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.

That assumes that the bolter has an exceptionally powerful explosive, and there is no reason to believe this is true.

Melissia wrote:That assumes that the bolter has an exceptionally powerful explosive, and there is no reason to believe this is true.

well now hold on there mellissa, in order for the bolt itself to not be more powerful at longer ranges, it has to assume and exceptionally powerful main charge, so what's wrong with assuming this to be true in the case of the explosive.

gendoikari87 wrote:

Melissia wrote:That assumes that the bolter has an exceptionally powerful explosive, and there is no reason to believe this is true.

well now hold on there mellissa, in order for the bolt itself to not be more powerful at longer ranges, it has to assume and exceptionally powerful main charge

False dichotomy. No, it does not.

The explosive used in a bolter shell isn't necessarily that strong, and in fact there's no real reason to believe it is given its depiction in the fluff, its depiction in the rules, and its depiction in every single roleplaying game. What causes the damage is not the power of the explosion, but the combination of penetration and explosion, literally blowing targets up from the inside and leaving a large crater while also causing the bolter shell to get stuck inside fo the target (Because the explosion destroyed the shell's shape too much) or to blow a much more massive exit wound. It isn't a grenade, it isn't a high explosive tank shell. It's never been shown as having a large area of effect or any shrapnel effect. It basically "pops" inside of a person, greatly increasing the damage it does to them, rather than causing some massive fireball-laden explosion.

At a strength of 4?

Also, apparently someone stated that carapace armor is just flak armor that covers more of the body.

No, this most assuredly is not true. Flak armor is layers of an ablative and impact-absorbant material, designed against small arms, shrapnel, and proximity blasts. it's light, efficient to produce and supply, and is a good armor for protecting the wearer against most weapons-- the armies that have basic weapons which penetrate flak armor are all quite rare with the singular exception of Tyranids, and even then only some of their weapons do.

But carapace is "densely layered plates of armaplas, ceramite [same thing used in power armor], or some otherhighly durable material." Carapace is made up of curved, dense, and highly protective plates which are capable of absorbing attacks of most weapons-- though in the fluff, this is somewhat understated. Jurgen's carapace helmet, for example, was shattered by a bolter shell.

stompydakka wrote:At a strength of 4?

see the thing is it has to penetrate in order to do all of that. If it doesn't it's just a low velocity slug, see Mellissa has boxed herself into A logic box here. Either A) the bolt rounds are more powerful at longer ranges due to having a higher velocity or B) the initial charge can also be some magic charge capable of propelling the bolt beyond mach 3 or C) the explosive is both more powerful and explodes on contact. but if the last were true then they'd be a higher str.

Melissia wrote:That assumes that the bolter has an exceptionally powerful explosive, and there is no reason to believe this is true.

What do you mean "exceptionally" - "exceptionally" compared to what? Given the size of the charge shown in this diagram - if it produces an explosion at least equal to 21st century "low tech" explosives - like C4 for an example... it doesn't take a lot to cause serious injury.


1 : Propellant Base
2 : Outer Casing
3 : Gyrostabilizer
4 : Mass Reactive Detonating Cap
5 : Diamantine Tip
6 : Main Charge
7 : Depleted deuterium core

Before you poo-poo this diagram - I am certain that it is an official GW published diagram - IIRC it was first released in White Dwarf as part of the article on the Deathwatch in 3rd Ed.

There's no logic box. You are making an assumption about a weapon with no actual evidence to back it up and all evidence pointing against your assumption, and therefor you argue that the bolter MUST be like modern weapons so that you can attempt (and, thus far, fail) a physics argument instead.

And I'm not buying it. The bolter shell does not have a particularly very powerful explosive element. This is well-established by every single non-fan fluff source no matter how much you scream otherwise. It has no blast effect in tabletop or roleplaying games, it does not effect adjacent enemies in tabletop or roleplaying games, and you have yet to cite a source in black library to support your argument either. That rules out your "C". Bolt weapons are not weaker at close range than they are at long range. This is well-established by every single non-fan fluff source no matter how much you scream otherwise. They do not become stronger in any game source, and there is no evidence of this in any other fluff source either save for a couple of fan-made sources which aren't official GW material. That rules out your "A".

That leaves, simply, that it exits the boltgun at maximum velocity and the rocket maintains that velocity over the distance needed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

keezus wrote:What do you mean "exceptionally" - "exceptionally" compared to what?

