# Logistics



## Moonschwine (Jun 13, 2011)

Hey.

I'm looking for any help regarding how the imperium keeps it's supply lines fed. Of particular interest, how Space-Marines remain operational on the battle-field for an extensive period of time. For example, does anyone know what the standard load-out for a tactical marine is? I'm pretty sure that Bolt-rounds must be a logistic nightmare to transport and keep the troops supplied with due to their bulk.

If anyone can point me to sources about the nitty-gritty logistics of the imperium that would be great. It's a bit dull to just say "The administratum deal with it"


----------



## Silens (Dec 26, 2010)

Like the UK might import bananas and export... Something that the UK exports, planets of the Imperium will export whatever they can whilst importing things they may lack in from other planets. The Administratum take tithes from the planetary government based on their profits (Before imports, I believe) and this is the cost of protection from Space Marines, Imperial Guard, SoB ect. I'm pretty sure that the profit of a planet for the imperium directly correlates to how much priority they are given when they are attacked. For example, a slum city which exports rocks will be protected if attacked, but nothing like the effort the imperium might've put into Armageddon as they produced a LOT of promethium and thus paid high tithes due to high profit margins. Strategic value is also taken into consideration - Cadia, for example - and I believe that conscription rates also get taken into account. Produce nothing except billions of recruits for the imperial guard and you're still valuable to the imperium. Munitorums will obviously make a lot of money as they are producing ammo however a chunk of this of course is taxed by the government which in turn is taxed by the administratum (Unless they're exempt from taxes... Which I doubt, unless everything they produce goes straight to the Imperial Military).


----------



## Calistrasza (Mar 11, 2013)

The majority of the stuff that's moving is moved by the huge amount of trade between Imperial worlds, most of that being chartered Imperial traffic. Then there's Rogue Traders, so forth, other elements that move material throughout the Imperium. Space Marines specifically have enormous support fleets- while we don't generally see them, being focused on the battle-brothers, a Space Marine Chapter has a _huge_ number of support personnel, Naval personnel, chapter serfs, Mechanicus liaisons, etc. From memory I can recall mention of a "supply drop pod" that could be fired from a quick cruiser or escort down onto a Marine position to allow them to hold on until reinforcements moved up, or allow them to keep on fighting. The Imperial Guard rely on similar air resupply, though usually through the Navy or Guard air wings.

That being said, a lot of Hive worlds and so forth are resource-negative, and thusly need a bunch of other worlds to support them. In the opposite direction you have worlds like agri-worlds, who produce their needs and then some to support the "negative" production worlds who'd be otherwise unable to.


----------



## Rems (Jun 20, 2011)

I don't see marines actually needing to remain operational on the battlefield for an extensive period of time, that's not their shtick. 

They're shock troops, they pod in, eliminate the target and get out again. Protracted engagements arn't their thing. In a campaign they wouldn't remain on the ground but engage in a cycle of orbital or ariel drops, being able to resupply each time they're recovered for the next drop. 

For resupply mid battle you've got the Thunderhawk Transporters. I also imagine there are supply drop pods. The orbiting strike cruiser or battlebarge would carry everything they need for that campaign. There would be a lot of cargo space given there's only 100 marines and their equipment to transport and have small crews.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Moonschwine said:


> , how Space-Marines remain operational on the battle-field for an extensive period of time.


Without a supply line, they usually resort to melee weapons. Combat knives.

Chain swords seem notorious with getting clogged or losing teeth.



Moonschwine said:


> . For example, does anyone know what the standard load-out for a tactical marine is


Bolter, close combat weapon (usually a knife or gladius or something along those lines), a handful of grenades, and maybe 4 or so extra magazines for the bolter.



Moonschwine said:


> I'm pretty sure that Bolt-rounds must be a logistic nightmare to transport and keep the troops supplied with due to their bulk.


When your SMALL ship is 3 kilometers and battle barges are 4-5 kilometers, you have a lot of space to do what you want.

You know, like build cathedrals on your ship and all.



Moonschwine said:


> If anyone can point me to sources about the nitty-gritty logistics of the imperium that would be great.


 Many planets are specialized. Some grow food. Some mine ore. Some manufacture day to day stuff or small military items (like las guns and Leman Russes). Some build the big stuff (like starships and titans). It's all a big net of reliance and need that gets everyone almost everything they need a week after they need it.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

i also imagine that the rhinos have some form of ammo storage within them, they have lockers under the seats and the rhinos use bolters and have ammo chests, support staff and servitors are very likely viable to marines too though they wont be on the field of battle they will be nearby,also on the tactical sprue there are ammo pouches to store at least two extra clips for a bolter, as for the grander scheme, i would imagine shipping and cargo freighters exist in 40k, these will likely transport new supplies to fleets or fleets will dock at space ports to restock, they may also have some manufacturing facilities on board the vast ships, i suppose you can pretty much do or decide what you want as its fluff, just because the imperium have forgeworlds doesn't always mean that everything has to be produced there.


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

Rems said:


> I don't see marines actually needing to remain operational on the battlefield for an extensive period of time, that's not their shtick.
> 
> They're shock troops, they pod in, eliminate the target and get out again. Protracted engagements arn't their thing. In a campaign they wouldn't remain on the ground but engage in a cycle of orbital or ariel drops, being able to resupply each time they're recovered for the next drop.


What of the Iron Warriors and Imperial Fists?


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

Malus Darkblade said:


> What of the Iron Warriors and Imperial Fists?


Pretty much what I was thinking.

Also, what about when things go wrong? Space Marines may not intentionally enter into wars of attrition but that's not to say that their plans always go as intended, there's every chance they could become trapped or otherwise forced into a drawn out conflict. I'm sure that this would be something that chapters would have to take into consideration when deploying troops in any numbers, its always worth having a plan B, supply lines would need to be available should things not go as planned.


----------



## Rems (Jun 20, 2011)

Malus Darkblade said:


> What of the Iron Warriors and Imperial Fists?


They're two exceptions to the general rule, but even they don't exclusively fight in sieges. 

When they are engaged in such i would think their methods of supply obvious. If your defending you have ammo, fuel etc reserves and an established logistic network. If you're besieging a fortress then that presupposes you have control of the surrounding area and as such are also able to establish and maintain supply lines. 



normtheunsavoury said:


> Pretty much what I was thinking.
> 
> Also, what about when things go wrong? Space Marines may not intentionally enter into wars of attrition but that's not to say that their plans always go as intended, there's every chance they could become trapped or otherwise forced into a drawn out conflict. I'm sure that this would be something that chapters would have to take into consideration when deploying troops in any numbers, its always worth having a plan B, supply lines would need to be available should things not go as planned.


Strategically they may become engaged in war of attrition but tactically Marines don't (usually) sit there slogging it out. They maintain offensive, mobile tactics even in defensive strategies. 

The supply lines are as i mentioned; they can easily be supplied from orbit by drop pods or thunderhawks. As bits pointed out their ground vehicles would also have room for supplies.


----------



## Calistrasza (Mar 11, 2013)

If it got bad enough that the Marines ran out of ammunition- and they can carry quite a bit- do recall that they're also essentially trained in pretty much every kind of weapon they're liable to run across, and they can pick up most others (that don't break or explode when the carrier dies, looking at you, Necrons). 

So if it came down to the wire the Marines could just take your gun away from you and continue to purge at will.


----------



## ThunderHawk (Oct 6, 2010)

For the Imperium itself, supplies and logistics are moved under the auspices of the Imperial Navy. Because the Imperium is so vast, some planet can be focused on producing a specific thing, and other planet can produce another thing. This is not limited to an agri-world and a hive-world differences.

Supplies for Imperial Guards are moved by the Imperial Navy, where supply disruption tactics is still a viable tactic in the 40K universe, as evidenced in the defeat of the Imperium in the Taros Campaign. I think the supplies of Space Marines Chapter can be done by their own fleets. Also, I think personal and squad supplies could be teleported (I have read it somewhere in Codex Approved books, I forget the title, but its about Space Wolves vs Orks)


----------



## Moonschwine (Jun 13, 2011)

> The majority of the stuff that's moving is moved by the huge amount of trade between Imperial worlds, most of that being chartered Imperial traffic. Then there's Rogue Traders, so forth, other elements that move material throughout the Imperium. Space Marines specifically have enormous support fleets- while we don't generally see them, being focused on the battle-brothers, a Space Marine Chapter has a huge number of support personnel, Naval personnel, chapter serfs, Mechanicus liaisons, etc. From memory I can recall mention of a "supply drop pod" that could be fired from a quick cruiser or escort down onto a Marine position to allow them to hold on until reinforcements moved up, or allow them to keep on fighting. The Imperial Guard rely on similar air resupply, though usually through the Navy or Guard air wings.


Really good point. I totally discounted that each battle barge is essentially a self-contained battle-force. Would it be reasonable to assume that a space-marine fleet would bring Auxillary vessles with it designed to pump-out munitions? I'm basing part of the idea around the Lost-fleet books by John G. Henry who made a good job of highlighting the logistic issues of keeping a warship flotilla going.




> If it got bad enough that the Marines ran out of ammunition- and they can carry quite a bit- do recall that they're also essentially trained in pretty much every kind of weapon they're liable to run across, and they can pick up most others (that don't break or explode when the carrier dies, looking at you, Necrons).


Interestingly I was wondering if there are any examples of marines picking up "local" munitions once they begin running low on ammunition. I assumed that by sheer weight of numbers imperial guardsmen become semi-sufficient due to the nature of recharging power packs in las-weaponry.



> When your SMALL ship is 3 kilometers and battle barges are 4-5 kilometers, you have a lot of space to do what you want.
> 
> You know, like build cathedrals on your ship and all.


True but super-tankers can carry mind-boggling amounts of crude oil and it's still never enough to satiate demands. And I doubt that sunday service is held on imperial ships with everyone standing in loose bolt-rounds ala-charlie sheen in Hots-Shots part deux.


Anyway:


I took some guesses about the average load-out of a tactical marine was was something akin to:

Bolter - with all the ammo you can carry I ballparked at around 300 rounds over 10 magazines, assuming 30-rounds.
Bolt Pistol - with around 50 rounds across 5x10-round magazines. 
Combat Weapon - Main melee weapon, with a combat knife as a secondary.
Frag Grenades - Four seems reasonable.
Krak Grenades - Again four seems reasonable. 

The backpack hoppers of a heavy-bolter I guesstimated around 500 rounds. With missile racks holding around 20 at most. 

Barring the overly sarcastic responses thanks for the input guys. Gives me a few Ideas to work with for an upcoming mini-game of a deathwatch-40k table top cross over I'm creating for friends to play.


----------



## Over Two Meters Tall! (Nov 1, 2010)

One logistics issue completely ignored in SM novels are the gross calories it must take to keep an Astares going on a day to day basis. A professional cyclist told me a colleague on the Tour de France who was 6'4" and 200 lbs (90 kilos) burned about 12,000 calories per day. Your average Astares is another 1.5 feet higher and what, 800 lbs, probably burning over 20,000-30,000 calories per day just training... that's close to a gallon of vegetable oil per day!

On Isstvan V ("a bleak and blackened world"), the Raven Guard were on the run for 98 days, over three months, without anything to forage and I doubt they were schlepping around the 7 lbs/gallon of oil or it's equivalent to keep themselves up and running. The only realistic portrayal of Astares food consumption was the three SW guards in the Terran Navigator house that were ripped off from the Warrior's Three of Thor comic book fame.


----------



## Calistrasza (Mar 11, 2013)

Moonschwine said:


> Really good point. I totally discounted that each battle barge is essentially a self-contained battle-force. Would it be reasonable to assume that a space-marine fleet would bring Auxillary vessles with it designed to pump-out munitions? I'm basing part of the idea around the Lost-fleet books by John G. Henry who made a good job of highlighting the logistic issues of keeping a warship flotilla going.


A Space Marine battle barge rarely goes anywhere alone. They bring in a tender force with munitions carriers, escort ships, carriers, etc. And I'm almost certain that Imperial ships above a certain scale can manufacture ammunition even for bolter rounds- imagine the nightmare of trying to resupply an Emperor-class Battleship or Battle Barge. 




Moonschwine said:


> Interestingly I was wondering if there are any examples of marines picking up "local" munitions once they begin running low on ammunition. I assumed that by sheer weight of numbers imperial guardsmen become semi-sufficient due to the nature of recharging power packs in las-weaponry.


In one of the Space Wolves books I believe one of the main characters uses an autopistol for a little while, complaining all the way. And las powerpacks need dedicated recharging stations- you can recharge them by throwing them in a fire, but that damages them and lowers their lifespan considerably.


----------



## Calistrasza (Mar 11, 2013)

Over Two Meters Tall! said:


> One logistics issue completely ignored in SM novels are the gross calories it must take to keep an Astares going on a day to day basis.


Space marines can eat essentially anything. Their armor also reconstitutes waste into a nutrient paste + recycles water.


----------



## Reaper45 (Jun 21, 2011)

Rems said:


> They're two exceptions to the general rule, but even they don't exclusively fight in sieges.
> 
> When they are engaged in such i would think their methods of supply obvious. If your defending you have ammo, fuel etc reserves and an established logistic network. If you're besieging a fortress then that presupposes you have control of the surrounding area and as such are also able to establish and maintain supply lines.
> 
> ...


What about the raven guard. Their combat doctrine involves prolonged engagments.


----------



## spanner94ezekiel (Jan 6, 2011)

That's a different sort of engagement though, in that it's non-conventional. It's far easier to supply a non-conventional army in that you can have pre-planned drops at specific sites and times. Also it should be noted that these sort of engagements aren't generally on a large scale, as it's hard to be incognito with over 100 Astartes running around - smaller numbers are easier to supply.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Moonschwine said:


> True but super-tankers can carry mind-boggling amounts of crude oil and it's still never enough to satiate demands. A


I don't think you realize how large a battle barge is. In terms of volume, it's several THOUSAND times larger than a modern Nimitz super-carrier

Even carrying the supplies for 300 brothers isn't going to be much. Even accounting for the 15,000 serfs plus servitors and other things. There's a ton of space to put a lot of things.



Moonschwine said:


> I took some guesses about the average load-out of a tactical marine was was something akin to:


That's waaaaay more than what we've seen depicted in books and art.

Tactical marines don't carry bolt pistols normally. Generally it's devastators (who use it as a backup) and assault marines (who use it 'cause their other hand is occupied) who have bolt pistols. 

Codex tactical squads also don't carry a "main melee" weapon as you put it. They generally only have the combat knife as backup for melee.



Over Two Meters Tall! said:


> One logistics issue completely ignored in SM novels are the gross calories it must take to keep an Astares going on a day to day basis.


My own personal thoughts? I think either Space Marines have a much better way of storing energy that our crappy 9 calories per gram of fat or their bodies are much more efficient than ours.

Heck, when we use our muscles, I think only 25% of the energy is actually transformed into kinetic energy. The rest of it is lost through heat.

