Bolters and Power Armor

[Firenze]

I think your theory is sound. Bolters are quite large as far as their recievers go. If you look at the reciever of a modern rifle, its much much shorter and thinner. A bolter is quite bulky in comparison and could have electronics and mechanisms for extracting and loading from the magazine, built into the reciever. The magazine itself would not be able to do that though, there is no room for such mechanisms and would make the magazine overly complex for what a magazine is, just something to hold ammo.

 

Your explanation would be a good way to explain how a bolter remains very light on recoil. Another thing people dont often consider is that weapons are built according to the technology and needs of the users, and materials on hand. So some may have more advanced operation methods that lighten recoil, and others may be super simple and have heavier recoil. The more complex something is the more prone to failure it is. Electronics break, they require advanced methods to construct. Consider an AK47, very simple, not very high quality, not very accurate, but for those very reasons it is very reliable. It has loose tolerances, simple design, and just goes bang every time, precisely why it is a favorite close range assault rifle...power, reliability, period.

 

Definately. Maybe I can think good with weapons. However, in 40k, computers/cogitators are supremely robust, and are able to take a beating before being destroyed. I expect the computer system in the Bolter (for user recognition, mag feeding, tactical uplink to the visor) would be built to be the toughest, considering the amount of timesmarines are shown to use the gun itself to beat people to death with.

 

Also, could you see Marines being stealthy at all in power armour? I see them about as stealthy as a modern day squad of infantry on the battlefield. Surpirsingly quiet and hidden till the moment they strike. The fibre bundles and servo motors could be tuned to operate silently, and to reduce the impact of the Marines footfall, dropping the volume from a massive clang to the same noise as me gently walking up the stairs ;)

[Angelwinged]

It would all have to do with what they were stepping on. But I really doubt that stealth is the style of a space marine. They pretty much are built for smashing right into the most vital areas and delivering maximum death with incredible speed, so there is very little time to react. Tip toeing around just isnt them.

[Dev_Nassim]

Well, I know I'm jumping in late, and not totally sure if the concept has been mentioned before, but, bolt guns sound VERY much like gyro jet guns. They have very low recoil, can accelerate quickly...

 

Also, for the impact, a gyrojet would easily punch through armor... and a delayed detonation would be easy.

 

I wanna know where the marines stow the ammo? I mean, gods, the figures are always so... clean. I mean, this is 40K... so stuff like Molle would be a given... The two mag pouch in the kit doesn't hack it. Nor this drek of pulling it out of a backpack that is carrying like power supply, life support, and stuff like that.

[Dev_Nassim]

It would all have to do with what they were stepping on. But I really doubt that stealth is the style of a space marine. They pretty much are built for smashing right into the most vital areas and delivering maximum death with incredible speed, so there is very little time to react. Tip toeing around just isnt them.

 

Marines can be VERY stealthy. IF they can't be stealthy, how can they manage ambushes if they're the equivalent of a bull in a china shop. Granted, scouts are a little more stealthy.

[Dev_Nassim]

As for the cycling of a bolt gun, well, it's so bulky, that the mechanism could be electronic.

 

A rotating bolt would preclude any need for a recoil buffer.

 

There would be a two stage ignition. The primer would ignite a low pressure launch, like the M79 and m203 40mm Grenade Launcher. There would be a delay, so once the round has passed a certain distance, the primary propulsion fires off. Which is why you have the muzzle brake, which diverts the primary propulsion gasses sideways. There would be minimal recoil

 

When the round impacts a target, there's a delay of a microsecond before the round goes boom.

 

The further the penetration before boom, the more damage is inflicted. Flak armor does protect, but, given the fact that you have a small, hi energy explosive going boom against your chest, the trauma might still be sufficient to be lethal. But, like the armor of like a space marine, the penetration would be insufficient for lethal trauma, but, it would blow a crater in the ceramite. It would explain the dings in the armor on like vehicles and such...

 

It also speaks to why a 'normal' human can fire a bolt gun without having to dig his butt out of the wall behind him.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Dev_Nassim

[Olgerth Istaarn]

Aren't bolter rounds mass-reactive, that is they are set to detect when they penetrate and THEN detonate? And before you ask, I don't know HOW it could actually be done, a wizard did it or something. But the effect is the same as Ye Olde Armor-Piercing Cannon Rounds: pierce the armor, then kaboom to wreck whatever is behind the armor.

 

A bolt that merely penetrates wouldn't inflict enough damage to an SM... a bolt that penetrates and explodes would. Of course, not every round will penetrate.

 

As for extra ammunition, for bolters or real rifles. I always thought that mags strapped to chest or shoulders were the result of the Rule of Cool. Even though real-life rounds aren't miniature rockets, wouldn't they explode if struck by a bullet or shrapnel?

