maybe the question should read more like “on paper” which is the best mbt? it tends more to take the human element out of it and to be more objective
Well the Abrams and the Leopard II are both spin offs of MBT70 program. So both these tanks are probaly about the same.But I will give the edge to the Abrams since its combat proven.Then the Challenger wich the Brits say is the best, they do have the longest kill so far.Then the leclurc wich im sure is as good as any of these tanks.The only real way to ever find out is put them all on the battle field with well trained crews and let them fight it out.Then somebody will still say they had the better tank…lol
Im going to agree w/ James. Im going to say the Merkava IV because well he basically said it all. Although Im American and I like the M1A2 I like the Merkava better and I like IDF. Besides there Vehicles and whatnot are known for crew safety so there you go theres my vote.
The Challenger 2 is the best MBT in the world
I’ve been away for a few days. So, I’ll jump back into this. As far as I know, it seems like most folks here are rating tanks based on their ability to kill other tanks. James or CDNT is the only one that has presented points that support his choice based on all around battlefield capability. MBTs are not tank destroyers. They are the all-season radial of tanks. They do everything, all the time. I was hoping to get the reasons for choices. After all, that is what makes conversation more indepth.
Again, in this discussion, we all know that soldier/sailor/airman is the most important factor in war regardless of the topic. I am pleased with the amount of participation in this thread and hope there is more to come.[:)]
In for my [2c]. Though I am a big fan of the M1 Abrams series of MBT. I think I am going to have to go with the Merkava (sp?) for best all around MBT. Personally I am all gung-ho for crew survivability and if I am not mistaken that was one of the driving factors for the Merkava. So for better or worse that is my choice.
You know the Abrams was built with crew survivability in mind.There not pulling to many dead bodies out of any Abrams tanks! The Merkava is a great tank probaly better suited for urban combat then the Abams but the Abrams was built for tank on tank combat.
I like the M1 series. However, I have to admit that its fuel economy and size can lower its rating. The size would make it difficult to use in the confines of say, an Iraqi village. No matter what a MBT is designed to do best, it has to do everything well. No vehicle has ever been made that is the best at everything, so we must be able to admit when our pick is at the disadvantage.
Most tanks are designed for crew survivability… however, there is a historical fact in this comment when it comes to MBT’s and AFV’s of the IDF! After the Yom Kippur war, there weren’t many crews left who were experienced enough to successfully counter the Syrian and Egyptian armour. Now that being said, it is a historical fact that the US has produced tanks for mass quantity, not for quality! I know this is about MBT’s but to be honest with you, the M1 is not on the same calibur when it comes to crew survivability! If you’d like I’ll get the specific specs on the Merkava, all variants if you’d like (though it’d take a month to type). I don’t disagree with you about all crews being important, but with Israel Tal’s vision and the input given to him by the crews who barely survived the armoured conflicts on the battles before the Merkava, MUCH has been done on this aspect! And actually the 120mm gun on this badboy makes it as much of a player on one on one battles. You have to remember a couple of things. The Abrams was not designed to go through the mountains and counter the IEDs and roadblocks at every turn on the way! This was a huge design concept in the Merkava! It may be slower than the Abrams, buuuttt… you don’t want to go super fast along the path of the mountain, this’ll happen!
It’s a sad state of affairs when a tank goes too fast along the sides of the mountains! Sooo for location, even US crews agree that the Merkava project has been one of the most successful to date!
The best tank would be the newest versions of all the tanks that have been cited in this forum. That is why they are always upgrading them because new technology is always appearing. I cant deny that the M1 the Challenger 2 and the Merkava have all proven themselves in battle but if the Leopard 2 and Leclerc were used in Iraq I think they would have fared as good as the others. My personal choice would then be the Leopard 2A6 or the Leclerc until the newer versions of the M1, Challenger 2, etc. appears.
p.s. Pardon my English, my keyboard does not know how to speak english. 
Honestly, I think of the Lep as a different flavor of M1. I’m not so sure about the Leclerc. Does anyone have anything to say about it either way? James, I know you love the Merk.[:)] You’re reasoning is well established, and for its role I can’t say there is a better vehicle.
LOL mortarmagnet… just expounding on other’s thoughts is all! I think everyone has raised great points on this topic! And yeah I’m biased… Though I wish modelling them didn’t put such a bloody dent on the wallet! 
Leclerc is supposed to be one bad a$$ MBT, but has it ever been tested in the battle field? How about reliability? It is way too new and lacks exposure to combat. I’m sure if Leclerc were given opportunity to fight a war, these tanks would do well. I really want to see how K1A1 would do in combat as well. Merkava is one great Infantry supporting tank. M1A1/A2 is just one heck of a tank that I really respect and I personally like it due to Fire power, speed, reliability and of course, crew protection.
