Gentlemen-
was the M101 used in the Korean conflict significantly different from the M1A2 used in WWII?
... or more specifically can the Dragon M2A1 (M101) be used to depict a scene in the Korean War?
Looking forward to your reply.
Cheers,
Guido
Hosted by Darren Baker
M1A2 (M101) question
Tailor
Joined: May 26, 2008
KitMaker: 1,168 posts
Armorama: 256 posts
Posted: Monday, January 17, 2011 - 07:26 PM UTC
ColonelKFChicken
Joined: December 02, 2010
KitMaker: 30 posts
Armorama: 24 posts
Posted: Thursday, February 17, 2011 - 10:55 AM UTC
In My professional oppinion they are the same gun. at 1/35 scale there are no noticable differences. throughout WW2 it was known as the M2 (or vairaitions A1 or A2) whereas the M1 was a 155mm howitzer and the pack howitzer 75mm as the M1A1.(used alot in the pacific)
In 1962 the artillery designation system was changed and the 105mm M2A1 howitzer became the M101A1. It continued to see service in the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Though a similar model, the M102 howitzer, shared the same roles in battle, it never fully replaced the M101. Today the 101A1 has been retired by the U.S. military, though it continues to see service with many other countries.
To put it bluntly I still need to look at the casting stamp on the inside of the gun by the wheel to know whether I am looking at a M2A1, M101A1 Or M101A2. even in life size, also I have just built an Italeri M101 and it looks exactly the same as your kit.
Hope this helps
In 1962 the artillery designation system was changed and the 105mm M2A1 howitzer became the M101A1. It continued to see service in the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Though a similar model, the M102 howitzer, shared the same roles in battle, it never fully replaced the M101. Today the 101A1 has been retired by the U.S. military, though it continues to see service with many other countries.
To put it bluntly I still need to look at the casting stamp on the inside of the gun by the wheel to know whether I am looking at a M2A1, M101A1 Or M101A2. even in life size, also I have just built an Italeri M101 and it looks exactly the same as your kit.
Hope this helps
Thatguy
Joined: November 09, 2008
KitMaker: 487 posts
Armorama: 451 posts
Posted: Thursday, February 17, 2011 - 11:38 AM UTC
While some people disagree with me because of how the manuals were worded, it is my opinion that prior to 1962 shift, there was no designation for the complete system. I believe that at the time, the definition for the federal approved item name "howitzer" changed to that of the complete system, and what it used to refer to, the weapon itself, less recoil mechanism, carriage, and mount, became designated as a "cannon."
I base this on the fact that the post-1962 cannon designations match up to what was previously referred to as howitzer, and in all the pre-1962 manuals, the weapons are always described as howitzer x on carriage/mount y (and sometimes with the separately designated recoil mechanism noted separately).
For instance, the M114 howitzer is the designation for the M1 cannon with M6 series recoil mechanism on the M1A1 carriage. I would imagine that the M101 howitzer uses the M2 105mm cannon.
There is also the historical example of what happened to designations for tank transporters after World War II, if in reverse. During World War II the tractor and trailer combination specifically for this role was designated as a single entity, as a tank transporter. This was changed after World War II, to two designations, one for the tractor and one for the trailer, neither of which specifically noted the intended role.
I base this on the fact that the post-1962 cannon designations match up to what was previously referred to as howitzer, and in all the pre-1962 manuals, the weapons are always described as howitzer x on carriage/mount y (and sometimes with the separately designated recoil mechanism noted separately).
For instance, the M114 howitzer is the designation for the M1 cannon with M6 series recoil mechanism on the M1A1 carriage. I would imagine that the M101 howitzer uses the M2 105mm cannon.
There is also the historical example of what happened to designations for tank transporters after World War II, if in reverse. During World War II the tractor and trailer combination specifically for this role was designated as a single entity, as a tank transporter. This was changed after World War II, to two designations, one for the tractor and one for the trailer, neither of which specifically noted the intended role.
ColonelKFChicken
Joined: December 02, 2010
KitMaker: 30 posts
Armorama: 24 posts
Posted: Thursday, February 17, 2011 - 01:29 PM UTC
http://www.usarmymodels.com/MANUFACTURERS/DML/dml6499.html
This might Help. I put the buttterfly shield on mine as its "vietnam" era. ie post 1962. however Korea predates this... look for books on Korea specifically. Im having probs with the paint scheme on mine as some are painted Olive Drab others a light faded green some a darker "forest" green and some later models ie Canadian C3 a Camo scheme.
best of luck with yours though .
