Ukrainian crews operating Australian-supplied M1A1 Abrams tanks say the battlefield has become so saturated with Russian drones that their tanks cannot currently be used in combat, but they reject the idea that main battle tanks have become forever obsolete.

Since receiving these tanks last year, the crews, serving with Ukraine’s 425th Separate Assault Regiment “Skala,” have used the Abrams in two combat operations in the fight for Pokrovsk, a key Ukrainian logistics hub and part of a defensive belt of towns in Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region. They recounted their experiences to Hromadske, an independent media channel in Ukraine.

Fighting around Pokrovsk

The first major deployment described by the crews took place in December of last year, when Abrams tanks were used to support assault groups entering Pokrovsk.

The crewmember with the callsign Kent described moving into the city behind a mine-clearing tank and ahead of two infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) carrying assault troops, during a mission that was deliberately aggressive.

“Since a tank is a priority target — my task was to draw their attention, while our infantry dismounted and moved in successfully.”

The Abrams was also assigned three target points to engage along the route.

“We went right in there, poured it on, and drove back out,” he recalled.

A video showing the 425th Separate Assault Regiment in action in August 2025, soon after receiving the Abrams:

The second operation, on March 31, involved an attempt to enter and hold an industrial area near Pokrovsk to help block Russian movement toward Hryshyne, a contested village in the district.

The operation was prepared for more than two weeks. Ukrainian forces conducted reconnaissance flights, examined difficult sections of the planned routes, and provided crews with extensive video and imagery.

“They knew every meter of the route,” another of the unit’s commanders, with the callsign Kubik, said.

Weather was considered essential. The Ukrainians waited for fog and rain, hoping to limit the effectiveness of Russian drones.

“Without the right weather we wouldn’t have been able to pull off operations like that,” Kubik said.

The operation nevertheless resulted in the destruction of four out of five armored vehicles, some of which are seen in the video embedded below.

Russia's Rubicon Drone Center FPV drones destroyed a Ukrainian assault group near Pokrovsk, hitting an M1A1 Abrams tank, M1117 APC and BMP-2 as the unit tried to advance near Hryshyne under fog cover. #Ukraine pic.twitter.com/ZzE52qAYxp

— NOELREPORTS (@NOELreports) April 1, 2026

The commander acknowledged that the Russian side may have had advance knowledge of the operation.

“I can’t rule out the possibility that the enemy knew our plan,” he said.

His Abrams was not immediately destroyed. According to the crew, it completed its task and the assault troops dismounted before the weather changed.

“Once the fog lifted, they started working on it with an FPV drone,” the commander said.

Why use tanks at all?

The losses prompted criticism from Ukrainian military commentators, particularly after footage of the destroyed vehicles was published.

However, the crews defend the decision to use armored vehicles for the missions. According to the men of the Skala interviewed, the alternative was often to send infantry over several miles on foot while carrying weapons, ammunition, water, and other supplies.

“That takes more time,” Kubik explained. “And the enemy isn’t standing still — the enemy is moving toward them.”

Australia-supplied M1A1 Abrams AIM main battle tank in service of the Ukrainian 425th Separate Assault Regiment "Skala."

The tanks of such type recently saw combat in the area of Pokrovsk. pic.twitter.com/qhjSyGbhH6

— Status-6 (War & Military News) (@Archer83Able) December 23, 2025

The argument that infantry could simply move more stealthily on foot also has limitations.

“Every day the Mavic drones are flying, the fixed-wing drones are flying,” he said. “No fog, guys are visible.”

Combined with IFVs, the Abrams can provide the ability to rapidly move troops while simultaneously delivering heavy direct fire against enemy positions and offering substantial protection to its crew.

The crews argue that this capability remains worthwhile even when the tank itself may eventually be lost.

One commander was asked whether deploying a roughly $5-million tank makes sense if a single sortie can result in its destruction.

“Yes, of course it makes sense to deploy it,” he replied.

“First and foremost — it saves the lives of the crew inside it.”

