Editing M1 Abrams (section)

==History==
{{main|History of the M1 Abrams}}

===Previous developments===
{{main|MBT-70}}
In 1963, the [[U.S. Army]] and the West German [[Bundeswehr]] began collaborating on a [[main battle tank]] (MBT) design that both nations would use, improving interoperability between the two [[NATO]] partners.<ref name="Jane's 1969" />{{sfn|Kelly|1989|pp=23-25}}{{sfn|Hunnicutt|2015|p=117}} The [[MBT-70]], or ''Kampfpanzer 70'' as it was known in Germany,{{sfn|Kelly|1989|pp=27}} incorporated many new unconventional technologies across the board. Conventional tanks of the time had a crew of four, with the driver located in the hull. In the MBT-70, the loader crewmember would be replaced by a mechanical [[autoloader]] and the driver would be located inside the [[CBRN defense|NBC-protected]] [[gun turret|turret]] with the other two crewmembers.{{sfn|Hunnicutt|2015|p=158}}{{sfn|Kelly|1989|pp=120}} Like the [[M60A2 tank|M60A2]] MBT and [[M551 Sheridan]] [[light tank]] then under development, the MBT-70 was armed with a 152&nbsp;mm [[gun-launcher]] that, in addition to firing conventional ammunition, would also fire the [[MGM-51 Shillelagh|Shillelagh missile]].{{sfn|Hunnicutt|2015|p=130}}{{sfn|Kelly|1989|pp=23-25}}{{sfn|Hunnicutt|2015|p=119}} A [[hydropneumatic suspension]] provided improved cross-country ride quality and also allowed the entire tank to be [[Enfilade and defilade|raised or lowered]] by the driver.{{sfn|Kelly|1989|pp=35}}

The United States team was led by [[General Motors]] while the German team consisted of a consortium of firms.{{sfn|Kelly|1989|pp=28}} The collaboration between the two teams was rocky from the start, with many cultural differences and disagreements about the design hampering progress.{{sfn|Kelly|1989|pp=23-25}} Germany favored a tank optimized for the terrain of central Europe while the U.S. attached importance to operating anywhere in the world.{{sfn|Hunnicutt|2015|p=118}} The Germans had reservations about the Shillelagh missile and developed a 120&nbsp;mm high-velocity gun as an alternative.{{sfn|Hunnicutt|2015|p=119}}<ref name="Jane's 1969" >{{cite book |editor1-last=Pretty |editor1-first=R. T. |editor2-last=Archer |editor2-first=D. H. R. |title=Jane's Weapon Systems 1969–1970 |publisher=B. P. C. Publishing |location=London |year=1969 |isbn=0-354-00516-2 |pages=191–192 |edition=1st |chapter= |url=https://archive.org/details/janesweaponsyste0000unse_m9k0}}</ref> Perhaps the most contentious disagreement, never fully resolved, concerned the measurement system to be used in drafting.{{sfn|Kelly|1989|pp=38}} Germany became concerned with the excessive weight of the tank.{{sfn|Hunnicutt|2015|p=142}} In light of growing costs, delays and overall uncertainty as to the soundness of the tank design,{{sfn|Hunnicutt|2015|p=140}} the United States and Germany ended their MBT-70 partnership in 1970.<ref name="Bonn and Washington split">{{cite news |last1=Beecher |first1=William |title=U.S. and Bonn End 7-Year Joint Effort to Build a Tank |url= https://www.nytimes.com/1970/01/21/archives/us-and-bonn-end-7year-joint-effort-to-build-a-tank.html |access-date=26 August 2018 |work=The New York Times |date=21 January 1970 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20180826113505/https://www.nytimes.com/1970/01/21/archives/us-and-bonn-end-7year-joint-effort-to-build-a-tank.html |archive-date=26 August 2018 |url-status=live |df=dmy-all}}</ref> The U.S. Army began work on an austere version of the MBT-70, named [[XM803]]. Systems were simplified or eliminated altogether and the unreliable autoloader was improved.{{sfn|Kelly|1989|pp=40}} These changes were ultimately insufficient to allay concerns about the tank's cost.{{sfn|Hunnicutt|2015|p=158}} Congress canceled the XM803 in December 1971 but permitted the Army to reallocate remaining funds to develop a new main battle tank.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Turner |first1=Bob |title=Congress Kills Tank Program |url= https://www.newspapers.com/image/332215721/?terms=xm803&match=1 |access-date=12 November 2021 |work=The Tampa Tribune |date=20 December 1971}}</ref>

===Starting over===
The Army began the '''XM815''' project in January 1972. The Main Battle Tank Task Force (MBTTF) was established under Major General [[William Robertson Desobry|William Desobry]]. The task force prepared design studies with the technical support of [[Tank-automotive and Armaments Command]] (TACOM).{{sfn|Hunnicutt|2015|p=161}} TACOM began examining specific goals. To this end, a new design basis emerged in February 1973. It had to defeat any hit from a Soviet gun within {{convert|800|m|abbr=on}} and 30 degrees to either side. The tank would be armed with the 105&nbsp;mm [[M68 (tank gun)|M68 gun]], a licensed version of the [[Royal Ordnance L7]], and a 20&nbsp;mm version of the [[M242 Bushmaster]].{{sfn|Hunnicutt|2015|p=202}} The Army later deleted the latter from the design, seeing it as superfluous.{{sfn|Hunnicutt|2015|p=178}}

In spring 1972, Desobry was briefed by the British on their own newly developed [[Chobham armour|"Burlington" armor]] from the [[British Army]]'s labs. The armor performed exceptionally against [[shaped charge]]s such as HEAT rounds. In September, Desobry convinced the Army to incorporate the new armor. To take full advantage of Burlington, also known as Chobham, the new tank would have to have armor around two feet thick (for comparison, the armor on the M60 is around four inches thick). General [[Creighton Abrams]] set the weight of the new tank at {{convert|53|t}}. The original goal of keeping weight under {{convert|45|t}} was abandoned.{{sfn|Kelly|1989|pp=111–130}}

At the time, the Pentagon's procurement system was beset with problems being caused by the desire to have the best possible design. This often resulted in programs being canceled due to cost overruns, leaving the forces with outdated systems, as was the case with the MBT-70. There was a strong movement within the Army to get a new design within budget to prevent the MBT-70 experience from repeating itself. For the new design, the Army set the design-to-unit cost at no more than $507,790 ({{inflation|US|507,790|1972|fmt=eq|r=-3}}).<ref name=bail>{{cite news |newspaper= Washington Monthly |date=1987 |url= https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+first+Chrysler+bail-out%3b+the+M-1+tank.-a04696991 |title=The First Chrysler Bail-Out: The M-1 Tank |access-date=12 November 2019 |archive-date=12 November 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191112144938/https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The%2Bfirst%2BChrysler%2Bbail-out;%2Bthe%2BM-1%2Btank.-a04696991 |url-status=live}}</ref>

The Pentagon's approach to control of research and development was modified with the XM1. Previous acquisition strategy called for a significant amount of the design work to be done by the government. Under the new framework, contractors would competitively bid their own designs rather than compete solely for the right to manufacture the end product.{{sfn|Kelly|1989|p=13–43}}

In January 1973, the U.S. Army issued the '''XM1''' (as the XM815 had been renamed in November 1972) [[request for proposal]]s.{{sfn|Information Spectrum|1983|p=B-2, B-3}} In May 1973, [[Chrysler Defense]] and [[General Motors]] submitted proposals. Both were armed with the 105&nbsp;mm M68 gun, the licensed L7, and the 20&nbsp;mm Bushmaster. Chrysler chose a 1,500&nbsp;hp Lycoming AGT1500 [[gas turbine]] engine. GM's model was powered by a 1,500&nbsp;hp diesel engine similar to that used on the American MBT-70 and XM803.{{sfn|Hunnicutt|2015|p=176}}

