▁not ▁want ▁the ▁old ▁can non ▁replaced . ▁Over ▁the ▁years ▁they ▁had ▁become ▁familiar ▁with ▁its ▁every ▁detail ▁and ▁were ▁confident ▁that ▁it ▁would ▁not ▁disappoint ▁them ▁in ▁the ▁cl utch . ▁These ▁experienced ▁art illery men ▁could ▁offer ▁some ▁seem ingly ▁convin cing ▁reasons ▁why ▁the ▁M 1 0 1 ▁was ▁still ▁the ▁superior ▁weapon : ▁its ▁wa ist - high ▁b ree ch ▁made ▁it ▁easier ▁to ▁load ; ▁it ▁had ▁higher ▁ground ▁clear ance ▁when ▁in ▁to w ; ▁but ▁most ▁important , ▁it ▁was ▁consider ably ▁less ▁expensive ▁than ▁the ▁M 1 0 2 . ▁Their ▁arguments , ▁however , ▁were ▁fut ile . ▁ ▁The ▁new ▁M 1 0 2 ▁was ▁substantial ly ▁l ighter , ▁we igh ing ▁little ▁more ▁than ▁ ▁whereas ▁the ▁M 1 0 1 A 1 ▁we ighed ▁approximately ▁; ▁as ▁a ▁result , ▁more ▁am mun ition ▁could ▁be ▁carried ▁during ▁hel ib or ne ▁operations , ▁and ▁a ▁ 3 / 4 - ton ▁tr uck ▁rather ▁than ▁a ▁ 2 ½ - ton ▁tr uck ▁was ▁its ▁prime ▁m over ▁for ▁ground ▁operations . ▁Another ▁major ▁advantage ▁of ▁the ▁M 1 0 2 ▁was ▁that ▁it ▁could ▁be ▁travers ed ▁a ▁full ▁ 6 , 4 0 0 ▁mil s ; ▁the ▁M 1 0 1 A 1 ▁had ▁a ▁limited ▁on - car riage ▁traverse , ▁which ▁required ▁its ▁tra ils ▁( st abil izing ▁legs ) ▁to ▁be ▁shift ed ▁if ▁further ▁traverse ▁was ▁necessary . ▁The