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.

 Wulfmar wrote:
Thinking about Space Marines being in space, their boltguns rely on combustion to propel the slug - which requires oxygen. Do GW expect us to assume there is some explosive propellant / element unknown to us that can combust in the vacuum of space?

Maybe they have special ammo that contains an oxygen supply for use in vacuum and non-oxygen atmospheres?

works for me, like compressed O2 / solid O2 (I don't know if it would actually work but *shrugs* it's a more believable reason than any so far given in the books ^^)

 Wulfmar wrote:
works for me, like compressed O2 / solid O2 (I don't know if it would actually work but *shrugs* it's a more believable reason than any so far given in the books ^^)

They made rocket motors work with the Apollo lunar spacecraft work in space decades ago in real life. I'm sure in the 28,000 years between then and the Horus Heresy they could've figured something out for bolters.

Hell, in the year 40,000 in real life, they may have dug up an old WH40k lore booklet and laughed at how primitive our vision of the future was. After figuring out a way to translate it and probably getting it horribly wrong.

 Wulfmar wrote:
Thinking about Space Marines being in space, their boltguns rely on combustion to propel the slug - which requires oxygen. Do GW expect us to assume there is some explosive propellant / element unknown to us that can combust in the vacuum of space?

This is nonsense. Most explosives (including propellants typically used in firearms) contain their own oxidiser and will work just fine in a vacuum or under water.

 Wulfmar wrote:
Thinking about Space Marines being in space, their boltguns rely on combustion to propel the slug - which requires oxygen. Do GW expect us to assume there is some explosive propellant / element unknown to us that can combust in the vacuum of space?

You are assuming that GW understands ballistics and physics
Anyway, it is possible that they use a propellant that does not need oxygen.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
Thinking about Space Marines being in space, their boltguns rely on combustion to propel the slug - which requires oxygen. Do GW expect us to assume there is some explosive propellant / element unknown to us that can combust in the vacuum of space?

This is nonsense. Most explosives (including propellants typically used in firearms) contain their own oxidiser and will work just fine in a vacuum or under water.

Quoted for Truth.

 Gashrog wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
Thinking about Space Marines being in space, their boltguns rely on combustion to propel the slug - which requires oxygen. Do GW expect us to assume there is some explosive propellant / element unknown to us that can combust in the vacuum of space?

This is nonsense. Most explosives (including propellants typically used in firearms) contain their own oxidiser and will work just fine in a vacuum or under water.

Quoted for Truth.

Well done, both of you for reading all the posts after this one - is was explained by Pouncy. I found out about the oxidisers after looking up the rockets she mentioned

 Pouncey wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
works for me, like compressed O2 / solid O2 (I don't know if it would actually work but *shrugs* it's a more believable reason than any so far given in the books ^^)

They made rocket motors work with the Apollo lunar spacecraft work in space decades ago in real life. I'm sure in the 28,000 years between then and the Horus Heresy they could've figured something out for bolters.

Hell, in the year 40,000 in real life, they may have dug up an old WH40k lore booklet and laughed at how primitive our vision of the future was. After figuring out a way to translate it and probably getting it horribly wrong.

"According to this document, our ancestors had a book of faces, and used it to make farms. What a bunch of filthy heretics!"

 Wulfmar wrote:

Well done, both of you for reading all the posts after this one - is was explained by Pouncy. I found out about the oxidisers after looking up the rockets she mentioned

Not really - Apollo carried separate fuel and oxider which it mixed during use.

Most explosives actually contain their own oxidiser - they would be very ineffective without them (because only the surface that's exposed to air would be able to combust).

This really should have been obvious. How do you think that the explosive inside a bomb casing goes off? Or underwater explosives (mines, depth charges, torpedoes, etc). Not to mention - if you believe that a round of ammunition for a gun requires air to get into it in order for it to go off then how do they keep water out?

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:

Well done, both of you for reading all the posts after this one - is was explained by Pouncy. I found out about the oxidisers after looking up the rockets she mentioned

Not really - Apollo carried separate fuel and oxider which it mixed during use.

Most explosives actually contain their own oxidiser - they would be very ineffective without them (because only the surface that's exposed to air would be able to combust).