===Prototypes===
[[File:XM1 Chrysler prototype.png|thumb|Chrysler XM1 prototype]]
[[File:General Motors XM1 Tank Prototype Under Evaluation at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, 1976.jpg|thumb|General Motors XM1 prototype]]

Prototypes were delivered in 1976 by Chrysler and GM armed with the M68E1 105&nbsp;mm gun. They entered head-to-head testing at [[Aberdeen Proving Ground]].{{sfn|Hunnicutt|2015|p=189}}{{sfn|Hunnicutt|2015|p=189}} The testing showed that the GM design was generally superior to Chrysler's, offering better armor protection, and better fire control and turret stabilization systems.<ref name=bail/>

During testing, the power packs of both designs proved to have issues. The Chrysler gas turbine engine had extensive heat recovery systems in an attempt to improve its [[fuel efficiency]] to something similar to a traditional [[internal combustion engine]]. This goal was not achieved: the engine consumed much more fuel than expected, burning {{convert|890|L/100km|usgal/mi|sp=us}}. The GM design used a new variable-compression diesel design.<ref name=bail/>

By spring 1976, the decision to choose the GM design was largely complete. In addition to offering better overall performance, there were concerns about Chrysler's engine both from a reliability and fuel consumption standpoint. The GM program was also slightly cheaper overall at $208 million compared to $221 million for Chrysler. In July 1976, the Army prepared to inform Congress of the decision to move ahead with the GM design. All that was required was the final sign-off by the [[United States Secretary of Defense|U.S Secretary of Defense]], [[Donald Rumsfeld]].<ref name=bail/>

=== Back to the drawing board ===
[[File:XM1 Chrysler scale model oblique right.png|thumb|Finalized M1 scale model]]

On 20 July 1976, [[United States Secretary of the Army]] [[Martin Richard Hoffmann|Martin Hoffmann]] and a group of generals visited [[United States Deputy Secretary of Defense|Deputy Defense Secretary]] [[Bill Clements]] and [[Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering|Director of Defense Research and Engineering]] Malcolm Currie on their decision. They were surprised when Clements and Currie criticized their decision and demanded that the new tank have a turbine. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld heard arguments from both parties in the afternoon. The Army team spent the night writing briefs and presented them to Rumsfeld the next morning, who then announced a four-month delay.<ref name=bail/>

Within days, GM was asked to present a new design with a turbine engine. According to Assistant Secretary for Research and Development Ed Miller, "It became increasingly clear that the only solution which would be acceptable to Clements and Currie was the turbine... It was a political decision that was reached, and for all intents and purposes that decision gave the award to Chrysler since they were the only contractor with a gas turbine."<ref name=bail/>

In the meantime, in September 1976 three West German [[Leopard 2]]AV prototypes were belatedly sent to Aberdeen for comparison testing.{{sfn|Staats|1977|p=6}} Germany had signed a somewhat vague [[memorandum of understanding]] in 1974 committing both parties toward commonality in tank parts. Germany had assumed that its tank would be evaluated against the GM and Chrysler's prototypes and that the best tank would be chosen for production. This misunderstanding arose from the fact that in public statements both countries had overrepresented the MOU as an agreement that Germany and the U.S. would select a common MBT. In reality, the U.S. Army was unwilling to choose a foreign tank unless it was obviously superior in design and cost.{{sfn|Staats|1977|p=4-5}} In any case, in evaluations the Leopard 2AV was found to meet U.S. requirements but was thought to cost more.{{sfn|Hunnicutt|2015|p=189}} The U.S. Army announced in January 1977 that Germany had withdrawn the tank from consideration.{{sfn|Staats|1977|p=2}}

=== Chrysler is chosen ===
Having narrowly averted losing the contract, Chrysler set about improving the design. Expensive components were replaced with less expensive ones. Chrysler's team also negotiated lower costs from their subcontractors. The price of the redesigned tank's turret especially was decreased, but other improvements came from unexpected places, such as a $600 hydraulic oil reservoir replaced with a $25 one.{{sfn|Kelly|1989|p=157-158}} Chrysler also submitted a version with a Teledyne AVCR-1360 diesel engine.{{sfn|Hunnicutt|2015|p=190}} Chrysler's new bid came to $196 million, down from $221 million in the original proposal.{{sfn|Kelly|1989|p=157-158}}

[[File:XM1 during trial 1979.png|thumb|right|An XM1 pilot during trials in 1979]]
GM's proposal replaced the diesel engine with an AGT1500 turbine and integrated a turret capable of mounting either the 105&nbsp;mm or 120&nbsp;mm gun.{{sfn|Hunnicutt|2015|p=190}} Cost growth pushed the tank bid to $232 million from $208 million.{{sfn|Kelly|1989|p=157-158}}

Although the GM team had successfully integrated the turbine, Baer was more impressed by the cost savings introduced by the Chrysler team's redesign.{{sfn|Kelly|1989|p=157-158}} On 12 November 1976, the Defense Department awarded the $4.9 billion development contract to Chrysler.<ref name="Chrysler selected">{{cite news |last1= Finney |first1=John |title= Army Picks Chrysler to Develop New Tank at $4.9 Billion Cost |url= https://www.nytimes.com/1976/11/13/archives/new-jersey-pages-army-picks-chrysler-to-develop-new-tank-at-49.html |access-date=6 August 2018 |work=The New York Times |date=13 November 1976}}</ref>

The turbine engine and cost do not appear to be the only reason for the selection of Chrysler. Chrysler was the only company that appeared to be seriously interested in tank development; the M60 had been lucrative for the company. In contrast, GM made only about 1% of its income from military sales, compared to 5% for Chrysler, and only submitted their bid after a "special plea" from the Pentagon.<ref name=bail/>

Eleven XM1 preproduction models were manufactured between February and July 1978 at [[Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant]].{{sfn|Hunnicutt|2015|p=197}} Quality problems with the engine quickly became apparent in testing. The first preproduction units that arrived at [[Aberdeen Proving Ground]] in March 1978 had serious problems. The tank accumulated mud and dirt under the hull which led to thrown tracks. Chrysler installed a scraper to prevent the build-up of dirt. This did not solve the issue entirely. It was determined months later that a gauge used to tension tracks was miscalibrated. This caused the tracks to be fitted too loosely.{{sfn|Kelly|1989|p=161-167}} Another problem was the ingestion of debris by the engine. The problem was determined to be caused by poorly fitting air filters.{{sfn|Kelly|1989|p=161-167}} At [[Fort Bliss]], several tanks experienced transmission issues. It was determined that the tankers at Fort Bliss had discovered that they could throw the vehicle directly from acceleration into reverse, a tactically advantageous maneuver called the "bow tie". Chrysler resolved this by installing a device that prevented this.{{sfn|Kelly|1989|p=161-167}} The problems found during testing were easily surmounted. Critics of the M1 program emerged in the early 1980s, particularly the newly formed Project on Military Procurement (PMP) (later renamed the [[Project on Government Oversight]]). PMP took issue with the tank's vulnerability, high price, reliance on flammable hydraulics, and high fuel consumption.{{sfn|Kelly|1989|p=242-250}} American tank historian [[Steven J. Zaloga]] characterized American press criticism of the M1 during this time as "ill-founded". Zaloga wrote the issues uncovered by the tank trials were "not particularly serious".{{sfn|Zaloga|1985|p=20-21}} PMP's criticism failed to generate any serious opposition to the program, which maintained strong support from Congress and the Pentagon.{{sfn|Kelly|1989|p=249}} Responding to some of the alleged issues with the tank in ''King of the Killing Zone'' (1989), journalist Orr Kelly wrote that "The truth is close to the opposite." Kelly said the program "ranks as one of the Army's best managed", producing a tank in "a remarkably short time" while avoiding "[[gold plating (project management)|gold-plating]]" and utilizing effective competition.{{sfn|Kelly|1989|p=249-250}}