[AngelOfDeathXIII]

This is a very enjoyable and obviously well-educated read!

 

I have one question though (I haven't read all of the above yet so perhaps you already answered it).

 

How effective would a chainsword be against power armour? I always wondered that.

[NeroTheApothecary]

I think you have an amazing grasp of modern day technology that truly amazes me, but are trying to apply modern day logic to the 41st millennium.

 

1. You say the bolt round is a "Magic bullet" that simply isn't feasible. Considering how far in the future this is, a complicated pressure sensing time delay would not be anywhere close to beyond the scope of 40k technology. They have teleporters, and the "Machine Spirit" in most vehicles is part mechanical part organic AI that can fully control the vehicle in desperate situations. In a world where basic vehicles have a fusion of mechanical and organic parts that have enough intelligence to fight independently on the battlefield I say that a bolt that knows when a good depth to explode is not too far fetched. (My guess would be a material that feels the pressure (density) of the substance it is passing through, and triggers the time delay accordingly) << That sounds like mass reactive to me ^_^

 

2. A bolt round has a diamantine tip, now this is a fictional material. How can you say how effective it is at penetrating another fictional material? (Ceramite) While we know through the rules that it does not automatically penetrate, and through some of the lore we are told power armor can take a few bolt rounds, a diamantine tip (at least penetrating slightly if at the right angle) plus a powerful explosion strong enough to turn a human into a fine mist is certainly enough strength to at least have a chance at penetrating power armor even on hard points. In many picture we see shoulder guards with holes blasted in them, surviving the attack but having much of the material blown away. This would leave them vulnerable to another shot. In my mind power armor could survive a few bolt rounds, but if hit by more than three rounds from a burst penetration is guaranteed. Considering the most common pattern bolter is a Astartes MK Vb Godwyn pattern bolter which fires a four round burst power armor still doesn't seem very effective. Four missiles packed with fictional powerful explosives would certainly have a good chance at doing some damage. If not penetrating at least allowing a following up burst or a fellow squadmate to finish the kill.

 

3. This is however balanced by a marines ability to dodge, his superhuman reflexes, and his extreme experience in battle. Surely a Marine after taking a bolt or two would slip back into cover or dive out of the way of following shots. While two marines standing still blasting at eachother would end quite quickly, two skilled combatants crouching behind cover firing fullisades at eachother could go on for quite some time. With rare hits being absorbed by the power armor. This is how I imagine warhammer 40k. With the charge/advance into close combat requiring skillful dodging, bravery and quite a bit of luck. But the speed and skill of space marines coupled with their power armor would allow them to do such as long as they were careful.

 

4. You guys also seem to be discussing aiming with relation to bolters and spacemarines. The Space Marine's helmets have a tracking HUD sight that is linked with their bolter and their autosenses. They do not use aiming lasers except with certain specific loadouts. This HUD sight combined with the marines suburb reflexes, training, and skill would make them masterful shots even in the flurry of battle, hip shooting with unprecedented accuracy.

 

*Edit* 5. On chainswords the lore shows them to being effective against power armor depending on the strength behind the blow and the quality of the chainsword. They have a diamond equivalent tipped teeth with a monomolecular edge that can chew through power armor given a second. However having even a single second to push a chainsword through a Space Marine in close combat is probably impossible. Meaning that only the strength another space marine could muster would be enough to swing a chainsword through another space marines power armor, and that would most likely have to be a limb, or a joint. Perhaps a clinch or grapple could be initiated to buy a seconds worth of time to cut through the thicker plates of armor?

Edited December 6, 2011 by NeroTheApothecary

[Andrew J]

I would hate to see this thread die. It is very entertaining and certainly full of very good info.

 

My thoughts are that the bolter has some form of mag driver like a railgun that powers the bolter shell out of the bolter. I remember reading a BL book where it said that the bolter "connected" with the PA and that would explain the power for the mag driver. Now that being said the GW is essentially wide open and I am sure you could say one variant used this and another used a purely mechanical bolt action. Who knows what kind of technology would run that? It could be nanotech that works on the microscopic level to pull the rounds up into the chamber and they describe it as the "machine spirit". I guess in my mind the bolter is a handheld MK19 for superhumans. The MK19 can fire long distances and has explosive rounds, exactly how the bolter is described. Of course I think it is human nature to try to make reason out of something, and in reality the bolter is 40000 years in the future.

