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.

Sweet leaping Jesus, a bolter is a bloody Gyrojet with a delayed explosive tip. Ostensibly. In another instance of moronic GW writing, I recall them explaining that it was tipped with "depleted deuterium," which is why it had such great armor penetrating capability. Of course, deuterium is "Heavy Hydrogen", or Hydrogen with an extra neutron. Hydrogen normally has no neutrons. Nevertheless, its designed to explode inside the target. So, you're both wrong, get over it.

In any case, getting back to the whole Autogun debate, I'm still not seeing how autoguns are better than modern assault rifles. I mean, I'm entirely with you that autoguns hit harder than the M-16 or AK-74. But, to me, that just screams that autoguns fire cartridges roughly .30 caliber. .30-06, .303, .308, maybe even Mauser 7.92s. Any bigger, and you have to get some pretty advanced technology to manage the brutal recoil; I flat-out do not see that happening on Guard firearms.

So, I can see Autoguns throwing rounds between 6 and 8mm. Possibly, as someone else said (SirP? ChrisWWII? One of the knowledgeable ones) even equivalent to the good ol' BAR. However, by and large, modern body armor can still protect against rounds that size. A good deal less reliably than shorter/lighter rounds, but protection nonetheless. Perhaps even protection equal to the 5+ save that Guardsmen have.

So, sure, I'm all aboard with Autoguns being more powerful than contemporary assault rifles. However, that just brings us back to "old" contemporary battle rifles. Are there any cites to indicate that they might be more powerful than 6mm-8mm long cartridges?

Ogiwan wrote:Sweet leaping Jesus, a bolter is a bloody Gyrojet with a delayed explosive tip.

For the fifty fething thousand goddamned time, no, it is NOT. I have already pointed out at least once in this thread why this is. Go read.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ogiwan wrote:In any case, getting back to the whole Autogun debate, I'm still not seeing how autoguns are better than modern assault rifles.

Better, more robust, reliable, and rugged design, faster rate of fire. Basically an autogun weapon uses mastered caseless technology with ruggedness and reliability that makes the AK47 look dainty.

I wonder why is this thread going for so long,I wonder what point is debated now if I may know?

Ogiwan wrote:Sweet leaping Jesus, a bolter is a bloody Gyrojet with a delayed explosive tip. Ostensibly. In another instance of moronic GW writing, I recall them explaining that it was tipped with "depleted deuterium," which is why it had such great armor penetrating capability. Of course, deuterium is "Heavy Hydrogen", or Hydrogen with an extra neutron. Hydrogen normally has no neutrons. Nevertheless, its designed to explode inside the target. So, you're both wrong, get over it.

In any case, getting back to the whole Autogun debate, I'm still not seeing how autoguns are better than modern assault rifles. I mean, I'm entirely with you that autoguns hit harder than the M-16 or AK-74. But, to me, that just screams that autoguns fire cartridges roughly .30 caliber. .30-06, .303, .308, maybe even Mauser 7.92s. Any bigger, and you have to get some pretty advanced technology to manage the brutal recoil; I flat-out do not see that happening on Guard firearms.

So, I can see Autoguns throwing rounds between 6 and 8mm. Possibly, as someone else said (SirP? ChrisWWII? One of the knowledgeable ones) even equivalent to the good ol' BAR. However, by and large, modern body armor can still protect against rounds that size. A good deal less reliably than shorter/lighter rounds, but protection nonetheless. Perhaps even protection equal to the 5+ save that Guardsmen have.

So, sure, I'm all aboard with Autoguns being more powerful than contemporary assault rifles. However, that just brings us back to "old" contemporary battle rifles. Are there any cites to indicate that they might be more powerful than 6mm-8mm long cartridges?

I am pretty sure the bolter's tip was actually diamondite rather than deuterium...




Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Bolter_Ammunition

Diamantine, basically diamond + adamantine. The depleted deuterium is its explosive core, a compressed gas used to provide fuel for hte explosion once it penetrates.

Melissia wrote:Diamantine, basically diamond + adamantine. The depleted deuterium is its explosive core, a compressed gas used to provide fuel for hte explosion once it penetrates.

...or you can upgrade your bolter to a pulse rifle and forget this debate...

or you can upgrade your bolter to a pulse rifle and forget this debate...


So true.

Snogs wrote:or you can upgrade your bolter to a pulse rifle and forget this debate...


So true.

