Com-Central.net

Dontos · Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:08 am Post subject: M114 'Lingle' background info

I have been a little fuzzy on the variant identification of the M114 as well as an interest in the SN 'game' on the M114.

While doing some late night 'light reading' from the M114 TM 9-2320-224-10, I found a reference that has shed a little light on my informational short-comings.

The M114 (T114) mounts the standard pintle mounted M-2, .50cal commanders weapon.

The M114A1 mounts the M-2, .50cal MG which is internally (solinoid) fired.

The M114A2 (M114A1E1) has the 20mm cannon.

In the TM an interesting notation is found on page 143 (C9) on the M114A1E1.

"The M114A1 vehicle (after serial No. 624), when equipt with the commander's XM27 power cupola and 20mm rapid fire weapon system, is designated as an M114A1E1 vehicle."

just a little 'Lingle' info that I thought y'all might find interesting.

Regards
Don

Roy_A_Lingle · Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:55 pm Post subject: Re: M114 'Lingle' background info

Hi Dontos! Hi Folks!

You should have asked me, I could have saved you some reading!

The M-114 here at Ft. Bliss is all three.

It was build as a M-114A1

It was upgraded to a M-114A1E1 (or M-114A2 as we called them during the last few years they were in service).

Then during the M-901 TUA and FIST program, it losted it's XM-29 turret to that program.

The gun cradle for the 20mm auto cannon is laying inside it.

Then someone found a T-114 turret and mounted it on the vehicle.

The M-114A1 mounted a XM-26 manuely operated turret and the 50 cal.s where M-2HB TTs. TT = remote fired using a solinoid. It was faster to turn the vehicle than move that turret with the hand crank.

The M-114A1E1 (or M-114A2) mounted the XM-27 hydraulic power turret and the M-139 HS 20mm auto cannon. It was a XM-26 with the manuel contorls replaced by a hydraulic system and a fire selection box added.

If I remember right, the fire selections where 25 rounds rapid, 25 rounds slow, 5 rounds rapid, 5 rounds slow and single shot. I learned the best way to fire that cannon was single shot. The 5 and 25 round selections rocked the vehicle so bad that only the first round would hit a target and all the rest would go over the top.

Ammo came in 25 round belts, two AP-T then three HE-T. I forget how many rounds the ammo box could hold. At the start of the feed chute was a last round detection switch that would interrupt the firing circuit. The fire selection box had an emergancy over ride button that would let you use the last 25 rounds inside the feed chute. If you every had to do that, you had better be able to find cover and some time, because it took a few minutes to reload the feed chute and the feeder assemble. One great thing about that cannon and the way the feeder assemble was loaded was the crews had a ratchet wrench as a part of the weapon's tool kit. AKAIK, the M-114A1E1(M-114A2) was the only vehicle in the Army to rate a ratchet. It was a saftey thing. Using a flex handle socket wrench to position the first round in the feeder assemble could get you hurt if something when wrong and the weapon fired.

During an intell briffing I was told that the AP round could go through the sides of the hulls of the Soviet T-54s, T-55s, and T-62s. I am very happy to have never had to find out.

Spot Report along with some of my old history!
Sgt, Scouts out!

Dontos · Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:22 pm Post subject: Re: M114 'Lingle' background info

Thanks Roy

I think the SN notation IRT the variant designation was particularily interesting.

This '-10' is filled with more info on the 20mm than it is with the vehicle operation, I'm guessing that there was a problem with understanding its operation and a considerable amount of operators maintenance involved to keep it 'plinking' away.

My interest is primarily on the automotive operation of the vehicle and getting SN 172 roaring to life again.

For those interested individuals, I'm posting some images on my facebook that are viewable to 'the public' and don't require 'membership' or friends approval.

M114 (SN 172)

Regards
Don

Roy_A_Lingle · Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:52 pm Post subject: Re: M114 'Lingle' background info

Hi Dontos! Hi Folks!

- Dontos

This '-10' is filled with more info on the 20mm than it is with the vehicle operation, I'm guessing that there was a problem with understanding its operation and a considerable amount of operators maintenance involved to keep it 'plinking' away.
Don

"Considerable amount of operators maintenance" is AN UNDERSTATEMENT!

At the time I was learning to operate that weapon, the word was it had been used in jet fighters. I don't know if that is true or not.

