I recently researched the Bearcat in my research tree.
But I found it very strange that a late-war fighter would use the same armament as the first versions of the Wildcat.
So I did some research and saw that this was wrong.
The Bearcat does not use the .50 M2, but rather the M3.
Source:
Hmm, this could help justify moving the F8F-1 back up where it belongs. Any other source for this?
That’s a secondary source. You need at least two of them.
Wasnt it armed eith M3s loong time ago?
Remembering smth like that
AN 01-85FD-2 1948 maintenance handbook supposedly mentions M2s, which was most likely what was used those years ago to change the M3s to M2s. Now there is a 1950 version of the handbook, which may mention M3s instead, but I have neither to confirm. The flight manual however neatly skips over the exact designation of the .50 cals, very convenient… People have discussed this topic to death in the old forums though, with the general conclusion that M2s were equipped originally but M3s may have been retrofitted.
Another way to solve this problem is to make M3s a modification instead, though I don’t like making the gap between stock and spaded even larger than it already is.
Now that we have two secondary sources, what procedure should we follow to request the modification?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder?from-ts=1711944000&to-ts=1730433599
go here, make a bug report, then explain why it should be added
You’ve already been given a link to the primary source, but you’ve been ignoring it with enviable persistence.
And how can we be sure that only your source is correct?
What if both models were used?
Your source does not make you the owner of the truth.
So you need to find the primary source where it is written. It’s all simple, right?
I didn’t write the book, but did the writers have access to primary sources?
I think it’s worth the debate, but I also think it’s important to use logic.
If M2 and M3 are interchangeable, why wouldn’t anyone try it?
Once the guns were available there was nothing to prevent them form being mounted.
I’m working with logic.
I don’t understand all this work to maintain a 1945 fighter with the same armament as a fighter from early 1941.
Nope.
I think the authors simply confused the M3 machine gun and the M3 cannon.
I have the same question. Why install a machine gun M3 when you can install a 20mm cannon M3.
I’m going to make a response to your first two statements.
It’s just your opinion!
And contrary to your attack, saying that I don’t work with logic. I respect your opinion. But it’s just your opinion
Replacing the M2 with the M3 can be a field modification.
Installing 20mm cannons requires a complete redesign of the wing at the factory.
Don’t be disingenuous. It’s completely reasonable that a late/post war fighter would be upgraded with M3 machine guns, as some other planes were(F-82). The M3 .50 cal had much overlap with both the M2 and 20mm cannons in service with other aircraft. It makes perfect sense that the M3 .50 cal would be selected over the 20mm cannons due to reliability problems, as is what happened many times.
It would be better to have an actual discussion and not be combative for no reason.
Oh! I hope this statement is based on some sources (books, manuals), you couldn’t have just made this up?
You’re turning this thread into a bar fight. I’ve had enough.
When was the F-82 upgraded from M2 to M3? The XP-82 was originally designed for the M3.
