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.

Brokksamson wrote:A little more on topic from me as well. As far as I know, Heavy Bolters/Bolters do not need cooling systems because there is no heat in the chamber, they are not actually firing a bullet in the traditional sense, every bolter round is actually like a tiny RPG, it has it's own propulsion jet. As far as the aspect of ejection and cycling the weapon, Games Workshop has said that all bolters fire a .75 caliber caseless self propelled projectile... Caseless would mean there is nothing to eject. There is a lot of contradiction around this considering that GW often displays casings being ejected out the side of a bolter, so who knows if they actually understand what a caseless round is.

I'm reasonable sure that GW has not described bolters as caseless for about twenty years, if ever. And the 2nd Edition Wargear book already mentions the two-stage firing method, explaining that the bolt's rocket motor does not engage until after the projectile has cleared the barrel.

Of course, since this is 40k, it is entirely likely that various novels etc have featured deviating descriptions over the years (see below).

Warpig1815 wrote:Yeah, I know about the 40K Wikia frm first hand experience. Getting into 40K I made the mistake of reading that over the worse looking Lexicanum, until it was pointed out to me that Lexicanum is far more accurate.

Depends on how you define "accurate". Ultimately, both these wikis contain a wild mix of information from numerous sources, many of whom were never meant to tie into each other, twisted by the personal preferences and interpretation of the various editors who tried to shoehorn it all into individual articles.
Since 40k as a franchise does not portray a uniform setting, both wikis' contents are entirely correct ... and at the same time incorrect, all depending on where you stand.
I will say that Lexicanum seems more useful for its usually correct use of citations, however, allowing readers to hunt down the original sources and form their own opinion.

BTT: As mentioned, a hundred different sources will tell you a hundred different things about bolters. However, the following cross-section can be found in the 3rd edition Rulebook:


As you can see, there is quite a bit of technical mumbo-jumbo stored just in a stormbolter, ranging from recoil compensation to a user ID system to an augmented sight uplink all the way to even an auto-repair mechanism. And since the heavy bolter aka "backbreaker" has been described as being not just more devastating both in rate of fire as well as individual projectile damage, but also as being more complex, personally I would suspect that there is a lot of stuff like that in a heavy bolter as well. A more elaborate auto-repair system, for example, to render the weapon even more reliable and prevent jamming, or an extensive recoil compensation system to cope with the (potentially) high rate of fire and allow for a more stable weapons platform, as well as a motor (with batteries) to pull the ammunition belt. It can be whatever you want, so get creative until you find a solution you as an individual gamer are satisfied with.

Hell, the hugeness of the Heavy Bolter could simply be a manner of reducing recoil (by increasing the mass of the gun) to manageable levels - the lowest tech option to do so, and also the easiest to manufacture.

lol

I don't think that this has been mentioned (please forgive me if it has) but I have another hypothesis to compliment some of the thoughts behind the bulkiness of the weapons in 40k: different environments.

We know that Space Marine can fight in some pretty inhospitable places, where they would have to use their helmets in order to survive and so on. I imagine that getting the Bolter and its variants to function predictably and reliably in many different environments without significant modifications every time might involve some pretty sophisticated hardware.

In the real world, we already have Sniper Rifles with reticle compensating barrel sensors that detect any warping from the heat generated by previous shots and adjust the cross-hairs in the scope accordingly to help improve accuracy, so it's probably quite likely that a Bolter will have all sorts of sensors and compensatory systems built into it.

Let's be real. Weapons are so complicated, even moreso when you have electronics in them, that "autorepair systems" are more of a techno-babble rather than anything remotely grounded in reality.

Let's be real? Speculating on possible technical requirements on weapons that may be required to operate reliably in battle conditions that differ significantly from the conditions of Earth's atmosphere is being pretty real and does have grounding in reality.

Hell, "autorepair systems" are not techno babble if it were using some form of organic circuitry, which we already know is possible.

I think you're grossly underestimating what's possible, tbh.

I was particularly referring to the "autorepair systems". The impression Lynata seems to be getting is that the "autorepair system" can magically fix problems like jamming, for example. There are so many causes of weapon jams that this in of itself is not realistic an assumption to make. If we are referring to circuitry that can autorepair itself, then I will concede that that is indeed possible.

300 yards? And the rest! I reckon a Heavy Bolter is more likely to be engaging targets at double that range as the inbuilt stabilisers and targeting links in power armour would allow for the bolter to be much more accurate over a longer range.