During one of the Reforger FTXs, one of the M-114 crews never broke their cannon down and cleaned it. After about 15 days in the field, they had to use a PIPE wrench to get the barrel to come out of the receiver. Never heard of that problem with the M-60 MG or the old M-2 HBs.

The old PS maintance magazine had an article that recommended during training that the weapon be torn down and cleaned after 450 or 550 rounds. During my time in Germany, the Battalion Commander sent the M-114s with the Division Valcun batteries up to an AAA range on the Baltic coast for some anti-aircraft training. That was a lot fun! On the next to the last day we set aside some ammo to be fired on the last day while one of the Assistant Division Commanders watched. One of the vehicles only fire about 200 rounds so we figured that sense we didn't go over the amount the PS magaizine recommended we didn't need to clean the weapon. BIG MISTAKE! The next day we found that weapon would only fire one shot and then needed to be manualy reloaded. So we started tearing it down so we could clean it. We learn that over the night, the gun power and the LSA (Gun lub back in those days) had mixed together and turned into glue! After a good cleaning and a new bath of LSA, the gun worked just fine!

That M-139 needed a lot of LSA to work and it needed to be clearned often.
The weapon came with a tool set that had a million tools in it! Except for one tool, every one of them was required to break the weapon down. EVERY LAST ONE of them was REQUIRED to put that cannon back to together. Lose just one of those tools and you couldn't take it apart or put it back together. If I remember right, that tool kit had more tools in it than the vehicle automative tool bag had!

It has been said that "AFVs don't move over the ground, they move through it". I never had a problem with a M-2 HB or a M-60 MG firing when needed. That M-139 was not a good choice for an AFV. If it is true that it was an aircraft cannon. Then up in the clean air and an airbase to return to at the end of ever mission so it could be broken down and cleaned it was a good weapon. It was one he## of a weapon to fire. But down in the dirt and dust of the world of AFVs, it was a bad choice. It was fun to fire, but I would not have wanted to take that weapon into a war.

Spot Report, some of my old history, and my 2 cents.
Sgt, Scouts out!

Costas_TT · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Feb 15, 2012 Posts: 387

- Roy_A_Lingle

At the time I was learning to operate that weapon, the word was it had been used in jet fighters. I don't know if that is true or not.

True, the M139 was a slightly modified version of what originated as an aircraft cannon, specifically the Hispano-Suiza HS.820/Oerlikon KAD.

Kurt_Laughlin · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 577

Roy, IIRC the 20mm was supposed to be an AAA weapon. What experience did you have training or using it for that purpose?

KL

Roy_A_Lingle · Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:17 am Post subject: Re: M114 'Lingle' background info

Hi Kurt! Hi Folks!

"the 20mm was supposed to be an AAA weapon"?

That was not what we had planned or trained to use it as. Execpt for that one trip up to the Baltic Coast, all the training and live firing we did was direct fire engagements. AFAIK, we were the only Scout Section to ever go up to that AAA range from all of the 7th US Army. During all of the Scout Section eval's that I took part in none of them had any aerial target action.

As for AAA training, we all received the basic Warsaw Pack equipment ID training that every soldier received along with basic aircraft engagements SOP. I would not call that advanced in anyway.

During the live firing at the AAA range, we were all doing it by OJT. We started out using five rounds fast, dropped back to five rounds slow, and then single shot. We would get a single hit from time to time, but none of us could get a second hit on the target. One day a Armored Branch Colonel from 7th Army stop by to check us out. He was a good freind of our Battalion Commander and had help get the approval to do this. We told him how we had been doing and he watched a number of engagements. That Colonel saw that we were having two problems. One was the speed ring aircraft engagment sight. It was messing up our first shot because it was hard to see the target through that plexiglass. He told us to remove it and use the front sight post and Kentucky windage. The second problem was the muzzle blast. It was so big and thick that it blocked the gunner's view of the tracer and make it very hard to get the next round on target. He told us to try using BOT with a second soldier acting as the spotter standing up and hanging off the back side of the TC's hatch. In no time at all everyone of us were able to make multiple hits during each pass.

There were three classes of targets:
An AT-6 Texan was the slow target tug. Most guys were getting 5 to 6 hits per pass.
A OV-10 Bronco was the medium speed target tug. Most were getting 4 to 5 hits per pass.
A Fiat G-91 Jet (that Fiat bird that looks a lot like a F-86 Saber Jet) was the fast target. Most of us got 2 hits per pass and we had two guys who made 3 hits. The big problem with the fast target was it crossed our range fan to fast. We had to stop shooting because it exited our left or right firing limits before we could get off more rounds.

