The M1 Abrams () is a third-generation American main battle tank designed by Chrysler Defense (now General Dynamics Land Systems) and named for General Creighton Abrams. Conceived for modern armored ground warfare, it is one of the heaviest tanks in service at nearly 73.6 short tons (66.8 metric tons). It introduced several modern technologies to the United States armored forces, including a multifuel turbine engine, sophisticated Chobham composite armor, a computer fire control system, separate ammunition storage in a blowout compartment, and NBC protection for crew safety. Initial models of the M1 were armed with a 105 mm M68 gun, while later variants feature a license-produced Rheinmetall 120 mm L/44 designated M256. The M1 Abrams was developed from the failed joint American-West German MBT-70 project that intended to replace the dated M60 tank. There are three main operational Abrams versions: the M1, M1A1, and M1A2, with each new iteration seeing improvements in armament, protection, and electronics. The Abrams was to be replaced in U.S. Army service by the XM1202 Mounted Combat System, but following the project's cancellation, the Army opted to continue maintaining and operating the M1 series for the foreseeable future by upgrading optics, armor, and firepower. The M1 Abrams entered service in 1980 and serves as the main battle tank of the United States Army, and formerly of the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) until the decommissioning of all USMC tank battalions in 2021. The export modification is used by the armed forces of Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Poland, and Iraq. The Abrams was first used in combat by the U.S. in the Gulf War. It was later deployed by the U.S. in the War in Afghanistan and the Iraq War, as well as by Iraq in the war against the Islamic State, Saudi Arabia in the Yemeni Civil War, and Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War.
History
Previous developments
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. The MBT-70, or Kampfpanzer 70 as it was known in Germany, incorporated many new unconventional technologies. 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 NBC-protected turret with the other two crewmembers. Like the M60A2 MBT and M551 Sheridan light tank then under development, the MBT-70 was armed with a 152 mm gun-launcher that, in addition to firing conventional ammunition, would also fire the Shillelagh missile. A hydropneumatic suspension provided improved cross-country ride quality and also allowed the entire tank to be raised or lowered by the driver. The United States team was led by General Motors while the German team consisted of a consortium of firms. The collaboration between the two teams was rocky from the start, with many cultural differences and disagreements about the design hampering progress. While the design was highly capable, its weight and budget both continued to grow. By 1969, the unit cost was many times the original estimate, approaching $1 million a tank. Due to increasing costs, delays and overall uncertainty as to the soundness of the tank design, the United States and Germany ended their MBT-70 partnership in 1970. 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. These changes were ultimately insufficient to allay concerns about the tank's cost. Congress canceled the XM803 in December 1971 but permitted the Army to reallocate remaining funds to develop a new main battle tank.
=== Starting over === The Army began the XM815 project in January 1972. The Main Battle Tank Task Force (MBTTF) was established under Major General William Desobry with the technical support of Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM). In spring 1972, Desobry was briefed by the British on their own newly developed "Burlington" armor from the British Army's labs. The armor performed exceptionally against shaped charges 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 53 tonnes (52 long tons; 58 short tons). The original goal of keeping weight under 45 tonnes (44 long tons; 50 short tons) was abandoned. 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 (equivalent to $3,908,000 in 2025). 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. In January 1973, the U.S. Army issued the XM1 (as the XM815 had been renamed in November 1972) request for proposals. The new tank had to defeat any hit from a Soviet gun within 800 m (2,600 ft) and 30 degrees to either side. The tank would be armed with the 105 mm M68 gun, a licensed version of the Royal Ordnance L7, and a 20 mm version of the M242 Bushmaster. The Army later deleted the latter from the design. In May 1973, Chrysler Defense and General Motors submitted proposals. Both were armed with the 105 mm M68 gun, the licensed L7, and the 20 mm Bushmaster. Chrysler chose a 1,500 hp Lycoming AGT1500 gas turbine engine. GM's model was powered by a 1,500 hp diesel engine similar to that used on the American MBT-70 and XM803.
Prototypes
Prototypes were delivered in 1976 by Chrysler and GM armed with the M68E1 105 mm gun. They entered head-to-head testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground. 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. 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 890 liters per 100 kilometers (3.8 U.S. gal/mi). The GM design used a new variable-compression diesel design. 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 U.S Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.
Back to the drawing board
In July 1976 Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announced a four-month delay in the award of the XM1 contract. Over the Army's objections Rumsfeld had heeded his deputy's call to make a turbine engine a requirement of the XM1. Within days of the announced delay, 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." In the meantime, in September 1976 three West German Leopard 2AV prototypes were belatedly sent to Aberdeen for comparison testing. 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. In any case, in evaluations the Leopard 2AV was found to meet U.S. requirements but was thought to cost more. The U.S. Army announced in January 1977 that Germany had withdrawn the tank from consideration.
