Yea that’s probably because you playing with crossplay turned off on console and honestly i cba to look into your replays as you lie all the freakin time as we all know.
clearly, quite alot more than you have.
2hit kill actually if you refer to 2 barreled one.
Not really.
Tell me you are complete noob without saying it.
I do actually prefer the BA action of BR2-3.
It really doesnt take expert of anykind to figure out that BR5 meta is SF inf squad.
You do know the bullets doesnt hit where the MG 131 sights are showing ? especiatly if you angle it.
This is relatively retarded argument.
“Increase my competiveness to match a gun that i cant even compete against”
Meta still is the 9inf with SF.
No matter how butthurt it makes you.
No, I find it quite retarded to pay AAA game price for premium squad.
Sure thing chap, just next time when you suggest something regarding your bot larping experience dont speak about competive in same sentence.
Sure, bro. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
If you think firing two bullets in a single shot counts as ‘more,’ then you’d probably argue that landing one shotgun blast means you hit them dozens of times. 
That’s exactly how ridiculous your logic sounds right now.
Well, obviously not “every” single case is like that. But I was literally talking about a machine gun squad spitting out 2,000 RPM versus an automatic rifle squad…
You claim you’ve played ‘more,’ but did you even get the Stalingrad Pack? Cause I own it. HAHA
Oh, I’m sure you did.
It looks like you’re the one who needs an expert here.
You’re right about this. As far as I know, the MG131’s sight deviates depending on the angle, which makes it awkward to aim at certain angles. But that absolutely doesn’t mean the visibility is bad.
This is a relatively retarded argument. You’re the one who brought up the whole heavy machine gun topic in the first place, and I never once said to buff them. You were the one claiming the M2 is better compared to other nations, so I just gave you some counterexamples. What are you even talking about?
Yeah, yeah~ You’re absolutely right~ 
Wait, you flexed all that experience but you don’t even have a single premium squad?
I’ll admit my phrasing might not have been perfect, but if you’re willing to move past the petty nitpicking and nonsense logic, I’m all ears.
Thanks for the answer. I appreciate your time on this long chat.
Arguments like these kinda proves my point.
It is the differency do you have 50 rounds or 25 rounds.
Which is quite crucial for weapon that is supposed to lay “sustained fire”
Calm down there mr McMon€yCriMinal, you cant really buy skill or knowledge.
Right, sorry. Forgot you have bought a stalingrad pack so your ridiculous “competive LMG” argument is valid.
Comparing M2 to DSHK while they never fight each other.
9 man inf squad that is meta doesnt require a single premium squad.
Id like my time back.
1 Like
The T24 machine gun would lose miserably to the MG-42.The T24 machine gun is already obsolete it needs to be improved.
1 Like
I think the game is more about the journey than the destination. It’s like buying a plane ticket to the top of Mt.Everest and saying you climbed it for real
Yeah except i only play in PC lobbies and dominate over 90% of them. We’ve been through this.
I would bet money that the people spending money on premmy squads already have the time invested in the game with full trees unlocked.
Nice try. You’re delusional if you think there’s not just as many bad PC players as console players. Most of the time it’s PC players at the bottom of the list and it’s mostly PC players costing me the match.
Your Mt. Everest analogy is completely ridiculous and shows you didn’t even read what I wrote.
First of all, I already climbed my ‘Everest’ in real life. I worked hard, sweated, and traded my actual life and energy to earn that money. My money is my effort. Believing that mindlessly clicking a mouse inside a video game is the only ‘righteous labor’ while dismissing real-world hard work is incredibly delusional.
Second, this is about consumer rights, not a shortcut. If I pay real money for a product, I expect it to function properly. If a premium weapon performs worse than a basic starter gun, that is a defective product. Your analogy is like buying a pair of professional climbing boots, getting a pair with broken soles, and having some genius tell you: “Hey, it’s about the journey! Why do you want working boots? Just climb barefoot if you’re real!”
Lastly, buying a gun in Enlisted doesn’t teleport me to victory. I still have to spawn, run, aim, and shoot just like everyone else. I am not skipping the game; I am simply buying the tools to play it with my limited free time.
Stop hiding behind lazy, copied-and-pasted analogies to justify garbage product balance. I value my time, and I value my money. If you want to worship a digital hamster wheel and call it ‘effort,’ go ahead. But don’t lecture me about shortcuts just because I expect a paid product to actually work.
