General Abrams’s Impact on Modern Armored Warfare and the M1 Legacy

Figure 1. General Creighton W. Abrams smoking a cigar. (Image retrieved from National Archives)

Few military leaders have left a legacy so powerful that the Army engraved their name into its most advanced combat system. Literary reviews iden­tify key factors that led to the develop­ment and implementation of the M1 Abrams main battle tank.(1) Among those leaders, General Creighton W. Abrams stands out as the most influen­tial figure in shaping how the U.S. Army uses tanks in combat.(2) From bat­tlefield victories in World War II to leading strategic reforms in doctrine and training, General Abrams reshaped the Armor Branch into a modern and adaptable force.(3) He believed in lead­ing from the front, moving with speed, and using combined arms teams to overwhelm the enemy. His battlefield decisions at Bastogne, his efforts to de­velop future leaders, and his push for realistic training helped prepare the Army for both Cold War missions and large-scale combat operations. Even after many years, the Army still uses General Abrams’s ideas in its training and doctrine, training centers, and tank units.(4) The Army named the M1 Abrams tank after General Abrams to honor his leadership, and today it stands as a lasting symbol of his legacy. The tank keeps improving and remains one of the most lethal weapons on the battlefield. General Abrams fundamen­tally transformed the Armor Branch through innovative tactics, leadership in doctrine development, and the en­during legacy of the M1 Abrams main battle tank.

Decisive Maneuver and Command Philosophy

As commander of the 37th Tank Battal­ion, 4th Armored Division, during World War II, General Abrams demon­strated boldness and precision under General George S. Patton’s Third Army. He led his battalion in the critical breakout at Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge, executing rapid, aggressive maneuvers that disrupted enemy defenses and created confusion along German lines. These actions helped Army leaders see tanks as pow­erful battlefield tools.(5) General Abrams taught his Soldiers to move quickly, take charge, and find weak spots in the enemy’s defenses. He treated move­ment and maneuvers as psychological weapons that could keep adversaries off balance and force reactive deci­sion-making by using the effectiveness of combined arms.(6)

Combined Arms Effectiveness

General Abrams believed it was impor­tant for tanks, scouts, and artillery to work together as a team. His strong leadership helped win many battles and gave people new ideas about how to fight wars after World War II. Mili­tary historians credit his battlefield tactics as critical to Cold War maneu­ver strategies.(7) Army trainers will still talk about how General Abrams led his Soldiers.(8) They use his style to teach, coach, and mentor others to be swift, work well together, and ready for change.(9) He believed good leaders should take action instead of waiting for the perfect time.(10) His ideas helped the Army figure out how to push ene­mies back, use the terrain to their ad­vantage, and keep moving quickly and strongly in battle.(11) These battlefield insights also influenced how U.S. Army Europe prepared its Cold War contin­gency plans, emphasizing the rapid ex­ploitation of enemy weaknesses across terrain corridors in Central Europe.(12)

General Abrams’s Impact on Training and Leadership Growth

General Abrams modeled a leadership style rooted in teamwork among tanks, infantry, and artillery. He required in­tense preparation and rehearsals to promote unit cohesion and battlefield trust. Officers and non-commissioned officers (NCOs) who served under Gen­eral Abrams returned to the institu­tional Army and replicated his methods everywhere they were assigned. Com­manders incorporated his method into doctrine, emphasizing flexibility, tem­po, and mission-type orders that liber­ated subordinates.(13) He mentored young leaders to make ethical deci­sions that would lay the groundwork for them to make adaptive decisions under stress.(14) This approach not only transformed leader development throughout the Armor branch but also carried over to inform joint leader de­velopment models.(15) Field manuals (FM) like FM 6-0 discuss mission-type orders that reflect General Abrams’s intent-based operations.(16) Army insti­tutions such as the U.S. Army Armor School continue instructing his meth­ods as foundational to developing op­erational leaders.(17) Many leader devel­opment programs still reflect his legacy by preparing senior leaders to operate in complex environments.(18) In addition, General Abrams called for more realis­tic training rather than routine train­ing. He argued that training scenarios must mirror the unpredictability and challenges of combat, a principle that influenced the design of modern large-scale training events.(19) These innova­tions established the intellectual foun­dation for the modern Mission Com­mand philosophy adopted across U.S. forces and taught in multinational training centers.(20)

