The Weapons (and Tactics) of WH40K vs Realism

[40k_fan]

The Weapons of 40k versus Realism

Chapter 1: Imperium of Man, Part 1

 

Bolters

Could they exist? Yes, they could. Easily.

Because the boltgun, for all the hype surrounding it, is little more than an automatic shotgun. You may say "But ackshually it's a gyrojet!" and while the similar of 'rocket gun' is there, that's about it. The boltgun fires shells or cartridges containing rockets, wheras the original gyrojet fired cartridges that were themselves rockets, making it caseless. And the boltgun isn't caseless. Does the boltgun work in real life? Yes, it does. But is it practical? It's not necessarily quieter or more accurate than a regular bullet-firing gun, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't see use. Imagine a gun firing a rimless brass shotgun shell loaded with a gyrojet-style projectile. That gun wouldn't be any larger than most modern battle rifles, nor would it have substantially more recoil. Regular people could use .75 caliber boltguns with no more difficulty than any other automatic shotgun. But at the end of the day, it's gimmicky.

A gyrojet isn't going to be any more accurate than a rifled slug, even with that extra boost of speed out of the barrel. If anything it may be less effective.

The initial charge of the shell that the rocket is placed in may be enough to get the rocket up to speed and ignite it, but that same amount of force may prove detrimental to the rocket itself, causing minor dents, clogs, or deformation to the thruster-nozzles located in the rear of the rocket. And so now the rocket flies slightly crooked. That's not good. That's not good at all.

 

Plasma weapons

It does actually work in real life, it just needs an exorbitant amount of energy to get the big flashy explosions.

That's because plasma needs a ton of energy to go far. Plasma torches only have a range of a few inches. If you want tens or hundreds of meters of range, you need a massive amount of energy to be put into the plasma to get it that far, only a small percentage of which will make it to your target.

The SHIVA STAR capacitor assumedly weighed around ~8,640 pounds and was capable of powering the MARAUDER coaxial plasma railgun which was capable of firing a plasma projectile at about 3 times the speed of sound with a range of about a mile away and with an energy of about 5 pounds of TNT, which is considerably more than "40-watt range". Lots of "abouts" but physicists hate being exact. But regardless, there's your big flashy explosion.

But hold on, how much carry weight can a space marine devote to a power source for a plasma gun? Let's say 500 pounds to be safe, the weight of more than 1000 hamburgers.

500 pounds is a mere fraction of 8,460, but it will still give us plenty of energy. Let's say, energy wise, rather than 5 pounds of TNT to work with, we have ~134 grams of TNT to work with. Still an impressive amount of power. One plasma blast from the is equivalent to 4 rounds of 30x173mm autocannon ammunition at once (or roughly 28 rounds of .50 BMG). Which is very impressive, if it wasn't for the fact that your energy backpack would need to weigh 500 pounds. For that same amount of weight, a space marine could carry more than 330 rounds of regular 30x173mm autocannon ammuniton. Let's assume they make it more efficient in the future though. The energy capacitors of the future are well more than 80 times more efficient than they are now, putting it on par with regular bullets for efficiency. The energy backpack would still be really big and a major weakpoint. You know how catching batteries on fire makes them explode? What happens if some godemperorforsaken Chaos-worshipping xenomutant decides to light up your plasma gunner with their despicable flamer weapons? It's not going to be good for anyone involved, that's for sure. It's even worse when you remember that capacitor banks sometimes just randomly catch fire and explode in real life too. And so, plasma, while functional, is likely incredibly inefficient, and even if it is, it is somehow even riskier than it is in the game already.

 

Laser weapons

Possible? Absolutely.

Light carries energy very well. But the issue of massive power requirements remains. Light doesn't have the same kinetic power as plasma or bolts, but it carries photons which will be packed with lots of heat. The United States navy built a laser cannon on their ship once. It has a power output of about 30 kilowatts on the high end. Which is enough to melt through about 200 pounds of steel with 1 second of sustained fire.

So what's the hold up? Laser's just aren't better than regular bullets. They need fuel too. Much like how a bullet needs a cartridge filled with gunpowder to shoot, so too does a laser, except a laser will use different chemicals, ostensibly. Lasers are about 30% efficient, so a shot that outputs 30 kW of energy needed about 100 kW put into it first. So what does 100 kilowatts look like? More than 1,300 pounds. And that's for a single shot. What if you want 40 shots? That's about a shipping crate's worth of batteries.

