Odd. Maybe 650 for the M2 but 750 seems weird.
On the other hand it is a US built Hispano so maybe they just buffed the RoF.
It always confused me how the French Hispano 404 has 700 RPM while the British Mk I and II have only 600, at least in-game.
137lb (62kg) for the M2 is also super chunky :O
I think it has something to do with reduced powder loads and RoF for belt feeding but dont take my word on it
Could be. Instead of feeding the cartridge directly into the gun via drum the belt feed mechanism is actived by the recoil to pull the belt and cartridges into the gun, which takes some energy from action.
Same with propellant. More recoil would increase the RoF and the lighter barrel of the Mk V or AN/M3 naturally results in higher RoF, like the lighter barrel of the aircraft M2 vs the ground based heavy barrel.
But that makes it especially strange that the document lists the 20mm M2 with 750 RPM while the M3 with the substantially shorter and lighter barrel would only do 50 more.
My man angry that his bug report was acknowledged
.50 BMG is known to be able to destroy engine blocks from quite a distance
There’s 0 excuse for 20mm HE to 1-shot wings/tails why .50cals take 20-40 (depending on the plane) to do the same.
That makes perfect sense, 20mm is higher velocity, has more mass, and can hold more explosives…
Also, if depends on if the airframe is under stress or not, if it’s under high stress, even a .50 can make a wing pop or tail brake.
Inb4 he complains a 57mm doesnt do as much as a .50cal
I find the concept of high explosive inside of shells doing more damage offensive.
Not when it took ~12+ on the same wing of most small fighters to take them out.
Yes, yes, it does make sense, learn basic maths and physics and run a calculation then come back.
Oh sorry, I thought you were actually being serious. my bad.
You literally can’t be taken seriously when you think a .50 caliber should deal more damage than a 20mm.
Here’s a size comparison if you think I’m the insane one…
who said it should deal more damage? You?
what I want is for 20mm HE to be realistic in taking ~12 shots to take off a wing piece, scaling with wing size aswell.
I find the concept of 20mm HE shells sharing part damage with 40mm HE shells offensives.
I’m not going to argue with you, I will state this once, and only once, BECAUSE OF THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, YEAH, THE ONES YOU LEARNED IN 8th GRADE, WHEN A OBJECT IS UNDER COMPRESSION OF GRAVITATIONAL AND INTERTIAL FORCE, ANY EXCESS PRESSURE APPLIED CAN CAUSE THE OBJECT TO BREAK IN THIS CASE IT IS A AIRCRAFT FUSELAGE AND WING 20mm HAS MORE FORCE, AND THEREFORE TAKES LESS SHOTS TO WEAKEN THE AIRFRAME TO A BREAKING POINT.
Comprénde?
That’s not even mentioning the fact that modern airframes and technology can withstand.50 caliber fire like it’s just a little peashooter.
Please not another “realistic” change. It was really great when they made the missile navigation/control changes for “realism”.
I will second what @Zyranovos has stated and I have stated the same before. When you are in flight there are quite large forces being put on the wing and fuselage. When an explosion occurs on that wing it will exert large amounts of force on that wing on top of normal operational forces. This becomes worse in a turn.
Keep in mind Warthunder does not try to perfectly emulate reality, and gameplay is more important that historical/real world performance.
Remember realshatter? You seriously want that again? Some cannons, such as MG 151/20 still are inconsistent and just deliver “hit” most of the time anyway.
Even then
20mm rounds are far heavier (more energy transferred to target) and they explode (doing more damage) so current 20mm guns are performing normally, or even underperforming for the most part.
.50’s deserve a buff?
Yeah it needs “buff”.
If their 50cals are really strong irl like this clip, oost Vietnam War jets would have stuck at .50s lmao
Buff ?
.50 cal is already way past its historical pen values