M-114A2

[Alpha13]

A2's had the 20mm, M114's and A1's had a .50cal in the cupola.

Crew compartment

All photos are the property of the poster Alpha13, from my personal collection, none are scans from books or from the Internet or else where. They are shown for the purpose for hobbyists and fans of tactical vehicles. Using them for financial gain by others is prohibited. Thanks

Edited April 18, 2010 by Alpha13

[Fishwelding]

Awesome. Don't get to see that vehicle too often. Has one ever made it into scale plastic at all? Looks like MERDC or maybe some sort of pre-MERDC scheme.

[Pete]

Awesome. Don't get to see that vehicle too often. Has one ever made it into scale plastic at all? Looks like MERDC or maybe some sort of pre-MERDC scheme.

It's the MASSTER (Modern Army Sensor Systems Test, Evaluation and Review) scheme. This was used for a few years only in the mid to late 70's, prior to the MERDC scheme. There's an article here at a German site, it's in German, obviously, but it does list the FS codes for it: MASSTER.

It's a very useful site for all sorts of camouflage and patterns. Here's a link the the camouflage overview of different nations, schemes and vehicles: Panzerbaer camouflage schemes

[Jambo]

Great picture of the MASSTER camo!!

Have you more from the M114 in MASSTER (USAREUR) camouflage pattern?

I try to make a camouflage drawing for this tank with those colours like this M113 tank in MASSTER http://panzerbaer.de/colours/a_relaunch/us..._apc_m113-a.htm

[jeffryfontaine]

Awesome. Don't get to see that vehicle too often. Has one ever made it into scale plastic at all? Looks like MERDC or maybe some sort of pre-MERDC scheme.

Accurate Armour offers two versions of the M114 in 1/35th scale

M114 (K030V)

M114A1/A1E1 (K030E)

I have the M114A1/M114A1E1 kit in protective custody. The kit provides the .50 Browning M2 HB and the M139 20mm (Hispano-Suiza HS-820) cannon for the powered turret. I thought it was a bit odd that Accurate Armour included a pair of M16A2 rifles with this kit. If I am not mistaken, the M114 was out of the inventory and standing duty as a range target by the time the M16A2 was issued for troop use. Otherwise this is an incredible kit with a complete interior if you can afford it.

RoCo MiniTanks 1/87th scale M114 Command & Reconnaissance Carrier

This kit included the 20mm and .50 Browning HB for the powered turret used with the M114A1

I thought the M114 was a neat little vehicle but it did have one fault with that huge tank of gasoline sitting right in front of the driver on the left side of the vehicle. Any hit on that quarter would be quite horrible for the crew.

Edited February 23, 2011 by jeffryfontaine

[Alpha13]

Accurate Armour offers two versions of the M114 in 1/35th scale

M114 (K030V)

M114A1/A1E1 (K030E)

I have the M114A1/M114A1E1 kit in protective custody. The kit provides the .50 Browning M2 HB and the M139 20mm (Hispano-Suiza HS-820) cannon for the powered turret. I thought it was a bit odd that Accurate Armour included a pair of M16A2 rifles with this kit. If I am not mistaken, the M114 was out of the inventory and standing duty as a range target by the time the M16A2 was issued for troop use. Otherwise this is an incredible kit with a complete interior if you can afford it.

RoCo MiniTanks 1/87th scale M114 Command & Reconnaissance Carrier

This kit included the 20mm and .50 Browning HB for the powered turret used with the M114A1

I thought the M114 was a neat little vehicle but it did have one fault with that huge tank of gasoline sitting right in front of the driver on the left side of the vehicle. Any hit on that quarter would be quite horrible for the crew.

The real vehicle had a lot of problems, the engine was under powered, the transmission would mysteriously downshift from drive to low on its own, the rubber band tracks had to be watched because they would lose track tension and being thrown and causing injury or death to the TC from the vehicles uncontrollable spinning and often times flipping, the interior was too small to even accommodate the ammunition and other needed equipment and the front hull overhung the drive sprocket causing the vehicle to get stuck in a ditch if it went in nose first. Toward the end of it's career most were towed to maneuvers by M-113's, which ended up replacing it.

They disappeared practically overnight from the US Army inventory.

[Fishwelding]

Did I read somewhere that they were armored with steel, versus the -113's aluminum?

Eh, no. Wikipedia says the -114 was also aluminum.

Edited February 24, 2011 by Fishwelding

[Alpha13]

Did I read somewhere that they were armored with steel, versus the -113's aluminum?

No, they were made from the same material as M-113's, a "special treated aluminum armor", we had our doubts about the "armor" part of it. Ball peen hammers would put dents in it. 7.62 armor piercing would go through one side and a .50 cal would go through both sides and keep going.

I still have the Technical Manual (TM 9-2300-257-10) for the M-113A1 and its sister vehicles. Out of the manual the description of the hull is as follows, "The hulls are constructed of aluminum armor plate reinforced with internal framing. Plate thicknesses vary on the different planes of the hull to meet ballistic requirements."

The M-114 lingo was the same.

Edited February 24, 2011 by Alpha13

[Fishwelding]

No, they were made from the same material as M-113's, a "special treated aluminum armor", we had our doubts about the "armor" part of it. Ball peen hammers would put dents in it. 7.62 armor piercing would go through one side and a .50 cal would go through both sides and keep going.

I still have the Technical Manual (TM 9-2300-257-10) for the M-113A1 and its sister vehicles. Out of the manual the description of the hull is as follows, "The hulls are constructed of aluminum armor plate reinforced with internal framing. Plate thicknesses vary on the different planes of the hull to meet ballistic requirements."