But let's go back to the 80-times-more-efficient-batteries model. Now, a single shot only requires about 16.25 pounds of battery to fire. A space marine could have a massive battery pack weighing hundreds of pounds that can hold a whopping 30 shots. Perhaps those 30 shots will melt those chaos xenomutants instantly or fry an enemy vehicle's sensors, but that's still an exorbitant price in weight to pay for lasers.

Because this is just the same problem as plasma. You want a ton of energy in your projectile? You need a lot of energy to begin with. And even if it's efficient, it's still large and heavy.

And what other flaws exist in lasers? For one, they don't arc, they are always straight. You can't shoot a laser over a wall.

Two, lasers can be stopped easily. Kick up enough dust in the air? That laser is going to split as it flies through dust or smoke, and the beam distorts and spreads out in a process called thermal blooming. The beam will be far less effective in battle.

But lasers do win in the fact that they largely lack recoil. For a space battle? Lasers would actually be really good. And unlike rockets, which also won't push you back in space like bullets, lasers can be used multiple times, provided you have enough energy to fire them. Rockets, you can make more of, but each rocket fired is a loss of material.

Lasers also move at the speed of light. So they can't be dodged.Honestly, in 40k, lasers should get the ability that invulnerable saves don't work against them for that reason. Because there are units that can dodge out of the way of lasers in-game, and that's just a bit silly...

 

Addendum: What about generating energy instead of using batteries/capacitors?

What a long name for an addendum.

Space marine power armor is apparently powered by some sort of miniaturized fusion reactor. So why don't the marines just grab an extra reactor to power their energy weapons? That would probably work for [insert lore reasons] but when it comes down back to the realism side of things, reactors are big. Very, very big. Perhaps a sort of harnessed cold-fusion reaction would be small enough and produce enough energy. But scientifically, we know very little about cold fusion. It's so incredibly difficult to replicated in a controlled environment. Who knows, maybe in M42 they use that kind of power. But using conventional fission? Absolutely not.

 

Conclusion

And thus, I wrap up Chapter 1 of The Weapons of 40k v Reality. Come back soon to see me debunk more weapons, and then even later re-stat said weapons in a way that mirrors how they would work in reality. That's right, I'll be making new stats for my new and not at all improved harder-sci-fi 40k weapons. Look out for that. Same channel, sometime soon.

Edited October 4, 2023 by 40k_fan

[40k_fan]

Conversion beamers and Anti-matter weapons

Ah... anti-matter. A substance so volatile that it immediately reduces to pure energy on contact with regular matter. It has never been created in numbers of more than a few atoms on earth in real life because it's really, really hard to make it in the first place. You need to slam enough particles together or let nasty stuff decay to make weird messed up things to show up, and that requires a particle accelerator. Bar that, it is formed in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays.

 

But, let's say room temperature superconductors and micronized particle accelerators or magnetic vacuum containers are commonplace in M30+ weapons technology. Great. I'm not even going to get into energy requirements, that would be pointless.

 

Antimatter won't last for long. It will annihilate itself on contact with matter, so it needs to be kept in a vacuum by a magnet usually, thankfully, that's not necessary for a weapon. Or is it? Well, it turns out, yeah, it is. In real life, antimatter won't have a reaction of building up energy like it does in the game. No, it will just immediately annihilate on contact with air, meaning it explodes the moment it leaves the barrel of the weapon. That's not good. These particles on their own are weak. If an antiparticle appeared in your body suddenly, you'd be fine. The problems start when you have more than a handful of positrons or antiprotons.

 

Problem is, a particle beam is not just one particle. In this example, let's use a beam of 300 trillion antiprotons per second, a very small number for particles. Particle beams aren't super big anyway, they are streams of tiny particles one after another. Even with that small amount, That's an explosion of  90,000 joules, which is about as much as a medium-sized anti-material bullet. How can we make this work? Just use the same electromagnetic technology that keeps the particles contained/created and use it to create a vacuum channel for the particles to travel through. Now you have a really good anti-tank weapon that happens to be exorbitantly expensive. Great work.

 

But let's say you can charge up more energy just like in 40k. What happens if you charge up for 30 seconds? That's more than twice as much energy as some cannonballs. But even 30 seconds of charge will still be less than a millionth of a mole. So what happens if you could fire a single mole of antiprotons at an enemy? 180 trillion joules. That's equal to a 50 kiloton atomic bomb. From a single mole of antimatter.

 

Of all the weapons, this is one where the logistical issues are massive, but if the solution is found, the payoff is equally massive. Antimatter is strong stuff, if only it could be easily made in labs or found in nature in large quantities. Or not, it might be for the best that it isn't.

