M110A2 conversion to M110

Looking for references / instructions for converting Italeri kit 291 (M110A2) to Viet Nam era M110.
Thanks!
Doug

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 4:13:30 PM UTC-5, Doug wrote:

I believe it is as simple as using the shorter barrel. Italeri did several versions of the M110, M110A1 and M110A2 that were barrel sprue swaps. They also did a German version that included different tracks and some German add ons, but was in a Revell box.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanks Rob,
The kit I have has only the one barrel - OA length is ~9.1 in., excluding the breech. Would be easy enough to cut the existing barrel to the correct length and insert a section of tube at the end as the original plastic tube wall thickness is likely too thin. Would be more economical than purchasing another kit although may not be exactly correct.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 8:41:14 PM UTC-5, Doug wrote:

the breech.

insert a section

too thin. Would

y correct.

M110A2) to Viet Nam

al versions of the M110, M110A1 and M110A2 that were barrel sprue swaps. Th ey also did a German version that included different tracks and some German add ons, but was in a Revell box.
Once upon a time, Verlinden did a resin conversion set #423 to make the old M107 or short barreled M110 into a modern M110A1 or M110A2. Any artillerym an using the Verlinden set said that it included the barrel for the M110. I know barrel depot did a turned metal tube, not sure if it is still availab le.
This site might help you in your project: http://www.modelersite.com/en/169 6/italeri-m110--1-35-scale
Testors was the version I built. It included a photo of the built kit and w as a straight M110, kit #795 and had a name on the tube BLOOD, SWEAT & TEAR S in yellow stencil.
This thread states that what Italeri tries to sell as their M110A1 is in fa ct, the Testors M110 A-nothing.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/47209/thread/1430057655/What+is+the+differen ce+between+the+M110+and+M110A1-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanks again Rob.
Found an article that noted the M107 was a 175 mm howitzer that used the same chassis as the M110. Have been unsuccessful in finding any written detail on the contents of Verlinden kit 423 - although the photo of the box top appears to show a short barrel is included.      Found this in a kit review: "The M110 featured a stubby 25.3 caliber M2A2 8 inch howitzer, with no muzzle brake, while the M110A1 had a longer 39.5 caliber M201 howitzer. The M110A2 added a double baffle muzzle brake to the M110A1 barrel (redesignated M201A1)", ref. http://www.onthewaymodels.com/reviews/ARMO/WAlcott_ARMO_M110_72021_preview.htm
The caliber values being the same for all but the M110A2 as mentioned in the missing-lynx thread you noted.
The photo of the Testor's M110 shows the end of the barrel just past the end of the body, similar to although better than the photo of the Verlinden kit. Warren Kuntz offers the OA barrel length of the M110 is 214.9 in. - or 6.14 in. in 1/35 scale. Not clear if that is from the outer face of the breech to end of barrel or from another reference point. Wish someone would have noted the OA length of the Testor's M110 barrel, as noted above - that would make it easy.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
There are reports that M107 175mm self propelled gun wearing out their tube s in Vietnam and replacement 8" tubes being brought in by heavy helicopters basically turning them into M110 self propelled howitzers. The 107s went o ut of service before the M110 series.
The kits are all virtually identical except for the gun tube and the decals . What Italeri tries to pass off as the M110A1 is just an M110. The M110A1 had a longer tube but with a flared end of the tube. But much like the M107 to M110, the M110 easily became an M110A1 or M110A2 with a change of gun t ube.
If you can guessimate the length of the M110 barrel, just getting a piece o f brass or styrene rod the right size and you'd be in business. It is hard to find photos of the actual vehicle since a tube swap upgraded them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Will cut the barrel and use styrene to fill the end of the barrel. Not having a lathe will forgo trying to create the OD flare at the end of the tube.
While I prefer accuracy - try not to be too anal about details. Although this build will be a gift to a good friend that crewed an M110 early in Nam - so he would most likely and very quickly note any discrepancies.
Thanks again!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 12:17:17 PM UTC-5, Doug wrote:

aving a lathe

this build will

most likely and

Are you sure he'd note discrepancies? I've served on several tanks througho ut my career and I doubt I would be able to note anything other than if som eone tried to pass off one version for another. And that's only going back the past 30 years, not 50 years.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
My comment was based mostly on respect for my good friend and that he is very detail oriented. However, as you note, identifying discrepancies of any kind other than those of a gross overall nature may be unlikely. Will advise any comments he shares after receiving the model - which is going to be a while.
Tank crew member - that is special! Not having the benefit of that experience or anything similar - how loud is it in the turret when a round is fired? Is hearing protection required?
Thank you again Rob - very much appreciate you sharing the benefit of your experiences.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 11:53:44 AM UTC-5, Doug wrote:

very detail

her than those of

es after

ience or anything

protection

r experiences.