Russian forces captured a relatively lightly damaged M1A1SA Abrams main battle tank operated by the 47th Separate Mechanized Brigade in the Pokrovsk direction.

The tank is equipped with added cage armor, as well as Kontakt and ARAT ERA. pic.twitter.com/mHyKk1xNRY

— Status-6 (War & Military News) (@Archer83Able) October 27, 2024

A tank under attack by drones

The Ukrainian crews repeatedly highlighted the Abrams’ accuracy and survivability.

“What are the biggest advantages of the Abrams?” Kent was asked.

“Accuracy.”

Its biggest disadvantage, he said, is equally obvious on a modern battlefield: “It’s very tall — and very large — so it’s hard to conceal.”

A video showing a U.S.-supplied Abrams under attack from Russian FPV drones:

An Abrams tank withstands 9 FPV drones hits. Eventually, the tank was destroyed, but the tank crew successfully survived. pic.twitter.com/4NBKdg2zmW

— PS01 □ (@PStyle0ne1) July 7, 2024

Kent described surviving an engagement in which his tank was struck repeatedly while on the move.

“More than 20 drones hit me,” he said of one operation into Pokrovsk.

He attributed the Abrams’ survival to the combination of its armor and additional anti-drone protection fitted to the vehicle.

“All of it together is effective,” he said.

He pointed to fairly basic modifications including rubber strips and a foldable wire cage mounted on the turret, as additional layers of protection against drone attacks.

“A drone doesn’t hit the actual penetrating element directly — it just can’t reach it,” he explained. “It hits the rubber, and then the blast wave travels from there.”

Even with their tanks festooned with explosive reactive armor (ERA) bricks, the crews acknowledge that such protection has limits.

US-supplied M1A1 Abrams tank in service of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with added Kontakt-1 ERA on the frontal hull and standard ARAT ERA on the sides. pic.twitter.com/PC2kDfxefO

— Status-6 (War & Military News) (@Archer83Able) May 21, 2024

Kent also noted that the Abrams was still missing the ‘hedgehog’-type protective coverings that have been seen on Russian tanks.

“They also protect very well. An effective thing,” he said.

For now, the drone threat has led the regiment to keep its Abrams out of combat, as we will return to later.

The Abrams as a machine

The crews’ assessment of the Abrams included praise for its mobility, roomy interior, gun, and fire-control system.

Kubik said he had personally driven an Abrams to 50 miles per hour cross-country.

“The engine is an absolute beast,” he added.

The tank can also rapidly perform a pivot turn, which the crews consider particularly useful when maneuvering in confined spaces. Despite its prodiguous weight, it only rarely becomes bogged down after the kind of very heavy snow-melt that effects all vehicles on the battlefield.

Loading a 120mm M1028 canister cartridge into an M1A1 AIM Abrams main battle tank of the tank battalion of the 425th Assault Regiment. pic.twitter.com/tMd8QcROQe

— 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝕯𝔢𝔞𝔡 𝕯𝔦𝔰𝔱𝔯𝔦𝔠𝔱 (@TheDeadDistrict) June 21, 2026

Its disadvantages include its demanding maintenance requirements. The running gear was described as particularly sensitive, with crews inspecting, lubricating, and replacing components after every sortie.

Fuel consumption is another major burden. The crew cited roughly 400 to 700 liters (106 to 185 gallons) per 100 kilometers (62 miles) depending on terrain and operating conditions.

“On asphalt it burns about 400 liters,” one said. In boggy terrain, consumption can reach “700 liters or more.”

The Abrams thirsty gas turbine engine and extreme logistical demands have always been a criticism of the platform.

The crews said the vehicle’s ability to operate on different fuels is useful, although diesel provides the best engine-hour performance in their experience. Prior to delivery, the gas turbine engines of the tanks were reconfigured to use diesel fuel instead of the standard JP-8 aviation kerosene, according to earlier reports.

They also praised the Abrams’ protected ammunition storage and crew space compared with Soviet-designed tanks.

The version operated by the Ukrainians is an M1A1 rather than the latest Abrams configuration, with less sophisticated electronics than newer variants. It also lacks the classified armor found on its U.S. Army counterpart.

