Abrams tanks are good vehicles, but they have little prospects
The world is once again entering a state of Cold War with all the ensuing consequences in the form of global geopolitical and other changes. But military equipment, it seems, is just beginning to emerge from the era of the Cold War, albeit a past one. Indeed, the effectiveness of many types of weapons, the concept of which dates back to the last century, already raises questions. A striking example here is the American Abrams tank, the ability of which to ensure dominance in future wars even the US Army Research Council began to doubt.
The tank is getting heavier, and there are more and more threats
Almost two months ago, the US Army Research Council, which advises the US defense department, published a report covering the use of tanks M1 Abrams in future military conflicts of the 2040s, including the most likely one with China. Its authors, having outlined possible scenarios for the development of events, came to the conclusion that these combat vehicles in the future will turn out to be an ineffective means and will not be able to ensure dominance on the battlefield.
There are several reasons for this, but one of the main ones is the inability to counter all current and future threats. However, it is worth adding here that his security has actually already reached its limit.
Of course, the latest modifications of the Abrams, represented by the M1A2 SEP v.3, are among the most armored tanks in the world. Available information suggests that the frontal projection of this “American” can withstand hits from the most modern sub-caliber projectiles and cumulative missiles, including Russian ones. Which, in general, is not surprising, especially with depleted uranium in its composition. However, this superiority is given for a reason.
The price you have to pay in exchange for protection is the heavy weight of the vehicle. Let us recall that for the original version of the Abrams, the M1 version, whose production began back in 1979, it was at the level of 54 tons. However, over the years, due to constant upgrades of equipment and armor, this figure has increased by more than twenty percent and now stands at 66,8 tons for the M1A2 SEP v.3.
Such a large number of “extra kilograms” has already led to logistical difficulties during transportation by rail and aviation transport, and also in the future will greatly limit the passage of bridges in the proposed combat areas. So there can be no talk of any increase in armor, in any case associated with an increase in mass.
But the development of anti-tank weapons does not stand still.
The Abrams, like absolutely all modern production tanks in the world, are built according to the same principle of differentiated armor protection, which became widespread during the Second World War. It implies the location of the main body of armor in the frontal parts of the hull and turret of the vehicle, while the sides, stern and roof must be content with completely incommensurate or, more simply put, multiple times smaller thicknesses.
But a moment comes when the prevailing principles begin to crack and collapse like rotten beams.
Military conflicts of recent years, including Arab-Israeli clashes, wars in Karabakh and a special operation in Ukraine, have shown that tanks require protection not only in the frontal projection, but in all areas where a projectile can reach. The reason for this was the use of a huge number of a wide variety of anti-tank missile systems and grenade launchers, in combination with reconnaissance equipment that “snaps out” tanks from all sides. So the spread, which took on the character of an epidemic, drones in all their incarnations, ranging from attack UAVs for military purposes and loitering ammunition, ending with handicraft conversions of civilian drones in a kamikaze or under a grenade drop.
Threats a tank may face on the battlefield
As the authors of the study correctly note, this trend will continue in future wars and, without any doubt, will develop.
However, the passive armor of the Abrams cannot withstand even the current arsenal, since additional reinforcement of the sides, stern and roof, where these uninvited guests for tankers usually fly, is simply not provided for by the already overweight design of the vehicle. And even such measures as dynamic protection are not able to completely solve this issue due to its relatively easy neutralization.
Of course, the most modern M1A2 SEP v.3 can be equipped with the Israeli-made Trophy active protection system, but this product cannot counter the entire range of threats on the battlefield - at least for drones it is completely useless, as was demonstrated during the current Hamas invasion into Israeli territory.
In return, it makes the tank heavier by almost a ton, increases its dimensions, requires large size and weight batteries with counterweights on the front of the turret, and also consumes a considerable amount of energy from the on-board network. Based on this, many military men and experts agree that the Trophy, in some sense, is more of a burden than an addition to the American tank. Therefore, we still have to think about the normal integration of all protection systems and the implementation of enhanced reservations.
Problems with delivery
The issue of the security of the Abrams in military conflicts, although it is one of the primary tasks, still does not qualify for the status of the main one. At a minimum, questions arise about how to quickly deliver armored brigades to the area of proposed combat operations thousands of kilometers from US territory.
There are two options for solving this problem: the transfer of armored vehicles, related cargo and personnel, including crews, using sea or air transport. However, transportation by sea is associated with quite expected difficulties: it is simply a slow process that requires considerable time, as well as the involvement of a large number of units fleet – both transport ships and accompanying ships, the availability of which is doubtful.
Therefore, this option is most suitable for the transfer of troops and supplies in conditions of an already ongoing war, or very, very well in advance of the outbreak of a conflict.
With aviation as a means of transporting combat vehicles, difficulties of a different nature arise, due to the fact that tanks and infantry fighting vehicles included in armored brigades are very oversized and very heavy cargo. Let us remind you that due to the increase in the mass of the Abrams by more than 12 tons, the possibilities of its air transportation have changed dramatically. Of course, the C-17 Globemaster III (of which there are now less than 300 units), which is the main transporter for such “passengers,” although continues to carry the M1A2 SEP v.3, but with a minimum payload reserve. And an Atlantean like the S-5 Galaxy, which previously could easily take two tanks on board, now takes only one.
