In a CNN television interview, the American military analyst conveyed the view that nearly all of the 31 American M1A1 Abrams tanks sent to Ukraine have been destroyed by Russian drones. “At the onset of the war, we supplied the Ukrainians with 31 Abrams. Almost all of them have now been obliterated by Russian kamikaze drones. This indicates that the age of mechanized warfare, which commenced during the First World War, is nearing its conclusion,” Kirchhoff stated during the broadcast on June 9.
Christopher Kirchhoff is a military strategist and defense expert from the United States. He possesses expertise in evaluating military technologies and strategies, particularly in the context of contemporary conflicts and advancements in warfare. Kirchhoff has served as an analyst and consultant on national security matters, collaborating with organizations such as the U.S. Department of Defense. He is recognized for his insights on the progression of military technologies, especially concerning unmanned systems and their influence on conventional warfare methods.
The assessment by military strategist Christopher Kirchhoff that the age of mechanized warfare, which began in the First World War, is drawing to a close is strongly supported by the developments in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. The war has demonstrated that conventional armored vehicles, like the Abrams tanks, encounter unprecedented challenges that raise doubts about their effectiveness.
On the Ukrainian battlefield, drones, particularly low-cost kamikaze drones, have emerged as a crucial element. These small, agile, and affordable devices facilitate accurate strikes on heavy equipment, frequently circumventing the defenses of tanks that are built to endure traditional threats such as artillery or anti-tank missiles.
This situation is exacerbated by the function of satellite reconnaissance, which offers the combatants immediate insights into the movements of enemy troops. In Ukraine, satellite imagery, frequently paired with aerial surveillance, facilitates the swift identification of targets, including armored units that would have otherwise remained concealed. This clarity on the battlefield renders large, heavy vehicles easy targets, as they cannot evade the omnipresent gaze of contemporary technologies. Furthermore, modern electronic countermeasures, such as electronic warfare systems, add to the complexity of the scenario.
In Ukraine, there is a significant deployment of communication and control system jamming technologies, which hampers the coordination of mechanized units, making them even more susceptible. The conflict in Ukraine, which commenced with the Russian invasion in February 2022, has evolved into one of the most intense military confrontations in recent history, serving as a unique platform for testing cutting-edge military technologies, including the American main battle tank M1A1 Abrams.
The U.S. supplied 31 M1A1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine in September 2023 as part of military assistance to combat Russian forces. These vehicles, recognized for their resilience and sophisticated technology, were introduced into combat with high hopes, but reports of their losses began to surface shortly thereafter. The first verified instance of a destroyed M1A1 Abrams tank was documented on February 26, 2024, near Berdychi, northwest of Avdiivka, a crucial city in Donbas that was recently vacated by Ukrainian forces following intense combat. According to an article by Military Watch Magazine, the tank was struck by a kamikaze drone and subsequently hit again by a portable anti-tank grenade launcher.
Aerial footage reveals that the engine compartment and ammunition of the tank were completely destroyed, making it inoperable. This incident represents the first recorded loss of an Abrams tank in Ukraine, occurring just three days following the initial confirmed sightings of its deployment on the frontline on February 23, 2024.
In March 2024, Russian sources, including military Telegram channels, reported the destruction of additional Abrams tanks in the same area. On March 7, 2024, a post on the social media platform X indicated that three M1A1 Abrams tanks had been destroyed within a week, likely due to anti-tank guided missiles. Two days later, on March 10, another user shared information about a fourth confirmed destroyed Abrams, mentioning that a total of six tanks and two associated engineering vehicles had been either damaged or destroyed.
Although these reports have not been verified by independent sources, they were accompanied by video evidence showing burning or abandoned vehicles, indicating fierce combat in the region. In April 2024, The New York Times, referencing Ukrainian officials, reported that five out of 31 Abrams tanks had been lost over two months of active fighting, with three others suffering non-critical damage. This situation prompted a temporary withdrawal of the tanks from the front lines, as Russian drones and anti-tank weaponry demonstrated significant effectiveness against them.
