All tanks are "good" depending on the doctrine of their designers. Soviet tanks are cheaper, probably more rugged and designed for en masse attack, or at least they were. The newer T-80s and T-90s developed by the Russians seem to reflect more speed then the older tanks. The American doctrine is long-range engagement with one-shot kill, the ability to hit a moving target and survive at close range; fighting like Swedish King Gustav's cavalry: Utilizing range and still being able to close for shock action. The Al-Khalid is pakistani, neh?

The Merkeva (?) is an Israeli tank.

one on one in any place, not counting weight, a western M1 type tank will win. One on one in the desert, an M1 type tank is king. when you have to worry about weight for bridges and such, i would stil take the M1 type and go the long way.

This is what i think. T-90(Russia) m1a2(USA) Challenger2(British) m1a1(USA) t-98(China) t-90(China) t-95 black hwak(Russia) al Khalid(Pakistan) Arjun(india)

Dangerous statement, dont forget that the Challanger 2 has a generation better armour than the M1A2 and a better gun, whilst a bit slower in an open invironment like the dessert, speed will only get you so far before the fire control systems of a top tank will lock onto you, at that point its armour vs gun and as the callenger has more of one and a better one of the other it would be a brave man who would make such a bold statement, personnely I would prefer never to be in a situation where a M1* would have to go against a challenger* or challenger* against a M1*(* please subsitute fave tank here) The only challanger lost so far in combat was lost to another challenger and even then half the crew lived despite it being point blank range. Oh and dont forget that the challanger hold the record for the longest range tank kill! Before I get the M1 is best replies, all I am saying is that given the closeness of modern MBT in killing power other factors count ie speed and armour. how these effect the survirvorbility of a tank depends on factor like terrain, supprise, weather, tactical objectives and most importantly plain old luck. The best tank in the world can become a death trap if badly deployed, whilst a mediocre tank can be successful if used well

Problem is, on the modern battlefield, tanks just dont FIGHT one-on-one anymore, UNLESS there is contested air superiority, both strategically and tactically. When is the last time a modern army fought WITHOUT such overwhelming air power, and confronted enemy tanks? Desert Storm 1 was US and Brit tanks against obsolete Iraqi ones. sothat really isnt a good comparison. Israel in Lebanon in 1982 with their new Merkava-1s tore Syrian armor to shreds (first introduction of a modern tank force with reactive armor, btw), and now the Merkava-4 is coming into production, which hold a bigger edge against Syrian tanks (even with Italian upgrade kits), and you can be sure the Israelis will have overwhelming on-demand air superiority. It's therefore really hard to make such comparisons without looking at the overall battlefield environment in which these tank-on-tank battles will occur. The US DOESNT go in anymore with its air backups (fixed wing and Apache- its NOT doctrine). swhitebull It is very unlikely that a modern army would go in these to fight other tanks WITHOUT first achieving such air superiority, and then you have a true combined arms operations that would rip an opposing enemy's AFVs to shreds.

1.Cleclerc 2.AMX30 3.Lep2 4.M1 5.Challenger 6.Merkava 7.Ariete 8.T90 9.Cheftain 10.STRV 103

I dont think the AMX 30 should be second, the AMX 40 is a little under the lastest version of Leopard 2 but the AMX 30 is certainly not better then a M1/Merkarva/Leo2... Now its true that the Leclerc is the best ;):):) ( its Leclerc, and not Cleclerc, or you maybe mean Char leclerc)

This is how I think: 1.leopard2a6/strv122 2.M1A2 3.leoparda5 4.leclerc 5.challenger2 6.Merkava mk.4 7.M1A1 8.T90 9.T80U

What does the Leo 2 has more than the Leclerc??