So who exactly has taken a Leopard 2 into action? I'm not quite sure the Germans( Dutch or Canadians maybe) have brought any to Afghanistan and if they haven't been used there, they really haven't been used.

The Leopard was designed in the 1950's and won the competition in 1963 going into production by 1965.  It has 10 to 70mm of armor and was designed to emphasize mobility at the expense of armor protection.  The Panther had 20 to 120mm.  The hull front was a single piece and the mantlet was cast.  The armor used was a very good alloy that later in the war became less effective due to lack of strategic materials.  You'll have to list the Leopard's combat service.

 

The PT-91 is a modified license built T-72.  It has improved engine, tracks, fire control, stabilization, and many other features.  It is still a modified T-72.

 

The Shir 1 is a Chieftain Mark 8 with a new engine, fire control, and suspension.  The Shir 1 (FV 4030/2)  was the 2nd batch of Chieftains ordered by Iran.  They all now serve in Jordan and are called Khalid.  Khalids did not get Stillbrew.  The Shir 2 (FV 4030/3) was under development when the order was canceled.  Vickers later modified this design for the British Army which became the Challenger 1.

 

In any case your listing the PT-91, Russian T-90, Leo 1, and Shir 1 in the top ten while ignoring the Leclerc, Type 90 (Japan), K1 and K2 (South Korea), etc., is just rubbish.  Have a nice day.

i do not know what leopard you are talking about but the thickness of armour makes not much difference at all. it is what it is made of that counts and how it was put together. i would bet that the panther would not be able to pierce the armour of the leopard. you are also forgetting that, those figures you used were its base armour details, the most simplistic form of its protection, it went through several up amouring programs and many different marks in its carreer. the armour as i mentioned before is not the cast metal of the panther. it was a vastly improved alloy (not up to todays standards albeit) therefore superior to the panthers armour, which was by todays reckoning very simplistic.

forgive me if i am wrong but i have a hunch that you may be french as you seem to support the leclerc MBT made by the french which i would like to remind you has seen NO combat experience. although being fairly new i think we can conclude that it would be outclassed by its counterparts. it has not earned "top gun" status with the worlds leading tank experts unlike the both abrams, both Challengers and several other.

if you want evidence of combat experience of the leopard 2, it has been deployed in kosovo with the UN force there

it has been used by the Canadian amoured regiments in afghanistan with excellent success.

it has also widely been used by the Danish in several of their operations in Helmand province, and as also helped support other NATO forces within the province to the extent that they were praised by the MOD for their part.

in terms of success and what it has lead to the leopard in my mind is above the abrams although statistically the abrams mark 1 is a superior vehicle, and i have at no point claimed the it isnt.

again as for the Shir, it was an experimental export design which yes FEATURED some design elements the same as the cheiftan but was not an improved form of that  tank.

also the japanese type 90 is in the same situation as the leclerc neither are remarkable tanks. whereas the PT 91 is, as it is at a standard close to its western counterparts, and draws upon excellent proven designs, as does the russian T 90

 

the canadians have feilded them if afghanistan, and for a short period i believe the germans took them out there for feild combat tests etc.

Right now the only modern MBTs which have faced other tanks are the T-72s (maybe the T80 or 90, but not sure), M1(series), Merkava, and Challengers. While the Leopard 2 has seen combat, that is against guerilla forces which is not even vaguely the same thing. Dealing with a couple RPGs plinking off the hull is hardly comparable to a run and gun engagement against comparable adversaries.

 

I don't doubt that the Leopard 2 is an excellent tank, however by no means is it battle proven compared to the M1, Challenger, Merkava, or T72 (which merely proved to be a good target for the former models). 

here is a picture of one of the best looking Challenger images that i have ever seen. the upgraded armour package can be seen clearly. the metal cage around the track skirts is similar to what the proposed electrically charged reactive armour will look like, in this case a large metal cage (the cage shown in the picture is not the new electric armour, if true it is most likely still within the developemtn stages). the advanced comms upgrades can also be seen as can the commander operated remote machine gun on the turret roof. this is just some evidence of the superoirity of the Challenger tank to its counterparts.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/Challenger_II%2C_main_battle_tank_prepares_to_fire_its_main_gun_on_a_target.JPG/800px-Challenger_II%2C_main_battle_tank_prepares_to_fire_its_main_gun_on_a_target.JPG" width="800" height="533" />