 

Concerning PA I totally agree with Angelwinged in his assumptions of PA. Though I think if there were ever to be a monomolecular edge that that would slice through even PA as it is literally seperating molecules. Though this would still not be easy even with PA because it is so thick and the molecules would be packed so tightly together.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Andrew J

[Freman Bloodglaive]

Incidentally this thread also provides support for the AP system used in the game. If you're shot with a weapon that won't penetrate the plates then you'll get a save with the only concern taking the hit on a joint or other weak area (failing the save). If you get hit with a weapon that will penetrate the plate then you won't get a save, you'll just have to hope that the palm tree you were waving in front of yourself causes the shooter to miss (cover save).

[Sun Grilled Bacon]

As a side note, would bolters ever need to be suppressed? I cannot see a way to suppress a bolter due to the rocket part of the round...

[AdeptusDavidus]

A suppressor could dampen the sound of the "kicker charge", but it wouldn't suppress the sound of the rocket propulsion. That alone might be enough to make it difficult to pinpoint the source of the shot (which is the principle behind putting a suppressor on a precision rifle even though it's still loaded with supersonic ammunition - the sonic boom is still audible, but it's harder to pinpoint the source. and that latter bit may not be true with regards to the electronic sniper-finder systems that we're starting to see, I really don't know there).

 

I would think that for missions where stealth is critical, they would forego conventional bolt rounds in favor of a normal, albeit armor-piercing, slug that lacks the self-propulsion. Couple that with a stiff but subsonic kicker charge, and I think it would work well enough. Might require an alternate barrel for accuracy, though they could just as easily use a fin-stabilized sabot round.

[Brother Kane]

This is true. Bolter rounds are supposed to explode upon penetration of the armor. But it is difficult for me to believer that a bolter round would actually impact with enough speed to penetrate the breastplate of power armor (the thickest portion) unless it was a sabot/AP round, which doesnt leave too much room left for an explosive charge. But for the sake of the fluff, I suppose it is possible for a gram or two of high explosive to be included on the bolt Also this talk about "Mass Reactive" is kind of silly. That is essentially a magic bullet. It somehow knows NOT to explode when it is going into the mass of the armor, but then once it hits soft flesh it knows to explode? lol... The technology required to miniaturize a little computer, sensors, AND the penetrator and explosives all into a single .75 round the size of a grenade would be very incredible. Maybe if it was on a time delay it would be possible.

Your mistaken the most used Bolter by LOYALIST Astartes forces its the .998 Godwhyn (corect my spelling please). The difference in size in terms of micro comp's in the 40k universe would be immense. Not to mention the advanced explosives and propellants would drasticly increase the balistic propoties of an 1 inch "hand cannon" shell even further than what we have today.

Though we dont know what calibre the other vatiations of bolters are I would imagen that they would be mostly standardized or similar enough to use the amunition in any bolter used by any Astartes.

[Phoebus]

Where the number of bolter rounds/magazines carried by a Space Marine is concerned...

 

Reading through this thread, that got me thinking about where a Space marine would have his ammunition. The size of the magazine as shown - sickle or square - is simply too big to mount on the Space Marine's belt. The result would be an individual who can't fully bend, tuck, or raise his leg. Additionally, there isn't anything in the illustrations that indicates the magazines could be mounted higher in the torso - like modern infantrymen. That has left me with a dillema regarding ammunition storage and placement.

 

One of our guys who just deployed to Afghanistan has been in talks with a company that manufactures some pretty interesting load-bearing equipment. I'm not going to call their products revolutionary, but one of the things they managed to do was set up a back harness that makes it easier to store a smaller-size radio AND 4-6 magazine pouches. Where the latter are concerned, the location - the lower back - is accessible enough for the shooter to pull out the magazine for a more-or-less normal re-load.

 

My - completely unfounded and wholly imaginary - solution to this would be that the back-mounted power pack also serves as ammunition storage. When the magazine runs out of ammunition, the Space Marine shoves it in a slot in the lower-left or lower-right side of the power pack, and an auto-loader re-fills the magazine. While this is happening, he withdraws a second magazine from the opposite side of the power pack.

 

http://www.modelbits.co.uk/images/space_marine_backpack_3_large.jpg

 

To be clearer, I'm referring to the protruding openings/slots near the bottom of the backpack. Thus, if you wanted to be technical, there could be three different magazines loading at one time while the fourth was being used. So far as I know, there is no assigned usage to those protrusions/slots; IIRC, the exhaust vents are at the top of the pack.

 

Again, this is completely manufactured on by part and there's no evidence to back the idea up. I think it's convenient, though, and it piggy-backs on the pre-existing concept of the Devastator using a larger version of the backpack for a heavy bolter's ammunition.

 

Thoughts?

Edited July 31, 2012 by Phoebus

[thade]

Seems plausible to me. It's never been clear to me how much of the backpack is reactor, exhaust, armor...and, as you say, there are ways of finding places to tuck things.

