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.

Right now im a bit down on my luck of finding how powerful a vanquisher cannon is compared to a m1 abrams cannon...

Which brings me to my question.... Can a modern A.p shell will have the capability to pierce terminator armour....

Yes and no. Yes in that the 120mm main gun would evaporate a TDA guy with modern metals and builds. The force field would be the big if would it pop or just slam the guy backwards as he is hit. No in that the space alloys being used are of un certain density. And again the shield

Nexr do you mean , HE.,sabot or OR?

 Commissar Terrence wrote:
Right now im a bit down on my luck of finding how powerful a vanquisher cannon is compared to a m1 abrams cannon...

Which brings me to my question.... Can a modern A.p shell will have the capability to pierce terminator armour....

No one knows - they exist in two different universes with perhaps different laws of physics - in 40k the narrative writes those laws - which can also change to suit the story................. .

The best you can do is decide if the narrative needs the shell to pierce it or not..........

With a solid shot, the guy inside will probably be liquefacted even if the armour holds.

We have some data on armor from FW, and in general, armor thickness is extremely thin on tanks relative to modern equivalents. Even if we assume that the materials are stronger, there are plenty of fluff references and examples of vehicles and equivalents to show that modern weapons would be dreadfully effective against 40k units. With that, we can probably assume that TDA would not fare well against real world weaponry.

As noted, a lot of this depends on the author, so much of 40k shifts depending on who's writing at the time and from what perspective, in some fluff bolters slay marines by the dozens, in others they might as well be a light rain. It's hugely variable.

Additionally, also mentioned by others, even if the weapon doesn't breach the armor, it'll probably kill whoever is inside through simply kinetic shock and turning their guts to slush. You see this in bomb victims all the time, externally they look fine, but internally everything has been turned to goo. Same with bulletproof vests, even if the round is stoppped, you can still be hurt or killed. In fact, you can shoot a Civil War era cannon at a bulletproof vest and the vest will prevent penetration...but the person behind the vest is going to have every organ and bone in their chest utterly pulverized and be killed instantly.

 Vaktathi wrote:
We have some data on armor from FW, and in general, armor thickness is extremely thin on tanks relative to modern equivalents. Even if we assume that the materials are stronger, there are plenty of fluff references and examples of vehicles and equivalents to show that modern weapons would be dreadfully effective against 40k units. With that, we can probably assume that TDA would not fare well against real world weaponry.

On the contrary, such very thin armour suggests incredible material strength.

As far as I know, the Terminator should be fine. They are often referred to as shrugging of hits from krak missiles and the like, and a modern tank gun shouldn't be all that much more powerful.

Though, none of us can be sure, neither me nor the above posters who disagree with me. Ceramite and adamantium have not been defined, and their feats vary highly on the demands of the plot - you will find that Ceramite rapidly loses its strength if Guardsmen happen to be protagonists...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:


No one knows - they exist in two different universes with perhaps different laws of physics - in 40k the narrative writes those laws - which can also change to suit the story................. .

The best you can do is decide if the narrative needs the shell to pierce it or not..........

This basically.

 Vaktathi wrote:
We have some data on armor from FW, and in general, armor thickness is extremely thin on tanks relative to modern equivalents. Even if we assume that the materials are stronger, there are plenty of fluff references and examples of vehicles and equivalents to show that modern weapons would be dreadfully effective against 40k units. With that, we can probably assume that TDA would not fare well against real world weaponry.

As noted, a lot of this depends on the author, so much of 40k shifts depending on who's writing at the time and from what perspective, in some fluff bolters slay marines by the dozens, in others they might as well be a light rain. It's hugely variable.

Additionally, also mentioned by others, even if the weapon doesn't breach the armor, it'll probably kill whoever is inside through simply kinetic shock and turning their guts to slush. You see this in bomb victims all the time, externally they look fine, but internally everything has been turned to goo. Same with bulletproof vests, even if the round is stoppped, you can still be hurt or killed. In fact, you can shoot a Civil War era cannon at a bulletproof vest and the vest will prevent penetration...but the person behind the vest is going to have every organ and bone in their chest utterly pulverized and be killed instantly.