Then there's the huge waste of energy known as digestion.

I remember hearing that normal people burn 40% of our calories just to maintain our body temperature.

Plus I think a lot of the small stuff could be done through their power armor. Their muscles don't actually have to do any work under most circumstances.



Calistrasza said:


> A Space Marine battle barge rarely goes anywhere alone. They bring in a tender force with munitions carriers, escort ships, carriers, etc.


Space Marines don't really have a support fleet. They have their strike cruisers, battle barges, and smaller escorts. They most definitely almost never have a carrier for strikecraft.

The Space Marines aren't supposed to have a real navy. 

I can't recall anytime a post-heresy loyalist marine force having a supply convoy of their own. Protecting others (both military and civilian) but never their own.



Calistrasza said:


> And I'm almost certain that Imperial ships above a certain scale can manufacture ammunition even for bolter rounds


Pre-heresy there were Mechancius forgeships attached to some of the Space Marine forces (stated in _Mechanium_.

In more modern times, I suppose they could make some stuff. The Techmarines on board usually fix and patch up their vehicles as needed.



Calistrasza said:


> Space marines can eat essentially anything. Their armor also reconstitutes waste into a nutrient paste + recycles water.


It's good in theory, but their bodies are supposed to be super efficient in the first place. There's probably not much left afterwards.


----------



## Rems (Jun 20, 2011)

Reaper45 said:


> What about the raven guard. Their combat doctrine involves prolonged engagments.


Can be supplied exactly as i said in my other posts. 



hailene said:


> Space Marines don't really have a support fleet. They have their strike cruisers, battle barges, and smaller escorts. They most definitely almost never have a carrier for strikecraft.
> 
> The Space Marines aren't supposed to have a real navy.
> 
> I can't recall anytime a post-heresy loyalist marine force having a supply convoy of their own. Protecting others (both military and civilian) but never their own.


Crusade and Fleet based chapters do seem to have larger, more varied fleets than is 'regulation' though. The Black Templars for example do not only have Battle Barges and Strike Cruisers but forgeships, reliquary ships, environment training ships. When you don't have a homeworld for your infrastructure you take it with you.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Rems said:


> When you don't have a homeworld for your infrastructure you take it with you.


I stand corrected.

Still, codex abiding, homeworld-based Chapters don't seem to have any non-military vessels.

And not that they'd really need them either. They'd probably just slow them down.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

How to Space Marines get down from Space?

Teleport; possible, but too much potential for inter-reality whoopsies and takes too much preperation time and resources to be viable.

Drop Pod; much more viable; however, it is limited by long delays between request for deployment of assets in a rapid strike, suggesting prearranged locations to be scouted out near to locations of where ammunition expenditure is going to be heaviest. Easiest way to ensure its survivability is to have it within an automated defence system; such as a Deathwind (although how much free space is available post-discharge is questionable), or mounted within a more space aware deployment; perhaps within a Lucius Dreadnought, or within a Thunderfire Deployment; the Thunderfire in particular is going to need easy access to spare ammunition, so makes sense more comes down then. Even if neither of those are available, a Storm Bolter is still an extremely viable weapon system (it's firing explosive 18.75mm rounds at targets with a rate of fire slightly less than an M134 with undetermined capacity and super advanced cooling system; I am unsure of the specifics, but I'm fairly confident that a typical "squad" used to secure this apparently undetermined ammo cache would be so much dead meat. Destroying it would be the surest method of removing access, but destroying it removes the effectiveness of it. While there are not the rules in 40K for it, I'm fairly sure some makeshift special weapon squads equipped with what amounts to a cross between an M4A2 and a scaled down XM25 would be fairly effective.

However; I'm sure the Marines have adequate failsafes built in; i.e non-friendly registers on the augers while unable to defend itself (disabled weapon system, eg), none-friendly register picks up supplies, self detonation, booby-trapped weapons triggered to go off unless the genome/finger print/biometric data of the chapter registers picking it up/opening the crate, etc.

Although marines can pretty much pick and choose the time of an assault, they'd need to match that timeline in accordance with the supply pods; which possibly pop in after a Deathwind assault. In a deathwind led assault, this may be joined by a Deathknell Orbital Strike Force to keep up the pressure while the first drop resupplies and carries the supplies forward to the second lines. From there, the marines initiate bounding assaults.

The next method is via Thunderhawk/Thunderhawk Transporter/Stormraven/Stormeagle. Although the Assault Ram has a transport capacity fit for 10 Terminators, the Misericorde takes up more of that space, rendering it unuseable, except in a pinch, as a resupply. The other Four, meanwhile are much more capable, especially, the Transporter.

It is not hard to imagine the Transporter having two specially designed small static hardpoints, or one large one, in the shape of Rhino's or Land Raiders which maintain a premise of structural integrity (Cover, Morale Boost), combined with mounted/automated weapons support (in the event that a Transporter has to be commited to a combat situation and the beach-head has yet to be established) and ammunition resupply.

As said; a Thunderhawk Transporter is an extremely valuable commodity, as are its payload. Although equipped with effectively 8 GAU-12's (or M230's; what an Apache has), they are still vulnerable in 40K terms, so it's unlikely they would be deployed to support an initial beachhead in such a manner.

However; their payloads are a different thing. A Rhino is decent enough, but it lacks the extremely heavy armour of what a Land Raider or Hardpoint; instead, it can move; and move fast. Assuming a prepared LZ, the Transporter can drop his Rhino's about 50km from the front prior to "D-Hour", and have the reload available.

Inside the Rhino is a single driver; in the back is loaded a half dozen crates of resupply.

A Bolter has a 30 round mag, and is capable of firing 1, 2, 3, or 4 round bursts, or full automatic at a rate of 600 rounds a second. A typical heavy-duty assaulter's vest and webbing for Modern Day SF holds around 180-300 rounds in a pinch, although that is too heavy for most usage, and due to the nature of the targets faced today, a pair of full birds with two assault teams carrying at maximum capacity near enough 5000 rounds is NOT required. I myself, however, fired over 3000 rounds of 5.56 when I was part of the op that cleared Kajaki in around 4 hours; conversely, Osama's compound was cleared with less than two mag's spent and more time was spent collecting intel from the property than the actual take-down itself. 

A Space Marine Assault has the ability to supplement its ranged capabilities with awesome melee skills; and may well be reliant on them regardless of ammunition situation. However, due to space availability within a Marines personal backpack and webbing, I'd hazard a guess at no more than a dozen standard 30 rnd magazines each. That's around 360 rounds; which with a typical marines lightning quick drills and reflexes is likely to be little over, if not under a minute of constant firing on full-auto. A Drop Pod likely have an overhead ammunition box (12 Mags?) and an underfoot one (perhaps double size), so that's around 50 Magazines, or 1500 rounds. It is still a lot, but considering the numbers and the nature of the foes the Marines have to face; remember you hear stories of 5-6 Marines facing off against a couple of thousand guard; and that Marine weapons are capable of piercing even Leman Russ armour in parts, or rendering the tank unusable, or causing spalling, it's adequate for a quick assault, and relies upon the enemy falling back from that initial push. If the SM are not able to effect an adequate breakthrough (say, against Greenskins, Necrons, Cultist Hordes or Tyranids being the mindless/non morale effected, or Necrons, Chaos Marines, well defended fall-back positions etc), then the extra ammunition would come in handy.

Each bench in a Rhino likely has replacement ammunition for a Bolter or squad designated special weapon in a container beneath the seat. There are numerous ways of attaching supplies to the outside of a Rhino.

A Thunderhawk, Stormraven or Stormeagle are able to provide all of that, as well as replacing (temporarily) their ability to transport troops in favour of extra supplies; a Stormraven and Thunderhawk especially being able to replace their Dreadnought capacity, while the Stormeagle can replace one of the squads it carries with even more ammunition.

The best part about the above three is that they can be used as a munition delivery; all very heavily armed, they can either a) be directed onto target to use their own munitions, b) redeploy the marines on the ground while they resupply inside the hull safe and sound, c) deploy their own marines carried inside as a mobile reserve, d) provide overwatch/direct to threats/recon while waiting for tasking. They can jettison all excess supplies as well to lighten their load (or once they've gone winchester), providing longer Time Over Target and quicker flight back to mother, while mother then reloads them once they've gone windchester and resupplies ammunition for when they need it.

Foodwise; a Marine can eat anything, including diseased and poisoned foods, while their bodies digestive systems are hyper-efficient at getting the nutrients involved. Their armour recycles and assumedly purifies the excretia, which could theoretically be eaten once again thanks to the Marines effective and efficient dietary and immune systems.

A Rhino is simiar; it's noted for its reliability and run on anything fuel; IIRC, it can run on burning wood, although I possibly just made that up. More likely, any sort of local fuel rather than the equivalent of high octane ultra-performance fuel is a requisite. It is so reliable it even has a Game rule made of it. Whether it's balance reasons none of the others do, or its the fact that the extra strain from the new weapon systems/support systems reduce its symplicity, I don't know. However, they are extremely powerful and effective/efficient able to run on everything is a well established fact.

The IA Talos campaign listed the needs of a drawn out campaign; water was noted as a particular request; that problem is sorted via Marines physiology. Fuel was another issue; however, as above, that part is determined via how effective Marines other vehicles at using non-performance fuels. I'm willing to be that they are all similarly endowed, or the inclusion of the strike cruiser allows sci-fi handwavium to make some super fuel out of the waste products of the engines.

In regards to spares; this is the trickiest bit. Land Raiders, IIRC, are noted to have lost sponsons, and in return, have marines risk everything to return them back. On the other hand, they'd need to have enough in field for a Techmarine to establish his repairs or refits; like the ability to create Predator Annihilators or Land Raider Redeemers or Land Raider Helios' or Land Raider Ares out of spare parts/refitted old weapons.

Some chapters, on the other hand; Black Dragons noted, due to me reading about them recently; although they have vehicles do not use them except via necessity, and by necessity, lack of use turning a situation from "dire" to "terminal", because of the difficulty in sourcing replacements.

Other logistics like down time, payday, sleeping, meal times, cig times, reading e-blueys, or getting the post, R+R, they just don't happen for marines. I can't think of any other sort of logistics involved that a marine would be concerned with.


----------



## joebauerek (May 14, 2010)

On the issue of space marines not having non-combat vessels.... they may not but the planets they rule do. In the Gildar Rift book they Silver Skulls have hired a cargo vessel to supply a planet so its not implausable to say they dont do the same for their vessels. I imagine the level of control the Ultramarines have over Ultramar then if they dont their being idiotic. It wouldnt supprise me if they did a battle group style thing and just leave cargo ships somewhere safe.

For supplying the marines the above post pretty much sums it up.

As for a marines equipment I think it varies from chapter to chapter. 
But as a standard marine I imagine bolter (maybe 300 rounds), bolt pistol (maybe 30 rounds), some form of close combat weapon from gladius to chainsword (ignore the codex thats just for making a balanced game), a combat knife and grenades. Obviously special weapons and heavy weapons will vary and devestators will not have a bolter and no close combat weapon whilst assault will enscrew all range weapons baring bolt pistol with which theyll have more ammo.

Then veterans will be equiped along the same lines abit leaning towards their speciality.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Vaz said:


> A Bolter has a 30 round mag, and is capable of firing 1, 2, 3, or 4 round bursts, or full automatic at a rate of 600 rounds a second.


Wait....600 rounds per second, that means they would run out of ammo, if they had some kind of instant reload, in one second of continuous fire. I mean I know SMs have super human reflex but that goes beyond super human.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

It's called a rate of fire. Every weapon in the world has a rate of fire which is measured in a minute. An M230 has a RoF of 600/Minute, an AN94 has in excess of 1800, but only fires 2 round bursts, an M134 fires around 3000, and a GAU-8 fires around 6000-7200.

It's a rate of measure, but yes, Marines with their superhuman reflexes and weapons drills (IIRC, a typical marine would spend ~8 hours a day practising weapons drill; and they have far longer lifespans and lack the need to take care of worldly deeds like normal military personnel have to attend to) would likely be able to fire off in excess of 10 magazines in a minute (as per my post); an entire magazine empties in around 3 seconds; so 10 is 30 seconds of continuous firing. Its fairly easy to change a magazine in around 3 seconds these days; the difference is Marines with their Helmet HUDs and reflexes and strength would likely be able to place their shots down at full auto with such accuracy that it would be hilarious to consider otherwise.

Of course, in the 40K most Marine combat drops means that a typical marine is little more than 10ft from an enemy. It's considered close quarters fighting in todays world to engage at less than 100ft, literally, to the end of a street and back, or half the length of a swimming pool.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Vaz said:


> It's called a rate of fire. Every weapon in the world has a rate of fire which is measured in a minute.
> 
> It's a rate of measure,


Thank you captain obvious. 

10 Magazine per minute sounds more plausible than a second. Assuming that they are using 30 round clips, with no reload time, or 1 massive 300 round drum, in which case it would of been 2 drums per second.


----------



## Reaper45 (Jun 21, 2011)

Vaz said:


> It's called a rate of fire. Every weapon in the world has a rate of fire which is measured in a minute. An M230 has a RoF of 600/Minute, an AN94 has in excess of 1800, but only fires 2 round bursts, an M134 fires around 3000, and a GAU-8 fires around 6000-7200.
> 
> It's a rate of measure, but yes, Marines with their superhuman reflexes and weapons drills (IIRC, a typical marine would spend ~8 hours a day practising weapons drill; and they have far longer lifespans and lack the need to take care of worldly deeds like normal military personnel have to attend to) would likely be able to fire off in excess of 10 magazines in a minute (as per my post); an entire magazine empties in around 3 seconds; so 10 is 30 seconds of continuous firing. Its fairly easy to change a magazine in around 3 seconds these days; the difference is Marines with their Helmet HUDs and reflexes and strength would likely be able to place their shots down at full auto with such accuracy that it would be hilarious to consider otherwise.
> 
> Of course, in the 40K most Marine combat drops means that a typical marine is little more than 10ft from an enemy. It's considered close quarters fighting in todays world to engage at less than 100ft, literally, to the end of a street and back, or half the length of a swimming pool.


It's 600 a minute not a second. Get your facts right.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

"Get your facts straight"? Son its called a typo. Watch what you type. Its likely to bring out my gulf war syndrome otherwise. At least what I learned wasn't off wikipedia.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Vaz said:


> "Get your facts straight"? Son its called a typo. Watch what you type. Its likely to bring out my gulf war syndrome otherwise. At least what I learned wasn't off wikipedia.


There were two chances for you to see it, when I posted it and when you did, instead you go on as if I had never heard of rate of fire.

Ps I didn't learn it off wiki it was Mail Call.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Note the quote wasn't aimed at you. Out of the entire fucking essay I wrote, the last thing I was focused on was correcting every minor typo. It was pretty apparent from what I was getting at, so the requirement for all the grammar nazis to crawl out the woodwork and make comments like "get your facts straight" bound to get me pissed off.

you want to get pernickity, what the fuck is a clip?


