Bronco US 155mm Howitzer M114A1(Vietnam war))
Chang-hua, Taiwan / 台灣
Joined: December 16, 2011
KitMaker: 14 posts
Armorama: 13 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 - 03:12 PM UTC
Ontario, Canada
Joined: August 05, 2003
KitMaker: 1,698 posts
Armorama: 1,563 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 - 03:55 PM UTC
I could think of a reason: Maybe the plastic model company got it wrong?
What you really want is the same measurement of a US gun.
Why plan when you can react?
Chang-hua, Taiwan / 台灣
Joined: December 16, 2011
KitMaker: 14 posts
Armorama: 13 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 - 05:18 PM UTC
Hi Davidson:
I'm not sure . Do you have any reference about 155mm howitzer ?
Ontario, Canada
Joined: August 05, 2003
KitMaker: 1,698 posts
Armorama: 1,563 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 22, 2011 - 12:23 AM UTC
There's got to be one here somewhere. Or maybe someone else can help. They are not uncommon monuments in Canada.
What I'm getting at, is you shouldn't use a plastic model as a definitive guide to the real thing.
Usually, in fact, almost always, its the other way 'round.
The exception is that you have some interesting knowledge regarding weapons exported to Taiwan, that may show the kit makers actually have the dimensions correct, and that your 1:1 scale gun has been modified from the one Bronco / Italeri took their measurements from.
Why plan when you can react?
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 22, 2011 - 08:44 AM UTC
I can only see one picture and am not interested in changing browsers . . .
The M1A1 tube was essentially two cylinders beyond the breech. At the rear it was 12.500 inches in diameter while at the muzzle it was 10.000 inches. The muzzle section was 66.39 inches long, including a radius where the two diameters met, leaving a 65.33 long cylindrical section. The amount of the muzzle section protruding beyond the seal at the front of the recoil housing would have been somewhat less than that.
The tube shown in the picture I can see is a M1A2 model, distinguishable by the circumferential groove near the muzzle. I'm not sure if it is the same length as the M1A1, but I suspect it is.
KL
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 22, 2011 - 09:19 AM UTC
Oh Wow!
OK the measurment you made is flawed from the very start. You had the right idea, but you started out in the wrong place. Suppossedly there were two slightly different barrel lengths used on the 155 mm family, and I know of at least two different breeches used. The Breech can be removed from the barrel, and a unit shooting mostly charge sevens will go thru a breech about every 1500 rounds. I see that Bronco is calling their late gun out as an M114, and the barrel they supply is an M114 type (has the groove). I never saw an M114 used in combat, and that barrel is supposed to be slightly longer than the M1a1 (I've heard 3/4" and 1.5"). I've also heard that the grooved barrels were mostly used by Marines (cannot prove this by me as I only saw them using M1a1's just like everybody else)
Now looking at the photo of the actual gun I saw one thing right up front. It's a non functioning piece. 155's are well known to be very hard on recoil systems, and I know this for a fact. If the recoil system fails or is getting bad nothing ends up in the right place when the barrel returns to battery. Also can be said with the adjustment of the springs and a couple other little things. The real clue here would be a close up inspection of the area just ahead of the breech to see if it returned to the proper position. The correct place to base a measurment from (barrel length) is from the centerline of the trunion pins to the end of the barrel.
I wouldn't worry about the difference is it looks right for an M114. The old kit is not an M114, and may well be a M1 for all I remember. (look at the jack to see if there's a difference). But if I were doing a piece used in combat, I'd be looking for a different barrel right away.
gary
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 22, 2011 - 02:34 PM UTC
Follow-up: I checked out the TM for the piece and it indicated no differences in the breech for any version. The M1A2 tube (used on the M114A2) had the circumferential groove as noted previously but was otherwise treated the same and listed with the same dimensions. The M114A2 did not appear in the TM until a 1979 revision. So, a Vietnam piece would not have a tube with a grooved muzzle.
BTW, the M114 was the M1/M1A1 tube and M1A1 carriage combination (i.e. rack and pinion firing jack) while the M114A1 used the M1A2 carriage (hydraulic firing jack).