Enigwolf wrote:I was particularly referring to the "autorepair systems". The impression Lynata seems to be getting is that the "autorepair system" can magically fix problems like jamming, for example. There are so many causes of weapon jams that this in of itself is not realistic an assumption to make. If we are referring to circuitry that can autorepair itself, then I will concede that that is indeed possible.

Ah apologies, you're quite right about that, an autorepair system wouldn't help with jamming because it wouldn't be caused by "damage" as such. It's an interesting thought experiment nonetheless and I imagine getting a gun to work perfectly in zero-gravity to Earth's gravity and beyond, in thin atmospheres and thick atmospheres, would be quite a challenge and make the gun pretty complex. Also I imagine that a Bolter would probably need some sort of self maintenance/cleaning system to prevent jams and corrosion given that fights can take place in harsh environments over many hours without relief or resupply (in that way they could be quite like modern car engines). Complex systems like this may also help explain the obsessive amount of time a Space Marine takes over checking and maintaining his weapon.

Warpig1815 wrote:300 yards? And the rest! I reckon a Heavy Bolter is more likely to be engaging targets at double that range as the inbuilt stabilisers and targeting links in power armour would allow for the bolter to be much more accurate over a longer range.

Not to mention guidance systems that would probably be able to make slight course corrections to a round in mid-flight, compensating for atmospheric conditions and gravity.

I think in terms of technology it's best to think of Bolters as miniature versions of cannons that are deployed on battleships and destroyers along with all the targetting technology that accompanies them, rather than big and bulky versions of modern machine guns, grenade launchers or RPGs.

Just to clarify, three hundred yards was used as a sample range example of the complete "effective" engagement range of modern-day assault rifles. Tech aside, remember that bolters are 24", same as Shuriken Rifles and Lasguns.

In comparison, heavy bolters are 36". If a heavy bolter is a machine gun of a bolter, it's not doing a very good job, since most machine guns have effective ranges of up to two kilometers, significantly higher than their assault rifle counterparts.

Da Mediokre Paina wrote:I think you're grossly underestimating what's possible, tbh.

Don't. We've just ended a big-ass debate exactly along the lines you about to go. I've already said it once and I'll say it again, for your own personal safety, or GW WILL send stormtroopers to YOUR house - don't.

@Enigwolf - You're quite right, however I'm not sure that even heavy bolter teams would be engaging at 2 kilometres, unless in static defence, due to mobile nature of Space Marines. Of course, this is just my assumption...

 Warpig1815 wrote:

Da Mediokre Paina wrote:I think you're grossly underestimating what's possible, tbh.

Don't. We've just ended a big-ass debate exactly along the lines you about to go. I've already said it once and I'll say it again, for your own personal safety, or GW WILL send stormtroopers to YOUR house - don't.

@Enigwolf - You're quite right, however I'm not sure that even heavy bolter teams would be engaging at 2 kilometres, unless in static defence, due to mobile nature of Space Marines. Of course, this is just my assumption...

But Space Marines aren't the only ones who use heavy bolters. IG heavy bolter teams much fulfill the same role as current MG teams do, I'm sure. That's the paradox that we have, is the gun designed for mobile fire support (Space Marines) or a heavy suppression weapon (IG)? Yet another can of worms!

NOOOOOOOO! Multiple scenarios!

Nah in all seriousness, I gather that the heavy bolter would be the original bolter, as the evolution of squad machine guns, and would be used by the Imperial Army of the time. However with the advent of Space Marines being genetically enhanced, bolter tech would then be distilled and appropriated by Space Marines who could use it with greater mobility, and but would not be distributed to the Imperial Army as they could not bear the weapon effectively, apart from mounted on a tripod. At least that's the way I see it...

Enigwolf wrote:I was particularly referring to the "autorepair systems". The impression Lynata seems to be getting is that the "autorepair system" can magically fix problems like jamming, for example. There are so many causes of weapon jams that this in of itself is not realistic an assumption to make. If we are referring to circuitry that can autorepair itself, then I will concede that that is indeed possible.

It is said that the technology of today would have been called magic yesterday.

