Ok guys bare with me, you're probably thinking I'm trying to re-open a can of worms, well I'm not, well maybe sort of.
A few of you came back with a counter argument that there should be no mention of railguns, if we wanted that, we should play C&C 3 or the other argument that John Chi made which was more substantial was that the designs seem to be based on Boeing's FCS - the Army's Future Combat Systems. It's the Army's attempt to create networked set of units (ie tanks, helos, artillery, combat support, grunts, even loitering munitions, etc) to all know what's going on, to tell each other where they are and where the enemy is. Anyway for the vehicles they would all use a similar chassis to reduce logistics and maintenance problems.
OK, well John has a sharp eye since Michael DePlater himself in an IGN interview seems to mention the Boeing FCS program.
That being said, railguns. The reason why I mention it, is that prior to this networked version of FCS, it was in the mid to late 90's an attempt to create an Abrams replacement and to use the chassis to replace Bradleys too. They would be ULTRA survivable and lethal.
Anyway, I knew I read this years ago and I was able luckily to find that Armor magazine put out by the US Armor Assoc. at Ft. Know had a 3 part series on the ORIGINAL FCS, which in my OPINION (and wish...guys I'm not saying I'm right, b4 you rail on me, it's just a comment), would be a better tank to have than the one they've shown in the game.
This tank if you guys read the articles has:
1- active protection systems
3. a small defensive laser (*this isn't as preposterous as you think, Northrop Grumman has recently has some success w/SSL's - solid state lasers - not the chemical based ones.
4. stealthy shaping
5. in my opinion, it looks cooler.
Anyway, here are the links, and as I said b4, there's no reason games shouldn't stimulate curiousity to learn more. Yes it's a game, but your counter arguments would be better if you read these links.
This is Pt. 1
Pt. 2: http://www.knox.army.mil/armormag/so97/5fcs97.pdf
Pt. 3 - this one might be the hardest to believe, but it also fits in with the US not wanting to depend on fossil fuels - a solar powered tank