is uber nasty

I

Snogs wrote:
100vs100 We win fighting the Guard.
We have better tanks<---So so much better. You just have no idea really.
We have better support
We have far better command and control
We have far better training,<----FAR FAR Better. Anyone who does not think so has no clue as to how a real army works.

Now this is only for 100vs100 soldiers on the ground,with say a few tanks, and some light support.

Not space warfare.

Why are you trolling? We all know how real army works, half of man on this forum served one. And we all watch discovery channel .

We have better tanks? What about Baneblade? We don't have nothing that can even match it's strength ( main cannon, demolisher cannon, 2x Lasscannons, 4x Heavy bolters and 3 more guns ).
We have better support? Guard has shown that can sometimes take an entire world from aliens, mutants and heretics having only light - average casualties. That's because they use ordinance, heavy artillery and infantry in combination with armor support to fight wars. They don't just "charge to death" - that's just wild imagination...
Far better command? Tell that to countless marines killed in Iraq because of friendly fire... IG in most cases have good command structure, going from Commissar to Cornel to the Lord General...
Better Training? ( and I thought I heard everything here... ) I think Cadians have something to tell about this quote: "Any Cadian who can't field-strip his own lasgun by the age of 10 was born on the wrong planet". And I think that you have forgotten about Stormtroopers and Kasrkins. And don't forget that US Marines would run like hell when facing an Chaos Champion or a Ork Charge... Guardsman are holding their line because they are far better trained than our troops.

Any man who say that Guardsman ( Cadians, Mordians, Vostroyans ) are poorly trained or that we would kick their ass is either stupid or he is ubertroll.
All our army's couldn't withstand one Ork WARGHHH, Armageddonians push them back, Cadians survived 13 Black Crusades.
Not to mention that their army's are stretched across the galaxy, almost always fighting helpless battles while outnumbered 100:1.
These man are true heroes of 40k. And I will not let some idiot bragging about them telling that US marines who smoke putt and wasting 50.000 bullets on a single enemy solder are better trained than Guardsman that almost never miss and who fight monstrosities and countless horrors while our army's most of the time are fighting poorly trained rebels with no support at all.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Snogs wrote:I just said I feel sorry for someone.

Fan boy/girl thinking is a ugly thing to befall someone.
It corrupts ones thinking and thought patterns as you can so clearly see.

I think that it was Sir Pseudonymous that went so far as to make a psychological profile of someone. Not I.

But you are correct.
So I will try to be more gentle in the future.

But the fan boy/girl love in here is uber nasty

I

What people do in their free time in not your, not mine and even not GOD's business.
I love Warhammer 40000, I also like military and cars, I like to read, to sing, to go out, to live... - so by your logic I am a car fanboy?
And please, see that in the future you post more facts and less s***.

LOL

WoW I am so loveing it, keep it coming.

iproxtaco wrote:

About the armour, flak armour and modern flak jacket=same diff. And no, their armour does not "shrug off" .50 cal bullets. The only was to accurately represent the flak armour would be in inquisitor IMHO, because flak is only hard in places,and in inquisitor the attacks are IN specific places.

The most advanced modern body armour is equal or greater to carapace armour: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THQwO7-JMvE titanium plates. Like juggernauts from COD

Also, it withstood AP rounds, rounds DESIGNED to pierce this.

And although modern weapons pale in comparison to lasguns, it is still more deadly than most people give them credit for: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTIzyP6l1AM&feature=related

Basically, this is a bolter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX-99a1JCc4&feature=relmfu

Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_HRQNd84ZA&feature=related

The armour withstood A GRENADE

Well isn't this the stupidest post I've seen all day.
Where do I start? At the top.

40k Flak armour for the average guardsmen is better than modern day flak. That's been debated many times, and the winner is, keeping its 100% win rate, 40k flak armour that is given to the average guardsmen. By a fair margin.

