M-32 multi-shot grenade launcher
- Thread starter tomahawk6
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I hear the USMC is field testing them right now. I wonder when we're getting ours??
C
couchcommander
Guest
Probaby never, since O'Connor seems to think that grenades constitute landmines... well at least he did when the Liberals were the ones in charge.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Me likey
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
updated variant of the Armscor. Which I been sayin' we need for oh, 'bout a freakin' decade. You can see the earliest working model in Predator. Colombian army's been usin' it since the '80s. And since they actually been warfightin', maybe they got a point?
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
I have a kind of mixed response to this thing. When I had a chance to play around with one at AUSA last year, I was impressed by the volume of firepower you could put out in the short term, but also less than impressed by the size/weight of the thing, and the amount of time it would take to reload (no 40mm speed loaders like a .38 revolver).
Like everything else, there is a time and place for such a device, I would say it would be best employed in a defensive position or as part of a fighting patrol when you are setting up an ambush. Lugging it around in OBUA fighting is probably the last thing I would want to do, with advance to contact (section attacks) coming a close second.
In the Infantry board, Infanteer put up a series of posts about the infantry attack pointing to experiments done by the USMC. The Marines separated heavy weapons out of the rifle squads (sections in our terminology) and grouped them in a fire support squad per platoon. The heavy weapons in this case was the SAW (our C-9), and grouping them in a separate organization made the other squads faster and more flexible. The "ideal" ideal solution would be to have an "automatic rifle" to provide high volume fire in the squad/section (the Shrike LMG or Ultimax 100 are examples of what seemed to be sought), while support firepower is grouped together for volume of fire. This would include grenade launchers like the M-32, and machine guns like the C-9s and C-6's. If it were up to me, "shoot through" rifle grenades would provide the rifleman with the ability to reach out and touch someone without the added bulk of an M-203 or M-32, but that is my opinion.
Like everything else, there is a time and place for such a device, I would say it would be best employed in a defensive position or as part of a fighting patrol when you are setting up an ambush. Lugging it around in OBUA fighting is probably the last thing I would want to do, with advance to contact (section attacks) coming a close second.
In the Infantry board, Infanteer put up a series of posts about the infantry attack pointing to experiments done by the USMC. The Marines separated heavy weapons out of the rifle squads (sections in our terminology) and grouped them in a fire support squad per platoon. The heavy weapons in this case was the SAW (our C-9), and grouping them in a separate organization made the other squads faster and more flexible. The "ideal" ideal solution would be to have an "automatic rifle" to provide high volume fire in the squad/section (the Shrike LMG or Ultimax 100 are examples of what seemed to be sought), while support firepower is grouped together for volume of fire. This would include grenade launchers like the M-32, and machine guns like the C-9s and C-6's. If it were up to me, "shoot through" rifle grenades would provide the rifleman with the ability to reach out and touch someone without the added bulk of an M-203 or M-32, but that is my opinion.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
The weapon is acutally a subvariant the South African Milkor MGL-140 grenade launcher... which is a modified version of that company's Milkor MGL Mk.1 (the changes are longer cylinder, Picatinny type accessory rails, and a M4 inspired butt). The USMC gave the company a contract for 9000 of them in October of 2005.
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=749
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=749
Similar threads