And give a superhuman and put him in power armour. I could still see in-game how the regular space marine can shrug off a easily well placed krak grenade or a explosive packed laser. It might knock the fellow off his feet or give him a concussion. But then again, a space marine do use bolter's and it is a 75 caliber explosive rounds. That could make a regular human's intestines go all gooey on them. So im pretty sure a tank round could not kill a 8 foot killing machine wearing ceramite Dread armour.

Even if the armor shrugged off a tank shell, can it shrug off multiple tank shells? Repeated hits will damage and weaken any armor and enough hits would shred the armor eventually.

We wrote:
Even if the armor shrugged off a tank shell, can it shrug off multiple tank shells? Repeated hits will damage and weaken any armor and enough hits would shred the armor eventually.

Two words.... numbers and firepower

Easily a team of space marines could lose 3 or 4 marines at the most. But the other soldier's could get around the tank and shoot inside the crew compartments with there bolters. And weaken the armour with power fist's. (if they have any to begin with)

Have you ever been in a tank? 75cal. Means nothing. You can fire a 50.cal pistol or muzzleloader neither would punch through a tank a m2 50. Isn't even a threat to a tank.. Next tanks can move 60mph and weigh roughly 65tons. so just running a guy over would squish him through shear physics. Now if say they have a missile rack perhaps they would be a menace to a tank.
Grenades are not the end all be all they seem in movies. Modern body armor can stop grenade shrapnel. The blast is what gets you.

 ThirstySpaceMan wrote:
Have you ever been in a tank? 75cal. Means nothing. You can fire a 50.cal pistol or muzzleloader neither would punch through a tank a m2 50. Isn't even a threat to a tank.. Next tanks can move 60mph and weigh roughly 65tons. so just running a guy over would squish him through shear physics. Now if say they have a missile rack perhaps they would be a menace to a tank.
Grenades are not the end all be all they seem in movies. Modern body armor can stop grenade shrapnel. The blast is what gets you.

I probably wasn't clear enough. Space marines could jump on the tank and simply shoot through the visors or the hatches. (based on the physical appearance I think they might just tear it open.) and krak grenades arn't explosive. But infact, implosive. So they use the concentrated implosion to crack open the tank. And I know my way around those fake movie scenario's.

 Commissar Terrence wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
We have some data on armor from FW, and in general, armor thickness is extremely thin on tanks relative to modern equivalents. Even if we assume that the materials are stronger, there are plenty of fluff references and examples of vehicles and equivalents to show that modern weapons would be dreadfully effective against 40k units. With that, we can probably assume that TDA would not fare well against real world weaponry.

As noted, a lot of this depends on the author, so much of 40k shifts depending on who's writing at the time and from what perspective, in some fluff bolters slay marines by the dozens, in others they might as well be a light rain. It's hugely variable.

Additionally, also mentioned by others, even if the weapon doesn't breach the armor, it'll probably kill whoever is inside through simply kinetic shock and turning their guts to slush. You see this in bomb victims all the time, externally they look fine, but internally everything has been turned to goo. Same with bulletproof vests, even if the round is stoppped, you can still be hurt or killed. In fact, you can shoot a Civil War era cannon at a bulletproof vest and the vest will prevent penetration...but the person behind the vest is going to have every organ and bone in their chest utterly pulverized and be killed instantly.

And give a superhuman and put him in power armour. I could still see in-game how the regular space marine can shrug off a easily well placed krak grenade or a explosive packed laser. It might knock the fellow off his feet or give him a concussion.

And it's just as likely their insides are jelly. We're into the arena of pure supposition. However, we know what creatures far more resilient than humans take to kill (and it can almost always be accomplished with a single Kalashnikov), and we know that vehicle crews in mighty armored behemoths can be grievously injured or killed outright without penetration of the armor.

But then again, a space marine do use bolter's and it is a 75 caliber explosive rounds.

