It is my understanding that there are international treaties that forbid using anti-aircraft guns against infantry troops.  I can't easily verify this one way or the other, but I heard about this several times while I was in the military.  Supposedly this ban even extended to the .50 cal, but it's use was justified by claiming that we were targeting the soldier's equipment and not the soldier himself.  Of course this logic would render any restriction against using anti-aircraft cannon against troops absolutely worthless.  I do know that this supposed restriction goes back to at least WWII, because I remember Audie Murphy mentioning the Germans using flak cannons against American ground troops in his book To Hell and Back.  Anyway, that could be another reason why the US has never fielded the Vulcan for use against enemy ground troops. 

Anyone care to wager then as to whether or not (most likely did) the various 20mm, 25mm, 40mm, and 105mm guns of Specter gunships were ever used specifically against personnel rather than specifically at equipment in any given mission ?

 

Or the fact that US combat aircraft armed with 20mm Vulcans (and GAU-8 30mm Avengers) have been called upon to strafe enemy personnel in both Iraq and Afghanistan ?

 

Does it count differently because these guns are aircraft mounts and not ground-based systems ?

 

For that matter, the Germans using Flak against troops: the 88 was used also as an artillery piece as it was an AA and AT weapon.

And certainly there have been more than one occasion where a German unit turned its 3.7cm and 2cm Flak mounts against open infantry.

I vaguely recall reading of an Allied WW2 incident where one of those Shermans modified to carry a turret mounting four 20mm guns (Skink?) was called upon to "hose down" a building containing Germans where 50-cal was just proving too ineffective. How would that be any different than erasing a structure and all the people in it with a sustained burst of Vulcan or Avenger fire ?

Isn't the end effect pretty much the same objective: to silence the enemy threat ?

 

If we can't shoot troops with even 50-cal class weaponry, god forbid we've been doing it indirectly with artillery since before WW1.

 

...or doesn't that count ?

 

Seriously, what's the difference between slicing an adversary apart with a 12.7mm HMG vs using airbursting 155s, or 500 pound bombs, various mortar rounds, etc ?

 

If lighting up humans with 20mm is so cruel, why do we then turn a blind eye when we bring out the really big guns and bombs to pretty much do the same thing, just on a grander scale ?

Why would any soldier want a gatling gun to sling around when he has a choice of a variety of machine guns which are lighter and more compact and easier to lug through harsh terrain? Every gatling gun Ive ever seen looks like it weighs in at a ton or more. As far as fire power is concerned Ive never heard a soldier accuse the M-60 or SAW of lacking in fire power.