No, it works like advertised… Just because you would prefere it being the “obliterator 9000” does not mean it is a defective product.
If you dont try out the product before you purchase it then it kinda is on you.
First of all, I’d like to apologize for the sarcastic tone I used in some of my replies yesterday. I let myself get frustrated, and that wasn’t productive. So let’s put that aside and stick to the actual discussion.
The problem is that I don’t think you’ve been responding to the argument I actually made.
My position has been the same from the beginning.
The T24 underperforms compared to the other BR5 LMGs. Its excessive dispersion, unnecessarily high recoil, and poor sights all contribute to that. My suggestion has simply been to improve those aspects so the weapon performs more consistently within its own class.
Nothing more.
I never argued that buffing the T24 would replace the 9-man SF meta, make it the best weapon in BR5, or suddenly solve every balance issue in the game.
Those are arguments you introduced, not me.
You also seem to be fixated on the word “competitive.” Honestly, forget that word if you want. Call it performance, consistency, handling, or overall usability. The wording isn’t the point.
If a weapon has lower dispersion, more controllable recoil, and better sights, it will objectively perform better than it did before. That doesn’t automatically make it the strongest weapon in the game, and I never claimed it would.
What I’ve noticed is that the discussion keeps drifting further away from the T24 itself.
We started by talking about the T24.
Then it became about SF squads.
Then premium squads.
Then the entire BR5 infantry meta.
None of those actually answer the original question.
The question has always been whether the T24 is appropriately balanced relative to the other BR5 LMGs.
So I’ll ask you directly.
Do you genuinely believe the T24’s current dispersion, recoil, and sights are appropriate when compared with weapons like the MG 42 Early, the RD-44, or the Type 100 LMG?
If your answer is yes, explain why.
If your answer is no, then we’re already in agreement that the weapon needs adjustments.
Everything else—the SF meta, premium squads, or what ends up being “meta”—is a separate discussion.
Until you explain why the T24’s current dispersion, recoil, and sights are appropriate relative to the other BR5 LMGs, I don’t think we’re actually discussing the same question.
I think we’re talking about two different things.
You’re saying the weapon functions as advertised, and I don’t disagree with that. Looking back, calling it a “defective product” wasn’t the best choice of words on my part.
What I’m actually criticizing is its balance relative to the other BR5 LMGs.
I’m not asking for an “Obliterator 9000,” and I’ve never argued that the T24 should become the strongest weapon in the game.
My point has always been much simpler.
Compared to the other BR5 LMGs, I think the T24’s dispersion is a little higher than it needs to be, its recoil could be toned down slightly, and its sights could use some refinement. Those small adjustments would simply help it perform more consistently alongside the other BR5 LMGs.
As for the testing range, yes, it exists, and I’ve used it.
The problem is that it only lets you test the weapon in its basic configuration. It doesn’t allow you to evaluate how it performs with the perk setup you’ll actually use in real matches, and perks have a noticeable impact on recoil and overall weapon handling.
So while the testing range is useful for getting a general impression, I don’t think it’s enough to fully judge how a squad will perform in actual gameplay.
That’s why I don’t think “just test it before buying” really addresses the point I’m making.
The discussion isn’t about whether the T24 works.
It’s about whether its current dispersion, recoil, and sights are appropriate when compared with the other BR5 LMGs.
buff it for all I care
None of the LMG’s are competive in any manner at BR5.
Just to make sure some poor chap wont buy a LMG squad for BR5 and expect to be able compete with current meta.
Dispersion is same for both guns.
T24 has slightly worse recoil and twice the ammo.
Again doesnt exactly fight against T24 so entirely irrelevant
This one has notably more recoil & better dispersion.
Same dispersion as MG42 early which is premium & as trade off for less rof you get twice the ammo.
Sounds relatively fair.
What I disagree with is how those trade-offs are currently distributed.
The comparison seems to stop at “50 rounds with a higher rate of fire versus 100 rounds with a lower rate of fire,” but I don’t think that’s enough to determine whether the weapon is well balanced.
The MG42 Early is a BR4 weapon, while the T24 is expected to perform at BR5. Looking only at magazine capacity and rate of fire doesn’t tell the whole story.
Recoil, sight picture, controllability, and dispersion all play an important role in how an LMG actually performs.
The T24’s lower rate of fire is historically accurate, and I don’t think changing that would be the right approach.
