US media: Tank gap between Washington, Moscow Battle Russia can’t win

The US Army’s next-generation M1E3 Abrams and Russia’s T-72B3M represent two fundamentally different approaches to modern armored warfare, shaped by contrasting strategic, industrial, and doctrinal realities, says Isaac Seitz, a columnist for 19FortyFive.

The author notes that the T-72 platform has been in global service for more than five decades, and despite its age, it remains a backbone of many armored forces. The Russian Army currently fields the T-72B3M, one of the most advanced variants, developed as a cost-effective modernization of legacy hulls. By contrast, the United States is advancing the M1E3 project, intended to replace older Abrams variants and mark a decisive break from decades of incremental upgrades.

The M1E3 emerged from a reassessment within the US Army after successive modernization packages steadily increased the Abrams’ weight, electrical demand, and logistical burden. The cancellation of the M1A2 SEPv4 in favor of the M1E3 reflected recognition that survivability, mobility, and sustainment could no longer be achieved through bolt-on solutions. Instead, the M1E3 is conceived as a deep redesign, prioritizing reduced weight, integrated protection systems, and a digital architecture adaptable to emerging threats.

Russia’s T-72B3M, however, reflects pragmatic constraints. With thousands of T-72 hulls available and newer designs like the T-14 Armata proving economically unrealistic at scale, Moscow opted to refine rather than reinvent. The B3M improves firepower, optics, communications, and protection while retaining the tank’s original architecture and its inherent limitations.

Survivability remains a key differentiator. The Abrams family has long emphasized crew protection, most notably through isolated ammunition storage with blowout panels. The M1E3 is expected to advance this philosophy further by reducing the crew to three, housing them in an armored capsule separate from ammunition, and integrating active and passive defenses.

The T-72B3M retains its carousel autoloader, with ammunition stored beneath the crew. While this allows a smaller turret and lighter weight, it leaves the tank vulnerable to catastrophic ammunition cook-off if penetrated, a weakness only partially mitigated by reactive armor and limited APS integration such as Arena-M.

In terms of firepower, both tanks are formidable. The M1E3 will retain the 120 mm cannon, capable of firing advanced depleted-uranium rounds, while the T-72B3M’s 125 mm gun fires modern ammunition including the 3BM60 “Svinets.” Mobility further separates the designs, with the M1E3 expected to adopt a diesel-electric hybrid to reduce fuel consumption and logistical strain, while the T-72B3M remains constrained by legacy drivetrain limitations.

Ultimately, the two tanks embody distinct strategic choices: the M1E3 as a highly survivable, technologically advanced platform produced in limited numbers, and the T-72B3M as a mass-refurbished workhorse designed for large-scale, attritional warfare.

By Vafa Guliyeva