Influence on Training and Force Design

Figure 2. Secretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird, second from the left, administers the oath of office to General Creighton W. Abrams, the new U.S. Army Chief of Staff. (Image retrieved from The National Archives)

After World War II, General Abrams ad­vanced to high-level strategic leader­ship roles, eventually serving as Chief of Staff of the Army. Under his leader­ship, the Army embraced reforms em­phasizing professional development and career-long training pipelines dur­ing the Army’s transition to the all-vol­unteer force. This model improved re­tention and professionalism in ar­mored formations.(21) General Abrams directed the institutional Army to pre­pare for future conflict by prioritizing realistic, high-intensity training in peacetime. He oversaw the develop­ment of training centers like the Na­tional Training Center, where armored brigades engage in force-on-force bat­tles using live opposing forces. These innovations shaped how the Army evaluates combat readiness.(22) He also spearheaded the use of simulations, gunnery tables, and performance-based evaluations for tank crews.

General Abrams created a culture that rewarded competence and account­ability by tying training to mission per­formance. Experts agree that these training enhancement reforms are still used.(23) Combat training center rota­tions that stress synchronization and realism in tactical scenarios continue to reflect General Abrams’s influence.(24) General Abrams also urged Army lead­ers to assess how doctrine interacted with training.(25) He ensured doctrine did not exist in isolation but directly in­formed and was informed by training evolutions.(26) Through his integration of doctrine and training, General Abrams reinforced the idea that real-life com­bat experience should guide how Sol­diers train and get ready, not just what they learn in a classroom or practice during peacetime, essentially shaping modern doctrine to train as we fight.(27)

Shaping Modern Doctrine

Although General Abrams passed away before its adoption, his focus on move­ment and maneuver directly influ­enced how Army leaders designed the AirLand Battle doctrine.(28) General Abrams promoted the idea that battle­field success relies on fast, decisive ac­tion guided by a commander’s intent. This philosophy evolved into the Mis­sion Command principle used through­out current Army operations. Doctrinal publications from the 1980s to today trace their lineage to General Abrams’s leadership model and ideas on initia­tive-based operations. He also helped reform Army culture following the Vietnam War by endorsing transparent leadership and restoring public confi­dence in the military.(29) General Abrams emphasized operational flexibility over rigid scripting, a shift that led to the Army’s ability to adapt rapidly during future conflicts, such as Desert Storm.(30) Multi-domain and large-scale combat operations continue incorpo­rating many of his ideas on flexible leadership and offensive maneuvers. General Abrams helped shape a mind­set that rewards initiative, operational depth, and synchronized support in modern doctrine. As military threats evolve, planners still return to General Abrams’s principles to ensure doctrine remains agile and ready to confront fu­ture challenges. The Joint Warfighting Concept and new North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) strategies still use many ideas that General Abrams sup­ported, showing that his leadership style works even today. This lasting in­fluence on war planning and leader­ship helped set the stage for one of his greatest legacies, the Army’s decision to name its premier battle tank after General Abrams.(31)

Figure 3. U.S. Army Gen Creighton Williams Abrams Jr., right, commander of the Military Assistance Command Vietnam, attaches a campaign streamer to a unit flag during a ceremony in Vietnam. (U.S. Army photo)

The M1 Abrams: A Legacy in Steel

The U.S. Army named its new main bat­tle tank the M1 Abrams in 1980 to hon­or General Abrams. The creation of the tank provides speed, protection, fire­power, and the capacity to succeed in any terrain, the same things General Abrams believed were important in battle. The Army equipped the M1 with composite armor and a 105mm cannon, later upgrading it to a 120mm smoothbore version mounted directly onto a gas turbine engine to improve mobility. General Abrams designed the tank with a modular approach, allow­ing decades of upgrades and showcas­ing his forward-thinking philosophy.