below is an image of the upgraded Challenger 2 that i found on wikipedia (cheating i know, but it looked sooo good). it is one of the best images of the tank that i have seen in a while. the upgraded slab armour can be seen clearly as can the improved comms system. it is also possible to make out the commanders remotely operated 7.62 mm machine gun on the turret roof. the metal cage that surrounds the tanks track skirts is similar to the cage that will be used for the electircally charged reactive armour that the British MOD is reportedly developing (the cage shown in not the electric armour that is if true in the development stages.) this just shows how amazing the Challenger 2 is compared to its counterparts. this is partially what sets the tank apart from all other tanks, and just part of the reason why i consider it to be the best tank in the world.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/Challenger_II%2C_main_battle_tank_prepares_to_fire_its_main_gun_on_a_target.JPG/800px-Challenger_II%2C_main_battle_tank_prepares_to_fire_its_main_gun_on_a_target.JPG" width="800" height="533" />

I love top ten lists, because the reduce all of the complexity and nuance of modern wafare to the level of understanding needed to appreciate pop music.

 

It is funny to me to compare the tanks produced by the US, Britain, Germany, Russia, and Israel. You might as well rate fruit.

 

#1 Apple

#2 Orange

#3 Pineapple

#4 Fig

#5 Banana

 

Each was produced to fit the doctrine and needs of their individual national armies. For example, I love the Merkava. It is a unique and elegant design. But even if the Merkava had better performance than the M1 by every objective measurement, it wouldn't fit US Army doctrine, because it isn't designed for sustained offensive operations, even though it is good at fighting a tactical advance.

 

To broad-brush the issues:

 

If you want a tank that is tough enough to fight defensively against heavy odds, but also has enough mobility for rapid counter attacks, and can be transported by international rail lines, the M1 or Leopard is your best option. If you are mostly interested in fighting in open country the Leopard with its 55 cal gun is #1, while if you envision more confined urban combat the shorter gun of the M1 might be better.

 

If you prefer a conservative approach to armored warfare that emphasizes defense, and a conservative approach to mobile warfare, a heavily armed and armored tank is your top pick, and speed is secondary. Assuming you are part of an international alliance that is pledged to international defense, you need to be able to transport it via international rail lines. The Challenger is the clear winner here.

 

If you are a tiny nation that has no space to trade for time in a mobile defense, you need your tanks to be superb at fixed defense first, and offensive striking weapons second. Armor and firepower are king, and laying the tanks out like SP arty is the way to go so they can be supplied with ammunition from the rear at ground level, and thus can be replenished more safely in while occupying fixed position while under fire. If you don't ever intend them to operate for sustained periods of time outside your national borders, you don't have to worry about little things like making sure its chassis is narrow enough to be transported by internationally standardized rail lines. That might even help make their neighbors a little less nervous. In any case, the Merkava is your #1 option.

 

If you don't have much money, you need to save where you can. Smaller is better for so many reasons. Smaller targets are harder to hit. Smaller frontal areas can carry more armor for less weight. Less weight means less material and is less expensive. A light tank with a powerful engine gives excellent accelleration. Besides if your neighbors are all western countries the most important battles it will have to fight are political. You'll probably never actually have to fight a war with it, so the fact that it is going to be really cramped isn't much of an issue. It just has to impress politicians and the press, and they are too lazy to think about such things. Or little things like even with no ammo in the turret, which is a good idea, using a carrosel autoloader to save space means that if it gets hit in the hull it is a bomb on tracks. Besides problems like that can be mitigated by giving it a self entrenching plow that can probably dig a reasonably effective below grade hull down position which will reduce the likelihood of hull hits a lot. When it comes to fighting political wars, some cool gadgets will help. Gun launched missile, heavy reactive armor, APS. How well do they really work? Who knows, but that is the best part because when it comes to political battles, potential capability is just as important as real capability. Incidently, impressing politicans and the press is an important part of selling tanks to other nations too, which is important if you don't have much money so you can fund your development programs better. If you are in this situaion, the T-90 is surely your #1 option.

 

Oh, who am I kidding, this is a top 10 list! it isn't about reasoned debate, its about emotion. And at the end of the day, who cares about armor, fire control, gun, acceleration, fuel consumption, etc. One's a bit better here, the other's a bit better there. But the M1 rules because of it's one overwhelmingly superior feature.

 

The F-22

 

Cheers! ;-)