Alright Jow Forums, i'm looking for some quality spoon feeding. Whats the point of fully automatic firearms?

sub question. Why is considered an advantage to have something fully automatic in close quarters?

in the words of 40K: More Dakka.

In reality:
suppressive fire in warfare. ie SAW or HMG emplacements, from trench warfare in WW1 to suppressive fire in Afghanistan etc.

Density of fire. while "spray and pray" may be the default tactic of allahu-akbaring goat herders, in a trained, controlled use, automatic fire allows more lead onto a target - essential if for instance, its an approaching truck bomb...

volume of fire on a target in minimal time is also essential if the time on target is low - ie, air to air or air to ground engagement.

sub question: what is the advantage of a football team scoring more points in a football game?

well, what if 1 point is enough to win the game?

Sustained fire and suppression mostly

I don’t know, does the team quit trying to score with a 1 point lead?

Who am I kidding, if you’re autistic enough to be posting here sports analogies probably aren’t your thing.

90% of real life kills (especially at night, in thick woods, at long distances, etc) are guessing where someone might be and shooting there. When you have a gun that instead of 1 guess shoots 10 guesses at a time your likelihood of killing someone just got a lot higher. There’s a reason why the SAW is the most casualty producing weapon of a squad and an M240 is the most casualty producing weapon of a platoon.

It’s the bill of rights not the bill of needs.

Attached: 521D46A1-774F-4970-B27A-A18CFB086F94.jpg (799x611, 101K)

Suppressive fire for basic fire and manoeuvre tactics and area denial

Bullshit. You hit what you aim at larper.

as many said suppression but also it's good if in a battle you only have a general idea where the enemy is so you just lay fire in the location along with ordinance. The former is more common however in order to allow cover and move tactics

Attached: MG34_Ukraine_sunrise.jpg (1440x988, 143K)

So have 6 people focused on one area instead of 1 guy with a 240 slaying bodies?
You're dumb

No. I mean you have someone focused on an area for enemy activity. If they see something happen, they shoot. It seems like people are saying that the full auto is needed to provide a constant stream of ammunition towards an area to keep people pinned. By why not conserve ammo and just wait until they do something? One thing i can see occurring is that if you just wait, two people can move towards opposite directions, and if only one person is "focused" on that area, they can only really take care of one of the guys, leaving the other free to carry on to another position. If you were constantly firing, then maybe non of them would do anything. But, the amount of money you would be spending on constantly spraying bullets would be easily provide another solider.

Lurk moar

Can you try to answer my question in a less vague manner?

Question for the milfags here: How serious a problem is keeping your LMG supplied with ammunition?

When I was a medic with the infantry our primary killer was the 249 and 240. Because they can send fuck you’s down range at a sustained rate of fire without requiring reloads. It also mentally fucks the enemy.

who were you fighting against?

Imagine being this much of a bitch

How accurate are those automatic gun in the op ? Pretty bad ass. So can someone break it down how they suppress the enemy ? Do they just look for the area the enemy gun fire is coming from and start engaging ?

bump

1 bullet doesn't necessarily kill the enemy.

If you see the enemy, you pull the trigger, he gets tons of bullets into him, guaranteed dead enemy.

shooting faster than you can pull the trigger

What's the point to making larger brushes?

To cover more

because it's easier to hit than a semi auto weapon