1. Again, dragonskin has been debated in this thread. Get it wet, hot, dirty, it loses all its effectiveness. It's very expensive, very heavy, and will offer less protection than Carapace.
Those AP rounds were designed to pierce solid armour, so yeah, a brand new and yet completely unreliable technology will stand up to rounds not designed to breach it. It's not making anyone a Juggernaut any time in the near future. All those tests are stupid. To get a real gauge on its effectiveness you need to have a human inside it. If it dissipates the impact like they say then they could use it for other purposes, a bullet could well do some serious damage to a human despite the protection.

2. On no, not another assault rifle, a rifle which is slightly more powerful than previous designs. Still doesn't hold a candle to a lasgun in any way.

3. Yeah basically, it's another grenade launcher and not a bolter. Similarities end at explosive rounds. It doesn't have rocket propelled rounds, they don't penetrate, they're lobbed and not fired directly and there's only six in a 'clip'. Any boltgun is VASTLY superior to this.

4. Great, it survived an explosion near it. The M67 is used to propel what is essentially a more effective kind of shrapnel to kill soft targets. That test is stupid if you want to test it against a grenade, the shrapnel has not time to accelerate out. Did you watch to the end? Look at it! It's completely fed! What moronic human is going to wear this into an engagement? For all the reasons stated above and the fact that it doesn't hold up to explosions. If that was a human wearing that suit, his internal organs would be pulped.

5. You shouldn't believe everything you see on Future Weapons, each test or demonstration is used to present the technology as infallible. Clearly the dragonskin is a prime example of how you shouldn't.

1. And what, exactly, is your source that says getting mud on your bullet-proof armour will make it vulnerable? No unsupported claims please.

Also, your second sentence is the most contradictory thing I have ever read. They fired rounds designed to punch through light vehicles at it, and it withstood them all. reliably. Not sure where you got unreliable from...

"All those tests are stupid", nice argument.
The mannequins they use for weapon testing are designed to be a proxy for humans. They would notice damage on the model. You can actually SEE it dissipate the impact, the scales press against each other and absorb the shock wave.

2. Actually it is A LOT more powerful than other assault rifles, but that is beside the point. In my post I even said it couldn't compare to a lasgun, it is just that everyone seems to underestimate what human technology can do. Lasguns are just words on a page, get over it.

3. It is a rapid-firing grenade launcher. Bolters are rapid-firing grenade launchers.

4. You are WAY underestimating the power of a grenade. They can collapse the supports on a house, and have a kill radius o up to 5m, and casualty radius of up to 15m, and a blast radius of up to 250m.

They blast they produce can literally toss bodies about. And they armour didn't surive the grenade, but because of it, the wearers did.

5. I'd much rather use a show that is on discovery channel as a source of information than a bunch of sci-fi writers who never leave their basements, thank you very much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iT7LZnou9U&feature=related

P.S., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4nfZu8VqgQ&feature=related

P.P.S., epic fail http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Px0wErIeJI&feature=related

im2randomghgh wrote:

3. It is a rapid-firing grenade launcher. Bolters are rapid-firing grenade launchers.

4. You are WAY underestimating the power of a grenade. They can collapse the supports on a house, and have a kill radius o up to 5m, and casualty radius of up to 15m, and a blast radius of up to 250m.

They blast they produce can literally toss bodies about. And they armour didn't surive the grenade, but because of it, the wearers did.

3. No. A bolt is not a grenade.

4. Get your facts straight. The blast radius isn't 250m. Some shrapnel and fragments can get thrown that far, but it is FAR beyond the effect range of a grenade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xjh_M23xg-Q&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysF8WFAihoE

Melissia wrote:
A logical enough argument posted before she responded to Snogs' trolling

Ok, my biggest problem with your post is that you lump all anti-tank missile launchers as krak grenades: S6 AP4. The problem is that I really don't think you can do that. For one, I really doubt that assault 1 fits. I mean, sure, it fits for some; an RPG-7 or RPG-22 are both man-portable systems that can "only" punch through 500mm or less of RHA equivalent. In WWII terms, these would be bazookas, panzerfausts, and the pathetic PIAT.