The M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams tank com­bines active protection systems, digital architecture, and sensor-enabled tar­geting networks that facilitate com­bined arms integration; these center on General Abrams’s central tenets of technology superiority as the ultimate force multiplier in combat.(32) U.S. Army acquisition documents emphasize how General Abrams and his vision of over­coming the challenges of speed and ac­curacy drove core design decisions during the platform’s development. The evolutionary design of the tank makes it adaptable to aircraft and mis­siles with increasing speed and range, showing how General Abrams planned and led with future goals in mind. Army engineers and planners kept im­proving the M1 tank by adding new technology like smart computers, drone controls, and extra layers of pro­tection. These upgrades keep the tank agile and ready for modern battlefields by integrating high-speed computer systems and advanced movement tools, turning some of General Abrams’s ideas for the future into real features on the modern battlefield. These improvements maintain the tank’s strength and demonstrate that General Abrams’s ideas still matter in how the Army fights.(33)

Operational Effectiveness and Symbolic Influence

The M1 Abrams tank showed how strong and smart it was during Operation Desert Storm when U.S. tank crews destroyed enemy forces from afar very quickly.(34) U.S. allies like Poland, Egypt, and Australia also operate the Abrams tank, proving that General Abrams’s leadership principles benefit not only the U.S. but NATO forces as well.(35) Its success proves that General Abrams was right about how training, firepow­er, and movement win and succeed in battle.(36) Soldiers still see the Abrams tank as more than a machine; it stands for strong leadership and tough­ness.(37) The newest upgrades to the tank show that General Abrams’s big ideas about fighting are still important, and it is not over, as they prepare for the best version of the M1 Abrams-main battle tank, the M1E3.(38) The tank means more than just metal and weap­ons; it has stood for many years of in­telligent fighting and strong leader­ship. It still gives ideas and pride to Army leaders who plan and lead bat­tles for today and the future.

Conclusion

General Creighton W. Abrams made a strong and lasting impact on how the Army fights. During World War II, his actions showed the value of quick thinking, bold leadership, and team­work on the battlefield. He helped im­prove how Soldiers train and how lead­ers are developed in the Armor Branch. The M1 Abrams tank reflects his ideas about speed, power, and readiness for future battles. General Abrams funda­mentally transformed the Armor Branch through innovative battlefield tactics, influential leadership in Army doctrine development, and a lasting legacy embodied in the success of the M1 Abrams main battle tank. As the Army transitions to the M1E3 and in­tegrates smart-enabled systems, Gen­eral Abrams’s principles of adaptability and decisive force remain central to doctrinal development. His legacy con­tinues to shape how the Army trains, leads, and wins across every battlefield it faces.

Sergeant Major Steve Gonzalez cur­rently serves as an Operations Ser­geant Major within the 316th Cavalry Brigade, Fort Benning, Georgia, with a distinguished career including prior as­signments as First Sergeant of 1st Bat­talion, 77th Armored Regiment and 1st Battalion, 29th Infantry Regiment, as well as roles as a Senior Operations NCO at the Pentagon and a Senior Drill Sergeant at Fort Benning. SGM Gonza­les assigned as a M1 Abrams Tank Gunner and Section Sergeant with the 4th Infantry Division and 1st Armored Division, deploying in support of Oper­ation Iraqi Freedom. SGM Gonzalez holds a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration and a Master of Science in Emergency and Disaster Manage­ment from Trident University Interna­tional. SGM Gonzalez is also a gradu­ate of the Sergeants Major Academy (Class 75) and numerous other leader­ship courses. SGM Gonzalez is a highly decorated Soldier, recognized with the Bronze Star Medal, Army Commenda­tion Medal with Valor, and numerous badges and awards, including foreign honors and recognition as the Fort Benning Volunteer Soldier of the Year in 2013 and 2021.

NOTES

1 Timothy I. Sullivan, “The Abrams Doc­trine: Is it viable and enduring in the 21st century?” (Fort Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army War College, 2005), https://apps. dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA432674.pdf.

2 Charles A. Buzzard, Thomas M. Feltey, James M. Nimmons, Andrew T. Schwartz, and Robert S. Cameron, “The Tank Is Dead … Long Live the Tank,” Military Re­view, November-December 2023, https:// www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Mili­tary-Review/English-Edition-Archives/No­vember-December-2023/The-Tank-Is-Dead/.

