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.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
I think the better question is why do people use storm bolters compared to combi-bolters? Is the Imperium so backwards they don't remember how to stick two guns together?

Stormbolters are probably more refined given that they are purpose built to fire two different mechanisms at once. I am not sure what this means. Most likely Stormbolters either fire quicker or jam a lot less than the Combi weapons do.

Having played Space Hulk, I doubt anything besides a SAIGA could jam faster then a Stormbolter.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 DanielBeaver wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Daniel, that's excellent. Where'd it come from?

Pentagon Wars, an HBO movie from '98. It's a great illustration of how the design process can go awry when you start having the "why not just add..." conversation. The rhino always struck me as a most practical vehicle compared to a lot of other 40k tanks (and not surprising, since it's clearly inspired by the M113 and other similar APCs). The fluff described a Storm Bolter as being similar in function and performance to something like an LMG, so it seems perfectly at home as a little pintle-mounted weapon. Being small and sharing ammunition with the embarked squad's weapon are very attractive features - it means you don't significantly increase the rhino's profile, or use up much of it's internal volume. Once you start bolting on heavy weapons, you need to start carrying ammunition (or reactors/power cells), you need to build up supporting structures for it, add a turret, weight, etc. It's odd that this thread has come up, because we DO have a hybrid vehicle in the fluff - the Razorback, which has a big damn gun on top, but can't carry as many troops, and doesn't have a lot of armor. Similar to the Bradley (which, incidentally, has proven itself to be a lot more useful of a vehicle than the impression that the movie gives you).

Bradley is a damn fine vehicle.

If you like riding around in bait that dies to a light breeze that can't even transport your full squad, then sure.

Bradley's are fantastic for smacking up impoverished terrorists, but it's gonna fold if it ever is used in an actual war in the likes of WWII. Bloody thing is made of aluminum and gets gutted by RPG's.

It provides much more protection that a Humvee and it brings real firepower, anti air support, and troop transport. It's not a main battle tank but I'd prefer to be in a Bradley over a Humvee any day. The days of tanks fighting tanks are pretty much over. No tank can take an antitank missile from an aircraft so whats the point of having super heavy tanks?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 DanielBeaver wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Daniel, that's excellent. Where'd it come from?

Pentagon Wars, an HBO movie from '98. It's a great illustration of how the design process can go awry when you start having the "why not just add..." conversation. The rhino always struck me as a most practical vehicle compared to a lot of other 40k tanks (and not surprising, since it's clearly inspired by the M113 and other similar APCs). The fluff described a Storm Bolter as being similar in function and performance to something like an LMG, so it seems perfectly at home as a little pintle-mounted weapon. Being small and sharing ammunition with the embarked squad's weapon are very attractive features - it means you don't significantly increase the rhino's profile, or use up much of it's internal volume. Once you start bolting on heavy weapons, you need to start carrying ammunition (or reactors/power cells), you need to build up supporting structures for it, add a turret, weight, etc. It's odd that this thread has come up, because we DO have a hybrid vehicle in the fluff - the Razorback, which has a big damn gun on top, but can't carry as many troops, and doesn't have a lot of armor. Similar to the Bradley (which, incidentally, has proven itself to be a lot more useful of a vehicle than the impression that the movie gives you).

Bradley is a damn fine vehicle.

If you like riding around in bait that dies to a light breeze that can't even transport your full squad, then sure.

Bradley's are fantastic for smacking up impoverished terrorists, but it's gonna fold if it ever is used in an actual war in the likes of WWII. Bloody thing is made of aluminum and gets gutted by RPG's.

It provides much more protection that a Humvee and it brings real firepower, anti air support, and troop transport. It's not a main battle tank but I'd prefer to be in a Bradley over a Humvee any day. The days of tanks fighting tanks are pretty much over. No tank can take an antitank missile from an aircraft so whats the point of having super heavy tanks?

Fire support like always? Tanks have ALWAYS been gutted by Aircraft from WWII onwards. The problem is that the Bradley isn't a troop transport, and its weapon loadout makes it a jucy target. Instead of going after it like a normal APC, enemies treat it like a tank. And the Bradley has such godawful armor even RPG-V7's are a credible threat against it. And it can't even transport a full squad.