“For me — as a tanker — this configuration, what we have right now, is more than enough,” Kubik said. “The sight is absolutely excellent. The gun is also great.”

Abrams destroys a house with Russian infantry in the Pokrovsk direction. pic.twitter.com/StUoZoMTO3

— MAKS 26 (@Maks_NAFO_FELLA) August 25, 2024

Waiting for a solution to the drone problem

The interview ultimately presents a more complicated picture than the declaration that tanks are obsolete on the Ukrainian battlefield.

At the time of writing, at least 25 Abrams have been confirmed visually to have been destroyed, damaged, or abandoned in Ukrainian service. This is from a total of 31 provided by the United States and 49 from Australia.

“For now, we’re not using them further — there’s no way to,” Kubik said. “The enemy has developed their drone component very heavily, and for now we don’t have the means to counter that.”

While tanks remain exceptionally powerful direct-fire and protected mobility platforms, the proliferation of inexpensive uncrewed aircraft has made operating them increasingly difficult.

M1A1 AIM Abrams tanks of the 425th Assault Regiment .
The reinforced upper glacis and turret roofs are clearly visible. pic.twitter.com/Sn9h8OWZ9P

— 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝕯𝔢𝔞𝔡 𝕯𝔦𝔰𝔱𝔯𝔦𝔠𝔱 (@TheDeadDistrict) June 21, 2026

“If someone had told me, as a tanker, back in 2022: ‘Take this — we’re giving you an Abrams, we’ll give you time to train and you’ll fight in it,’” Kubik said, “I would never have climbed out of it.”

“I’d only be saying: ‘Bring me shells. I’ll drive non-stop wherever needed, arrive and work.’”

As it stands, reconnaissance drones can find the Abrams, FPV drones can attack it, and persistent surveillance makes concealment difficult. Experience has shown that without more effective counter-drone capabilities, even a heavily protected tank can eventually be overwhelmed.

But Kubik believes that will change.

“The day will come when one of our bright minds figures out some excellent solution against drones — and we’ll start using them again.”

Asked whether the era of tanks is over, his answer was unequivocal.

“It’s not over … They’re just waiting it out for now, biding their time. Writing off tanks — in my opinion — is still too early.”

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post How Russian Drones Forced Ukraine To Park Its M1 Abrams Tanks appeared first on TWZ.

American Rheinmetall and General Dynamics Land Systems have now delivered the first prototypes of their proposed XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle (MICV) designs to the U.S. Army. The XM30 program is the Army’s latest attempt to replace its fleet of Bradley Fighting Vehicles. The competing MICV designs are set to be put to the test alongside early prototypes of the next-generation M1E3 Abrams tank in the spring.

The U.S. subsidiary of Germany’s Rheinmetall has been developing a version of its Lynx family to meet the Army’s MICV requirements, and announced the delivery of the first example today. General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS), which is offering the Wolf, a further evolution of the company’s Griffin III, itself derived from the ASCOD 2 infantry fighting vehicle, said last week that its first prototype had arrived at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. Variants and derivatives of the Lynx and ASCOD 2 are already in service with several countries, which we will come back to later on.

The press release today from American Rheinmetall says the company will eventually deliver eight prototypes to the Army for further testing. It is very likely General Dynamics Land Systems will be supplying an equivalent number of vehicles, but the company does not appear to have confirmed that explicitly at the time of writing. Army budget documents released earlier this year show the service is planning to acquire at least 108 XM30s through Fiscal Year 2031. The Army has some 2,500 Bradleys in service today, a figure that includes multiple variants and subvariants.

“Delivering our first prototype to the Army is an important step as the XM30 Combat Vehicle program enters a more visible phase,” Matt Warnick, CEO of American Rheinmetall, said in a statement accompanying the release. “Team Lynx now has the opportunity to show the Army that we can deliver on the promise of a modern replacement for the Bradley.”

“I could not be happier to be part of the GDLS team that is delivering this incredible new capability on schedule to the Army – they need it now,” Geoffrey Norman, Director for U.S. Strategy & Growth at General Dynamics Land Systems, had written last week in a post on LinkedIn. “The work continues as this first vehicle gets into the Army’s hands.”