Google images isnt as helpful as I hoped
This might Help. I put the buttterfly shield on mine as its "vietnam" era. ie post 1962. however Korea predates this... look for books on Korea specifically. Im having probs with the paint scheme on mine as some are painted Olive Drab others a light faded green some a darker "forest" green and some later models ie Canadian C3 a Camo scheme.
best of luck with yours though .
Google images isnt as helpful as I hoped
redleg12
Joined: March 11, 2007
KitMaker: 872 posts
Armorama: 831 posts
Posted: Thursday, February 17, 2011 - 01:48 PM UTC
As previously eluded to, the main difference is the shield with the later M101 having the butterfly sheild.
I am not sure is the repop on the Dragon kit for the USMC has the newer type shield. It appears the new AFV kit is the older style for WWII.
Rounds Complete!!
I am not sure is the repop on the Dragon kit for the USMC has the newer type shield. It appears the new AFV kit is the older style for WWII.
Rounds Complete!!
Frenchy
Joined: December 02, 2002
KitMaker: 12,719 posts
Armorama: 12,507 posts
Posted: Thursday, February 17, 2011 - 07:21 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I am not sure is the repop on the Dragon kit for the USMC has the newer type shield.
I guess it's in the box
https://armorama.kitmaker.net/news/8261
Frenchy
redleg12
Joined: March 11, 2007
KitMaker: 872 posts
Armorama: 831 posts
Posted: Thursday, February 17, 2011 - 11:19 PM UTC
Yep....looks like the later sheild.....it is most likely in the box for the first kit, just not used...Thanks Frenchy
Rounds Complete!!
Rounds Complete!!
Tailor
Joined: May 26, 2008
KitMaker: 1,168 posts
Armorama: 256 posts
Posted: Friday, February 18, 2011 - 02:50 AM UTC
Thank you for the input gentlemen!
Looks like I am going to have to find me some reference of an actual gun in Korea and follow suit. I have found a couple of pics on the net when searching for the M101 that show guns with no shields whatsoever, but these seem to be of Vietnam War vintage mostly.
My plan was to model a gun for the Korea War campaign, but I guess I'll go back to my original plan and build an aircraft carrier instead
Thanks again, guys!
Guido
Looks like I am going to have to find me some reference of an actual gun in Korea and follow suit. I have found a couple of pics on the net when searching for the M101 that show guns with no shields whatsoever, but these seem to be of Vietnam War vintage mostly.
My plan was to model a gun for the Korea War campaign, but I guess I'll go back to my original plan and build an aircraft carrier instead
Thanks again, guys!
Guido
Frenchy
Joined: December 02, 2002
KitMaker: 12,719 posts
Armorama: 12,507 posts
Posted: Friday, February 18, 2011 - 03:13 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Looks like I am going to have to find me some reference of an actual gun in Korea and follow suit.
Here are some
HTH
Frenchy
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Friday, February 18, 2011 - 05:34 AM UTC
Quoted Text
In My professional oppinion they are the same gun. at 1/35 scale there are no noticable differences. throughout WW2 it was known as the M2 (or vairaitions A1 or A2) whereas the M1 was a 155mm howitzer and the pack howitzer 75mm as the M1A1.(used alot in the pacific)
In 1962 the artillery designation system was changed and the 105mm M2A1 howitzer became the M101A1. It continued to see service in the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Though a similar model, the M102 howitzer, shared the same roles in battle, it never fully replaced the M101. Today the 101A1 has been retired by the U.S. military, though it continues to see service with many other countries.
To put it bluntly I still need to look at the casting stamp on the inside of the gun by the wheel to know whether I am looking at a M2A1, M101A1 Or M101A2. even in life size, also I have just built an Italeri M101 and it looks exactly the same as your kit.
Hope this helps
a few days ago I watched some film footage from the PTO and some more from the Korean War. All were using 105 howitzers, and were similar to the ones I trained in 1967 (but not exactly). The WWII and Korean howitzers looked to be the same. One thing I picked up on was the use of a protractor on the breech top to set the quadrant. Perhaps a double check? I don't know as I never saw one in use during my short 105 career. I also noticed that those howitzers didn't have the same sights (I know the wording is wrong), and lacked the device on the AG's side. When I was in a combat unit I used to pull guard in a bunker that over looked a 105 unit (100 yards away). It was 1st /14th from the 198th LIF. They never used a level as well, and had the device on the AG's side of the breech. To take this protractor (level) thing further, I never saw one in use on anything except the movies
gary
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Friday, February 18, 2011 - 05:39 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextLooks like I am going to have to find me some reference of an actual gun in Korea and follow suit.
