I love how the Le Clerc isn't even mentioned on the list and then the first French poster puts it as #1. :D

 

Seriously though, the T-90 is not best and China is too high up as well, otherwise a good list. And where the smeg is the Leapord? It should be the highest of the ones not properly tested in combat.

1) Abrams (all-round winner, good design, but the winning point is it's tried, proven, true and modified after experiences in the field)

2) Merkava (urban)

3) Challenger (another strong all-rounder which has seen some combat)

4) Leapord (rugged German design, needs combat testing)

 

Exactly how does one have a discussion comparing MBT's when as far as I am aware there is no available data to directly compare things like relative armor protection?  People can post all they want that the M1, LeoII, or Merkava have the best armor in a given arc but there is no data to support such a position.  There are gunnery competitions and other data regarding main gun performance but I submit the public does not know how well protected these tanks are relative to each other.  Israel could have bought M1's and seem very happy with the Merkava.  However good the Merkava is there is little question the 60 ton Namer is the most well protected infantry carrier.  No other modern tank has an infantry carrier version and in that regard the Merkava is better than any other MBT.  In any case I doubt if the M1, LeoII, or Challenger2 are significantly superior to one another to go on about given exact comparisons of protection are not available.  The bigger question mark in my view is exactly how good the Merkava is?

 

If the US was to build a new generation tank, what are the chances it will utilize a gas turbine engine?  

Wery small, beacouse it proved unreliable in desert environment, which is right now main area of US operations. I mean, after attack on Iraq Abrams were refitted with "normal" engines instead of gas turbines. It does give speed of 70-80 km/h, but not after sand damages its turbines.