The GIAT 30 M791 type-B cannon is a weapon system already existing today and ... guess what, it can automatically unjam itself.
I don't see why similar, or rather a much more refined version of such a system could not be included in the infantry weapons of tomorrow. Or, well, later.
Sidenote: I'm sure there are types of jamming that require the gun to be taken apart, yet I thought it was obvious that the earlier post was referring to situations where a soldier would otherwise be able to clear the gun him- or herself, such as by repeatedly working the bolt back and forward. Which is something that an automatic mechanism could do just as well. And given how heavy bolters are utilised and held, I'm sure it would be very beneficial in a combat situation. Even a Space Marine would surely prefer the "Machine Spirit" unjamming the gun for him, rather than forcing him to drop the weapon in order to free one hand to work the slide.

But as I said earlier, if you don't want to believe in such an interpretation, you are by no means bound to it. Contrary to your statement, I merely presented it as one of several options readers of my post may pick from, not something I am actively pushing or firmly believe in. But since you called me out on it, I may as well defend it - as an option.

 Lynata wrote:

Enigwolf wrote:I was particularly referring to the "autorepair systems". The impression Lynata seems to be getting is that the "autorepair system" can magically fix problems like jamming, for example. There are so many causes of weapon jams that this in of itself is not realistic an assumption to make. If we are referring to circuitry that can autorepair itself, then I will concede that that is indeed possible.

It is said that the technology of today would have been called magic yesterday.

The GIAT 30 M791 type-B cannon is a weapon system already existing today and ... guess what, it can automatically unjam itself.
I don't see why similar, or rather a much more refined version of such a system could not be included in the infantry weapons of tomorrow. Or, well, later.
Sidenote: I'm sure there are types of jamming that require the gun to be taken apart, yet I thought it was obvious that the earlier post was referring to situations where a soldier would otherwise be able to clear the gun him- or herself, such as by repeatedly working the bolt back and forward. Which is something that an automatic mechanism could do just as well. And given how heavy bolters are utilised and held, I'm sure it would be very beneficial in a combat situation. Even a Space Marine would surely prefer the "Machine Spirit" unjamming the gun for him, rather than forcing him to drop the weapon in order to free one hand to work the slide.

I do agree that certain types of jams can be cleared by automatically racking the bolt. The example you gave, in fact, just clears defective rounds from the chamber by doing just that. However, a jam stemming from a double-feed or a warped round isn't going to simply be cleared by racking the bolt. In fact, doing that only makes it worse. There are so many different ways for a combat weapon to become jammed that to develop a mechanism to account for each and every single one of them would simply be impractical to be mounted in a rifle.

 Arcsquad12 wrote:
I'm curious why the Heavy Bolter is such a boxy weapon. I actually don't mind the standard Boltgun, since it doesn't fire particularly fast. But the HB is different. It is a fully automatic grenade machine gun. And yet there is no heat dispersal that I can see.


M2 Browning Machine Gun. Equivalent to a 40K Heavy Stubber. These things produce a lot of heat because of the friction caused by bullets passing through the barrel. If you fire a machine gun continuously, you're going to melt the barrel. That's why you see those big jacket holes (thanks for the correction Amanita) around the barrel, they are there to disperse the heat between bursts.

With a fully automatic weapon like the Heavy Bolter firing massive shells at a high rate of fire, having a heat sink or a means to prevent the barrel from melting seems like a no brainer. But at least on the current models, there seems to be none. Is it because Games Workshop doesn't properly think these things through? Or because a featureless rectangle is easier to mold than a gun?

Or am I just sperging out?

Mk 19s are automatic grenade launchers. They don't have those air cooling holes because they don't need them. The velocity of the grenades is nowhere near that of a .50 BMG round.


Reality aside, bolters would be absolutely worthless on a modern battlefield. Applying logic to 40k background is silly...it's "fantasy in space" more than true sci fi.

I'm don't even want to get you guys started on Gauss weapons. The designers of the game probably were not thinking about anything back when they designed it.
"Okay, so your basic gun basically shoots rockets and blows people up right?"
"Okay so how do we upgrade this?"
"We make it bigger, and say that it is stronger and shoots faster. That seems about right."
"Awesome. That seems to be the indisputable concept that will work for every other weapon in this game."

Hmmm....Gauss weapons.... if the Necrons figured out some way to disable or reverse the Residual Strong Force, maybe something involving antimatter... could work.

Eh, I'm pretty sure the gauss weapons are sufficiently beyond the scope of our current technology for me to rest easily without trying to figure out how they work.

They somehow effect matter on an atomic level, stripping material away atom by atom.

Yeah, way beyond our technology and understanding.

Gauss weapons were technobabbled away as using magnetic field manipulation to pull electrons away from the target and towards the gun. Hence being named for this guy who inspired this unit of measurement.