 

They mag-lock a lot of stuff to things instead of using clips, so they could mag-lock the magizines to their backpacks, legs, shoulder plates, or even the bolter itself...tho (with the exception of the latter, maybe) sticking magazines pel-mel about the model would probably look kind of silly, haha. (Shot my own idea down before posting. Hilarity.)

[Phoebus]

And really, another reason I don't like magazines being mag-locked all over the legs, etc., is because then they don't get a 3+ save if they happen to get in the way of a round/blast/lasbolt/etc. :D

[thade]

And really, another reason I don't like magazines being mag-locked all over the legs, etc., is because then they don't get a 3+ save if they happen to get in the way of a round/blast/lasbolt/etc. ;)

haha I lol'd. :)

 

I admit I don't know much about the actual construction of bolter rounds, but they're propelled like missiles, no? Do they have mini-detenators like missiles? Or would they react more like bullets if shot/heated etc. than I believe?

[Brother Daeger Helsir]

Lots of fun thoughts and cool info in this here thread. I'd like to add mine to the mix. :P

 

@ Angelwing:

Your thoughts are largely spot-on, and it's clear you know your stuff when it comes to guns and ballistics. I especially love your idea that the seemingly-rediculous bulk of the Bolter's barrel (most art and models make it look two to three times the size of its supposed caliber!) is in fact an incredibly heavy barrel designed to stave off heat buildup, and that the vented, too-large visible stub of external "barrel" is simply a muzzle brake for the kicker charge. It provided a satisfying explanation and justification for a design element I always thought was silly.

 

However, I would like to point out some of the more easily forgotten details about the bolter that seem to have been missed:

 

-Much of your discussion, such as considering the accuracy of bolt pistol designs that would have almost no barrel length, seems to be operating under the assumption that the bolter is a rifled weapon. In fact, bolters are smoothbore guns.

The information I've seen is that a bolt round spins under its own power, with the rocket engine being directed through three or four angled nozzles that are controlled real-time to stabilize flight.

This, coupled with the fact that the constant acceleration of the rocket propulsion helps alleviate bullet drop, is the given reason for the bolter's accuracy.

 

-Rockets quite difficult to stabilize mechanically, especially when spinning, to prevent them from taking a wild, corkscrewing path through the air. The ways to overcome this are either to manufacture the rocket to very exacting standards, so that it is perfectly balanced by design, or to use a compact computer chip to stabilize the rocket through continuous adjustment of the nozzles or of a set of control fins. Either possibility does a lot to explain why bolt rounds require sophisticated infrastructure to create and are so expensive to manufacture.

 

-Amazingly, modern-day technology already has produced chips sophisticated enough to do this, and small enough to fit inside a comparatively small-caliber modern bullet. This isn't theoretical, it's been done. There were headlines recently about a successful experimental weapons system that fired laser-guided, in-flight-aimable fin-stabilized bullets from an intermediate-caliber smoothbore gun. Considering that STC tech is infamously robust (A lasgun can be put through abuse that would make a Kalashnikov cry, and sill function without a hitch), fitting a flight-stabilizer chip inside a much, much larger bolt round isn't nearly so farfetched.

 

-There's some old, and "Depleted Deuterium"-level erroneous, fluff stating that of all things, bolters actually recoil forwards, and as such firing the weapon would cause it to be pulled out of the hands of a regular human user.

The reason given for this was a supposed vaccuum or low pressure zone that formed in the barrel behind the accelerating bolt round, which is patent nonsense because both regular propellant charges and rocket engines work by creating a high pressure zone of expanding gas.

 

-However, in this thread's vein of trying to take GW's more scientifically dubious fluff and wring some real-world sense out of it, one could reinterpret that old fluff.

Namely, another possibility for the bolter's action/recoil mode is that it's an unusual blow-forward design.

 

@ comparing the properties of ficticious materials:

My apologies, as I don't remember which poster brought this up. But the question was raised, how can we possibly compare characteristics of fictional materials like Ceramite and Adamantium/Diamantine?

 

The answer's surprisingly simple: Extrapolation. While it's true that those two materials don't exist, there are materials that exist or theoretically could exist in the modern world that would have similar properties to how our fictional materials are described. So one can use these materials as a launching point for comparison.

As Angelwing mentioned, Ceramite has several known properties, even though it's a fictional material.

-It's an advanced composite substance, and its name implies that it has a significant ceramic component.

-It is frequently portrayed as displaying a mix of metallic and ceramic properties.

-It is extremely heat and impact resistant. Heat resistance implies ceramic composition, since ceramics are very heat resistent. Impact resistant reinforces that ceramite is a composite, since pure ceramic materials are very brittle and shatter easily.