Here, an example that clearly illustrates the current situation is the invasion of Iraq in 2003, when thirty C-17 sorties were required to transport a set of five Abrams tanks, five Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, a battalion command post and crews. And to transport armored brigades with everything necessary in a future conflict - according to the authors of the study - over long distances, 575 sorties will be required. And this does not include other divisions.
Moreover, a war with China is considered as a future conflict in various scenarios, which are presented in the image attached below. But the priority, of course, is Taiwan.
The authors say the following:
The research team conducted a tabletop war game using a nearby Taiwanese scenario with support from the Center for Army Analysis.
This war game demonstrated the value of armor in the defense of Taiwan, but deployment and logistics difficulties prevented American armor from arriving in sufficient numbers before China presented itself with a fait accompli.
A review of classified wargame reports and other analysis found similar deployment and sustainment problems.
This war game demonstrated the value of armor in the defense of Taiwan, but deployment and logistics difficulties prevented American armor from arriving in sufficient numbers before China presented itself with a fait accompli.
A review of classified wargame reports and other analysis found similar deployment and sustainment problems.
This problem is, of course, complex and includes all logistical issues, from a sufficient amount of transport to the proper provision of troops with everything they need. In the end, even the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle does not have good transportability, despite its lower weight. Still, the Abrams' influence as the backbone of an armored force is clear:
Discussions with Army leaders and retired generals who shared responsibility in Europe and the Indo-Pacific indicate a need to reconsider the weight of the main battle tank. Everyone agrees that the M1, weighing 70 (“short”) tons or more, is not tactically, operationally, or strategically mobile. It is therefore important to explore the possibility of significantly reducing the weight of the next generation MBT without compromising its protection in particular and operational capabilities in general.
When desires coincide with possibilities
Taking into account the fact that wars in the future will be characterized by the broadest interaction between military branches, the total use of completely different reconnaissance means, including those used directly on the battlefield, as well as robotics, the authors recommended a whole range of new combat vehicles. Among them, by the way, were robotic tanks, as well as hints at the future use of hypersonic missile systems to destroy armored targets. But, since most of these proposals are rather advisory in nature, it is worth turning to those that directly relate to tanks.
Noting that the M1 Abrams can no longer play a key role in hypothetical, but quite probable conflicts, the researchers came to the conclusion that it would still be desirable to reduce the mass of the main tank. In their view, a combat vehicle of this class should be in the range of 55–60 tons, have a high-impulse 130 mm caliber gun, a hybrid power plant and a reduced crew. This will reduce the impact of “excess weight” on logistics, and will also reveal new capabilities of the tank on the battlefield. Largely due to updated armor and other protection systems capable of repelling modern and future threats.
Characteristics of combat vehicles proposed by the Scientific Council in comparison with the classic Abrams
However, taking into account the fact that the new tank will not be able to completely solve the problem of mobility, a tank of a lighter weight category in the range of 35–40 tons with a large-caliber gun, relatively weak armor and active protective equipment was proposed for consideration. The scientific council did not define the role of this vehicle as a light tank, positioning it rather as a main tank in a “light version”, but the tendency to divide this equipment into light and heavy is visible. First of all, because even with all the executions with the main battle tank, the troops need a transportable, mobile and protected gun that can be quickly delivered without such a long logistics tail as the Abrams.
And here an interesting situation emerges: these recommendations of the US Army Research Council, one way or another, have already begun to be implemented.
Just a month ago, the American military leadership announced that further modernization of M1A2 tanks to the SEP v.4 standard would be completely stopped due to their large mass, difficulties in logistics and protection. Instead, efforts will be focused on a completely rethought Abrams concept, designated M1E3, which is planned for production closer to the 2030s. Moreover, the production of SEP v.3 modifications will continue in small volumes, and their service in the army will continue until the armored units are re-equipped with the new vehicle.
Apparently, the future M1E3 will be significantly redesigned in layout, including through the introduction of automated loading of the gun and an uninhabited or low-profile turret, which will redistribute the vehicle's passive armor and reduce its weight. And components such as active protection, means of combating drones, etc., will be initially built into the design, being its addition, and not a burden. In this case, it is possible that we are talking about using developments from AbramsX.
And the M10 Booker is already acting as a “light tank” - a means of fire support for infantry on the battlefield with the ability to quickly deploy outside the country, which we wrote about in the article American M10 Booker: tank or not tank – as long as the infantry is happy. Possessing a 105-mm cannon, armor against small-caliber cannon shells and modern electronics, these vehicles should become the “main caliber” of infantry brigades with the ability to quickly transport by air to the zone of the proposed conflict. This product, of course, has discrepancies with the recommendations of the Army Council, but the problem of the lack of an armored mobile gun among infantry and airborne troops, which has existed since the removal of the M551 Sheridan from service, will be solved.
At the moment, a contract has been signed for the production of 504 units of M10 Booker, and the first deliveries are expected before the end of this year. It is assumed that all vehicles will be formed into battalions and transferred to infantry and airborne divisions.
Thus, each infantry brigade will in the future be equipped with a company of these vehicles.
So the United States can definitely enter the war of the future with an updated tank fleet, the basis of which will be light and heavy tanks, for the most part already devoid of the problems of transportation, operational deployment and security.
Information