.50's deserve a buff

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
,
888

What did I even claim? Did you gaslight yourself into believing I said things I never did?

I have stated before there are simply parts of the aircraft that won’t break because they aren’t coded to break. The nacelles won’t break off in-game. No matter what gun. You can have a direct hit with a 155mm cannon and it won’t budge. it might bra If you shoot in the upper fuselage that won’t break because it’s not programmed to snap.The inboard wings of any twin engine fighters won’t snap for whatever reason.

Never said the japanese .50s were one-shot kills. You can use this function called the ‘search bar’ in the top right up there and see that for yourself.

You need to print this quote out and tape it to the corner of your monitor so you can remember because this is like the 2nd or third time I had to correct.

Are you sure? Use only 2 U.S. .50s. Dumped on him anyway because he was annoying. Funny how you ignore the P-63 vid as I separate BOTH his wings with a short burst from the jap .50s with the majority of the damage coming from one gun each on each wing.

Please. Show me that U.S. .50s can do that much damage with 1 gun.

You’re forgetting I have good K/Ds on the P-47Ds. But sure go on.
You got good RNG. Congrats your API-T worked for once. They’re just not that good. I can say that you have skill issues with japanese .50s
I dump U.S. .50s into a guy. I have to get lucky with a fire or get a pilot snipe.
I dump Japanese .50s into a guy he either dies or I know his aircraft is severely injured because he’s trying to run away at that point and I can finish him off.

889

The response you quoted was to speclistmain1. Not you. He has provided no evidence or information to the discussion to enforce his claim. You have quite clearly done so. My argument was not with you in that post.

I dont think I ever quoted any of your discussions about the Incendiary rounds, or had made any comments on them. In fact I was confused why so much discussion was going into a round that is only in like two different belts and was only like one in every 6 rounds being fired out of those belts. Meanwhile all the clips I posted were using almost exclusively M20 API-T rounds, which sure weren’t exploding, but were consistently setting fires and have no problems with destroying enemy planes.

I believe I showed you in all of my clips that most of my kills were not from pilot snipes, with me reinforcing MULTIPLE times about how I was literally not having to bother aiming specifically for anything on their plane to kill it with .50 cals, instead just aiming in its general direction and watching it desintegrate.

Again the whole argument comes down to what KillaKiwi summed up 2 weeks ago:

My opinion lies firmly in agreement with the second statement.

2 Likes
890

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

2 Likes
891

The problem is that your videos boil down to "See? It makes a ton of damage! You just have to be sure you have every single round get dumped on target… "

I can argue that the Typhoon Mk1/a would be fine going up in BR with it’s cannon armed variant because if you score the vast majority of your rounds on target, you’re going to rip someone apart no matter the caliber. Guess what? 7.7s can pilot snipe too! Or that the Hurricane mk ii/trop should be 3.0 because it carries 12 guns. Of course this is sarcasm. But this shows my point that if you can get the majority of rounds to hit target a specific point, you’re going to crap damage on people. Just a reminder too. This was a 6 kill game. But as everyone points out. The 7.7s don’t have great damage potential.

892

Congrats you showed the only time .50s can actually be decent. Wowsers Holy moly! A large amount of .50s in a nose configuration all packed tightly in one area! WOW Almost like how I’ve been saying that the only way to get a kill is to have all your rounds smack a concentrated area! Almost like you don’t read what I say!

literally Ignoring what I posted before. Hurt bad doesn’t mean “It kills you instantly.” You literally do not read. It’s MIGHTY convenient that you’re just ignoring what I say then taking highly convenient sentences, piecing them together without context and then proclaiming I’m making the constructed point you made! :D It’s not worth talking to you because you’re making claims I never said. Lying about what I say! It’s almost like you do this on purpose!

893

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

2 Likes
894

Im not sure what your argument is here? That if you hit the target they die, but if you miss they dont?

Sure 7.7s are pathetic, no arguments there. They suck. But a set of 6x M2 brownings that most US planes have, as I have shown, dont need any longer bursts to kill enemies than a set of 20mms do. (Its just what is actually damaged that is different)

Just ignoring all the evidence I spent like 4 days worth of sessions playing, recording, and editing for you here.

895

I’m actually really surprised at the amount of effort you’ve been putting into this argument. Usually the most effort people put in for evidence is showing kill feeds and such, so it’s commendable, and normally you’d think the proof would be enough.

3 Likes
896

“The only time”

I made sure to record mostly sequential kills, pretty much only skipping pilot snipes or other extraordinary situations, like a P-47 that had one of his bombs explode.