Coming from the actual armored world maybe I can shed some light. Why a stormbolter? Its a heavier weapon than a simple bolter. Your standard marine is not going to lug a stormbolter through the tight hatch to shoot someone. Bolt pistol maybe, but a stomr bolter is too much work to do it. But you want your TC to be able to engage crunchies that threaten the vehicle so you place the heaviest non-heavy anti-personnel weapon you can on there. Have it mounted so it doesn't go anywhere and uses the vehicle for stability. Now the marine doesn't have to struggle and waste precious time to get a large personal weapon out of the hatch to shoot someone sneaking up to put a melta bomb on the track. Pops up, his weapon is there, he knows exactly where it is and he engages the target. Call it time efficiency. The entire purpose of this weapon is in theory, purely self defense so you wouldn't want bigger and more bulky weapons.

EDIT: Just read a few of the posts on this page- Brads are junk. They do ok in open field warfare which was their purpose, and like any armored vehicle, take away and its infantry support and its dead meat. So many ways for a dismount to kill one, even without an AT weapon if you know where the weak points are. Hell, you can pop a track with barb wire. Stupidly tall vehicle. Its not a personnel carrier however, its an infantry fighting vehicle, and in few situations would you want a full squad in one even if it could carry them. Do note, you can carry a full squad if you are creative in positioning, just don't expect a quick dismount and pray the driver doesn't do anything stupid.

 Quickjager wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

NauticalKendall wrote:
Did everyone forget about those Grey Knight close combat guys that have the a storm bolter mounted to their wrists?

We're trying to, yes. If we pretend Mat Ward's fluff doesn't exist, then the revamp of the models won't be based on it either.

...You're aware the models came with Stormbolters orginally? All the way back in 3rd EDITION?

Actually the original GKs did not have stormbolters in their halberds. They actually had bolts- specifically 3 bolts you had to keep track of- in the tiny bolt weapon in the halberd. It's fluff power creep. And the same is true of the rhino. What started out as bolters on rhinos has escalated to stormbolters.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
I think the better question is why do people use storm bolters compared to combi-bolters? Is the Imperium so backwards they don't remember how to stick two guns together?

Stormbolters are probably more refined given that they are purpose built to fire two different mechanisms at once. I am not sure what this means. Most likely Stormbolters either fire quicker or jam a lot less than the Combi weapons do.

I suspect the only difference is that a stormbolter is a purpose built weapon whereas a twin linked bolter is made from two bolters. Maybe for convenience the stormbolter uses a shorter barrel, on the models at least some appear bolt pistol size rather than bolter sized.

 Kojiro wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

NauticalKendall wrote:
Did everyone forget about those Grey Knight close combat guys that have the a storm bolter mounted to their wrists?

We're trying to, yes. If we pretend Mat Ward's fluff doesn't exist, then the revamp of the models won't be based on it either.

...You're aware the models came with Stormbolters orginally? All the way back in 3rd EDITION?

Actually the original GKs did not have stormbolters in their halberds. They actually had bolts- specifically 3 bolts you had to keep track of- in the tiny bolt weapon in the halberd. It's fluff power creep. And the same is true of the rhino. What started out as bolters on rhinos has escalated to stormbolters.

Sorry I didn't make it clear, I was talking about the first sculpts that had Stormbolters on the wrists, which was 3rd edition.

I would explain the difference between Combibolter and Stormbolter as such:

Combibolters are 2 bolters linked together (no gak sherlock). That means they both fire if you pull the trigger. So you shoot 2 shots everytime, no matter what. Chances of hitting are not greatly improved, because if you dont aim properly you're still missing.
Stombolter is a whole package, allowing it to fire one barrel after the other -> more rounds per minute -> better chance of hitting fast moving targets. Also less overkill ( 2 rounds hitting the same target).

This would make the most sense to me, because then the Stormbolter would actually have an advantage over the simple gun-linking.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Yes, regular tacs can use stormbolters, they just can't do so relentlessly (shhh). It's a two-handed vs. one-handed kind of thing.

Yes he has a ccw in his hand but he wont get any advantage from it, because the stormbolter is too unwieldy to fire effectively using only one hand.
You can also wield two-hand swords in each hand. Its not going to be of much use however. Also, there's vids of soldiers dual wielding M249. Its possible but not usefull.

Col. Dash wrote:
Coming from the actual armored world maybe I can shed some light. Why a stormbolter? Its a heavier weapon than a simple bolter.