Yes, out of a gun built on a principle that would result in a weapon that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. We've made rocket propelled bullet guns, they didn't go anywhere for a reason, the muzzle velocity is lowest at the muzzle and doesn't hit it's maximum velocity for several meters after that, meaning their stabilization is inherently wonky from a basic physics standpoint and their resulting accuracy is total garbage. If you try and hand-wave it away as having a booster charge, then you negate the point of having a rocket motor in the first place. Additionally, that sort of weapon is monstrously impractical, for almost all targets you could take a weapon of substantially lower caliber and carry substantially more ammunition, and be no less combat effective against most targets while being able to stay in the fight much longer.

That could make a regular human's intestines go all gooey on them. So im pretty sure a tank round could not kill a 8 foot killing machine wearing ceramite Dread armour.

They seem to kill 60 ton armored tanks just fine.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
We have some data on armor from FW, and in general, armor thickness is extremely thin on tanks relative to modern equivalents. Even if we assume that the materials are stronger, there are plenty of fluff references and examples of vehicles and equivalents to show that modern weapons would be dreadfully effective against 40k units. With that, we can probably assume that TDA would not fare well against real world weaponry.

On the contrary, such very thin armour suggests incredible material strength.

As far as I know, the Terminator should be fine. They are often referred to as shrugging of hits from krak missiles and the like, and a modern tank gun shouldn't be all that much more powerful.

Though, none of us can be sure, neither me nor the above posters who disagree with me. Ceramite and adamantium have not been defined, and their feats vary highly on the demands of the plot - you will find that Ceramite rapidly loses its strength if Guardsmen happen to be protagonists...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:


No one knows - they exist in two different universes with perhaps different laws of physics - in 40k the narrative writes those laws - which can also change to suit the story................. .

The best you can do is decide if the narrative needs the shell to pierce it or not..........

This basically.

Also greatly depends on who is writing the fluff, depending on the writer 5 marines can hold off a tide of green skins and not loose one, other times they can't hit gank.

I would say though the tank shell would be more powerful then the krak, yeah it's got more explosive force but the tank shell has a lot more kenetic force behind it. Either way as you said no one know for aure

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Commissar Terrence wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
We have some data on armor from FW, and in general, armor thickness is extremely thin on tanks relative to modern equivalents. Even if we assume that the materials are stronger, there are plenty of fluff references and examples of vehicles and equivalents to show that modern weapons would be dreadfully effective against 40k units. With that, we can probably assume that TDA would not fare well against real world weaponry.

As noted, a lot of this depends on the author, so much of 40k shifts depending on who's writing at the time and from what perspective, in some fluff bolters slay marines by the dozens, in others they might as well be a light rain. It's hugely variable.

Additionally, also mentioned by others, even if the weapon doesn't breach the armor, it'll probably kill whoever is inside through simply kinetic shock and turning their guts to slush. You see this in bomb victims all the time, externally they look fine, but internally everything has been turned to goo. Same with bulletproof vests, even if the round is stoppped, you can still be hurt or killed. In fact, you can shoot a Civil War era cannon at a bulletproof vest and the vest will prevent penetration...but the person behind the vest is going to have every organ and bone in their chest utterly pulverized and be killed instantly.

And give a superhuman and put him in power armour. I could still see in-game how the regular space marine can shrug off a easily well placed krak grenade or a explosive packed laser. It might knock the fellow off his feet or give him a concussion.

And it's just as likely their insides are jelly. We're into the arena of pure supposition. However, we know what creatures far more resilient than humans take to kill (and it can almost always be accomplished with a single Kalashnikov), and we know that vehicle crews in mighty armored behemoths can be grievously injured or killed outright without penetration of the armor.

But then again, a space marine do use bolter's and it is a 75 caliber explosive rounds.

Yes, out of a gun built on a principle that would result in a weapon that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. We've made rocket propelled bullet guns, they didn't go anywhere for a reason, the muzzle velocity is lowest at the muzzle and doesn't hit it's maximum velocity for several meters after that, meaning their stabilization is inherently wonky from a basic physics standpoint and their resulting accuracy is total garbage. If you try and hand-wave it away as having a booster charge, then you negate the point of having a rocket motor in the first place. Additionally, that sort of weapon is monstrously impractical, for almost all targets you could take a weapon of substantially lower caliber and carry substantially more ammunition, and be no less combat effective against most targets while being able to stay in the fight much longer.

