Many think that the FCS 40 ton tank will be built. Others believe that the US Army's MBTs have become like battleship after WW1 -- ie they had become so expensive that instead of scrapping battleships after a decade or two, they were just upgraded. That is what the US Navy is now doing with aircraft carriers (only one a decade is being built today).
I'm on the wrong end of the spectrum, but I can't see how you could improve the M1. I think the army definately needs some newer airborne armor though. Aren't they still using the old sheridan tanks?
I don't like this idea of making it that much lower. A lower silhouette means we do stuff like the Russians and restrict the elevation, even with the weird "pop-up" breech on that Leopard prototype, which means it's harder to fire over a hill without exposing yourself. And honestly, in the desert (I bring this up because I hear it a lot when advocating lower turrets), barring certain situations...the enemy will spot your tank (eventually—note I'm assuming exhaust and lower skirt extenders that diminish the dust cloud), so making it lower seems kind of pointless.
Lower weight means lower protection, as well, unless there's some kind of DU-boron carbide scheme that provides the same protection with half the weight, and while I never made the stuff, I kinda doubt it. I'm with networkpro in that I would really really really want to have an Abrams along at some point.
The idea of putting people in the hull and not the turret however, I do like. The Obekt 95 is supposed to have this as well. We put enough faith in the RWS'; why not cameras?
