This is not good. The Abrams is a fine tank. But it a late 70's tank. It will be a 45 or 50 year old design by the time it gets retired. For perspective...that would be like showing up for the first gulf war with really upgraded Sherman tanks. Not good.
It's the quality of airpower that decides the outcome of any war now & no nation can match the US at that for the next 30-40yrs(that is, if one assumes that US military R&D stagnates).As long as the Abrams get upgraded periodically & get's all that air-support,it will remain the beast everyone considers it to be.The Israelis still use 40+yr old tanks which they have upgraded with modern electronics,jamming equipment etc & are also in the process of upgrading Turkish M-60s & Indian T-72s & BMP-2s.
Aren't the Israelis still using Super Shermans?
And, of course, the Sov, er, Russkis still have most of their old tanks. They use T34s as pillboxes along the Sino-Sov, er, -Russian border.
Real point is, the threat hasn't changed that much since 1970. Shermans were designed (shortly) before things like bazookas and panzerfausts (the precursor to the RPG) were introduced. The threat was small caliber AT guns (37 - 50mm). Under the pressure of WWII, the threat changed very quicly and when the Sherman was deployed it faced much more powerful weapons like the 88. As a result, they died a lot.
But, since the 1970s the threat hasn't changed much. Nobody has introduced a new level of tank-killing fire power, like, say, a railgun. Weapons have evolved, and so has the M1. There is hardly a comparison between the M1 and the M1A2. The M1A2 is a good weapon for the current era.
The Army SHOULD be looking at vehicles for low intensity warfare like it faces in Iraq and will face elsewhere.