This really should have been obvious. How do you think that the explosive inside a bomb casing goes off? Or underwater explosives (mines, depth charges, torpedoes, etc). Not to mention - if you believe that a round of ammunition for a gun requires air to get into it in order for it to go off then how do they keep water out?

I wouldn't be too rough on him for it, do you know how many people still believe a bullet will "shoot" if they throw a round into a fire?

Melee weapons are dependable at the least. A blade is always going to hurt, either sharp or dulled (dulled are more painful).

Guns obviously have the advantage of range, but they can run out of ammo, jam, friendly fire, etc

 Frozocrone wrote:
Melee weapons are dependable at the least. A blade is always going to hurt, either sharp or dulled (dulled are more painful).

Guns obviously have the advantage of range, but they can run out of ammo, jam, friendly fire, etc

I mean, a gun jamming is about the same thing as a sword breaking.

And the funniest part about guns is that it's a false dichotomy; they're not helpless in melee. You don't have to 'choose' between being good at shooting or being good at melee - the Zulu Wars proved that a rifle with a bayonet is an incredibly effective spear (so much so that it outperformed the Zulu assegai) even after gunning down its ammunition load of Zulus from afar. Even without a bayonet, a gun makes for a mighty great club!

 Orblivion wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:

Well done, both of you for reading all the posts after this one - is was explained by Pouncy. I found out about the oxidisers after looking up the rockets she mentioned

Not really - Apollo carried separate fuel and oxider which it mixed during use.

Most explosives actually contain their own oxidiser - they would be very ineffective without them (because only the surface that's exposed to air would be able to combust).

This really should have been obvious. How do you think that the explosive inside a bomb casing goes off? Or underwater explosives (mines, depth charges, torpedoes, etc). Not to mention - if you believe that a round of ammunition for a gun requires air to get into it in order for it to go off then how do they keep water out?

I wouldn't be too rough on him for it, do you know how many people still believe a bullet will "shoot" if they throw a round into a fire?

A cartridge can be ignited in a fire. The bullet may explosively separate from the shell but as it has more mass, the shell will move with greater velocity. It won't have the same power as there is no chamber to contain/direct the force but if the shell should rest against something solid it is possible for the bullet to accelerate to lethal speeds.

Don't try this at home!

 Wulfmar wrote:
Thinking about Space Marines being in space, their boltguns rely on combustion to propel the slug - which requires oxygen. Do GW expect us to assume there is some explosive propellant / element unknown to us that can combust in the vacuum of space?

Boltguns are based on the gyrojet, a projectile weapon designed in the '70's by the West to fire self-propelled rockets with next to no recoil to increase accuracy as well as potentially being use in micro-gravity if the cold war ever made it to space (the Russians designed laser handguns for the same thing). Technically, a Boltgun should have next to no recoil, which is why it is the weapon of choice for Marines that specialize in space combat.

As to melee weapons, we still teach soldiers to fight hand-to-hand, to use bayonets and the butt of their rifles, to even use shovels and their helmets as weapons (at least they still did when I was in). Why? Because you can and will run out of ammo, or be disarmed, or caught unarmed.

In the 40k setting, we have a legacy of techno-barbarism where fighting up close and personal was how things got done! A time when ammo was scarce and swords never jam! Melee in 40k is not only an expected thing, its a skill set of the elite, a rite of passage. Logic be damned, my fist will crush your skull while my bolts shred your heart!

SJ

 Wulfmar wrote:
Thinking about Space Marines being in space, their boltguns rely on combustion to propel the slug - which requires oxygen. Do GW expect us to assume there is some explosive propellant / element unknown to us that can combust in the vacuum of space?

Modern ammunition contains its own oxidizer. You can shoot modern ammo in a vacuum or even under water. Boltguns would be little different.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Logic be damned, my fist will crush your skull while my bolts shred your heart!

Armor, void shields, scatter fields, plenty of things that can stop a bullet or just deflect it away from a vital area. These things are far less effective at stopping my massive hydraulically driven cutting shears from just slicing you in half.