Let’s add one more to the pile.

Tu-2 flying straight, I only have 206rds left.

image
image1675×943 137 KB

I then proceed to entirely miss 30 of them.

By the time I ran out (not very long) his entire plane was badly damaged and he had two fires. He did not survive.

image
image1678×942 219 KB

Just six, the same as most US planes. Less than the P-47s you are using and complaining about.

I don’t have the guns mod so accuracy is low. You can achieve the same result with convergence settings.

So just shoot them then? The F-80 is much faster than most of my targets, I have less trigger time than a prop would.

To go back to your previous post:

This is the chinese P-51C. This is a P-63 I only hit with two guns since the rudder sucks and I rolled just in time to both shoot him a little and avoid a crash. This giant ball of fire was caused by just ~10rds, assuming all the shots from the right side guns actually hit.

image
image1677×941 155 KB

Do you think he survived that?

Also… good job falsely reporting my previous post. Really making you look like the one in the right here.

897

Most other country’s machine guns of similar caliber can either kill you quickly or completely cripple you with just a few hits while with U.S. .50s you need to get concentrated bursts on a specific spot lest you do absolutely minimal damage.

Your videos basically just show that. It’s why I made the videos with the Typhoon

You seem to not understand. The point I’m making is that you can construe and say ‘any’ gun in the game is ‘good’ as long as you can get all your rounds to hit target. Why do you think I put obviously sarcastic title names for the videos on the Typhoon I made? I’m basically hyperbolizing how you presented your videos of the .50s. By showcasing that 7.7s are ‘’‘’‘overpowered’‘’’ and any plane with them should move up in BR. Because I ripped planes apart with them because I got a “good burst”

We all know they suck because they don’t do damage on a per-round basis… Something something… U.S. .50s have a similar issue too.

No? They kinda do. Again, per round basis. I will snap wings EASILY with 20mm. I can make snapshots all day and obliterate people with 20mm. .50s I can’t snapshot with unless I hit pilots or RNG blesses me and I get a fire. Japanese .50s I can snapshot with and either outright obliterate or severely cripple them. Everyone gets guns that horrifically damage me in just 1-2 shots, nearly no matter their caliber, while my enemies can feel confident in tanking rounds from me without much loss in flight performance.

I’ll slap a bf-109 with some API-T and he’ll just eat it and I have to go for another pass or he survives and chases me while another friend of his decides to latch onto me and the initial guy isn’t damaged enough to have any real severe loss in performance. while with japanese .50s I will get just a few hits on him and he’s either missing his wing or he’s so damaged that trying to sustain the fight isn’t worth it and he’s out to try and RTB. Meanwhile I only have to deal with his friend.

That’s what your ground RB videos fail to show.

1 Like
898

Difference in 7.7 vs .50 cal -

.50 cal will easily “rake” through most aircraft when shot from a 6 o clock position, nullifying the tail structure and pilot armour.

7.7 will get stopped by pilot armour if it even makes it through the tail section.

Funnily enough, mineshells suffer from a similar issue. I’ve recently had a game where I got up on a Spitfire’s 6 in my Bf109E4, unloaded into the spitfire and rather than get a pilot kill I just shot the rudder off due to lack of penetrating power. With .50s this would be a confirmed kill. With mineshells it turned into an assist.

This isn’t to say mineshells are bad - they ripped the rudder off nicely. However, it does show the importance of a bullet’s capability to penetrate deeply, which 7.7 lack.

.50 cal is a pilot kill from this angle/distance/time on target, mineshell is structure-destruction at this angle/distance/time on target, 7.7 is eaten by the tail.

shot 2025.05.26 21.56.42
shot 2025.05.26 21.56.421920×1080 473 KB

(it fails to penetrate armour entirely)

image
image1920×991 201 KB

(it fuses on skin, it got the kill because the shot also hit the tail and ripped the rudder off, which when the spitfire tried to pull/turn caused it to irrecoverably enter a spin)

image
image1642×781 127 KB

(yes, 1 shot only turns pilot orange but that’s 6 shots being fired at once at pretty high volume, so it’s very high probability of a kill).

