“The Task Force guidance was a back-to-basics philosophy in tank design – no gold plating, no sophisticated, futuristic technology that had not been proven,” said Dr. Robert S. Cameron, Armor Branch historian at the Army Armor Center at Fort Knox. “So all components were limited to technology already fielded or in an extremely advanced state of development. The only revolutionary thing in Abrams was the armor. The Brits had developed a secret composite armor technology, which they gave to the us and we enhanced and put on the Abrams, giving it a ‘slab’ look.”

The new MBT’s configuration also was revolutionary. For example, the interior was compartmentalized – a hit in one part of vehicle would not wipe out the vehicle or crew. Each compartment also had its own automated fire suppression system. In the turret, all ammunition was stored behind an armored door, so if there was an explosion, all force was vented outside the vehicle.

“Bottom line for Abrams: Better fire control and optics, an analog computer that did a lot of the computation associated with firing the main gun, a laser rangefinder that made it more accurate, thermal sights enabling the crew to see and engage targets at night and in other low visibility conditions, extremely good mobility,” Cameron said.

Fielding began in 1980 and, in its first NATO exercise, it gained high marks for its quiet gas turbine engine, easy gunner operation and second-to-none ability to fire on the move. Those factors combined to earn it the nickname “Whispering Death” as it moved swiftly and quietly about battlefield, firing as it went.

The 1980s also saw an increased use of ceramics in armor. It was first used as seat armor for the Cobra helicopter in the mid-Sixties, but had been very expensive. In subsequent decades, there were substantial reductions in cost even as performance increased significantly.

“Today almost every new vehicle we produce will have ceramic armor of some type on it somewhere, ranging from all over the vehicle in different thicknesses to just spots where major protection is needed. We’re even putting them on the crew areas of most trucks now,” Templeton says. “We’re also using composites – a polymer composite and various combinations of composites and ceramics.

“The other area that has changed the materials in armor is the emergence of reactive armor – explosive reactive armor, using a bench sheet of explosive between two sheets of metal as the primary defeat mechanism against RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades] and other shaped charges, like anti-tank guided missiles.”

Despite achieving a number of major improvements while staying within the strict limitations imposed by Congress, critics continued to question Abrams’ value right up to the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. During Operation Desert Storm in early 1991, the Abrams performed as promised, although a lot of lessons learned from that short-lived war led to upgrades and improvements throughout the following decade.

With multiple weapons systems on the battlefield that could engage and destroy targets beyond effective IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) range, one of the most important of those dealt with fratricide. That was further affected by the accelerated operations tempo and required speed in decision-making. The solution involved harnessing the ongoing explosion in computer technology to create the M1A2, the Army’s first digital tank, and its follow-on upgrade as the M1A2 SEP (System Enhancement Program).

As a result, an even more dominant Abrams returned to Iraq a decade later for the second Gulf war – Operation Iraqi Freedom – which opened with masses of heavy armor sweeping across Iraq, from staging areas in Kuwait to the capital city of Baghdad and beyond.

“The Abrams and other elements that spearheaded the drive into Baghdad answered a lot of questions from the 1990s about whether tanks were necessary at a time when the emphasis was on stabilization and support operations,” Cameron noted. “The drive to Baghdad, through urban environments against lots of adversaries, probably would not have happened if we had only been using Humvees, even though engagement ranges sometimes were down to 50 meters.

“For heavy armor, the level of protection made it possible to survive in an incredibly lethal environment. No platform is invincible, but Abrams has proved very resilient, with great survivability. And a lot of commanders requested more tanks be sent in to replace Humvees.”

In some ways similar to Vietnam, once the armor threat was ended in Iraq – and Afghanistan – tanks were employed to protect ground forces, smash through enemy barriers, provide long-range artillery capability and, with continued improvements in precision fire, even operate in urban environments where collateral damage has become a top concern.

The Abrams also provided hard combat proof of the value of the evolution in armor, from a cast hull to segmentation and modularity, but especially for the use of composite materials and layers of armor types, what Col. Bryan J. McVeigh, program manager for Manned Systems Integration at PEO-Integration, calls the “a-plus-b approach.”

“You put on the base armor, but as technology advances, you can replace that with a new base armor to meet emerging threats,” he said. “So you no longer have the parasitic weight of having to put on more and more armor – you can defeat the same or a greater threat with replacement armor. I think that concept is the most important advance in recent years.

“We no longer look at just trying to defeat threats with thicker and heavier armor, but with an integrated solution, not only passive but integrating passive with active. The active protective system, for example, is intended to defeat the threat before it reaches the vehicle. Sensor technology advancement has been a cornerstone in allowing us to develop that. The vehicle can defeat an RPG in hundreds of thousandths of a second using capability that was not available to us a decade ago.”

Editor’s note: This article was first printed in The Year in Defense: Review Edition in an abridged version as “Armor: Three Decades of Advances.” It is now appearing online in its original form, in four parts.

Next: After Abrams

Share this Story

More »

Related Stories

Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) Overview

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) research and development organization, the U.S. Army Engine...

Read Story »

'Killer' Military App Could Allow Remote Targeting Via Smartphone

Research is under way that could turn the ubiquitous smartphone into a critical link in the kill cha...

Read Story »

USACE Trains Former Warsaw Pact Nations in Disaster Response

On Feb. 18, 1911, an earthquake 7.4 in magnitude violently jarred Tajikistan in Central Asia, trigge...

Read Story »

The Great Flood: Corps of Engineers Saved Lives and Property Along the Mississippi River

Melting runoff from mountains of snow combined with rainfall 10 times greater than average spread th...

Read Story »