When a brand new Milkor Mk14 grenade launcher arrived mid-deployment I immediately recognized the older, but functional, South African design. After putting smoke, flare, HE, and even firing a XM576E1 buckshot round through it was I was more than satisfied and knew I’d be taking it out with us on future patrols. I liked it enough that it got me to thinking about how it work when employed as a soldier’s primary weapon.
While I was in the Q-Course, I talked to one Cold Warrior who told me that his ODA used to have each team member patrol with the under barrel M203 grenade launcher attached to their M16′s. Their SOP was that when taking enemy fire each soldier would turn to face in the direction of the contact and fire off a 40mm High Explosive round. The idea of a dozen HE rounds suddenly coming down on the enemy during a ambush is certainly appealing. For better or worse, his team never had the opportunity to validate this tactic in combat.
Now I’ve been told that various US and NATO units within ISAF are patrolling with a grenade launcher as their primary weapon. While positive reports about the XM25 continue to pour in, it also appears more units are adopting this technique with the HK M320 as a stand-alone. Of course grenadiers are nothing new, the idea being to beef up the fire power (and for a little added reach into the defilade) within a infantry squad just as the M249 SAW is an effort to integrate a light machine gun as an organic weapon in squad sized elements.
The concept of rolling out with just a 40mm grenade launcher was utilized as far back as the Vietnam War when a MACV-SOG operator named Henry King carried an experimental (I suspect the China Lake Model 40mm) pump action grenade launcher as his primary weapon on at least one cross border mission into Laos, so writes John Stryker Meyer in his memoir,“Across the Fence.” Just in case things went south, and they frequently did, King also carried a Browning High Power pistol as a backup. SOG operators are also reported to have fired Flechette or double-ought buckshot rounds from their M79′s during the close quarter engagements they encountered in South East Asia.
While I don’t want to get to deep into current operational techniques, I’m just glad that I won’t be on the receiving end of 6 x 40mm grenades any time soon!
Kit Up! contributor Jack Murphy is a former Ranger, Special Forces Soldier and is the author of the military thriller Reflexive Fire.
{ 43 comments… read them below or add one }
OFP MARSOC!!
Being a white guy with military equipment and uniform I need this beard bro!
Those are some epic gunny rolls too.
SOF get to wear beards…why not just be happy someone's command has logic instead of bitching?
The beard issue is a little old hat here in 2011 guys. These are not the droids you are looking for.
hehehe.. nice.
Whatever happened to the China Lake approach to launchers? It seems a good way for a primary carry launcher to carry multiple rounds and have the ability to swap out rounds like on a shotgun.
What happened to the M-32?
It tended to jam if you put anything other than HE round-nose ammo into it. It apparently refused to reliably feed the buckshot rounds, and couldn't chamber flares. It was, however, when fully loaded, somehow magically only about a half pound heavier than a loaded M79. Of course, I would send you a Google Quest, but when you google "China Lake Grenade Launcher", go figure, all you get is COD links. Buggerit. It was a great idea on paper that apparently didn't do so well in the field.
Not MARSOC
oh shit jack.. i hope you scrutinised this picture carefully before the politically correct brigade detach their arse holes all together and find something racist and or overtly religious in its content like with that cluster bomb effect you had with the motor bike. personally i think the beard gives it that "the hangover" look. frikkin way cool toys.. i want one (for purely recreational purposes naturally).
Is that Milkor MGL/M32 variant missing it's barrel or something?
Nope. That's the newest MGL variant, the Mk14 (I think it's known as the M32A1 in USMC service) which is designed to be shorter than the original.
The M320 seems to be accelerating the delinking of the grenade launcher from the rifle (which I think is the primary trend vs thumpers being primary). Except for recently read reports about conventional 101st infantry squad grenadiers carrying the XM25 as their primary, I haven't heard/read of many troops choosing the M320 as the primary (please share). Even in Reg't, the M320 is the auxiliary to the M4.
It does seem what is old is new again and I think we can attribute that trend to the special ops community with its flexibility in arming individual troops. I saw reports early in Iraq with M79s making a come back w/spec ops teams.
Maybe the thumper is following the path of shotgun employment? An additional but separate weapon for those "special" occasions?
BTW, it was common in Nam for M79 infantry grenadiers to carry it as their primary weapon. The grenadier and M60 gunner were the only men authorized a .45 by the TOE for a couple of years.
Major Rod, I've been told privately that at least one US military unit and two European units have soldiers carrying grenade launchers as their primary weapon, including one unit that uses the grenadier as their point man. I'd rather not get into which specific units, what kind of load out, ect, publicly as that is the sort of information the enemy could exploit if they were smart about it.
Thanks for the information about the M79 in Vietnam though, I didn't know that. Sometimes it is safer to come at these issues from a historical point of view rather than to state matter of fact what tactics our troops are using here and now.
Thanks! Is the "unit" a plt. co, bn or bde? Spec ops unit, don't even answer. I'm sure individuals are doing all kinds of crazy stuff but that doesn't indicate a trend. (Except for the 101st unit that recieved the XM25 which is a special case due to the specific weapon). MOST conventional units equipped with a 40mm stand alone grenade launcher are also carrying an M4.
I'm reasonably sure the trend is to separate the 40mm & M4. Makes too much sense and thank God. I humped an M203 for awhile and it was a pain. Would have much rather had a slung M79 for when needed or expected to use it.
Deciding to carry a ONE SHOT grenade launcher as a primary weapon has to be done with pretty deliberate thought. Most specifically, can your buddy cover you while reloading. Not something to do in an urban environment or terrain that affords a lot of cover/concealed enemy approaches (e.g. rocky mountainside/ravine). Don't think we are going to see many conventional units who have to fight over a lot of varied terrain during a mission vs a spec ops unit conducting a raid doing it.