The M-114 lingo was the same.

Wow. Rifle rounds. I'd heard that they were notoriously "thin-skinned," but I didn't know it was that bad. Essentially, then, they were just protecting against fragmentation, instead of direct fire. Considering that artillery was the big killer earlier in the century, it stands to reason. I'd read where aluminum's low melting temperature made things kinda scary, too, although I don't know how this practically worked out for M113s struck by shaped charges in combat.

APCs are awkward that way. They simply never have enough protection, unless they're built heavy as a tank, which then adds all sorts of mobility and cost problems. The old M2/3 halftrack series proved shockingly fragile, and as said previously, I heard bad things about the early-generation Bradleys. I don't know about the current crop, or strykers. But with strykers, I confess a skepticism about wheeled combat vehicles generally.

[Alpha13]

Wow. Rifle rounds. I'd heard that they were notoriously "thin-skinned," but I didn't know it was that bad. Essentially, then, they were just protecting against fragmentation, instead of direct fire. Considering that artillery was the big killer earlier in the century, it stands to reason. I'd read where aluminum's low melting temperature made things kinda scary, too, although I don't know how this practically worked out for M113s struck by shaped charges in combat.

APCs are awkward that way. They simply never have enough protection, unless they're built heavy as a tank, which then adds all sorts of mobility and cost problems. The old M2/3 halftrack series proved shockingly fragile, and as said previously, I heard bad things about the early-generation Bradleys. I don't know about the current crop, or strykers. But with strykers, I confess a skepticism about wheeled combat vehicles generally.

The purpose of the APC was to take the infantrymen from point A to point B and to protect him from fragmentation from grenades and/or artillery. The APC was never meant to protect itself or anyone in it from tank rounds, RPG rounds, artillery or bombs or armor piercing rifle or machinegun rounds.

All the US tracked vehicles (minus M-48, M-60 series tanks) during that period were made with the special treated aluminum armor. The Bradley is made of the same material. Strykers are more than likely also made of the same material, I'm not really familiar with them and also feel wheeled combat vehicles are doubtful for that purpose. A lot of it is and was feel good propaganda to make the soldier feel safe.

Edited February 24, 2011 by Alpha13

[Bun E. Carlos]

A guy.......whose name shall remain nameless.............had one in NW Indiana. If a few of you remember, it was on outdoor display at the Will-Cook Show in the 90's.............drove it once too............cool, but REALLY uncomfortable.

[Alpha13]

Here is the ONLY one of these things I've ever seen. In fact, I had no clue what it was till I posted pics with the hopes of it being identified. I'm also fairly sure the tracks are identical to those used on the Marine Corps M50A1 Ontos.

The Ontos had different track, it was wider and the track guides rode on the outside of the roadwheels, the M-114's track guides rode in the center of the roadwheel.

[Fishwelding]

That round hatch on the back is a hoot. It makes the thing look like a rolling bank-vault.

[Alpha13]

That round hatch on the back is a hoot. It makes the thing look like a rolling bank-vault.

You could take it off and have a card game.

[Jambo]

You could take it off and have a card game.

Great picture of the MASSTER camo!!

Have you more from the M114 in MASSTER (USAREUR) camouflage pattern?

I try to make a camouflage drawing for this tank with those colours like this M113 tank in MASSTER http://panzerbaer.de/colours/a_relaunch/us..._apc_m113-a.htm

[Ranger74]

Quote "The real vehicle had a lot of problems, the engine was under powered, the transmission would mysteriously downshift from drive to low on its own, the rubber band tracks had to be watched because they would lose track tension and being thrown and causing injury or death to the TC from the vehicles uncontrollable spinning and often times flipping, the interior was too small to even accommodate the ammunition and other needed equipment and the front hull overhung the drive sprocket causing the vehicle to get stuck in a ditch if it went in nose first. Toward the end of it's career most were towed to maneuvers by M-113's, which ended up replacing it."

I concur with all of the above. Luckily my only experience was in my basic course at Ft. Knox. Another problem was the very low ground clearance, we had trouble trying to follow the ruts made by tanks along the trails. But the heater kicked butt!

From the bumper markings those vehicles belonged to a scout platoon.

Jeff

[ChesshireCat]

The real vehicle had a lot of problems, the engine was under powered, the transmission would mysteriously downshift from drive to low on its own, the rubber band tracks had to be watched because they would lose track tension and being thrown and causing injury or death to the TC from the vehicles uncontrollable spinning and often times flipping, the interior was too small to even accommodate the ammunition and other needed equipment and the front hull overhung the drive sprocket causing the vehicle to get stuck in a ditch if it went in nose first. Toward the end of it's career most were towed to maneuvers by M-113's, which ended up replacing it.

They disappeared practically overnight from the US Army inventory.

the transmission was the basic TX1000, and was pretty much a copy of the Turbo Hydro 400 transmission but beefed up internally to carry the added weight. The down shift problem was mechanical, and would be attributed to the track mechanics not adujusting the kick down link correctly. The Gasoline engine was a TACOM spec right down to the torque curve and horse power. The original design had a much smaller Detroit 6-53 deisel and an Allison AT540 series gear box as well as a bigger gasoline engine. None were used. The real problem with the M114 was lack of armor and a gas engine that was part of Tacom / GAO cost cutting. This is the same exact problem that the Sheridan had. The GAO will screw anything up to save a dime. Incedently the early M113's used that same gear box, but with a bigger engine, and had no drive trane problems. When they adopted the deisel they made a gear box change as well, and then down the road adopted another gearbox (X200) that is very similar in design to the X1100 in the M1 tank.

gary

Edited November 12, 2011 by ChesshireCat