The recent loss of the first US-made M1A1SA Abrams tank near Berdychi, Avdiivka, adds to the growing evidence that, despite their advanced technology and design, NATO tanks are not as invulnerable as public opinion believed. .This incident, caused by a FPV kamikaze drone operated by the UAV platoon of the Russian Central Military District's 15th Separate Guards Motor Rifle Brigade, marks a significant moment in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. It demonstrates the evolving nature of warfare, where technological advancements and tactical innovations continually reshape battlefield dynamics..How Protocol and Tech Enhances the Abrams:.The Abrams tank, a product of meticulous engineering by Chrysler Defense (now General Dynamics), is celebrated by US crews following Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom for its robust armour and firepower, designed with the paramount importance of crew safety in mind. Among its notable safety features are the blowout panels above the ammunition stowage. These panels are strategically designed to channel explosions upward, away from the crew compartment, in the event of a direct hit. This mechanism, further enhanced by a blast door controlled by the loader, significantly increases the likelihood of crew survival by offering a controlled escape route for explosive forces..US tank crews adhere to an immediate action drill for such scenarios, which involves closing the hatches, traversing the turret 90 degrees to protect the power pack and fuel cells from fire, turning off the engine, and waiting for the ammunition to burn out before safely exiting..In the wake of the attack, a thorough examination revealed that the tank's blowout panels functioned as intended, effectively limiting the damage within the crew compartment. Nevertheless, the emergence of smoke from the turret hatches post-impact has led to speculation regarding the state of the tank at that moment. It is possible that the ammunition blast door was left open or that a secondary munition impacted the tank after the crew had safely exited, a tactic often employed to prevent enemy forces from capturing and using the equipment..Strategic Deficiencies and Armoured Threats in Ukraine:.The Abrams' destruction behind the frontline highlights not only the operational freedom of drones but also the strategic challenges in recovering such valuable assets amidst the fast-paced advances of Russian forces. .Furthermore, the (in my opinion, largely overlooked) loss of an M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicle (ABV) a few days ago to a Russian tank attack underlines the critical importance and scarcity of vehicles designed for specific roles such as mine clearance, emphasising the high stakes involved in maintaining technological and tactical superiority. .This event serves as a poignant reminder of the inherent vulnerabilities of even the most advanced military equipment. As the first US-made Abrams tank to be destroyed in the conflict, its loss underscores the continual need for adaptation and innovation in military strategy. It reflects the harsh realities of modern warfare, where the balance between technological prowess, strategic ingenuity, and human resilience is constantly tested..Things to Consider:.The destruction of the Abrams tank in Ukraine, while a stark reminder that offensive capabilities often outstrip defensive measures and crew survivability, does not signify a strategic loss for Ukraine. With 30 more Abrams tanks at their disposal, this incident underscores the relentless pace of technological evolution in warfare, where threats evolve quicker than the defences designed to counteract them. As NATO observes and learns from these engagements, it prompts a critical inquiry: Could Active Protection Systems (APS) have altered the fate of this tank? The system has seen widescale success in Gaza in use on the Israeli Merkava Mark 4 countering incoming projectiles. This situation highlights the ongoing need for adaptability and the rapid advancement of both offensive and defensive technologies. It serves as a call to arms for accelerating innovation, aiming to narrow the widening gap between emerging threats and the development of effective protective measures..This article was written and researched in collaboration with AFV Recognition, an Instagram-based armored warfare expert. All credit and thanks belongs to them for their expertise lent to Atlas News. If you would like to see their other work, you can follow these links to their Twitter, Instagram, Youtube channel, Telegram, and you can check out their incredibly useful armor identification app on the Apple App Store and Google Play.
The recent loss of the first US-made M1A1SA Abrams tank near Berdychi, Avdiivka, adds to the growing evidence that, despite their advanced technology and design, NATO tanks are not as invulnerable as public opinion believed. .This incident, caused by a FPV kamikaze drone operated by the UAV platoon of the Russian Central Military District's 15th Separate Guards Motor Rifle Brigade, marks a significant moment in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. It demonstrates the evolving nature of warfare, where technological advancements and tactical innovations continually reshape battlefield dynamics..How Protocol and Tech Enhances the Abrams:.The Abrams tank, a product of meticulous engineering by Chrysler Defense (now General Dynamics), is celebrated by US crews following Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom for its robust armour and firepower, designed with the paramount importance of crew safety in mind. Among its notable safety features are the blowout panels above the ammunition stowage. These panels are strategically designed to channel explosions upward, away from the crew compartment, in the event of a direct hit. This mechanism, further enhanced by a blast door controlled by the loader, significantly increases the likelihood of crew survival by offering a controlled escape route for explosive forces..US tank crews adhere to an immediate action drill for such scenarios, which involves closing the hatches, traversing the turret 90 degrees to protect the power pack and fuel cells from fire, turning off the engine, and waiting for the ammunition to burn out before safely exiting..In the wake of the attack, a thorough examination revealed that the tank's blowout panels functioned as intended, effectively limiting the damage within the crew compartment. Nevertheless, the emergence of smoke from the turret hatches post-impact has led to speculation regarding the state of the tank at that moment. It is possible that the ammunition blast door was left open or that a secondary munition impacted the tank after the crew had safely exited, a tactic often employed to prevent enemy forces from capturing and using the equipment..Strategic Deficiencies and Armoured Threats in Ukraine:.The Abrams' destruction behind the frontline highlights not only the operational freedom of drones but also the strategic challenges in recovering such valuable assets amidst the fast-paced advances of Russian forces. .Furthermore, the (in my opinion, largely overlooked) loss of an M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicle (ABV) a few days ago to a Russian tank attack underlines the critical importance and scarcity of vehicles designed for specific roles such as mine clearance, emphasising the high stakes involved in maintaining technological and tactical superiority. .This event serves as a poignant reminder of the inherent vulnerabilities of even the most advanced military equipment. As the first US-made Abrams tank to be destroyed in the conflict, its loss underscores the continual need for adaptation and innovation in military strategy. It reflects the harsh realities of modern warfare, where the balance between technological prowess, strategic ingenuity, and human resilience is constantly tested..Things to Consider:.The destruction of the Abrams tank in Ukraine, while a stark reminder that offensive capabilities often outstrip defensive measures and crew survivability, does not signify a strategic loss for Ukraine. With 30 more Abrams tanks at their disposal, this incident underscores the relentless pace of technological evolution in warfare, where threats evolve quicker than the defences designed to counteract them. As NATO observes and learns from these engagements, it prompts a critical inquiry: Could Active Protection Systems (APS) have altered the fate of this tank? The system has seen widescale success in Gaza in use on the Israeli Merkava Mark 4 countering incoming projectiles. This situation highlights the ongoing need for adaptability and the rapid advancement of both offensive and defensive technologies. It serves as a call to arms for accelerating innovation, aiming to narrow the widening gap between emerging threats and the development of effective protective measures..This article was written and researched in collaboration with AFV Recognition, an Instagram-based armored warfare expert. All credit and thanks belongs to them for their expertise lent to Atlas News. If you would like to see their other work, you can follow these links to their Twitter, Instagram, Youtube channel, Telegram, and you can check out their incredibly useful armor identification app on the Apple App Store and Google Play.