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Vaz said:


> Note the quote wasn't aimed at you. Out of the entire fucking essay I wrote, the last thing I was focused on was correcting every minor typo. It was pretty apparent from what I was getting at, so the requirement for all the grammar nazis to crawl out the woodwork and make comments like "get your facts straight" bound to get me pissed off.
> 
> you want to get pernickity, what the fuck is a clip?


It's not a minor type it's a rather large one 600 rounds per second = 36000 rounds per minute meaning 1200 magazines per minute. It's like me saying I was driving down the highway at 65 miles per second, 3600 miles per hour. A SM finger would even visibly move in order to fire one round.

Magazine, fine so I used an archaic term for a magazine, clip a devices used to hold ammo together while inserting it. They are used, maybe not correctly, but it is still used interchangeably.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

you really are on planet pluto aren't you?


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Vaz said:


> you really are on planet pluto aren't you?


That would not be possible.

Ps. You mean You, not you.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

> ty·po
> /ˈtīpō/
> Noun
> A typographical error.
> ...


If you were unable to understand what I meant, you definately fall under the category of "too stupid to live".


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Vaz said:


> If you were unable to understand what I meant, you definately fall under the category of "too stupid to live".


Christ. Get over it you made a mistake, remember and learn from it, don't shoot those that ask you a question or correct you.

Ps. definately "definitely", invest in spell check. or it's just different spelling.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

One thing I'd like to add, Vaz created a nice robust post, but a lot of it, I think, is either based on fan-based material or good old extrapolation.

It's dangerous to pass off those assumptions as fact, though.

If you'd like, I could point of some of the more...gray bits in your post.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Locustgate. Understand this. I got pissed off with Reaper45 and his fucking retard comment regarding "get your facts straight". Not you. That was clear by the way I quoted him. You then got both barrels because you placed there. And enough with the grammar nazi shit. I know you're a bit of a twat regarding it, I quite frankly couldn't care less as my post is more than reasonably understandable. it nt b lyk I typ sht lyk dis yo.

Go have your crusade somewhere else.

Hailene; course. I struggled to think of what the marines could use for resupply as noted by the canon, so I came to extrapolation. By all means though discuss that.

As opposed to minor typos or spelling mistakes.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Vaz said:


> you really are on planet pluto aren't you?


I hate to add fuel to the fire but Pluto isn't a planet any more. :rofl:


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Don't tell me. I'm Captain Obvious. Ask Colonel Cliché over there if he knows. Must have spent too much time reading the dictionary to notice.


----------



## Rems (Jun 20, 2011)

I'd be inclined to agree with what Vaz has written. There's some extrapolation there but it's sensible and believable. I think we have to remember that the Codex and Black Library authors are not military buffs or ex military men, they don't get into the nitty gritty of military detail or specifics. 

The ammo benches in a rhino or drop pod for example. Being a historian rather than a member of the military and thus having no actually practical experience with logistics i didn't even consider the idea of ammo benches. They make perfect sense however and are evidently something a member of the military would expect to see. 

So i think the assumptions he's made are relevant and plausible.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

locustgate said:


> 10 Magazine per minute sounds more plausible than a second. Assuming that they are using 30 round clips, with no reload time, or 1 massive 300 round drum, in which case it would of been 2 drums per second.


It doesn't really work like that tho'. The X rounds per minute is a cyclic rate, i.e. the rate at which the mechanism cycles.

Actual rate of fire is considerably less.

I remember an M60 SFMG had a cyclic RoF of 600rpm but an actual "rapid fire rate" of more like 100 to 200 rpm fired in 10 round bursts.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Vez I didn't comment about the rest of your post, it was the damn typo, which took two people saying something for you to admit it was wrong, one of which put the correct form, which I was hoping you would do. Your the one that came up with it. Instead you one you go after like you know me personally and assume I have no idea what I'm talking about, I even quoted the exact part that had me confused. You didn't even bother to see how it is that you lost me and instead just assumed I had making shit up. One of those people had to be a bit of a dick in order for you to see the damn typo, and also had to assume you meant something.



Magpie_Oz said:


> I hate to add fuel to the fire but Pluto isn't a planet any more. :rofl:


So you really are in any shadow?


Vaz said:


> Don't tell me. I'm Captain Obvious. Ask Colonel Cliché over there if he knows. Must have spent too much time reading the dictionary to notice.


So I put my location as something as a joke and something that's no longer valid sue me.

I still believe Pluto is a planet, Dwarf planets are separate only in the Sol system, when they count up planets they still include dwarf planets. 
i.e. The Bob system has 10 planets, 3 Gas giants, 2 dwarf planets, and 5 planets.

Vs

The Sol system has 8 planets, 4 planets and 4 gas giants, not including 3 dwarf planets. 

IAU definition for planet
A body that circles the sun without being some other object's satellite, is large enough to be rounded by its own gravity (but not so big that it begins to undergo nuclear fusion, like a star) and has "cleared its neighborhood" of most other orbiting bodies. 



Magpie_Oz said:


> It doesn't really work like that tho'. The X rounds per minute is a cyclic rate, i.e. the rate at which the mechanism cycles.
> 
> Actual rate of fire is considerably less.
> 
> I remember an M60 SFMG had a cyclic RoF of 600rpm but an actual "rapid fire rate" of more like 100 to 200 rpm fired in 10 round bursts.


I know what I did was not correct, and yes I know the actual rate of fire is less than what is listed.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

locustgate said:


> I know what I did was not correct, and yes I know the actual rate of fire is less than what is listed.


Yet you cane the shit out of Vaz for typing Seconds when it was pretty obvious he meant minutes ?


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> Yet you cane the shit out of Vaz for typing Seconds when it was pretty obvious he meant minutes ?


Not for typing seconds but it taking two people for him to realize it and then him jumping on the 2nd person. And for him being a condescending ass to me when I asked if he meant to type rounds per second. Never assume someone means something else, when they type it.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

1). I don't read my own quotes back to myself. I tend to know (sans typo) what goes in them from the first few words, especially of one I wrote but a little while before.
2). The only responses I got was yours, which came across as if you genuinely didn't know either what a Rate of Fire was, or you were coming across sarcastically. I'm pretty good with sarcasm, but your wording was more in the case of you genuinely didn't know what a RoF was, so I tried to explain it. I then get Reaper45 jumping on the Bandwagon like an absolute cunt for no reason whatsoever, delivering deliberately inflammatory comments.
3). You then go and leap in balls deep and get apparently "offended" at the idea of a typo, and continually go on as if "you didn't admit you're wrong" when I did; it's called a typo.
4). No, I don't like "failure" being rubbed in my face. I will fucking lash out when you continue to go on.

Locustgate, do me a favour, and just take a walk. You have added fuck all to the discussion (other than to ensure that Marines don't fire 20 Magazines a second).

Reaper45, don't get me started on him, his only contribution is to create another question, and then feel its his "right" to tell people to get their "facts straight"? Fuck off.


----------



## Iraqiel (May 21, 2008)

Strewth lads, time to take a deep breath and go kick the footy... or whatever you do to blow off steam. I know that logistics is a stressful topic, but it was an interesting thread that didn't really need to be derailed. 

Rems, I think it's likely that Rhinos would be a bit more kitted out than the plastic leads to believe. I'd expect that the walls would be lined with snatch-bags of ammo, rations, and potentially power armour service/blessing kits.

The use of prometheum, the only fuel and flamer ammo, opens up some interesting questions. Is it a prometheum solution that the flamers fire? Is it the same used for vehicles? What about fliers? Can it be used in solid fuel form? How unstable is it?

Then, I wonder how easily re-supplied space marines are? Does power armour also provide a hydration effect? How is it powered? Can space-marines operate without water?

The imperial guard logistics trail must be formidable indeed. Agri-worlds are used to supply hive worlds, but do imperial navy ships contain functional food producing facilities? Is it just chemically adjusted, factory produced nutrient bar-type food designed to replicate a balanced diet? 

I imagine that fleet borne crusades or defensive hosts must use similarly expeditionary logistics concepts as the US Marines, except that their fleets are surely self-sustaining, effectively putting an industrial military nation into orbit. Then again, once they've got all that equipment down from space, where do they get the fuel to take it back up?


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

So are we still talking about logistics? because frankly the shitfight you got goin about a typo is the most retarded fucking argument I've ever seen, even for 40k Fluff. 

I think you all need to shut up about spelling errors and move on.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Locustgate stop being such a pedantic tool. You and Reaper both knew what he meant. As for resorting to being a grammar Nazi, really? You really felt the need to be that much of a tit.


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Angel of Blood said:


> Locustgate stop being such a pedantic tool. You and Reaper both knew what he meant. As for resorting to being a grammar Nazi, really? You really felt the need to be that much of a tit.


Soooo..wtf happened to dropping it?

PS Moon sorry for jacking your thread.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

All right, Vaz, I'll start off by bringing up some points that I believe need some more clarification. I'll segment my post into two: the first being questionable/unknown matters (to my knowledge) and others where I clarify or correct some information.

Questionable material:



Vaz said:


> Drop Pod; much more viable; however, it is limited by long delays between request for deployment of assets in a rapid strike,


How so? Drop pods can be deployed very quickly. In _Horus Rising_ we see the Emperor's Children deploy in minutes.



Vaz said:


> suggesting prearranged locations to be scouted out near to locations of where ammunition expenditure is going to be heaviest.


Drop pods aren't terribly accurate. A general location is all you're going to get. 



Vaz said:


> Easiest way to ensure its survivability is to have it within an automated defence system;




Easiest way for what to survive? The drop pod? The drop pod survives by entering hard and fast.

While its on the ground? It has a built-in storm bolter or deathwind launcher.



Vaz said:


> such as a Deathwind


IA states the Deathwind is considered an "expendable weapon". I think it's crammed with as many weapons and ammo for those weapons as it can. As you said, there's probably no real room for anything else.



Vaz said:


> or mounted within a more space aware deployment


I'm unfamiliar with "space aware". Do you mean something with more available internal volume? 



Vaz said:


> t's firing explosive 18.75mm rounds at targets with a rate of fire slightly less than an M134


Don't storm bolters shoot bolt rounds? As in .75 caliber shells? So shouldn't it be closer to 19.05mm than 18.75?

Also, how do you know what the RoF of a storm bolter is?



Vaz said:


> I am unsure of the specifics, but I'm fairly confident that a typical "squad" used to secure this apparently undetermined ammo cache would be so much dead meat. Destroying it would be the surest method of removing access, but destroying it removes the effectiveness of it. While there are not the rules in 40K for it, I'm fairly sure some makeshift special weapon squads equipped with what amounts to a cross between an M4A2 and a scaled down XM25 would be fairly effective.


I'm unclear of what this entire paragraph is trying to say, but this part I'm utterly confused about. Could you explain to me what you mean by all this?



Vaz said:


> However; I'm sure the Marines have adequate failsafes built in; i.e non-friendly registers on the augers while unable to defend itself (disabled weapon system, eg), none-friendly register picks up supplies, self detonation, booby-trapped weapons triggered to go off unless the genome/finger print/biometric data of the chapter registers picking it up/opening the crate, etc.


Probably all handled by the drop pod's machine spirit.

This is all a fascinating idea, but I have never heard of drop pods being used to drop supplies. I mean POTENTIALLY they could use it to drop supplies, but I have never seen a single precedent. Could you supply one?



Vaz said:


> lthough marines can pretty much pick and choose the time of an assault, they'd need to match that timeline in accordance with the supply pods;


Similar note. I don't recall marines being resupplied for an ongoing fight. Usually they strike, form a base on the ground or return to their vessel for resupply.

Could you cite an example...?



Vaz said:


> Although equipped with effectively 8 GAU-12's (or M230's; what an Apache has)


You keep bringing up modern equivalents. I don't think a heavy bolter could be equated to either guns. A closer analogy to those guns would be an assault cannon.



Vaz said:


> [A bolter] is capable of firing 1, 2, 3, or 4 round bursts,


I wouldn't state this so confidently. There are many bolter variants, but all I can recall are single shot, three-round burst, and automatic. Could you cite sources for 2 and 4 round bursts?



Vaz said:


> full automatic at a rate of 600 rounds a second.


Source?



Vaz said:


> typical heavy-duty assaulter's vest and webbing for Modern Day SF holds around 180-300 rounds in a pinch,


I think it would be difficult to compare a modern soldier (SF or not) with a Space Marine. Their style of fighting is too different. Space Marines don't rely on suppressive fire and pretty much every shot for a Space Marine is a kill shot against most foes. They just don't burn through ammo like modern soldiers.



Vaz said:


> A Drop Pod likely have an overhead ammunition box (12 Mags?) and an underfoot one (perhaps double size)


I can't recall marines ever going back to a drop pod to resupply. Or even mentioning a drop pod carrying additional supplies. Source?



Vaz said:


> and that Marine weapons are capable of piercing even Leman Russ armour in parts, or rendering the tank unusable, or causing spalling,


Source?



Vaz said:


> Each bench in a Rhino likely has replacement ammunition for a Bolter or squad designated special weapon in a container beneath the seat.