Compared to every other explosive device in 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, why should I care if I'm placing a high standard on him to prove his point? I'm not the one attempting to make a physics argument based off of an incomplete understanding of physics about a fictional sci-fi weapon which we have an incomplete understanding of. That would be silly. I'm using the actual sci-fi source.

Melissia wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

keezus wrote:What do you mean "exceptionally" - "exceptionally" compared to what?

Compared to every other explosive device in 40k.

That's a pretty broad category, covering may different classes and types of devices. Further clarification is required as you've not defined what you mean by "exceptionally". Is this a measure of the ratio of power to size of the charge, or a measure of net explosive power? If the bolt's charge is not "exceptionally" powerful - what level of explosive power do you attribute to the bolt's charge then?

Enough that if the bolt penetrated chest armor and rib cage it would leave a sizable crater in the chest (IE, instant death and destruction of most vital organs in the chest region) from the explosion, which is what is supported by fluff.

The explosive used in a bolter shell isn't necessarily that strong, and in fact there's no real reason to believe it is given its depiction in the fluff, its depiction in the rules, and its depiction in every single roleplaying game.

It's never been shown as having a large area of effect or any shrapnel effect. It basically "pops" inside of a person, greatly increasing the damage it does to them, rather than causing some massive fireball-laden explosion.

Yes, because there is no use of a 0.25" explosion in the game. The rules can't be precise in that if you don't want to play 10h for a single turn because of simulating every poopy factor.

IG Autocannon rounds have no template either, they are still explosive in real terms, because it is a waste of potential if you have a solid 20mm or bigger round if you can have explosive inside with much more destructive power (armor piercing and high explosive)

German AA Tank 35mm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkFcvIfI6QA
No AoE because it has no blasttemplate right?

Exactly the same for 20mm cannons they mount on APCs, except not as big explosions... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkIYxSFsX0U&feature=related. The explosion of a 20mm round is deadly in 2-3m.

If you want to compare Bolter to realworld, they have to be at least the same power as current weapons. Especially if your flak armor is supposed to be of high quality material compared to todays armor

I think you underestimate the destructive potential of the weaponry that is not hyped in common games (not like the oh-so-mighty C4 package, Tanks and Artillery)

The autocannon I assume would work on a similar principle as a bolter. The shell penetrates the target before detonating.

Such an explosion probably would turn whatever they'd hit to mush, but it would have a hard time hitting more than a single target at a time with the blast.

Remember, the position of the models isn't necessarily the position of the actual troops. The soldier is somehwere in the base, but he could easily be going prone, or something else to make it so he won't be affected by the guy next to him taking a mini-RPG to the face.

The autocannon I assume would work on a similar principle as a bolter.

It is a conventional Gun, the ammo has no rocketengine. At least i didn't read it anywhere.

There is not "the shell" for the autocannon. The great usefullness of the larger calibre guns is that they have a big range of different ammunition available. watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKdwuOxYRI4&feature=related
Armor piercing, High explosive, Airburst ammo, etc.

And it's not particulary a new invention (except airburst, because it needs an accurate rangefinder)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6OK1zSxKg&NR=1&feature=fvwp 37mm on aircraft in WWII
You want to be on that boat with your flakarmor? i guess not. No Area of effect eh? The transition of small to large calibre explosive rounds is fluent and grows in deadliness (range, explosion effect, penetration) the bigger the gun gets.

Even Bolter have multiple different roundtypes available.

Melissia wrote:Enough that if the bolt penetrated chest armor and rib cage it would leave a sizable crater in the chest (IE, instant death and destruction of most vital organs in the chest region) from the explosion, which is what is supported by fluff.

Destroying soft tissue in this case is just a "win more" situation. Due to the velocity and the AP properties of the bolt itself, despending on if the explosive action of the bullet can overcome residual forward momentum, the blast is going to tend towards exiting the target's back instead of cratering the chest. The smaller the charge, the less radius of action the explosive will have due to the fragments exiting the target before delivering damage. Assuming mach 3 and a body depth of 1 foot, the blast would have 0.3 miliseconds to generate the damage that you describe, requiring the charge detonating immediately after penetration to ensure maximum damage.

A physics guy or a ballistics expert would be better suited to calculate needed yeild to accomplish the stated effect. According to Wikipedia a modern 20mm slug has approximately 52 kJ KE.

a Mach 3 bolter shell would almost undoubtedly be ap 3 maybe 2, that's getting on up there in velocities, very close to railgun speeds. and FYI mellissa if you look back a few pages I prooved it needed to be close to mach 2-3 at muzzel velocity for you to be correct. And that was with a standard estes model rocket engine.

