The 1980s-era Abrams tank lives on with new weapons

It may have the same basic external configuration, weight and 120mm cannon, but today’s Abrams tank is, simply put, far more lethal than ever before due to the addition of sensors, ammunition, armor, EW (Electronic Warfare) and new weapons.

The battle-tested platform has over the years, continued to incorporate cutting-edge innovations. For example, the Army is now testing and preparing a new Advanced. Multi-Purpose Round 120mm ammunition shell which offers attackers an immediate and efficient choice about which kind of explosive they may wish to use for a specific scenario. The AMP round is being prepared for a far-superior M1A2 SEP v4 Abrams tank variant for the 2020s and beyond — designed to be more lethal, faster, lighter weight, better protected, equipped with new sensors and armed with upgraded, more effective weapons, service officials said.

The AMP round, according to Northrop Grumman and Army developers, will replace four tank rounds now in use by consolidating various possible blast effects into a single round, using variable “fuse” adjustments and an advanced Ammunition Data Link. The first two rounds being consolidated into the AMP are the M830, High Explosive Anti-Tank, or HEAT, round and the M830A1, Multi-Purpose Anti -Tank, or MPAT, round. The latter round was introduced in 1993 to engage and defeat enemy helicopters, specifically the Russian Hind helicopter, Army developers explained. The MPAT round has a two-position fuse, ground and air, that must be manually set.

The M1028 Canister round is the third tank round being replaced. The Canister round was first introduced in 2005 by the Army to engage and defeat dismounted Infantry, specifically to defeat close-in human-wave assaults. Canister rounds disperse a wide-range of scattering small projectiles to increase anti-personnel lethality and, for example, destroy groups of individual enemy fighters.


The M1A2 SEP v3, the new Abrams brings a new high-resolution display for gunner and commander stations and new electronic Line Replaceable Units. It also features a driver’s control panel and a turret control unit. This M1A2 SEP v3 effort also initiates the integration of upgraded ammunition data links and electronic warfare weapons such as the Counter Remote Controlled Improvised Explosive Device—Electronic Warfare—CREW. An increased AMPs alternator is also part of this upgrade, along with Ethernet cables designed to better network vehicle sensors together.

File photo - Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 116th Cavalry Regiment, conducts tank crew gunnery, Nov. 11, 2019 at the Orchard Combat Training Center.

File photo – Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 116th Cavalry Regiment, conducts tank crew gunnery, Nov. 11, 2019 at the Orchard Combat Training Center.
(Photo by Sgt. Mason Cutrer/Idaho Army National Guard)

The Abrams V4, to fully emerge by the mid-20202, will include new sensors, color cameras, laser rangefinder technology, ammunition data links and meteorological sensors. The sensors help weapons sights and fire control account for weather conditions when it comes to firing rounds at enemy targets. The emerging M1A2 SEP v4 will also be configured with a new slip-ring leading to the turret and on-board ethernet switch to reduce the number of needed “boxes” by networking sensors to one another in a single vehicle.

Alongside the weapons and technology-related reasons why the Abrams is still so relevant to modern war, there is another clear reason why the tank is not likely to go anywhere anytime soon. The need for heavy armor.

This raises an interesting question, particularly given that the Army’s Next-Generation Combat Vehicle program is focused on building lighter weight, AI-enabled more expeditionary armored platforms with vehicles such as its Mobile Protected Firepower light tank and new Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle infantry carrier. Unlike an Abrams which is simply too heavy for air transport, these new vehicles can deploy through the air and therefore operate with an ability to hit warfare much faster should combat quickly break out.

The strategy here is, of course, to engineer armored combat vehicles that are more deployable and able to better support advancing infantry by crossing bridges or reaching places otherwise inaccessible to a 70-ton Abram. The thinking is to leverage advanced, long-range AI-enabled targeting sensors, lightweight armored composites, active protection systems, improved precision ammunition and, perhaps most of all, manned-unmanned teaming so that forward operating robotic vehicles can absorb the most combat risks and face enemy fire.


This approach, however, stands in a delicate balance with current Army thinking that there will likely continue to be a need for heavily armored vehicles such as the Abrams, for many years to come. Why? There simply might not be enough technical breakthroughs with efforts to build lightweight composites as survivable as heavy armor in the immediate future, Army weapons developers have explained. So while newer, lighter, faster vehicles may be less likely to be “hit” given their speed, technical defenses and use of unmanned systems, something like an Abrams is likely to still be necessary for certain high-impact areas involving massive, force-on-force armored warfare amid incoming enemy fire. 

What the Abrams may lack in speed, mobility and fuel efficiency may be more than compensated for by its fire power and heavy protective armor. After all, an Abrams can, in many instances, survive an incoming hit from an RPG or even anti-tank missile in some circumstances, and it is just not yet clear if there are yet lightweight armor materials able to do this. However, many weapons developers also recognize there is only so much a legacy platform can be upgraded before a new one is needed to meet modern threats, despite the continued prominence and superiority of the Abrams.


These questions form the basis of ongoing discussion, as they pertain to the pace of technological progress and the promise of emerging innovations. The Army’s Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Joseph Martin talked about this with Warrior more than a year ago, explaining that there would be a need for a new type of “tank” platform in the future but there is not yet consensus regarding what it should look like.

— Kris Osborn is the Managing Editor of Warrior Maven and The Defense Editor of The National Interest –

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.