Not sure about additional ammunition, but in _Soul Hunter_ a Night Lord mentions that the squad has a plasma gun in the Rhino. So this is probably true.
~~~~~~~

Now to touch on points that I believe are incorrect or not quite as clear as they could be:



Vaz said:


> It is not hard to imagine the Transporter having two specially designed small static hardpoints, or one large one, in the shape of Rhino's or Land Raiders which maintain a premise of structural integrity


Close. It has 4 magnetic clamping arms. It requires 2 arms for a Rhino or four for a Land Raider.



Vaz said:


> so it's unlikely they would be deployed to support an initial beachhead in such a manner.


You are correct. IA3 states that the Transporter usually drops its loads off in secured landing zones.



Vaz said:


> Inside the Rhino is a single driver; in the back is loaded a half dozen crates of resupply.


A Rhino would be deployed with its squad, I think.

I can't think of any time that marine unit entered a Rhino that wasn't theirs from the get-go barring some odd circumstance (theft, rescue, stuff like that).

In short, I don't believe they'd use a Rhino as an ammo truck. Even temporarily. Though if you could provide a source...



Vaz said:


> A Bolter has a 30 round mag


A bolter could have a 20, 25, 30, 40-60, or a 12-20 round magazine. Per the Lex.

The Deathwatch rulebook gives a 28 round clip for a Godwyn pattern bolter.



Vaz said:


> A Thunderhawk, Stormraven or Stormeagle are able to provide all of that, as well as replacing (temporarily) their ability to transport troops in favour of extra supplies;


I would think a Thunderhawk Transporter would be used. They're designed to carry underslung supply pods. 

That's all I caught in a glance. I might look it over again later.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

hailene said:


> How so? Drop pods can be deployed very quickly. In _Horus Rising_ we see the Emperor's Children deploy in minutes.


From orbit to landing the Space Shuttle took about 30 minutes. For a Drop Pod that would have to be preceded by the carrier vessel carrying out considerable manoeuvring to get it into the correct orbit which could take many hours.



hailene said:


> A bolter could have a 20, 25, 30, 40-60, or a 12-20 round magazine. Per the Lex.
> 
> The Deathwatch rulebook gives a 28 round clip for a Godwyn pattern bolter.


I don't see how. A 28 round magazine would have to be in the order of a foot long to accommodate 28 0.75 rounds 
60? 3 feet ? I don't think so !


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> From orbit to landing the Space Shuttle took about 30 minutes. For a Drop Pod that would have to be preceded by the carrier vessel carrying out considerable manoeuvring to get it into the correct orbit which could take many hours.


It's likely that an Astartes warship would be able to stick to wherever it needs to be. It takes an awful lot to make one run.

Drop pods also have a few more things going for them. They're almost definitely made of more resilient materials than what we have today. That means they could afford to approach steeper and faster.

The people within them are much stronger, too. Not just Space Marine physiology. but the suits they wear. G-forces (both going down and when the retro-jets kick in) that would kill a human probably wouldn't faze a marine.



Magpie_Oz said:


> I don't see how. A 28 round magazine would have to be in the order of a foot long to accommodate 28 0.75 rounds
> 60? 3 feet ? I don't think so !


A foot long wouldn't be all that surprising. Remember, those things are HUGE. They're large when a Space Marine is holding them, and a Space Marine is ~7'6 or so in power armor. Googling some official artwork and I'd actually guess the magazine is actually longer than a foot.

The 60 round magazine is a drum magazine, by the way.


----------



## khrone forever (Dec 13, 2010)

for those interested here are the bolt weapon stats from the Inquisitor game

mag-15 shots
belt feed-30 shots
sickle mag-20 shots
drum-40 shots
storm bolter-30 shots


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

hailene said:


> It's likely that an Astartes warship would be able to stick to wherever it needs to be. It takes an awful lot to make one run.
> 
> Drop pods also have a few more things going for them. They're almost definitely made of more resilient materials than what we have today. That means they could afford to approach steeper and faster.


Not sure what you mean about the warship but the point is the warship would need to move to a particular orbit to be able to insert the Drop Pod, that takes time.

Regardless of the resilience of the Drop Pod it's the physics of the situation that determines how it will re-enter, you can't change that.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> Not sure what you mean about the warship but the point is the warship would need to move to a particular orbit to be able to insert the Drop Pod, that takes time.


It means that an Astartes warship could linger over a battlefield without too much worry. In other words, it wouldn't have to do much positioning to launch the drop pod.

Also the drop pod wouldn't have to be dropped straight down. As long as the warship is on the right side of the planet, it ought to be able to send the drop pod.

Furthermore, a ship capable of reaching the edge of a solar system in a reasonable of time (say a week) is probably capable of accelerating at least a few dozen kilometers per a second per second. With that sort of speed, repositioning (if they needed to) would be relatively quick and easy.



Magpie_Oz said:


> Regardless of the resilience of the Drop Pod it's the physics of the situation that determines how it will re-enter, you can't change that.


There's so many ways I could approach this. Could you define your point here a bit more clearly, please?


----------



## Protoss119 (Aug 8, 2010)

hailene said:


> I wouldn't state this so confidently. There are many bolter variants, but all I can recall are single shot, three-round burst, and automatic. Could you cite sources for 2 and 4 round bursts?


"This is the holy bolter. It is a Godwyn-pattern model with an ammo counter, sinister/dexter locking mechanism, and a sickle magazine containing 30 rounds. Each round is a .75 calibre bolt with a diamantine tip, depleted deuterium core and mass-reactive detonator. It fires in four-round bursts." -Sergeant Kell of the Dark Angels to his Scout Squad, Deathwatch Rulebook pg. 28

Still, Kell says 30 rounds, the Rulebook says 28. He says 4-round burst, the most recent errata says 3 in semi-auto (previously it was 2 in semi-auto and 4 in full-auto). So like you're saying, it looks like it varies from source to source.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

EDITED EDIT: No I wasn't.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Protoss119 said:


> Still, Kell says 30 rounds, the Rulebook says 28. He says 4-round burst, the most recent errata says 3 in semi-auto (previously it was 2 in semi-auto and 4 in full-auto). So like you're saying, it looks like it varies from source to source.


Good to know, 1, 3, and 4 are accounted for.

Which old sources says there was a 2 round burst? That's the only one we're missing now.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

hailene said:


> It means that an Astartes warship could linger over a battlefield without too much worry. In other words, it wouldn't have to do much positioning to launch the drop pod.


Because of rotational physics a space ship can't "linger" over a battlefield, it has to be orbiting 



hailene said:


> Also the drop pod wouldn't have to be dropped straight down. As long as the warship is on the right side of the planet, it ought to be able to send the drop pod.


Again the physics aren't that simple. You can "shoot" the drop pod on a particular trajectory but without largish retro thrusters on the Drop Pod there are a limited number of options.



hailene said:


> Furthermore, a ship capable of reaching the edge of a solar system in a reasonable of time (say a week) is probably capable of accelerating at least a few dozen kilometers per a second per second. With that sort of speed, repositioning (if they needed to) would be relatively quick and easy.


Not really, accelerating is easy enough but there is an upper speed limit, beyond which you leave orbit, also accelerating fast means you also have to decelerate quickly as well. A star ship would be limited to manoeuvring thrusters to tune it's orbit to what is required.



hailene said:


> There's so many ways I could approach this. Could you define your point here a bit more clearly, please?


The speed and angle of re-entry is a very narrow window, too fast and shallow and you skip off the atmosphere, too steep or slow and there is nothing that can resist the forces generated.

What ever the parameters it will take a significant amount of time for a drop ship to get into a position to insert a drop pod.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> Because of rotational physics a space ship can't "linger" over a battlefield, it has to be orbiting


It lingers over it...while in orbit. I don't see the contradiction? 



Magpie_Oz said:


> Again the physics aren't that simple. You can "shoot" the drop pod on a particular trajectory but without largish retro thrusters on the Drop Pod there are a limited number of options.


Ah, I see your confusion.

There ARE retrojets on a drop-pod.



Magpie_Oz said:


> Not really, accelerating is easy enough but there is an upper speed limit, beyond which you leave orbit,


They're already in orbit.



Magpie_Oz said:


> also accelerating fast means you also have to decelerate quickly


I would assume they would have the means to do it, yes.



Magpie_Oz said:


> The speed and angle of re-entry is a very narrow window, too fast and shallow and you skip off the atmosphere, too steep or slow and there is nothing that can resist the forces generated.


Why not sharp, strong, and fast? Wouldn't that work?

Say, with advanced technology, super-human soldiers, and materials many times stronger and more durable than what we can fashion today?


----------



## khrone forever (Dec 13, 2010)

hailene said:


> It lingers over it...while in orbit. I don't see the contradiction?
> 
> orbiting means going round the planet, not staying on one place. so it has to move otherwise it will crash into the ground.
> 
> ...


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

hailene said:


> It lingers over it...while in orbit. I don't see the contradiction?


You CAN'T linger over a battlefield, the only way a space ship can stay over a constant point on a planet is to be in a Geostationary Orbit which can only be over the equator and (for earth) is at about 35,000 Klm from the surface. This is a considerable distance and would take considerable time for the Drop Pod to drop from.

It is far above the "low orbit" that Drop pods are said to be dropped from.



hailene said:


> Ah, I see your confusion.
> There ARE retrojets on a drop-pod.


You are the confused one. The Retro Jets are used to arrest landing speed. They don't carry enough fuel to be able to degrade it's speed from orbit to re-entry 



hailene said:


> They're already in orbit.


Which they will leave if they change speed. Orbit means they are moving around the centre of gravity of the planet below. Speed up and you orbit higher or leave orbit all together, slow down and you drop lower. Maintain speed and you stay at the same altitude.



hailene said:


> I would assume they would have the means to do it, yes.


Point is they gain nothing, for all their ultimate speed they spend half their time accelerating and the rest decelerating, not exceeding orbital velocity as they go, so they would never achieve interplanetary speeds in orbit. 



hailene said:


> Why not sharp, strong, and fast? Wouldn't that work?


Because all that speed and energy has to go somewhere as the pod decelerates unless you want it to bore into the planet's crust, generally it vents in a colossal explosion equivalent to an atomic bomb, large meteors can't stand that and a Drop Pod can't either.

Move on mate it isn't going to happen, go and read some articles on orbits and get back to the thread subject.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> You CAN'T linger over a battlefield, the only way a space ship can stay over a constant point on a planet is to be in a Geostationary Orbit which can only be over the equator and (for earth) is at about 35,000 Klm from the surface.


You're assuming their vessels are unpowered....which they aren't.



Magpie_Oz said:


> You are the confused one. The Retro Jets are used to arrest landing speed. They don't carry enough fuel to be able to degrade it's speed from orbit to re-entry


From Imperial Armour Update, "Each Chapter has access to Thunderhawk gunships, boarding torpedoes, teleporters, and drop pods. These allow Space Marines to strike suddenly from orbit."

From _Horus Heresy: Betrayal_

"Drop pods are self-containted, recoverable _orbital descent capsules_..."

Another quote:

"Based upon improvised attack strategies developed in the early phases of the Great Cruasades, drop pods are armoured capsules designed to deliver Space marines via _direct orbital interface_..."

From the Deathwatch corerulebook:

"A single drop pod fired from _high orbit_ has the best chance of evading detection..."

NASA defines _high orbit_ as "an altitude above that of a geosynchronous orbit". 



Magpie_Oz said:


> Which they will leave if they change speed. Orbit means they are moving around the centre of gravity of the planet below. Speed up and you orbit higher or leave orbit all together, slow down and you drop lower. Maintain speed and you stay at the same altitude.


Semantics. I am unsure of the specific definition of "orbit", but if there's a word for "staying near a planet" I'll take that.



Magpie_Oz said:


> Point is they gain nothing, for all their ultimate speed they spend half their time accelerating and the rest decelerating, not exceeding orbital velocity as they go, so they would never achieve interplanetary speeds in orbit.


They get where they need to be to drop off the drop pods. And that's the whole point of the exercise.



Magpie_Oz said:


> Because all that speed and energy has to go somewhere as the pod decelerates unless you want it to bore into the planet's crust, generally it vents in a colossal explosion equivalent to an atomic bomb, large meteors can't stand that and a Drop Pod can't either.


Meteors aren't made up of fictional materials controlled by fictional technology carrying fictional super-humans encased in fictional power armor.



Magpie_Oz said:


> Move on mate it isn't going to happen, go and read some articles on orbits and get back to the thread subject.


I would suggest _you_ go read some WH40k stories and come back. You'll find that this is a _fictional_ universe where the rules of reality, as we understand them, don't always match up with what happens in universe.




khrone forever said:


> no... if you go too fast you stop obiting the planet and go into space


Lingering relative to the planet.



khrone forever said:


> orbiting means going round the planet, not staying on one place. so it has to move otherwise it will crash into the ground.


Rather than "orbiting" how about "going very quickly and staying relatively near to the planet". 



khrone forever said:


> the forces exerted on the drop pod would rip it to pieces and burn everything inside, nothing is strong enough


Except this is a fictional universe. There are things strong enough.


----------



## khrone forever (Dec 13, 2010)

> Semantics. I am unsure of the specific definition of "orbit", but if there's a word for "staying near a planet" I'll take that.


orbiting is revolving round something, e.g the moon orbits around earth, the earth orbits the sun, etc. 

staying near a planet.....in a specific place, you cant do it


the point that me and magz are making is that there is no way to stay in above specific point above a planet in a space vessel, you have to keep moving at a speed in orbit (going round) or you crash. However if it is too fast you will leave orbit, and go into the space around the planet


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

khrone forever said:


> staying near a planet.....in a specific place, you cant do it


Okay, I have nearly zero knowledge on how orbiting works. So let me get this straight:

In a space vessel that is probably capable of accelerating many tens of kilometers per a second, you couldn't simply brute force your way to wherever you need to go?

Like, say, if I'm 1000 kilometers above the surface. I won't be in geosynchronous orbit because I'm too close, right? So why not simply power up my engines and drive in the opposite way I am going to such a speed that would allow me to stay above a specific piece of dirt?

I am aware that the planet itself is also moving in an orbit around the sun and not simply staying still, but a warship is more than capable of matching that speed.

A vessel wouldn't have to rely on a planet's gravity to make sure it stays where it wants to be.

You guys also keep saying that if you go too fast you'll fling yourself out of orbit.

Well, instead of flying straight and relying on the planet's gravity to keep you near it, why not adjust your thrust to keep yourself near the planet while moving quickly still?


----------



## Iraqiel (May 21, 2008)

From logistics to astrophysics in a single thread. Welcome to Heresy Online!


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

hailene said:


> Okay, I have nearly zero knowledge on how orbiting works. So let me get this straight:
> 
> In a space vessel that is probably capable of accelerating many tens of kilometers per a second, you couldn't simply brute force your way to wherever you need to go?
> 
> ...


The short answer is, because such a thing requires ridiculous amounts of energy and fuel. Unless it is absolutely necessary, it is simply not worth the effort. Ships use Warp drives to reach an approximate location, and their normal engines to steer once in realspace. In open space this is easy, but when contending with a planet's gravity it becomes far more complicated and taxing, meaning you cannot simply hurl your ship to whatever point you want it at a whim.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

hailene said:


> Except this is a fictional universe. There are things strong enough.


In which case you may as well just say this is fictional and SM's never run out of things so they don't need logistics.
Within the context of the game fluff, a vehicle that can be shot by an anti armour weapon and destroyed, as a Drop Pod can, is not strong enough to resist the titanic energies of a meteor like decent into atmosphere. 