Exceptional Explosive compared too?? What?? A Vulcan Mega-bolter? A Krak Missile? An Anti-ship Torpedo?

Bolt Shells have explosive in them its fair to say it will be comparable to modern 20mm High Explosive Incendiary Tracer rounds. They make a good mess when they detonate.

keezus wrote:

Melissia wrote:Enough that if the bolt penetrated chest armor and rib cage it would leave a sizable crater in the chest (IE, instant death and destruction of most vital organs in the chest region) from the explosion, which is what is supported by fluff.

Destroying soft tissue in this case is just a "win more" situation.

On a human, maybe. Bolters aren't necessarily designed to be used against humans. They're designed to kill things far tougher than humans, with the biggest example being Orks, who have been a thorn in humanity's side (or perhaps a few trillion thorns) since humanity left the solar system.

Don't forget tyranids, and those bioacid/poison rounds. Lasguns just aren't going to cut it when your going up against warriors. They may be fine against the little hormagaunts but if you face a sufficiently rapidly evolving tyranid army, Even pulse rifles won't hurt even the hormagaunts.

Why do I get the feeling that Tyranid evolution is rapidly becoming the same thing as Borg adaptation as far as debates go?

Melissia wrote:They're designed to kill things far tougher than humans, with the biggest example being Orks, who have been a thorn in humanity's side (or perhaps a few trillion thorns) since humanity left the solar system.

That is purely speculative. Do you have any proof to back up your claims?

While I'm no weapons expert, in my opinion, from an engineering perspective, the bolter is an impractical mashup of technologies that are designed to satisfy the "rule of cool".

The fluff describes the bolter as a hand held gun that fires 20mm rocket propelled, self stabilized, armor piercing rounds with an explosive charge - where the charge is intended to increase lethality after armor is pierced. However, this charge seems to be more an afterthought rather than a design feature considering the ammunition's 20mm dimensions and supersonic velocity already make its KE delivery gross overkill against most man-sized targets. Despite its stated mode of operation - AP first, followed by explosive charge - its AP efficiency is descried by the fluff to drop precipitiously against moderate to heavy armor (from 100% effectiveness to 50% vs carapace+ in the game and power armour+ in the fluff), meaning that in its default configuration, that bolt rounds actually have questionable AP performance. Hillariously - in the fluff, when they strip out the tiny explosive and make the round a solid slug, it's armor penetration performance inexplicably increases to AP3!!! The bolter is also described to be capable of burst fire / automatic fire modes (where users are shown using this rapid fire mode almost exclusively in game art). Marines are described to enter battle with their loaded weapon +2 clips - meaning that they do not likely have more than 36 rounds per engagement - making burst fire mode very draining on their meagre ammo supply. The weapon is described as being heavy and cumbersome even when fired using both hands by non-power armored troops.

Summary:
AP round that has questionable AP properties.
Explosive charge which is overkill against guys that can be defeated by the AP aspects of the weapon but is useless against guys where the AP fails.
Weapon is heavy and requires strength augmentation to properly wield.
Small ammunition supply.

I don't know what this weapon was designed to combat - other than common sense.

Still can't hold common sense to anything in 40k where Swords are still considered viable tactical weapons, instead of just status symbols.

keezus wrote:That is purely speculative. Do you have any proof to back up your claims?

Yes. It's overkill against humans, and therefor its not worth its expense. AFAIK (and I could be wrong here, GW doesn't release much new information about this era of 40k history), the bolter existed long before the Imperium did, and so it wasn't developed at a time of Imperial lack of science but instead during humanity's golden age. Maybe it was more efficient back then-- I don't know, but it seems reasonable that if the bolter had to exist it existed for the purpose of countering things which lasguns/autoguns and their equivalents had difficulty countering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

keezus wrote:Weapon is heavy and requires strength augmentation to properly wield.

Actually no. It doesn't.

ASTARTES bolters do, but that's a specific pattern of bolter-- the Godwyn pattern. Sororitas bolters do as well, but again, that's a specific pattern-- the Godwyn-Deaz bolter. There are numerous civilian pattern bolters.

what is the actual recoil of the bolter?

@gendoikari87: The recoil is quantified in most fluff using the precise and scientific term: "minimal".

Astartes pattern bolters are considered to have excessive recoil for a human (it greatly effects a human's ability to use the bolter), but for an astartes, it's minimal. Source is the Deathwatch Roleplay game's core rule book.