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. Chrysler also submitted a version with a Teledyne AVCR-1360 diesel engine. Chrysler's new bid came to $196 million, down from $221 million in the original proposal.
GM's proposal replaced the diesel engine with an AGT1500 turbine and integrated a turret capable of mounting either the 105 mm or 120 mm gun. Cost growth pushed the tank bid to $232 million from $208 million. Although the GM team had successfully integrated the turbine, Baer was more impressed by the cost savings introduced by the Chrysler team's redesign. On 12 November 1976, the Defense Department awarded the $4.9 billion development contract to Chrysler. 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. Eleven XM1 preproduction models were manufactured between February and July 1978 at Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant. 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, but 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. Another problem was the ingestion of debris by the engine. The problem was determined to be caused by poorly fitting air filters. The 60 Minutes news program reported in 1980 on a faulty air filter induction system, but an Army spokesperson said that the problem was resolved prior to the airing of the episode. 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. 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. 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", and that the program "ranks as one of the Army's best managed", producing a tank in "a remarkably short time" while avoiding "gold-plating" and using effective competition. American tank historian Steven J. Zaloga characterized American press criticism of the M1 during this time as "ill-founded" and that the issues uncovered by the tank trials were "not particularly serious". PMP's criticism failed to generate any serious opposition to the program, which maintained strong support from Congress and the Pentagon.
Production starts
Low rate initial production (LRIP) of the vehicle was approved in May 1979. In February 1982, General Dynamics Land Systems Division (GDLS) purchased Chrysler Defense, after Chrysler built over 1,000 M1s. 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.). 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, M829A2 armor-penetrating rounds, and improved weapon range. The M1 was armed with the license-built M68A1 version of the 105 mm Royal Ordnance L7 gun. The tank featured the first-of-its-kind Chobham armor. The M1 Abrams was the first to use this advanced armor. It consisted of an arrangement of metal and ceramic plates. An improved model called the IPM1 was produced briefly in 1984 and contained upgrades to armor and other small improvements.
120 mm gun M1A1
A number of considerations had led the service and its contractors to favor the Army's standard M68 105 mm gun over Germany's 120 mm Rheinmetall Rh-120 smoothbore gun for the XM1. To begin with, the 105 mm gun was "the smallest, lightest, and least costly gun adequate for the job." 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, as well as the tanks of virtually every other NATO nation, used the 105 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 mm gun would probably be the eventual main armament." 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 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. In January 1978, the Secretary of the Army announced that the Rheinmetall 120 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 mm gun) so that the XM1 program could continue unimpeded. About 5,000 M1A1 Abrams tanks were produced from 1986 to 1992 and featured the M256 120 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. 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. As the Abrams entered service, they operated alongside M60A3 within the U.S. military and with other NATO tanks in various Cold War exercises which usually took place in Western Europe, especially West Germany. The exercises were aimed at countering Soviet forces. Adaptations before the Gulf War (Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm) gave the vehicle better firepower and Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) protection.
Gulf War
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 mm guns. All but two battalions of 105 mm gun Abrams tanks were replaced by M1A1 tanks prior to the American invasion in January 1991. 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. 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. The M1A1 was superior to Iraq's Soviet-designed T-54/T-55 and T-62 tanks, as well as T-72 versions imported from the Soviet Union and Poland. Polish officials stated that no license-produced T-72 (nicknamed Lion of Babylon) tanks were finished before destruction of the Iraqi Taji tank plant in 1991.
Iraq's T-72s, like most Soviet export designs, lacked night-vision systems and then-modern rangefinders, though they did have some night-fighting tanks with older active infrared systems or floodlights. 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. Three Abrams were left behind the enemy lines after a swift attack on 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. 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. Some others took minor combat damage, with little effect on their operational readiness. The M1A1 could kill other tanks at ranges in excess of 8,200 feet (2,500 m). 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 6,600 feet (2,000 m). 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 turret armor survived direct 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 during the Battle of Norfolk.
Waco siege
During the Waco siege in 1993, two M1A1 Abrams tanks were borrowed from the military and deployed by the FBI against the Branch Davidians.
=== 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. 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. The M1A2 SEP also serves as the basis for the M104 Wolverine heavy assault bridge. The M1A2 SEPv2 (version 2) added 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. Further upgrades included 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.
Iraq War
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 50 yards (46 m)) near Mahmoudiyah, about 18 miles (29 km) south of Baghdad, with no U.S. losses. 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. Following lessons learned in Desert Storm, the Abrams and many other U.S. combat vehicles used in the conflict were fitted with Combat Identification Panels to reduce friendly fire incidents. 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. 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. By March 2005, approximately 80 Abrams tanks had been forced out of action by enemy attacks; 63 were shipped back to the U.S. for repairs, while 17 were damaged beyond repair with 3 of them at the beginning of 2003.
