Both, emptying the MGs for a miniscule improvement in performance and removing them outright when the Me410 typically had them.
Per morfiend's post my suggestion near the top of the first page was as historically accurate as we can get in AH.
Karnak the 410 crews removed not only the MG131s but also armor. The only reason they didn't stick with the single seater (it is explicit that #1 motivation in developing this variant is top speed & minimum weight) was because crews were psychologically unable to cope with single-crew flying. The 190A as Krusty said also had an MG131 delete "option" in the field. I think you already know what I'm saying.
I don't understand how you can just categorically see it as being gamey, when the in-game behavior is about as close a mirror of reality as any other in-game behavior ? What's the beef? E.G. The 152 has just so much ammo that I never used - by default I removed all but 125rpg and 60 rounds of 20 and 30mm respectively. Anything more was just dead weight. Literally. I had no use for it. It was enough for 10 kills. Why is that gamey - any more than taking less than full tanks (wasn't that also the historical norm?) or .. Well I can't think of any other examples right now. [edit: anti-reflective surface ahead of cockpit? See what I mean?] It isn't about desperate exploits, but about setting the plane up to fit your intention. Just like everyone does in the first place, when they choose one plane or another, and one submodel or another.
Totally separate philosophies, that one you describe, and this.
And... I did feel the difference, every time, between having and not having that initial extra ammo, as well as between having 60 at start of sortie and 45 later on and definitely not just detectable but significant, demonstrable practical difference when I was down to 20 rounds of 108. Same deal with having just 30mm and no 20mm. Same with fuel... I remember specifically thinking that I could tell how much fuel I had by "blind folding" myself IE guessing how much fuel was left by just maneuvering but not looking at fuel gauge.
These are not insignificant "minuscule" improvements. Every little bit of angle and fraction of a second counts. Admittedly... I think this is only meaningful when you are all the way towards final 10% "mastery" of your fav plane. But... That's what this game is about. Being one with your machine. It might be pixels but the mind-side of the equation is the same whether you have pixels or an actual Mossie or Fw190 in your hands. Same thing with tuning the build and setup for virtual vs real race cars and bikes, etc.
The pleasure of being able to make your fav machine an extension of yourself to the point that these tiny tweaks are so significant is one of the rewards of all these years of stick and rudder practice. I think it's a discredit to our discipline to deny us this choice.
I think that the 410's less than generous flight modeling (handling and IMO issues with the lift over the wings are wrong), it can benefit from removing the 2000 rounds of MG ammo. For half the gunpod loadouts in this game, the MGs were removed to compensate for the weight of the other guns in the bomb bay.
It does benefit, but it's still shaving hair and tail off an elephant... The plane is still far from competitive even for "stall fight the 152 vs almost everything" kind of mind set.
Removing just the 13mm ammo alone saves 180lbs... Not much, right? But that would be over 200+ if you could yank the guns out along with the ammo. Experiences with this plane above 30K while hunting bombers both in the LWA and in scenario use have shown my that, like its historical counterparts, it needs this help.
Yep. Krusty I told you the single seater was a legitimate option historically and for total in-game context and from pure dogfight gameplay perspective. Anyway, that's a separate topic and I'm not gonna throw fuel on that fire.