hailene said:


> Okay, I have nearly zero knowledge on how orbiting works.


So go with what's been said, accept that getting anything, drop pods included, from orbit to surface is a timely process and move onto the other details of Imperium Logistics.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Serpion5 said:


> when contending with a planet's gravity it becomes far more complicated and taxing, meaning you cannot simply hurl your ship to whatever point you want it at a whim.


We've seen fleets fight within relative proximity of a planet. In _Soul Hunter_ a strike cruiser is close enough that if it had its main plasma drive, it would have crashed into the planet (it didn't _actually_ lose its plasma drive, but the act would have failed if it wasn't plausible).

And surely a vessel that is capable of _accelerating for days_ to enter and leave _every solar system it enters_ would have enough fuel to manage some near-planet maneuvering, right?

I can't even remember an instance where a capital ship worried about running out of fuel.



Magpie_Oz said:


> So go with what's been said, accept that getting anything, drop pods included, from orbit to surface is a timely process and move onto the other details of Imperium Logistics.


I'd love to, but your own ideas directly conflict with stated fluff, so...


----------



## joebauerek (May 14, 2010)

Just to put wasn't there an example in one of the ragnar books, one of the alpha legion short stories and dark angles heresy (i think) books that depict drop pods being ripped apart by coming in at a funny angle? or the dangers of bad angling and not having enough fuel to change direction?

As for the orbit thing put it this way imagine the weight of a strike cruiser (any guesses?) times the force of gravity which on earth 1kg = 10 newtons which is about 4% at 100km up. So at a guess 1000kg (very low but just to show a point) is 10000N = 400Nx1Km/5seconds which requires 8000 newtons of thrust which is the equivilant of a sports car going at nearly 500kmph hitting a brick wall now scale it up to the size of a strike cruiser and the force needed would be impossible to keep in in a stationary orbit.... rotating orbit maybe but that would require insane amounts of power which i doubt even in a fictitious 40k universe would be possible. (sorry that the maths may be slightly off but im tired and a while since i did physics). At high orbit anything above 36k km might be possible to orbit whilst moving incredibly slowly (for 40k standards). I do however think that strike cruisers could stay stationary and just dip into orbit drop a pod off and leave the gravitational field of a planet in a quickish fashion but would still take 10+ mins which isnt too bad.

P.S. orbit is moving at a sufficient velocity so that falling due to gravity is equal to the curve of the earth. Just for perspective if you threw a ball at 18,000 km per hour it would achieve orbit


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

joebauerek said:


> Just to put wasn't there an example in one of the ragnar books, one of the alpha legion short stories and dark angles heresy (i think) books that depict drop pods being ripped apart by coming in at a funny angle?


I recall in the short story "The Long Games at Carcharias" the Alpha Legion ejects a bunch of Crimson Consuls from space into the atmosphere. They didn't survive. Don't know if that's what you recall


joebauerek said:


> As for the orbit thing put it this way imagine the weight of a strike cruiser (any guesses?) times the force of gravity which on earth 1kg = 10 newtons which is about 4% at 100km up. So at a guess 1000kg (very low but just to show a point) is 10000N = 400Nx1Km/5seconds which requires 8000 newtons of thrust which is the equivilant of a sports car going at nearly 500kmph hitting a brick wall now scale it up to the size of a strike cruiser and the force needed would be impossible to keep in in a stationary orbit


It wouldn't have to achieve a stationary position immediately. It could take minutes or even hours, I guess?

Still, in _Soul Hunter_ we a strike cruiser enter the the atmosphere (low enough to blow through clouds, anyway). And it managed to escape the planet, despite 1. Being shot to pieces by the Loyalist fleet 2. And the damage they took from flying a 5 kilometer long ship past the speed of sound in an atmosphere.

In _Helsreach_ we also see a Salamander's strike cruiser do a similar feat (except the fire was from Ork vessels).

That ought to give us some idea how powerful their engines are.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

To build up orbit breakout speeds, slingshotting is used, bringing in the effect of gravity to speed up the passage of flight. It was used with Voyager and the first launches into space iirc. I'll address your original points to my post when I can quote properly as opposed to a mobile.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Vaz said:


> To build up orbit breakout speeds, slingshotting is used, bringing in the effect of gravity to speed up the passage of flight.


I'm aware you can slingshot when passing by planets, but I don't think it works when you're in the atmosphere. A strike cruiser isn't exactly aerodynamic. You'd probably lose more than you'd gain.

To my limited knowledge, Voyager didn't use it to escape our atmosphere nor did it enter any other planet's atmosphere. But I could very well be wrong.

In the _Helsreach_ example it sounds like the strike cruiser was going to leave under its own power.

"Its duty complete, the _Serpentine_ powered its way back into the fight"

The fight being all around Armgeddon.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

All Space vehicles currently use gravitational slingshoting to move from planet to planet. Escape velocity is achieved by solid fuel rockets and at the moment is only used to escape Earth's gravity well.

These are not "my ideas" haliene they are simple laws of physics. 

The fuel required to maintain a starship in a geostationary orbit without being in a geosynchronous orbit is beyond their capacity. Starship do not carry endless fuel reserves and when travelling in system largely do an acceleration burn and then "glide" the rest of the way, with a deceleration burn at the end. it doesn't matter how powerful their engines are but how long they can keep them burning is the trick.

Nothing in the fluff goes against anything I have mentioned to date.

Drop Pods being launched from "high orbit" does not mean they have orbital manoeuvring capacity, just that they are shot out of a starship from high orbit.

When a Starship is in orbit around a planet it is moving in several different directions at great speed simultaneously.

It is moving along the planet's orbit, being dragged along by the planet itself, it is also travelling around the planet, in orbit, a speed where the gravitational pull from the planet is balanced by the centrifugal force pushing the craft outwards, generated by its velocity along a circular or elliptical orbit.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> These are not "my ideas" haliene they are simple laws of physics.


These aren't the laws of physics. What you listed is what humanity is currently limited to.

We're in the WH40k fluff forum. We're dealing with extremely advanced space vessels with similarly advanced propulsion systems.



Magpie_Oz said:


> The fuel required to maintain a starship in a geostationary orbit without being in a geosynchronous orbit is beyond their capacity.


Based on?



Magpie_Oz said:


> Starship do not carry endless fuel reserves and when travelling in system largely do an acceleration burn and then "glide" the rest of the way, with a deceleration burn at the end.


Source?

I'll bring up my own source first. In _Deliverance Lost_ it's stated that when the Raven Guard use their reflex shield they could only run the reactors at _half power_. Corax himself worked over many years to overcome this "low energy threshold". This reduction meant that both top speed and sensors were heavily affected by the energy limitation.

In short, it appears that a vessel has to have its reactors running at mostly full power to operate normally. It is extremely unlikely a vessel would "cruise" into a solar system on low power.

And before you say that the reflex shield was guzzling the energy, a couple paragraphs up it states that the reflex shield has a "low energy requirement". It allowed the reflex shield to stay up "almost indefinitely" due to its low power requirement.



Magpie_Oz said:


> Drop Pods being launched from "high orbit" does not mean they have orbital manoeuvring capacity, just that they are shot out of a starship from high orbit.


Which was exactly what I was trying to say.

It's shot out of a vessel from high orbit towards the direction of the planet at reasonably high speeds. If you remember, that was the question that was brought up earlier.

In fact, now that I think about it, the matter of whether a ship has sufficient fuel or powerful enough engines to maintain a non-geosynchronous orbit is moot for our discussion.

An Astartes vessel can maintain geosynchronous orbit AND fire off drop pods.


----------



## Rems (Jun 20, 2011)

Magpie_Oz said:


> All Space vehicles currently use gravitational slingshoting to move from planet to planet. Escape velocity is achieved by solid fuel rockets and at the moment is only used to escape Earth's gravity well.
> 
> These are not "my ideas" haliene they are simple laws of physics.
> 
> The fuel required to maintain a starship in a geostationary orbit without being in a geosynchronous orbit is beyond their capacity. Starship do not carry endless fuel reserves and when travelling in system largely do an acceleration burn and then "glide" the rest of the way, with a deceleration burn at the end. it doesn't matter how powerful their engines are but how long they can keep them burning is the trick.


Based on our current rocket and shuttle technology sure. 

40k ships don't work like that though. They don't use 'fuel'. It's not like a diesel powered battleship which needs refuelling. 

In system travel takes hours, not days, months or years in 40k. This suggests that they're ships can travel conventionally at truly incredible speeds with mammoth fuel and power reserves.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Rems, you're talking crazy. Are you saying that WH40k vessels are more advanced than current technology.

You're nuts!

Although one point I'd like to add, it seems to take around 30-50 hours to travel to a planet from possible warp points.

At least in the examples I can think of off the top of my head. So they're not quite THAT fast, but still a lot faster than what we have today.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

hailene said:


> These aren't the laws of physics. What you listed is what humanity is currently limited to.
> 
> We're in the WH40k fluff forum. We're dealing with extremely advanced space vessels with similarly advanced propulsion systems.


It has nothing to do with technology the same physics applies whether we are cavemen or spacemen.



hailene said:


> Based on?


Have a look at a Saturn V rocket. Compare the massive engine at the bottom to the tiny little capsule on the top. Then realise that most of the mass of the rocket is to get the tiny capsule out to orbit. Now multiply the size of the "capsule" to the size of a Battle Barge then expand the fuel requirements from a few minutes full burn to get out of the gravity well to an extended period "hovering" in the gravity well as well as the continuous manoeuvring to maintain a non-gravitational orbit




hailene said:


> Source?
> 
> I'll bring up my own source first. In _Deliverance Lost_ it's stated that when the Raven Guard use their reflex shield they could only run the reactors at _half power_. Corax himself worked over many years to overcome this "low energy threshold". This reduction meant that both top speed and sensors were heavily affected by the energy limitation.
> 
> ...


If you keep the engines running you keep accelrerating.

If you accelerate at 1G about 10m/s/s for 1 hour your will be travelling 36,000 kph faster than when you started. A day 864000 kph and so on. The engines CAN'T be thrusting all of the time because you will be going too fast. Add to that that you starting velocity is quite high to begin with and you are going to be in serious trouble if the engines are constantly thrusting. 

This has nothing to do with the technology it is a simple fact of moving in a vacuum.




hailene said:


> Which was exactly what I was trying to say.
> 
> It's shot out of a vessel from high orbit towards the direction of the planet at reasonably high speeds. If you remember, that was the question that was brought up earlier.
> 
> ...


Geostationary is the orbit you are meaning.

Yes it can but on a planet the size of earth that drop pod, even if it travelled directly down, which it can't , has to travel 36,000 klm. If it did travel straight down the target can only be on the equator. 

Even if it managed to maintain an average speed during the journey of 36,000 kph it would still take an hour and best of luck stopping the thing before boring a largish crater in the planet's surface, the drop pod might survive if it is made of Indestructium, which it isn't, but it would still bury itself impossibly deep in the ground.

The whole point of all this is that a Drop Pod is NOT a quick reaction method of resupply.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Rems said:


> 40k ships don't work like that though. They don't use 'fuel'. It's not like a diesel powered battleship which needs refuelling.
> 
> In system travel takes hours, not days, months or years in 40k. This suggests that they're ships can travel conventionally at truly incredible speeds with mammoth fuel and power reserves.


So how do they move and why do they have mammoth fuel reserves that they don't need?

Edit: Did some research and it seems that Imperium Starships are powered in system by Fusion Powered Plasma Drives.
A Plasma Drive or Ion Drive needs something to Ionize and throw out the back to create thrust, usually a gas but you need an awful lot of it.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> It has nothing to do with technology the same physics applies whether we are cavemen or spacemen.


You're talking about their vessels unable to position themselves due to fuel limitations because of the laws of physics?

Like...I don't know if it's shortsightedness or hubris, but I would like to think that in 30 odd thousands years (assuming we don't nuke ourselves or destroy our civilization one way or another) that we would have developed sufficiently advanced technology where we can maneuver near planets.

If you could provide the law that states that a sufficiently advanced vessel with a sufficiently powerful engine with sufficient fuel reserves is incapable of maintaining their own position near a planet, I would love to see it.

I don't think you understand what you're trying to say when you say it's beyond the laws of physics. A ship using some advance method of propulsion coupled with a sufficient amount of fuel (plasma, anti-matter, some denser form of fuel we have yet to discover) could, I think, maintain their position. Whether or not WH40k ships are capable of (they very, very likely are) is not what you're stating. You are saying that there is a fundamental universal law that prevents a ship from moving freely near a planet under their own power.

That's nuts.



Magpie_Oz said:


> Then realise that most of the mass of the rocket is to get the tiny capsule out to orbit. Now multiply the size of the "capsule" to the size of a Battle Barge then expand the fuel requirements from a few minutes full burn to get out of the gravity well to an extended period "hovering" in the gravity well as well as the continuous manoeuvring to maintain a non-gravitational orbit


You must be trolling me at this point. Someone, save me.

Did you open up the wrong bookmark? Do you think you're a board dedicated to modern space travel?

We're dealing with FICTIONAL vessels built with FICTIONAL materials powered by FICTIONAL engines who work on a method not disclosed to us.

These ships are based on technology created during the Dark Age of Technology. A time when humanity had an empire spanning the galaxy. 

Given the accaleration of technological improvement, I would think that in 20-odd thousand years our space technology would be lightyears (literally) ahead of what we are capable of today.

We've been dicking around in space for the last 6 decades. Imagine what we could accomplish with 20,000 years of development.

120 years ago we didn't even have powered flight.



Magpie_Oz said:


> If you keep the engines running you keep accelrerating.


Very likely. Speed is usually of the essence. They've probably calculated the amount of time they need to accelerate and the amount of time they would need to spend decelerating to reach their target.

Both ways probably use a lot of reactor power.



Magpie_Oz said:


> The engines CAN'T be thrusting all of the time because you will be going too fast.


Is there some sort of upper limit for an Astartes vessel while in deep space? 

They're not accelerating for the fun of it. It's probably carefully calculated how long they need to accelerate and consequently decelerate to arrive at a destination as quickly as they can.



Magpie_Oz said:


> Yes it can but on a planet the size of earth that drop pod, even if it travelled directly down, which it can't , has to travel 36,000 klm. If it did travel straight down the target can only be on the equator.


No where was it stated that they were limited to traveling straight down.



Magpie_Oz said:


> Even if it managed to maintain an average speed during the journey of 36,000 kph it would still take an hour and best of luck stopping the thing before boring a largish crater in the planet's surface,


Sufficiently advanced technology.

Look, I don't make up the universe. Is it possible? Should this happen? I don't know if people at GWs or the BL didn't check their numbers, but that's how it is.



Magpie_Oz said:


> The whole point of all this is that a Drop Pod is NOT a quick reaction method of resupply.


On this point I can agree. I don't recall a drop pod ever being used as a method of resupply (merely as a means of reinforcement). But could they in a pinch? I think so.



Magpie_Oz said:


> So how do they move and why do they have mammoth fuel reserves that they don't need?


I'll answer for Rems (assuming he hasn't already answered in the time it took me to respond).

He put quotations around fuel to mean that their fuel isn't as finite as the fuel we use today to power our rockets. It's not all gone in a couple of minutes if you go all out.
~~~~~~~