-Angelwing has explained that modern body armor materials are a strong, tough composite material that contains ceramic components and displays properties similar to those Ceramite supposedly has, save that in general Ceramite exhibits the beneficial traits much more strongly.

-Conclusion: You can make a very confident guess at how Ceramite would react in a given condition by modelling it as a super-strong version of modern body-armor materials that's applied in thicker layers.

 

Adamantium and Diamant, he hasn't analyzed yet, but I think I can fill the gap there.

-Adamantium/diamant are portrayed as very, very hard and strong metallic materials. They are also portrayed as very dense/heavy.

-Adamantium in particular is noted for being used to form extremely potent penetrator cores for Kraken AP rounds. Assault cannons are stated to fire bullets that are either adamantium-cored and tipped, or almost solid adamantium.

-Layers of Adamantium are also an integral part of Terminator, Dreadnought, and Land Raider armor, and stated to be a significant part of the reason why these three systems are all so legendarily tough and impervious to damage- their thick laters of already-extraordinarily-potent ceramite armor are bonded to an underlayer of adamantium armor, meaning that any projectile which manages to burrow through the ceramite must then contend with the adamantium layer, and has likely lost so much energy by that point, it'll just ping off without leaving a mark.

-The fact that Adamantium is stated to be such an effective material for armor piercing rounds is telling. A good armor-piercer core needs to be very strong, so that it won't deform on impact, and ideally as dense as possible, because this allows it to fit more mass (and thus more kinetic energy) into a smaller area.

 

-As a sidenote, both "Adamantium" and "Diamant" come from the same Greek word meaning "unbreakable," and are etymologically related to the word Diamond.

 

What can we compare this to in the real world? The immediate answer is depleted uranium, which has almost identical properties to the stated characteristics of Adamantium. Depleted uranium is a hard, tough, extremely dense metal. It is used primarily to form the highest-quality penetrators for armor piercing rounds and for the projectiles in the sort of kinetic-damage-based tank rounds designed for use against other heavily armored vehicles. A solid inner shell of depleted uranium is even used as a potent reinforcing layer in Abrams main battle tanks. In short, wherever the fluff mentions adamantium, think "Depleted uranium, but better" and you're pretty much spot on the mark.

 

Now, it's important to mention. Another part of the reason DU is such a god-tier material for armor piercing rounds is the way it takes damage. When DU is subjected to greater force than it can withstand, it doesn't deform like most other metals; instead, the outer layers subjected to said force peel and grind away in a spray of self-igniting metal dust. This means that rather than deforming into a blunter shape on impact, the spiked points of DU penetrators are self-sharpening, and once they punch through a tank's hull, will shower its occupants with a cloud of furiously burning vaporized metal. We don't have any way of confidently saying adamantium shares this property; nothing in any fluff I've read suggests it. So assuming Adamantium isn't just some entirely ficticious new metallic element, it would likely need something else reinforcing it for hardness.

 

Based on all of the above, my theory is that Adamantium is probably also a composite material- an ultra-high-performance alloy of very dense and strong metals, reinforced with a matrix of synthetic diamond to put its hardness through the roof. Diamant would be similar, but since the metals for the adamantium alloy are presumably expensive and Diamant tips are the more common default penetrator on a bolt round, Diamant would likely have a much, much higher proportion of synthetic diamond, with just enough metal embedded throughout the material to offset diamond's brittleness, so that the penetrator doesn't shatter on impact.

 

Other miscellaneous thoughts:

-In hindsight, the fact that the Bolter is supposed to be a smoothbore weapon is actually quite clever. Smoothbore guns suffer less fouling than rifled ones, which becomes important when a Space Marine is deployed to noxious or hazardous environments. Also, more importantly, Space marines are heavy assault infantry who can regularly expect to operate in space, naval boarding actions, and thus in full- or partial- vacuum environments. I'd welcome Angelwing's confirmation, but I remember reading in a science magazine that a rifled barrel is actually a significant detriment to a firearm operating in space. Smoothbore bolters allow the Space Marines' weapons to operate at full efficiency without any modification, when fighting in the environment Astartes are named after.

 

-As to extra-ammo storage in or around the lower back portion of the backpack, I've seen this idea floated around before. It strikes me as by far the most sensible explanation, since the required space is there and it explains why we don't see Marines festooned all over with spare magazines- ammo stored there would not be very visible at all.

 

-As to people's questions about the effectiveness of Space Marine combat knives and whether they really have any reason to bother carrying them: Well, as has been mentioned, even assuming that a knife driven by a space marine's strength can't get through ceramite, a space marine certainly has the strength, and at close quarters, the precision, to put his knife through the soft armor at the joints of his opponent's suit, and thereby strike at vital areas.

