[Skybird]

It's stupid to form such lists. Too many factors that are not even directly linked to technology are ignored: logistical capacity of the using army (I just say M1 gas turbines, and fuel...), availabability of precious ores to form ammunition, and that relating to tank fleet sizes that must be supplied (Russia uses Steel for the most, Germany Tungsten, the US uses DU). expected combat environment, combat doctrine: in the attack maybe the M1 is better protected over the complete hull, but in hull down the Leopard2A6 is better than the Abrams, becasue its top is tougher, but the lower hull and flanks are less heavily protected. Then, preferred combat range (depending on terrain, ammunition availability: for example, what is better: the heavy gun callibre of the Swedish CV-9040, or the additional TOWs for the M2 Bradleys? In desert, the Bradley. In the Swedish mixture of rough terrain, forest and missile-blocking, disrupted line of sights: the CV9040).

There are so many factors.

Rating a tank roughly, depends on the best-working balance between mobility, firepower, and protection. then, ergonomy, and technical reliability, and sensors. But "best-working" can have different meanings in differentarmies in different places fighting with different doctrines.

I think, though, that the M1 and the Leopard 2, maybe also the Challenger due to its armour level, play in the same league. I also think that merkava, Leclerc, T-90, form a subordinate second class, which can be lethal for players of the first if these top tanks meet the second league tanks without proper respect.

The only thing one can say for sure is: the most ergonomic tank is the German one.

The Asian tanks I do not comment on, I know almost nothing about them.