OK, literally LOL. Thanks for that.Originally Posted by okie john
OK, literally LOL. Thanks for that.
I'm guessing that trade off would not be worth it. The USMC fully fielded the Milkor during GWOT, but isn't so hot and bothered by it anymore. As a great man once said "uncommon guns are uncommon for a reason". In the case of the Milkor, it's mainly revolving (ha, see what I did there) around the encumbrance and fact that you can shoot 6 rounds quickly, but it takes forever to load, and isn't as straight forward to swap rounds, if that makes sense. HEDP is, after all, only one of the many munitions employed by a grenadier in support of the fire team and squad.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
I think the earlier fielding of the Milkor missed several opportunities that diminished its usefulness:
-Lack of Fire Control Unit. While the Milkor featured an adjustable sight, it had to be manually adjusted on the fly, in 25m increments. Due to the extreme trajectory of the 40x46mm (things comparable to a potato gun in velocity) being off by even 25m in range estimation would result in a complete miss. The ability to accurately call the difference between 225m and 250m is a very refined eye.
With a fire control unit, the laser range finder automatically adjusts the reticle to correct for the trajectory, greatly increasing the probability of a first round hit.
-The use of 40x46mm ammo. x46 has a point accuracy range of 125m, and an area range of 400m. Not only is this range limited, but it also misses out on one of the biggest advantages of the Milkor - its weight. The weight of the Milkor allows firing 40x51mm grenades as it cuts recoil down to safe, comfortable levels.
40x51 extends the point accuracy range to 250m and area out to 800m, while also having a flatter trajectory, shorter time of flight, and larger HE payload.
-Use of HEDP. The HEDP round is very mediocre, as it takes an already limited sized grenade, and turns a good chunk of it into a shaped charge. The casing itself is also dated, using a scored steel sleeve, rather then a modern pre-fragmented body. Pre-fragmented HE grenades such as those used by Rheinmetal feature 1500 BB's with denser dispersions and more even fragmentation patterns, increasing probability of lethality.
Airbursting takes this one step further. Now the pre-fragmented grenade is going off in the air, which allows more of those fragements to go into a useful direction vs being blasted directly into the ground like a point impacting grenade.
--> As fielded earlier, the Milkor wouldnt have been worth the weight. You'd just be going from 1 round of inaccurate, short ranged mediocrity, to 6 rounds of inaccurate short ranged mediocrity.
But with the 'XM40' (Milkor + 40x51 Air Burst + Fire Control Unit) suddenly that becomes 6 rounds of accurate, medium range, pretty good HE... which I think could be worth it.
That said, while the Milkor currently the only off the shelf 40x51 option, there certainly room for improvement in 40x51mm launchers. A FCU equipped 40x51mm 3+1 pump action might be a good option, similar to the Russian GM94 that they seem to be using pretty often in Syria. A 5 shot, slimmer and lighter Milkor might be another option.
So why not just put a FCU on a lightweight single shot x51 option (easy development if needed/wanted), instead of the encumbrance of the multi-shot launcher? What does it realistically gain you, in the context of squad level operations and higher where we've got multiple GLs fielded by guys who can actually function as rifleman as well as maintain ammo commonality with the rest of the squad?
All your pros/advantages sound like they are FCU and munitions capability based, not multi-shot launcher and its associated weight/bulk based.
ETA: also, aren't you now depriving the squad of it's primary close range "IDF" option for troops in defilade? Aren't you pretty much giving them a direct-lay mortar at this point, and its associated limitations in close range engagements? It's been a while for me....but I don't think it's a great idea to direct lay mortars at a building across a double lane highway, right? whereas the M320/M203 is ideal for that. We can use direct lay mortars for the stuff you're talking about.
ETA2: the Carl Gustav is now organic to a Marine rifle squad. What gap does adding the Milkor cover which isn't already better addressed by mortars and the organic Charlie G?
Last edited by TGS; 03-08-2021 at 11:06 AM.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
-Single shot: The issue with the 40x51 is recoil. 240-250g grenade (same as 40x53) @ 100ms. Whereas 40x46 is 185g @ 76ms. So you really can't go that lightweight for single shot, barring perhaps a double hydraulic recoil buffer in both the stock and sliding pistol grip. Once you've got a 8-9lb single shot option, it starts to make sense to instead just go with a slightly heavier multi shot. The M32 is 14.6lbs, but the more stripped down south african Ripple (same 6 shot design) is only 11lbs.
-Multi shot. Multi shot offers several important advantages. First is salvo fire. Even the 240g x51 projectile is a good bit smaller then a hand grenade, so a single grenade may not be enough, especially when human aiming error and wind drift is taken into effect. Having 2-3 rounds airbusting within a few seconds into a target greatly increases the hit probability.
Multi shot is also advantageous for ambush and counter ambush work. And its also useful for engaging / suppressing a broader area target (ie enemy squad is arrayed on a hillside across a 50m wide patch in 3-4 positions).
