Talk:M114 armored fighting vehicle

Small error in the Variants section

Variants "M114A1 – new commander's weapon station allowing firing of the .50-cal machine gun from inside (manual and electrically-powered cupola), reinforced trim vane"

The traversing of the turret and elevation of the gun cradle was done by hand cranking a set of handles. The XM-26 turret was NOT electrically-powered. The firing of the M2 HB-TT 50 cal. (which replaced a flex mounted M2 HB) machine gun was done "electrically".

"M114A2 – (1969, initially called M114A1E1) replaced main armament with a Hispano-Suiza HS.820 20 mm gun (designated M139 in U.S. service)"

The turret was also upgraded to the XM-27 which used a hydraulic system to traverse the turret and elevate the gun cradle.

I served with two units equiped with the M-114 A2 during my military service. Roy A Lingle Sgtscoutsout (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Service History Error

The platoon I was in, Recon platoon, Combat Support Company 3/35 Armor, Bamberg, Germany, was still using M114 A1E1's when I left in March of 1974, and I had not heard any talk of replacements at that time. They must have still been in service at least to 1974, not 1973 as shown.

Also, while the commander's hatch did rotate 360 degrees, there was a mechanical stop that prevented the 20 mm from rotating through the observer's position. There was a override for this if needed.

While it was supposed to swim, we were not allowed to use it this way. Too many sank from improperly sealed access hatches on the bottom.

I was in Recon platoon, Combat Support Company, 1/54 Infantry until November 1974, (just down the street from the gentleman in the 3/35, probably had even saw him!), and can also confirm what he said.

The mechanical stop that he references for the observer did not extend to the driver. We almost lost a driver when he was trying to leave the vehicle. The TC had failed to depower the cupolo, and when he went to leave the vehicle, his long legs snagged the 'Cadillac controls', rotating the 20mm gun, almost cutting the driver in two at the torso.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M114 armored fighting vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070519085854/http://www.fsmm.org/personnelcarriers.htm to http://www.fsmm.org/personnelcarriers.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

"Sleeker, lower" than the M113?

The second sentence under the heading "Description" reads "It looked like a sleeker, lower M113." I realize that "looked" is subjective (which in itself is questionable for inclusion in an encyclopedia) but objectively the M113 and M114 were nearly the exact same height: the M113 was 8'2" tall and the M114 was 7'10" tall; a difference of a mere 4" is unlikely to be discernable by an observer. What is readily apparent is that the upper forward glacis plate of the M114 is at a shallower angle than that of the M113, which gives the upper hull a pronounced "wedge" appearance compared to the steeper, rather more bluff glacis plate of the M113. So I am going to change this sentence to "The M114 was 4 inches lower than the M113, and its upper forward glacis plate had a shallower angle than on the M113, resulting in a somewhat sleeker profile." Bricology (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)