Quote History Quoted:
1400 rounds a minute??? That's 23 rounds per second, not doable at that time. I will believe 140 rpm, 2.3 rps .
Yeah, I'D carry that, even though it'd take three men and a boy just to lug the ammo, let alone the weapon!
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Quote History Quoted:Quoted:Quoted:
Having been a Marine infantryman in the 1970's I have some idea what I would prefer. Give me a Stinger. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgecTgbz3ik&feature=youtu.be)
100%
1400 rounds a minute??? That's 23 rounds per second, not doable at that time. I will believe 140 rpm, 2.3 rps .
Yeah, I'D carry that, even though it'd take three men and a boy just to lug the ammo, let alone the weapon!
Aerial machine guns often had a higher cyclic rate of fire than their ground combat counterparts. Effective opportunities simply didn't last very long in the air and the more lead in the air per second, the more damage it would do. Higher ROF means more heat, but there's a whole lot of wind over the gun. It's not a problem there. Different on the ground, but evidently the Marines were cool with it.
I totally buy the cyclic ROF being a
lot greater for a Stinger AN/M2 vs your basic M1919A4. And I absolutely get why that was useful, just like the PPSh's absurd ROF was useful for the Soviets.
(Just have a few friends as ammo bearers...)