Yet two sources(Last Chancers and Blood Gorgons novels) show them as being somewhat better than lasguns.Bolters are stronger than Pule Rifles.

The strength of any weapon depends on the author, but I would tend to agree pulse weapons are stronger.

Melissia wrote:The strength of any weapon depends on the author, but I would tend to agree pulse weapons are stronger.

Care to show quotes which outnumber my sources,if they do then I'll concede.

Don't have quotes, but even within works by the same author, weapon-power depends more on plot than mechanics.

Lasguns in Abnett's Gaunt's Ghosts series do an awful lot of wounding, an awful lot of armor-scorching and, when it's just faceless hordes, an awful lot of killing... but there is a definite tendency for lasguns in this series to do a lot of missing or just-winging people (plot armor, perhaps?).

Contrast this with the same author's Eisenhorn and Ravenor series, and laspistols are melting the faces off people left, right and center, digi-weapons are firing on burst-mode, and servitors are carrying on in-depth, full-fledged conversations with random people.

IvanTih wrote:I wonder why is this thread going for so long,I wonder what point is debated now if I may know?

They are debating about riffles and armor now brother....

Melissia wrote:The strength of any weapon depends on the author, but I would tend to agree pulse weapons are stronger.

Well I cant give any sources but.....I would 100% agree with Melissia spot on with this.

See, there is common ground to be had here.

In tabletop theyr'e superior, in deathwatch they're about equal. So meh.

Wait, if I remember correctly...pulse rounds bounced off the power armor, right?
While bolter hit's it and detonate...

I think bolter is stronger, but Pulse Rifle is more precise...

Melissia wrote:In tabletop theyr'e superior, in deathwatch they're about equal. So meh.

Never have played deathwatch, only play the tabletop game.
So they put the nerf bat to them in the roleplaying game?

Bummer.

im2randomghgh wrote: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

1. It keeps the scales from locking and transmitting the force effectively. I have no doubt that the actual capability of the Dragonskin is great, that much is obvious, but it isn't as protective as Carapace and is a lot worse for every reason I stated above.
Those anti-armour rounds are designed to punch through flat solid surfaces. The Dragonskin is an entirely different kind of armour with a different method of protection and the suit is designed to stop it, the bullet is not designed for the suit.
I'm talking about internal damage and to see if it knocks a person back. A mannequin is never going to make an effective substitute for a human unless you actually manufacture a realistic set of internal organs.

2. I know noticed you mentioned the lasgun and aknowledged its superiority in the post but my point still stands. It's the ultimate rifle just now, but it still isn't any where near as good as a lasgun would be.

3. No, a boltgun is not a rapid firing grenade launcher. The launcher basically lobs a grenade at a target. A boltgun fires a bullet[b] from a cartridge, down a barrel. The bullet has a delayed fuse. In mid flight, it's propellent ignites and it is essentially fired like a missile to maintain speed. The grenade launcher is designed to explode on contact. A boltgun shell penetrates and explodes inside a target.

4. It's a frag grenade. They aren't designed for armoured targets, but for softer ones. A charge propels what is basically shrapnel outwards to shred anything within it's radius. The suit is placed on top of the explosion. It holds out for the explosion, that's pretty great, but the grenades main function is denied as the shrapnel has no time to accelerate away from the centre. I don't care what you say, if a human was wearing that suit and jumped on a grenade there would be nothing left of his insides, just a paste.

5. So would I, but with 40k it's all we have. My point still stands. Future Weapons essentially 'hype' a weapon by making it look perfect. With the Dragonskin especially this shows how you shouldn't 100% trust it. I don't deny the capabilities but there more than meets the eye.

Thats just a big explosive. Don't see what's so special.

Snogs wrote:

Melissia wrote:In tabletop theyr'e superior, in deathwatch they're about equal. So meh.

Never have played deathwatch, only play the tabletop game.
So they put the nerf bat to them in the roleplaying game?

Bummer.

Thing is, in Deathwatch you have to deal with horde rules, which is basically rules for an entire squad or mob of enemies shooting at you at once. Usually with lasguns, autoguns, or stubbers. Tau are notable for having bolter-level equipment to do this with, making their hordes ludicrously dangerous at range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And random, stop ranting about dragonskin. It's a gakky armor, seriously.

I'm not making it up when I said it sucks when it gets wet, oily, dirty, etc. That's proven by the tests the US Army performed, that's why they rejected it.

