USMC to field more 6 shot grenade launchers.

[F-15 Eagle]

Corps to field more grenade launchers - MarineCorpsTimes.com

The Corps will put a multishot rotational grenade launcher into widespread use beginning this summer, giving more infantrymen the ability to pump six 40mm explosive rounds at enemies within three seconds.
Nearly 2,200 M32 launchers will hit the fleet beginning in July, Marine officials said. Eventually, the service could buy up to 5,000 of the shoulder-fired weapons under a contract with Milkor USA Inc., of Tucson, Ariz., worth at least $42.2 million, said Capt. Geraldine Carey, a spokeswoman for Marine Corps Systems Command.
“The typical [Marine] company will … receive three MSGLs,” she said. “The MSGL is a commander’s discretionary weapon. Unit commanders will decide the means of employment.”
The launcher is considered accurate out to 150 yards, and has a maximum effective range of 410 yards. It weighs 13.2 pounds unloaded, and has a 28-inch stock that extends to 32 inches and a 12-inch barrel, according to Milkor.
The Corps fielded 210 Milkor M32s in 2006 after commanders in Iraq issued an urgent-need request. About 20 of those launchers remain in use, and the Corps is refurbishing 136 more, Carey said.
Acquisition officials have said they want to give grunts an alternative to the 77½-pound belt-fed Mark 19 40mm grenade launcher. The Corps’ gunner community also recommended in 2004 that the service field a beefier alternative to the M203 grenade launcher, a single-shot auxiliary weapon to the M16A4 and M4 rifles that gives small units the ability to provide their own indirect fire support.
“When there’s an exchange of fire going back and forth, one of our goals is to immediately gain fire superiority, and when you fire six rounds and you hear six explosions on the back end, sometimes that quiets the guy who’s shooting back at you,” Maj. Jody White, team leader for the weapon’s acquisition, said last June. “It allows us to maneuver at that point, and seek him out and destroy him.”
The Corps launched a contract competition last year that did not require rotational action from weapons submitted for consideration and opened options to any company that could supply a launcher capable of firing between four and six 40mm rounds. Models from two other companies were tested last summer, but the service again chose Milkor’s launcher, Carey said.
The names of the other companies were not released.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Three per company seems a bit of a low number. How's that going to affect its tactical deployment?

Still, I'm glad to hear the Corps is getting more of these. The infantry is going to be glad to have the extra firepower.

 

[Chino]

Mounting a GL onto a rifle makes it a less ideal rifle (very front heavy) and a less than ideal GL (bad ergonomics).

And your hands have to bear the weight of both weapons even though you can only use one at a time.

Can anyone remember why we switched from the standalone M79 GL to the mounted M203? (I vaguely recall a reason about the M79 Grenadier being unable to defend himself while using the GL.)

 

[winnyfield]

..... an alternative to the 77½-pound belt-fed Mark 19 40mm grenade launcher

Three per company seems a bit of a low number. How's that going to affect its tactical deployment?

Still, I'm glad to hear the Corps is getting more of these. The infantry is going to be glad to have the extra firepower.

Six-shot grenade launchers as very light company mortars

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Six-shot grenade launchers as very light company mortars

Ok, so similar to the reason the M79 was adopted. It filled the gap between the hand grenade and the 60mm mortar.

So is this thing is going to get attached to the weapons platoon? Or is it going to be one per rifle platoon?

 

[Firn]

So is this thing is going to get attached to the weapons platoon? Or is it going to be one per rifle platoon?

The latter, I guess. See “The typical [Marine] company will … receive three MSGLs,” she said. “The MSGL is a commander’s discretionary weapon. Unit commanders will decide the means of employment.”. This phrase could be interpreted both ways, but the number of three matches the rifle platoons very well and it seems to be for me also a more sensible "standard" way to implement them. But as a section in the weapons platoon they could be also be a very interesting addition. In a way this would reflect the usage of the medium machinegun section.

So on the one hand the commander of the company has already a better long ranged indirect HE-projection in the form of the mortars. On the other hand a dedicated grenadier with that kind of concentrated firepower might be too hard to support during a standard mission by a standard squad. 40 mm grenades add weight very quickly. So the rifle platoon sounds like a good testing bed, but so does the weapons platoon . METT-TC should be key.