If I'm not mistaken, the three units that Mr. Murphy is talking about, are two regular infantry units (Plt. and Coy. levels) and one SOF unit ("Platoon" level). The grenadier in that role are not using a single shot GL, but the Milkor/VLTOR MGL with six rounds.
Cool. Can you confirm that Murph?
That's a DEVGRU/ST6 Operator in the picture. The Knight Templar cross/patch gave it away.
Great write up Jack.
I also heard some where that besides HE, buckshot, etc.., it aslo has a round that can be fired into the air and is a camera on a small chute, in order to view the surrounding area. Does anyone know if this is true?
No, but that sounds awesome. I want some.
Dont abuse me for the source here, but i did see a round that can be fired into the air with a camer and chute on " Future Weapons".
Yes, it exists, some info can be found here: http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Ammuniti…
The USMC and Navy and USAF still use M-203s Army is the only user of the M-320. Older M-79s and MILTOR Mk14, are in use more for anti IED use. There all in use out there.
Navy uses the M320 too. A Virginia Beach based company makes "holsters" for them.
As an ex-marine, I can say by experience, although not combat, that the M203 was not particulaly accurate. If memory serves me, didn't you have to fire it from the hip ( like John Wayne?) How much more accurate are these other 2? Wtf is a M79 also? I was in during the cold war '76-80 and I don't remember it from back then.
As an ex-marine with some experience with the M203, although not combat, I would like to know how much more accurate are these two modern types? I remember the M203 having to be fired from the hip ( like John Wayne) The Xm25 looks like it has a rather sophisticated scope on it, does it work as good as it looks or do you know?
BTW fellas, that's a Mk13 Mod0 EGLM grenade launcher in a stand alone stock and Dr. red dot optic mounted on top, in the hands of that operator. Don't see too many of those in the 'Stan.
I've seen picture of Marsoc operators with old M79's, any idea if the M32 will be replacing?
"Now I’ve been told that various US and NATO units within ISAF are patrolling with a grenade launcher as their primary weapon "
There's a video of Aussie sf using a KAC M203 stand alone from a helicopter in Afghanistan.
Top pic is of the Mk13 grenade launcher by FN, original for SCAR rifles.
For all we know, in 50 years every single soldier might be carrying something similar to an XM25, simply because they're that much more effective than small arms. The technology won't be that much more costly than rifles by that point, I'm sure. It could change everything about infantry combat forever. Tactics, equipment, and the nature of infantry.
The real heavy duty weapons will probably end up being railguns though… but not for another 100 years. We simply don't have the power supplies to put them in say, tanks or howitzers yet.
We might! Maybe even lasers but I think soldiers will always have to have the ability to target an individual. Exploding grenades just aren't very desciminating and I don't see concern about innocent casualties diminishing.
Interesting the comment the C"COld Warrior said about the M230 on each weapon. My dad in Korea had every rifleman in his platoon carry a rifle grenade at the end of his M1 rifle and do the same thing. I created fear in the enemyand many times broke their attack.
I loved getting a chance to shoot that thing last time I was in Iraq. Even if it was just training ammo fam fire, it was amazing how easy it was to bullseye the target.
What happened to the story they ran here a few months ago about the 320 being unpopular in the field on the grounds of it being to bulky and/or complicated?
Actually I like the computerized 12ga version of grenades but feel they would be better deployed by m203 firing device. The man packed versions are too big and bulky and the ammunition to heavy. Limiting the weapon to a single soldier makes him a target, a specialist which the squad doesn’t need. No weapons should be deployed at the company level that cannot be operted effectively by every soldier in the company.
I must agree with concept that in an ambush firing a grendae in every direction can help break the ambush quickly.
I wonder what the recoil would be like if you loaded the XM25 with 25mm fullmetal jacket solid lead slug for dealing with individuals in the open at close to medium range?
Call it the ultimate personnel insult.
Marcus: IIRC that Marines ordered a few thousand of them last year.
Try googling EX-41 instead.
Thanks, interesting decision. For folks that don't know how many grenadiers are involved (6 per plt) we are probably talking 18-42 soldiers in a force of about 7000 troops armed with grenade launchers (about 10% of 70k).
Thinking out loud, I'd like to ask if its a directed or suggested practice and are they mounted or primarily a ground force. Interesting phenomenon and probably less common than troops using shotguns as their primary. I spend most of my time near Benning. Haven't heard it discussed. I'll be sure to ask.
Posted about 12 hours ago. What happened?
Basically said number of troops is between 18 – 50 grenadiers in a deployed force of 70K. Let's say 10% have GLs that's about 7000 grenadiers (.7%).
Interesting phenomenon but we probably have more troops armed with shotguns as their primary. It would still be interesting to find out if in those units if GL as primary is "directed or suggested" guidance and if these units are mounted or not. I'm at Benning and will be asking.
That's pretty much it.
I don't know for a fact but I don't believe the decision is not based on command guidance or doctrine, but rather troops figuring out what works for their unit in their AO through trail and error. My information is that these are dismounted patrols we are talking about. Correct me if I'm wrong, or repeating erroneous information, but isn't using a shotgun as a primary weapon beginning to butt up against some Geneva Convention issues?
Mods, please delete my, "Thanks, interesting decision…" post. Its redundant (and this one of course)
Yes, that's why you strictly aim for equipment. You know, hats, AK47 racks, etc.
Thanks for sharing. I'll be at the Infantry/Armor Conference tomorrow and will aks among other things.