According to the Associated Press on April 26, 2024, Ukrainian forces pulled back Abrams tanks from the Avdiivka region due to the extensive use of reconnaissance and strike drones, which rendered heavy armored vehicles susceptible. Despite their withdrawal, losses continued to escalate after their redeployment in the summer of 2024.
By June 2024, Russian sources reported that 26 out of 31 Abrams tanks had been destroyed since February 2024. Additionally, it was mentioned that one Abrams tank was left abandoned east of Ukraine due to running out of fuel and was later captured by Russian forces. Other reports, including one from Military Watch Magazine on December 30, 2024, indicated that at least one Abrams tank had been seized by Russian forces and sent to the Uralvagonzavod plant for examination.
This incident followed the withdrawal of the Ukrainian 47th Mechanized Brigade from the Kursk region in March 2025, during which a damaged tank was left behind. Western sources, including The National Interest on January 5, 2025, observed that the rate of Abrams tank losses had markedly risen since September 2024, with more than 20 of the 31 tanks either destroyed, damaged, or captured. This increase can be attributed to several factors: the tank’s large size makes it an easy target for drones, and its complicated maintenance and high fuel demands limit its operational effectiveness on the Ukrainian battlefield.
Furthermore, as reported by Newsweek, drones that cost as little as $10,000 have demonstrated the ability to destroy tanks valued in the millions, underscoring the evolving nature of warfare. Despite the substantial losses, some experts cited by Forbes on February 27, 2024, remarked that the losses of Abrams tanks are not unexpected in active combat scenarios, where all armored vehicles, whether Western or Soviet, face vulnerability. For context, German Leopard 2 and British Challenger 2 tanks have also experienced considerable losses in Ukraine, with the first Leopard 2 being destroyed in the spring of 2023 and the first Challenger 2 in September 2023.
In summary, the information regarding the destroyed M1A1 Abrams tanks in Ukraine corroborates Kirchhoff’s assertion, indicating that by June 2025, most of the originally supplied 31 tanks had either been destroyed, damaged, or captured. The primary factors contributing to these losses include Russian kamikaze drones, anti-tank missiles, and artillery fire. While the precise loss figures differ among sources, Russian reports of 26 destroyed tanks and Western assessments of over 20 seem to align closely with the actual situation.
Nevertheless, an important detail must not be ignored—numerous sources assert that the American M1A1 Abrams tanks sent to Ukraine in September 2023 underwent substantial modifications to comply with export standards. A significant alteration involved the elimination of the depleted uranium armor that characterizes the versions utilized by the U.S. Army. This modification, although influenced by strategic and political factors, likely impacted the tanks’ combat effectiveness in the context of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, while also illustrating the broader U.S. policy regarding the transfer of sensitive military technologies.
The depleted uranium armor, which was first introduced in the M1A1HA (Heavy Armor) variant in 1988, is a crucial component of the protection system for Abrams tanks operated by the U.S. Army. This armor, made up of uranium plates layered with steel and frequently coated with graphite, offers outstanding resistance to armor-piercing and shaped-charge projectiles. Military analysis indicates that the protective capability of this armor can reach up to 960 mm against armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot rounds and up to 1600 mm against shaped-charge munitions, significantly exceeding the performance of standard composite armor.
Nevertheless, for the tanks designated for Ukraine, the uranium plates have been substituted with more traditional composite armor, likely utilizing ceramics and steel, akin to that found in earlier models such as the baseline M1. This alteration was driven by U.S. policy aimed at safeguarding classified technologies, as depleted uranium is regarded as a sensitive material whose spread could expose manufacturing secrets or create risks if tanks are seized by enemy forces.
This choice carries significant consequences for various reasons. Firstly, the diminished protection renders the tanks more susceptible to contemporary anti-tank weaponry prevalent on the Ukrainian battlefield. Russian forces deploy a diverse range of weapons, including sophisticated anti-tank missiles like the Kornet and drones equipped with shaped-charge warheads, which can breach standard armor more effectively than uranium-based defenses.
Secondly, the lack of uranium plates results in a lesser increase in the tank’s weight, which aids logistics but fails to offset the reduction in protective capability. This is especially vital in scenarios where tanks face intense assaults from both air and ground, as seen in regions like Donbas. Furthermore, the elimination of sensitive technologies such as advanced fire control systems or encrypted communications may have constrained the tanks’ capacity to seamlessly integrate into intricate combat networks, which is essential for coordination with other Ukrainian units.