Which means that human bolters probably have more manageable recoil.

Melissia wrote:Astartes pattern bolters are considered to have excessive recoil for a human (it greatly effects a human's ability to use the bolter), but for an astartes, it's minimal. Source is the Deathwatch Roleplay game's core rule book.

Which means that human bolters probably have more manageable recoil.

I remember one quote where a weapon merchant fires an Astartes bolter and dies.Some sources tell us that it has no recoil,but other tell us that they have massive recoil.

and that recoil is to an 8ft tall engineered giant, we had this similar discussion a couple years ago at our flgs. We had decided that the Bolter was similar to a MK19 automatic GL for the simple fact the grenades use have a very small explosion to standard grenades but have a heavy fire rate and minimal recoil to a standard man

Regardless, it's certainly true that Astartes pattern bolters aren't designed to be used by humans. They also are a bit more damaging somehow, though why exactly is not really stated.

Human bolters (At least, normal human bolters, not the ones that military units have) do 1d10+5 damage, where the 1d10 is two rolls and pick the highest. It weighs 15 pounds / 7 kilograms. Astartes bolters (the standard Godwyn pattern, not other patterns) do 2d10+5 damage and weighs approximately 18 kilograms / 40 pounds.

Melissia wrote:

keezus wrote:Weapon is heavy and requires strength augmentation to properly wield.

Actually no. It doesn't. ASTARTES bolters do, but that's a specific pattern of bolter-- the Godwyn pattern. Sororitas bolters do as well, but again, that's a specific pattern-- the Godwyn-Deaz bolter. There are numerous civilian pattern bolters.

Please elaborate:

When you say "civilian" do you mean: Bolters available on the open market? Non-military issue? Criminal source? Civilian USE?

Do the "civilian" bolters have a similar damage profile compared to the Astartes/Sororitas patterns? If so, that would indicate that they are of comparable calibre.

If they are of the same calibre / damage output, your statement would suggest that CIVILIAN bolters are of lighter construction and superior to the Astartes/Sororitas bolters. In that case, why in the Emperor's name are the Astartes/Sororitas using such cumbersome weapons when lighter "civilian" bolters would alow for ease of single hand firing. 3rd edition codex Space Wolves indicates that even for the Astartes, much training is needed to master single hand firing due to the awkward nature of the bolter! The only reasoning I can come up with is so that the warriors of the Imperium may club their enemies to death with their guns after they inevitably run out of their small ammo supply!

-Edit- saw your post on "non-astartes" bolters. The lower damage is probably from reduced calibre.
-Edit2- No strikeout feature on text?!??

Regardless of pattern, non strength augmented infantry is never shown to fire a bolter single handed. They may CARRY the bolter / stormbolter single handed, but firing requires two hands.

keezus wrote:Please elaborate:

See the post above yours. The information comes from Dark Heresy, which is a bit more in depth than tabletop 40k (strength four is a pretty wide range)

Melissia wrote:Regardless, it's certainly true that Astartes pattern bolters aren't designed to be used by humans. They also are a bit more damaging somehow, though why exactly is not really stated.

Human bolters (At least, normal human bolters, not the ones that military units have) do 1d10+5 damage, where the 1d10 is two rolls and pick the highest. It weighs 15 pounds / 7 kilograms. Astartes bolters (the standard Godwyn pattern, not other patterns) do 2d10+5 damage and weighs approximately 18 kilograms / 40 pounds.

In reference, a lasgun does 1d10+2 damage, with no re-roll, and no armor penetration against modern armors (it halves the armor value of primitive armors-- leathers, platemail, etc). Astartes pattern bolters have a penetration of 5, and civilian pattern bolters have a penetration of 4.

A "civilian pattern bolter" is one available on the open market. A civilian who had enough money (which is admittedly somewhat rare) can purchase a bolter for their use, and bolter shells which aren't considered as powerful as Astartes shells.

All of these bolter shells are considered to be .75 caliber.

Civilian pattern bolters can be equipped with a pistol grip that allows one to wield it single-handedly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I should note it is not the caliber of the shell that changes, but the quality of it. Shells designed for a Godwyn pattern bolter (And probably the Godwyn-Deaz as well) are made to an extremely high quality, scrutinized for absolute perfection before being stamped and sent off to the Astartes. Even OWNING an Astartes shell is illegal (source: Dark Heresy - Inquisitor's Handbook supplement).