It's been fun (in a masochistic sort of way) chatting with you, Magpie, but unless you can start citing some in-universe sources I'm going to bow out of this particular discussion with you.

You seem to be limiting yourself to what we are capable of now or in the near-future without realizing that we're dealing with a fictional universe made up of people not entirely intuned with every scientific discipline and a world that uses technology much, much, much, much more advanced than ours.

So until I see some WH40k sources, I'm done with this particular line.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

40k still has a basis within plausible physics and that is reflected through out the writings, if you want to ignore that then best of luck to you just make up what ever you want.


----------



## Rems (Jun 20, 2011)

I think the problem is approaching 40k with real world physics. It's just not going to work, the setting's not hard sci fi. 

I think background discussions can only be approached through an 'in universe' understanding. That is to say to base and extrapolate information not off what we know in the real world but off what we know is possible in 40k. 

Would their spaceships work in real life? It seems doubtful. We're not discussing real life though but a fictional universe where they do work via 'handwavium' science.



Magpie_Oz said:


> 40k still has a basis within plausible physics and that is reflected through out the writings, if you want to ignore that then best of luck to you just make up what ever you want.


Space travel is done through a literal hell dimension and psychic powers are a real phenomenon, it's really not based or written with hard physics in mind. 

40k is much more science fantasy than it is science fiction.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

You're confusing technological limitations and unbreakable laws of physics.

200 years ago, powered flight was impossible. Not because of the laws of physics, but because technology was too limited.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

hailene said:


> You're confusing technological limitations and unbreakable laws of physics.
> 
> 200 years ago, powered flight was impossible. Not because of the laws of physics, but because technology was too limited.


And that is were you are wrong.
200 years ago powered flight _was_ possible we just didn't know how to do it. Same thing here technology doesn't change the physics of the situation. It doesn't matter how clever we get a brick is still not going to fly... ever.

But honestly I may as well be discussing Mobile Phones with a Kalahari Bushman and we've derailed this thread enough so drop it and get back to the OP.


----------



## joebauerek (May 14, 2010)

@hailene i think it was the serpent beneth in the primarchs heresy book. But im sure in one of the ragnar books and fallen angels discuss bad drop pod techniques.

as for the rest of my point- i think you missed my meaning for a strike cruiser to dip low (100km is comparability low) the force required is exponential and just keeping a small (1000kg) item there takes a stupid amount of force and movement thus "stationary" is impossible" but if it was high enough moving counter to the rotation of the planet then theoretically it is possible... but it would just be easier to go out of the gravity well and use thrusters to stay relitivly still....

But yes the rules of physics carnt change... they are a constant... bending them however is slightly possible...


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> 200 years ago powered flight was possible we just didn't know how to do it. Same thing here technology doesn't change the physics of the situation.


The number isn't important. Pick 500 years ago. 1000 years ago. 5000 years ago. Let's go with that.

5000 years ago powered flight was impossible for the humans of the day (assuming Atlantis wasn't around or something).

Did the laws of physics change 200 years ago that allowed us humans to suddenly be able to fly? No. Physics always allowed us to fly, we just didn't have the technology to do it.



Magpie_Oz said:


> But honestly I may as well be discussing Mobile Phones with a Kalahari Bushman


_You're_ trying to claim the high ground? Really?

I haven't seen a single citation from you. Not a single calculation. You throw out assumptions like WH40k vessels coast into systems or that drop pods can't be used while in orbit, but when canon contradicts all you can do is repeat "it's not possible (with current technology). If it's not possible with current technology, it's _physically impossible_."

Do you think we've reached some sort of technological peak where we're only limited by the laws of physics at this point?



joebauerek said:


> as for the rest of my point- i think you missed my meaning for a strike cruiser to dip low (100km is comparability low) the force required is exponential and just keeping a small (1000kg) item there takes a stupid amount of force and movement thus "stationary" is impossible


Well, if you think it's impossible...

What sort of speed (with calculations) do you think it would be needed to maintain a geostationary orbit without being in a geosynchronous orbit?

Say at 5000km?


----------



## joebauerek (May 14, 2010)

Well in all fairness without knowing the wieght and mass of the vessel in question, gravitational force of the planet in question and its weight and mass its impossible to say precisely because as these things changed then everything else does. Added to this acceleration, friction due to the atmosphere, friction due to gravity and gravity itself makes this really difficult to guess at. 

But using guesstimation....

In earth orbit a negligible weight (1kg) would need to travel at 11,160kmph to remain in geosynchronous orbit (36000ish km up). 
This is backed up by NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#14) that state a space shuttle needs to travel at 17,500kmph just to stay in low orbit..... so yes a larger object (spacecraft) needs to travel at a proportionally faster (in terms of force in N) rate to maintain the same orbit.

Saying that a space shuttle wrighs 2000ish tones (Wikipedia) meaning that its force in orbit is 290000 N not factoring in gravity meaning that a vessel larger would need a proportional momentum to stay so if you guess a strike cruiser at a billion tones would need to travel at 1.75e+16 or equivently 1750000000000000000m/s or 6300000000000000000kmph then this goes up with gravity by times 10 then a percentage of that dependent on altitude so at 100km equaling to 2520000000000000 N worth of force. Which equals 2,520,000kmph to remain perfectly still. Considering the solar system is 8,500,000km from earth to the edge this seems highly unlikley seeing as it takes more than 4 hours for ships to get from the warp point to terra.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Your calculations don't make sense to me.

So your weight increases the SPEED you need to maintain a low orbit? So you're saying a one gram weight could maintain its position at a lesser speed than a thousand kilograms?

I understand the FORCE required to keep a one gram object would be higher than a thousand kilogram object would be higher, but you're trying to say the SPEED would be different?


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

hailene said:


> Your calculations don't make sense to me.
> 
> So your weight increases the SPEED you need to maintain a low orbit? So you're saying a one gram weight could maintain its position at a lesser speed than a thousand kilograms?
> 
> I understand the FORCE required to keep a one gram object would be higher than a thousand kilogram object would be higher, but you're trying to say the SPEED would be different?


What he explained was pretty basic physics actually. If that went over your head then this trying to explain was a lost cause to begin with. 

A lower orbit requires a higher speed to maintain. A higher mass in the orbiting object increases the earth's gravitational effect, meaning the force required to maintain orbit is increased again, ergo a higher speed is required for a heavier object otherwise its orbit would decay. 

If you're trying to say that position could be maintained by using the ship's engines, then the ship is not in orbit, it's basically flying within a gravity well.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Serpion5 said:


> If you're trying to say that position could be maintained by using the ship's engines, then the ship is not in orbit, it's basically flying within a gravity well.


Couldn't have said it better myself (which I apparently couldn't).

This is what I've been trying to articulate the whole time. Thank you.


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

This is from wikipedia and may help:



> Understanding orbits
> There are a few common ways of understanding orbits:
> As the object moves sideways, it falls toward the central body. However, it moves so quickly that the central body will curve away beneath it.
> A force, such as gravity, pulls the object into a curved path as it attempts to fly off in a straight line.
> ...


Link to page


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

How to Make Wargaming Terrain, page 114:
_'Orbital Tether - marker beacon allowing ships to adopt geostationary orbits - can be flat on ground or on tower'_. It's perfectly possible for a ship to hover in space above a battlefield.

40k doesn't FOLLOW modern science. It's either in the Apocalypse book or in the old Feral Orks WD Codex that it said how Squiggoths should not be able to even move due to their large bodies, immense weight and high level of activity resulting in massive energy requirements that food and air cannot provide.

Midnight


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

normtheunsavoury said:


> This is from wikipedia and may help:
> Link to page


Enlightening, to a degree. I'm an accountant by education and business owner by trade, so most of it is still lost on me. 

Did some wiki surfing and stumbled upon this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed

Is it me or does the force needed to keep an object in a specific orbit more dependent upon the distance from the object you're orbiting and not the specific weight of your own object? Or is my lack of physics education biting me in the ass again?


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

hailene said:


> Is it me or does the force needed to keep an object in a specific orbit more dependent upon the distance from the object you're orbiting and not the specific weight of your own object? Or is my lack of physics education biting me in the ass again?


The acceleration due to gravity will drop the further you are from the centre of gravity but the force required to keep it in place will change with the mass of the ship.

The weight of the object won't increase the amount of pull from the planet or other mass but an object of greater mass will require greater power to counter act the gravitational pull.

So if you have a Golf Ball in orbit around earth it will be accelerated towards Earth at 10m/s/s (at ground level, getting less with altitude), so to counter act that you need to accelerate it at 10m/s/s in the opposite direction. For a golf ball you can accelerate it easily because it has tiny mass. For a Starship with a mass of many millions to billions or tonnes you need a lot more "push" to get the same acceleration.

For an eccentric orbit that does not have the centre of gravity as its centre point this will be continuously changing as the speed of the starship relative to the point on the ground will be continuously changing as will the position of the starship relative to the centre of gravity. 

The competing forces will place a fairly large stress on the starship, particularly large ones.

But hey it's fiction so they just stop where ever and put the hand brake on.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> The acceleration due to gravity will drop the further you are from the centre of gravity but the force required to keep it in place will change with the mass of the ship.
> 
> The weight of the object won't increase the amount of pull from the planet or other mass but an object of greater mass will require greater power to counter act the gravitational pull.


This aligns with my basic and limited understanding of physics.

Hence why confusion when joebauerek threw out his 6300000000000000000kmph number to remain in near-orbit.

I understood that the force would have to increase to maintain the orbit (and speed) but the idea of needing to increase the speed (not simply the force) when one increased the mass left me lost.



Magpie_Oz said:


> But hey it's fiction so they just stop where ever and put the hand brake on.


Sarcastic, I know, but that's the nature of science fiction. Technology can be as advanced as the authors desire.


----------



## joebauerek (May 14, 2010)

@hailene its pretty much been covered but it wouldnt be that fast but that would be the speed the engine would have to go at to say orbital. Sort of forgot to mention that in my ramblings ahah... sorry about that would have made more sense. And as for the physics they make it as confusing as possible for no apparent reason but hey it works and i too would rather stick with business ahah

@midnightsun yes but that changes things since you sort of resting on and other than the structural requirements for such wouldnt be a problem (but hey its 40k and if it isnt ridiculously oversized then its not worth it xD)... as for the squiggoth its the same thing as ants.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

joebauerek said:


> its pretty much been covered but it wouldnt be that fast but that would be the speed the engine would have to go at to say orbital.


Could you explain the difference between the "speed of the engine" and the speed of the vessel?


----------



## joebauerek (May 14, 2010)

Its basically how much energy the engine has to produce for movement (and the speed it theoretically would go at with that energy) and the speed of is how fast it can physically can go. Its all a matter of theoretically and practically for example it would have to go at 6300000 etc kmph but at such and such it would fall apart. So its just the force that would be needed compared to what it would actually go at when factoring things such as drag, gravity and resistance etc.

P.s. a comparison (all though vaugly) would be net and gross profits


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

So before we go any further...

For a given orbit, you are saying that you a more massive object needs to go _faster_ to maintain this orbit?

Not simply that a more massive object needs more _force_ to maintain this orbit, but rather it needs to move quicker.

Is that what you are saying?


----------



## joebauerek (May 14, 2010)

No it requires more force that with all the restrictive forced would be equal speed but the mass makes it move slower than it would in open space.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Excellent. That matches up with my understanding.

Did you mislabel 6300000000000000000 newtons with kmph?


----------



## joebauerek (May 14, 2010)

No that would be the speed generated from applied newtons. The newtons applied was stupidly large. So you can imagine the amount of energy running through the engines.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Something is wrong with either your calculations or my understanding of the force required to maintain orbit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_orbital_energy

That states, to my understanding, that the speed required to maintain a specific orbit is attached to to its height.

That is, if you weigh a thousand tons or a billion tons, you have to go X fast to maintain Y orbit.

Now the forces required to move one thousand tons as opposed to one billion tons is going to be vastly different, but the speed is the same.

Since that is _my_ understanding...could someone explain to me if that's wrong in any way? And if so, how would I properly interpret specific orbital energy?


----------



## joebauerek (May 14, 2010)

Whilst this is true the factor of mass and weight affects this goes up so does the others. But as you said something bigger is harder to move thus more newtons of thrust required. So if the speed remains constant more thrust is required. All my 630000000000000kmph was was a conversion of the newtons required so in practice it would move alot-alot slower with all counter forces applied.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

But KMPH is a measure of speed. Not a measurement of force.

That's your speed you stated you need to go. That must include all other factors like gravity.

Your 630,000,000,000,000kmph and the listed 24,840-28,080kmph can't go exist together. How could it be both?


----------



## joebauerek (May 14, 2010)

Because the 630,000,000,000,000kmph was the speed that would have been generated without the forces restricting movement. The force would have been 63000000000000000000000000000000000 newtons. All i did was convert the force of newtons into kmph to give a comparison.

As there all part of the same formula F=MA it can all be interchanged.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

I see what you did. I think. I didn't run the calculation but this is what I think you did:

You took the force needed to keep a theoretical 1 billion ton warship and put that force behind the 2000 ton space shuttle.

Since F=MA, as you said, is a balanced equation, you shrunk the weight by a factor of 500 thousand, so you have to increase the acceleration to compensate.

In summary, what you wrote out (I think) is that the force that would keep a 1 billion ton vessel in low orbit would propel the space shuttle at 63 trillion kmph.


----------



## joebauerek (May 14, 2010)

I took the equation for the space shuttle and scaled it up to match a 1 billion ton vessel


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

You made the mistake of thinking you scale up the speed. You scale up the force to match the increase weight.

Speed is constant.


----------



## joebauerek (May 14, 2010)

I took the speed as 17500kmph but then had to apply gravity and resistance. I didnt just increase the speed in proportion to mass.

That was just a tired misprint in the previous post.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

17,5000 KMPH is the speed already accounting for all other factors. Speed is the net result of the application of force.


----------



## joebauerek (May 14, 2010)

Yes but as said in previous posts the 63x10-13 is the speed that would be possible without limitation by gravity and resistance. And as a result a gravity well would act as a multiplication agent on the force whilst a reduction on the acceleratio

Stellar mathmatics dont like playing by the rules of normal mathmatics or mechanics


----------



## joebauerek (May 14, 2010)

However thats not saying my equations are perfect but they are in the right direction


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

You took a misstep. The speed of a speck of dust, a space shuttle, or a billion ton vessel will be (essentially) the same if they want to orbit the same planet at the same distance.

I'm just repeating myself at this point. Could someone first make sure I didn't make some colossal screw up and if not, try to explain it to Joe?


----------



## joebauerek (May 14, 2010)

The speed is constant. But the force required to move that object increases as its size increased. So that is the F and M taken into account. All i did after that was remove the limiting forces hence the 63....kmph. But forces of gravity drag and resistance would reduce this to 17500kmph whilst the force would remain the same.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Exactly. You got it.

The "limiting force" as you put it is the increased mass of the vessel. It really doesn't have to move at the 63-whatever kmph.


----------



## joebauerek (May 14, 2010)

Yes as I said in an earlier post it would move at but thats impossible due to a number of factors.


----------



## joebauerek (May 14, 2010)

However I am going to apologize for the complete thread-jack and off topic ramblings


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

OK after all that guys you are not quite there.

Modern day space objects maintain orbit by maintaining a speed at which the component of their VELOCITY that opposes the gravitational pull, matches that gravitational pull. You have a centrifugal force acting outwards against gravity acting inwards. 

