As far as machine guns go, is it better to have a very high cyclic

>>29754526
Somewhere in between so you are creating a denser field of fire but not blowing through your ammo at an astronomical rate.

>>29754526
depends on the situation.
ideally you want something with a moderate cyclic like a 240B or M60.
but if you were dealing with hordes of enemy from a guarded position where you could deal with barrel changes, high cyclic like an MG42 would be great.
but if you're unable to deal with barrel changes, jams, etc, you want a lower cyclic to reduce the chance of that happening.

>>29754526
depends on what you're planning to do with it

>>29754526
Just use it right.

You can gag a bitch with both a 5 inch or 7 inch dick. It's how it's used.

>>29754526
Get m60 and you should be okay

File: image.png (913KB, 1279x678px) Image search: [Google]

913KB, 1279x678px

mg42 all the way, i hope you like to carry alot.

>>29754540
>tfw no SBR for close quarters maneuvering
I'm ok with this.

>>29754548
If it's an E3, E4 or later, then yeah, those are good.

>>29754526
Depends on your infantry doctrine. If it's more American, meaning the MGs do the suppression and the riflemen the killing (or so they try and rather wait for air support/artillery), then you'll want a low cyclic rate to conserve ammo. If it's more German meaning the MGs do the killing and the riflemen the suppression, then higher cyclic rates are better as they increase the probability of hitting the enemy in those short, fleeting windows of opportunity.

>>29754604
ur a large man

>>29754526

I'd get an attachment MG-42 with a BAR trigger set, That way I can do single, slow auto, and high auto in one package. If only people in the world had the hindsight of John Moses Browning.

>>29756293
This

>>29754526
on infantry, generally halfway between the two.
MG42 is wasteful of ammo and barrels.
You only need a LMG if there are large numbers of enemies, which means you need to be able to keep fire up for a good while.

On aircraft, very high rate of fire is best, because fuck aiming while pilot and wings are under heavy g-forces, plane wobbling around, with a 0.5 second window when the enemy vehicle slides in front of your guns.
When that moment arrives, pilot has to be able to fill the sky with as much lead as possible in the shortest time span.

Hence, aircraft (fixed wing and rotary) weaponry went on to revolver cannons, gatling guns, etc. with as much as 6600+ RPM or more.
But suppression infantry weapons are found to be sufficient with even just 800 RPM and only 100 sustained RPM.

>>29758581
But who was MG3 trigger, anon?

>>29754526
>pic of german
>britbong peering over the trench
nice

>>29754526
I'm still struggling with the concept of "Marching fire" with a 20 round mag.

File: hidbler.jpg (27KB, 604x533px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 604x533px

>>29760130
Maybe Wojack was captured

>>29760150
It was quasi viable, the best way to utilize it was to have two or three guys advance (ideally from cover to cover) and fire short bursts to pin down the enemy, while the rest of the squad moved in at high speed, weilding subguns and rifles. It's a form of suppression fire, when you have like 60 rifle rounds being discharged at your position relatively quickly, you don't poke your head out.

This obviously works best when the enemy you're fighting has no air or artillery support.
Consequently, marching fire actually worked best in WW2, not WW1, some American units had great success with this tactic later in the war.

>>29754526
ass much as it's fucking awesome to dump the whole box of ammo through an MG42, I'd rather have something with a slow and steady rate of fire.

IRL most mg42 teams who were not experienced veterans didn't control themselves and burned through their ammo and barrels too fast.

>>29756293
>American, meaning the MGs do the suppression and the riflemen the killing

That's not how it works now and that's not how it has ever worked.

Rifles and MGs both kill and suppress using aimed fire. The MGs are better at both suppression and killing, and they account for more dead than the rifles usually do.

>>29756293
could an A-10 actually provide CAS in contested airspace?

>>29758549
For you

>>29760582
just chillin in the trenches, i dont think so :DD

>>29754532
If your war economy can allow it, let bullet hoses be bullet hoses.