A radiation gun that breaks down anything to base elements and then the rest is basically a vacuum cleaner. Maybe they collect certain elements for later use.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Arcsquad12 wrote:
I'm curious why the Heavy Bolter is such a boxy weapon. I actually don't mind the standard Boltgun, since it doesn't fire particularly fast. But the HB is different. It is a fully automatic grenade machine gun. And yet there is no heat dispersal that I can see.


M2 Browning Machine Gun. Equivalent to a 40K Heavy Stubber. These things produce a lot of heat because of the friction caused by bullets passing through the barrel. If you fire a machine gun continuously, you're going to melt the barrel. That's why you see those big jacket holes (thanks for the correction Amanita) around the barrel, they are there to disperse the heat between bursts.

With a fully automatic weapon like the Heavy Bolter firing massive shells at a high rate of fire, having a heat sink or a means to prevent the barrel from melting seems like a no brainer. But at least on the current models, there seems to be none. Is it because Games Workshop doesn't properly think these things through? Or because a featureless rectangle is easier to mold than a gun?

Or am I just sperging out?

Mk 19s are automatic grenade launchers. They don't have those air cooling holes because they don't need them. The velocity of the grenades is nowhere near that of a .50 BMG round.


Reality aside, bolters would be absolutely worthless on a modern battlefield. Applying logic to 40k background is silly...it's "fantasy in space" more than true sci fi.

Just because Mk 19s don't have air-cooling holes doesn't mean that they don't heat up. I know for a fact that the 40mm AGLs on M113s get their barrels replaced after a certain number of shots in one engagement to prevent overheating warping the barrel.

dementedwombat wrote:Hmmm....Gauss weapons.... if the Necrons figured out some way to disable or reverse the Residual Strong Force, maybe something involving antimatter... could work.

Eh, I'm pretty sure the gauss weapons are sufficiently beyond the scope of our current technology for me to rest easily without trying to figure out how they work.

Didn't they have a page-long blurb in the 3rd ed necron codex explaining how they worked?

The real Gauss gun, as far as I'm aware works on a rail gun principle of electromagnets speeding up a saboted round - great, that works and there is scientific and practical proof of it. However, I'm willing to concede that the 40K Gauss Gun is one example of GW's imagination (Not saying it's a bad thing) overcoming scientific principle. There is no way (yet) of stripping electrons from a target and de-constructing it, unless a material was forcibly bonded with the targets atoms, and even then the material would have to be right next to the target's atoms (as in nanometres) to bond with it - not via a projected beam.

 Warpig1815 wrote:
The real Gauss gun, as far as I'm aware works on a rail gun principle of electromagnets speeding up a saboted round - great, that works and there is scientific and practical proof of it. However, I'm willing to concede that the 40K Gauss Gun is one example of GW's imagination (Not saying it's a bad thing) overcoming scientific principle. There is no way (yet) of stripping electrons from a target and de-constructing it, unless a material was forcibly bonded with the targets atoms, and even then the material would have to be right next to the target's atoms (as in nanometres) to bond with it - not via a projected beam.

Yeah, completely different "gauss". Our world's Gauss Rifle is essentially a Tau railgun.

 Warpig1815 wrote:
The real Gauss gun, as far as I'm aware works on a rail gun principle of electromagnets speeding up a saboted round - great, that works and there is scientific and practical proof of it. However, I'm willing to concede that the 40K Gauss Gun is one example of GW's imagination (Not saying it's a bad thing) overcoming scientific principle. There is no way (yet) of stripping electrons from a target and de-constructing it, unless a material was forcibly bonded with the targets atoms, and even then the material would have to be right next to the target's atoms (as in nanometres) to bond with it - not via a projected beam.

Journal of Physics B may disagree, if you can get a decent stream of highly stripped ions Of course I may jsut not be understanding the abstract

http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3700/10/12/003




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apparently the answer can also be lasers

http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v6/n12/full/nphoton.2012.304.html

I must say though Flinty, I read the links, but for all it can strip electrons easily enough, what I meant, and perhaps I should have clarified this, is that as far as I know it cannot de-atomise a target - as in literally annihilate the target. Many substances strip, remove or deflect electrons - Beta radiation itself is a free electron that has been de-localised from atoms, but the remaining part of the atom doesn't simply disappear, it turns into a positively charged ion - of course causing extreme damage to a body, but not annihilating it in the manner suggested by the 40K Gauss Gun. For that, Dark Matter is required and we don't have too much of that lying around...