However, I seriously doubt that a TOW missile, which can fly out several kilometers and laugh at damn near a meter of RHA, are equal to S6 and 24". Isn't there a Guard missile that's a souped-up krak missile? My 'dex is AWOL at the moment, so I can't check it myself. Nevertheless, I do not believe that you can lump all contemporary anti-tank systems under the Dark Heresy classification of "Rocket Propelled Grenades." Certainly, some may fit under that category in terms of role (like, again, the....Rocket Propelled Grenades), but again, contemporary systems are just better. (edit: Contemporary systems still kinda have the divide of "krak grenade"/man-portable ATM, and then "krak missile"/vehicle-mounted/really freaking heavy ATGM. Just, again, contemporary systems are better.)

Thinking about it, even accepting that an AT-4 (which can penetrate 450mm equivalent of RHA) is Strength 6 AP 4.......are you arguing that a Space Marine has the equivalent of more than half a meter of steel on his body, and is, literally, heavier armored than a battle tank?

Snogs: While I do appreciate you backing me up, I don't appreciate
a.) Your abuse of the English language, and
b.) Your inflammatory remarks.

Seriously, man, keep it classy, and keep it readable. Not only do those make your arguments easier to read, they make them appear much stronger.

Nerivant wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

3. It is a rapid-firing grenade launcher. Bolters are rapid-firing grenade launchers.

4. You are WAY underestimating the power of a grenade. They can collapse the supports on a house, and have a kill radius o up to 5m, and casualty radius of up to 15m, and a blast radius of up to 250m.

They blast they produce can literally toss bodies about. And they armour didn't surive the grenade, but because of it, the wearers did.

3. No. A bolt is not a grenade.

4. Get your facts straight. The blast radius isn't 250m. Some shrapnel and fragments can get thrown that far, but it is FAR beyond the effect range of a grenade.

A bolt is a large projectile that explodes=grenade.

A quote from Wikipedia: "A grenade is a small explosive device that is projected a safe distance away by its user"

It launches the blast radius IS the distance shrapnel goes. Literally, that's exactly what it is. It is beyond it's effective range, but it is still capable of wounding soldiers from 250m.

im2randomghgh wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

3. It is a rapid-firing grenade launcher. Bolters are rapid-firing grenade launchers.

4. You are WAY underestimating the power of a grenade. They can collapse the supports on a house, and have a kill radius o up to 5m, and casualty radius of up to 15m, and a blast radius of up to 250m.

They blast they produce can literally toss bodies about. And they armour didn't surive the grenade, but because of it, the wearers did.

3. No. A bolt is not a grenade.

4. Get your facts straight. The blast radius isn't 250m. Some shrapnel and fragments can get thrown that far, but it is FAR beyond the effect range of a grenade.

A bolt is a large projectile that explodes=grenade.

A quote from Wikipedia: "A grenade is a small explosive device that is projected a safe distance away by its user"

It launches the blast radius IS the distance shrapnel goes. Literally, that's exactly what it is. It is beyond it's effective range, but it is still capable of wounding soldiers from 250m.

A bolt is self-propelled. Making it closer to a rocket than anything else.

A blast is "a destructive wave of highly compressed air spreading outward from an explosion." The blast dissipates long before 250m, but the shrapnel's momentum carries it beyond the range of the blast.

Rockets explode on impact.

im2randomghgh wrote:Rockets explode on impact.

Some do, but any unguided warhead propelled by a rocket engine is a rocket.

Nerivant wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:Rockets explode on impact.

Some do, but any unguided warhead propelled by a rocket engine is a rocket.

It is self-propelled, but it has never been said that the propellant is able to be classified as a rocket. For all we know it could technically be a jet.

im2randomghgh wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:Rockets explode on impact.

Some do, but any unguided warhead propelled by a rocket engine is a rocket.

It is self-propelled, but it has never been said that the propellant is able to be classified as a rocket. For all we know it could technically be a jet.

Rocket engines are a type of jet engine.

And from what has been written about bolts, they have a rocket engine.