KL
Chang-hua, Taiwan / 台灣
Joined: December 16, 2011
KitMaker: 14 posts
Armorama: 13 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 22, 2011 - 03:31 PM UTC
Ontario, Canada
Joined: November 10, 2010
KitMaker: 587 posts
Armorama: 550 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 22, 2011 - 04:50 PM UTC
So I assume that based on all your measurements and research the AFV club ones are spot on
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Friday, December 23, 2011 - 05:10 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Follow-up: I checked out the TM for the piece and it indicated no differences in the breech for any version. The M1A2 tube (used on the M114A2) had the circumferential groove as noted previously but was otherwise treated the same and listed with the same dimensions. The M114A2 did not appear in the TM until a 1979 revision. So, a Vietnam piece would not have a tube with a grooved muzzle.
BTW, the M114 was the M1/M1A1 tube and M1A1 carriage combination (i.e. rack and pinion firing jack) while the M114A1 used the M1A2 carriage (hydraulic firing jack).
KL
got to dissagree with you. I lived with an M1a1 for 15 months, and the jack was a horizontal ratcheting affair. The older M1's used the vertical gear & rack jack. I think the jack plate was identical on both guns. I never saw a single piece with a gear & rack jack in RVN, and even the one gun that I trained on the sates had the later jack. Looking at an M1 located near me I can see slight differences in the hardware mounting brackets, and for some odd reason the shields like slightly different. This gun is Korean war vintage if I remember right from the S/N tags.
The breech issue was mostly internal. The orginal breech threads and mushrum head were bare carbon steel. There was a revision made in the sixties where they went to hard chrome plating inside, and it looks ever so slightly bigger in diameter (without both I can measure them). Firing locks seem to be identical as well as the breech handle. I've had the pleasure of cleaning both style breeches many times in my career
My comments on the barrel length are something that I was told, but have never seen one in the flesh to confirm or deny. It should also be noted that the gun barrel was not hard chromed as some have said. But it was a ground bare metal finsh on the O.D.. The muzzel end was not ground, and a basicly turned face with numbers stamped in the face. As for the tube with the groove machined in it at the muzzel, I doubt they built very many as that was about the time that they were serious about an all new howitzer.
gary
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Friday, December 23, 2011 - 05:18 AM UTC
That dosn't look like any barrel I cleaned. The rifeling is not the same, unless it's completely shot out (I doubt it as the rifeling would never wear like that). I suspect that it a non U.S. manufactured barrel
gary
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 - 12:21 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
The M1A2 tube (used on the M114A2) had the circumferential groove as noted previously but was otherwise treated the same and listed with the same dimensions. The M114A2 did not appear in the TM until a 1979 revision. So, a Vietnam piece would not have a tube with a grooved muzzle.
BTW, the M114 was the M1/M1A1 tube and M1A1 carriage combination (i.e. rack and pinion firing jack) while the M114A1 used the M1A2 carriage (hydraulic firing jack).
KL
got to dissagree with you. I lived with an M1a1 for 15 months, and the jack was a horizontal ratcheting affair. The older M1's used the vertical gear & rack jack. I think the jack plate was identical on both guns. I never saw a single piece with a gear & rack jack in RVN, and even the one gun that I trained on the sates had the later jack. Looking at an M1 located near me I can see slight differences in the hardware mounting brackets, and for some odd reason the shields like slightly different. This gun is Korean war vintage if I remember right from the S/N tags.
My comments on the barrel length are something that I was told, but have never seen one in the flesh to confirm or deny. It should also be noted that the gun barrel was not hard chromed as some have said. But it was a ground bare metal finsh on the O.D.. The muzzel end was not ground, and a basicly turned face with numbers stamped in the face. As for the tube with the groove machined in it at the muzzel, I doubt they built very many as that was about the time that they were serious about an all new howitzer.
gary
Gary, the designations are from a couple of different official publications - that's the Army, I guess. I did goof up in my original description, the M1A2 carriage used a screw jack, not a hydraulic jack.
I went out and checked an M114A2 today. As best as I could tell the tube was in battery. In that position the projection in front of the recoil housing was 61-1/2 inches. There is a wiper seal on the front of the housing so the actual tube showing is only 60-3/4 back from the muzzle. What do the pictures of the kit posted above show? (No, I'm still not interested in changing browsers . . .)
The M1A2 tube had a different rifling or a keyway or something that allowed it to fire COPPERHEAD CLGPs and newer ICM projectiles. The M114s were kept around to fire nuclear projectiles. They lasted until the Army de-nuclearized in '92 and disappeared soon after.
KL
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 29, 2011 - 06:54 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
The M1A2 tube (used on the M114A2) had the circumferential groove as noted previously but was otherwise treated the same and listed with the same dimensions. The M114A2 did not appear in the TM until a 1979 revision. So, a Vietnam piece would not have a tube with a grooved muzzle.
