Talk:M101 howitzer

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nojamus (talk | contribs) at 03:58, 4 August 2012 (→‎Use of M101 by services). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 12 years ago by Nojamus in topic Use of M101 by services
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Military science, technology, and theory task force
Taskforce icon
Weaponry task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force

Merge from M101A1

 
M-56 Howitzer 105mm (Towed) on display at Fort Sam Houston, Texas (March 2007). According to the display sign, it was recovered north of Kuwait City in February 1991.

This appears to be the same gun called the M101 howitzer in the List of artillery page. I'm going to move this page to their and leave this as a redirect. Lisiate 01:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

It's not exactly the same gun, and the M101A1 was the howitzer in general use when I directed its fire a number of times in South Vietnam as a Marine Corps forward observer. But the differences were not operational, just designed to make it easier to machine, if I remember correctly. Seems like a sensible change to me.
Phil Stoner
Agree, these articles should be merged. Bukvoed 19:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Agree with merging the articles into M101 howitzer. --Edward Sandstig 23:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Already merged the two articles. Will attempt to reintegrate more of what was written on the M101A1 article into this article later today. --Edward Sandstig 01:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply


M-65

Should no mention be made of the license production of the M2/M101 gun/howitzer in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as the M-65 (although some sources say it is M-56). I think it is quite significant that a country in the Communist-bloc license manufactured a US howitzer and it speaks exceptionally well about the quality of the design. 72.146.187.38 02:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)SAWGunner89Reply

It was mentioned in the M101A1 article and apparently was lost during the merge of the articles. Fixed. Thanks. Bukvoed 08:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yugoslavia had a fairly "good" relationship with NATO countries. Politically, it had positioned itself between Communist countries and Western nations (to Stalin's chagrin). As a result, Yugoslavia ended up using some NATO equipment. --71.172.37.93 (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Moved from article page as it was not well integrated into the presentation - "(M56 is copy of German 10.5 cm leFH 18 howitzer not USA M101 but it use 105mm USA ammo)". Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Moved from article page as it appears to be wrong - "Yugoslavia manufactured the M101 as the M-56, and 100 of these were inherited by Croatia." Jane's Armour and Artillery 1981-82 notes the M-56 is a copy of the German 10.5-cm M18/40, although the M-56 uses semi-fixed ammunition unlike the original German howitzer. Also, on the M-56 vs M-65 issue, JAA notes the M-65 was a copy of the U.S. M114 155-mm howitzer. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Use of M101 by services

It would be nice if this article could include details about the use of the M2 or M101 howitzer not only by country, but also by service of a particular country. In the Philippines for example, this artillery piece is still used by the Philippine Army and by the Philippine Marine Corps. It was also used by the defunct Philippine Constabulary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.93.16.162 (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Related to that point, I notice the article is written in the past tense. This is inappropriate. I'll have to remember to come back and fix that when I get the chance!Nojamus (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Reply