PDA

View Full Version : Are M113s and M114s related?



superburban
08-05-2008, 12:49
I have been comparing pictures of 113s and 114s and it looks like the angle on the front of the 114s is more "airodynamic" than the 113s. Are the drivetrains similar? Are the layouts similar?

Basically, these APCs look similar to my ignorant eye, and I want to know if they are really similar at all. Do any of the major components interchange?

superburban
08-05-2008, 12:50
Oh, yeah...
Who manufactured/manufactures them?

maddawg308
08-05-2008, 12:56
No, not related, but the "boxy" design is prevalent throughout the world in APCs of that era. The FMC-manufactured M59 had that style too.

The M113 was made by FMC with a 6 cylinder diesel engine. Early ones had a gas engine, but I can't remember what it was.

The M114 was made by the Cadillac-Gage division of GM, with a V-8 gas engine, I believe it was a 283 Chevy block.

David_4x4
08-05-2008, 13:03
M114s are tiny compared to the 113.

http://www.mooremilitaria.com/friday-16.jpg

http://www.mooremilitaria.com/FFDT14.jpg

http://www.mooremilitaria.com/friday-06.jpg

Irv
08-05-2008, 13:43
The 114 was designed to accompany 113 acav units to replace the venerable jeep, which could not go the same places as the 113. Vietnam was a poor place to field it and the 114 was only there for a year or less, after which some were given to the South Vietnamese and the rest were shipped over to our troops in Germany. The 114 has no final drives, like most tracked vehicles have. The final drives contribute to getting the front of the tracks set out forward of the hull so they can help crawl up and over obstacles. Being set back underneath, the 114 would encounter an obstacle and just bang into it over and over, failing to crawl up and over. That lesson was learned by the Germans in WW1 with one of their very first tanks that would get stuck crossing ditches. The front end banged into the far wall of the ditch and just got stuck. The drive axles on the 114 come straight out sidways from the geared steering unit instead of feeding an offset final drive. The engine in a 114 is indeed a Chevy 283 with very minor changes, like an extended crank shaft that operates a hydraulic pump for the geared steering unit. The Army reasoned that using the 283 would make parts availability good. Unfortunately, that same reasoning led to lots of parts 'growing legs' and disappearing off base, only to reappear on somebody's pickup truck.

superburban
08-05-2008, 14:30
Thanks! That's just the stuff I was looking for!

David 4x4, those pictures were worth 3000 words! I had no concept of the size disparity!

M813rc
08-05-2008, 15:39
Early M113s had the Chrysler M75, a militarized 361. Same engine as used in the V100.

Cheers

Recovry4x4
08-05-2008, 17:50
If anyone wants to donate a 114, I'm all ears. LOL

TacticalTruck
08-05-2008, 22:15
The M114 was made by the Cadillac-Gage division of GM, with a V-8 gas engine, I believe it was a 283 Chevy block.

Cad-Gage was never a division of GM but Cadillac was and did make them, if I remember right.
Jeff

lstmate
08-06-2008, 00:03
Here are a few pictures of a local friends restoration project.....

I do not think it is a 113 or 114 but something close......

WillWagner
08-06-2008, 00:22
Looks like a Bren carrier. a Brit thing, but way cool! Ithink they had a Ford engine.

Irv
08-06-2008, 02:10
Ten Roger dat! Bren Gun Carrier. Very cool vehicle. I've been told that it's unique to tracked vehicles in that it has two modes of steering. One is braked differential, as one might expect. The other is called micro-steering or something like that. For that, it actually moves the two center road wheels sideways, causing the naturally loose tracks to form a lazy bend to one side or the other. That is useful for driving down straight roads since you can just keep it going straight without having to make constant klunky directional changes with the coarse sticks. The two center road wheels on each side are mounted to a cross bar that is pushed to the left or right, depending on which way you want to microsteer. Normal tracks are not able to do this, but the loose tracks can bend from side to side, ever so slightly. Pretty cool, huh?

lstmate
08-06-2008, 08:29
I know for a fact that it is not a Bren gun carrier.... This I remeber from talking to the gentleman doing the restoration. He discussed the differences between this and a bren. This is a MXXX vehicle but I cannot remember the numbers.

maddawg308
08-06-2008, 08:46
It's a Ford T16 Universal Carrier. Here's the Wikipedia page on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Carrier

lstmate
08-06-2008, 08:53
I know the day I took the pictures when i walked into his garage I did not realize the engine was running until he reached in and turned it off. It does have a flathead engine. Ok OK so I got the model wrong it was not a MXXX please take me out and shoot me!!!! I do ask forgiveness for this miss step.

Esteban
08-06-2008, 10:56
While the 283 engine in the M-114 sounds great, once the track was loaded it was a " DOG." We kept our 113's heavily loaded in Vietnam, & the V-6 Detroit diesel, pulled just fine. By the time I got to Nam, the ARVN's [ South Vietnamese Army ] had " inherited " the gas versions of the M-113. The fuel tank on the 113 was inside the left rear of the track. The enemy would use blackboards, etc, [ we captured one ] with a crude drawing of a 113, with a big " X " over the spot where the fuel tank was. This was the target for an RPG round. DEADLY !!! I have pictures of what an RPG can do to an M-113.

Recovry4x4
08-06-2008, 11:20
They are not even in the same class. The 114 is a recon vehicle, not a personnel carrier.

