Looks like you already know the answer, you have listed the ones that everyone always talks about. Chally II - Arquably the most survivable on the list, awesomely armoured, the L30 main gun in my opinion has the edge over the others. Fire Conrol I believe is the same as the M1A2 developed by General Dynamics. Where the Chally II lags "Slightly" is that it sacrifices some speed when compared to the others. Also from a situational awareness point of view which is critical for tankers, the commanders indipendant sight does not have thermals, this needs to be corrected as most target scanning is carried out using thermals, even in daylight. Could also do with a remotely operated weapon station for hte Commander. M1A2 - Well hard to find fault really, possible weakness from rear, but what tank doesnt, and trust me I see the work going on to improve this daily. Again could do with a commanders remotely operated weapons station. Apparently a real Gas hog. Leclerc - Dont really know that much, sure it fire control is on a par with the rest, so just as leathal. Have heard that there are maintenance/reliability issues. But this doesnt surprise me, its new, I am going through that right now with the howitzers I am sending to the Marine Corp. Leopard - Hard to find fault. Merkava - Awsome, but only wthin its very specific requirements, probably wouldnt be on a par with say the M1 or Leo in large scale manoeuver warfare. Thats just my opinion though. I just dont think the IDF have the same operational requirements as say the UK, US and Germany.

I'll cover what I know, which means the British tank. Chally 2 (CR2) is probably the most expensive of the lot, with the possible exception of the Merkava 4, which I don't know enough about. AFAICT this is due to production quantities. 425 Challenger 2s have been made, compared to thousands of Leopard 2s and M1s. It has a boiling vessel fitted as standard, which is vital if you like having hot water on demand. This is very important for British crews, where a 'Brew-up' has two meanings. Mechanical reliability is top notch - provided that the correct environmental gear is fitted. The Royal Armoured Corps enjoys crowing about the Challenger 2 taking part in the Greek trials having to render mechanical assistance to the M1s sent there. The CR2s in use by the British army also employ applique skirts and bow armour, greatly improving side protection against things like RPGs Interestingly, the Challenger 1 mounted the 7.62mm GPMG on the commander's position, and could be controlled from under armour. This was removed to the loader's hatch for the Challenger 2. That said, the Challenger 2E mounts a .50 cal on the commander's position with the possibility of remote operation.

The T-80?

No body who contributes to this forum REALLY knows? Simple as that.

The frontal protection of the T80 was sufficient to be proof against '80s era APFSDS. The glacis was something like 250mm of laminated armour at 50-60 degrees from the vertical. In addition, Kontakt 5 ERA is quite tasty, adding 200mm of armour effect (as a vertical plate, not an extra 200mm sloped on top of the glacis. Furthermore, it's pretty cheap. On the downside, I understand that there are some quality control issues.

I knew about Russian tanks through the early 90's. I played with a variety of them after the fall of the USSR, at Aberdeen. The T-64B was actually, probably the best of the "new" generation of tanks the USSR introduced to replace the T55. The T-80 is an incremental upgrade model of the T-64B. In the early 80's it's armor was effective against then existing main gun rounds. By 1985 to 1986 this was no longer true as the US, UK and Germany began introducing hyper-velocity penetrators. The Russian tanks, in general, have several strong points. They are small and difficult to detect, excellent armor sloping, cheap and fairly rugged. They also have several weak points, generally. Maintenance outside of a depot is nearly impossible, the crew compartments are impossibly small for long durations, the armor, even with Kontakt-5, is no longer able to cope with the other tanks main gun munitions. Hope that helps.

The most expensive tank is the Leclerc and not Challenger 2. Leclerc has been produced to 800+ numbers but still cost 8,3 m€ while Challenger is given at 6,9 m€ for 425. And I deny the fact Leclerc while lighter is less armored than Challenger 2.Its lower internal surface to protect due to engine compactness and 3 man crew allowed a surfacique armor mass equivalent.Its hull is more than a meter shorter.It has advantage to have separate crew cell and a lower surface (allowing diminishing probability to be hit). An APFDS will kill only one crew member but commander and gunner can exchange their role so maintening tank to be still operational.If fire control is doubled allowing to maintain firing capacity.Of course it is more mobile (1500 hp for 59 tons) with its active oleopneumatic supsension and can fire on the move at full speed acurately to 4000 m unlike M1A2,and Challenger 2 .Reliability problem are solved now after long year of problems due to its sophistication.So you can infered which is the best tank. "A Challenger 2 main battle tank, of the Queens Royal Lancers, crosses an Iraqi ... At 1999 prices Challenger 2 is believed to cost £4 million per vehicle. ... - 27k - 3 sep 2005 "

TO be clear my list based of facts is: Leclerc, STR122, Leopard 2 A6, Japanese T90, M1A2, Challenger 2, Merkava MK4, M1A1, T80.This is based of effective firepower, effective mobility and effective survivability.And not a supposed bias to a supposed combat experience vs T55.

I make it nearly £6m (€8m) cost to the British MoD per tank. http://www.mod.uk/dpa/news/pn2002/apr02/challenger2.htm Futhermore, a CR2 has the capacity for the gunner and commander to switch roles. The commander can lay and fire the gun from his station, which is just behind the gunner. APFSDS 'only kills one person'? Sorry, but that's a crock of unmitigated horseradish. Certainly for depleted uranium, which is pyrophoric*. In any case, the effect of a 50mm or so dart passing through half a metre of steel plates is going to unleash a serious amount of energy on the reverse side of the plate. Firing on the move is overrated, IMHO. Moving makes you a target. M1A2 SEP has superior thermals to the Leclerc, as it has a Commanders Independant Thermal Viewer (CITV) *Pyrophoric describes a material that spontaneously ignites in contact with air. In the case of DU, this effect isn't significant unless it is finely divided, like when it smashes through a significant armour plate.

Aside from FS' normal BS (I see that hasn't changed in the months I've been gone), I have no idea where he gets his facts. The M1 is quite capable of firing, on the move, cross country, to 4000M. I personally have done so with an M1A1B-HA (3750 meters, close enough). Further, as Flaming Knives points out, separate crew compartments isn't going to do much to save the crew after being hit by a long rod penetrator. A training round that struck an M60A3 did the most injury to the driver, even though it hit the turret, in a training accident I investigated in 1989. American and Israeli experience in the Sinai, the Golan Heights and Kuwait and Iraq also doesn't support this proposition. Finally, he makes the old, tired argument about what the enemy tanks were (ignoring, of course, the T-62's and T-72's possessed by Iraq in 1991), ignoring the fact that the stresses of combat are relatively the same when discussing the sustainability of the vehicle, maintenance and logistics. FS, as usual, deals with tactics, whereas professionals worry about logistics.