“Is there a successor to Abrams out there?”
Oshkosh, AM General and Force Protection each spent 1.5 billion of their own money and developed force projection vehicles on 6 ton chassis. Those are the replacements.
The problem with the tank is its logistics and the difficulty of getting it to the battle unless you’re in Europe with roads or the desert. It was useless in Afghanistan. The tank’s voracious fuel appetite means that any offensive operation must have a long line of unarmored, unprotected tankers running behind it. With Hezbollah and Hamas getting RPV’s we can no longer be guaranteed absolute air supremacy. (They’re sometimes too small to see, but they could still, potentially, take out a tanker.)
Who cares if the military is unprepared for the next generation of combat, the important thing is that BHO looks great strutting accross Leno’s stage...
Well, that will be just perfect next time we are attacked by the Afghanis.
Meanwhile, what is the plan for fighting a real army on some other battlefield? I suppose that isn’t supposed to happen any more and all tanks are obsolete?
Thank you for the insight on the three projects and how the Abrams didn’t work in Afghanistan. I didn’t know. I gave up following a long time ago.
Hope those 6 ton chassis have good armor protection. Granted protection is relative and always a trade for firepower and performance among other things.