Why does the M134 exist when three GPMGs mounted together would have a similar combined rate of fire, similar weight...

You want to mount, load, feed, operate, unload, dismount, clean and service 3 belt fed fully automatic weapons instead of one?

Attached: 8F2C95AB-31A7-4EFB-B1FB-5B4BB8168692.gif (500x320, 446K)

Because having a single m134 is far more accurate youtu.be/jNX6uSdushg

>a lot more compact
Outside of some niche like helicopter mounting I can't see this being that critical
>don't need a complex mount to make sure all shooting at generally the same spot
Yeah but you don't need complex wiring to power the thing either
Even if one gun jammed two would keep going, in that sense it's probably at least as reliable as the M134.
The combined weight of 3 MG3s is still 10 lbs less than the M134, and you could lighten those pretty easily (there's a light M134 too but that's expensive), add a heavier barrel, and still have some weight left over for a heavier mount.
>Three weapons means three people.
No, it doesn't. Keep the belts long to avoid reloading, and if one gun jams it doesn't matter.
For 2 or 3x the firepower per dollar, yes.

Actually...

50rd/3 hits
250rd/15 hit

Same hit ratio. Also 1000 yards with just a red dot, on the exact same target is..Well, fucking retarded.

You don't need complex wiring for the m134 either, it's a single power cable and a feed chute.

It's the same time on target, which is part of the point. You only have so long to shoot at something in an aircraft.

Thing is, the military does not give a single fuck about cost.
And rotary guns have only a niche application, which is lots and lots of RPM in a compact and reliable package. That's why nobody mounts them on ground vehicles (except special forces), because you don't gain a lot from RPM that high unless your window to fire is really damn low (like in aircraft, for example)

>>Three weapons means three people.
>No, it doesn't.
How do you aim and fire the two other guns if there's only a single person, then ?

The mount does it.
You aim 1 and the other 2 are slaved to it.

So your solution to less people is more hardware.
I don't dispute this but then we have to look at the cost.

I’m not OP, it’s not my solution
I just used tandem 240 mounts inna army

I can't believe nobody has stated it yet. It fulfills a completely different role than a GPMG, that being saturation effect in a short window of time. Having multi-mount weapon systems for a single gunner would be bulky as all hell too.

Not exactly hard or expensive to design multiple mounts for machineguns.
Bulkier sure, but not extremely so.

Attached: mg-42 twin.jpg (443x332, 33K)

There's a reason they went from .50 flex mounts to mini guns on helos.

Yes, none of which has anything to do with the argument of the post i responded to.

Mounting, separate feeding systems, and down time reloading outweigh then negate the initial advantage

or the more modern version

Attached: MG14z.jpg (600x391, 49K)

This doesn't mean m134 downtime would be as intensive, since it's not fully electrical.

It's been stated multiple times

Comparing minigun and .50cal is apples and oranges comparison. .50cal is used for barrier penetration, longer range and fucking up lightly armored vehicles like uparmored jeeps and older APC's. Also worth noting that in helicopters the version of .50cal most commonly used is M3, dedicated aircraft version of the gun with twice the rate of fire when compared with regular M2.

If you operate triplemount of GPMG's on helicopter, there is good chance that it will have electric trigger mechanism. When comes to weight of vehicle mounted weapons, it usually rather irrelevant factor, those weapons are only rarely used out of that vehicle, especially with helicopter weapons. It may actually be a beneficial thing that weapon is heavier, more weight in barrels means more metal to absorb heat and more surface to radiate it away. Minigun is a niche weapon that nearly perfect for that one thing, being used from helicopters.

Usually the thing they use more commonly on helicopters than .50cal is GPMG's like M240 and M60. M240 was used on helicopters and tanks earlier than infantry got 'em due to good old FN MAG being more reliable. Rather important feature for tank coax guns as unfucking jams way harder in tank.

The entire military is all about cost savings. If that's all there was to it, then 3 GPMGs is what would be used.

Miniguns achieve a crazy level of accuracy, apparently owing partially to their rate of fire via physics I don't understand. You get an extremely high accuracy laser of lead that from a single point of fire that's otherwise totally unachievable.