Instead, it makes more sense to refine the parts that can actually be balanced.
Whether that’s slightly reducing recoil, improving the sight picture, adjusting dispersion, or making small improvements to a combination of those aspects, I think those would be far more appropriate than altering its historical characteristics.
I’m not attached to dispersion specifically. It was simply one possible way to improve the weapon while preserving its historical identity.
As for the RD-44, I understand that it isn’t a direct counterpart to the T24. I only mentioned it as a point of reference rather than suggesting every BR5 LMG should be identical.
The Type 100 LMG is another good example. It has heavy recoil, but it also has an exceptionally open sight picture, an extremely high cyclic rate of around 2,000 rounds per minute, and its two-round firing mechanic effectively allows it to fire 200 projectiles from a 100-round magazine. Aside from the Stinger, it’s in a class of its own among LMGs.
That doesn’t mean I want the T24 to become a Type 100. My point is simply that BR5 machine guns don’t all have to be balanced through the exact same formula. Different weapons can justify their place through different strengths.
That’s why I don’t think looking only at magazine capacity and rate of fire is enough to conclude that the current trade-off is already balanced.
If the T24 keeps its historically accurate rate of fire, then I believe it would make sense to refine the aspects that can actually be balanced—such as recoil, the sight picture, or dispersion—so that the weapon’s overall trade-offs feel more complete.
You are actually brain damaged if you really think that PC players are as bad as console players(Ofc, this doesn’t mean that we don’t have PC players who barely plays better than bots but on average this is much, much more prevalent with console players). You do heard of the stories where players actually quit the match when there’s too many console players in their team? Don’t tell me you haven’t heard of this. Also There’s a reason that why console players turning off the crossplay when they want an easy games, as well as the game literally gives more advanatages for console players with literally having less recoil for guns and i wonder why is that?
Also i haven’t had any encounters with console players actually good at game during my entire Enlisted playtime and that’s been many years now.
How about quit your delusional lying and get real for once?
Quite sure the mag size is exactly the reason why Mg42 is at BR4 rather than 5.
Same as MG42
Well as stated before I dont have nor will ever have T24 so judging from videos of it the sights arent exactly bad.
Id guess they are the same due to recoil being near identical.
Which is same as Mg42
Which is the point.
Doesnt make any sense to compare 2 guns to each other if they never fight each other.
Its like asking double barrel for MG42 just because JP has one.
Not exactly sure what is the benefit of excessively high cyclic rate
It shows 100 rounds, not 200.
So whats the problem here ?
It is but it shouldn’t be like that. Enlisted devs freaks out when the gun has 100 rnds mag/belt and automatically puts them on BR 5 no matter how shit it is. Browning 1919A6, Maxim-Tokarev, T24, Browning 1919A4(This one along with Browning .303 are BR 4 but due to it’s prone/mounted only firing mechanic i wouldn’t even use this crap on BR 2) all borderline unusable yet it’s on BR 5 because of this stupid “muh 100 rnds belt/magazine duhhhh” reason.
It is actually that bad tho.
I have T24 and T24 is actually far more difficult to control it with low RoF than MG-42 when you actually firing it. This is the same reason that why some guns with high RoF despite having worse recoil than low RoF ones feels much more controllable in some cases.
Still dont see them as that bad.
Doesnt make any sense since the Mg42 has higher visual recoil.
Didn’t you already say so yourself?
In fact, looking at the actual in-game stats, the T24 has higher recoil values than the MG42 Early, the MG45, and the standard tech-tree MG42s.
If you have not used the weapon yourself, it can be difficult to accurately judge the sight picture from videos alone. While it may look fine in a static preview, the problem arises during actual firing, where the combination of recoil and screen shake causes the thick front sight post to completely block the target.
While you mentioned that this is the exact point, I believe the analogy that “asking for a double barrel just because Japan has one” is not quite appropriate for this discussion.
I am not entirely sure if you are being serious with this point.
To explain once again, the Type 100 heavy machine gun fires two rounds simultaneously per shot, similar to how a shotgun works. It discharges two bullets at a time, but instead of small shotgun pellets, these are standard machine gun rounds because the weapon has two barrels. That is why I referred to it as effectively having the output of 200 rounds.
If the sole reason for the T24’s existence is to be left neglected as a useless weapon, then there would be no problem, but I do not believe that is the case.