Esteban
08-06-2008, 11:39
True, they are not the same class vehicle, but the M-114 was originally going to be used in Vietnam, alongside & in support of the Infantry , the same role the 113's were. It was quickly seen that it's performance was less than POOR.
The 113, APC, was for the most part, not used as personnel carrier in Nam, & was converted to what we called, " ACAV." Armored Combat Assault Vehicle " which performed well in that role.

rmgill
08-06-2008, 15:02
The above British vehicle is either a T16 Made in the US by ford OR perhaps an Oxford or Windsor Carrier.

There are basically three classes of "Bren Carrer"

1st Gen, Non universal Carriers. Each hull was designed to a specific purpose:
Bren Carrier, Scout Carrier, MMG/Vickers Carrier, Mortar Carrier, etc
Quick ID factors are, 3 road wheels on horstman suspensions and varying details on the front hull configuration. Bren and Scut carriers are cut down on opposite sides, MMG carriers have a different front protrusion for the MMG, and other details for the rear hull and stowage.

2nd Gen Universal Carriers often called a Bren carrier.
Quick ID factors are, 3 road wheels on horstman suspensions just like the above models but the hull is universal with extra fittings in the form of stoage boxes, brackets and bins added to set it up for the specific role of OP, Bren, MMG, Mortar carrier. there were two Marks of Carriers with different arrangements on hull configurations for fenders and the like. The Mk1s were bolted/rivited, the Mk2s were welded.

3rd Gen Universal Carriers
Quick ID factors are, 4 Roadwheels on a horstman suspension (2 bogies with 2 wheels each) and a generic hull usually setup for general purpose use. I'm not sure if there was ever a MMG or OP version of the T16/Windsor/Oxford carriers. T16s ditched the warp steering method and installed two brake levers. This was easier at slow speeds but harder to control at high speeds. Carriers could get to 30mph on paved surfaces and yanking back on a tiller steering lever could cause some nasty oversteer. The larger 3rd Gen carriers were better able to tow AT guns but the larger AT guns like the 17 pounder were out of it's range so they were relegated to 6 pounders or general carrier duty. They were very rare as the war ended as they were coming into service. Some saw after the war service but their build numbers were QUITE small.

There was also the Loyd Carrier which had a front axle, a more prominent engine bay and a fully open rear back. These were used more routinely as general purpose rough terrain tow vehicles and logistics vehicles. There was a version equipped with battery service gear for charging and supplying fresh 6 and 12 volt lead acid batteries to vehicles and units as the British tended to use those instead of dry cells for radios.

The Universal Carriers were far more common with Canadian, British, Australian and New Zealand building a total of around 300,000 if I recall correctly.

Bill,Idaho
08-06-2008, 20:04
Getting back to the original question of the M113 and the M114 being related..............they are!

Both are always owned by someone with copious amounts of MONEY.

rmgill
08-07-2008, 01:33
There's always the 1/2 M113. the Canadian Lynx. That IS based on M113 parts and has 4 roadwheels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_reconnaissance_vehicle

wgtactical
08-07-2008, 06:49
Getting back to the original question of the M113 and the M114 being related..............they are!

Both are always owned by someone with copious amounts of MONEY.

These things do seem to find a way into your wallet :lol: The brighter side is that the M114 is small enough to easily move and store, and they have good curb appeal.

lilreddodge
08-07-2008, 07:18
Bill from Idaho have you ever thought about that people who own M114's or any other piece of armor might make sacrifices in order to be able to afford one? I do not have a copious amount of money and own two. Yes it takes money to own one but I have less money in mine than I would have in say a new pickup. Plus the M114's are not depreciating. I would love to own a new truck, but armor to me is much more fun. It seems that in a lot of posts on this site that there is a tone of jealousness of people who have things that others may not be able to afford. I learned at a very young age in this hobby that there is always going to be someone with more money and better toys than me. The key to military vehicles is to enjoy what you have and maybe someday get lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time and be able to get the vehicle that you have been seeking. Just my two cents worth.

Esteban
08-07-2008, 08:43
That is SHARP !!

superburban
08-07-2008, 10:21
lilreddodge,
Lets see some more pics! I am jealous of your armor. I went the big pickup route (02 F350 Crew Cab), it keeps the wife happier than a wonderful piece of green iron would!

lilreddodge
08-07-2008, 12:23
superburban
I went the get rid of wife route, now it is a lot easier to buy iron. I'll post some more pictures of my armor soon.

superburban
08-07-2008, 14:48
superburban
I went the get rid of wife route, now it is a lot easier to buy iron. I'll post some more pictures of my armor soon.
Keep em coming! I love seing others' toys (as I cant afford any toys right now).

lilreddodge
08-08-2008, 07:13
A fee pictures of my toys past and present. A M114 that was sold in a weak moment and the M5A1 restoration project that was financed by the sale of a nice 70 Dodge RT SE Challenger.

wgtactical
08-08-2008, 07:48
Nice work there lilreddodge 8) The Dodge RT SE Challenger you mentioned brought back memories. My grandmother worked in dashboard assembly and being an employee, was able to walk her red '70 R/T SE Charger through the assembly process :D For some reason she picked the 440 Magnum over the 426 Hemi, when asked why...just said she liked the 440 :roll: