Abrams tanks 'mad max' modifications: A double-edged sword
The M1A1 Abrams tanks do not excite Ukrainian tankers. American designs, similar to the Leopard 2, are locally modified in various ways. These modifications closely resemble creations from the Mad Max universe. We explain whether this brings any advantages.
Ukrainians are making modifications based on their experiences using the M1A1 Abrams tanks. Similar to the case with Leopard 2 tanks, the base involves Kontakt-1 reactive armor blocks and grids serving as bar armor. The following picture shows a modified M1A1 Abrams tank, which received a rubber skirt covering the lower front armor plate.
M1A1 Abrams in Mad Max style - pros and cons of this type of solution
The M1A1 Abrams tanks are characterized by very good armor, but only in the context of the battlefield for which they were designed. This refers to fighting enemy tanks or protection against anti-tank-guided missiles.
Therefore, the frontal armor is very durable, but the sides, particularly the top, are much thinner. The M1A1 Abrams was not designed for conditions where, for example, an FPV drone with a shaped charge warhead can strike the upper front armor plate or the rear of the turret at an almost vertical angle. A hit in this area can injure or kill the driver, which has already happened. Therefore, it is not surprising to see the protection of these areas with Kontakt-1 reactive armor blocks.
These blocks, through a shock wave and a hail of fragments from their casing during an explosion, can significantly or completely nullify the penetration capabilities of PG-7VL grenades (50 centimeters of steel armor) widely used on drones. Another method of protection is using metal grids spaced about 50 centimeters from the armor to cause the premature detonation of the shaped charge warhead.
Furthermore, prioritizing crew survivability has resulted in a design of the ammunition storage that is fully isolated from the crew and has thin covers that, in the event of ammunition ignition, redirect the energy of the explosion outside. This makes such areas particularly vulnerable to FPV drone attacks, and attempting to block them might only worsen the situation.
It is worth noting that these improvisations are ineffective against modern anti-tank weapons. Kinetic penetrators like APFSDS-T fired from other tank guns do not matter at all, and for anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), tandem-shaped charges have become the norm, allowing them to deal with such armor.
Simply put, the first smaller warhead creates a gap in such a cover, allowing the second, larger-shaped charge to detonate under optimal conditions. On the other hand, the drawback of improvised solutions is the significant increase in weight of an already approximately 70-ton tank.
This results in deteriorated mobility due to a worse power-to-weight ratio and additional tons, causing faster wear of suspension components. This might be one of the reasons for the high failure rate of Abrams tanks, which Ukrainian crews complain about.