t having a lathe

ugh this build will

uld most likely and

On a tank that I crewed, and there have been a fair number, I would notice something like the wrong style track (my old M48A5 used the early style and not the later style often seen). Whereas my M60A3TTS used the later style track, but had a mixture of both old and new style road wheels. The camoufl age was repainted during my ownership and photos from one time won't match photos from a different date.
Now I crewed several Abrams tanks, some of which went through modifications while I was the tank commander as well, not to mention a trip to the deser t that required my second pristine 3-color tank to get a crappy sand colore d paint job. Subsequent Abrams tanks came delivered in factory fresh desert sand. I can tell most of the variations between the years it's been in ser vice.
I only crewed one M1A2 and for just a brief period so unless someone tried to pass off a very late version as my early M1A2, I'd be hard pressed to po int out inaccuracies that would truly be just variations.
As a young lieutenant, I was normally asked to build a model kit of a fello w lieutenant's particular tank. Believe me, using 1989 standards, and tryin g to replicate markings by hand, most were very happy to have a tank that w as supposed to be their tank, but not even close by my standards of the lat e 90s, let alone today.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 11:53:44 AM UTC-5, Doug wrote:

ience or anything

protection

Yes, tanks are very loud. We wore combat vehicle crewman helmets (CVC) whic h have a fiberglass shell and a headset that allow radio and intercom commu nication. Itchy and uncomfortable and tighter than wearing a football helme t. When firing, additional ear plugs should be worn but weren't because you need to be able to hear other crewmen and the radio. Yes, I am a little ha rd of hearing.
The 120mm cannon of the Abrams is very loud, much more so than the 105 of t he M48A5 or M60A3, but those are still loud as well. If you don't have some hearing protection on, either the CVC helmet or ear plugs, your ears will be ringing after the first shot. Even the machine guns are loud enough to r equire hearing protection. Additionally, the turbine whine of the Abrams is enough to cause hearing loss. It's an occupational hazard generations of t ankers have suffered through.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanks Rob - appreciate you sharing your experiences.
Did you see the movie 'Fury'? If so - how accurate were the tank operations and interactions portrayed? Understand those interactions took place decades ago with older technology - whereas current tactics would be significantly different.
Was surprised to read after seeing the movie the battle between the Tiger and Sherman used the last operational Tiger I tank - and was not animated. That is true dedication to detail!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 12:02:50 PM UTC-5, Doug wrote:

ons and

ago with older

and Sherman used

edication to

My brother in law asked the same thing about crew interaction. On a tank, t here is still rank as in any unit. The senior person is the tank commander, usually an officer, sergeant first class or staff sergeant. The gunner is normally a sergeant, the driver a specialist and the loader a private of so me type. Rank is rank and there are crew commands and responses drilled int o armor crewmen that become as automatic as breathing. Grabbing a clerk to stick in the bow gunner spot is odd, but it would be the least critical pos ition. All he needs to do is shoot a machine gun and mess with the radios.
Of course, their tank battles are much closer than modern day gun fights. O ur "battle sight" is set at 1200m with many engagements beginning at 3000m (roughly 2 miles).
I also thought the guy freezing instead of firing the gun at the dismounted troops was odd. Especially with tanks, shooting at fleeting dismounted sha pes should come naturally. I also thought the execution of the German POW w as odd.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have read from more than one source that Waffen SS were treated differently than Wehrmact soldiers. Read a few stories about how few Waffen SS became prisoners and why. Shooting the Waffen SS was disturbing but not unexpected.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 3:13:30 PM UTC-6, Doug wrote:

0A2) to Viet Nam

Wow! People still post here? I wanted to check an ancient post of mine from twenty years ago to find an acquaintance. In answer to your question, yes, you can cut the barrel and insert a tube. That's exactly what I did on mine. (and added rifling)It flares a little at the end, so having a lathe certainly won't hurt. I even posted photos to A rmorama. In real life there's a lot more to do. Each section of the rear of the barrel are different lengths depending upon the model. I just measured them extensively and a resin company MAY be doing them soon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 3:13:30 PM UTC-6, Doug wrote:

I should have read the replies. 71 inches for barrel length. I'm fortunate to have access to the original M110.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 4:36:48 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Yeah, we were having this discussion 8 months ago. One of the few real modeling related threads in quite some time. Even Cookie stopped posting his armor reviews of preview kits.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 11:12:51 AM UTC-5, RobG wrote:

Thank God. Fairly worthless. As proof I point to his Academy M551 review, in which he gave it great marks. Then after Pawel ripped it, he did a complete reversal on the Gulf War release.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 12:31:39 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

The were good for the newsprint and USENET days, but today, a picture is worth a thousand words. Anyone with a smartphone and facebook account can upload a review with pictures.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
replying to RobG, ray allen wrote: My best friend was part of the crew that tested the M110A1E2.
Bill said that the 25-caliber gun tube was replaced with a 35-caliber gun tube, and that the hydraulics had to be redone because they were blowing hydraulic at high powder charges.
Since the gun tube in the model is 9.1" long, cutting it down to 6-3/8" would give you a 25-caliber tube.
Bill also said that when using charge 9, the crew had to dismount, he had to use an extra long lanyard, and the recoil would lift the gun completely off the ground and rock it back on the spade. The gun also had to be reset after each charge 9 shot, so the plan was to only use charge 9 for special weapons (nuclear artillery shells).
I saw some video of the initial high charge tests at night and immediately understood why the flash suppressor was added. The BRIGHT made it easy for the enemy to locate you without using counter-battery radar, which made you a tempting target.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.