[Minigiant]

I commend you on the discussion surrounding the feasibility of weapons from the 40k universe in real-world contexts, these types of discussions are always interesting in theory. Your analysis of bolters, plasma weapons, and laser technology showcases an understanding of both the lore and some of the scientific principles involved.

 

Your breakdown of bolters as akin to automatic shotguns with gyrojet-style projectiles highlights the potential practicality of such weaponry. It's intriguing to envision these firearms being utilized by regular individuals with proficiency, even though they may carry a touch of gimmickry. Your thoughts on the potential accuracy issues resulting from rocket deformations provide an additional layer of intrigue.

 

The examination of plasma weapons also resonates. Your explanation of the need for an exorbitant amount of energy to produce the explosive plasma effects adds a sense of authenticity to their portrayal. The considerations around energy backpacks and the risks associated with using plasma weaponry offer a unique perspective on the possible drawbacks of this technology.

 

Your insights into laser weapons are equally interesting. The comparison to the US Navy's laser cannon and its energy requirements paints a vivid picture of the challenges involved. The notion that lasers might excel in space battles due to their speed and recoil-less nature is intriguing, emphasizing their potential strategic advantage. The limitations you've pointed out, such as the inability to arc and their vulnerability to environmental factors, contribute to a well-rounded understanding of laser weaponry.

 

The detailed explanation of antimatter weaponry and its challenges in creating, containing, and utilizing antimatter effectively underscores the complexity of such weaponry. The potential for immense power and destruction, albeit at significant logistical costs, adds depth to the discussion of antimatter's role in the 40k universe.

 

I would argue though that it is precisely the unrealistic aspects of these weapons that fit them seamlessly into the 40k lore. The essence of the 40k universe lies in its over-the-top nature, where exaggeration and absurdity are celebrated virtues.

[40k_fan]

Chainswords and other Chain Weapons

Chainswords are a horrible idea. That's my thesis statement. Let's get to the facts.

The origin of the chain weapon in 40k is that chainsaws look and sound really cool. It's a loud fast moving motorized machine that cuts with a chain made of jagged teeth, and GW thought it would be metal to add that as the Space Marines' iconic melee weapon.

To lend more credence to chainsaws being used offensively, they weren't even made for cutting wood and plants, they were originally for gynecological surgery. Don't think about it too much, or at all. But the point is that they were made to cut through flesh and bone.

So obviously the chainsword is a great weapon for the future!

Well... No. Not at all.

If you think a chainsword is a viable weapon for actual war and combat, I can say 100% you have never used a chainsaw once in your life.

Chains can pop off of their track. Then you need to take half the chainsaw apart and put it back together.

The blades will get dull very fast, and unlike a sword, you can't just sharpen it against a whetstone, you need a new chain entirely.

They need to be oiled constantly.

They get hot. Very, very hot.

They cannot cut through metal at all. If you try to cut through a piece of hard metal with a chainsaw, the chain will shatter.

Pieces of sharp metal can go flying back at the person using the chainsaw.

That's what the purpose of tree-spiking is for ecological activism. To make sure a logger cannot reasonably cut down a tree without risking their own life and ruining their equipment.

And given how much metal armor is prevalent in the 40th 'k', this would be a very real problem.

Also, you can't swing a chainsaw like you can a sword.

It will not cut any faster, just because you hit it into a tree. More likely, you just jam it or dull the blade quicker.

Chainsaw can cut fast, but they require sustained cutting, which, while it looks cool in animations, would be difficult to pull off in real life without your enemy disloding themselves from the blade before it can cut them in half.

In summary: Chainswords are a horrible idea.

[40k_fan]

PROMETHIUM

 

Promethium, the beloved weapons-grade fuel of the 42nd Millenium, named after Greek titan, Prometheus, who stole fire from the gods.

It's used in flamers, meltaguns, et cetera... Though, surprisingly, not plasma guns. Plasma guns use hydrogen fuel.

 

But here's a problem: Promethium is a real element. Specifically, element number Sixty-One. And its consistency with it's fictional counterpart is very hit-or-miss.

 

Consistent #1 - Flammability. Promethium is a Lanthanide element, and because of that, it's extremely flammable in powder form.

Consistent #2 - Radioactivity. Promethium will undergo beta decay and sometime release gamma radiation too. It'll even glow.

 

But...

 

Inconsistency #1 - State of matter. Promethium is a solid at room temp. And it's melting point is like... 3000 degrees celsius.

Inconsistency #2 - Rarity. Not the pony. It's a rare element. It was discovered as late as 1902. It's not found hardly at all in nature. The chance of a promethium mine is laughable, not least because it's half life is pretty short at 17.7 years, but because it also is created only very rarely by decay by other very rare radioactive elements.