1 Like
899

You missed the entire point. It’s not a serious showcase that the 7.7s are overpowered, the titles of the videos should tell you that, they’re sarcastic. It’s not a legitimate point I’m making. It’s to show if you grind multiple guns down on any opponent in a specific spot and get a good burst in, you’ll rip them apart, almost no matter the caliber. So making videos of you grinding people to bits doesn’t actually prove anything because I can achieve similar results with 7.7

We all agree 7.7s are bad but that’s because per round damage sucks.
The point I’m trying to make is that U.S. .50s. per round damage also sucks and other countries with similar calibers can do hand-over-fist levels of damage more with a single round compared to a single U.S. .50

Part of this is due to .50s belts being consistent of mostly AP rounds. while in belts like the universal belt, the only incendiary rounds you get that have filler, don’t actually do much damage. And they barely make up the belt anyway. So you essentially have empty room in the belt because the incendiary rounds don’t do much damage and you don’t get enough of them to do damage with their current damage output

so either… buff the damage output of U.S. incendiary rounds. Or give U.S. a belt that has mostly incendiary. What I don’t understand is that Gaijin does this with the B-239 with AP-T and three incendiaries. Of which it’s basically armed with U.S. .50s. and U.S. M1 Incendiary. Of course M1 incendiary is less effective because it only does damage on the most outboard wings.
So we have evidence of it already in the game. Why not create something similar for the U.S.?

1 Like
900

Fair enough.

I’m all for better belts personally, and not just for .50 cals either. I feel it’d be very beneficial for italian planes, too.

I do want to insist though that not all rounds/planes need to do the same kind of damage to be lethal and effective. .50s are amazing for pilot snipes/engine kills due to their incredible penetrating power while other rounds get fuzed/blocked by armour plating. For my perspective (shooting from angles & distances as in the clip), they are quite effective rounds without much complaint.

901

I agree the U.S. is unique in that it’s their main mechanism of damage because there really isn’t any other option.
My issue is that the U.S.'s guns… Are all in the wings. Which is strange to think about as the .50s would be perfect nose mounted weaponry, but they’re rarely in that config. The AP does exceptional damage to the fuselage whilst at the same time has a high firerate. It’s why planes with mixed wing and nose armaments like the P-63 and A-36 can do insane damage output and seem easier to get kills with. It’s why I’m thankful of my ‘custom convergences’ suggestion being accepted. That way the inboard wings of guns can have a shorter convergence to try and mimic that nose mounted effect.

It’s why I consider for cannons, wing mounted is superior to nose mounted.

I get what you mean. But when you have comparative calibers being able to cause massive loads of damage on the wings they end up just being mini cannons and I look back at the U.S. .50s going "Why can’t they do an inkling of something similar? it’s a case of “If everyone’s guns are stupidly broken. Why aren’t mine?”

If everyone is going to have broken damage output in a singular round. Buff the round to at least do something, or give america a vast majority of it’s round. and I think the better case without changing stats is to let the U.S. just have more incendiary.

1 Like
902

That’s a poor way to ask for a change. Cuz depending of how you word it out, looks like you are just coping as a US main.

Yeah now that’s a better idea. Try to find a solution that is more likely to get Gaijin to listen n be able to change with what they have now.

For example: They probably wouldn’t go out of their way and add TNT equivalency to flash powder since they keep rejecting such reports and treat it as suggestions instead.

But perhaps you could try to address the Incendiary rounds issue / belt composition since no new code/ mechanic is needed.

Still a difficult task tho.

Really sad that some valuable reports are ignored or take forever to be implemented. While abominations like the Klimb Afterburner (the one that butchered the entire Fw190A line thermals) one gets added immediately with no source whatsoever.

1 Like
903

Again, per round basis.

That’s the problem. Per-round is irrelevant, and shouldn’t be what the discussion is centering on, especially if you’re comparing .50s to 20mms. Per-volume, considering higher rate of fire and gun-count, .50s hold their own against German 20mms fairly well damage wise. Now, granted, their damage performance drops off a bit when compared to other 20mms that are more accurate and have better ballistics, but again, .50s should not be on par with 20mms.

Fixing the pure incendiary round is certainly something that should be done, but that’s on the round’s own merit, not to fix a disadvantage that’s supposedly to blame for American teams failing. I’d rather like pure incendiary rounds in general to be fixed, because there’s nothing more crushing that managing to actually hit a shot with an Mk108 just for it to be the incendiary round that hit, and get less damage than with a .50 cal (when the round, do my knowledge, has something around 120-140 grams of thermite).

1 Like
904

Not saying they should be on par with 20mm.

But that the U.S. should at least be comparable in damage output to other country’s 12.7mms

I’ve been pointing out and showing that other country’s 12.7mm machine guns having the capacity to two shot entire wing structures. While U.S. brownings basically do no damage unless you start a fire or you strike the pilot. The reason why below.

Per-round basis does matter as I illustrated in my Typhoon videos and when I emphasized my point to RunaDacino

So getting clipped by a Japanese .50 I’m more than likely going to suffer more damage compared to if I clipped a japanese aircraft with my .50s.