===Production starts===
[[File:M1 Abrams at the US Army Armor Center, 1983 (DA-SC-83-09878).jpg|thumb|right|Early production vehicle in 1983]]

[[Low rate initial production]] (LRIP) of the vehicle was approved in May 1979.{{sfn|Hunnicutt|2015|p=202}} In February 1982, [[General Dynamics Land Systems]] Division (GDLS) purchased Chrysler Defense, after Chrysler built over 1,000 M1s.<ref>{{cite news|title= General Dynamics buys Chrysler tank division|newspaper=The New York Times |date=20 February 1982 |url= https://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/20/business/general-dynamics-buys-chrysler-tank-division.html |access-date=3 April 2017 |url-status= live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170403195514/http://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/20/business/general-dynamics-buys-chrysler-tank-division.html |archive-date=3 April 2017|last1=Holusha|first1=John}}</ref>

A total of 3,273 M1 Abrams tanks were produced during 1979–1985 and first entered U.S. Army service in 1980. Production at the government-owned, GDLS-operated [[Lima Army Tank Plant]] in [[Lima, Ohio]], was joined by vehicles built at the [[Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant]] (DATP) in [[Warren, Michigan]] from 1982 to 1991 (DATP also produced the 11 preproduction models in 1978.{{sfn|Hunnicutt|2015|p=197}}).{{sfn|Hunnicutt|2015|p=216}}{{sfn|Zaloga|2019|p=16}} The U.S. Army Laboratory Command (LABCOM), under the supervision of the [[United States Army Research Laboratory]] (ARL), was also heavily involved with designing the tank with M1A1 armor resistant shells, [[M829#M829A2|M829A2]] armor-penetrating rounds, and improved weapon range.<ref>{{Cite book |title=History of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory |year=2017}}</ref>

The M1 was armed with the license-built M68A1 version of the 105&nbsp;mm Royal Ordnance L7 gun. The tank featured the first-of-its-kind [[Chobham armour|Chobham armor]]. The M1 Abrams was the first to use this advanced armor. It consisted of an arrangement of metal and ceramic plates.{{sfn|Green|Stewart|2005|p=102}} An improved model called the IPM1 was produced briefly in 1984 and contained upgrades to armor and other small improvements.

===120&nbsp;mm gun M1A1===
[[File:Anniston Army Depot workers perform reset work on the turret of the M1 Abrams tank in 1989.jpg|thumb|left|M1 Abrams tanks being refurbished at the [[Anniston Army Depot]] in 1989]]

A number of considerations had led the service and its contractors to favor the Army's standard M68 105&nbsp;mm gun over Germany's 120&nbsp;mm [[Rheinmetall Rh-120]] [[smoothbore]] gun for the XM1. To begin with, the 105&nbsp;mm gun was "the smallest, lightest, and least costly gun adequate for the job."<ref name="Bolte=nb">This is the testimony of Brigadier General Philip L. Bolte, Deputy Commanding General of the U.S. Army's Testing and Evaluation Command, before the Investigations Subcommittee of the House Committee on Armed Services in April 1978; ''Army Reprogramming Request No. 78-14 P/A, FRG Smooth Bore 120-MM Gun and XM-1 Tank'', 95th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 30.</ref> Indeed, new kinetic energy ammunition for the weapon then under development by the Army promised to extend the gun's usefulness well into the future. And because the Army's other tanks, the M60 and the upgraded [[M48 Patton|M48]], as well as the tanks of virtually every other NATO nation, used the 105&nbsp;mm gun, mounting that gun on the XM1 promised to increase standardization within the alliance. Moreover, the continuing development of the new ammunition for the XM1 automatically upgraded every other gun in NATO. For all of these reasons, the XM1's development proceeded "on the assumption that the 105&nbsp;mm gun would probably be the eventual main armament."<ref name="Bolte=nb"/>{{sfn|McNaugher|1981|p=38}} The tripartite British—American—German gun trials of 1975 produced a general agreement in the U.S. Defense Department that at some future point, a 120&nbsp;mm gun of some design would be added to the XM1. Apparently anticipating this, Chrysler and GM had both made changes to their tanks during development to make them compatible with a variety of main guns.{{sfn|McNaugher|1981|p=40-45}} In January 1978, the [[Secretary of the Army]] announced that the Rheinmetall 120&nbsp;mm gun would be mounted on future production versions of the XM1. This decision established the requirement for a separate program for the XM1E1 (with 120&nbsp;mm gun) so that the XM1 program could continue unimpeded.{{sfn|Information Spectrum|1983|p=B-7}}

About 5,000 M1A1 Abrams tanks were produced from 1986 to 1992 and featured the M256 120&nbsp;mm smoothbore cannon, improved armor, consisting of [[depleted uranium]] and other classified materials, and a [[CBRN]] protection system. Production of M1 and M1A1 tanks totaled some 9,000 tanks at a cost of approximately $4.3 million per unit.<ref name="pogo.org"/>

In 1990, a [[Project On Government Oversight]] report criticized the M1's high costs and low fuel efficiency in comparison with other tanks of similar power and effectiveness such as the Leopard 2.<ref name="pogo.org"/>

As the Abrams entered service, they operated alongside M60A3 within the U.S. military and with other NATO tanks in various [[Cold War]] [[List of NATO exercises|exercises]] which usually took place in Western Europe, especially [[West Germany]]. The exercises were aimed at countering Soviet forces.{{citation needed|date=March 2023}}

Adaptations before the [[Gulf War]] (Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm) gave the vehicle better firepower and Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) protection.{{sfn|United States General Accounting Office|1992}}

===Gulf War===
[[File:Abrams in formation.jpg|thumb|left|Abrams tanks move out on a mission during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. A [[Bradley IFV]] and a logistics convoy can be seen in the background.]]

The Abrams remained untested in combat until the Gulf War in 1991, during Operation Desert Storm. The first Abrams tanks to arrive in Saudi Arabia in August 1990 in the buildup to the war were M1 and IPM1 tanks with 105&nbsp;mm guns.{{sfn|Zaloga|2019|p=14}} All but two battalions of 105&nbsp;mm gun Abrams tanks were replaced by M1A1 tanks prior to the American invasion in January 1991.{{sfn|Zaloga|2009|p=57}} The U.S. Army deployed a total of 1,956 M1A1s (733 M1A1, 1,233 M1A1HA) to Saudi Arabia to participate in the [[Liberation of Kuwait campaign|liberation of Kuwait]].{{sfn|Zaloga|Sarson|1993|p=16-17}} The U.S. Marine Corps deployed 353 tanks, of which 277 were M60s and 76 were M1A1 (60 M1A1HA and 16 M1A1 Common). The M1A1 Common variant included adaptations for deep wading and improvements to increase commonality with the Army's Abrams. The [[2nd Tank Battalion]] was equipped with M1A1HA Abrams borrowed from the Army.{{sfn|Zaloga|2019|p=14}}

The M1A1 was superior to [[Ba'athist Iraq|Iraq]]'s [[Soviet Union|Soviet]]-designed [[T-54/T-55]] and T-62 tanks, as well as [[T-72]] versions imported from the Soviet Union and Poland.<ref name="M1A1vsT-72p24">{{harvnb|Zaloga|Sarson|1993|p=24}}</ref> Polish officials stated that no license-produced T-72 (nicknamed [[Lion of Babylon (tank)|Lion of Babylon]]) tanks were finished before destruction of the Iraqi Taji tank plant in 1991.<ref name="M1A1vsT-72p24" />