IvanTih wrote:

Snogs wrote:or you can upgrade your bolter to a pulse rifle and forget this debate...


So true.

Yet two sources(Last Chancers and Blood Gorgons novels) show them as being somewhat better than lasguns.Bolters are stronger than Pule Rifles.

Blood Gorgons doesn't even mention pulse rifles. Haven't read last chancers.

Anyway, one example is the being str5 on the TT.

Time for wiki quotes!

"Compared to other infantry weapons, the Pulse Rifle trades firing rate for damage; when compared to a Space Marine Bolter, it appears to work more like a hand held artillery piece, firing at one-third the rate but doing significantly more damage and having a much longer range"

Also, in the intro to the first Ravenor book, there is a pulse rilfe that is referred to as being more powerful than any standard Imperial small arms-including the bolter.

iproxtaco wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote: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

1. It keeps the scales from locking and transmitting the force effectively. I have no doubt that the actual capability of the Dragonskin is great, that much is obvious, but it isn't as protective as Carapace and is a lot worse for every reason I stated above.
Those anti-armour rounds are designed to punch through flat solid surfaces. The Dragonskin is an entirely different kind of armour with a different method of protection and the suit is designed to stop it, the bullet is not designed for the suit.
I'm talking about internal damage and to see if it knocks a person back. A mannequin is never going to make an effective substitute for a human unless you actually manufacture a realistic set of internal organs.

2. I know noticed you mentioned the lasgun and aknowledged its superiority in the post but my point still stands. It's the ultimate rifle just now, but it still isn't any where near as good as a lasgun would be.

3. No, a boltgun is not a rapid firing grenade launcher. The launcher basically lobs a grenade at a target. A boltgun fires a bullet[b] from a cartridge, down a barrel. The bullet has a delayed fuse. In mid flight, it's propellent ignites and it is essentially fired like a missile to maintain speed. The grenade launcher is designed to explode on contact. A boltgun shell penetrates and explodes inside a target.

4. It's a frag grenade. They aren't designed for armoured targets, but for softer ones. A charge propels what is basically shrapnel outwards to shred anything within it's radius. The suit is placed on top of the explosion. It holds out for the explosion, that's pretty great, but the grenades main function is denied as the shrapnel has no time to accelerate away from the centre. I don't care what you say, if a human was wearing that suit and jumped on a grenade there would be nothing left of his insides, just a paste.

5. So would I, but with 40k it's all we have. My point still stands. Future Weapons essentially 'hype' a weapon by making it look perfect. With the Dragonskin especially this shows how you shouldn't 100% trust it. I don't deny the capabilities but there more than meets the eye.

Thats just a big explosive. Don't see what's so special.

1. The vehicle penetrating rounds are still hitting a flat surface-each individual scale is flat. It is simply the fact that they are made of titanium that protects you. You know, titanium? that stuff that is the hardest and most durable metal in the world? Can withstand Liquid Nitrogen? Ya, that.
Also, being wet/sandy isn't nearly enough to keep such sophisticated armour from protecting to the best of it's ability. And it's going to protect you from A LOT more than 50% of bullets that hit you.

2. With all the military experimentation going on, I wouldn't be surpirsed if within 5/10/20 years we saw something that completely out-classed the lasgun. Especially with all the railgun experiments, imagine, all soldiers using rail-rifles. Awesome, right?

3. ...since when are grenades designed to explode on impact?

4. The whole point of the dragonskin is that it is almost impossible for the kinetic energy of the blast/projectile to affect the user. After being spread through all the scales, the energy likely wouldn't even be enough to bruise the person inside. The only reason the person wearing the dragonskin would be dead is that they had nothing on their head, and the steel shards likely would have pierced their skull.

5. ...we're just going around in circles...

6. Just an explosion? What kind of WH40K fan are you?

im2randomghgh wrote:

1. The vehicle penetrating rounds are still hitting a flat surface-each individual scale is flat. It is simply the fact that they are made of titanium that protects you. You know, titanium? that stuff that is the hardest and most durable metal in the world? Can withstand Liquid Nitrogen? Ya, that.
Also, being wet/sandy isn't nearly enough to keep such sophisticated armour from protecting to the best of it's ability. And it's going to protect you from A LOT more than 50% of bullets that hit you.