Inaccuracy combined with rate of fire is accuracy when you fire a weapon from relatively fast moving platform. That is essentially what saturation fire means.

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard. Are you Lindybeige?

Do not confuse accuracy and probability of hit you mongoloid.

>what is the gast gun concept and guns like the gsh23:the thread

laughed out loud, nice

Attached: 1530973940147.jpg (640x480, 40K)

Does your GPMG fire at a rate of 6000 freedoms per second? I think not.

seems kind of pointless to be so accurate with 6000 rpm. id design a version that has a different twist rate for each barrel and use at least 3 different bullet weights to make it less accurate and get some shot spread out of it. of course the weapon would still be zero’d for 1 specific barrel twist and bullet weight so youll still be able to get rounds dead on while the other rounds bracket that area.

The higher rate of fire makes then much more accurate. There are studies out there you can read on the topic. The high rof and smooth operation ( no back and forth bolt) allows fewer rounds be fired to get more on target. In a fraction of the time. So this makes then actually more ammo efficient than a traditional machinegun.

There is usually error in aiming of the gun from rapidly moving platform. Inaccuracy helps to compensate for that as there good chance that inaccuracy of weapon and aiming error will have overlap. Gunner from platform like helicopter don't actually know perfectly actual speed and direction aircraft or have accurate distance to target.

Probability of hit is essentially accuracy in practical terms.

>The entire military is all about cost savings

Six barrels fixed together won't deform as much as a single barrel would.

>Probability of hit is essentially accuracy in practical terms.

Attached: derp.png (722x436, 97K)

>Outside of some niche like helicopter mounting I can't see this being that critical
which is exactly why miniguns are only really used for high danger, low weight missions like para rescue
or for gunship mounting which have no cargo other than ammo

the minigun really is a very niche weapon used only when the goal is to maximize firepower at all costs
it isnt, like, everywhere or wide spread
no tank mounts them in fact

Now that picture is just embarrassing

...

Gee I don’t know man, why have a combat loadout for a squad member be 7 magazines when you can have one guy with a magazine each all make up one squad member role, bringing a squad sized element to 63 people? Really is a fucking thinking there.

Brainlet here, where do they keep all the ammo for guns like this? I mean, they go thru like 6000 rounds a minute. Do they just have tens of thousands of bullets loaded up on the Hummer or whatever?

The really shit part of the logistics of the M134 is that fucking electrical cable. Everything else is acceptable or trades off but an electrical cable - whats the one time you're going to need go-fast desperate close in defense - when you ship's been attacked a.k.a. good chance of turned off electricity

modern helicopter gunships sacrifice their ability to carry meaningful cargo in favor of ammo, as much as they can carry

however, the M134 on the black hawk gunship doesnt carry enough ammo for a full minute of firing, even at reduced RPM
they fire in short bursts and conserve ammo when they can

Attached: D0VRGpuWkAANe_d.jpg (2048x1364, 286K)

Attached: DhHYY9zWAAACdt3.jpg (1200x800, 98K)

Attached: DSC_1251.jpg (1920x1200, 1.6M)

Why aren't these more widely deployed.

Attached: GAU-19B not so minigun 2.jpg (4096x2304, 535K)

Attached: IMG_8525.jpg (1920x1200, 1.35M)

You don't even know what the logistics mean in this context, you stupid little spic child. A 7 foot by 4 foot wooden box with a printed label is about the only difference between this and what you want to be done. Get a clue.

Because Gau-21

Attached: 160719-M-ND832-600.jpg (5387x3030, 960K)

>all these right-wingers harping about how they're gonna fight Antifa when the fucking government is a vastly more serious threat

I miss the 90s.

Attached: death to the union.gif.gif (316x180, 3.97M)

Fucking lying faggot. Our M134/ belts are preboxed in 20mm cans so you’re either a liar or an idiot using the wrong NSN for 1500 belts

>Why don't they just tape together 3 guns instead of making a single gun
I want to slap you