Saint_Fuller

Bah. Such luxuries are unnecessary Western decadence.
The supermen of Azov can obviously see through solid steel.

I'll also briefly address unmanned turrets.

So my time on tanks is rapidly becoming a distant past for me, so your mileage may vary, however:

1. The advantage to the autoloader is size, not performance.  Having the fourth crewman was very useful for a variety of reasons, and it was a superior way to service the gun (the ROF is overrated though, in practice a tank will never fire anywhere near "rapidly" simply because it has to acquire targets, and the delay in shooting is usually "finding target" vs prepping the gun tasks).  He also was very handy if there was a fault (we had a gunnery were the breach kept getting stuck not fully closed, on a tank with an autoloader, we'd have been a firepower kill not mission capable, or only capable if the gunner/commander manual actuated the breach, with the loader, he just hooked up a little tool designed for such occasions, and manually operated the breach with no loss of ROF or capability).  The only time I see an autoloader making sense over the current human loader is if we start talking about much larger gun rounds (like 140 MM) simply because it'll be beyond the ability of a normal human to load.

2. I'm opposed to the unmanned turret for the same reason.  The undeniable advantage is having a smaller turret, although you'll still need some volume to allow the gun to depress to a reasonable degree), but I really don't like the idea of the turret effectively sealed and inaccessible.  There's a lot of systems on a turret that without either a human to fix them, or a fairly direct mechanical backup renders the tank totally inoperable.  A loss of the gunner's primary optics, the autoloader, turret drive, or even just a jam in the coaxial weapon all mean the tank is either done, cannot perform combat missions, or requires pulling the tank back to dismount and work on it.  

It's not just armor or firepower, it's being able to manage damage, or degraded system and continue the fight.  Automation is good as a starting point, but there's a reason why we trained using the various mechanical backups, and why the true judge of a crew wasn't at fully mission capable, but instead how it operated when things broke.
I've seen enough go weird on otherwise fully functional tanks to really feel foolish making a lot of those systems inaccessible in normal operations, or eliminating redundant mechanical systems.  

"T-Rex" is just a 3d model as far as I know, hardly a prototype by any stretch of the imagination. More of a glorified napkin drawing than anything TBH.
 
Anyway. The US briefly looked into unmanned turrets in the 90s with M1 TTB, decided the reduction in situational awareness that came from having to use only cameras and maintenance issues with the unmanned turret weren't worth the advantages (losing like ten tons of weight by stripping the turret of armor, and putting the crew in a position where they were less likely to be hit in the hull), and stayed the course with manned turrets.

FCS's Mounted Combat System (as close to Block III as we actually got) and M8 AGS both had manned turrets if memory serves, and I suppose that it's a fairly safe bet to assume that any eventual Block III tank would have had that too, since I'm pretty sure the Armor School never really changed its opinion on the matter of the necessity of the TC to be able to actually look around his vehicle.

So, considering all that as well as the poor experience the US has had with an actual robotic turret (Stryker MGS), I'm fairly sure they're going to stick with manned turrets for their next tank too. Whenever that happens.

There have been a lot of attempts and proposals to stick an autoloader in M1, actually.
The thing is that the US regards (and rightly, IMO) the advantages of an autoloader as being outweighed by the problems, as well as the benefits of a fourth crew member. With a human loader, you get an extra pair of eyes, an extra pair of hands for maintenance, your loader can actually think for himself, and he performs faster in the short term. Just having that extra pair of eyes is a serious advantage in the see-first shoot-first environment of tank combat.
Ultimately, the fact that the US hasn't elected to buy into any of the proposals for an autoloader for M1 should be enough of an indication of its (lack of) interest in the idea.

Why in God's name would you ever want that? Like the premise of the thread is already pretty questionable (why would the US ever bring out m60s when it has the Abrams, its not like the US is going to be taking heavy tank losses any time in the near future), but this is just getting even more wew lad. Frankly, the only reason to introduce an autoloader to the M1 would be to lure the Russians into a false sense of security: "see Marshal Putin, they are just as incompetent as us, attack Kiev now!"