CDNtanker25, that is an AMAZING pic of that nose-down Merkava. Just IMAGINE the stress on that barrel to hold that thing up. Like I said earlier, other than a lack of top end speed, I like the Merkavas a lot.
Don’t get me wrong, I do believe that all Western built MBTs are built with crew survivability in mind (not sure about the Soviet designs) and we sure have come a long way from the days of the M4 Sherman series, but one thing about the Merkava that sticks in my mind for some reason (and I could be really wrong on this and just imagining it) is that the IDF even had some of the fluids designed so that they would be non-toxic if they got into wounds…I always thought that was taking the crew survivability issue to levels (that is if I am not totally bonkers about the information)
I was thinking about the stress on the crewmen’s faces when the slammed into the various hard surfaces in front of them.
I think there are no such thing anymore as the best MBT since everybody fires depleted uranium weapons. So like it or not, every MBT can get clobbered.
But I myself chooses Merkava IV, why ? The meanest looking tank around.
Ben
Here’s something I thought I might put out there. This is from Wiki,
"The Abrams remained untested in combat until the Gulf War in 1991. A total of 1,848 M1A1s were deployed to Saudi Arabia. The M1A1 was superior to Iraq’s Soviet-era T-55 and T-62 tanks, as well as degraded Russian T-72s which lack night vision and any modern range finders, and locally-produced copies (Asad Babil tank). Only 18 M1A1s were taken out of service due to battle damage and none of these losses resulted in crew casualties. The M1A1 was capable of making kills at ranges in excess of 4000 m. In friendly fire incidents the front armor and side turret armor survived direct APFSDS hits from other M1A1s.
Further combat was seen during 2003 when US forces invaded Iraq and deposed the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The campaign saw very similar performance from the tank with no Abrams crew member being lost to hostile fire during the battle in Iraq. However, on October 29, 2003, two soldiers were killed and a third wounded when their tank was disabled by an anti-tank mine, which may have been combined with other explosives to increase its effect. This marked the first time deaths resulted from a hostile-fire assault on the M1 tank.
On November 27, 2004 an Abrams tank was badly damaged and its driver killed from shrapnel wounds when an extremely powerful improvised explosive device (IED) consisting of three M109A6 155 mm shells with a total explosive weight of 34.5 kg detonated next to the tank. The other three crew members were able to escape, a testament to the armor of the M1A2…
No Abrams tank has ever been destroyed as a result of fire from an enemy tank, though a number have been disabled in ambushes employing short-range antitank rockets like the Russian RPG-7. Also, during the Operation Desert Storm four Abrams were disabled in a friendly fire incident by Hellfire missiles fired from AH-64 Apache attack helicopters…
The strength of the armor is estimated to be about the same as similar Western, contemporary main battle tanks such as the Leopard 2.The M1A2/M1A1 can survive multiple hits from the most powerful tank munitions (including 120 mm depleted uranium APFSDS) and anti-tank missiles. This was first shown in the Persian Gulf War, when Abrams tanks survived multiple hits at relatively close ranges from Iraqi T-72’s and ATGM’s."
For the Challenger 2,
"There was only one loss due to a blue-on-blue incident (friendly fire) in which one Challenger 2 mistakenly shot another, destroying the second tank and killing two crew members.
In one encounter a Challenger 2 took hits from multiple Rocket propelled grenades and one ATGW round and was under heavy fire for a few hours from small arms fire. The crew survived and the tank was subsequently recovered."
I would like to point out that the M1A1 has survived being shot with US dep Ur rounds. Truth be told, everyone in the west has just about the same stuff in terms of guns and armor. Although, there are doubts about what exactly the Lep 2s armor can do.
A lot of the M1s that are disabled ended up being bombed so that they could not be repaired. Some people like to come on the internet and show the bombed tanks and say an RPG-7 did the damage. The damage the M1 sustains is usually repairable, but it is easier to get a new M1.
Thank you Motar for posting the facts on the battle records of the Cahllenger and M-1’s. It would be nice to see what is out there for the Merkava as well. I had heard many of these things from talking with US tankers but it is noce to see the stats. As someone else here has said, the qualities of the armor for the Leopard ( and Leclerc/ K1, etc) are unknowns at this point in time. But I must diasagree with something I read here on that the M-1 was desgned for mass production over survivablility. Survivabilty was one of the primary concerns in the design based on US and customer (primarily Israeli) battle experience with US tanks. But the M-1 design emphasized mobility as well based on doctince of manuever warfare on the Central European battle front against the Warsaw Pact massive formations. Israel did not have the space for time abilities based on their Golan battles in the Oct 73 War, and their Merkava design emphasized survivability for the over speed, but kept excellent mobility over broken mountain terrain, as well as close quarters urban capabilities, probably based upon experiences at the Chinese Farm in the Sinai combat in the same war. Each design is a proven winner in its environment and when used as designed or intended.
I wonder if the Leclerc not seeing much action is tied to it being used by the French?
hmmm.