[[File:Destroyed M1A1 Abrams.jpg|thumb|right|A destroyed M1A1, hit in the rear grill by a [[AGM-114 Hellfire|Hellfire]] missile and penetrated by a [[sabot (firearms)|sabot]] tank round from the left side to right (see exit hole) in Operation Desert Storm, 1991]]
Iraq's T-72s, like most Soviet export designs, lacked [[Night-vision device|night-vision system]]s and then-modern [[Rangefinding telemeter|rangefinder]]s, though they did have some night-fighting tanks with older active infrared systems or [[floodlight]]s. Very few M1 tanks were hit by enemy fire and none were destroyed as a direct result of enemy fire, none of which resulted in any fatalities.{{sfn|United States General Accounting Office|1992}} Three Abrams were left behind the enemy lines after a swift attack on [[Ali Air Base|Talil airfield]], south of [[Nasiriyah]], on February 27. One of them was hit by enemy fire, while the other two became embedded in mud. The tanks were destroyed by U.S. forces to prevent any trophy-claim by the Iraqi Army.<ref>{{harvnb|Halberstadt|1991|p=111}}: "One of the M1s is hit and disabled. The crew is extracted safely and the tank left behind, not before it is destroyed by the task force commander who fires two rounds into it. The first bounces off, the second penetrates and set it on fire. The terrain is still causing problems. On the attack several vehicles get embedded in mud and can't be extracted. The problem is complicated by enemy missile and machine gun fire. Two tanks and two armored personnel carriers are destroyed and discarded."</ref> A total of 23 M1A1s were damaged or destroyed during the war. Of the nine Abrams tanks destroyed, seven were destroyed by [[friendly fire]] and two intentionally destroyed to prevent capture by the Iraqi Army. No M1s were lost to enemy tank fire.<ref name="T-72vsM1"/> Some others took minor combat damage, with little effect on their operational readiness.{{sfn|United States General Accounting Office|1992|p=24}}

The M1A1 could kill other tanks at ranges in excess of {{convert|2500|m|disp=flip}}. This range was crucial in combat against previous generation tanks of Soviet design in Desert Storm, as the effective range of the main gun in the Iraqi tanks was less than {{convert|2000|m|disp=flip}}. This meant Abrams tanks could hit Iraqi tanks before the enemy got in range—a decisive advantage in this kind of combat. In [[friendly fire]] incidents, the front armor and fore side [[gun turret|turret]] armor survived direct [[Armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot|APFSDS]] hits from other M1A1s. This was not the case for the side armor of the hull and the rear armor of the turret, as both areas were penetrated on at least two occasions by unintentional strikes by [[Depleted uranium#Ammunition|depleted uranium ammunition]] during the [[Battle of Norfolk]].<ref>{{cite web |title=A Company, 3–66 Armor, Abrams (Bumper # A-33) |work=TAB H – Friendly-fire Incidents |quote=At approximately 4:30 AM on 27 February, an anti-tank guided missile (probably fired from a Bradley) struck A-33 in the engine compartment. The crew, uninjured, was evacuating the disabled tank when two DU rounds hit the tank in the left side of the hull and exited through the right side. The tank commander, driver, and gunner sustained injuries from fragments. The loader, who was already outside the tank, was uninjured. A-31 crew members assisted in rescuing A-33's crew. |url= http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabh.htm |url-status=live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130601053948/http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabh.htm |archive-date=1 June 2013}}; [http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassimages/army/19980729/980715_sep96_sagwi1_0083.html Sketch depicting the path of a DU 120&nbsp;mm round through the hull of Abrams C-12] {{webarchive |url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090627054601/http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassimages/army/19980729/980715_sep96_sagwi1_0083.html |date=27 June 2009}}. OSD.</ref>

===Waco siege===
[[File:USAWDTX 068-01329 – Abrams tank next to the burning Branch Davidian compound (retouched).jpg|thumb|M1A1 tank beside the burning compound of the Waco Siege]]

During the [[Waco siege]] in 1993, two M1A1 Abrams tanks were borrowed from the military<ref>{{Cite news |title=The Tragedy After Waco – Public Response |work=Christian Science Monitor |url=https://www.csmonitor.com/1993/0427/27191.html |access-date=2023-04-26 |issn=0882-7729}}</ref> and deployed by the [[FBI]] against the [[Branch Davidians]].<ref name="kopel">{{cite web |title= Can Soldiers Be Peace Officers? The Waco Disaster and The Militarization of American Law Enforcement |author= David Kopel |url= http://davekopel.org/Waco/LawRev/CanSoldiersBePeaceOfficers.htm#fnb99 |access-date= April 17, 2009 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080516031612/http://davekopel.org/Waco/LawRev/CanSoldiersBePeaceOfficers.htm#fnb99 |archive-date= May 16, 2008 |url-status=live |df= mdy-all |author-link= David Kopel}}</ref>

===Upgrades===
The M1A2 was a further improvement of the M1A1, with a commander's independent thermal viewer, weapon station, position navigation equipment, and a full set of controls and displays linked by a digital data bus. These upgrades also provided the M1A2 with an improved fire control system.<ref>Diaz, R. Gary. "Intervehicular Information System (IVIS): The Basis for a Tactical Information System", SAE Paper Number: 940982, General Dynamics, 1 March 1994.</ref> The M1A2 System Enhancement Package (SEP) added digital maps, Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below ([[FBCB2]]) Linux communications system capabilities for commanders, and an improved cooling system to compensate for heat generated by the additional computer systems.<ref name="auto">{{cite web |url= https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wsh2013/12.pdf |title=Abrams Tank Upgrade|publisher=Weapons Systems 2013|year=2013 |url-status= live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150505145701/http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wsh2013/12.pdf |archive-date=5 May 2015}}</ref>

The M1A2 SEP also serves as the basis for the [[M104 Wolverine]] heavy assault bridge. The M1A2 SEPv2 (version 2) added [[CROWS|Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station (CROWS or CROWS II)]] support, color displays, better interfaces, a new operating system, better front and side armor, and an upgraded transmission for better durability.<ref name="auto"/>

Further upgrades included [[depleted uranium#armor plate|depleted uranium armor]] for all variants, a system overhaul that returns all A1s to like-new condition (M1A1 AIM), a digital enhancement package for the A1 (M1A1D), and a commonality program to standardize parts between the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps (M1A1HC). Improvements to survivability, lethality, and protection have been sought since 2014.<ref name= "g8.army.mil">{{cite web |url= http://www.g8.army.mil/pdf/Army_Equipment_Program2015.pdf |title= Army Equipment Program|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150409104940/http://www.g8.army.mil/pdf/Army_Equipment_Program2015.pdf |archive-date=9 April 2015 |publisher= U.S. Army |date=May 2014}}</ref>

===Iraq War===
[[File:Fallujah 2004 M1A1 Abrams.jpg|thumb|left|An U.S. Marine Corps M1A1 Abrams fires its main gun into a building during the [[Second Battle of Fallujah]], 2004.]]
Further combat was seen during 2003 when U.S. forces invaded Iraq and deposed Iraqi President [[Saddam Hussein]] in the [[Iraq War]]'s Operation Iraqi Freedom. One achievement of the M1A1s was the destruction of seven T-72s in a point-blank skirmish (less than {{convert|50|yd}}) near Mahmoudiyah, about {{convert|18|mi|km|0}} south of Baghdad, with no U.S. losses.<ref>Conroy, Jason & Martz, Ron. ''Heavy Metal: A Tank Company's Battle To Baghdad''. Potomac Books, 2005, p. 158.</ref> This was in the face of inadequately trained Iraqi tank crews, most of whom had not fired live ammunition in the previous year due to the sanctions then in operation and made no hits at point-blank range.<ref name="biddle">{{cite report |last=Biddle |first=Stephen |url= https://archive.org/details/operationiraqifr00unit |title=Statement By Dr. Stepehen Biddle, Associate Professor of National Security Studies, U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States House of Representatives, First Session, 108th Congress, on Operation Iraqi Freedom: Outside Perspectives |date=21 October 2003 |pages=544–570 |publisher=Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, 108th Session |work=Operation Iraqi Freedom: Operations and Reconstruction}}</ref>

Following lessons learned in Desert Storm, the Abrams and many other U.S. combat vehicles used in the conflict were fitted with [[Combat Identification Panel]]s to reduce friendly fire incidents.{{sfn|Zaloga|2019|p=18}}

