64Digits

Vs.

Posted by HeroofTime55 on March 17, 2008, 1:01 a.m.

Any mod who thinks this is not enough content can suck my dick.

My first reply is my [lengthy] theory, read it. It's not appropriate to bias the question at hand with my opinion in the main blog.

Oh, and this refers to just ground soldiers with the appropriate personal firearms of their era, and nothing more.

Josea 16 years, 8 months ago

Do you expect each marine carrying 1000 bullets? Without failing any shot?

Lmao.

PY 16 years, 8 months ago

Haha@josea+fsx.

RetroVortex 16 years, 8 months ago

The british would win because of friendly fire…

Leyenda 16 years, 8 months ago

Quote:

Do you expect each marine carrying 1000 bullets? Without failing any shot?

great question Josea. Let's see:

Caliber: 5.56x45 mm NATO

Weight: 6.4 lb empty, 8.8 lb loaded

Magazine: 30-rounds

So that mean 1000 rounds weigh about 80 pounds (you can do math). Not impossible for soldier to carry that, but it's pretty heavy.

good thinking Josea.

firestormx 16 years, 8 months ago

Quote:

The british would win because of friendly fire…

lmfao, so true.

HeroofTime55 16 years, 8 months ago

Josea: We can assume unlimited ammo. I believe it was stated in the rules.

Leyenda 16 years, 8 months ago

Quote:

Josea: We can assume unlimited ammo. I believe it was stated in the rules.

True, but Josea's point was that ammo has to be carried. It doesn't just appear out of thin air.

So I think Josea's point was a good one.

KaBob799 16 years, 6 months ago

Quote:

True, but Josea's point was that ammo has to be carried. It doesn't just appear out of thin air.

So I think Josea's point was a good one.

well if your that literal there would be no fighting at all cause the entire universe would be filled with bullets.

unlimited ammo means your gun never runs out of bullets not that your carrying an unlimited ammount of bullets.