That could make a regular human's intestines go all gooey on them. So im pretty sure a tank round could not kill a 8 foot killing machine wearing ceramite Dread armour.

They seem to kill 60 ton armored tanks just fine.

You have a habit of not noticing what the capabilities of the space marine is. They will get hit by a tank. There is a chance of it may piercing. And there innards may shatter. But then the gene seed may prove most of that wrong. And when a space marine is injured or wounded. they have life sign monitors, and when a space marine is hit. It'll give them various medicine's and painkillers. And a bolter is not designed for long range. And have you heard of a bloody single fire option?! And the bolter is meant for astartes only. If a regular human would've fired it. It would've likely ripped his entire arm off. And finally. A suit of power armour isn't just a heap of ceramite. It's more than that. So a bloody small caliber would just be deflected on "99.9%" of the armour.

(Taken from the wiki)



Bolter Ammunition (a bolt) is primarily a .75 calibre rocket-propelled round. Whereas conventional solid slugs utilise a propellant charge contained in a casing that forces the bullet down the barrel upon ignition, in contrast, a bolt is self-propelled; it features its own integrated solid fuel propellant that propels the bolt at high speeds, essentially acting like a miniature rocket. The propellant itself is shaped to control the bolt's direction and speed; however, this method of rocket propulsion would normally warp the barrel due to gas pressure. The Bolter uses an ingenious two-stage method to prevent this.

As well as the rocket propellant, a small conventional charge is also utilised. This charge is strong enough to force the bolt out of the barrel at a significant muzzle velocity, and simultaneously ignite the bolt's propellant. The rocket-propellant is precisely fused to ignite immediately as the bolt leaves the barrel, alleviating any possibility of pressure build-up. The bolt then accelerates toward the target under its own power.

Standard Bolter ammunition utilizes a mass-reactive fuze, designed to penetrate the target before detonating within, maximizing damage to the target and leaving little chance for survival.


And when I was talking about a bolt round going through a tank a mean't through a visor or in a hatch!

"Standard Bolter ammunition utilizes a mass-reactive fuze, designed to penetrate the target before detonating within, maximizing damage to the target and leaving little chance for survival. "

Except stuff survives this ammo all the time. So often, in fact, that boltguns are damn joke now.

Martel732 wrote:
"Standard Bolter ammunition utilizes a mass-reactive fuze, designed to penetrate the target before detonating within, maximizing damage to the target and leaving little chance for survival. "

Except stuff survives this ammo all the time. So often, in fact, that boltguns are damn joke now.

Fluff wise.... it will make a soft thing turn into a red mist. But game wise.... It's been nerfed a lot due to the fact that its a killing machine if NATO would've got there hands on this technology

Which is also funny because in real life, gyrojets suck.

 Commissar Terrence wrote:
And when a space marine is injured or wounded. they have life sign monitors, and when a space marine is hit. It'll give them various medicine's and painkillers.

Giving "medicines and painkillers" doesn't exactly help when your legs have been blown off and most of your internal organs have been reduced to a puddle of soup on the ground behind you. We're talking about the kind of catastrophic damage where parts of the body are entirely destroyed, not superficial-but-painful injuries where the structure of the body is still largely intact.

If a regular human would've fired it. It would've likely ripped his entire arm off.

Err, no. The whole point of a rocket shell is that it is fired with a low-velocity initial charge to clear the launcher and most of its velocity is provided by the rocket. A bolter would likely have less recoil than a 40mm grenade launcher, which normal humans can fire just fine.

Current developement of metal foam acts in many ways like ceramite in 40k. Metal form armor in tests will cause a 7.62 NATO round to fragment into powder upon impact, causing an 8mm deformation (44mm or less is considered the highest grade for armor rating). The same foam reflects radiation. We have today an equivalent to sci-fi armor, in the form of metal foam.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Current developement of metal foam acts in many ways like ceramite in 40k. Metal form armor in tests will cause a 7.62 NATO round to fragment into powder upon impact, causing an 8mm deformation (44mm or less is considered the highest grade for armor rating). The same foam reflects radiation. We have today an equivalent to sci-fi armor, in the form of metal foam.

