i also think that the leopaerd 1 should be up there Australia, Canada, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Norway, Turkey, and Netherlands own it that should prove somthing don't you think

I disagree heartily with most of what CheapJeep had to say. These kinds of lists are supposed to be measures of relative qualities relevant to their time-frames. That isn't just a simple "what would win one on one" scenario, as that's not really the point. For example, the Sherman was indeed a terrible tank. It was poorly armored, its production gun was incapable of going toe-to-toe with any German medium tank, it's firing range was shit, and it wasn't particularly fast considering it had nothing else going for it. But! It's simplicity of construction allowed America to build an armored force from scratch to fulfill what had always been, and to some extent remains to be, the national strategy: attrition. So, yes, it sucked, but it accomplished its goal. Really what bothers me is the inconsistency of both the Military Channel's ratings and CheapJeep. The Military Channel ranking seemed to pick arbitrarily among the most-produced tanks of history. Except for the Tiger, the "World War I Tank" (I guess they forgot the Mark's name?), and the Merkava, none of which were produced in considerable absolute numbers. So honestly I don't get their criteria at all short of just wanting to pick lots of tank that the average joe might recognize, but that's just stupid. Me, I'd rank tanks less on "attributes," such as absolute armor, hit range, etc., as all of that shifts from variant to variant and is of little relevance. If attributes were all that is important, the LeoII would be number one, M1A2 would be in a solid second, then the Challengers, T-90, etc. etc. But that leaves out basically any tank prior to the post-Cold War era, and obviously won't do.

Instead, ranking tanks should be more a measure of a variety of things, including but not limited to:
1. Contemporary effectiveness in combat (or a guess if data is lacking), in a variety of fields:
a. Tank on tank combat. The Panther and Tiger would score well here, as would the IS series, and the Abrams
b. Battlefield impact. There is overlap with "a" here, but tanks don't always just fight tanks, thus the Shermans and PzKpfw IVs of the world would get points for their large battlefield footprint, despite their failure to measure up against their contemporaries toe-to-toe, whereas the Tiger and Tiger II would lose ground because of their restricted numbers in the field during WWII.
c. Reliability, Logistics, etc. The T-34 was produced from 1940 until the end of the world, and it was continually simplified. This simplified maintenance and production, as spare parts were readily available. The Tiger was a beast but it was terribly unreliable. The Abrams requires a small Gulf nation's worth of oil to supply in combat, so it loses out here.
2. Their impact on tank design as a science. The T-34 ranks high, as it changed the playing field, forcing the Germans to innovate, and the Mark series would maybe manage a top-25 mention (maybe) simply because it was basically the first battle tank, never mind how terrible it was.
3. The numbers produced. The T-55 was made in the immediate post-war period yet remains in service around the world, if that isn't a mark of a notable tank, I don't know what is, and the sheer number of Shermans produced in a mere 3 years means it might get a mention somewhere.

The above categories aren't all equal. I would weight them in descending order, tank-on-tank being highly important, then battlefield impact on a whole, then logistics, then design impact, then numbers. Such a measure would be more scientific, I feel, though of course much of this is subjective still.

Using this system, I would rank the top 3 as follows:

1. M1 Abrams: Now, I know a lot of people are going to moan here, but the Abrams deserves number one, and here's why. The Abrams is extremely well-armed, well-armored, excellent firing range & accuracy, fast, and has a decent operational range. The Abrams has been a major battlefield presence in two large conflicts (1991 & 2003), and proven itself to be extremely capable in live combat, which few other modern tank designs can claim. The Abrams is complicated, but it was intended to be so, so servicing it isn't too burdensome, though logistically it's a bit of a liability. The Abrams is still a modern design, so its difficult to see what impact it will have in future MBT design, but it certainly has cutting-edge features, and many anti-tank weapons designers would love to crack the Abrams, but few can. And the Abrams has been produced in greater number than any other tank in its class, and been fielded in greater numbers and more often than any other in its class. All around, this is a world-class tank, that though it may have some deficiencies (gas turbine engine), and may not be the best on paper (the Leo 2 has it there), it is more relevant, more documented, and more numerous than its contemporaries, as well as being well-suited to the needs of its user. That is, America can afford the production and logistics costs, and the Abrams has performed extremely well.
2. T-34: This tank was better-armored, better-armed, and more mobile than any other on the eastern front in 1941. By 1942, Germany began fielding models of tank that could match it, but it wasn't until 1943 that the T-34 really aged. Even past this, its battlefield presence was immense, thanks to the sheer number produced and their small logistical footprint. The T-34 influenced most tank designs from then on, and inspired a massive German counter-effort. It takes number two in all-time production numbers. All around, this was a tank that, though not the absolute best, was extremely well-balanced, and served precisely as was intended. Number two for sure.
3. Panther (PzKpfw V until 1944): The Panther was a beast. It was well-armored, well-armed, had a good speed and range for the era, and performed well against comparable tanks of the day. The Panther was extremely well-balanced, and was produced in significant enough numbers to be a reliable threat rather than an occasional thorn in the side, lending it credo for battlefield impact. It was a German tank, and thus tragically over-engineered and prone to reliability problems, but not as bad as other late-WWII German models, such as Tigers, Tiger IIs, etc. It's design features were influenced by the T-34, so it wasn't completely innovative, but it did inspire later German models (Tiger II, Jagdpanther)as well as forced the allies to field heavier responses to this well-designed threat. The numbers produced were small compared to Shermans or T-34s, but at the same time, it was above their class anyway, and the German war machine faced problems the U.S. and U.S.S.R. didn't. The Panther scores extremely well in tank combat and battlefield impact, about average on logistics & reliability, above average on design impact, and decent in numbers produced. Deserves number three.

I don't feel like delving any further than that in detail, though I'd venture to say that in the next few ranks, I would include the Leopard 2, T-55 family, Centurion, Challenger, Tiger I, and IS series, all for sure. All of those tanks were powerful enough to stand up against the contemporaries upon release, and then produced in significant enough numbers to be meaningful in that time period.

Honorable mentions might go to the FT-17 for its design impact (and little else) or any number of other inter-war tank (particularly the Czech designs). Perhaps the T-62 and T-72, because they influenced most modern Russian designs as well as a number of other countries (China, India, etc.) and are very numerous, though they don't have a particularly good combat record. I'd almost want to say the Tiger II simply because of how scary the damn tank was (and remains to be, compare its specifications to a modern tank some time, it manages frighteningly well) but the more sensible side of me knows it was slow, unreliable, poorly built, and was deployed in insignificant numbers.

Notable omissions to the list would include the Sherman, because despite its numbers and presence on the battlefield, it was a terrible design. Honestly America could have done much better. The Mark series from WWI were in fact dismal failures. Though the first meaningful tank in battle, their faultiness probably did more harm than good to the idea of tank warfare. The PzKpfw IV was an unremarkable tank that didn't manage well against any of its contemporaries, and succeeded largely due to German tactics rather than design superiority. The Merkava hasn't distinguished itself as anything remarkable either, indeed I hesitate to call it a tank at all seeing as the Israeli design team seemed to desire something completely apart from traditional armored warfare; rather they seem to want mobile forts for their perpetually out-numbered men to hide in. The AMX-30 and Leclerc tanks, or any post-WWII French design, are good tanks, but not great. Their design elements have always stemmed from a previously-established standard, their combat records are not but but not amazing. Much like the Pershing-Patton family, decent tanks that performed well enough but weren't shockingly good.

So yes, that was my extremely long rebuttal to that piece.