As usual, feel free to disprove me, I'm a former Physics student, and have an interest in physics theory, but I'm by no means a professional Physicist so please feel free to disprove my theories becuase they are probably flawed!

 Enigwolf wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:[quote=Arcsquad12 533251 5731379 87fd75236e1045464c18d84f31c091ba.jpg

Just because Mk 19s don't have air-cooling holes doesn't mean that they don't heat up. I know for a fact that the 40mm AGLs on M113s get their barrels replaced after a certain number of shots in one engagement to prevent overheating warping the barrel.

false the barrels are not removed from the MK 19. They do not remove from the MK 19 and you should not even break the weapon down that far unless you are a qualified armorer for that weapon.

The fact that what GW calls a "gauss gun" and what everyone else calls a "gauss gun" (which can be further subdivided into railguns and coilguns) are completely different in concept, while at the same time still using magnetism, is very frustrating to me.

I think I'll have to admit GW screwed the metaphorical pooch on this one. I just can't see magnetism being strong enough to strip electrons, let alone pull the nucleus of an atom apart.

I love it how someone sarcastically mentioned gauss guns as being something GW made up, and we suddenly start trying to scientifically justify them.

artofwaaagh wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:[quote=Arcsquad12 533251 5731379 87fd75236e1045464c18d84f31c091ba.jpg

Just because Mk 19s don't have air-cooling holes doesn't mean that they don't heat up. I know for a fact that the 40mm AGLs on M113s get their barrels replaced after a certain number of shots in one engagement to prevent overheating warping the barrel.

false the barrels are not removed from the MK 19. They do not remove from the MK 19 and you should not even break the weapon down that far unless you are a qualified armorer for that weapon.

I wasn't talking about Mk 19 AGLs. There are more 40mm AGLs that fire on the same principle as the Mk 19. And I double-checked with my colleague in Armour, I was slightly mistaken. It's the front subassembly that gets swapped out (including the barrel).

dementedwombat wrote:The fact that what GW calls a "gauss gun" and what everyone else calls a "gauss gun" (which can be further subdivided into railguns and coilguns) are completely different in concept, while at the same time still using magnetism, is very frustrating to me.

I think I'll have to admit GW screwed the metaphorical pooch on this one. I just can't see magnetism being strong enough to strip electrons, let alone pull the nucleus of an atom apart.

I love it how someone sarcastically mentioned gauss guns as being something GW made up, and we suddenly start trying to scientifically justify them.

GW actually terms it as "Gauss flayer" in fluff, which better describes it than "gauss rifle".

dementedwombat wrote:I just can't see magnetism being strong enough to strip electrons, let alone pull the nucleus of an atom apart.

Well magnetism in it self, at least electromagnetism, is the movement of electrons throughout an object in an electrical current, however yo're right in the sense that magnetism cannot strip electrons away from an atom. Try to avoid talking about the nucleus of an atom though because, as I'm sure you already know, the electrons are not situated in the nucleus, but in outer shells. This is the crux of why the GW Gauss 'flayer' wouldn't destroy an atom just by stripping it of electrons. It would turn it into an ion, and cause it to be extremely unstable, but it wouldn't miraculously annihilate it.

Oh, and I don't think we're trying to scientifically justify it in the sense of supporting or attacking GW, rather we're just having a scholarly debate over scientific principles and if building this weapon is feasible.

 Warpig1815 wrote:

dementedwombat wrote:I just can't see magnetism being strong enough to strip electrons, let alone pull the nucleus of an atom apart.

Well magnetism in it self, at least electromagnetism, is the movement of electrons throughout an object in an electrical current, however yo're right in the sense that magnetism cannot strip electrons away from an atom. Try to avoid talking about the nucleus of an atom though because, as I'm sure you already know, the electrons are not situated in the nucleus, but in outer shells. This is the crux of why the GW Gauss 'flayer' wouldn't destroy an atom just by stripping it of electrons. It would turn it into an ion, and cause it to be extremely unstable, but it wouldn't miraculously annihilate it.

Oh, and I don't think we're trying to scientifically justify it in the sense of supporting or attacking GW, rather we're just having a scholarly debate over scientific principles and if building this weapon is feasible.

What then if there was something inside the Gauss Flayer that then destabilizes the ions?

Oh, and I completely love debating the nuances of possibility of GW tech, especially since we may very well see it ourselves in the future!