 Dorastus wrote:
Armor, void shields, scatter fields, plenty of things that can stop a bullet or just deflect it away from a vital area. These things are far less effective at stopping my massive hydraulically driven cutting shears from just slicing you in half.

If they can stop a bullet, why would things of a lower velocity and with less kinetic energy be any trouble for them at all?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Barring random dune-like handwavium of course.

 Wulfmar wrote:
Thinking about Space Marines being in space, their boltguns rely on combustion to propel the slug - which requires oxygen. Do GW expect us to assume there is some explosive propellant / element unknown to us that can combust in the vacuum of space?

You can bind pure oxygen to another element in a solid state that then combusts when exposed to an electric charge, which provides sufficient oxygen for the initial charge (you don't need much). The rocket in the round will have its own solid-fuel cell.

There's also the fact that most ship-board battles (the "space" part of Space Marine) will be in a life-sustaining environment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Dorastus wrote:
Armor, void shields, scatter fields, plenty of things that can stop a bullet or just deflect it away from a vital area. These things are far less effective at stopping my massive hydraulically driven cutting shears from just slicing you in half.

If they can stop a bullet, why would things of a lower velocity and with less kinetic energy be any trouble for them at all?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Barring random dune-like handwavium of course.

Because that is how kinetic barriers function. They use the kinetic energy of the projectile against it, in effect, which is why slow things go through the shield... less kinetic energy.

 Psienesis wrote:

Because that is how kinetic barriers function. They use the kinetic energy of the projectile against it, in effect, which is why slow things go through the shield... less kinetic energy.

That's exactly what he meant by dune-style handwavium. Kinetic barriers aren't even theoretical - they are a story/setting mechanism to justify the relevance of melee weapons or certain kinds of energy weapons.

 Psienesis wrote:
You can bind pure oxygen to another element in a solid state that then combusts when exposed to an electric charge, which provides sufficient oxygen for the initial charge (you don't need much).

Exactly. Even non-modern explosives/propellants like black powder and dynamite contain their own oxygen.

An electric charge is will not trigger many explosives/propellants - most require significantly more than that.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

Because that is how kinetic barriers function. They use the kinetic energy of the projectile against it, in effect, which is why slow things go through the shield... less kinetic energy.

That's exactly what he meant by dune-style handwavium. Kinetic barriers aren't even theoretical - they are a story/setting mechanism to justify the relevance of melee weapons or certain kinds of energy weapons.

 Psienesis wrote:
You can bind pure oxygen to another element in a solid state that then combusts when exposed to an electric charge, which provides sufficient oxygen for the initial charge (you don't need much).

Exactly. Even non-modern explosives/propellants like black powder and dynamite contain their own oxygen.

An electric charge is will not trigger many explosives/propellants - most require significantly more than that.

In Star Wars, swords and the like saw a come-back due to the development of personal energy shields, as you could maintain vibrations that were so powerful that you could literally pass through the shields as if they weren't there. This is the same science behind the Transonic Razers that the Mechanicum uses. I could easily see something like this causing melee weapons to make a serious comeback.

Lightsabers are even better with a guard.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
Thinking about Space Marines being in space, their boltguns rely on combustion to propel the slug - which requires oxygen. Do GW expect us to assume there is some explosive propellant / element unknown to us that can combust in the vacuum of space?

You can bind pure oxygen to another element in a solid state that then combusts when exposed to an electric charge, which provides sufficient oxygen for the initial charge (you don't need much). The rocket in the round will have its own solid-fuel cell.

There's also the fact that most ship-board battles (the "space" part of Space Marine) will be in a life-sustaining environment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Dorastus wrote:
Armor, void shields, scatter fields, plenty of things that can stop a bullet or just deflect it away from a vital area. These things are far less effective at stopping my massive hydraulically driven cutting shears from just slicing you in half.

If they can stop a bullet, why would things of a lower velocity and with less kinetic energy be any trouble for them at all?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Barring random dune-like handwavium of course.

Because that is how kinetic barriers function. They use the kinetic energy of the projectile against it, in effect, which is why slow things go through the shield... less kinetic energy.

Are any of the shields in 40k kinetic barriers? I always assumed they were force fields or warp shunt fields.