 

So...

 

How can we make this work? For flamer fuel, it would most likely need to be a form of Promethium diethyl (Pm(C2H5)2) as an additive to petroleum (CnH2n+2) along with polystyrene ((C8H8)n) and some sort of bonding agent. This is called "napalm with promethium in it" and it's nothing new. No, I won't tell you the proportions to make napalm in real life. Do your own research if you're so inclined, it's not a secret.

 

But what about meltaguns. This part surprised me, because it was actually surprisingly realistic. Meltaguns are called fusion guns in setting. Do they induce fusion through bursts of powerful heat, or do they induce powerful heat though fusion? I forget. But the point is, fission-induced fusion is a real thing! That's how hydrogen bombs work! The force of the fission explosion can push particles hard enough to cause them to fuse. So what a promethium-fuel meltagun is doing is creating a miniature hydrogen bomb explosion, likely by bombarind promethium with neutrons until it goes critical, and directing the resulting explosion out of it's barrel to cause fusion of the air in front of the shooter and melt their target.

 

So, insomma, Promethium in 40k? Unrealistic, but surprisingly, not impossible.

 

Would it make more sense if it was Uranium instead? Probably. But hey, Promethium is topical, it has a fire theme. Who knows. Maybe in the far future, they find more suitable isotopes of Promethium that make this stuff work better.

 

Come back next week for more 'realism in 40k'

 

<3

[40k_fan]

The Tactics of 40k Versus Realism

"War... War never changes."

 

Wait, no, that's the other power-armor franchise.

 

Here's the truth of the matter. War does change. In every sense of the word. The reasons wars are fought has changed, who wars are fought against has changed, the weapons used are different, and the tactics used are different.

 

I'm going to invent a new word here. "Gritdark"

It's dark, but it's not overly edgy, rather, it's infused with gritty realism.

 

And do you know what gritty realism would be? A lot less ground combat, a lot more space combat. Battlefleet Gothic, baybee.

If you're a spacefaring civilization, why battle on the ground at all?

You can just float in space, target the biggest enemy city/hive/whatever, and launch nukes on it from orbit or even further away.

You don't even need nukes, just drop rocks. That's what the Orks do, and it works just fine.

If you want to combat that untouchable firepower, you need to come to them in space. Ergo, space battles are necessary.

 

Also, a lot more human versus human combat would occur.

Civil wars, and revolts would be inevitable in a civilization so large.

Planets vs other planets due to xenophobia/discrimination.

Planets vs the entire imperium over differing beliefs/politics.

Coalitions of planets would form with similar goals to declare themselves to be independent confederations and secede.

 

Also, when ground battles occurred, the soldiers wouldn't be space marines.

They would just be regular human soldiers.

Lots of human soldiers, armed with regular guns and simple armor. (And probably hopped up on pervitin.)

Hundreds of thousands of millions of billions of human soldiers.

Why? Because it's cheaper, raw numbers win eventually.

Fact of the matter is, you can round up a billion humans from across the galaxy, give them minimal training, herd them onto a massive carrier-ship, and then drop them onto a planet across the galaxy that they've never heard of before, and they'll win anyway simply due to sheer numbers.

Hell, Most planets won't even have 1 billion people; Earth itself didn't have 1 billion people until 1804.

 

Because of how planets would have to be set up in 40k, we can know what different planets would be targeted in a war.

City-planets AKA Hive-worlds would surprisingly enough not need to be a direct target.

Here's why:

A planet with a population randing in the hundreds of billions to trillions would be incapable of sustaining itself, especially at 40k's tech level.

What it would need is for two other types of planets to exist.

Farm worlds, and Forge worlds.

Farm worlds would need to be devoted to growing food for Hive worlds. Forge worlds would need to manufacture all the goods for the Hive worlds.

The Hive worlds would produce intellectual goods. Art, science, learning, office work, legal work, et cetera...

What does this sound like? Mercantilism.

Realistic tactics mean that in order to defeat a hive world, all you need to do is to create a space blockade around it or its sources; cut off its supply.

Do you know what this would mean?

Mass starvation. The Holodomor would look like a joke next to the effects of cutting off a hive world from a farm world.

And without a forge world, technology would break down with no means to repair it.

Hive worlds are only sustainable when they have other planets to work for them.

Tactics against them would revolve around that.

If the tyranids wanted to deal real damage, they could just infest a farm world and eat everything.

Just eat all of the food, the crops, the livestocks, the people.

That would deal so much more damage than attacking a hive world directly, and be much easier.