"the 20mm was supposed to be an AAA weapon".

In my live fire experience with the M-139 20mm and standing near the M-61 20mm Vulcan during both aerial and direct fire engagments I would say:
The M-139 20mm is a anti-light armored vehicle weapon system with a VERY LIMITED ability to hit aerial targets. That M-139 is NOT a AAA weapon.

The M-61 20mm Vulcan IS an AAA weapon system with a VERY POOR ability to use the ammo on a ground target. It takes way to long to reload the magazine on that system.

In many books the M-2 HB 50 cal. MG is reported to be mounted on the top of many AFVs as an ANTI-AIRCRAFT weapon. That is pure BS. Not once during my time as an 11D Armored Scout was any aircraft engagement training ever done with the M-2. During the times I was supporting tank gunner quals with M-551s and M-60A1s, all 50 cal engagments were ground targets. There were never any aerial targets.

Just because a book says a weapon is an AAA gun, doesn't make it so.
A lot of my old history and a pocket full of pennys.
Spot Report!
Sgt, Scouts out!

Dontos · Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 8:17 am Post subject: Re: M114 'Lingle' background info

Roy

Neat stuff.

In many books the M-2 HB 50 cal. MG is reported to be mounted on the top of many AFVs as an ANTI-AIRCRAFT weapon. That is pure BS. Not once during my time as an 11D Armored Scout was any aircraft engagement training ever done with the M-2. During the times I was supporting tank gunner quals with M-551s and M-60A1s, all 50 cal engagments were ground targets. There were never any aerial targets.

In the mid-80's while shooting a CALFEX at Graf Rg 301, we were presented two aerial targets for the Vulcan crew. The targets were scaled Soviet fast attack fighters (Foam RC planes).

We attempted to engage with .50cals,......what a waste of ammo!! 4 tanks firing .50cal into the sky!! 'Sky Sweepers' one and all, but nowhere close to the figure '8' flying attack aircraft. Anytime someone got close, the ammo box ran empty and loaders scrambled to reload the 'ma deuce'. (I was one such loader....)

The vulcan was initially worse with short bursts, but finally 'ambushed' the target aircraft after 5 or 10 passes. (!?) So much for confidence in the ol' 'Duck Hunters' on a tactical level.

So your assessment of the M-2 .50cal as a AAA weapon is realistic,.....total BS. (although decent against helicopters).

Awesome, 'unwritten' history lesson. Thanks

Regards
Don

Roy_A_Lingle · Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:45 pm Post subject: Re: M114 'Lingle' background info

Hi Folks!

Something I forgot to bring up about the differences between the M-139 on a M-114 and the M-61 Vulcan on a M-113. The Vulcan carrier has a suspension lock out system. The driver has a lever he uses to lock the ten road wheel arms at the top of the arm. That makes a big differeance with the second and all follow on rounds.

During a Mech Infantry Bn TF "Mad Minute" at Hohenfels Training Area, with a platoon of M-60A2s and a pair of Vulcans, I had a long range target engagment experience with that same M-139/M-114 we had taken to the AAA range. The area on the firing line were my M-114 was had an old hull down trench for a M-113 size vehicle. I had my driver park the vehicle across the ditch with the sprockets resting on one bank and the idler wheels resting on the other bank. The four road wheels where hanging in the air. There were two 75mm Sherman hard targets around 1,200 yards down range that were in line with each other and about 200 yards apart. Using five round fast burst, I found an aimming point short (starting with AP) of the near Sherman that had the second round (AP again) hitting the first tank, the third round (HE) landing about mid-way between the two, the four round (HE) hitting the second tank and the fifth round (HE) going over it. I was able to do that a number of times as long as I started with an AP round in the chamber.

That was when I learned that the Vulcan made a poor system for engaging ground targets. Watching those Duck Hunters reload that magazine was a amazing. They had the ramp down and a number of ammo cans lined up with the belts linked together. Even with that prep, it took a couple of minutes to reload the magazine. Then they did it a second time when they reloaded the system with dummy ammo.