This is kind of misleading. First of all, the metal foam armor was an inch thick plate, hardly practical for use in actual body armor. Second, it acts like the crumple zones in a car, absorbing the shot by crushing rather than bending like conventional armor. This is a useful thing, but it doesn't mean that metal foam is some magic ultra-strong material.

 Commissar Terrence wrote:
m1 abrams

Theres your problem
Challenger 2>M1 Abrams

 Commissar Terrence wrote:

You have a habit of not noticing what the capabilities of the space marine is.

In part this is because it varies *wildly* by author

They will get hit by a tank. There is a chance of it may piercing. And there innards may shatter. But then the gene seed may prove most of that wrong.

What exactly is the Geneseed going to do against the laws of physics? Again, we have very large, very tough creatures alive today that can take substantially more punishment than a human, that are superhumanly strong and resilient, but they die to the same things. An adult male silverback Gorilla could pick me up and toss me around like a doll and crush my skull in his hands, likewise an Elephant or a HIppo, in terms of strength they can do all the things a Space Marine is supposed to be able to do strength-wise, but to kill one all I need is a simple Kalashnikov. Armor one within a tank and a successful RPG penetration will almost certainly kill one too, probably in three or four different ways.

And when a space marine is injured or wounded. they have life sign monitors, and when a space marine is hit. It'll give them various medicine's and painkillers.

Painkillers only work if there's something left. If they've taken a hit from a tank shell that had any sort of effect, they're either red paste spread all over the ground, or internally jelly. Painkillers also only work so long as a blood supply remains. Sure they can mitigate that, but for how long and from how many holes?

And a bolter is not designed for long range.

Bolters are described always as having similar ranges to rifles. The ranges I'm talking about with RPG guns that have been tried are very short, they are monstrously inaccurate even at pistol ranges of just a few meters. The physics do not work.

And have you heard of a bloody single fire option?!

Yes, where did I get into anything regarding automatic fire?

And the bolter is meant for astartes only. If a regular human would've fired it. It would've likely ripped his entire arm off.

Except we have human-usable bolters. Every IG sergeant can take one. Commissar Yarrick wields a Storm Bolter, unaugmented, single handed.

And finally. A suit of power armour isn't just a heap of ceramite. It's more than that.

I never said it wasn't.

So a bloody small caliber would just be deflected on "99.9%" of the armour.

Maybe. Those big shoulder pads and broad chestplate, sure. The neck? Groin? Inner elbow? The powerback on the back with exposed venting? The eyes? Fingers? Exposed cabling? Space Marines are highly resistant to small arms fire, not immune to it. We have plenty of fluff examples of Space Marines being killed by things such as Autoguns, Bolters, Stubbers/machineguns, Shootas, etc. all sorts of weapons that have real world equivalents or something close.

Bolter Ammunition (a bolt) is primarily a .75 calibre rocket-propelled round. Whereas conventional solid slugs utilise a propellant charge contained in a casing that forces the bullet down the barrel upon ignition, in contrast, a bolt is self-propelled; it features its own integrated solid fuel propellant that propels the bolt at high speeds, essentially acting like a miniature rocket.[ The propellant itself is shaped to control the bolt's direction and speed; however, this method of rocket propulsion would normally warp the barrel due to gas pressure.

Stop here. This is where the weapon begins to break down. There is no problem with pressure or barrel warping with these kinds of weapons in real life, if anything they're substantially less than normal firearms

The Bolter uses an ingenious two-stage method to prevent this.

here is what I alluded to in my previous post.

As well as the rocket propellant, a small conventional charge is also utilised. This charge is strong enough to force the bolt out of the barrel at a significant muzzle velocity, and simultaneously ignite the bolt's propellant. The rocket-propellant is precisely fused to ignite immediately as the bolt leaves the barrel, alleviating any possibility of pressure build-up. The bolt then accelerates toward the target under its own power.