 

Also, consider the following:

--Astartes "Combat Knives" are huge. Whether you judge from tabletop models, fluff, or representation in the Space Marine video game, everything in the setting confirms this. A Space Marine is huge enough to make his combat blade look like a big bowie knife by comparison, but to an ordinary human, it's the size of a full-on sword, and has the proportions of a heavy meat cleaver. Art and models suggest that the unsharpened edge of their knives is at least an inch thick, and the blades are a good human handswidth across, if not more. Even ignoring the fact that space marine combat knives are supposed to be monomolecular, even assuming a normal human user instead of the ungodly strength of a Space Marine, you're talking about a weapon that would chop off a man's arm or leg at a blow, and probably continue into the rest of him without even slowing down.

[Wulfkry]

must keep awesomest thread alive....

 

@angelwinged very insightful. Being a firearms/tactical instructor myself its nice to see some real world stuff applied to my hobby. Thanks for the knowledge.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Wulfkry

[Angelwinged]

Its been a long time since I have been on this forum. Its great to see this thread is still here. I do believe you are right Brother Daeger, regarding smoothbore barrels being more robust. Afterall, the M1 Abrams main battle tank uses a smoothbore cannon to launch all manner of incredibly effective shells out to distances that are pretty incredible. So a bolter would likely be smoothbore as well since it is just launching a rocket with its own stabilization fins and computer controlled guidance system.

 

Fun thread :P

[Kais Klip]

In regards to the apparent resilience of power armour when it comes to bolter rounds, I would like to point out a quote from Dan Abnett's Prospero Burns on Astartes using the weapons of the enemy to penetrate defenses their bolters could not: 

 

"The Wolves of Fenris have learned through experience that the effectiveness of an enemy's protections proportionate to the efficacy of his weapons. This may be a deliberate design philosopshy, but it is usually a more simpler, instinctive consequence. An enemy might think "I know it is possible for armour to be strong to X degree, because I am able to forge armour that strong; therefore I need to develop a weapon to that can split armour of X degree, in case I ever encounter an opponent as well-armoured as I know I can be." 

 

Does this not ring true even today? I would wager there is much more effort, on the global scale, being made towards making the more penetrating round than there is towards making personnel protection stronger; I am sure there are more rounds ready to be utilised in effective quanitties by the world's militaries that can make short work of all I've been hearing of "dragonscale" armour (the memory is vague, and I am sure there is a better variant already out) than there are effective quantaties of personal protection that are impenetrable by said strongest, but still widely-issued rounds, to a sensible degree. 

 

As such, if this still rings true, can it not remain valid on the setting? While I agree we have evidence of the Ultramarines censoring theorems on combating Astartes (and I strongly doubt the other legions like the Alpha Legions were so naive), we can be sure that the mechanicum manufacturers of said technologies had no such reservations. 

 

 

A space marine is 7-8 feet tall and tank of a man. Having a .35 caliber hole shot through him would have next to no effect unless an arterty, the heart, spine, or brain was impacted. The sabot or penetrator would not cause much tissue disruption and go in and out, and because tissue is elastic, it would close back up as soon as the penetrator passed. One might say "You could just aim for the heart or head" but this is much easier said than done when the target is running, taking cover, using concealment, turning, and not presenting an easy target for you to shoot at. You could score multiple direct torso shots with your penetrator rounds and depending on the angle of impact, they might not strike the vital areas at all.

 

On a further point, one that I would not be so quick to stand behind unlike my previous ones (having no dedicated interest or experience, unlike Angelwinged, thus I confess to speaking out of my a*se for this post), would it not be valid to assume that the average bolter shell to be utilised for the express purpose of a Space Marine target to be almost exactly proportionaly similar to the average ammunition used by humans today to for the express purpose to counter humans? That is assuming with the goal in mind being to immediately neutralise the target, since from what I understand, the average ammunition utilised by the west today seeks to non-fataly neutralise the enemy and cause further logistical problem on the enemy through supporting that wounded target (do I understand correctly that it doesn't even seek to kill in the long term?), while eastern ammunition and notably the round most utilised by wielders of Kalashikovs to have a more express purpose of killing the enemy through their impact performance). I do recognise that using our well loved boom-sticks to merely "hurt" the enemy to be laughable in past history, however I am under the assumption that with modern technology such a goal has seized to sound so far fetched. 