 Wulfmar wrote:
Thinking about Space Marines being in space, their boltguns rely on combustion to propel the slug - which requires oxygen. Do GW expect us to assume there is some explosive propellant / element unknown to us that can combust in the vacuum of space?

I think GW expects you to appear before your local member of the Inquisition for mind-scrubbing

Martel732 wrote:


Yeah, I chose them in 1994. I thought their fluff was cool at the time. And I'm way too cheap and dislike GW way too much to do a second list. This where I realize that I'm the pariah in the wasteland, as almost every poster on here has more than one list.

I like the story of the BA, but now the crunch invalidates everything ever written about BA. Good job, GW. BA can't fight their way out of a paper bag now.

Welcome to the Chaos Wastelands, enjoy your stay and get along with your CSM neighbores.

It took BA 5th or 6th ed to suck, CSM sucks since 4th, i know what you mean.

At first I was irked that everyone kept quoting my initial question after it had been answered - but now all these different explanations are making me imagine awesome applications to use in my sci-Fi shorts I write for fun

 Wulfmar wrote:
At first I was irked that everyone kept quoting my initial question after it had been answered - but now all these different explanations are making me imagine awesome applications to use in my sci-Fi shorts I write for fun

I think you got a lot of responses as it was not phrased as an honest question. Rather you asked a rhetorical question which included the (completely wrong) statement that no known explosive propellant could function without ambient oxygen.

The inverse is actually true - all effective explosive propellants must contain their own oxygen (otherwise their reaction speed will be limited making them weak and their potential use cases are extremely limited).

A good knowledge of science and engineering fundamentals is extremely valuable for a sci-fi writer. There are few things more embarassing than a ridiculous sci-fi explanation for something that is actually perfectly possible with real science.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
At first I was irked that everyone kept quoting my initial question after it had been answered - but now all these different explanations are making me imagine awesome applications to use in my sci-Fi shorts I write for fun

I think you got a lot of responses as it was not phrased as an honest question. Rather you asked a rhetorical question which included the (completely wrong) statement that no known explosive propellant could function without ambient oxygen.

The inverse is actually true - all effective explosive propellants must contain their own oxygen (otherwise their reaction speed will be limited making them weak and their potential use cases are extremely limited).

A good knowledge of science and engineering fundamentals is extremely valuable for a sci-fi writer. There are few things more embarassing than a ridiculous sci-fi explanation for something that is actually perfectly possible with real science.

Why do I find this passive-aggressive and moderately insulting.

 Wulfmar wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
At first I was irked that everyone kept quoting my initial question after it had been answered - but now all these different explanations are making me imagine awesome applications to use in my sci-Fi shorts I write for fun

I think you got a lot of responses as it was not phrased as an honest question. Rather you asked a rhetorical question which included the (completely wrong) statement that no known explosive propellant could function without ambient oxygen.

The inverse is actually true - all effective explosive propellants must contain their own oxygen (otherwise their reaction speed will be limited making them weak and their potential use cases are extremely limited).

A good knowledge of science and engineering fundamentals is extremely valuable for a sci-fi writer. There are few things more embarassing than a ridiculous sci-fi explanation for something that is actually perfectly possible with real science.

Why do I find this passive-aggressive and moderately insulting.

Actually, that was entirely sincere.

My previous post where I pointed out a bunch of common applications of explosives that very obviously function without access to ambient oxygen...

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

Because that is how kinetic barriers function. They use the kinetic energy of the projectile against it, in effect, which is why slow things go through the shield... less kinetic energy.

That's exactly what he meant by dune-style handwavium. Kinetic barriers aren't even theoretical - they are a story/setting mechanism to justify the relevance of melee weapons or certain kinds of energy weapons.

 Psienesis wrote:
You can bind pure oxygen to another element in a solid state that then combusts when exposed to an electric charge, which provides sufficient oxygen for the initial charge (you don't need much).

Exactly. Even non-modern explosives/propellants like black powder and dynamite contain their own oxygen.

An electric charge is will not trigger many explosives/propellants - most require significantly more than that.

The Hellfire electric firing assembly (available in gunstores everywhere now) begs to differ.