So why? Check down below:
00:30 - max combat weight of additional protection Abrams M1 tanks in Ukraine is reportedly 78 tons - crush or avoid bridges and rail transport carriages, very difficult to retrieve after battle damage or breakdown.
01:11 - turbine engine excessively thirsty. Fuel use difficult for all but the US Army with its huge logistical resources.
AI Google asks: "does the Ukrainian Army find the Abrams uses a lot of fuel" Answer: "Yes. The Ukrainian Army finds the Abrams M1 tank's fuel consumption to be a major logistical challenge. [1, 2]
The tank uses a Honeywell gas-turbine engine that burns through about 1.5 to 3 gallons of fuel per mile. It is highly fuel-inefficient compared to the diesel-powered Leopard 2 and Soviet-era tanks already in Ukraine's fleet. [1, 2, 3, 4]...The engine consumes hundreds of gallons quickly, and it guzzles fuel at a high rate even when sitting idle."
[16:15] Turbines much less reliable than expected and cost 10 times more than a standard diesel engine.
06:00 for Ukrainians, without much fuel or adequate repair facilities, the Abrams is more akin to a WW2 72 ton, 128 mm gun Jagdtiger, more useful in defense as self propelled gun to ambush Russian tanks.
12:25 the video goes back to the Abrams and its engine.
But the Abrams has strengths: multiple fuel use, more rapid torque performance; quicker to get behind protective cover; more survivable; better cross country performance than a Leopard 2; more comfortable; easier to operate.
But the Abrams has strengths: multiple fuel use, more rapid torque performance; quicker to get behind protective cover; more survivable; better cross country performance than a Leopard 2; more comfortable; easier to operate.
17:00 is high mobility Middle East style tank warfare at an end or is Ukraine proving it is still relevant?
18:00 Abrams has suffered high loss ratios in Ukraine - all but one for non-tank on tank combat reasons (eg. drones, IEDs/mines, artillery, portable missiles).
19:00 Tanks with unmanned turrets might be the answer to avoid losses from small drone and missile top down attacks.
20:00 the US hopes the next Abrams the M1A[or E]3 will have much improved characteristics:
- perhaps most difficult to achieve might be a 15 to 20 ton reduction in weight to 60 tons. This may require many lightweight materials that might make for a prohibitively expensive tank. Various interest groups in the US armoured corps will need to agree on what heavy systems need to be dispensed with
- perhaps most difficult to achieve might be a 15 to 20 ton reduction in weight to 60 tons. This may require many lightweight materials that might make for a prohibitively expensive tank. Various interest groups in the US armoured corps will need to agree on what heavy systems need to be dispensed with
- 3 person crew, unmanned turret; autoloader
- new main gun (instead of problematically choosing a larger gun (of 125 to 130mm) an improved XM360 120mm gun may be chosen)
- new main gun (instead of problematically choosing a larger gun (of 125 to 130mm) an improved XM360 120mm gun may be chosen)
- hybrid electric drive [like a Toyota RAV4 :]
- Cummins Caterpillar
engine + SAPA transmission) greater fuel efficiency
- AI threat ranking/targeting, fire control
- AI threat ranking/targeting, fire control
- ability to network with drones and robotic vehicles
- masking capabilities to reduce the vehicle's thermal
and electromagnetic signatures, and
- may other features according to sales literature and arms shows.
- may other features according to sales literature and arms shows.
By 2025 the Australian Army had received 75 M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams to replace the M1A1 Abrams Australia gave to Ukraine.[112][113]
Ukrainian insights
"FROM T-55 TO ABRAMS: Ranking the TANKS that survive the DRONE WAR!" [the Abrams, including Australian donations, ranked more highly].
---
---
"Despite predictions about the "end of the tank era" due to the drone surge, armor remains the decisive factor for breakthroughs on Ukraine's battlefields. Today, Ukraine operates the most diverse tank arsenal in the world.
In this episode, we conduct a full audit: from the "glass cannons" of the Leopard 1 to the elusive Swedish Strv 122 [Swedish variant of the Leopard 2]. We’ll dive into how [first person view (FPV)] drones have reshaped tank tactics and why in 2026, crew survivability has become the ultimate metric of a machine's effectiveness."
Thanks Pete. Some friends of mine who were in the Australian Army at the time said that army testers much preferred the German Lleopard 2A5 over the Abrams for these reasons back during trials in the late 90s/early 2000s. Like so many of Australia’s defence procurement decisions, the choice of the Abrams was entirely political. It was actually more expensive but deemed inferior.
ReplyDeleteHi Anonymous
ReplyDeleteActually my late Dad, who used to be in the Australian armoured corps, visited the KraussMaffei factory in Germany in 1981 as part of the selection process to replace the Leopard 1s Australia was fielding in 1981. BTW: Dad was interviewed in 2002 here - 25 seconds into this Video https://australiansatwarfilmarchive.unsw.edu.au/archive/667-henry-john-coates He didn't say whether the Leopard 2 was likely the better tank. Also it was early days for the Abrams as an export prospect.
By 2006 Australia had ordered the Abrams. I agree that was partly due to US geo-political pressure and Canberra sensibilities.
Also Australia may have felt the Leopard 1 (for all its strengths) was a bit of an orphan tank in Australia's region in the 1970s and 80s. But also due to the likelihood Australia's post Leopard 1 tank was more likely to serve alongside our usual ally, US army, say, in Southeast Asia than alongside European allies likely to fight in Europe.
Leopard 2 was of such high quality that Southeast Asian countries, Singapore and Indonesia, bought it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2#Operators
Still, the Abrams and Leopard 2 are probably the best 2 tanks in the world (Challenger 2 coming in third?) so Australia probably did quite well.
Regards Pete