The Lynx and Griffin III-based XM30 designs both feature hybrid-electric propulsion. This will offer improved fuel economy, added electrical power generation, and other benefits compared to the Bradley with its traditional diesel engine. The vehicles both have remotely operated turrets, with their two-person crews, as well as up to six passengers, all riding in the hull.

The Army expects the winning XM30 to provide significant boosts in lethality and other capabilities compared to any existing version of the Bradley. The main weapon on both competing designs is an XM913 50mm automatic cannon, offering a significant increase in firepower compared to the 25mm M242 on the Bradley.

The XM30 will also be able to launch loitering munitions. AeroVironment’s Switchblade 300 has been integrated onto General Dynamics Land Systems’ design. American Rheinmetall’s entry is designed to be able to fire versions of Raytheon’s Coyote Block 3, but whether it can launch other munitions is unclear. The launchers on the Lynx-based XM30 are known to also be capable of firing anti-tank guided missiles, such as the TOW and Javelin. The Army has demonstrated the ability to fire a version of the Coyote from the TOW missile launcher on the Bradley, as well.

Next-generation fire control, sensor, and networking/communications capabilities are also key to the Army’s current Bradley replacement plans. With its improved network connectivity, the service envisions XM30s acting as controllers for uncrewed ground vehicles, as well. The Army has already been working to prove out future crewed-uncrewed teaming concepts using the Bradley.

Overall, the Army sees the XM30 as a future “cornerstone of the Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT), designed to enhance lethality, survivability, and maneuverability in high-intensity combat against near-peer adversaries,” according to the Army’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget documents. “The XM30 is versatile in its operational roles, capable of leading the charge, scouting ahead, or providing overwatch while Soldiers dismount and maneuver. Its ability to control robotic systems and semi-autonomous platforms adds another layer of capability, allowing the formation to extend its reach and maintain dominance across the battlefield.”

“The XM30 program is not just a replacement for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle – it represents a transformative leap in ground combat vehicle development. The XM30 is more than a vehicle; it is a software-defined platform designed for interoperability and adaptability, ensuring it evolves with changing technologies and operational demands,” the budget documents continue. “By leveraging digital engineering and modular open systems architecture (MOSA), the XM30 ensures infantry units always have the cutting-edge tools they need to outmaneuver and outgun the enemy. The XM30 also achieves a level of logistical efficiency that ensures sustained operational readiness while reducing costs and complexity.”

The Army now plans to put the XM30 prototypes to the test during a regular rotation at the sprawling National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin in California next spring, according to a report last month from Breaking Defense. Soldiers assigned to the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division out of Fort Hood in Texas, will operate the vehicles. 1/1st Cavalry is one of the Army’s so-called Transformation In Contact (TIC) units, which are supporting the service’s broader modernization objectives. The brigade is expected to bring prototypes of the next-generation M1E3 Abrams tank to the NTC, as well.

The Army has talked in the past about aiming to field a winning XM30 design by Fiscal Year 2029. However, it remains to be seen when it might make a final selection and when the first of those vehicles actually enter operational service.

“We have a plan to carry two vendors as long as we possibly can. It becomes a question about resourcing the money, because you’re not paying necessarily double, but you’re kind of paying double,” Army Brig. Gen. Troy Denomy, Program Acquisition Executive of Maneuver, told Breaking Defense for its story in August. “We’re absolutely trying to keep our options open as long as we can, but money matters.”

That being said, “if there’s not a clear winner at the end of the NTC rotation, ‘then it may be worth not selecting at that point,’ Denomy said,” per Breaking Defense.

This is hardly the first time the Army has attempted to replace the Bradley since it first entered service in the 1980s. Cost, weight, and other factors have derailed several previous attempts, including the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) effort that directly preceded the current MICV program. In February, another report from Breaking Defense had raised questions about the XM30’s future after at least a temporary program pause within the last year. That was followed by a new request for information for a different, but very similar-sounding vehicle.