It was just shown that the US Army rejected dragon skin due to its unreliability in combat conditions. (This seems to be a running theme with the US MIlitary...) So what if it can withstand liquid nitrogen? Last I checked, no one is shooting liquid nitrogen at you.

And yes, while the individual scale is flat, the way dragon skin works is by distributing the force rapidly (not, it's made of super special awesome titanium). A round designed to penetrate a solid steel wall may not pen, but a bullet designed to do so could.

2. With all the military experimentation going on, I wouldn't be surpirsed if within 5/10/20 years we saw something that completely out-classed the lasgun. Especially with all the railgun experiments, imagine, all soldiers using rail-rifles. Awesome, right?

Two words: expense and logistics. How expensive is it going to be to make high powered rail rifles for each soldier? How much extra equipment and training are the soldiers going need to learn how to maintain their new gun? (Which will be completely different from every other gun they've fired before). How will you get the proper rounds to the battlefield?

The power of the lasgun is not just in its punch, but in its logistics. It's cheap as hell, easy to maintain for even the most primitive soldier, and most importantly ammo is easily attainable, freeing up shipping space for all kinds of more useful things like tank rounds, missiles, more food and water, etc.

3. ...since when are grenades designed to explode on impact?

That still doesn't change the fact that a bolter is not a launcher that lobs a grenade at a target. It fires a bullet, which has a miniature rocket in it that propels the round faster and farther than the charge alone would have, then penetrates the target and explodes. The only similarity between the rapid fire grenade launcher you posted and a bolter is that 'and explodes' is the last step.

4. The whole point of the dragonskin is that it is almost impossible for the kinetic energy of the blast/projectile to affect the user. After being spread through all the scales, the energy likely wouldn't even be enough to bruise the person inside. The only reason the person wearing the dragonskin would be dead is that they had nothing on their head, and the steel shards likely would have pierced their skull.

Dragon Skin does not make the energy go away, it still keeps the energy, just spread it out over more area. The soldier is still going to feel like he took a car to the chest, and if he doesn't have some serious injuries, I'd be shocked. More importantly, the situation is extremely unrealistic. How often is a soldier going to be lying on top of a live grenade? MOre likely he'll be dead/seriously injured thanks to the greande landing 5 feet away and sending shrapenl through the air that cuts up any part of his body not covered by the armor.

5. ...we're just going around in circles...

It's a valid source, but not the end all be all of sources. Do more research, as it's been shown that FutureWeapons focuses on all the good aspects of the weapon while not talking about the bad.

Basically futureweapon is nothing more than an advertising scheme for weapons research.

Reminds me of pharmaceutical research, which does everything it can to NOT look into side effects, instead looking at efficacy (how effective it is at treating symptoms), because the less they research side effects the less bad people can say about their product.

Melissia wrote:

Ogiwan wrote:In any case, getting back to the whole Autogun debate, I'm still not seeing how autoguns are better than modern assault rifles.

Better, more robust, reliable, and rugged design, faster rate of fire. Basically an autogun weapon uses mastered caseless technology with ruggedness and reliability that makes the AK47 look dainty.

Even if this is all true (and like the lasgun their doesn't seem to be any single design) this says little about them being more armour-piercing than a modern assualt rifle. If modern body armour offers some protection against assault rifles as well as autoguns, it stands to reason that they also offer some protection against lasguns.

Flak armour may be superior, but I hardly think it's the OMGPWN armour that is being reported here.

Emperors Faithful wrote:If modern body armour offers some protection against assault rifles as well as autoguns, it stands to reason that they also offer some protection against lasguns.

No it doesn't.

In fact, depending on the qualities of the armor in question, it might actually be WORSE than merely wearing fatigues, when facing off against lasguns.

Metal, for example, conducts heat very, very well-- potentially searing the victim's flesh and burning them alive, setting their clothes on fire, etc. And anything that melts onto the skin/into the wound because of the heat of a lasbolt is also going to be a negative.

Flak armor solves this through its ablative properties-- a tiny layer of the armor is burned away safely when the lasbolt hits, as it is specifically designed for that kind of thing.

I think we can posit, at least based on present specifications, that flak armour is roughly equivalent to dragonskin (which uses ceramic plates, not titanium) with carapace including solid armour plates of ceramic armour which lifts it into the "will stop light anti-armour rounds" category. Obviously they're also rated against heat based weapons too, which isn't part of present design requirements.

Autoguns are probably equivalent to the 7.62mm Nato rifles like the SLR with the lasgun being just a little more powerful, and probably more accurate at range.