So I posited two options:

Buff U.S. incendiary to have an explosive effect. leave the belts be. That way, even though the vast majority of the Universal belt consists of AP of some kind, those few incendiary rounds will actually do decent damage hit.

Or option 2: Leave the effect alone. Give the U.S. an air-targets belt that consists of mostly incendiary.

Late war could be like: I, I, I, API-T, I
Early war could be: T, I, I, I, AP

The strange thing is, the B-239 actually gets an air-targets belt which consists of mostly M1 Incendiary, which. Not the greatest, still does get the job done and shows that gaijin made a precedent for it.

905

*While with US .50s they do exactly the same thing as my videos and many others videos showed.

Im not sure how many different ways I can explain that you dont need to hit a specific spot. Nor am I sure why you are so focused on wing hits when wings are specific spots too

Yes, I definitely dont understand why you are talking in circles and trying to bring up things you claim are disadvantages that have already been explained, or proven with evidence to not be the case.

20+ kills of evidence showing they dont.

You can do the same with brownings, the damage will just be crippled flight controls, fires, or maybe a pilot snipe and less likely a wing snap

Skill issue

And they suffer from 20mm like ballistics, much worse range, less guns, and significantly worse rounds in the belt that aren’t that HEF round in return for it. Its the airframe thats creating the success more than the guns.

The only time I have had this happen with brownings is when I miss.

And you have to be in a much more advantageous position to do so because Japanese planes are best at getting close and being able to aim. Try Putting 6x Ho-103s on a P-51 and you’ll probably find they perform worse than the Brownings. Heck Id probably perform better with the 4x Brownings on the Ki-44.

Im not sure what they fail to show? Me missing my shots?

Exactly. Per round damage is one small piece of the equation. They discount all the other stats and things that M2 brownings are good at that other .50s lack in return for their improved damage.

If you gave M2 brownings an HEF round (like the Ho-103) they’d immediately become the most broken guns in the game because they are so good in so many other categories already.

I genuinely wish I could put the different guns on different airframes. Its hard to judge objectivelty just gun performance when the airframe is doing a significant part of the work, especially for Ho-103s. The Ki-44s are frankly OP at their BR and the aircraft itself is contributing a huge portion to the idea that the guns are over performing. Since it can cover for the guns shortcomings.

1 Like
906

A good chunk of these can be answered with what I told Runa. Which he seemed to understand but somehow you don’t. Even wolfgang seems confused because he still believes I’m saying .50s should be as strong as 20mm so either he’s not reading or he’s hopping back in after a couple weeks and not catching up.

Funny you’re agreeing with wolfgang when he thinks I’m saying .50s should be on-par with 20mm completely missing my point.

I can screech that 7.7s are OP and that the Typhoon Mk 1/A should go up to 4.0 and the Hurrican Mk/II trop should go to 3.3 because I get my rounds all on target and rip enemies to pieces with ease. But as stated before. We all know 7.7 sucks because per round damage sucks.

U.S. .50 would do better with another belt added that just adds more incendiary without touching any stats.

So I will post it again.

Which is funny because you constantly stay silent on that regard. it’s amazing even with even Runa agreeing with me “Yeah, a better belt would be a better option.”
Especially since gaijin made precedent for it with the B-239.

907

Im agreeing with the fact of comparing on a per round basis to other .50 cals. Not to 20mms. You need to compare the performance of the guns as a whole package, not just the damage instance of a single round type in the belts of each gun.

As I said before, I wish there was some ability to swap guns onto different airframes which would make comparing so much easier, because the Ho-103 is being carried by the Ki-43 and Ki-44 airframes being insanely strong, rather than the gun itself. Especially considering the Ho-103 is the only other .50 cal weapon you are bringing up in the discussion.

Im not discussing it because I have no opinion on it. All of my clips used the tracer belts with exclusively API-T belts, which as I have both shown and argued this entire time, I believe work absolutely fine. I have no opinion on whether M23 is over or under performing in general because I honestly dont see any reason to even use those belts when the API-T belts exist.

Focusing on that single M23 round as I said before somewhere, I thought was weird. Even if it doesnt behave as it “should”, Its not like its the only sub par round type in the game by a long shot, (many 20mm belts are full of dud rounds) and its a minority component in all the belts its a part of anyway. Buffing M23 itself probably wouldnt do much for your complaints of the performance of the guns because of those reasons. But if the buff included the incindeary effect of other shells like the API-T rounds as well, then you immediately have the most OP gun in the game by a significant margin.

2 Likes