Several Abrams tanks that were irrecoverable due to loss of mobility or other circumstances were destroyed by friendly forces, usually by other Abrams tanks, to prevent their capture.<ref>Zucchino, David: ''Thunder Run: The Armored Strike to Capture Baghdad''. Grove Press, 2004, pp. 20–30, 73.</ref> Some Abrams tanks were disabled by Iraqi infantrymen in ambushes during the invasion. Some troops employed short-range anti-tank rockets and fired at the tracks, rear and top. Other tanks were put out of action by engine fires when flammable fuel stored externally in turret racks was hit by small arms fire and spilled into the engine compartment.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.wlhoward.com/id554.htm#prof |title=Technical Intelligence Bulletins |publisher=WL Howard |date=May–June 2003 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20070312185039/http://www.wlhoward.com/id554.htm |archive-date=12 March 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first= John P. |last=Conway |title=Abrams Tank Systems: Lessons Learned Operation Iraqi Freedom |url= http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf#prof |date=7 January 2004 |url-status=live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20060905050811/http://fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf#prof |archive-date=5 September 2006}}</ref> By March 2005, approximately 80 Abrams tanks had been forced out of action by enemy attacks;<ref name="casualties">Komarow, Steven. [https://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-29-abrams-tank-a_x.htm "Tanks take a beating in Iraq"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120318030456/http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-29-abrams-tank-a_x.htm|date=18 March 2012}}. USA Today, 29 March 2005.</ref> 63 were shipped back to the U.S. for repairs, while 17 were damaged beyond repair{{sfn|Green|Stewart|2005|p=99}} with 3 of them at the beginning of 2003.<ref>{{cite news |date=26 March 2003 |title=Najaf fighting "heaviest so far" |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2888633.stm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161125052725/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2888633.stm |archive-date=25 November 2016 |access-date=23 May 2020 |via=news.bbc.co.uk}}</ref>

[[File:U.S. Army M1A2 Abrams Iraq 2005 retouched.jpg|thumb|Two U.S. Army M1A2 Abrams in Iraq, 2005]]
Vulnerabilities exposed during urban combat in the Iraq War were addressed with the [[#Tank Urban Survival Kit|Tank Urban Survival Kit]] (TUSK) modifications, including armor upgrades and a gun shield, issued to some M1 Abrams tanks. It added protection in the rear and side of the tank and improved fighting ability and survival ability in urban environments.<ref name="USA_Today_TUSK">Komarow, Steven. [https://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-03-29-tank-inside_x.htm "Tanks adapted for urban fights they once avoided"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110822063215/http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-03-29-tank-inside_x.htm |date=22 August 2011}}. ''USA Today'', 29 March 2005.</ref> By December 2006 more than 530 Abrams tanks had been shipped back to the U.S. for repairs.<ref>{{cite news |title=U.S. Army Battling To Save Equipment |newspaper=Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401347.html |url-status=live |access-date=11 October 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141006084444/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401347.html |archive-date=6 October 2014}}</ref>

In May 2008, it was reported that a U.S. M1 tank had also been damaged in Iraq by insurgent fire of a Soviet-made [[RPG-29]] "Vampir", which uses a [[tandem-charge]] [[High-explosive anti-tank|HEAT]] warhead to penetrate [[explosive reactive armor]] (ERA) as well as [[Composite armour|composite armor]] behind it.<ref>{{cite news |title=Operation in Sadr City Is an Iraqi Success, So Far |author=Michael R. Gordon |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=21 May 2008 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/world/middleeast/21sadr.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170623214243/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/world/middleeast/21sadr.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin |archive-date=23 June 2017}}</ref> The U.S. considered the RPG-29 a high threat to armor and refused to allow the newly formed Iraqi Army to buy it, fearing that it would fall into the insurgents' hands.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/0-ARMYPAPER-1722465.php |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120719055905/http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/0-ARMYPAPER-1722465.php |url-status=dead |archive-date=19 July 2012 |work=ArmyTimes |title=Super RPG threat, Army passes on system that could defeat RPG-29, DoD officials say}}</ref>

===Iraqi Army service===
[[File:M1 Abrams tanks in Iraqi service, Jan. 2011.jpg|thumb|left|M1A1M Abrams tanks in Iraqi service, January 2011]]
Between 2010 and 2012 the U.S. supplied 140 refurbished M1A1 Abrams tanks to Iraq. In mid-2014, they saw action when the [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]] (ISIL or Islamic State) launched the [[June 2014 Northern Iraq offensive]]. During three months, about one-third of the Iraqi Army's M1 tanks had been damaged or destroyed by ISIL and some were captured by opposing forces. By December 2014, the Iraqi Army only had about 40 operational Abrams left. That month, the [[U.S. Department of State]] approved the sale of another 175 Abrams to Iraq.<ref name="JanesRevealed">{{citation |first=Jeremy |last=Binnie |url=http://www.janes.com/article/39550/iraqi-abrams-losses-revealed |title=Iraqi Abrams losses revealed |publisher=Janes |date=20 June 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150502182619/http://www.janes.com/article/39550/iraqi-abrams-losses-revealed |archive-date=2 May 2015}}</ref><ref name="ISIS maintenance">{{cite news |author1=Michael Pregent |author2=Michael Weiss |title=Exploiting the ISIS Vulnerabilities in Iraq |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/michael-pregent-and-michael-weiss-exploiting-the-isis-vulnerabilities-in-iraq-1407884145 |access-date=8 December 2015 |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]|date=12 August 2014 |quote=Yet ISIS does not have the highly trained maintenance crews that are necessary to keep these weapons in good working order. |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151210183148/http://www.wsj.com/articles/michael-pregent-and-michael-weiss-exploiting-the-isis-vulnerabilities-in-iraq-1407884145 |archive-date=10 December 2015}}</ref><ref>[http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/12/22/agency-backs-more-abrams-for-iraq-in-isis-fight/ Agency Backs More Abrams for Iraq in ISIS Fight] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141223200538/http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/12/22/agency-backs-more-abrams-for-iraq-in-isis-fight/ |date=23 December 2014}} – DoDBuzz.com, 22 December 2014</ref>

Iranian-backed Iraqi Shiite [[Kata'ib Hezbollah]] (Hezbollah Brigades) were reported to operate M1 Abrams, and released publicity showing the tanks being transported by trucks to take part in the [[Battle of Mosul (2016–2017)|Battle of Mosul]]. It is not known whether the tanks were captured from ISIL, seized from Iraq's military, or handed over.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2016/10/hezbollah-brigades-rushes-troops-to-mosul-fight.php |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170805155447/http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2016/10/hezbollah-brigades-rushes-troops-to-mosul-fight.php |url-status=dead|title=Hezbollah Brigades hurries troops to Mosul fight {{pipe}} FDD's Long War Journal|archive-date=5 August 2017|website=www.longwarjournal.org|access-date=23 May 2020}}</ref>

One Iraqi-operated Abrams has been nicknamed "''The Beast''" after it became the lone working tank when taking back the town of Hit in April 2016, destroying enemy fighting positions and IED emplacements.<ref>[http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/04/13/the-beast-of-hit-abrams-tank-plays-role-iraqi-fight-against-isis.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm The "Beast of Hit," Abrams Tank Plays Role in Iraqi Fight against ISIS] {{webarchive |url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160417101351/http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/04/13/the-beast-of-hit-abrams-tank-plays-role-iraqi-fight-against-isis.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm |date=17 April 2016}} – Military.com, 13 April 2016</ref>