The significance of these changes goes beyond mere technical considerations. Politically, the U.S. decision to supply tanks without uranium armor signifies a cautious strategy in delivering its most advanced weaponry to prevent escalation or potential technology leaks to adversaries. For instance, the capture of a tank featuring uranium armor could enable Russia to analyze the material and devise countermeasures, thereby threatening U.S. technological dominance.
At the same time, this decision places Ukrainian crews in a more precarious situation, as they handle equipment that lacks the full capabilities of its American equivalent. This highlights the fragile balance between aiding allies and safeguarding national interests, which is fundamental to military assistance to Ukraine. Military strategist Christopher Kirchhoff’s remarks during a CNN interview, where he referred to the $10 million M1A1 Abrams tank as “the most advanced battle tank in the world,” ignited significant debate, as such assertions are not only contentious but also seem out of touch with the realities of contemporary warfare, especially regarding the conflict in Ukraine.
This assertion could foster unrealistic expectations among nations depending on this tank and may downplay advancements in other armored vehicles that exhibit similar or even superior features. A review of specific tanks utilized in Ukraine and globally indicates that while the M1A1 is formidable, it faces competition, with certain models excelling in critical areas such as firepower, protection, or adaptability to modern combat scenarios.
In the context of the Ukrainian conflict, the Russian T-90M “Proryv” emerges as a notable rival to the M1A1. The T-90M, an upgraded version of the Soviet T-90, is equipped with advanced “Relikt” explosive reactive armor, offering defense against contemporary anti-tank missiles frequently encountered on the Ukrainian front. Its “Kalina” fire control system allows for high precision when firing on the move, and the 2A46M-5 gun can discharge modern armor-piercing rounds and guided missiles, providing it with an edge in confrontations against Western tanks.
In contrast to the M1A1, which necessitates intricate logistics because of its gas turbine engine, the T-90M is simpler to maintain under field conditions, a crucial factor during extended battles in Donbas. Furthermore, the T-90M comes with the “Arena-M” active protection systems capable of neutralizing incoming projectiles, a feature absent in the export variants of the M1A1 sent to Ukraine.
On the Ukrainian front, the upgraded T-84 “Oplot,” although deployed in limited quantities, demonstrates certain advantages over the M1A1. The T-84 is fitted with the “Zaslon” active protection system, which can effectively counter anti-tank missiles and drones, which are becoming increasingly prevalent in the conflict. Its 125-mm gun is on par with the M1A1’s 120-mm gun in terms of power, yet the Ukrainian tank is lighter and more agile, making it more suitable for the muddy and rugged landscapes of eastern Ukraine.
Despite the limited production of the T-84 due to logistical and financial constraints, its adaptability to local conditions enhances its effectiveness in specific scenarios compared to the heavier and more logistically demanding M1A1. On a global scale, the German Leopard 2A7+ and the South Korean K2 Black Panther emerge as tanks that excel beyond the M1A1 in various respects.
The Leopard 2A7+, utilized by multiple European armies, boasts modular armor that can be tailored to different threats and sophisticated electronics, including network-centric warfare systems that facilitate improved coordination with other units. Its 120-mm L55 gun offers superior range and penetration capabilities compared to the M1A1’s weaponry. The K2 Black Panther incorporates cutting-edge technologies such as autoloading, which reduces the crew size to three, and hydropneumatic suspension, enhancing mobility. Its active protection system and sensors designed for detecting laser guidance equip it to better handle modern threats, such as laser-guided missiles, in contrast to the export M1A1.
Kirchhoff’s assertion that the M1A1 is “the most advanced” tank fails to withstand examination when alternative options are taken into account. It poses a risk of perpetuating misunderstandings regarding the tank’s actual capabilities, particularly in wartime scenarios where elements such as adaptability, maintenance, and defense against new threats are critically important. Such claims could adversely affect the strategic expectations of nations like Ukraine, which depend on these vehicles in a highly intricate combat landscape.