Barely, and as you're in the know, what vehicle is armed with the equivalent of two m4s strapped together? None I'd think. I appreciate the points about ease of access and convenience, they certainly give a good reason why you wouldn't drag something up with you.
When armour is sent out, is there a maximum time before it's preferred for it to return and refuel, rearm or is that question too variable?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Keep wrote:
I would explain the difference between Combibolter and Stormbolter as such:

Combibolters are 2 bolters linked together (no gak sherlock). That means they both fire if you pull the trigger. So you shoot 2 shots everytime, no matter what. Chances of hitting are not greatly improved, because if you dont aim properly you're still missing.
Stombolter is a whole package, allowing it to fire one barrel after the other -> more rounds per minute -> better chance of hitting fast moving targets. Also less overkill ( 2 rounds hitting the same target).

That could be avoided by having the barrels slightly angled away from each other giving a wider hit area like firing a shotgun.

Computron wrote:
That could be avoided by having the barrels slightly angled away from each other giving a wider hit area like firing a shotgun.

Well, but then you will only hit with both at close range and can only ever hit with one at longer range, and at close to maximum distance it's basically pointless and waisting ammo. So however you want to look at it, 2 bullets firing at the same time is a disadvantage over firing one after another. Particulary for a fast firing weapon. For big slow firing guns it makes some sense.

Barely, and as you're in the know, what vehicle is armed with the equivalent of two m4s strapped together? None I'd think.

Stormbolters are vastly more powerfull then poopy M4 or light MG so the point is irrelevant.

 Keep wrote:

Computron wrote:
That could be avoided by having the barrels slightly angled away from each other giving a wider hit area like firing a shotgun.

Well, but then you will only hit with both at close range and can only ever hit with one at longer range, and at close to maximum distance it's basically pointless and waisting ammo. So however you want to look at it, 2 bullets firing at the same time is a disadvantage over firing one after another. Particulary for a fast firing weapon. For big slow firing guns it makes some sense.

Why would you want to hit with both when one shot is enough to kill, the point is covering a larger area which is why shot is so effective. You don't rapid fire shot balls one after the after, you fire them at the same time for area saturation.

Barely, and as you're in the know, what vehicle is armed with the equivalent of two m4s strapped together? None I'd think.
Stormbolters are vastly more powerfull then poopy M4 or light MG so the point is irrelevant.

The point is that vehicle mounted weapons are more powerful than the standard infantry weapon. As bolters are the standard marine weapon, vehicle mounted weapons should be more powerful and not just two standard weapons.

Heavy Bolters are pretty awkward for a pintle mount and require more ammunition space. So, they'd be better off on a turret mount. You know, you could probably fit another Heavy Bolter too. Double the trouble. But you'd need place to put the ammo so... we should sacrifice transport capacity. Hmm... we should give it a different name. The Pig? The Boar? I dunno, there has to be a catchy swine related name good for this new vehicle.

Stormbolters are pretty much the only good intermediate weapon between a the basic infantry gun and a huge squad support weapon. The Space Marine armory is limited in comparison to a modern armory.

 Ailaros wrote:

Silverthorne wrote:Humvees routinely carry a 40mm grenade launcher or TOW launcher.

Yes, but that doesn't address my point. The argument that pintle weapons should be bigger can be countered by the argument that you don't always want the biggest gun possible. As demonstrated by the fact that most humvees come with a 50-cal, not, say, a minuteman missile.

Does the fact that a humvee can have a missile launcher mean the rhino necessarily should?

Silverthorne wrote:And no sane person would argue that the Ma Duece is operable and portable by one man, which it would have to be for the storm bolter comparison to be valid.

A sane person could call an M2 a "super small arm".

And it's not required for a valid comparison. We're talking about guns that are more stable on a truck, not less stable in someone's hands.

Silverthorne wrote: To be a direct equivalence you would have to have an M249 in the turret, which is never done.

But you could fit an SAW in there. In any case, pintling makes any gun better for shooting from a moving vehicle. It doesn't matter if you have a big gun or a small gun, you're going to want to try and brace it on the vehicle if you can.

I've used a 249 mounted in the turret of a humvee and while the 240 is meant to be a crew served weapon any decent infantryman can use it by himself most the time I left its tripod on my bunk so and every guy in the platoon carried ammo for it out on foot patrols


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 DanielBeaver wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Daniel, that's excellent. Where'd it come from?