The mass of the object in orbit has no bearing on this required velocity. A mote of dust or a Battle Barge in the same orbit are at the same velocity.

This is why you must, in any universe that respects gravity, orbit a planet in a circle otherwise you have no force that opposes gravity, unless you have two engines. 

If you travel in an orbit that does not go around the centre of gravity of the object you are trying to orbit then you have no component of your velocity that opposes gravity.

A starship would have to thrust "forwards" to match the speed of the ground point, while at the same time thrust outwards to maintain height. It can't do that without two engines one pointing forwards and the other pointing planetwards. And no, small manoeuvring thrusters won't do it as they need to accelerate the starship (millions or billions of tonnes according to BFG) at 1 Local G, which needs a LOT of boot.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> The mass of the object in orbit has no bearing on this required velocity. A mote of dust or a Battle Barge in the same orbit are at the same velocity.


And this was the point I was doing my darndest to get across.



Magpie_Oz said:


> . It can't do that without two engines one pointing forwards and the other pointing planetwards.


Couldn't a single engine using thrust vectoring achieve this?



Magpie_Oz said:


> And no, small manoeuvring thrusters won't do it as they need to accelerate the starship (millions or billions of tonnes according to BFG) at 1 Local G, which needs a LOT of boot.


Well, in _Soul Hunter_ (I keep using this book 'cause it so happens to be on my desk right now) there are "altitude thrusters". The Night Lords use them for some fancy maneuvers. 

They're apparently strong enough to pull g-forces strong enough to kill the crew if used recklessly.

"The g-forces alone are likely to kill us, and the altitude thrusters will be off-line for weeks..."

Anywho, off to bed. I'll be back tomorrow night.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

hailene said:


> Couldn't a single engine using thrust vectoring achieve this?


No because you need the engine to be thrusting in two directions at once.





hailene said:


> Well, in _Soul Hunter_ (I keep using this book 'cause it so happens to be on my desk right now) there are "altitude thrusters". The Night Lords use them for some fancy maneuvers.
> 
> They're apparently strong enough to pull g-forces strong enough to kill the crew if used recklessly.
> 
> ...


That can mean anything. A human can withstand 100g for an instant but 2g for days can kill. 

Most sources I can find state that the main engines of a Star Ship are capable of around 2G +/- 

A sharp burst from a thrusters "might" generate an abrupt G spike but if the main engines can only sustain 2G then a thruster couldn't do half that without being half the size of the main engine which are said to take up 2/3's of the ship.

Pretty safe to say the "altitude thrusters" are only for manoeuvring and wouldn't be capable of the sustained thrust required to counteract gravity.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Any 40k spaceship of a reasonable size would be in geostationary orbit anyway, so surely it's elementary?

Midnight


----------



## spanner94ezekiel (Jan 6, 2011)

That depends on your level of orbit. Assuming 40k still obeys the laws of physics to a certain degree, ships that orbit closer to the surface of a planet must do so at a faster velocity, else gravity will overcome thrust, and the ship will crash. Likewise, a ship in a more distant orbit would have to travel slower, else it would simply slingshot off into space. So to maintain a geostationary orbit requires them to be at a specific distance from the surface, which depending on the planet (and thus its size and gravitational field strength), may or may not be a suitable height for Drop Pod deployment.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

How to Make Wargaming Terrain, page 114:
_'Orbital Tether - marker beacon allowing ships to adopt geostationary orbits - can be flat on ground or on tower'_.

40k don't care about your physics.

Midnight


----------



## spanner94ezekiel (Jan 6, 2011)

I think that's more of a way of pinpointing _where_ to orbit above, when attempting to orbit above a battleground. I mean I could be wrong, but to me it's more of a "we're over here!" beacon rather than something that literally grabs ahold of the ship and keeps it in place (through whatever means).


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

If it is a tether like a really big piece of string then it certainly isn't going to work.

Think of what would happen if you tied a piece of string to a basket ball and spun it around, anywhere other than the "equator" of the ball is going try to rotate the object in a plane parallel to the "equator" yet the gravitational attraction will still be drawing the object towards the centre of the ball. 

Your back to needing thrust of some type to maintain your orbit.


----------



## Iraqiel (May 21, 2008)

Wait wait wait so it takes days for drop pods to travel down to a planet? Maybe that explains why the original dawn of war had the Blood Ravens getting butchered and reinforcements arriving waaaay too late!


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

I admire the level of dedication and thought that went into the last several pages, regarding the science and physics behind a starship maintaining orbit, etc.

That having been said, I couldn't help but picture in my mind artwork describing these same starships, which show thousands and thousands of menials manning a gigantic hamster wheel... or remember stories that described menials shoveling fuel into giant boiler engines. 

Ultimately, I think 40k science is kind of like 40k canon... It all is, and it all isn't. You, as the reader, gamer, and even prospective author, can keep what you like, ditch what you don't, or think up your own answers. If it works within the confines of our scientific principles without diminishing the scale and power of the setting, all the better.


----------



## Malus Darkblade (Jan 8, 2010)

The American version of CoTe. Welcome back man.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> No because you need the engine to be thrusting in two directions at once.


Isn't that what thrust vectoring is? You push at an angle and it's as if it's two engines pushing in two different directions?



Magpie_Oz said:


> That can mean anything. A human can withstand 100g for an instant but 2g for days can kill.


The fact that humans can survive 1g (God save us if we couldn't) means that the attitude thrusters are capable of exceeding 1g.

Which means it could keep above orbit, right? Counteract gravity?



Magpie_Oz said:


> if the main engines can only sustain 2G then a thruster couldn't do half that without being half the size of the main engine which are said to take up 2/3's of the ship.


Source?

We know a vessel can reach worlds from the edge of a solar system in a couple of days (48 hours).

Say they have to move...7 billion KM. 

So that means they have to be going at an average speed of...

7 billion KM/172,800 seconds=

40,509km a second. Or 40,509,000 meters per a second.

Gravity is 9.81 per a second^2 or in other words, 2gs would give us an accerlation of 19.62.

A vessel accelerating at max speed for 2 days would "only" be going 3,390,336 meters per a second. Or about 1/12 the speed we need to be going.

Even if we bump it up to 4 days 

We'd need to be going 20,254,629 meters per a second. We'd "only" hit 6,780,672 Still off by a factor of 3.

Then there's the whole mess of going ~6800km a second when you arrive.

So, in short, we can safely say that ships can accelerate faster than 2gs.

This is backed up by the Rogue Trader rulebook where it has some of the smaller vessels max acceleration being 5gs.

Even a Dauntless cruiser is capable of 4.3gs.

In short...

Whether the attitude thrusters ought to be that strong or are that strong for another reason (perhaps they're run off the same power as the main engines, which is probably true since everything is connected to the reactors), the point is moot.

They can and are.



Malus Darkblade said:


> The American version of CoTe.


CotE isn't one of us? Burn the heretic!


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

hailene said:


> Isn't that what thrust vectoring is? You push at an angle and it's as if it's two engines pushing in two different directions?


No at best it gives you half an engine thrusting in each direction.



hailene said:


> The fact that humans can survive 1g (God save us if we couldn't) means that the attitude thrusters are capable of exceeding 1g.
> 
> Which means it could keep above orbit, right? Counteract gravity?


Not necessarily. Changing the vector of the ship, like pushing a boat off a pier for example, to change it's direction is a long way from pushing the entire vessel. If you are travelling forwards at high velocity a slight push from one side will change you direction quite abruptly. At high speed an abrupt direction change will subject you to considerable forces as you tend to want to keep going in the original direction.

Because a thruster acts on the bow or stern it has a leverage that means a small force results in a large movement.

So a thruster that can cause the occupants of a vessel to experience high G can do so without being able to actually supply the G that is felt.

Think of a fighter plane, pilots regularly experience up to 9G but the only comes from manoeuvring. 



hailene said:


> Source?


BFG and Rouge Trader.



hailene said:


> We know a vessel can reach worlds from the edge of a solar system in a couple of days (48 hours).
> 
> Say they have to move...7 billion KM.


This an all your calculations that follow are invalid unless you can positively identify which system the ship was able to get to the "edge" of in 2 days.

7 Bill KM is a wild guess or based on the orbit of our own Pluto? . OK but which planet did the ship in question leave from? 

What is the edge of the solar system? The outer orbit or simply a place free of gravitational influences of the planets?

what if the ship went straight "up" or "down" i.e. Perpendicular to the plane of the planets thus leaving the influence of the Solar System, basically breaking orbit with the sun, much quicker?



hailene said:


> In short...
> 
> Whether the attitude thrusters ought to be that strong or are that strong for another reason (perhaps they're run off the same power as the main engines, which is probably true since everything is connected to the reactors), the point is moot.
> 
> They can and are.


In the absence of an indication in the fluff that a thruster can impart sufficient thrust to move the entire ship at 1G (or great for bigger planets) for a sustained period then there is nothing to support the notion that a thruster can enable a starship to hover in a gravity well.

It's not about the power input it's about the mass out that is important.
If I am on a ship that weighs 1 ton and I throw 1 Ton of lead off it at 10m/s/s then the ship will move in the opposite direction at 10m/s/s.
The star ship needs to "throw" millions of tonnes at very high speed to move itself 1G.

Nothing can change this.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Iraqiel said:


> Wait wait wait so it takes days for drop pods to travel down to a planet? Maybe that explains why the original dawn of war had the Blood Ravens getting butchered and reinforcements arriving waaaay too late!


I don't know about days but certainly hours, if the launching ship happens to be in the right spot.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> No at best it gives you half an engine thrusting in each direction.


or some other percentage of 100%, depending on the exact direction, but yes.

But having full power one way or another wasn't part of the stipulated requirements.

You simply said you'd need two engines to move in a non-straight direction. Thrust vectoring would allow you to have multiple vectors attached to a single engine. I'll quote you again so we remember what I'm talking about.



hailene said:


> It can't do that without two engines one pointing forwards and the other pointing planetwards.





Magpie_Oz said:


> If you are travelling forwards at high velocity a slight push from one side will change you direction quite abruptly.


No, I think you're thinking about being on a planet. In space it wouldn't budge you all that much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_space

I myself only understand it conceptually, but the information is all there.



Magpie_Oz said:


> Think of a fighter plane, pilots regularly experience up to 9G but the only comes from manoeuvring.


That's because a fighter gets to "cheat" using gravity and air flow. There's no air resistance to slow you down in space.



Magpie_Oz said:


> BFG and Rouge Trader.


You actually have to cite the passages when you refer to a source. You can't just list the book name.

And it's a little funny that you're trying to cite a source that I just cited as a counter example.

I skimmed BFG. I couldn't find any numbers. Could you actually cite your sources?



Magpie_Oz said:


> 7 Bill KM is a wild guess or based on the orbit of our own Pluto?


Uhh...what? Pluto is ~4.5 billion KM from the sun (depending on where it is in its orbit).

7 billion came from a quick search of where our solar system ended (the stated amount was 9 billion). On looking through the Voyager 1 posts I realized I made a serious mistake.

Voyager 1 is now 18 billion KM away from the sun and is _still in the solar system_. My 7 billion is laughably low. Ships must move considerably faster.

From my limited understanding, the solar system ends when the heliospehre ends (ie the heliopause). Basically when the outward energy produced by our sun is equaled to the energy output of the rest of the universe.



Magpie_Oz said:


> what if the ship went straight "up" or "down" i.e. Perpendicular to the plane of the planets thus leaving the influence of the Solar System, basically breaking orbit with the sun, much quicker?


I'm pretty sure the heliopause is roughly spherical. There wouldn't be any serious advantage from approaching from any particular direction.



Magpie_Oz said:


> In the absence of an indication in the fluff that a thruster can impart sufficient thrust to move the entire ship at 1G (or great for bigger planets) for a sustained period then there is nothing to support the notion that a thruster can enable a starship to hover in a gravity well.


We can infer it pretty easily. The maneuver itself wouldn't have taken that long--minutes, tops. Likely less than a minute.

Still, there was enough gee-forces to potentially kill all the crew. The wiki entry on g-forces says humans can generally take about 5gs worth of vertical gee-forces before blacking out. Let's say that's how many g-forces were exerted on the crew (probably more, since this only blacks people out, but more than enough for our needs).

The thrusters were brought up to 60% above their rated output, or 160%. Presumably 100% thrusters would be about 62.5% as strong. If 160% thrusters were capable of pulling just 5 geeforces, 100% would pull 3. Even if for some odd reason 100% thrusters couldn't sustain 100% operation, they'd only need to run at around 30% to keep 1g.

As a bonus, being ~2000km means they don't need to resist all of Earth's gravity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erdgvarp.png

At 2000km they'd only need to move at ~5.5 m/s^2. Or a little more than half a gee.



Magpie_Oz said:


> The star ship needs to "throw" millions of tonnes at very high speed to move itself 1G.


The fact the thrusters were capable of creating deadly levels of gravity is proof that they're capable of creating tens of billions of newtons of force (assuming a 1 billion ton strike cruiser).


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Bah, god damn it, I should have just gone and looked at more sources.

From _Dark Creed_

"Thirteen immense battleships hung in low orbit overhead, motionless and menacing..."

Apparently, for whatever arcane or mysterious reason, the battleships can stay in low orbit without moving.

Whether this is relative to the planet or just not moving at all is enough, I think, either way.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

hailene said:


> or some other percentage of 100%, depending on the exact direction, but yes.
> 
> But having full power one way or another wasn't part of the stipulated requirements.
> 
> You simply said you'd need two engines to move in a non-straight direction. Thrust vectoring would allow you to have multiple vectors attached to a single engine. I'll quote you again so we remember what I'm talking about.


To get an equal amount of thrust in each direction you need to point the thrust nozzle down (or up) at 45 degrees. This will give you an X and a Y component that are equal. However the Resultant will still be at 45 degrees.

Thrust vectoring it will not work from a stern mounted engine as it will roll you end over end. All Imperial Starship have their exhausts at the rear.




hailene said:


> No, I think you're thinking about being on a planet. In space it wouldn't budge you all that much.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_space
> 
> I myself only understand it conceptually, but the information is all there.


No you don't understand in even the slightest degree.

If a body is in motion it will remain in motion until acted on by an external force. In space there is no friction or air resistance so a slight nudge on the nose will set the nose moving and it will keep moving until you nudge it the other way. Give it a big nudge and it will move very rapidly and this will impart a G force on the occupants.



hailene said:


> That's because a fighter gets to "cheat" using gravity and air flow. There's no air resistance to slow you down in space.


The G forces experienced by a fighter pilot have NOTHING to do with air resistance and are independent of gravity. If you are flying straight an level an yank back on the stick you will experience a G force as your motion changes. It's the same thing that makes you slide sidewards in you seat when you turn a car sharply, the force pushing you outwards from the centre of the circle you are turning about.



hailene said:


> You actually have to cite the passages when you refer to a source. You can't just list the book name.