Something I learned about the Vulcan system during my time in Germany is that system is ALWAYS LOADED. If the magazine doesn't have live ammo it must have dummy ammo. The Vulcan has an interupter switch with an override button if the last set of rounds MUST BE FIRED just like the M-139. While the M-139 was a pain to position a new round in the feeder and it took a couple of minutes, the Duck Hunters told me that they had to have Direct Support open their system up and install a belt of rounds between the interupter switch position in the magazine and the weapon's receiver. They also told me it was a battalion level Article 15 (for you non-US Military types, not a good thing to have in your personal folder) if a gunner used that over ride button during training.

Some more of my old history and a few more cents.
Spot Report!
Sgt, Scouts out!

Kurt_Laughlin · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 577

Thanks Roy!

I have a mid-70's Training Circular that gives a more realistic plan and philosophy for "amateur" AA fire. In it they give simple rules for leading jets, props, and choppers regardless of the weapon being used. The philosophy was pretty reasonable, essentially, everyone should fire their weapons at attacking aircraft, not because you are likely to shoot them down or even hit them, but because the fear of the "Golden BB" is the best deterrent/distraction there is to a pilot. Anything you can do to knock him off his line is worth it because it might save your life.

I'm guessing that mentions of AA roles for various weapons in TMs was mainly to inform crews that you COULD shoot them upward . . .

KL

Roy_A_Lingle · Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:25 am Post subject: Re: M114 'Lingle' background info

Hi Kurt! Hi Folks!

- Kurt_Laughlin

I have a mid-70's Training Circular that gives a more realistic plan and philosophy for "amateur" AA fire. In it they give simple rules for leading jets, props, and choppers regardless of the weapon being used. The philosophy was pretty reasonable, essentially, everyone should fire their weapons at attacking aircraft, not because you are likely to shoot them down or even hit them, but because the fear of the "Golden BB" is the best deterrent/distraction there is to a pilot. Anything you can do to knock him off his line is worth it because it might save your life.

I'm guessing that mentions of AA roles for various weapons in TMs was mainly to inform crews that you COULD shoot them upward . . .
KL

That "amateur, Golden BB" plan was the basic engagment training that I was talking about.

During my time out in the bush in Vietnam there were many times we had restrictions on which weapons and directions that we could fire. It didn't matter what was coming in, those restrictions protected other troopers.

A number of years later during a FTX at Hohenfels the Scout Platoon was on Castle Guard and the Battalion Command post was attacked by some West German F-104 Starfighters. Everybody cut lose at those planes using the "amateur, Golden BB" idea. It was a lot of fun at the time and it made the controllers happy.

Later I remembered those engagment restirictions during my time in Vietnam and it dawned on me that this "wild firing" by everyone is crazy! All the rules of engagment and fields of fire go out the window. There were two Redeye teams protecting the CP. They have a chance of hitting something where the "wild firing" has a greater chance of hitting someone on the ground.

After that the first thing I though about was the current rules of engagment and clear fields of fire before I opened up. That "amateur, Golden BB" SOP maybe dangerous for aircraft, but it is a greater danger to other troops.

Sense we have driffed off into the world of weapons and AAA training I have a questions for all you M-60 and M-1 tankers.

Did any of you ever get any training on using the main gun and sabot on aircraft?

Some more old history and few more cents.
Sgt, Scouts out!

Dontos · Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:51 am Post subject: Re: M114 'Lingle' background info

Roy

The engagement criteria for aircraft was stricty .50cal. In the simulators there was never a fast mover target presented only rotary aircraft (choppers). That is supposed to be a TC's .50cal engagement only.

Main gun engagement was always discussed but not considered 'exceptable' to training standards.

"Ambushing" a fast mover with main gun was real problematic, so someone decided to 'fill the sky with lead' (COAX & .50cal) and that was considered to be the standard.

Regards
Don

TrevorLarkum

I remember on Challenger we were taught about using sabot against helicopters, but I don't remember anything about engaging airplanes.

Kurt_Laughlin · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 577

The HEAT-MP 120mm round has or was supposd to have an AA capability.

I asked last year about an AA capability for the Shilleagh. I guess the same thing would apply to TOW . . . I believe it was tested for air-to-air when first mounted on choppers.

On the other end, in ODS an A-10 used a Maverick missile (a near supersonic ASM with a 300 lb explosive charge that is capable of destroying an MBT by kinetic energy alone) to destroy an Iraqi helicopter. The pilot's quote was that the helicopter "sort of just disappeared."

KL

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big