Pentagon Wars, an HBO movie from '98. It's a great illustration of how the design process can go awry when you start having the "why not just add..." conversation. The rhino always struck me as a most practical vehicle compared to a lot of other 40k tanks (and not surprising, since it's clearly inspired by the M113 and other similar APCs). The fluff described a Storm Bolter as being similar in function and performance to something like an LMG, so it seems perfectly at home as a little pintle-mounted weapon. Being small and sharing ammunition with the embarked squad's weapon are very attractive features - it means you don't significantly increase the rhino's profile, or use up much of it's internal volume. Once you start bolting on heavy weapons, you need to start carrying ammunition (or reactors/power cells), you need to build up supporting structures for it, add a turret, weight, etc. It's odd that this thread has come up, because we DO have a hybrid vehicle in the fluff - the Razorback, which has a big damn gun on top, but can't carry as many troops, and doesn't have a lot of armor. Similar to the Bradley (which, incidentally, has proven itself to be a lot more useful of a vehicle than the impression that the movie gives you).

Bradley is a damn fine vehicle.

If you like riding around in bait that dies to a light breeze that can't even transport your full squad, then sure.

Bradley's are fantastic for smacking up impoverished terrorists, but it's gonna fold if it ever is used in an actual war in the likes of WWII. Bloody thing is made of aluminum and gets gutted by RPG's.

It provides much more protection that a Humvee and it brings real firepower, anti air support, and troop transport. It's not a main battle tank but I'd prefer to be in a Bradley over a Humvee any day. The days of tanks fighting tanks are pretty much over. No tank can take an antitank missile from an aircraft so whats the point of having super heavy tanks?

Fire support like always? Tanks have ALWAYS been gutted by Aircraft from WWII onwards. The problem is that the Bradley isn't a troop transport, and its weapon loadout makes it a jucy target. Instead of going after it like a normal APC, enemies treat it like a tank. And the Bradley has such godawful armor even RPG-V7's are a credible threat against it. And it can't even transport a full squad.

The Bradley is a scout vehicle it wasn't really meant to be an infantry fighting vehicle

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Hmm... we should give it a different name. The Pig? The Boar? I dunno, there has to be a catchy swine related name good for this new vehicle

The Pork.


Razorbacks, Rhinos, Thunderhawks... So, i guess, admech could come up with something else like a hedgehog or a snail that'd meet your demands.

Why do space marines use storm bolters on their vehicles? Because the STC said so, which means the omnissiah said so, thus the Adeptus Mechanicus ruled so, and the tech marines do so.
It has nothing to do with efficiency and everything to do with Adeptus Mechanicus dogma. (weren't rhinos originally a colony transport/exploration design? Why would you even need something as strong as a storm bolter when designing a STC for something like that)


Afterthought: Can't rhinos take Hunter Killer missiles? Those are 40k TOW equivalents.

TheCustomLime wrote:Heavy Bolters are pretty awkward for a pintle mount and require more ammunition space. So, they'd be better off on a turret mount. You know, you could probably fit another Heavy Bolter too. Double the trouble. But you'd need place to put the ammo so... we should sacrifice transport capacity. Hmm... we should give it a different name. The Pig? The Boar? I dunno, there has to be a catchy swine related name good for this new vehicle.

Stormbolters are pretty much the only good intermediate weapon between a the basic infantry gun and a huge squad support weapon. The Space Marine armory is limited in comparison to a modern armory.

You could put something punchier... twin-linked plasmagun perhaps? Although the idea of a TL-plasmagun is silly, because its main effect would be reducing overheats, when really it should make that problem worse.

Destroyer_742 wrote:Why do space marines use storm bolters on their vehicles? Because the STC said so, which means the omnissiah said so, thus the Adeptus Mechanicus ruled so, and the tech marines do so.
It has nothing to do with efficiency and everything to do with Adeptus Mechanicus dogma. (weren't rhinos originally a colony transport/exploration design? Why would you even need something as strong as a storm bolter when designing a STC for something like that)


Afterthought: Can't rhinos take Hunter Killer missiles? Those are 40k TOW equivalents.

The Rhino was adapted from a colonist exploration rover, yes, but that's the key - adapted. The AdMech weren't quite as restrictive on technology before the Horus Heresy, hence why they managed to invent astartes power armour.

