In Summary
The US Army is switching to a new assault rifle and machine gun, thereby appearing to (partly) move away from the standard NATO rifle calibre. Should the rest of NATO follow suit?
The US is procuring new rifles in a completely new calibre.
This new calibre is more powerful, but also heavier and larger.
Should the rest of NATO also switch to this new calibre?
Defence Update | In the 1950s, NATO (under American pressure) adopted the 7.62x51mm cartridge as the standard ammunition for assault rifles and machine guns. However, this calibre was ‘too heavy’, with significant recoil, and could scarcely be used in fully automatic mode. Experience in Vietnam also showed that, in many firefights, quantity trumps quality, with the result that NATO adopted a new, lighter standard calibre: 5.56×45mm.
Nowadays, virtually every NATO country equips its soldiers with 5.56mm calibre rifles – including the Netherlands. The 5.56 has less recoil, is more compact and weighs less, allowing soldiers to carry more ammunition and deploy it in a controlled manner: for example, standard NATO magazines in 5.56 hold 30 rounds, whilst most 7.62 magazines hold only 20 rounds.
However, the US Army has this year begun rolling out a new standard cartridge: the 6.8×51mm, developed by the US branch of the originally Swiss company SIG Sauer for the new XM7 and XM250 family of assault rifles and machine guns. The first units are now being equipped with these weapons, thereby moving away from the NATO standard. The 6.8 is comparable in size to the 7.62 and is therefore also considerably heavier than the 5.56.
Whereas a soldier can carry 210 rounds of 5.56, the greater weight and larger dimensions of the 6.8 calibre mean this has been reduced to just 140 rounds. So why ‘switch’ at all? The 6.8 calibre is designed for higher velocities thanks to an innovative cartridge case design. Greater velocity, combined with a heavier projectile, simply means a more effective round, even at longer ranges. This is certainly important when facing opponents with increasingly sophisticated bulletproof vests.
It would not be the first time that the US has dictated which cartridges are used by the rest of NATO. However, there are still many question marks surrounding the 6.8. For instance, the 5.56 remains in regular use in the US by certain military units and for troops not actively deployed on the front line. The logistics of changing the standard ammunition also present a significant challenge: not only must new rifles be procured, but troops must also be trained to use them, ammunition must be produced, and forward-deployed stocks must be replaced. What does this development mean for the Netherlands (and Europe)? Should we make the switch too?
The war in Ukraine shows that the lessons learnt from Vietnam still hold true: quantity of firepower (5.56) is sometimes more important than quality (7.62). When soldiers are clearing a trench, a cartridge with a range of several hundred metres is not necessary. The programme centred on the 6.8 calibre therefore dates back to the time of the war in Afghanistan, where distances during firefights were often long and the 5.56 calibre consequently (literally) fell short. On the other hand, should a clash arise in the coming years with an adversary making full use of high-quality bulletproof vests and fragmentation helmets, the 6.8 calibre may well be the right choice.
There is an urgent need to expand both firearms and ammunition production in Europe. For instance, the Netherlands has (rightly) donated a large proportion of its reserves of assault rifles to Ukraine. Furthermore, the Dutch standard assault rifle has now been in service for 30 years and was modernised some 10 years ago. Is this, then, the right time to follow the US lead and switch entirely to a new calibre? Given the nature of European defence, this is a decision the Netherlands cannot make alone. The interoperability of NATO forces is crucial in the event of war; consider, in particular, cooperation with Germany.
A few crucial points for policymakers:
Keep an eye on developments in the US: there is a great deal of scepticism about 6.8, even within the US armed forces (though this was also the case initially with 5.56).
Coordinate with other European NATO countries. For example, Germany is in the process of replacing its old 5.56 rifles with tens of thousands of new 5.56 rifles, whilst Scandinavian countries are looking into 6.8.
If new investments are to be made, opt for systems that are as modular as possible and can be adapted (without incurring excessive costs) to future developments in ammunition and other areas.
Perhaps even more important than the choice of a weapon or calibre is the establishment of domestic production for both weapons and ammunition, not least to meet Ukrainian demand. The focus is currently mainly on the production of artillery shells, but there are signs that Ukraine, having used up its stock of 5.45x39mm (the standard calibre of the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War) is running low and is therefore making greater use of 5.56mm cartridges and rifles supplied through Western aid, or older 7.62x39mm weapons. Large-scale production of 5.45x39mm in the West is limited and has only recently been resumed in Ukraine.