Here are some
HTH
Frenchy
please notice the the howitzers in the first two photos have the second sighting device on the AG's side while the others don't seem to. Love the photo with the loader holding the spent case yelling "bore clear!" Also note the leather glove on his right hand. Pushing that round into the breech with a bare fist will make your knuckles raw pretty quick!
gary
mcevoyi
Joined: October 26, 2007
KitMaker: 198 posts
Armorama: 180 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 07, 2011 - 08:51 PM UTC
hi all
sorry to jump in.. but is there any chance any one has any drawings of the m101 as i would like to scratch build in 1/6 scale for my figures !
can any one help ?
thanks iain
sorry to jump in.. but is there any chance any one has any drawings of the m101 as i would like to scratch build in 1/6 scale for my figures !
can any one help ?
thanks iain
18Bravo
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 07, 2011 - 11:10 PM UTC
Quoted Text
One thing I picked up on was the use of a protractor on the breech top to set the quadrant. Perhaps a double check? I don't know as I never saw one in use during my short 105 career. I also noticed that those howitzers didn't have the same sights (I know the wording is wrong), and lacked the device on the AG's side. When I was in a combat unit I used to pull guard in a bunker that over looked a 105 unit (100 yards away). It was 1st /14th from the 198th LIF. They never used a level as well, and had the device on the AG's side of the breech. To take this protractor (level) thing further, I never saw one in use on anything except the movies
gary
That "protractor" is the gunner's quadrant, and is frequently used by the gunner to verify quadrant elevation. In another thread recently I mentioned how it is quicker than the gunner having to get back on the sight. You may never have seen it being used, I'm quite certain it was, as every gun has one. And while I haven't been in any movies lately, I have used it on the M102, M198, and in various versions of the M109.
Frenchy
Joined: December 02, 2002
KitMaker: 12,719 posts
Armorama: 12,507 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 07, 2011 - 11:26 PM UTC
Quoted Text
is there any chance any one has any drawings of the m101 as i would like to scratch build in 1/6 scale for my figures !
Hi
I can send you the Technical Manual TM 9-1015-203-12 for the M101A1 (1993) if you're interested...
HTH
Frenchy
retiredyank
Joined: June 29, 2009
KitMaker: 11,610 posts
Armorama: 7,843 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 07, 2011 - 11:27 PM UTC
It shouldn't be too hard of a conversion between the M1A2 and the M2A1.
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 08, 2011 - 07:47 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextOne thing I picked up on was the use of a protractor on the breech top to set the quadrant. Perhaps a double check? I don't know as I never saw one in use during my short 105 career. I also noticed that those howitzers didn't have the same sights (I know the wording is wrong), and lacked the device on the AG's side. When I was in a combat unit I used to pull guard in a bunker that over looked a 105 unit (100 yards away). It was 1st /14th from the 198th LIF. They never used a level as well, and had the device on the AG's side of the breech. To take this protractor (level) thing further, I never saw one in use on anything except the movies
gary
That "protractor" is the gunner's quadrant, and is frequently used by the gunner to verify quadrant elevation. In another thread recently I mentioned how it is quicker than the gunner having to get back on the sight. You may never have seen it being used, I'm quite certain it was, as every gun has one. And while I haven't been in any movies lately, I have used it on the M102, M198, and in various versions of the M109.
have never seen anybody use a protractor. Never been on an M198, but have done the other 155's and all three 105's and all the SPG's, and never knew a protractor existed. It would have violated the loader / AG's working space. Perhaps with a training unit as a double check
gary
mcevoyi
Joined: October 26, 2007
KitMaker: 198 posts
Armorama: 180 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 08, 2011 - 08:48 AM UTC
oh so yes please ..
i have just sent you a PM
thanks
iain
i have just sent you a PM
thanks
iain
Quoted Text
Quoted Textis there any chance any one has any drawings of the m101 as i would like to scratch build in 1/6 scale for my figures !
Hi
I can send you the Technical Manual TM 9-1015-203-12 for the M101A1 (1993) if you're interested...