Yes, Rhinos can take HK-missiles. Actually, a reasonable design would be two missile launchers on the front turrets with limited box magazines up there - say, six rockets in each launcher would do a whole game.

Plasma Guns are too unstable to be a transports main armament and the other Astartes special weapons are unsuitable for various reasons. Stormbolters are relatively reliable, have a decent punch, rapid firing and they have good range. The only other Imperial weapon that would be practical on top if a Rhino would be a Heavy Stubber. A twin linked one wouldn't be all that bad, come to think of it.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Plasma Guns are too unstable to be a transports main armament

Las/plas Razorback?

An APC's main armament, rather. For an IFV you can go nuts with your firepower.

 n0t_u wrote:
Maybe they should have heavy stubbers then?

heavy stubber is flat out better for the purpose imo. Greater range and more shots.

Computron wrote:

 Keep wrote:

Computron wrote:
That could be avoided by having the barrels slightly angled away from each other giving a wider hit area like firing a shotgun.

Well, but then you will only hit with both at close range and can only ever hit with one at longer range, and at close to maximum distance it's basically pointless and waisting ammo. So however you want to look at it, 2 bullets firing at the same time is a disadvantage over firing one after another. Particulary for a fast firing weapon. For big slow firing guns it makes some sense.

Why would you want to hit with both when one shot is enough to kill, the point is covering a larger area which is why shot is so effective. You don't rapid fire shot balls one after the after, you fire them at the same time for area saturation.

One shot is not always enough to kill. And area saturation isn't possible. You are limited to a certain range if you set a specific gun convergence. 2 bullets do not make a shotgun, besides the range of shotgun is very limited. Also, 0.75cal bullets are fairly large, so you don't have that many of them to waste half of them just for "area coverage".

The point is that vehicle mounted weapons are more powerful than the standard infantry weapon. As bolters are the standard marine weapon, vehicle mounted weapons should be more powerful and not just two standard weapons.

No vehicle mounted weapons are not always more powerfull then standard infantry weapons. I was MG3 gunner in my vehicle and i also carried it on foot. Mounted on the vehicle it was way more effective to use and more accurate, less tiresome and much quicker to use. It's flat out better just from the fact that its mounted.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Stormbolters are relatively reliable,

You can't tell, but I'm in stitches, I'm laughing so hard at this statement.

Why? The work perfectly unless you are in a Space Hulk....

Does seem a bit odd considering GK PA guys can strap a storm bolter to their arm.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Heavy Bolters are pretty awkward for a pintle mount and require more ammunition space. So, they'd be better off on a turret mount. You know, you could probably fit another Heavy Bolter too. Double the trouble. But you'd need place to put the ammo so... we should sacrifice transport capacity. Hmm... we should give it a different name. The Pig? The Boar? I dunno, there has to be a catchy swine related name good for this new vehicle.

.

The hogfather.

Or...............................

Use a heavy bolter and just use ammo boxes like they do with attack bikes and speeders.

 morganfreeman wrote:
Keep in mind that Stormbolters aren't actually very "small" weapons. A Stormbolter is essentially an LMG, which is pretty damn big and lethal respectively.

Then why aren't stormbolters?

Martel732 wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
Keep in mind that Stormbolters aren't actually very "small" weapons. A Stormbolter is essentially an LMG, which is pretty damn big and lethal respectively.

Then why aren't stormbolters?

Because fluff does not equal crunch? Is this seriously a question?

There's a reason that Codex: Space Marines doesn't give you guys as strong and elite as you read about in the novels..

The wrist mounted ones are probably based on bolt pistols and not bolters.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Stormbolters are relatively reliable,

You can't tell, but I'm in stitches, I'm laughing so hard at this statement.

Unless you are playing Space Hulk Stormbolters don't seem to be particularly prone to jamming. They certainly don't run the risk of melting your transport like a Twin-linked Plasma Gun would.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Stormbolters are relatively reliable,

You can't tell, but I'm in stitches, I'm laughing so hard at this statement.

Unless you are playing Space Hulk Stormbolters don't seem to be particularly prone to jamming. They certainly don't run the risk of melting your transport like a Twin-linked Plasma Gun would.

The very feed system of storm bolters damns it to experiencing jams.

Never understood Storm Bolters. If Space Marines wanted a bolter weapon with greater punch for their Terminators, then just make a bolter with a feed system like a P90.