The last advantage of the multi shot is that it allows a single 'super grenadier' to replace the firepower of the 2-3 single shot grenadiers. This reduces the weight carried by those other grenadiers (allowing them to just be riflemen), or allows them to carry other weapons for the same weight (ie M72 LAW, more G ammo, 84mm shells for the CG.)
-IDF function: The Milkor should operate exactly the same as a single shot - capable of targeting close range point targets as well as lobbing rounds in a defilade arc. And since the 40x51 comes in airbust, that is inherently a counter defilade weapon.
-Carl Gustaf: The Milkor offers more shots, the ability to be operated by a single man, the ability to be fired indoors, and the ability to rapidly engage close range targets. It can also be used in urban areas where the blast of the CG warhead may lead to concerns about collateral damage.
On a related to PDW note, it will be interesting to see how the Marines are able to carry a M27, CG, and its large and heavy ammo.
Carl Gustav M4= 14.55lbs
Aimpoint FCS13RE = 3.53lbs
HE 441D Airburst = 6.83lbs
x3= 20.5lbs
= 38.53lbs
This is about the same weight as the Milkor w/ 24rds + B&T mp9 5.7 w/ 140rds.
Solution in search of a problem. Both the PDW caliber wars and the Milkor.
The Milkor would be absolutely fantastic if one wanted an effective 'drive by' grenade launcher. 6 shots very quickly and GTFO it is ideal for that situation. They look really damn cool and I wish I'd been able to shoot one and not just fondle them a few times. But for speed of reloading, changing ammo types, and plain lugging around it's... less than ideal.
For ammo flexibility, reload speed, simplicity, battlefield redundancy (making one guy a 'super' anything is asking for a massive loss of abilities with one casualty) and overall solving an infantry squad's problems - the better answer by far is keeping that M27 IAR with 210 rounds of ammo so the grenadiers can always do rifleman stuff too. Instead of hamstringing their flexibility for a weapon that is absolutely fantastic in one narrow mission scope, and cumbersome and limiting in many others.
For infantry/forward combat elements it seems the ideal takeaway is to just put those whizbang FCG/sighting systems on the M320/M203's and drive on.
Now, for perma-fobbits and support dweebs that have important shit to do that's made harder by lugging around an M4, a compelling argument could be made for a TP9/MP7 esque compact and thigh-holstered SMG sort of thing with a small buttstock if it's purely a defensive weapon. But that still adds complication with the logistics of training and ammo differences vs basically everyone in uniform carrying a fundamentally similar long gun.
Speaking from my last go-round out there as a 100% support dweeb, a 10.3 or 11.5in Colt with a CCO and good sling would have been absolutely perfect.
Most if not all of our M32s ( Milkor GLs) are either at DRMO or soon to be on their way there... The HK M 320 GLs with stand alone stock kits are replacing both the 203s and the M32s. The M32s break pretty easily...and there can be rate of fire issues with them. I would argue that a guy with a standalone M320 as his primary would be well served with a PDW for self defense as well.
A few years ago , coming out of the Gunners symposium, was a document calling for a large purchase of MK18 uppers and trijicon MROs for much the same reason as a PDW. That went nowhere as well. However soon the recon community will be going IAR pure as well and as part of their CQC equipment set will be getting 10.4 inch HK416 uppers for their IARs along with the standard 16 inch USMC uppers so that they can run their KAC NT4 suppressors in the houses without it turning into a musket . I could see a renewed interest in the short rifle coming around again after those are seen in recons hands...
"So strong is this propensity of mankind, to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions, and excite their most violent conflicts." - James Madison, Federalist No 10
Great discussion about 40mm!
I keep seeing this reference to a 5.7x28 from B&T. I can’t find it online. Is this a real thing or what you’d want if you were king?
I’m along your way of thinking. As a former tanker, the idea of a PDW has always made a lot of sense. I know that there is a new SMG supposedly going to the armor forces but I’ve always thought a 7 inch or so AR based gun would make the most sense from a logistical and training stand point. It would share the same ammo and mags as a the M16/M4 carried for dismounted duties inside the tank and be at least as effective inside 100 meters as a pistol. Still even then it would be hard to find the space inside a full up Abrams.
A 5.7 based gun would simply add another complication to the S4/G4 side of the house.
Sadly, the MP9 5.7 is not (yet) a real thing. Weights are based on my weights of my empty 20 and 30rd B&T mags, and then inputting multiples of the 6.5g cartridge weight of 5.7x28. Thats 1/2 the weight of 9mm or 5.56, which is one of the lesser discussed aspects of the cartridge.
MP9 is the ideal platform for a PDW - 12" folded vs 16" for the MP7; 3.5lbs w/ optic vs 4.2lbs irons for MP7.
Due to the greater swept bore volume of 5.7 vs 4.6, it can drive any projectile of the same weight (27-40gr) to faster velocities per inch of barrel length. So you could get about the same ballistics out of a 5" MP9 in 5.7 as a 7" barrel MP7. That swept bore volume issue is why there is a 5.7 pistol, but HK could not make their 4.6 UCP a reality.
To really make sense as a PDW vs just carrying a carbine, the weapon needs to be holsterable, which the MP9 does well.
Reply With Quote