HTH
Frenchy
ArtyG37B
Joined: August 13, 2009
KitMaker: 420 posts
Armorama: 416 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 08, 2011 - 09:08 AM UTC
Quoted Text
have never seen anybody use a protractor. Never been on an M198, but have done the other 155's and all three 105's and all the SPG's, and never knew a protractor existed. It would have violated the loader / AG's working space. Perhaps with a training unit as a double check
gary
It's not a protractor! it's a gunner's quadrant.
it is accurate to 1/10 of a mil
Used during danger close missions and also for quick sight/elevation tests and also for bore sight tests.
redleg12
Joined: March 11, 2007
KitMaker: 872 posts
Armorama: 831 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 08, 2011 - 02:58 PM UTC
OK....if you want a pdf copy of the manual for the M101A1 you can download it from my site here
http://www.redleg2scale.com/RBMI%20Info/13775212-Howitzher-Light-Towed-105mm-m101a1.pdf
The major difference from the M101 (which was the M2A1 redesignated in 1962) and the M101A1 is the M2A2 barrel which is straight not tapered and thickens for the last foot or so. The M101A1 was used in Viet Nam
For photos of M101A1 look on my sire here
http://www.redleg2scale.com/walkaround%20gallery/M101.html
HTH
Rounds Complete!!
http://www.redleg2scale.com/RBMI%20Info/13775212-Howitzher-Light-Towed-105mm-m101a1.pdf
The major difference from the M101 (which was the M2A1 redesignated in 1962) and the M101A1 is the M2A2 barrel which is straight not tapered and thickens for the last foot or so. The M101A1 was used in Viet Nam
For photos of M101A1 look on my sire here
http://www.redleg2scale.com/walkaround%20gallery/M101.html
HTH
Rounds Complete!!
KurtLaughlin
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 08, 2011 - 04:22 PM UTC
Quoted Text
The major difference from the M101 (which was the M2A1 redesignated in 1962) and the M101A1 is the M2A2 barrel which is straight not tapered and thickens for the last foot or so. The M101A1 was used in Viet Nam
Not exactly. I have the drawing for the M2A2's tube (7238068 rev H, dated 6-19-67) and it shows the region ahead of the locknut as 6.14 diameter for 7.34 inches, then tapering down to a theoretical 5.681 diameter at the the rear of the muzzle reinforcement. I say "theoretical" because there is a 2.0 inch blending radius in this location so the tube never actually becomes that small. The reinforcement is 6.00 long and 6.00 diameter. So, not straight but very gently tapered.
In the second photo of your walkaround you can se the straight section ending about where the crease in the background wall corrugation is (the one just to the right of the recuperator housing). The taper is also visible, particularly on the underside. The kink where the cylinder ends at the taper begins is readily visible when looking along the tube, as here:
http://data3.primeportal.net/artillery/david_althaus/m101a1_105mm_howitzer/images/m101a1_105mm_howitzer_8_of_9.jpg
I don't have drawings to confirm it but my guess is that the M2, M2A1, and M2A2 tube contours were essentially identical. The taper per inch on the muzzle end is the same as in the center section the M2A2 drawing. I imagine that if it was continued outward you would have an M2/M2A1 tube. Again, this is just my speculation.
One thing to note, is that starting at the end of WW II 105mm howitzer tubes (artillery and tank-mounted) were counterbored 2 inches deep to remove the rifling. There was a design flaw in this weapon in that the tube wall thickness was too thin at the muzzle and cracks would develop from the corners of the rifling grooves. The initial fix was to remove the rifiling back to the point where the tube wall was thick enough, followed by the addition of reinforced muzzle.
KL
redleg12
Joined: March 11, 2007
KitMaker: 872 posts
Armorama: 831 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 08, 2011 - 11:50 PM UTC
Kurt - Thanks....very slight taper.....with the reinforced end, it may create an optical illusion. Looking at the photo from PP at the angle take it is eaiser to see. Thanks for the supporting fire!
Rounds Complete!!
Rounds Complete!!
KurtLaughlin
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Monday, May 09, 2011 - 12:33 PM UTC
After measuring a few hundred parts you start to see things like this. 
For those with less desire to measure things you can check for this simply with a ruler: Just place it on top of the part and move it along. If there is a kink you will see light under the ruler.
KL
For those with less desire to measure things you can check for this simply with a ruler: Just place it on top of the part and move it along. If there is a kink you will see light under the ruler.
KL
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 - 07:09 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
have never seen anybody use a protractor. Never been on an M198, but have done the other 155's and all three 105's and all the SPG's, and never knew a protractor existed. It would have violated the loader / AG's working space. Perhaps with a training unit as a double check
gary
It's not a protractor! it's a gunner's quadrant.
it is accurate to 1/10 of a mil
Used during danger close missions and also for quick sight/elevation tests and also for bore sight tests.
negative three degrees with 1.5 seconds on a 565 fuse with WP over a charge one green bag. No protractor needed
gary
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.