Greatly influencing the topography of armored warfare in modern times, the design philosophy and technological advancements in MBTs created a furor in major military powers. This article outlines the technical details and battlefield performances of Russian and American tanks to epitomize their history, strengths, and vulnerabilities, especially with attention to the T-72 and the M1 Abrams.
Russian tanks, like the T-72, have formed the backbone of their armored forces for a long period. Nevertheless, a series of technical problems are faced by these tanks. In general, the mission system fit of Russian tanks, including their sight and fire control computer, lags behind those in the West. Although there were some modernization efforts, mainly the importation of thermal imagers from Thales before 2014 and subsequent license production, the fire control computers are less advanced. This thus results in tanks with poor delivery shots, especially in adverse conditions, such as low light or smoke.
Another characteristic of Russian tank designs is that they are equally cramped; the standard crew is three and has been that way since the T-64. A reduced crew size can make certain activities, such as track repairs or refueling, more cumbersome. With such limitations, however, the design of Russian forces and their tactics have leaned into these constraints rather than trying to match the capability of Western tanks.
Probably the main feature shared by all tanks of Soviet origin is the automatic ammunition handling system, the carousel loader, one of the most important military technology vulnerabilities. It reduces the height and weight of the tank but, while doing so, creates a critical vulnerability carousel loader in the hull has much less protection from the sides; therefore, it becomes susceptible to catastrophic explosions when penetrated. This risk is mitigated by additions such as Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA), which, although quite effective against specific threats, does have significant limitations, especially on the sides of the tank.
The Battle of 73 Easting during the Persian Gulf War was perhaps a defining case study for modern tank warfare. This pitted the American M1 Abrams against the Iraqi Republican Guards’ T-72s. The M1 had been designed in the 1970s by Chrysler Defense, now part of General Dynamics Land Systems, and since then had been the workhouse of the American armored forces. Its variant in service for the Gulf War, designated M1A1, featured better armor, speed, and ballistic accuracy, including the possibility of firing while on the move.
In contrast, the export model T-72M and locally manufactured “Lion of Babylon” were considerably overmatched. The steel turret and slimming of armor on the front afforded the crew less protection than the Soviet domestic version. Poor training, maintenance, and gunnery skills put the Iraqi forces in an even deeper hole.
The battle proved one-sided as the Iraqis lost a huge number of tanks, armored personnel carriers, and personnel, while on the other side, the Americans hardly lost any men and equipment. Again, the result underscored the role of training, maintenance, and technological edge in armored combat.
The T-72 and M1 Abrams are two epitomizing tanks, each representing different approaches to armor design and warfare. First having entered service in 1971, it’s seen much service and many upgrades since then, with some still in use today, including hulls used in the ongoing Ukraine conflict. The M1 Abrams, designed against the Soviet threats of the Cold War, first entered combat in service during the Gulf War and remains in major use service.
While both have evolved from their original design and concept, their respective core design philosophies speak to that origin. Whereas the T-72 places a premium on compactness and automated loading, the M1 Abrams represents crew safety, advanced fire control systems, and unmatched armor protection. This leads to very different performances on the battlefield.
Finally, armored warfare evolution itself is a function of mutual interaction between technological progress and tactical responses. The experiences of the T-72s and M1 Abrams of Russia and America, respectively, point to innovation, training, and strategic design as the key to battlefield advantage maintenance.