There are of course times and places where a greater number and an integration at a lower level could make sense. For example during defense (COPs, high-intensity combat) or by vehicle-born troops.


Firn

 

[OPSSG]

The latter, I guess. See “The typical [Marine] company will … receive three MSGLs,” she said. “The MSGL is a commander’s discretionary weapon. Unit commanders will decide the means of employment.”. This phrase could be interpreted both ways, but the number of three matches the rifle platoons very well and it seems to be for me also a more sensible "standard" way to implement them. But as a section in the weapons platoon they could be also be a very interesting addition. In a way this would reflect the usage of the medium machinegun section.

So on the one hand the commander of the company has already a better long ranged indirect HE-projection in the form of the mortars. On the other hand a dedicated grenadier with that kind of concentrated firepower might be too hard to support during a standard mission by a standard squad. 40 mm grenades add weight very quickly. So the rifle platoon sounds like a good testing bed, but so does the weapons platoon . METT-TC should be key.

There are of course times and places where a greater number and an integration at a lower level could make sense. For example during defense (COPs, high-intensity combat) or by vehicle-born troops.


Firn

Firn, if I'm not wrong, the Marines also have the 60mm mortar as a company support weapon. Is that what you are referring to on mortars? Or is it something else (that I'm not aware of)? Please explain to your friend who is a little confused.

Discovery video below:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX-99a1JCc4]Future Weapons: M32 Grenade Launcher[/ame]

This new 6-shot M32 40 mm grenade launcher is over and above their current company support weapons. I like.

 

[Firn]

Firn, if I'm not wrong, the Marines also have the 60mm mortar as a company support weapon. Is that what you are referring to on mortars? Or is it something else (that I'm not aware of)? Please explain to your friend who is a little confused.

This new 6-shot M32 40 mm grenade launcher is over and above their current company support weapons. I like.

Dear OPSSG, sorry to answer you so belatedly.

A (USMC) weapons platoon replaces the three squads with a 60mm mortar section, an assault section, and a medium machine gun section. The assault section consists of dual-purpose rockets such as the FGM-172 SRAW.

As the main source of organic indirect fire support, the 60 mm mortar plays of course a pivotal role in a company. If every rifle platoon gets one MSGL, it could be to a platoon (commander) what the 60mm mortar is to the company.

My thoughts about this, from this older thread

I envisioned not a true light mortar but a GL which could be used to aid the squad/element to fulfill their task. IMHO a true organic mortar support should always be available, best if coming from a location which can be easily supplied with ammunition and as heavy as sensible. Commando and light mortars are certainly excellent tools if more efficient mortar support can not be delivered. Kiwigrunt's points are pretty much spot on.

I also considered the low velocity of the classic 40mm grenade fitting because it would be ideal for short to medium plunging fire. But all things considered the medium velocity one seems to be the far better choice. A good inclinometer would be of course an ideal and even cheap and rather light solution. I do not know if the modern sights on the new GLs coming out are able to cover the whole reach of the faster grenades - so the inclinometer could also be valuable for the longer ranges. The IR lights Schmedlap mentioned could have one included.

The trouble with this new MSGLs is weight. Both the weapons and the ammunition to sustain it add up quickly, so it is IMHO better seen as a crew served weapon of the rifle platoon when used by light infantry.

What about the M320. It has side-mounted sights and even a LRF. There should be a way to turn the sight around 90°. In this case it should be easier to get the rounds on target. Or we use the good old slinging technique with alot of marks after having first lazed the target. Then give the GL a talented guy and let him shoot a lot of rounds. Then make him the squads/platoons first grenadier or light mortarier. He could operate from behind a wall with another guy reloading and an observer close by directing his fire. Does almost sound like a 51mm mortar

Heavy things like the M32 might be a good crew served weapon for a platoon mountain of infantry. But you can carry alot more rounds (12-15?) by bringing instead an M320 with you. If you have your vehicles nearby the situation changes quite a bit.