In October 2017, Abrams were used by the [[Iraqi security forces]] and the [[Popular Mobilization Forces]] (also called Al-Hashd al-Shaabi) in assaults against the [[Kurdistan Regional Government]] [[Peshmerga]] in the town of [[Altun Kupri]] (also called Prde). It was claimed by Kurdish commanders that at least one Abrams was destroyed by the Peshmerga.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/20102017 |title=Rudaw – Iraqi army, Shiite militia and Peshmerga exchange heavy fire north of Kirkuk |access-date=20 October 2017 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20171020191550/http://www.rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/20102017 |archive-date=20 October 2017 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===War in Afghanistan===
[[File:Security patrol in Payawak 120420-M-DL630-028.jpg|thumb|A M1A1 Abrams on patrol in Helmand Province, Afghanistan in 2012]]
[[Canadian Army|Canada]] and [[Royal Danish Army|Denmark]] deployed [[Leopard C1|Leopard 1]] and [[Leopard 2|2]] MBTs that were specially modified to operate in the relatively flat and arid conditions of southwestern Afghanistan. In late 2010, at the request of [[Regional Command Southwest]], the U.S. Marine Corps deployed a small detachment of 14 M1A1 Abrams tanks from [[1st Tank Battalion|Delta Company, 1st Tank Battalion]], [[1st Marine Division (United States)|1st Marine Division]] (Forward),<ref>[http://www.usmc.mil/unit/1stmardiv/Pages/MarinetankspreparefortheirfirstmissionsinAfghanistan.aspx Marine tanks prepare for their first missions in Afghanistan]. U.S. Marine Corps, 18 January 2011. {{webarchive |url= https://web.archive.org/web/20141016001743/http://www.usmc.mil/unit/1stmardiv/Pages/MarinetankspreparefortheirfirstmissionsinAfghanistan.aspx |date=16 October 2014}}</ref> to southern Afghanistan in support of operations in [[Helmand Province|Helmand]] and [[Kandahar Province|Kandahar]] provinces.<ref>[https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/id/61767/ U.S. Tanks En Route to Southwestern Afghanistan] . American Forces Press Service, 19 November 2010. Retrieved 12 March 2011.</ref>

===2015 Yemen Civil War===
Saudi Abrams tanks saw service in the [[Yemeni Civil War (2014–present)|2015 Yemeni Civil War]], where M1A2s were used against [[Houthi]] rebels.{{sfn|Zaloga|2019|p=46}} In August 2016, the U.S. approved a deal to sell up to 153 more Abrams tanks to Saudi Arabia, including 20 "battle damage replacements", suggesting that some Saudi Arabian Abrams had been destroyed or severely damaged in combat in Yemen.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/kingdom-saudi-arabia-m1a2s-saudi-abrams-main-battle-tanks-and-m88ala2-heavy|title=Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – M1A2S Saudi Abrams Main Battle Tanks and M88Al/A2 Heavy Equipment Recovery Combat Utility Lift Evacuation System (HERCULES) Armored Recovery Vehicles (ARV)|publisher=Defense Security Cooperation Agency|date=9 August 2016|access-date=19 September 2016 |url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160913101846/http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/kingdom-saudi-arabia-m1a2s-saudi-abrams-main-battle-tanks-and-m88ala2-heavy|archive-date=13 September 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.defenseone.com/business/2016/08/us-tank-deal-exposes-saudi-losses-yemen-war/130623/|title=Saudi Losses in Yemen War Exposed by US Tank Deal|access-date=10 August 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160810160324/http://www.defenseone.com/business/2016/08/us-tank-deal-exposes-saudi-losses-yemen-war/130623/|archive-date=10 August 2016 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

===Russo-Ukrainian War===
====Russian invasion of Ukraine====
In January 2023, U.S. President [[Joe Biden]] said that the United States would send 31 M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-01-25 |title=US, Germany to send advanced tanks to aid Ukraine war effort |url= https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-german-tanks-435da2221bf452a8aae9d2e58d23acae |access-date=2023-01-26 |website= AP News}}</ref> The plan to transfer the tanks to Ukraine was approved as part of a larger aid package.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=McFall |first1=Caitlin |date=25 January 2023 |title=Biden approves sending 31 M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, in reversal |url= https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-approves-sending-31-m1-abrams-tanks-ukraine-reversal |access-date=26 January 2023 |website=Fox News Channel}}</ref> Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh specified that the tanks would be the M1A2 variant; however, because they were not available in excess in U.S. stocks, they would be purchased through [[Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative]] (USAI) and could take up to two years to manufacture and deliver.<ref>{{cite web |title=Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh Holds a Press Briefing |url= https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3279948/deputy-pentagon-press-secretary-sabrina-singh-holds-a-press-briefing/ |publisher= U.S. Department of Defense |access-date=27 January 2023}}</ref> In March 2023 the Pentagon announced that, in order to expedite delivery, modernized M1A1SA variants would be pulled from Army stocks and refurbished for delivery by the fall. This change would also ensure deliveries to US allies of new M1A2s would not be disrupted.<ref>{{cite web |title=Ukrainians to Get U.S. Tanks by Fall |url= https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3336826/ukrainians-to-get-us-tanks-by-fall/ |publisher= U.S. Department of Defense |access-date=22 March 2023}}</ref>

In September 2023, Ukraine began receiving these tanks, which were former [[U.S. Marine Corps]] tanks.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Khalilova |first=Dinara |date=2023-09-25 |title=Zelensky confirms first Abrams tanks already in Ukraine |language=en-US |work=The Kyiv Independent |url=https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-confirms-first-abrams-tanks-arrived-in-ukraine/ |access-date=2023-09-25}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |author=THOMAS NEWDICK |date=2023-09-25 |title=M1 Abrams Tanks Have Arrived In Ukraine |language=en-US |work=The War Zone |url=https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/m1-abrams-tanks-have-arrived-in-ukraine |access-date=2023-09-26 |archive-date=26 September 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230926044203/https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/m1-abrams-tanks-have-arrived-in-ukraine |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |author=David Axe |date=2023-09-25 |title=The First M-1 Tanks Are In Ukraine. Expect A Lot More Soon. |language=en-US |work=Forbes |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/09/25/the-first-m-1-tanks-are-in-ukraine-expect-a-lot-more-soon/?sh=45c1e363fe01 |access-date=2023-09-26}}</ref> The tanks supplied were also older (having entered service in 1986) but modernized to M1A1SA (Situational Awareness),<ref>{{Cite web |title=Why is the US sending 'downgraded' weaponry to Ukraine? |url=https://www.dw.com/en/why-is-the-us-sending-downgraded-weaponry-to-ukraine/a-65121120|date=25 March 2024 |author=Roman Goncharenko |access-date=2024-04-26 |website=DW}}</ref><ref name="auto1">{{Cite web |author=Joe Barnes |title=Ukraine withdraws Abrams tanks from front line amid barrage of drone attacks |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/26/ukraine-withdraws-abrams-tanks-amid-drone-attacks |date=2024-04-26 |access-date=2024-04-26 |website=The Telegraph}}</ref>

In February 2024, an M1A1 was reported as lost in Ukraine. The blowout panels on the ammo bins had been activated, indicating that the ammunition had [[Cooking off#Tanks|cooked off]].<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.twz.com/land/ukraines-first-m1-abrams-tank-loss-appears-to-have-occurred |title= Ukraine's First M1 Abrams Tank Loss Appears To Have Occurred |author= JOSEPH TREVITHICK |date=2024-02-26|publisher=TWZ}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/02/26/ukraine-has-lost-its-first-m-1-abrams-tank-likely-to-a-russian-drone-strike/?sh=1cc774314fc0 | title=Ukraine Has Lost Its First M-1 Abrams Tank—Likely to a Russian Drone | website=[[Forbes]] }}</ref> This M1A1 was destroyed by a [[FPV drone|FPV]] Piranha 10 quadcopter.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Network |first=Frontier India News |date=2024-02-28 |title=Meet Russian "Piranha" Drone Which Claimed the First US M1A1 Abrams Tank Kill |url=https://frontierindia.com/briefs/meet-russian-piranha-drone-which-claimed-the-first-us-m1a1-abrams-tank-kill/ |access-date=2024-03-03 |website=Frontier India - Briefs |language=en-GB |archive-date=29 February 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240229073706/https://frontierindia.com/briefs/meet-russian-piranha-drone-which-claimed-the-first-us-m1a1-abrams-tank-kill/ |url-status=dead }}</ref>

