Military Review English Edition November-December 2014 | Page 13

Army M1 Abrams tanks maneuver in the streets as they conduct a combat patrol in the city of Tal Afar, Iraq, 3 February 2005 . The
tanks and their crews are attached to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment.
(U.S. Air Force photo By Staff Sgt. Aaron Allmon)

The M1 Abrams
Today and Tomorrow
Dr. Alec Wahlman and
Col. Brian M. Drinkwine, U.S. Army, Retired

T

he main battle tank of the U.S. Army is under
pressure due to critical scrutiny from numerous fronts questioning its relevance to
the modern security environment. The M1 Abrams
played a key role briefly in Operation Iraqi Freedom
and rarely in Operation Enduring Freedom. Moreover,
due to an apparent perception within NATO that
heavy U.S. armor was no longer needed, the Army
redeployed the last of the Abrams based in Europe to
the United States in 2013.1 Elsewhere, the relevance of
heavy armor is being challenged. Anti-armor weapon
MILITARY REVIEW  November-December 2014

technology has advanced considerably, to the point
that even nonstate actors such as Hezbollah have seen
some success against advanced main battle tanks (i.e.,
Israeli Merkavas in 2006).2 Finally, the downward trajectories of both the overall U.S. military budget and
the Army force structure threaten the Abrams force.
The cumulative effect of these pressures will make
tank force structure and tank modernization efforts
prime candidates for budget reductions.
This article is not an argument against all such
reductions, but it does propose that contemplated
11