BTW, the M114 was the M1/M1A1 tube and M1A1 carriage combination (i.e. rack and pinion firing jack) while the M114A1 used the M1A2 carriage (hydraulic firing jack).
KL
got to dissagree with you. I lived with an M1a1 for 15 months, and the jack was a horizontal ratcheting affair. The older M1's used the vertical gear & rack jack. I think the jack plate was identical on both guns. I never saw a single piece with a gear & rack jack in RVN, and even the one gun that I trained on the sates had the later jack. Looking at an M1 located near me I can see slight differences in the hardware mounting brackets, and for some odd reason the shields like slightly different. This gun is Korean war vintage if I remember right from the S/N tags.
My comments on the barrel length are something that I was told, but have never seen one in the flesh to confirm or deny. It should also be noted that the gun barrel was not hard chromed as some have said. But it was a ground bare metal finsh on the O.D.. The muzzel end was not ground, and a basicly turned face with numbers stamped in the face. As for the tube with the groove machined in it at the muzzel, I doubt they built very many as that was about the time that they were serious about an all new howitzer.
gary
Gary, the designations are from a couple of different official publications - that's the Army, I guess. I did goof up in my original description, the M1A2 carriage used a screw jack, not a hydraulic jack.
I went out and checked an M114A2 today. As best as I could tell the tube was in battery. In that position the projection in front of the recoil housing was 61-1/2 inches. There is a wiper seal on the front of the housing so the actual tube showing is only 60-3/4 back from the muzzle. What do the pictures of the kit posted above show? (No, I'm still not interested in changing browsers . . .)
The M1A2 tube had a different rifling or a keyway or something that allowed it to fire COPPERHEAD CLGPs and newer ICM projectiles. The M114s were kept around to fire nuclear projectiles. They lasted until the Army de-nuclearized in '92 and disappeared soon after.
KL
actually they had nukes for the older guns as well. Have never seen one of them, but I do know they had them in Korea as late as 1968. They had a special powder charge that was designated "charge eight." Wether it's the same as the modern "super charge eight" I don't know as I never saw one as well. There was also a nuke round for the 8" guns as well, but I did see pics of that setup when I was going to track school at Sill. I don't think there was one for the 175 gun or the 105.
On the older carriage there was only two jack systems used. The gear and vertical rack, and the horizontal screw jack. Looking at the M1, I doubt there were any serious changes made as the front is vertually identical for both of them. The way to tell is the gun is in battery is to look at the distance between the breech and the carriage frame. It should be little if anything at all. But the most accurate way is the measure the distance from the trunion centers to the face of the barrel.
Back on the breech a second. The internal threads looked identical on first inspection, as well as the mushrum head. But the newer stuff war hard chrome plated. Seems like the was some cosmetic flat or something like that between the two (maybe the older breech had a flat on top for a protractor and the other was round. Been 43 years). I was only around the older breech for about six weeks, when we blew the recoil system and the breech started to get real hard to open (early 68). They flew the piece about five miles up the road to have it fixed, and it came back with a new barrel and breech. We blew the new recoil cylinders less than a week later due to excessive heat from constant firings.
anyway I glad somebody finally gave us a pig to work with!
gary
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 11, 2007
KitMaker: 872 posts
Armorama: 831 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 29, 2011 - 02:56 PM UTC
Gary - The 175 and 105 never had a nuke....just 8 inch and 155mm
As for the M114 and nuke, yes it was nuke capable....though the recoil system really did not like firing a nuke.
Rounds Complete!!
The Moral High Ground..a Great Place to Emplace Artillery
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 29, 2011 - 07:41 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Gary - The 175 and 105 never had a nuke....just 8 inch and 155mm
As for the M114 and nuke, yes it was nuke capable....though the recoil system really did not like firing a nuke.
Rounds Complete!!
we were told that a charge eight was about all the carriage would stand for a few shots max. Yes I knew they didn't do a 175 or 105 nuke round. Looks like the 175 would have been a natural for a low yeild round with the range it had. Of course by the time the round went off down range you'd be DOA from the radiation alone.
gary
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 11, 2007
KitMaker: 872 posts
Armorama: 831 posts
Posted: Friday, December 30, 2011 - 01:10 AM UTC
Gary - No matter what...the cannon artillery nukes are a DIP mission!
Rounds Complete!!
