Surviving Ukrainian M-1s are beginning to sport anti-drone cage armor
May 24, 2024
VIA SOCIAL MEDIA
The United States gave Ukraine 31 M-1A1 Abrams tanks. They equip a single battalion in the Ukrainian army’s 47th Mechanized Brigade, which has been fighting a defensive campaign west of the ruins of Avdiivka in eastern Ukraine.
In several months of hard fighting, the 47th Mechanized Brigade has lost as many as eight of the 69-ton, four-person M-1s—to Russian drones, mostly. The brigade is finally doing something about its drone problem: adding cage armor that can help detonate incoming explosive drones at a safe distance.
A photo that appeared online on Friday depicts the add-on armor on at least one Ukrainian M-1.
The losses around Avdiivka compelled the brigade to withdraw its surviving tanks in late April, the Associated Press claimed in late April, quoting—among others—U.S. Navy admiral Christopher Grady, vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.
But one Ukrainian M-1 crewman told Ukraine’s Army T.V. two weeks later that wasn’t not true. “Full of lies,” the tanker said.
Instead, the 47th Mechanized Brigade is being careful with how it deploys its undamaged M-1s, the tanker explained. “The situation is very difficult, because the Russians are superior in terms of personnel, equipment and everything, so we have to adjust our actions.
The 47th Mechanized Brigade sends out M-1s only when there’s an opportunity to “go out and destroy the opponent’s vehicles,” the crewman said. The implication is that M-1s aren’t sitting in some revetment among the outermost trenches, waiting for the Russians to attack; rather, they form a kind of reaction force that normally waits behind the front line.
The Ukrainian tanker conceded that the brigade might deploy the M-1s differently if they were better protected against Russia’s explosive drones—something that’s finally happening, if that one application of anti-drone armor is any indication.
But the locally installed cage armor wasn’t the only option. There was a bespoke American option, too. While Ukraine’s M-1A1s wear the standard M-19 Abrams Reactive Armor Tiles along the sides of their otherwise thinly-protected hulls, they don’t wear reactive armor on their turrets.
Reactive armor contains small explosive plates that explode outward when struck, partially deflecting an incoming munition.
“We as a crew and as a battalion in general would like from our American partners to provide us with dynamic armor,” the tanker said, “so that we have not only the flanks protected, but also the turret.”
The U.S. Army remedied this problem with their latest M-1A2s by adding extra “passive”—that is, non-reactive—armor to their turret faces. But this armor likely includes depleted uranium, which the United States doesn’t export, as a matter of policy. Before shipping M-1A1s to Ukraine, the Pentagon paid contractors to open up the tanks’ turrets, remove the uranium and replace it with tungsten.
It’s not impossible to hang ARAT armor on an Abrams’ turret. California-based Ensign-Bickford Aerospace and Defense, which manufactures the ARAT bricks, specifically described the bricks as “hull, skirt or turret armor.”
But the bricks attach to racks that tank maker General Dynamics welds onto the M-1. It’s unclear what it would take for contractors to modify Ukraine’s surviving Abrams with the racks, and for the Pentagon to ship reactive armor kits.
At the very least, it would take time—perhaps months. And the 47th Mechanized Brigade surely can’t spare its tanks for that long. The brigade apparently got tired of asking and waiting—and welded on cage armor, instead.
Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of my other work here. Send me a secure tip.
I often wonder when reading reports about drones and EW, if Western countries work overtime to develop effective electronic warfare systems, both to combat mafia drones and to make our own drones and other advanced weapons jam proof.
Heck, making sure that our chips don’t end up in mafia land in large numbers would be a great start, or?
Sure, Mr. Facts. But have you read about even one Western country where law enforcement agencies have got additional staff, or are working overtime, in order to stop sanction violations? Yeah, me, neither. And that’s a major problem. It’s easy for lawmakers to pass new regulations, but when they don’t also allocate money for actually implementing those rules, that ‘s still a halfassed measure. 😠
Maybe it would be of help to create an appropriate penalty for violating sanctions. A mandatory $1,000,000 fine and/or 10 years in prison would do wonders to curb those assholes.
I can only say it once again: Western tanks should all be equipped with active protection systems against missiles and drones. Why can’t Nato get this done? To lose a multimillion-dolkar-weapon to an FPV drone worth a thousand bucks is idiotic! 😠
“Why can’t Nato get this done?”
Beats me, Mr. Gray. But, I have many more questions about why this or that isn’t being done.