Vulnerabilities exposed during urban combat in the Iraq War were addressed with the 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. By December 2006 more than 530 Abrams tanks had been shipped back to the U.S. for repairs. 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 HEAT warhead to penetrate explosive reactive armor (ERA) as well as composite armor behind it. 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.
Iraqi Army service
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 were 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. 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. It is not known whether the tanks were captured from ISIL, seized from Iraq's military, or handed over. One Iraqi-operated Abrams was 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. In October 2017, Abrams were used by the Iraqi Army 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.
War in Afghanistan
Canada and Denmark deployed Leopard 1 and 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 Delta Company, 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Marine Division (Forward), to southern Afghanistan in support of operations in Helmand and Kandahar provinces.
=== 2015 Yemen Civil War === Saudi Abrams tanks saw service in the 2015 Yemeni Civil War, where M1A2s were used against Houthi rebels. 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.
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. The plan to transfer the tanks to Ukraine was approved as part of a larger aid package. 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. 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. In September 2023, Ukraine began receiving these tanks, which were former U.S. Marine Corps tanks. The tanks supplied were also older (having entered service in 1986) but modernized to M1A1SA (Situational Awareness) standards. 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 cooked off. This M1A1 was destroyed by a FPV Piranha 10 quadcopter. 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 in the current battlefield with "muddy ground hindering manoeuvrability". 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. One Abrams was captured by Russia and displayed as a war trophy in Moscow in May 2024. At least one captured example was given to the North Koreans, who displayed it in a museum as seen during the visit of Kim Jung Un. It is unknown if this was given as a thanks for Korean support or an example captured by North Korean Forces.
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. On 19 July 2025, Australia announced that Ukraine had received the majority of the M1A1 Abrams tanks, which according to The Sydney Morning Herald was "around 40" tanks, with the remaining tanks to be delivered in the coming months. On 19 December 2025, ABC News reported that the final 12 M1A1 Abrams tanks donated by Australia had been transferred to Ukraine. On 31 March 2026, an M1A1 Abrams of the Skala Regiment was destroyed during a mechanized assault near the village of Hryshyne, Donetsk Oblast. As of 31 March 2026, Oryxspioenkop website stated that Ukraine had visually confirmed losses of 25 (12 destroyed, 1 damaged, 11 abandoned and 1 captured) of the 31 US-provided Abrams tanks.
=== Production === Serial production of the M1 Abrams for the U.S. Army ended in 1995, though production for exports continued until 2000.
The U.S. Army sought to suspend operations at Joint Systems Manufacturing Center (formerly Lima Army Tank Plant) from 2013 to 2016 to save over $1 billion. These plans were averted by Congress, which continued allocating money towards upgrading tanks. Specifically, GDLS estimated that closing the plant would cost $380 million and restarting production would cost $1.3 billion. 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, President 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. In the second half of 1984, General Dynamics received a $150 million contract to build a new tank plant in Egypt. It was to be called Factory 200, and to be located in Abu Zaabal, an industrial suburb north of Cairo. It initially overhauled U.S. M60 tanks and M88 Recovery Vehicles. M1 Abrams production commenced in 1992. It is now called the Armoured Production and Repair Factory.
=== U.S. Marine Corps divestments === The Marine Corps began divesting itself of the Abrams in 2020 as part of a force restructuring plan intended to improve the Marine Corps' ability to contend with near-peer adversaries in the Pacific region, specifically to deter a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Under the restructuring the Marine Corps would shift its strategy towards distributed operations, an area planners felt the Abrams was unsuited for. In 2020, the final M1A1 left Camp Lejuene, marking the end of the use of heavy armor in the Marine Corps. Marines previously serving within armor roles were given the option to transfer to the Army to continue serving in armor roles, change their occupational specialty within the Marines, or retire from the corps early.
=== Future plans === During the 1980s and 1990s, the 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 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. It has been introduced into service and serves with Stryker brigades. The Future Combat Systems 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. Engineering Change Proposal 1 is a two-part upgrade process. ECP1A adds space, weight, and power improvements and active protection against improvised explosive devices. 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. As of 2021, the Army anticipates that the remaining M1A2s will serve beyond 2050. As of 2021 the Army is to begin divesting its M1A1 SA variants in fiscal year 2025. As of March 2023 the US Army had a stated goal of procuring 2,204 M1A2 SEPv3 tanks with funds already having been committed to procure 2,093 of this variant. This will make the M1A2 SEPv3 the standard issue tank for the US Army and US Army National Guard. 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). 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. In June 2025, it was reported that the US Army had planned upgrades to Abrams tanks to make them more survivable in the battlefield after lessons from Ukraine.
.png?width=500)