There's zero point to including a rocket motor if you have a conventional propelling charge. You're just making the worst of two different worlds with that. If there's an initial conventional charge, then why not just make it a normal round to begin with? There's no advantage in including the extra weight and fuel of the rocket motor instead of just a more fully functional propelling charge, and you still run into the issue of velocity not maximizing until sometime after the round has left the barrel which makes it less stabilized and thus dramatically less accurate.

And when I was talking about a bolt round going through a tank a mean't through a visor or in a hatch!

Those are usually sufficiently armored such that a weapon like a bolter (analagous to a 20mm cannon give or take) would not penetrate on a modern tank.

 Vaktathi wrote:
We have plenty of fluff examples of Space Marines being killed by things such as Autoguns, Bolters, Stubbers/machineguns, Shootas, etc. all sorts of weapons that have real world equivalents or something close.

To be fair, we also have plenty of examples of Marines displaying near immunity to small arms and performing feats of durability much greater than the guesstimated sum of the parts.

It's not an easy yes, but it's certainly not an easy no either. We have examples of Marines falling a kilometer and just continuing to walk, yanking treads off tanks and whipping enemies to death with them, and dodging gunfire that they noticed after it was fired.

You and Peregrine often argue that 40k weapons, armour, etc. is wildly inferior technologically to what we possess today, but I suspect it is not that easy a conclusion to make, at least if we assume that future human = contemporary human. Consider the simple lasgun, whose descriptions of damage to living tissue implies it as significantly more powerful than the combat rifles of today, yet when has a lasgun ever really harmed a Marine in the lore outside of plot-armoured nutjobs in IG novels?

 Ashiraya wrote:
You and Peregrine often argue that 40k weapons, armour, etc. is wildly inferior technologically to what we possess today

Well, that's because it is in many ways. For example, the LRBT is so obviously flawed that even a WWI-era tank designer would wonder how anyone could be incompetent enough to build one. Same with the Land Raider. 40k computer systems are an absolute joke. Basic 1970s-era guided missiles are treated as borderline magic technology. Drones are virtually nonexistent. Etc. Even those lasguns don't seem all that impressive, in pure firepower terms. The damage is described as spectacular, but they don't really seem to be any more lethal than modern rifles.

 Peregrine wrote:
The damage is described as spectacular, but they don't really seem to be any more lethal than modern rifles.

Are we talking game rules here? Because in the game rules, my fists hit like a frag grenade, and I can gaurantee you that this is not representative of anything, fictional or otherwise.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Are we talking game rules here? Because in the game rules, my fists hit like a frag grenade, and I can gaurantee you that this is not representative of anything, fictional or otherwise.

I'm talking fluff descriptions. In the fluff a lasgun hit has a pretty good chance of killing you and a very good chance of at least taking you out of the fight, but so does a hit from a modern 7.62mm rifle if you aren't wearing armor capable of stopping it. It seems like the primary difference is that the lasgun does spectacular surface-level tissue damage, while the real-world rifle bullet penetrates and mangles your insides.

Doesn't the heat from the las beam flash boil the area, causing the surrounding flesh to explode in a spray of boiling blood? That sounds a bit nastier than surface level tissue damage.

Lasguns dealing surface damage is indeed a very consistent thing, and why they have so poor penetration (and, indeed, only makes PA even better against them).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Doesn't the heat from the las beam flash boil the area, causing the surrounding flesh to explode in a spray of boiling blood? That sounds a bit nastier than surface level tissue damage.

This is only true for flesh, mind you, not metal.

Depends if he rolls a 1 on his armour save :p

 Ashiraya wrote:
Lasguns dealing surface damage is indeed a very consistent thing, and why they have so poor penetration (and, indeed, only makes PA even better against them).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Doesn't the heat from the las beam flash boil the area, causing the surrounding flesh to explode in a spray of boiling blood? That sounds a bit nastier than surface level tissue damage.

This is only true for flesh, mind you, not metal.

Oh yeah, against metal it wouldn't be great. Solid slug weapons would actually be more effective in that case, especially if they were armor-piercing.

A hot-shot lasgun could penetrate armor, but supposedly those heat up really quickly, meaning sustained fire is unwise.