As mentioned, the two competing XM30 designs are based on vehicles that are in operational service today. Hungary became the first operator of a Lynx variant last year, and Ukraine is also in the process of procuring versions of that design. Today, Spain is the primary operator of the ASCOD 2, with Latvia also working to field a fleet of those vehicles. The British Army’s much-troubled Ajax is also derived from the ASCOD 2. The U.S. Army’s now-cancelled M10 Booker ‘light tank’ is another member of this broader family.

It is worth noting here that there has been much debate in recent years about the utility of heavy armored vehicles like the Bradley, as well as the Abrams tank, in future conflicts. Armored and unarmored vehicles face a growing multitude of threats, including more and more capable anti-tank guided missiles and especially kamikaze drones. Reporting earlier on in the conflict in Ukraine had underscored the continued value of heavy armor, including of the Bradley, even if its place as a decisive factor on the battlefield was diminishing. However, a report just last week from The New York Times indicated that tanks, in particular, have become increasingly sidelined, largely due to the threat of drone attacks.

The Army is also now in the midst of a new leadership shakeup with the resignation of Army Secretary Dan Driscoll. Reports say Driscoll’s departure follows growing friction with Secretary Pete Hegseth, including over modernization efforts.

In the meantime, examples of both of the designs competing to become the future XM30 are now in Army hands and are set to be tested alongside the M1E3 next year.

Update: 5:23 PM ET –

GDLS has now put out a brief press release regarding the delivery of the first Wolf prototype to Aberdeen Proving Ground, which it says occurred on August 21.

“This on-time delivery will allow Soldiers to start putting the Wolf through its paces, with the ultimate goal of getting it fielded into armored brigades as quickly as possible,” GDLS’ Norman said in a new statement accompanying the release. “I would like to congratulate our XM30 team on the successful design and production of this game-changing solution. The Wolf is the most technologically advanced combat vehicle ever assembled.”

The release also included the picture below, showing the Wolf prototype entirely under wraps on a trailer.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Competing Bradley Fighting Vehicle Replacement Prototypes Delivered To The U.S. Army (Updated) appeared first on TWZ.

Driscoll had also taken part in efforts connected to negotiations between Russia and Ukraine.

The post Army Secretary Dan Driscoll resigns amid rift with Hegseth appeared first on BOL News.

Jungkook was recently named “Most Handsome Man Alive 2026” by Netizens Choice Magazine.

The post BTS member Jungkook turns 29 as K-Pop star’s birthday sparks worldwide fan frenzy appeared first on BOL News.

The U.S. Army is calling for new potential options for replacing the venerable Stinger short-range heat-seeking surface-to-air missile. The service has already been funding work on two competing designs from Lockheed Martin and Raytheon under its Next-Generation Short-Range Interceptor (NGSRI) program since 2023. The Army is currently aiming to buy 11,000 NGSRI missiles, as well as 2,200 new man-portable launchers, starting in Fiscal Year 2028.

The Army put out a contracting notice regarding what it is calling the NGSRI Alternate Interceptor Demonstration (AID) yesterday. The service is looking to hold an industry day event regarding its plans for the AID at Redstone Arsenal in Alabama next month.

“The Army is seeking to identify additional potential sources to fulfill the NGSRI requirements,” the notice explains. “The Army plans to conduct a demonstration in the Spring 2027 timeframe. A successful demonstration by an offeror may lead to an award for missile procurement.”

“The current NGSRI program was initiated to meet the Department of the Army requirement for Maneuver Short Range Air Defense (M-SHORAD) surface to air missile systems to replace the legacy FIM-92 Stinger man-portable air defense system,” the notice adds. “The NGSRI is a high performance, soldier portable, fire and forget, surface to air missile system capable of defeating rotary wing, fixed wing, and Group 2/3 Unmanned Aircraft System threats.”

