[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by panzer1b

and as for the italian mgs, i think they are the middle ground. they used to be terrible in 4.09 days (had white tracers and did less damage then a single 30cal would) but now at least have attained my respect as they have shot up plenty of enemies when i ran out of the generous suppply of 20mm in the mc205. Now the weakest i consider to be either the japanese 50cal equivalent and the mg131s. the jap variety has neither much firepower nor great accuracy, and the german ones have just as bad firepower with only teh accuracy being the strongpoint. 50cals are respectable as they are almost always in groups of 4+ giving quantity over quality. UBs are imo the best firepower wise but greatly limited by ammunition capacity. they are great but out of all the HMGs run out the fastest.

I don't think the SAFATs had anything changed besides tracer colour.
And the Japanese .50 cal equivalent is a .50 cal IIRC.

Originally Posted by panzer1b

i know the russian guns realistically had low ammo but if there is a source that says they had more, heck even 50 rounds more id gladly appreciate the additional staying potential for the russian planes

Absolutely

Originally Posted by panzer1b

now one interesting thing id like to know is why most russian planes had so few shells? was it a decision based on practice that few pilots would statistically expend so much ammo before either being shot down or returning to base?

I think it was done to save weight. Russian fighters were designed to be exceptionally light because early/mid war no real high power aviation engines were available and to get a similar performance (power to weight) to contemporaries they hd to be lighter. Contrary to other nations Russia never faced masses of tough four engine bombers or had the need to escort those far into Indian country - so the need to build heavier, longer range fighters with heavier armament never arose.