{"id":318202,"date":"2025-11-09T07:46:49","date_gmt":"2025-11-09T07:46:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=318202"},"modified":"2025-11-11T07:29:47","modified_gmt":"2025-11-11T07:29:47","slug":"the-armys-m1-abrams-exists-for-just-one-purpose","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=318202","title":{"rendered":"The Army\u2019s M1 Abrams Exists For Just One Purpose"},"content":{"rendered":"

Steve Balestrieri \u2013 National Security Journal Nov 7, 2025<\/strong><\/h1>\n

These tanks were built for one purpose:<\/strong> to beat the masses of Russian tanks that would come during the Cold War. They were not built with drone threats in mind and must adapt.
\n-Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll confirmed tanks can no longer lead frontal assaults.<\/p>\n

-In response, the Army is spending $108M in FY2026 on survivability, including $92M for \u201cTop Attack Protection\u201d (TAP) systems, or \u201ccope cages.\u201d<\/p>\n

-However, existing Active Protection Systems (APS) like Trophy are \u201cnot very effective\u201d against these top-down strikes, and new laser defenses (DE-MSHORAD) are \u201cproving challenging,\u201d leaving the fleet \u201cfar from well-protected.\u201d<\/p>\n

The US M1 Abrams Aren\u2019t Ready For Drone Warfare<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The United States currently has thousands of US M1 Abrams tanks that are not fully ready for drone warfare and have demonstrated vulnerabilities, particularly to top-down attacks from inexpensive drones, leading the US Army to invest in upgrades and new tactics.<\/p>\n

However, the Army is actively working on solutions, including enhanced armor, active protection systems like those being tested in upgrades to the M1A2 SEPv3<\/a> fleet, and the development of the future M1E3 variant,<\/a> which is designed with drone threats in mind.<\/p>\n

Current Vulnerabilities Of Abrams Tanks<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Drones pose a significant threat to US M1 Abrams tanks, particularly through top-down attacks from loitering munitions and FPV drones, due to the tank\u2019s vulnerable top armor.<\/p>\n

This threat has led the US Army to re-evaluate tank strategy and invest in new technologies to improve survivability, such as enhancing armor, developing new counter-drone systems, and deploying passive protection measures like signature reduction.<\/p>\n

Ukraine\u2019s experience with Abrams tanks in its conflict with Russia has provided valuable insights into these vulnerabilities and the need for modifications<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Army\u2019s New Strategy<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Back in May, Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, speaking on the War on the Rocks <\/a>podcast, stated that the surge of inexpensive drones capable of striking tanks\u2019 most vulnerable points necessitates a significant shift in how armored units are deployed.<\/p>\n

Using the M1 Abrams as an example, Driscoll stated that armor can no longer rely on traditional frontal assault tactics and must instead operate from more protected, defended positions.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe amount of sensors on the battlefield, the amount of ability from both sides to see what\u2019s going on,\u201d he stated, creates a situation where commanders cannot push tanks \u201cas far forward in the formation as they used to be able to\u201d because very cheap drones may be able to attack their vulnerabilities.<\/p>\n

Driscoll added that armored units will be forced to become \u201ca lot leaner,\u201d thereby limiting their exposure to aerial threats and allowing them to stay in the fight longer.<\/p>\n

The Army\u2019s $108 Million Fix?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The U.S. Army\u2019s 2026 Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles (W&TCV) procurement report states that the Army is spending $108 million in the fiscal year 2026 budget for technology to enhance its survivability. Leaders are funding a modular suite of protection technologies that can be added to current and future armed vehicles to keep them relevant and survivable.<\/p>\n

This allocation of funds is to improve the survivability of the existing M1A2 fleet, with upgrades focusing on armor and power systems. The Army is also looking into Top Attack Protection (TAP) add-on armor systems for its tracked armored vehicles. TAP \u201cis a passive add-on armor to the base vehicle configuration,\u201d the Army\u2019s Fiscal Year 2026 Justification Book says.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is strategically placed over crew compartments and hatches, working in tandem with the base vehicle armor to mitigate damage from overhead threats. It is most effective against Explosively Formed Projectiles [EFPs] and Shaped Charge Jets.\u201d<\/p>\n

Of the cash, $92 million will be spent on top attack defenses, commonly called \u201ccope cages,\u201d as well as TAP systems. The design hasn\u2019t been finalized, so it\u2019s yet unknown how effective they will be against drone-dropped munitions.<\/p>\n

The Army is incorporating active protection systems, such as the Trophy<\/a> anti-missile system or Iron Fist<\/a>, into the upgraded tanks to counter threats. However, those are not very effective due to the angle of the top-down drone attacks.<\/p>\n

New Armor Doctrine and Tactics<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The Army<\/a> is developing new tactics, such as using M1028 canister rounds at close range to counter isolated drone threats<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The future M1E3 Abrams<\/a> variant is being designed from the ground up<\/a> with drone warfare in mind, incorporating features like advanced electronic warfare capabilities and AI-based threat assessment. The Army is testing new defensive features, such as lasers, to increase the tank\u2019s ability to counter drones<\/a>.<\/p>\n

One particular weapon they are considering is the 50-kilowatt units mounted on the Directed Energy Maneuver Short Range Air Defense (DE-MSHORAD)<\/a> Stryker variants.<\/p>\n

These systems have undergone multiple rounds of testing and have been deployed to Europe and the Middle East. In these tests, the lasers proved capable of downing small drones; however, multiple issues have cropped up.<\/p>\n

Soldiers identified<\/a> that the weapon\u2019s significant power draw was complicated by the need to remain mobile and move often. Things like dust, rain, fog, and other common environmental elements on a battlefield also proved to be an issue.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat we\u2019re finding is where the challenges are with directed energy at different power levels,\u201d Army acquisition chief Doug Bush told members of the Senate Armed Services airland subcommittee in May of 2024.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat [50-kilowatt] power level is proving challenging to incorporate into a vehicle that has to move around constantly \u2014 the heat dissipation, the amount of electronics, kind of the wear and tear of a vehicle in a tactical environment versus a fixed site.\u201d<\/p>\n

With a multitude of decisions looming and no single answer available, the Army\u2019s M1 Abrams tanks are still not protected for facing an enemy with massive drone capabilities. They are improving their defenses, and they are better off than before, but they are far from well-protected<\/a>.<\/p>\n

About the Author: Steve Balestrieri\u00a0<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Steve Balestrieri<\/a> is a National Security Columnist. He served as a US Army Special Forces NCO and Warrant Officer. In addition to writing on defense, he covers the NFL for PatsFans.com and is a member of the Pro Football Writers of America (PFWA). His work was regularly featured in many military publications<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Source<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

They were meant to be the bulwark against Russian armoured columns advancing into Western Europe. In Ukraine, they\u2019ve proved highly vulnerable to overhead strikes from drones that cost a miniscule fraction of their price <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":39262,"featured_media":282574,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[58],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-318202","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-Current_Affairs"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/318202","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/39262"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=318202"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/318202\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":318210,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/318202\/revisions\/318210"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/282574"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=318202"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=318202"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=318202"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}