In March 2024, a M1A1 was reported destroyed by a T-72B3 allegedly with a [[9M119 Svir/Refleks|Refleks-M1]] guided missile.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Chacko |first=Joseph P. |date=2024-03-07 |title=Not the 'Best Tanks in the World' - Russian T-72B3 Destroys M1A1 Abrams in First Shot -in a Tank on Tank |url=https://frontierindia.com/not-the-best-tanks-in-the-world-russian-t-72b3-destroys-m1a1-abrams-in-first-shot-in-a-tank-on-tank-battle/ |access-date=2025-03-08 |website=Frontier India |language=en}}</ref>

[[File:M1A1 "Abrams" on captured equipment exhibition in Moscow (front view).jpg|thumb|A destroyed US-supplied M1A1 Abrams in Ukrainian service on display at Moscow's Victory Park on [[Poklonnaya Hill]], 2024]]
As of April 2025, Ukraine had visually confirmed losses of 21 (10 destroyed, 10 damaged and abandoned and 1 damaged and captured) of the 31 Abrams tanks,<ref name="oryx">{{Cite news|title=Attack On Europe: Documenting Ukrainian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine|url=https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-ukrainian.html?m=1|access-date=2025-04-08|website=[[Oryx]]}}</ref> including one that was captured by Russia and displayed as a war trophy in Moscow in May 2024.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Osborn |first1=Andrew |title=Russians throng to display of Western 'trophy' tanks captured in Ukraine |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russians-throng-display-western-trophy-tanks-captured-ukraine-2024-05-01/ |access-date=24 May 2024 |work=Reuters |date=2 May 2024}}</ref> One more Abrams was damaged.<ref name="oryx"/> In April 2024, Pentagon officials reported that Ukraine's Abrams had been withdrawn from frontline service. The Russian use of hunter killer drones have made it "too difficult" to operate the tanks<ref>{{Cite web |author= Tara Copp |title=Ukraine pulls US-provided Abrams tanks from the front lines over Russian drone threats |url=https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-abrams-tanks-19d71475d427875653a2130063a8fb7a |date=2024-04-26 |access-date=2024-04-26 |work=Associated Press}}</ref> in the current battlefield with "muddy ground hindering manoeuvrability".<ref name="auto1"/> A Ukrainian company has unveiled a new set of "anti-drone steel screens", which weighs "430 kg [approximately 948 pounds]". Designed to protect the tank, while not hindering its function, the screens also use Soviet era [[Kontakt-1]] explosive reactive armor. The screens protect the turrets top, rear, sides and other vulnerable sections. It leaves opening for smoke grenade launchers, the commander's hatch and other parts of the tank. Some 7 sets of armor have been produced, according to the company, for the Ukrainian Abrams.<ref>{{Cite web |author=JOSEPH TREVITHICK |title=Ukrainian M1 Abrams Tanks Get Elaborate 'Cope Cages,' Soviet Explosive Reactive Armor |url=https://www.twz.com/land/ukrainian-m1-abrams-tanks-get-elaborate-cope-cages-soviet-explosive-reactive-armor |date=2024-04-24 |access-date=2024-04-27 |work=TWZ}}</ref>

In October 2024, Australia announced that 49 recently retired M1A1 tanks would be transferred to Ukraine as the [[Australian Army]] started receiving its new M1A2 models.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-10-17 |title=Australia approves major no-strings-attached tank donation to Ukraine |url=https://www.euronews.com/2024/10/17/australia-approves-major-no-strings-attached-tank-donation-to-ukraine |access-date=2024-10-19 |website=euronews |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Clark |first=Colin |date=2024-10-16 |title=Aussies arming Ukraine with almost 50 Abrams tanks, a change in Canberra's plans |url=https://breakingdefense.com/2024/10/aussies-arming-ukraine-with-almost-50-abrams-tanks-a-change-in-canberras-plans/ |access-date=2024-10-19 |website=Breaking Defense |language=en-US}}</ref>

On 11 March 2025, Russian forces captured a fully intact Ukrainian M1A1 Abrams tank in the Kursk region.<ref>{{Cite web |title= Russia nabs intact M1A1 Abrams and $100,000 awaits soldier |url= https://www.bulgarianmilitary.com/amp/2025/03/11/russia-nabs-intact-m1a1-abrams-and-100000-awaits-soldier/ |access-date=2025-03-12 |date=2025-03-11|website= bulgarianmilitary |author= Boyko Nikolov |language=en}}</ref>

===Proposed production shutdown===
Serial production of the M1 Abrams for the U.S. Army ended in 1995, though production for exports continued until 2000.{{sfn|Zaloga|2019|p=16}}

[[File:M1 Abrams hull at Joint Systems Manufacturing Center-Lima in 2021.webp|thumb|right|An M1 Abrams hull undergoing work on the suspension system at the [[Joint Systems Manufacturing Center]] in Lima, 2021]]
The U.S. Army planned to end operations at Joint Systems Manufacturing Center (formerly Lima Army Tank Plant)<ref name= "nationaldefensemagazine.org"/> from 2013 to 2016 to save over $1 billion; it would be restarted in 2017 to upgrade existing tanks. General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS), which operates the factory, opposed the move, arguing that suspension of operations would increase long-term costs and reduce flexibility.<ref name="DODbuzz">{{cite web |first=Philip |last=Ewing |url= http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/04/21/the-tank-at-the-end-of-history/ |title=The tank at the end of history |work=DoD Buzz |publisher= Military |date=21 April 2011 |access-date= 23 April 2011 |url-status= dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110425023027/http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/04/21/the-tank-at-the-end-of-history/ |archive-date=25 April 2011}}</ref><ref name="Support Abrams">{{cite web |url= http://www.supportabrams.com/ |title=Support Abrams |publisher= General Dynamic Land Systems |access-date=23 April 2011 |url-status= dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110410010850/http://www.supportabrams.com/ |archive-date=10 April 2011}}</ref> Specifically, GDLS estimated that closing the plant would cost $380 million and restarting production would cost $1.3 billion.<ref name= "re-opening">{{cite news |title=Lighter, Yet Deadlier |work=Defense News |publisher=Gannett Government Media Corporation |url= http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7184244&c=FEA&s=TEC |access-date=24 July 2011 |archive-url= https://archive.today/20130110190447/http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7184244&c=FEA&s=TEC |url-status=dead |archive-date=10 January 2013}}</ref>

By August 2013, Congress had allocated $181 million for buying parts and upgrading Abrams systems to mitigate industrial base risks and sustain development and production capability. Congress and General Dynamics were criticized for redirecting money to keep production lines open and accused of "forcing the Army to buy tanks it didn't need." General Dynamics asserted that a four-year shutdown would cost $1.1–1.6 billion to reopen the line, depending on the length of the shutdown, whether machinery would be kept operating, and whether the plant's components would be completely removed.<ref name= "nationaldefensemagazine.org">{{cite news |last1=Magnuson |first1=Stew |title=Over Army Objections, Industry and Congress Partner to Keep Abrams Tank Production 'Hot' |url=https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2013/10/1/2013october-over-army-objections-industry-and-congress-partner-to-keep-abrams-tank-production-hot |access-date=30 December 2023 |work=www.nationaldefensemagazine.org |date=1 October 2013 |language=en}}</ref>

They contended that the move was to upgrade Army National Guard units to expand a "pure fleet" and maintain production of identified "irreplaceable" subcomponents. A prolonged shutdown could cause their makers to lose their ability to produce them and foreign tank sales were not guaranteed to keep production lines open. There is still a risk of production gaps even with production extended through 2015. With funds awarded before recapitalization is needed, budgetary pressures may push planned new upgrades for the Abrams from 2017 to 2019.<ref name="nationaldefensemagazine.org"/>