There are also good arguments (and possibly METT-TC) to push such weapons into the weapon platoon. I wrote in this thread:

Would it make sense if the element on overwatch swaps the second GPMG for the observation and target acquistation/fire direction gadgets mentioned above, some additional MG ammunition and a DMR rifle? I could also imagine to have a dedicated HE-projector instead of the second GMPG, perhaps something like that new Korean Rifle, the XM25 or simply a simple 40mm GL with more ammunition carried by the team.

Firn

 

[lobbie111]

I don't see the use of a six shot grenade launcher, its like a revolver, when you run out your screwed, something magazine loaded or semi auto underbarrel style reload (that is alike a spas-12 not a semi auto M203) would be ideal. While I agree that adding grenade launchers to the front of rifles makes them awkward and top heavy its more efficient to what I can see as a baleout weapon.

If you need all 6 rounds that fast, your probably not going to get to shoot the last round off before you hit the floor, while it would be a 100% improvment on the accuracy of an underbarrel grenade launcher a well trained soldier can hit his mark regardless, and it you shove a 40mm into a room and it goes off, theres not gunna be much thats left alive and anyone who is alive will have bells ringing for days, your just wasting ammo after that. :gun

 

[Kilo 2-3]

I don't see the use of a six shot grenade launcher, its like a revolver, when you run out your screwed, something magazine loaded or semi auto underbarrel style reload (that is alike a spas-12 not a semi auto M203) would be ideal. While I agree that adding grenade launchers to the front of rifles makes them awkward and top heavy its more efficient to what I can see as a baleout weapon.

If you need all 6 rounds that fast, your probably not going to get to shoot the last round off before you hit the floor, while it would be a 100% improvment on the accuracy of an underbarrel grenade launcher a well trained soldier can hit his mark regardless, and it you shove a 40mm into a room and it goes off, theres not gunna be much thats left alive and anyone who is alive will have bells ringing for days, your just wasting ammo after that. :gun

Lobbie111, you don't seem to understand how this weapon would be deployed in combat. Whether its deployed with the rifle squad or with an infnatry company's weapon platoon, it will not be a stand-alone weapon. The launcher operator is going to have Marine rifleman all around him (he'll probably have an assisstant gunner with a rifle as well) and will probably be carrying some kind of small arms himself.

This weapon is designed to be used for suppressive fire, use MOUT situations, vs. fortifications, bunkers, trenches, etc. or times when you have a larger number of enemy soldiers coming at you en masse. Yes firing 6 grenades may seem a bit redundant, but I can only imagine that when the chips are down, having six very angry balls of high explosive shrieking towards the baddies is a heck of a lot better than one.

You may be "wasting ammo" but I have to say, bulets and grenades are vastly cheaper than lives. You can't put a price on the life of your Marines.

Plus, the operator has more flexibility with the 6-shot launcher, he doesn't have to reload as often and it gives him discretion to launch any number of grenades he deems fit , as opposed to the one of the M203.

 

[Ray17]

It is an interesting weapon with great potential.

However, the replenishment remains the issue to be worked out, more so in attack.

 

[lobbie111]

Lobbie111, you don't seem to understand how this weapon would be deployed in combat. Whether its deployed with the rifle squad or with an infnatry company's weapon platoon, it will not be a stand-alone weapon. The launcher operator is going to have Marine rifleman all around him (he'll probably have an assisstant gunner with a rifle as well) and will probably be carrying some kind of small arms himself.

This weapon is designed to be used for suppressive fire, use MOUT situations, vs. fortifications, bunkers, trenches, etc. or times when you have a larger number of enemy soldiers coming at you en masse. Yes firing 6 grenades may seem a bit redundant, but I can only imagine that when the chips are down, having six very angry balls of high explosive shrieking towards the baddies is a heck of a lot better than one.

You may be "wasting ammo" but I have to say, bulets and grenades are vastly cheaper than lives. You can't put a price on the life of your Marines.

Plus, the operator has more flexibility with the 6-shot launcher, he doesn't have to reload as often and it gives him discretion to launch any number of grenades he deems fit , as opposed to the one of the M203.