In U.S. military parlance, Group 2 covers drones with gross weights between 21 and 55 pounds, that can fly up to altitudes of 3,500 feet, and hit top speeds of up to 250 knots. Group 3, the next tier up, is a far broader category that encompasses uncrewed aerial systems weighing anywhere between 55 and 1,320 pounds, with operational ceilings between 3,500 and 18,000 feet, and with top speeds between 100 and 250 knots.

The Iranian-designed Shahed-136 one-way-attack drone is, by far, the best-known example of a Group 3 design, and one that encapsulates the importance of addressing threats in that particular category. Development of kamikaze drones in the Group 2 tier has also been surging globally, including in the United States. Both categories do also include drones configured for surveillance and reconnaissance and other missions.

It is also worth noting here that the Stinger has received upgrades in recent years to improve its effectiveness against drones. You can read more about that missile’s evolution since it was first introduced in the 1970s here.

“The NGSRI missile is backwards compatible with the legacy Stinger missile platforms such as SGT STOUT and Marine Corps Marine Air Defense Integrated System (MADIS),” yesterday’s contracting notice also stresses. This has been a key requirement since the program started.

Sgt. Stout is the name given to an air defense system in Army service today that is based on the 8×8 Stryker light armored vehicle. The Sgt. Stout has a turret that can be fitted with up to two four-round launchers for Stingers. Those launchers can also be swapped out for ones that can be loaded with a pair of millimeter-wave radar-guided AGM-114L Hellfire missiles. The turret also has a 30mm XM914 automatic cannon, which can fire proximity-fuzed airbursting rounds against drones and other aerial threats, and a 7.62x51mm M240B machine gun.

The four-round Stinger launchers used on the Sgt. Stout are the same ones found on the older Humvee-based Avenger air defense systems, which are in increasingly limited use in the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. Army Avengers were recently in the news after images emerged showing them protecting President Donald Trump at his golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey.

In its current form, the Marine Corps’ MADIS consists of two 4×4 Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTV) in different configurations. One is armed with Stinger missiles, as well as an XM914 cannon and M240 machine gun, all mounted on a single remote weapon station. The other has the same type of remote weapon station, but without Stingers, and also has added electronic warfare, electronic support measures, and sensor capabilities.

Stinger is still perhaps best known in its shoulder-fired form, also known as the Man-Portable Air Defense System (MANPADS) configuration, as seen in pictures earlier in this piece. The Army has already been pursuing new individual launchers, or Control Launch Assemblies (CLA), for use with existing Stingers, which could also be used with future NGSRI missiles. Lockheed Martin has publicly put forward a new CLA design as part of its NGSRI proposal, which is called QuadStar, as seen in the video below.

Whether or not the newly announced AID plans reflect any major issues with the existing NGSRI competition is unknown. Lockheed Martin and Raytheon have announced the successful passage of major milestones in work on their respective designs at separate points this year. Raytheon is also the current prime contractor for the Stinger.

Stinger is also in widespread service globally. Any replacement the U.S. military might adopt, especially one that is backwards compatible with existing launchers, could easily translate to interest from foreign armed forces. The ongoing war in Ukraine and other conflicts in recent years have contributed to a new surge in demand for MANPADS worldwide, including to help counter growing drone threats.

The U.S. military has been putting new emphasis on diversifying supplier bases and greater government control of intellectual property rights, especially for munitions, in recent years. This is a general focus area that has grown even more since President Trump’s second term began last year. Officials have been open about their desire to reduce reliance on traditional prime contractors and bring in more smaller and non-traditional firms, even for very high-profile weapon system programs. These efforts reflect a particular push to avoid so-called ‘vendor lock’ and promote greater competition, which can also offer benefits when it comes to cost and scaling production.

When it comes to NGSRI, as mentioned, the Army is looking to buy thousands of these missiles, as well as individual launchers, in the coming years. A new demonstration next year would also not preclude the service from ultimately ordering NGSRIs from either Lockheed Martin or Raytheon.

With plans to start production of the selected NGSRI design in Fiscal Year 2028, which starts on October 1 of next year, the Army will need to make a decision about how to proceed with NGSRI relatively soon.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post Army Widens Stinger Surface-To-Air Missile Replacement Search appeared first on TWZ.