3 Sullivan, T. I. (2005). The Abrams Doc­trine: Is it viable and enduring in the 21st century? U.S. Army War College. https:// apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA432674.pdf

4 Arthur W. Chapman, Charles J. Lilly, and Brian King, Transforming the Army: TRA­DOC’s First Thirty Years, 1973–2003 (Fort Eustis, VA: U.S. Army TRADOC, 2003), https://www.tradoc.army.mil/wp-con­tent/uploads/2020/10/Transforming-the­Army.pdf.5 Buzzard, C. A., Feltey, T. M., Nimmons, J. M., Schwartz, A. T., & Camer­on, R. S. (2023). The tank is dead ... long live the tank. Military Review. https:// www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Mili­tary-Review/English-Edition-Archives/No­vember-December-2023/The-Tank-Is-Dead/

6 Jared Judson, “U.S. Army Scraps Abrams Tank Upgrade, Unveils New Moderniza­tion Plan,” Defense News, September 6, 2023, https://www.defensenews.com/ land/2023/09/06/us-army-scraps-abrams­tank-upgrade-unveils-new-modernization­plan/.

7 Charles A. Buzzard, Thomas M. Feltey, James M. Nimmons, Andrew T. Schwartz, and Robert S. Cameron, “The Tank Is Dead … Long Live the Tank,” Military Re­view, November-December 2023, https:// www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/

Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/ November-December-2023/The-Tank-Is-Dead/.

8 Ibid. 9 Arthur W. Chapman, Charles J. Lilly, and Brian King, Transforming the Army: TRA­DOC’s First Thirty Years, 1973–2003 (Fort Eustis, VA: U.S. Army TRADOC, 2003), https://www.tradoc.army.mil/wp-con­tent/uploads/2020/10/Transforming-the­Army.pdf.

10 Leonard Sorley, ed., Press On! Selected Works of General Donn A. Starry: Volume 1 (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2009), https://www.tra­doc.army.mil/wp-content/up-loads/2020/10/a507478-Press-On-Gener­al-Starry-Works-Vol-1-Sorley.pdf.

11 Arthur W. Chapman, Charles J. Lilly, and Brian King, Transforming the Army: TRADOC’s First Thirty Years, 1973–2003 (Fort Eustis, VA: U.S. Army TRADOC, 2003), https://www.tradoc.army.mil/wp­content/uploads/2020/10/Transforming­the-Army.pdf.

12 Charles A. Buzzard, Thomas M. Feltey, James M. Nimmons, Andrew T. Schwartz, and Robert S. Cameron, “The Tank Is Dead … Long Live the Tank,” Military Re­view, November-December 2023, https:// www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Mili­tary-Review/English-Edition-Archives/No­vember-December-2023/The-Tank-Is-Dead/.

13 Leonard Sorley, ed., Press On! Selected Works of General Donn A. Starry: Volume 1 (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2009), https://www.tra­doc.army.mil/wp-content/up-loads/2020/10/a507478-Press-On-Gener­al-Starry-Works-Vol-1-Sorley.pdf.

14 harles A. Buzzard, Thomas M. Feltey, James M. Nimmons, Andrew T. Schwartz, and Robert S. Cameron, “The Tank Is Dead … Long Live the Tank,” Military Re­view, November-December 2023, https:// www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Mili­tary-Review/English-Edition-Archives/No­vember-December-2023/The-Tank-Is-Dead/.

15 Sullivan, T. I. (2005). The Abrams Doc­trine: Is it viable and enduring in the 21st century? U.S. Army War College. https:// apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA432674.pdf

16 Timothy I. Sullivan, “The Abrams Doc­trine: Is it viable and enduring in the 21st century?” (Fort Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army War College, 2005), https://apps. dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA432674.pdf.

17 Timothy I. Sullivan, “The Abrams Doc­trine: Is it viable and enduring in the 21st century?” (Fort Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army War College, 2005), https://apps.

dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA432674.pdf.

18 Ibid 19 Leonard Sorley, ed., Press On! Selected Works of General Donn A. Starry: Volume 1 (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2009), https://www.tra­doc.army.mil/wp-content/up-loads/2020/10/a507478-Press-On-Gener­al-Starry-Works-Vol-1-Sorley.pdf.

20 John L. Romjue, From Active Defense to AirLand Battle: The Development of Army Doctrine, 1973–1982 (Fort Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Com­mand, 1984), https://www.tradoc.army. mil/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/From­Active-Defense-to-AirLand-Battle.pdf.

21 Timothy I. Sullivan, “The Abrams Doc­trine: Is it viable and enduring in the 21st century?” (Fort Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army War College, 2005), https://apps. dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA432674.pdf.