The Moral High Ground..a Great Place to Emplace Artillery
Chang-hua, Taiwan / 台灣
Joined: December 16, 2011
KitMaker: 14 posts
Armorama: 13 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 01, 2012 - 02:38 PM UTC
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 01, 2012 - 03:57 PM UTC
I'm guessing the SADM guys like me would have seen a similar fate. We were sure the timers didn't really work.
A strong man stands up for himself; A stronger man stands up for others.
Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter-accusations.
He is not Khan who calls himself Khan. Afghan proverb
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Monday, January 02, 2012 - 06:26 AM UTC
assuming the 250mm O.D. diameter is correct, then the correct barrel diameter should be .281", or 7.14mm. The 7.88 figure is incorrect, and about .029" too big in diameter. One more time the barrel with the groove is supposed to be a little longer, but as I also said "I've never seen one in the flesh." No matter what the barrel with the groove probably was never exported anyway, and is also probably incorrect for your build. Looks to me that all you need to do is to shorten the M114 barrel to the correct length. The next problem you'll encounter is that the bearing at the front end of the carriage for the barrel is too big in diameter (made to fit the incorrect plastic barrel) Being as the bearing was bronze anyway; you might be able to rework a piece of .312" diamter brass tubing that has a thin wall (maybe .012" thickness @ .284" I.D. and a .31" O.D.).
gary
Chang-hua, Taiwan / 台灣
Joined: December 16, 2011
KitMaker: 14 posts
Armorama: 13 posts
Posted: Monday, January 02, 2012 - 01:45 PM UTC
ok,i got a little headache right now , so i need to re-work a brandnew barrel .
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Monday, January 02, 2012 - 07:09 PM UTC
Quoted Text
ok,i got a little headache right now , so i need to re-work a brandnew barrel .
there were no M114 howitzers used in Vietnam. They were all M1a1's. The M1a1 dosn't have the grooved barrel. Bronco probably built their kit off an M114 gate guard (there are some on Marine bases). Not sure, but from the only photo I've seen of an M114 you may have to rewqork the shield on the gunner's side. Also I've noticed that various brackets and mounts have changed thru the years for mounting hardware. Then you get into the deal where individual units often added boxes and deleted others to suit their needs. (I caught this on a basic M1 howitzer awhile back.)
gary
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 - 01:08 PM UTC
Quoted Text
there were no M114 howitzers used in Vietnam. They were all M1a1's. The M1a1 dosn't have the grooved barrel. Bronco probably built their kit off an M114 gate guard (there are some on Marine bases).
In 1962 the Army redesignated their artillery pieces to avoid the confusion caused by the howitzer, carriage, and recoil mechanism having different model numbers. As noted above, the the M114 series was just the WW II/Korea era 155mm howitzer combination with a new name and sheet metal tag saying "M114" riveted on. Some may have never gotten the tag or never had the ordnance mechanics put them on, but as far as the Army was concerned
every 155mm howitzer used in Vietnam was an M114 series. The breech ring was still stamped M1 or M1A1, but it was an M114 series weapon.
The M1A2 cannon (as they redesignated the shooting part) was not developed before Vietnam fell, so there were no "grooved" or M114A
2s used in that conflict, but there were M114s.
KL
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 - 01:39 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Some may have never gotten the tag or never had the ordnance mechanics put them on...KL
Yeah, what a shame. Some dude is probably using one for a data plate on a scratchbuilt chopper...
A strong man stands up for himself; A stronger man stands up for others.
Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter-accusations.
He is not Khan who calls himself Khan. Afghan proverb
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 11, 2007
KitMaker: 872 posts
Armorama: 831 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 - 03:14 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
Some may have never gotten the tag or never had the ordnance mechanics put them on...KL
Yeah, what a shame. Some dude is probably using one for a data plate on a scratchbuilt chopper...
LMAO
Rounds Complete!!
The Moral High Ground..a Great Place to Emplace Artillery
Virginia, United States
Joined: November 09, 2008
KitMaker: 487 posts
Armorama: 451 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 - 04:06 PM UTC
Quoted Text
In 1962 the Army redesignated their artillery pieces to avoid the confusion caused by the howitzer, carriage, and recoil mechanism having different model numbers.
Not sure it was to reduce confusion so much as give a single designation for each specific combination as a way of simplifying things. The separate components remained designated with Army Type Designators, in most cases the same as those that had been previously assigned.
More on this here:
http://historyfail.tumblr.com/post/15243902257/some-notes-on-us-army-artillery-designationsVisit the [url=http://codebookafrica.wordpress.com/]America's Codebook: Africa[/url]