In terms of training we can reasonably assume that Guardsmen of the Cadian/Catachan type have training as good as the best of Earth's military but with higher morale as a result of being hardened against enemies that the rest of us only see in nightmares. Veterans would be equivalent to the Gurkhas/SEALs/British Marines.

The thing to remember is that our present elites are very close to as good as a human soldier can be. Regardless of training/experience the limitations of the human frame remain. If we want to go further we have to re-engineer the human body and then we're getting into Space Marine territory.

Storm Troopers would be a higher level of course, but the main difference between them and Veterans is the equipment that is too expensive and rare to be dispensed to regular forces.

Contrary to some claims here I doubt that Guard are trained to run onto enemy guns. If their officers are killed I'm sure their default setting is not "advance" but "destroy the enemy by whatever mean necessary." What they won't do is flee or surrender. Against Tyranids and Orks they know that only results in a negative outcome.

For this comparison we're looking at two highly trained elite armies, but one side being slightly better armed, slightly better armoured, and comparatively fearless, who regard fighting normal humans as almost a holiday.

100 on 100 would be a tough fight, but the Guard would take it in my opinion.

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:I think we can posit, at least based on present specifications, that flak armour is roughly equivalent to dragonskin

No we can't. Flak armor doesn't suck, dragonskin armor does.

Flak armor works just as well when dirty or wet as it does when perfectly clean and new.
Dragonskin armor becomes a liability to the wearer when it gets dirty or wet.

Flak armor is designed to reliably resist a variety of types of weapons, from .50 cal MMGs (heavy stubbers) to high caliber rifles with explosive ammunition (ork shootas) to light energy weapons (lasguns and multilasers), and is especially good at stopping shrapnel and explosive damage, being almost as good as carapace armor against these kinds of damage. It's also made to last for extended battles, as well.

Dragonskin armor is lucky to be able to resist damage from a few 5.56mm bullets before being rendered practically useless.

Melissia wrote:

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:I think we can posit, at least based on present specifications, that flak armour is roughly equivalent to dragonskin

No we can't. Flak armor doesn't suck, dragonskin armor does.

Roughly equivalent in terms of protection under optimum conditions. Dragonskin obviously has its problems that prevent it being used by regular forces, but under optimum conditions it does offer very good protection.

It wouldn't be asked to protect against explosive ammunition against modern armies. We're only looking at ballistic protection at the moment.

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:I think we can posit, at least based on present specifications, that flak armour is roughly equivalent to dragonskin

No we can't. Flak armor doesn't suck, dragonskin armor does.

Roughly equivalent in terms of protection under optimum conditions. Dragonskin obviously has its problems that prevent it being used by regular forces, but under optimum conditions it does offer very good protection.

From the first couple bullets sure. And only from small caliber bullets. Not from energy weapons or large caliber rounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:It wouldn't be asked to protect against explosive ammunition against modern armies. We're only looking at ballistic protection at the moment.

Even then, flak armor still lasts longer as a viable armor (being able to be used for extended battles where it will take multiple hits from various sources and still be able to protect its wearer), covers more of the body, and is DRAMATICALLY lighter (WHILE covering more of the body) than dragonskin.

It's a little better than that.

From Wikipedia

In a test for the History Channel's military show, Mail Call, the vest repelled nine rounds of steel-core ammunition from a WASR-10 (7.62×39 mm) and 35 rounds of 9x19mm from a Heckler & Koch MP5A3, all fired into a 10-by-12-inch area on the vest. On Test Lab, also on the History Channel, the vest withstood 120 rounds fired from a Type 56 (7.62×39 mm) rifle and Heckler & Koch MP5 (9×19 mm). In another demonstration on the Discovery Channel series Future Weapons, a Dragon Skin vest withstood numerous rounds (including steel core rounds) from an AK-47, an Heckler & Koch MP5SD, an M4 carbine (5.56×45 mm), and a point-blank detonation of an M67 grenade. While the vest was heavily damaged (mainly by the grenade), there was no penetration of the armor.

What I suspect that flak armour offers is more shock absorption so the wearer isn't pulped when the armour is hit by a heavy calibre weapon.

And yes, it provides better coverage and maintains its integrity longer.

So as I said, better armoured and armed, so the Guard take the 100 on 100 battle.

IG wins. Better weapons, better tech and a lifetime of nothing but war.