22 Arthur W. Chapman, Charles J. Lilly, and Brian King, Transforming the Army: TRADOC’s First Thirty Years, 1973–2003 (Fort Eustis, VA: U.S. Army TRADOC, 2003), https://www.tradoc.army.mil/wp­content/uploads/2020/10/Transforming­the-Army.pdf.

23 Ibid 24 Ibid

25 Timothy I. Sullivan, “The Abrams Doc­trine: Is it viable and enduring in the 21st century?” (Fort Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army War College, 2005), https://apps. dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA432674.pdf.

26 Leonard Sorley, ed., Press On! Selected Works of General Donn A. Starry: Volume 1 (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2009), https://www.tra­doc.army.mil/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/a507478-Press-On-Gen­eral-Starry-Works-Vol-1-Sorley.pdf. 27 Arthur W. Chapman, Charles J. Lilly, and Brian King, Transforming the Army: TRADOC’s First Thirty Years, 1973–2003 (Fort Eustis, VA: U.S. Army TRADOC, 2003), https://www.tradoc.army.mil/wp­content/uploads/2020/10/Transforming­the-Army.pdf.

28 John L. Romjue, From Active Defense to AirLand Battle: The Development of Army Doctrine, 1973–1982 (Fort Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Com­mand, 1984), https://www.tradoc.army. mil/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/From­Active-Defense-to-AirLand-Battle.pdf.

29 Leonard Sorley, ed., Press On! Selected Works of General Donn A. Starry: Volume 1 (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2009), https://www.tra­doc.army.mil/wp-content/up-loads/2020/10/a507478-Press-On-Gener­al-Starry-Works-Vol-1-Sorley.pdf.

30 Arthur W. Chapman, Charles J. Lilly, and Brian King, Transforming the Army: TRADOC’s First Thirty Years, 1973–2003 (Fort Eustis, VA: U.S. Army TRADOC, 2003), https://www.tradoc.army.mil/wp­content/uploads/2020/10/Transforming­the-Army.pdf.

31 John L. Romjue, From Active Defense to AirLand Battle: The Development of Army Doctrine, 1973–1982 (Fort Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Com­mand, 1984), https://www.tradoc.army. mil/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/From­Active-Defense-to-AirLand-Battle.pdf.

32 Department of the Army, ATP 3-20.15: Tank Platoon (Washington, DC: Headquar­ters, Department of the Army, 2020), https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN17858-ATP_3-20.15­000-WEB-1.pdf.

33 Charles A. Buzzard, Thomas M. Feltey, James M. Nimmons, Andrew T. Schwartz, and Robert S. Cameron, “The Tank Is Dead … Long Live the Tank,” Military Re­view, November-December 2023, https:// www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Mili­tary-Review/English-Edition-Archives/No­vember-December-2023/The-Tank-Is-Dead/.

34 Benjamin J. Weichert, “The Legendary Performance of the M1A1 Abrams in Op­eration Desert Storm,” The National Inter­est, [Date Accessed - please provide if known], https://nationalinterest.org/ blog/buzz/the-legendary-performance-of­the-m1a1-abrams-in-operation-desert­storm.

35 Jared Judson, “U.S. Army Scraps Abrams Tank Upgrade, Unveils New Mod­ernization Plan,” Defense News, Septem­ber 6, 2023, https://www.defensenews. com/land/2023/09/06/us-army-scraps­abrams-tank-upgrade-unveils-new-mod­ernization-plan/.

36 Charles A. Buzzard, Thomas M. Feltey, James M. Nimmons, Andrew T. Schwartz, and Robert S. Cameron, “The Tank Is Dead … Long Live the Tank,” Military Re­view, November-December 2023, https:// www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Mili­tary-Review/English-Edition-Archives/No­vember-December-2023/The-Tank-Is­Dead/.Military-Review/English-Edition-Ar­chives/November-December-2023/The-Tank-Is-Dead/

37 Chapman, A. W., Lilly, C. J., & King, B. (2003). Transforming the Army: TRADOC’s first thirty years, 1973–2003. U.S. Army TRADOC.https://www.tradoc.army.mil/ wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Transform­ing-the-Army.pdf

38 Judson, J. (2023). U.S. Army scraps Abrams tank upgrade, unveils new mod­ernization plan. Defense News. https:// www.defensenews.com/ land/2023/09/06/us-army-scraps-abrams­tank-upgrade-unveils-new-modernization­plan/

Click here to return to the table of contents:

https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/2025/fall/