 

The point that I wish to lay down with that as foundation is, again from my half-heard understanding and again with no relevant medical knowledge, am I incorrect in the assumption that a wound proportional for a human to what a .35 caliber wound to a space marine would be, to fall quite close to the average wound that the average modern day round seeks to inflict on the average human expected to be faced? To build on my aforementioned side note we can assume the round exceeds lethality that is achieved by the impact performance of my aforementioned Kalashnikov round (which I recognise can be used on any barrel similar to the AK's, I'm assuming generality and vagueness is better than uninformed accuracies). That is, again from what I understand, such proportional wound on a human being is relatively unlikely to result in immediate neutralisation of the enemy as a threat, so that again, proportionaly, the space marine has as much chance of remaining an immediate threat after taking a bolt round as a modern day person has when being hit by the averagely utilized round to meet said human threat? 

 

My point, in a rambling post which I would trim in regular circumstances were it not the case that I wish to be checked and if need be corrected on the points that form the foundation of this point; following the evolutionary nature of war, would a space marine seeking to kill an equivalent space marine not encounter exactly the same level of difficulty as that experienced by a  modern day soldier seeking to kill his equivalent? 

Edited April 20, 2013 by Kais Klip

[Olgerth Istaarn]

The bolter round IS a magic bullet. It doesn't matter whether you think it's feasible or not. You just can't think of a way it would be feasible (and you are not supposed to).

 

Therefore, all arguments around this subject are pointless.

The Word of God states that the bolter round penetrates, somehow senses the penetration and then explodes. There is no questioning this functionality. All fluff states that bolters are a viable, but not the ultimate threat to power armor - they are to power armor what modern weapons are to modern body armor. If you are hit, you may survive mostly unscathed; you may be wounded but largely functional; or you may be killed outright. Therefore, just like modern troops try their best not to get shot even though they have a good chance of surviving a hit, a Space Marine in PA would do the same. They are, however, great for fighting soft targets even if the targets are large and resilient - tear out enough flesh with explosions, and legs will buckle, organs will fail, etc.

 

However, because bolters "may or may not" kill a Space Marine, they are a suboptimal weapon to fight Space Marines. "May or may not" may work when humans fight humans, but when you fight large groups of gods of war, you want to achieve certain kills. But originally, Space Marines were not meant to fight Space Marines. When the conflict shifted to power armored enemies on both sides, "special weapons" became a lot more relevant (which is why having tabletop squads which only carry 1 special weapon is stupid). But, they were somewhat rare before HH and became even more scarce after.

 

TL;DR: a bolter round works the way it is described to work and no other way, because Word of God. It was also not intended to for PA on PA combat, but you knew that already.

[A D-B]

The bolter round IS a magic bullet. It doesn't matter whether you think it's feasible or not. You just can't think of a way it would be feasible (and you are not supposed to).

 

Therefore, all arguments around this subject are pointless.

 

The Word of God states that the bolter round penetrates, somehow senses the penetration and then explodes. There is no questioning this functionality. All fluff states that bolters are a viable, but not the ultimate threat to power armor - they are to power armor what modern weapons are to modern body armor. If you are hit, you may survive mostly unscathed; you may be wounded but largely functional; or you may be killed outright. Therefore, just like modern troops try their best not to get shot even though they have a good chance of surviving a hit, a Space Marine in PA would do the same. They are, however, great for fighting soft targets even if the targets are large and resilient - tear out enough flesh with explosions, and legs will buckle, organs will fail, etc.

 

However, because bolters "may or may not" kill a Space Marine, they are a suboptimal weapon to fight Space Marines. "May or may not" may work when humans fight humans, but when you fight large groups of gods of war, you want to achieve certain kills. But originally, Space Marines were not meant to fight Space Marines. When the conflict shifted to power armored enemies on both sides, "special weapons" became a lot more relevant (which is why having tabletop squads which only carry 1 special weapon is stupid). But, they were somewhat rare before HH and became even more scarce after.

 

TL;DR: a bolter round works the way it is described to work and no other way, because Word of God. It was also not intended to for PA on PA combat, but you knew that already.

 

I tend to think similarly, too. That's part of the "Oh, sh**..." aspect of the Heresy. The bolter is designed to make absolute mincemeat of everything in the galaxy (and did so...) but when Mankind was most threatened, it was threatened by itself. The weapons of its champions, so effective at annihilating humanity's foes, were much less reliable when the true threat made itself known. The bolter was designed to destroy aliens and subjugate wayward human cultures, and none of those foes could ever match the Space Marine Legions of the Great Crusade era.

 

And in 40K, the efficacy still holds true. Most of the time, Space Marines and the Sisters of Battle are fighting enemies that are pulverised into foul-smelling paste when facing the business end of a bolter. It's only when they face themselves, or the sins of the past made manifest (in the form of the Chaos Marines) that things to go heck.