Too late, he's already "made his point."  He stirs up just enough sh*t to revive a dead topic, then prances off. You might as well leave the popcorn on the counter with logic and reason sitting next to it. 

Did you mean Chieftain or Challenger, perhaps? Not that those are very similar to M1 either, mind you.
Because the M1 has very few similarities to Centurion, beyond the very superficial (having tracks, a turret with a gun in it, four crewmen, etc). What the British contributed to M1 was mostly the special armor formula, and the L7 (otherwise known as M68) gun that was in US service long before M1 was a twinkle in some tank engineer's eye.
Speaking of L7, I vehemently disagree with your characterization of mounting the 105mm on early M1s as being a mistake. Not only was the M68 with M774 capable of killing almost every Soviet vehicle that would've laid tread on the battlefield circa 1980, but M833 and M900's introduction also ensured that it could defeat even the new Soviet tanks with K-5 appearing on the stage in the late 80s.
Additionally, the 105mm had the advantage of being able to use existing ammunition stocks, and it was also explicitly a temporary thing: the Abrams was designed from the start to accommodate a future mounting of the 120mm gun, because US tank engineers weren't dumb and could anticipate the need for a bigger gun once the 105mm started to reach the end of its development potential.
This is asinine.
If everyone doing it meant it was good, this would mean putting vulnerable ammo in the fighting compartment is a good idea. It isn't. It's a deliberate tradeoff to achieve some other purpose: in T-72 it's the autoloader that demands it, in Leopard 2 the hull ammo storage exists because half the bustle is occupied by all the hydraulic drives and the radios (in order to protect the crew from high-pressure hot oil if the hydraulics are hit), etc etc.
Just like the choice of using diesels over gas turbines is such a tradeoff, despite gas turbines being demonstrably superior for tank purposes: they have better acceleration, are far quieter, and perform better than diesels in extreme temperatures (Soviet experience with T-80s and T-72s in Siberia attests to this: the turbine-engined T-80s were easy to start in a matter of minutes even at -40C, while T-72 diesels would take up to and even over 45 minutes to get going in the cold).
Diesel engines are used primarily because they're less fuel thirsty, not because they're better engines in any particular way.

...and the BTR is not? 
Like yes, the LAV is showing its age, as are quite a few other things; that is the happy side effect of a world without a serious conventional conflict in the last 80 years - armed forces tend to stagnate a bit. I'd like to take the bait about all the other little nuggets you threw in from the peanut gallery re: Shermans, the M68 105mm, M256 120mm, etc. but its so off topic that I'd rather not fuel the fire.
If your overarching point is that NATO and in particular the US is playing catch-up; you're doing a poor job of showing it. 

Wow. I'm impressed. I never would have expected to see someone honestly try to claim here that the US military is an outdated, antiquated force. Do I even bother asking the obvious; can you name a single Russian vehicle that is currently in service that is younger than 20 years old? 
No.
The primary British contribution to the original M1 Abrams was Chobham armor. It was newly developed by the British, with the express purpose of being able to defeat HEAT warheads. The M68A1 105mm gun used on the Abrams and Patton tanks were the British designed L7 gun. This gun was in use with the US already. I don't get what you are trying to say here. Is it a bad thing that various NATO countries worked together and shared technology/parts/designs in order to develop new vehicles? Are you seriously claiming that just because certain countries do not immediately adopt US equipment, or vice versa, that said equipment is garbage?
I'm actually surprised by the levels of ridiculous this got to. 
Basically this. A vehicle that can cross a river and do nothing else isn't very useful. To make the stryker amphibious, you would have to strip it down a lot, and say goodbye to the newer mine resistant variants with the V hulls, as well as getting rid of all ERA. The vehicle would essentially require a complete redesign. In short, it is out of the scope of that the stryker is supposed to do.