In December 2014, Congress again allocated $120 million, against the wishes of the Army, for Abrams upgrades.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Sisk |first1=Richard |title=Congress Again Buys Abrams Tanks the Army Doesn't Want |url=https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html?comp=7000023435630&rank=8 |access-date=7 January 2024 |work=Military.com |date=18 December 2014 |language=en}}</ref>

In late 2016, tank production and refurbishment had fallen to a rate of one per month with fewer than 100 workers on site. In 2017, the [[First presidency of Donald Trump|Presidency of Donald Trump]] ordered military production to increase, including Abrams production and employment. In 2018, it was reported that the Army had ordered 135 tanks rebuilt to new standards, with employment at over 500 workers and expected to rise to 1,000.<ref>{{cite web|first=Loren|last=Thompson|title=How President Trump Saved The Last Tank Plant In America |url= https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/11/02/how-president-trump-saved-the-last-tank-plant-in-america/ |work=Forbes|date=2 November 2018|access-date=30 October 2020|archive-date=21 January 2021 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210121043840/https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/11/02/how-president-trump-saved-the-last-tank-plant-in-america/ |url-status=live}}</ref>

The Marine Corps pursued a force restructuring plan named [[Force Design 2030]]. Under this program, all U.S. Marine tank battalions were deactivated and their M1A1 tanks transferred to the Army by the end of 2021.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/30/marine-corps-cuts-helicopters-tanks-possible-china/ |title=Marine Corps cuts helicopters, tanks for possible China conflict |work=The Washington Times |last=Wolfgang |first=Ben |date=30 March 2020 |access-date=30 August 2021 |archive-date=18 June 2021 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210618191042/https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/30/marine-corps-cuts-helicopters-tanks-possible-china/ |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/flashpoints/2020/03/26/the-marines-want-to-get-rid-of-their-tanks-heres-why/ |title=The Marines want to get rid of their tanks. Here's why. |work=Marine Corps Times |last=Snow |first=Shaun |date=26 March 2020 |access-date=30 August 2021 |archive-date=13 September 2021 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210913160716/https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/flashpoints/2020/03/26/the-marines-want-to-get-rid-of-their-tanks-heres-why/ |url-status=live}}</ref>

===Future plans===
During the 1980s and 1990s, the [[Armored Systems Modernization#Block III tank|Block III]] main battle tank from the [[Armored Systems Modernization]] (ASM) program was expected to succeed the M1 Abrams family in the 1990s. The design had an unmanned turret with a 140&nbsp;mm main gun, as well as improved protection. The end of Cold War hostilities caused the end of the program. The tracked [[M8 Armored Gun System]] was conceived as a possible supplement for the Abrams in U.S. service for low-intensity conflict in the early 1990s. Prototypes were made but the program was canceled. The eight-wheeled [[M1128 mobile gun system]] was designed to supplement the Abrams in U.S. service for low-intensity conflicts.<ref name=replace>{{cite book |title=Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter |volume= 30 |year=2004 |publisher=Asia-Pacific Defence Publications |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=gEG6AAAAIAAJ |access-date=2 April 2011 |archive-date=14 January 2023 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20230114043818/https://books.google.com/books?id=gEG6AAAAIAAJ |url-status=live}}</ref> It has been introduced into service and serves with Stryker brigades.

The [[Future Combat Systems]] [[Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles#Mounted Combat System|XM1202 Mounted Combat System]] was to replace the Abrams in U.S. Army service and was in development when funding for the program was canceled in 2010.<ref name="Janes 2011">{{cite book |editor1-last= Foss |editor1-first=Christopher F. |editor1-link= Christopher F. Foss |title=Jane's Armour and Artillery 2011–2012 |publisher=Janes Information Group |location=Surrey |year=2011 |isbn= 978-0-71062-960-9 |pages=177–85 |edition=32nd |url= https://archive.org/details/janesarmourartil0000unse}}</ref>

Engineering Change Proposal 1 is a two-part upgrade process. ECP1A adds space, weight, and power improvements and active protection against [[improvised explosive device]]s. Nine ECP1A prototypes have been produced as of October 2014. ECP1B, which would begin development in 2015, may include sensor upgrades and converging several tank round capabilities into a multipurpose round.<ref name="ECP1A AUSA">{{cite news|last1=Wasserbly|first1=Daniel|title= AUSA 2014: Army outlines upcoming combat vehicle choices |url= http://www.janes.com/article/44473/ausa-2014-army-outlines-upcoming-combat-vehicle-choices|work=IHS Jane's International Defence Review |date=14 October 2014|quote=ECP1A for Abrams, which just completed a "critical design review", and includes design efforts to incorporate data links for future ammunition, increased protection, as well as on-board diagnostics and a shift from line replaceable units (LRUs) to line replaceable modules (LRMs). LRMs are easier to replace because there are fewer cables, boxes, and cards to handle. |url-status= live|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150429105740/http://www.janes.com/article/44473/ausa-2014-army-outlines-upcoming-combat-vehicle-choices|archive-date=29 April 2015}}</ref>

As of 2021, the Army anticipated that the remaining M1A2 to beyond 2050.<ref name="armour 2017" >{{cite book |editor1-last=Foss |editor1-first=Christopher F |editor1-link=Christopher F Foss |title=Jane's Land Warfare Platforms: Armoured Fighting Vehicles 2017–2018 |publisher=Janes Information Group |location=Surrey |year=2017 |isbn=978-0-71063-227-2 |pages=211–221 |edition=38th |chapter= MBTs and Medium Tanks}}</ref> As of 2021 the Army is to begin divesting its M1A1 SA variants in [[fiscal year]] 2025.<ref name="WSH 2020">{{cite report |author=Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) |title=Weapon Systems Handbook 2020–2021 |date=25 May 2021 |pages=58–59 |url=https://www.army.mil/e2/downloads/rv7/2020-2021_Weapon_Systems_Handbook.pdf |access-date=7 January 2024}}</ref> As of March 2023 the US Army had a stated goal of procuring 2,204 M1A2SEPv3 tanks with funds already having been committed to procure 2,093{{verify source|date=December 2024}} of this variant. This will make the M1A2SEPv3 the standard issue tank for the US Army and US Army National Guard.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |date=March 2023 |title=Justification Book Volume 1 of 1 Procurement of W&TCV, Army |url=https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/72/Documents/BudgetMaterial/2024/Base%20Budget/Procurement/Procurement%20of%20Weapons%20and%20Tracked%20Combat%20Vehicles.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230320010414/https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/72/Documents/BudgetMaterial/2024/Base%20Budget/Procurement/Procurement%20of%20Weapons%20and%20Tracked%20Combat%20Vehicles.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=20 March 2023 }}</ref>

As of 2021, the U.S. Army was evaluating a replacement for the M1 Abrams as part of the [[Next Generation Combat Vehicle]] (NGCV) program, notionally known as the Decisive Lethality Platform (DLP).<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Keating |first1=Edward G. |last2=Adedeji |first2=Adebayo |date= April 2021 |title=Projected Acquisition Costs for the Army's Ground Combat Vehicles |url= https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-03/57085-ground-combat-vehicles.pdf |access-date=30 December 2022 |website=Congressional Budget Office |archive-date=7 November 2022 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20221107090739/https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-03/57085-ground-combat-vehicles.pdf |url-status= live}}</ref>

In September 2023, the U.S. Army announced that it had canceled the planned M1A2 SEPv4 variant and would instead redirect resources into a new variant of the Abrams tank, named M1E3.<ref name=":2">{{Cite news |last=Judson |first=Jen |date=6 September 2023 |title=US Army scraps Abrams tank upgrade, unveils new modernization plan |url=https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/09/06/us-army-scraps-abrams-tank-upgrade-unveils-new-modernization-plan/ |access-date=September 6, 2023 |work=DefenseNews}}</ref>