 

In direct opposition to Dan's quote mentioned earlier in the thread, I tend to have bolters fairly useless against power armour unless they strike a joint or score a direct headshot. And even then, a lot depends on the angle. Debris from the impacts shatter and clatter all over the place as the armour is blasted apart over time, but "my" bolters lack the strength penetrate power armour in most conditions.

Edited April 22, 2013 by A D-B

[The Emperor's Champion]

 

The bolter round IS a magic bullet. It doesn't matter whether you think it's feasible or not. You just can't think of a way it would be feasible (and you are not supposed to).

 

Therefore, all arguments around this subject are pointless.

 

The Word of God states that the bolter round penetrates, somehow senses the penetration and then explodes. There is no questioning this functionality. All fluff states that bolters are a viable, but not the ultimate threat to power armor - they are to power armor what modern weapons are to modern body armor. If you are hit, you may survive mostly unscathed; you may be wounded but largely functional; or you may be killed outright. Therefore, just like modern troops try their best not to get shot even though they have a good chance of surviving a hit, a Space Marine in PA would do the same. They are, however, great for fighting soft targets even if the targets are large and resilient - tear out enough flesh with explosions, and legs will buckle, organs will fail, etc.

 

However, because bolters "may or may not" kill a Space Marine, they are a suboptimal weapon to fight Space Marines. "May or may not" may work when humans fight humans, but when you fight large groups of gods of war, you want to achieve certain kills. But originally, Space Marines were not meant to fight Space Marines. When the conflict shifted to power armored enemies on both sides, "special weapons" became a lot more relevant (which is why having tabletop squads which only carry 1 special weapon is stupid). But, they were somewhat rare before HH and became even more scarce after.

 

TL;DR: a bolter round works the way it is described to work and no other way, because Word of God. It was also not intended to for PA on PA combat, but you knew that already.

 

I tend to think similarly, too. That's part of the "Oh, sh**..." aspect of the Heresy. The bolter is designed to make absolute mincemeat of everything in the galaxy (and did so...) but when Mankind was most threatened, it was threatened by itself. The weapons of its champions, so effective at annihilating humanity's foes, were much less reliable when the true threat made itself known. The bolter was designed to destroy aliens and subjugate wayward human cultures, and none of those foes could ever match the Space Marine Legions of the Great Crusade era.

 

And in 40K, the efficacy still holds true. Most of the time, Space Marines and the Sisters of Battle are fighting enemies that are pulverised into foul-smelling paste when facing the business end of a bolter. It's only when they face themselves, or the sins of the past made manifest (in the form of the Chaos Marines) that things to go heck.

 

In direct opposition to Dan's quote mentioned earlier in the thread, I tend to have bolters fairly useless against power armour unless they strike a joint or score a direct headshot. And even then, a lot depends on the angle. Debris from the impacts shatter and clatter all over the place as the armour is blasted apart over time, but "my" bolters lack the strength penetrate power armour in most conditions.

Agreed.

 

S4 vs T4 means a bolt technically has the power to mess a Marine himself up, but AP5 makes it clear that the Bolter simply isn't up to the task of penetrating Power Armour plate. All those 1's and 2's you roll for your 3+ Armor Saves are where the weak AP shots are lucky enough to hit the soft joints in the Power Armor, or spots previously penetrated/weakened by more powerful weapons.

 

Marines are clearly meant to be exploding the heads of aliens all over the place, not fighting other Space Marines.

They simply don't have the weapons they need widely available, so they use their good ol' Bolters.

[Captain Mike]

Seeing as us mere, nerf gun shooting mortals cannot contribute much real life knowledge to this subject, I will confine myself to the "magic bullet" part. 

 

If a boltgun is "mass reactive", it stands to reason that there is a "critical mass" (or... density? depth? Lets go with "critical depth)) at which it explodes. Short of this, it's just a very hot, very heavy flying metal slug of doom. This "critical depth" could theoretically be adjusted, I know, but lets assume it's a set depth. 

 

Suddenly, the idea of an un-augmented human surviving a bolter round becomes more plausible  for a reason similar to why British forces had to change the round they used because their opponents were skinny and malnourished (old newspaper article... wish I could find a link to verify it). If the bolt strikes an arm or skims the skin, and doesn't go deep into the torso, thigh or similarly thick area, it may not detonate as the "critical depth" has not been reached. Alternatively it could explode upon exiting, which although could still be lethal is still preferable to an explosion inside your arm or shoulder. Furthermore, this is where flak armour is actually useful, even if their is no game mechanic to actually cover it. 

 

I've never seen this occur in the fluff, but it seems a logical restriction on the bolt round, to me anyway. 

 

Of course, I'm discussing a hypothetical implication of a hypothetical round, and this can make space marines seem a little... unprepared, but I see it as a way to integrate the gameplay and the actual fluff. Any thoughts?