What I was trying to say was, an M203 takes 20 seconds at the max to reload, a six shot revolving grenade launcher would take a lot longer, you couldn't bring the repeatable firepower to bear on your target, having multiple M203's achieves the same result but provides a faster reload time.

Also remember that a 40mm has a large amount of recoil, your first shot will hit but all the shots after that would be largely inacurate, this means you would have 5 very angry balls going in all the wrong places. An M203 has to be recalibrated every time to fire it much more accurate.

Also there is the notion of too many cooks spoil the broth, you can create a situation where the saturation fire you are producing makes advancing impossible for your own troops

 

[OPSSG]

An M203 has to be recalibrated every time to fire it much more accurate.

I've fired an M203 and I don't know what you mean by 'recalibrated every time to fire it'. Could you explain? I'm just a bit confused. I have to admit that you've lost me there (growing old, can't remember).

BTW, I'm OK with the recoil of the M203 by the way (even though I'm smaller than the average American/Australian solider). IMO, all I need is to be able to put rounds into say a window - I'm not going for a head-shot with a 40mm grenade (unless it's a small side bet).

In the interest of disclosure, I did not have to carry an M203 attached to my M16 as a personal weapon but I was qualified to handle it as part of training.

 

[Firn]

Kilo and OPSSG have already added some valuable points, I will try to keep it short.

For the reasons outlined above I think this MSGL will be tested as part of the USMC rifle platoon or perhaps in a section of the weapon platoon, with the former looking to be the more likely solution. The weapon has been tested by the USMC for quite some time, both in training and combat. I already wrote before this announcement that the M32 might be a good choice for a dedicated grenadier close to the fingertips of the platoon commander, although I would often prefer a lighter weapon for light infantry on the move. Let us see how this turns out.

The weapon is heavy, which is a big drawback, but one which should allow due to the low recoil quick and accurate follow-ups. This greatly facilitates hitting moving targets or static targets under tricky wind conditions. This "semi-automatic" fire can be crucial to suppress strong enemy opposition both during an attack and an ambush and to destroy lightly armored targets (vehicles, etc.) Reloading will take some time but overall the M32 will be able to project a far higher amount of HE in a given time than one M203.

I'm pretty sure that it will be equipped with FCS better or like the ones used by the USMC for the M203, as it greatly increases the hit probability at longer ranges. The use of the faster medium velocity 40 mm grenades would also suit this weapon, flatten and shorten the flight and lengthen it's reach to more than 700 m.


Firn

 

[lobbie111]

I've fired an M203 and I don't know what you mean by 'recalibrated every time to fire it'. Could you explain? I'm just a bit confused. I have to admit that you've lost me there (growing old, can't remember).

I meant recalibrated in terms of your wohle aiming cycle is reset, not like in a rifle where you can stare down the sights for extended periods of time..

 

[Vajt]

-----
I'm pretty sure that it will be equipped with FCS better or like the ones used by the USMC for the M203, as it greatly increases the hit probability at longer ranges. The use of the faster medium velocity 40 mm grenades would also suit this weapon, flatten and shorten the flight and lengthen it's reach to more than 700 m.


Firn

I remember reading last year (not sure if it was the Jane's website) that an 800m range round for this launcher was created. Obviously you also need the proper sighting equipment to take advantage of the extreme range.

I wonder if the AA-12 auto shotgun could be added to a platoon or section as one of the rounds developed for it is actually a shotgun shell that has a small grenade in it? Could also be a handy multi-use weapon to have around.

-----JT-----

 

[Kilo 2-3]

I remember reading last year (not sure if it was the Jane's website) that an 800m range round for this launcher was created. Obviously you also need the proper sighting equipment to take advantage of the extreme range.

I wonder if the AA-12 auto shotgun could be added to a platoon or section as one of the rounds developed for it is actually a shotgun shell that has a small grenade in it? Could also be a handy multi-use weapon to have around.

With a shotgun-sized round you'd have range and firepower constraints that would hamstring the round. The propellant would be too small to have useful range and the grenade would have minimal blast or frag radius.

It's an interesting idea, but probably not a really workable or useful one.