Mistake: The proposed AbramsX Main Battle Tank (MBT) could repeat the mistakes Russia made with its T-14 Armata, according to the article. Both tanks represent significant technological advances but face practical problems in modern warfare. The T-14, despite its advanced capabilities, has been underutilized due to high cost and vulnerability to cheap anti-tank weapons and drones.

-Similarly, the AbramsX incorporates the latest technology such as AI and a hybrid-electric powertrain, but these features can introduce vulnerabilities, such as battery failure under combat stress.

-The article suggests that it may be impractical to invest heavily in such expensive MBTs, as they may be kept away from the frontlines to avoid losses.

Is the AbramsX tank repeating Russia’s T-14 mistake?

The Americans seem poised to make exactly the same mistake with their proposed ones Abrams X Main Battle Tank as the Russians did with theirs T-14 Armata MBT.

Like the T-14, the new AbramsX is designed as a quantum leap in tank design.

It’s not just an enhanced version of the legendary Abrams MBT which has dominated the battlefield for decades. It’s truly next level, with everything from state-of-the-art artificial intelligence to a hybrid-electric powertrain and advanced defensive systems.

None of that matters in the modern threat environment.

The T-14 is one of the world’s most advanced MBTs. Yet it has proved a total failure when faced with the prospect of fighting in Ukraine.

Not learning the right lessons from Ukraine

It’s not because the system is overhyped.

Its because The time and cost of building individual T-14 units is such a drain on Russia’s resources that if even a small number of these tanks were lost in combat, the cost would outweigh its benefits to Russia.

The Russians are not inferior to the Americans in military production – they simply do not invest the same level of capital in their defense sector. But they have proven in Ukraine that they can still endure a serious conflict even while spending a fraction of what the Americans do on defense.

The Americans, meanwhile, are runs dry on several necessary pieces of military equipment due to its commitment to Ukraine. What’s more, if the Americans ever fully built the advanced AbramsX and found themselves in a major conflict, Washington would likely make the same decision with the AbramsX that Moscow has made with the Armata: keep it off the front lines. They would be reluctant to put their shiny new AbramsX tanks into the cauldron of battle, especially if they were to fight a rival that is almost their equal.

In fact, in the short term any future war will look much more like Ukraine than any other conflict fought in the last 50 years. This is because capabilities have increased to such an extent that the world’s militaries can effectively nullify each other’s advanced systems and drive each other into the trenches, just as the great powers did in the First World War.

AbramsX is not worth it

The AbramsX is a hugely expensive undertaking, just like the T-14 Armata was. The T-14 has been intimidated by cheap Ukrainian anti-tank missiles and drones. The same goes for AbramsX.

At the same time, the technical specifications of the AbramsX, while cool, are problematic – especially the incorporation of hybrid-electric propulsion system that the army has been advertising for years. It’s true, a hybrid-electric propulsion system is more fuel efficient, and it would provide immediate maximum torque.

But the disadvantages are significant. For example, the electric batteries may not last very well under the stress of combat. Army tankers running AbramsX can encounter exploding and burning batteries, creating a weakness that enemy drones and tanks can exploit in combat. It would be difficult to maintain in the field.

The batteries are the problem

Like me warned at The Pipeline earlier this year, the Pentagon’s decision to invest in electric propulsion for combat vehicles is problematic. These systems “must be equipped with larger batteries that allow them to travel farther into enemy territory without needing to be recharged. But placing heavier batteries on electric combat equipment would make these vehicles slower and heavier.

Still, the army wants its new tank.

Author experience and expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

Brandon J. Weicherta national security of national interest analystis a former congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor to The Washington Times, Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is out October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the vault

Russia freaked out: why the US Navy “unretired” Iowa-class battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia’s Kirov-Class (Who Will Win?)