Because clearly singular 20mms should be taking down P-47s and Me 264s.
what does this have to do with the us being tied with the ussr for op under tired props?
It has nothing to do with that cause you can count the number of undertiered U.S. props on one hand.
Maybe if your hand had extra fingers…
7 Likes
Let’s see, P-51H-5 . . . MAYBE F4U-4B.
The only other U.S. props that are too strong for their BR are either outsourced premiums (namely Spitfire, Ki-43, and A6M2) and ranks 2s.
I really don’t think it’s fair to say that planes like F4U-1C and P-39 are undertiered due to how early in the TT they come.
please never imply that the F4U-1C is overpowered ever again
think it might give me permanent brain damage
3 Likes
f8f-1 is a obvious pick lol, p61c, p51c, p47d28 would all be at least .3 br higher in any other tree and that’s off the top of my head
2 Likes
it’s perfectly fine for 4.7, try playing fw190a or ki61s, you’ll be missing the f4u
I meant the 2.7 F4U-1A. The 1C is trash.
Meh, not really. The F8F-1 was super overhyped. They’re very easy to shoot down in a Bf 109 G-2 or Typhoon.
The P-61 is only dangerous cause it faces noobs that don’t know how to fight it.
P-47? Undertiered? 😂
This is the only plane that you can really argue should move up, but it’s literally in 5/10 tech trees. It’s not exactly helping your case that U.S. planes are too powerful, especially overall.
It does damage. it very much does damage and does it very well.
P-51 vs Fw190 D9
P-51C vs Bf109F4, Ju388J.
P-51C vs La-5FN
In each case, the moment my rounds actually hit the enemy - it bursts into flames. It’s not even a long burst - you can see it in the F4 and Ju388 case where my nose is wobbly and I’m just spraying.
This isn’t even the late-war .50s, so it’s not performing to the level of a F4U-4.
1 Like
wow,
another person who doesnt understand API =/= I
they function completely differently in game, I am specifically talking about the M1 and M23 incendiary rounds
1 Like
Why do you insist on using naked incendiary rounds?
API/API-T is able to penetrate and kill the pilot, wreck the engine AND ignite whatever it touches.
.50 cals, as demonstrated in the above examples, performs quite well if you shoot the fuselage. The P-51C has probably the “worst” firepower too, to boot - only 4 guns, no late-war belts.
why do you insist on misinterpreting my point?
because I very clearly was talking about how gaijin should fix the bugged lack of damage for 0.50 cal incendiary rounds
1 Like
Incendiary rounds are just destined to forever underperform.
They only are useful for being able to light things on fire compared to AP but are otherwise useless.
In a belt with API, having AP over Incendiary would be a straight upgrade since API already has the benefits of incendiary while AP can deal additional kinetic damage.
Not to mention how pathetic cannon tracer or practice shells are damage compare to smaller caliber AP rounds.
1 Like
they cant even do that though. their fragment distance is too low
to light a fire the round needs to damage something flammable eg. engine or fuel tank
while 0.50 cal incendiary rounds fragment distance is so low they can only damage the planes skin
Theoretically. In practice I set quite a few planes on fire using 1/3 Incendiary rounds on early .50cal belts.
Including my famous He 111 snipe from 1.2km.
Set his fuel tank on fire and he burnt down.
So they can work but don’t work the way they should.
normal AP still has a fire chance too
and doesnt that get some API?
No, early war only has AP and Incendiary.
Pretty sure AP has no fire chance.
it does
every round has a fire chance, with mults increased for incendiary; heres ball ammo
1 Like
I see.
Probably the reason why default LMG belts are just as good at setting fires as belts with 100% Incendiary.
1 Like