Battlefleet Gothic Armada, pg. 15
Battlefleet Gothic Magazine 3, pg. 12
Rogue Trader: Battlefleet Koronus (RPG), pp. 20-21



hailene said:


> Uhh...what? Pluto is ~4.5 billion KM from the sun (depending on where it is in its orbit)..


At perehelion, Aphelion is 7 bill. 



hailene said:


> 7 billion came from a quick search of where our solar system ended (the stated amount was 9 billion). On looking through the Voyager 1 posts I realized I made a serious mistake.
> 
> Voyager 1 is now 18 billion KM away from the sun and is _still in the solar system_. My 7 billion is laughably low. Ships must move considerably faster.
> 
> ...


The point I was making is the "leaving the solar system" has not been defined in terms of the 2 day journey so you cannot base ANY assumptions on it at all.

That is my entire beef. The 40k Universe does, by and large, stick to real world physics give or take. 

The conclusions you are drawing from what is said in the books are flawed in many respects.

"The ship takes two day to leave the solar system" and from that you assume that all solar systems are the same size as earth's, "leaving the solar system" in the book has the same meaning as leaving the solar system as defined by the heliopause. 



hailene said:


> We can infer it pretty easily.


Without even a basic understanding you cannot infer anything.

You say the a thruster can exert a force sufficient to perform a manoeuvre that will kill the crew. That does not mean the thruster supplies the force alone, as I have said the leverage that a thruster has can cause a ship to experience G forces beyond what the thruster is generating.

If it is acting on the prow it will have an enormous mechanical advantage over a ship many kilometers long as it pivots about the stern when it turns.



hailene said:


> As a bonus, being ~2000km means they don't need to resist all of Earth's gravity.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erdgvarp.png
> 
> At 2000km they'd only need to move at ~5.5 m/s^2. Or a little more than half a gee.


Still a colossal amount of force required to impart the required force onto a millions of tonnes starship for an extended periods, far beyond a thrusters capability.



hailene said:


> The fact the thrusters were capable of creating deadly levels of gravity is proof that they're capable of creating tens of billions of newtons of force (assuming a 1 billion ton strike cruiser).


They are not capable of it tho' as I have shown.

Can the engines of a jet fighter develop sufficient thrust to kill the pilot? No they cannot. 

Can a jet fighter develop sufficient G's in manoeuvring to kill the pilot and destroy the plane? Most certainly. 

Even a Cessna can do it with a violent enough manoeuvre


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

A Harrier Jump Jet can hang motionless, but it require thrust to maintain that position. That alongside gravitational rotation would mean that even if the ship could hang motionless without the need for thrust, using earth as an example, in 12 hours or so the target location would be on the other side of the world.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

hailene said:


> Bah, god damn it, I should have just gone and looked at more sources.
> 
> From _Dark Creed_
> 
> ...


Ok well you go with "It just does stuff". Let the thread return to more fruitful discussions.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> To get an equal amount of thrust in each direction you need to point the thrust nozzle down (or up) at 45 degrees. This will give you an X and a Y component that are equal. However the Resultant will still be at 45 degrees.


This is great (and review even for me), but you essentially agreed with my point.

You can have a single source push you along more than just forward. And that's all I wanted you to acknowledge.



Magpie_Oz said:


> Give it a big nudge and it will move very rapidly and this will impart a G force on the occupants.


Good, good. Keep in mind that you have to KEEP nudging. Otherwise you're not accelerating.

You could reach substantial portions of the speed of light, given enough time, without killing the crew. If I nudge the nose of a ship it'll accelerate in that direction until I stop. It will continue to move in that direction, but not accelerate any further. And you only feel the gee-forces from the acceleration.



Magpie_Oz said:


> The G forces experienced by a fighter pilot have NOTHING to do with air resistance and are independent of gravity.


 What's one of the ways to induce huge gee-forces on a pilot? Pulling out a dive.

You use your plane's own aerodynamics to greatly slow it.



Magpie_Oz said:


> Battlefleet Gothic Armada, pg. 15
> Battlefleet Gothic Magazine 3, pg. 12


Both of these cover entries on the Avenger class grand cruiser. I see no entry on their maximum speed (outside of game terms). Could you point out what I'm missing?



Magpie_Oz said:


> Rogue Trader: Battlefleet Koronus (RPG), pp. 20-21


This one makes a little more sense. It lists a specific ship as only being able to accelerate at ~2 gees. That's great.



Magpie_Oz said:


> "The ship takes two day to leave the solar system" and from that you assume that all solar systems are the same size as earth's, "leaving the solar system" in the book has the same meaning as leaving the solar system as defined by the heliopause.


No, that's why I rounded down in my (initial) calculations. From 9 to 7.

And our sun is remarkably unremarkable. But even if you take our solar system and half it, you're still going to need to be accelerating more than 2 gees to reach a system's edge in a couple-few days.



Magpie_Oz said:


> as I have said the leverage that a thruster has can cause a ship to experience G forces beyond what the thruster is generating.


No, you can't. That's not how physics works in space.



Magpie_Oz said:


> Still a colossal amount of force required to impart the required force onto a millions of tonnes starship for an extended periods, far beyond a thrusters capability.


Based on what? your opinion?



Magpie_Oz said:


> Even a Cessna can do it with a violent enough manoeuvre


And do, pray tell, explain how the Cessna is capable of such violent maneuvers?



Vaz said:


> A Harrier Jump Jet can hang motionless, but it require thrust to maintain that position. That alongside gravitational rotation would mean that even if the ship could hang motionless without the need for thrust, using earth as an example, in 12 hours or so the target location would be on the other side of the world.


Moot either way, I think. I don't think there's a question of whether or not a vessel is capable of reaching speeds fast enough to maintain a geosynchronous orbit.

The question is whether they could provide enough "vertical" thrust to prevent them from crashing into a planet. Answer is apparently yes.

Anywho, going to bed. I might have stuff to do in the following days. Might be on, might not. Answers might be briefer than normal.



Magpie_Oz said:


> Ok well you go with "It just does stuff".


As others have said, it's a sci-fi setting that may not be all that hard at times.

Make what you will of it. The fact that they can and do is all that matters for our discussion.

If you want to discuss the hows that's another thread.

If you can't suspend your own disbelief, then take it up with the authors. I'm working with what I'm given.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

hailene said:


> No, you can't. That's not how physics works in space.


Yes you can and yes it is.

Based on this mainly but also the larger percentage of your last post, it's pretty clear you have no idea what you are talking about in terms of real world physics and don't understand even slightly what I am talking about.

I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Malus Darkblade said:


> The American version of CoTe. Welcome back man.


Thanks! I got stationed in South Korea but have since returned to the States for a month for my son's birth. It's been a busy last few months. 

- Break -

Where instra-system travel is concerned, there have never been totally consistent figures. Different authors have different ideas as to how intra-system space stravel works, to include how long it takes. Personally, I think Gav Thorpe has been rather consistent - at least during his more recent works (ones I can reference, at any rate). A decent example of this can be found in "Call of the Lion":



> “Astelan looked up at the huge digital display that rendered all of the incoming data into an understandable image. It was crude at the moment, little more than a wire-frame schematic of the system and its major planetary bodies, and would take several days for the picture to be completed as the surveyor probes raced through the system sending back their findings.
> ...
> After several hours, contact was fully re-established. The fleet correlated their courses and calculated velocity descents for rendezvous, inbound towards the core worlds.
> ...
> ...


Key points:
1. They have to decelerate.
2. 700,000 km in 48 hours means an average speed (assuming they're still decelerating) of 4km/second (less than 1/70 the speed of light).
3. They had to decelerate - meaning, entry into real-space is not static.
4. Why decelerate? Probably so they could adequately scan an unknown system (a process that takes "several days".
5. Ergo, they could have gotten there faster - but didn't want to.

Gav stays consistent in another "slowed-down insertion" scenario, from "The Face of Treachery":



> [Branne's] fleet ... had entered Isstvan perpendicular to the orbital plane. He studied the schematic display of the fleet’s position on a monitor; a projected course drew a dotted line around the Isstvan star towards the planets currently on the other side of the system.
> ...
> ‘Get them to run as quiet as possible,’ said Branne. ...
> ‘Quiet running will slow us down,’ said Valerius.
> ...


"The Face of Treachery" shows us that intra-system travel is not necessarily that slow, though:



> “As the World Eaters flotilla powered up their engines the Salamanders cruiser turned out-system and darted for its next patch of cover – a cloud of asteroids some five hundred thousand kilometres from Isstvan VI.
> ...
> The Salamanders were still several thousand kilometres from safety when the gunnery captain reported that they were now within maximum torpedo range.
> ...
> ...


Key point: intra-system travel appears to be much faster when caution is not an issue. A distance that would take the Dark Angels more than a day in "Call of the Lion" is considered a viable - if desperate - tactical movement in the battle of battle... even taking into consideration BFG's slower combat pace (wherein it might take many minutes before torpedoes hit, etc.).

This is reinforced when the same World Eaters ship attempts to engage the Raven Guard rescue fleet:



> ‘Corax and his Legion are doomed,’ he said. ‘See for yourself. In less than ten minutes, we will open fire and destroy them forever.
> ...
> ‘Where are they now?’ asked the primarch.
> ‘They’ve withdrawn to a hundred thousand kilometres,’ Branne replied.


Again, indicating that what would have taken the Dark Angels a little less than seven hours in "caution mode" would only take a few minutes (almost certainly less than 30) in combat speed.

And lest we think that combat speed does not accurately reflect transit speed because the former might be greater than the latter...



> “Retro-thrusters fired along the battle-barge’s length as it reduced speed for the attack, its course curving gracefully to starboard so that its massive broadside would be brought to bear.”


The World Eaters warship had been going at 120% to get to Isstvan V... it _slows down_ for combat.

With all that in mind, I think there's a fine case to be made that it might only take a day or two to make it from the jump point to a typical habitable world and vice-versa. Maybe it takes much less time - several hours or one day. Maybe it still takes several days for a huge syste. I suppose it comes down to the location and the capabilities of the ship: a BFG battle barge is slower than smaller ships in terms of combat speed... but in Gav's story, above, its transit speed is superior to that of strike cruisers.

As far as drop pods go, if it took hours for them to reach the surface that would defeat the point behind them, wouldn't it? "Face of Treachery" certainly seems to indicate they are a pretty immediate asset:



> “Delerax checked the chronometer again. Four hours until the assault began. He was pleased, knowing that he would reach orbit in time to take part. The drop-pods were prepared for immediate launch, his twenty-strong bodyguard ready for the attack.”


Note that Delerax was burning his engines out just to get there in time for the battle to start. If it took hours for his pods to reach surface AFTER getting to Isstvan V, then his urgency is rather misplaced. This is reinforced by the time it takes for the Raven Guard to evacuate:



> “Contact established with the primarch!’ ...
> ‘The drop-ships are landing now.’
> ...
> ‘Time until the evacuation is complete?’ he asked.
> ...


If it takes thirty minutes for three thousand warriors to board drop-ships and for them to get from a planet's surface to a starship's hangars, then it definitely cannot take "hours" for a drop pod to get from a starship to the surface. That's even if it all the landing craft were taking off at the same time, which they're not.

I hope this is worth something to the discussion. If not, apologies!

Cheers!


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> don't understand even slightly what I am talking about.


Yes, because you can move PART of a ship. Not like you have to move the entire bulk of it to move it at all.

I know you're grasping at straws, but...I'm done. At this point you've forgotten what you were trying to argue.

I've proved that one way or another a ship can maintain a low orbit over a planet without moving.

The physics or numbers don't matter. Perhaps they have developed a mass-lightening technology like they do in Star Trek. Maybe they use an onboard artificial gravity system to keep them up in the air. Maybe they have the captain stand outside and shout at the ship to not fall down.

Fact of the matter is they can. We can move on. If you want the last snide comment I'll take it without any other last words and the discussion can progress.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Um no. You haven't though.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Vaz said:


> Um no. You haven't though.


Explain?

We know vessels (even battleships) can hang motionless over a planet, even in low orbit. Therefore we know they can generate sufficient vertical thrust from crashing into the planet.

We know battleships can generate enough speed to keep up with a planet's rotation.

Combine the two and you have the ability to stay over the same piece of dirt for as long as your engines can provide that force.

You're not really using gravity to stay over the spot. As an earlier poster said, you're simply flying the ship near a source of gravity.

Phoebus's citation from _Deliverance Lost_ also is a probable example of staying near the same area. The Raven Guard ship probably couldn't have gone around the planet to pick up its troops. It would have been butchered by the Traitor fleet if it went all the way around.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

Correct. For at least thirty minutes, the Raven Guard battle barge and two strike cruisers were either able to maintain geo-synchronous orbit with the extraction point on the surface... or at least were able to stay close enough for the drop ships to be able to get back to them within that time window.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Okay. More sources time.

From the Battlefleet Koronous:

"Calling in a Planetary Bombardment requires an orbiting voidship to enter a dangerously low orbit and hold steady over its target."

So we have ships able to approach "dangerously" close to planets and remain steady over the target.

Yay?


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

They still require output of force to maintain that position. For short time periods, it is little more than a Harrier or RlHelicopter in the hover, all thrust downwadlrds. However, for a Craft to maintain that "hover" for extended periods of time, depending on the rotational speed of the world, the world would move without taking the craft wth it.

It would require some form of thrust vectoring to keep it in position. I am not saying that it is impossible for a craft to do so and maintain a position, but a ship is not a satellite it requires constant thrust to maintain that position, consequently, not being "motionless", but the resources and risk posed to craft to do so, as well as having an inertia-less start to escape the gravity well
causes huge stresses on a craft that should not risk it except in dire circumstances, instead acting like sea birds fishing from shoals. Sure the birds can swim, but it is easier to dive in from the surface.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Vaz said:


> It would require some form of thrust vectoring to keep it in position.


Only if the ship has a single direction that it provide thrust towards. Which they don't.

They have rear engines (that we're all familiar with), reverse thrusters (which I assume are on the front), and altitude thrusters on the port and starboard sides (both dorsal and ventral, I would assume).



Vaz said:


> s well as having an inertia-less start to escape the gravity well
> causes huge stresses on a craft


Source?
~~~~~~~~~

So to combine with my earlier quote about ships entering low orbit to enact a bombardment, it there's another quote from Battlefleet Koronus:

"Sitting in positions for orbital bombardment leaves ships even more vulnerable to attack."

Now we know that in order to support troops on the ground a ship has to 1. Enter low orbit. 2. "Hold steady" over a target. 3. Have to spend some length of time ("sitting in position").
~~~~~

You keep saying that it's too much for ships. Cite some in-universe sources. 

You need a balance of rhetoric backed up with evidence. All I've seen so far is rhetoric.

It's a fictional universe with fictional materials and fictional technology. Without knowing the specifics of everything, it's hard to make a mathematical conclusion. Our only other path is digging for situations where the circumstance arises.


----------

