Challengers superiority in armour

I think everyone here knows the challenger 2 is probably the best armoured tank in the world, however, one member here, seems to disagree... now, i dont want to get another stupid warning, just for arguing against against someone who used to evidence at all,
So ill show my argument, and my evidence.

The challenger, while only having in some places 20 to 30mm rated more thickness, in areas like glacis, and turret, measured in KE (mm)(1) vs CE (mm)(1), is still proportionally thicker, and anyone who says this site isnt up to date, look at the date at the top of the page:
Last updated: 20/06/05 nuff' said

Anyway, as previously stated in another thread,
protection for challenger 2:


KE (mm)(1)
Turret: 920-960
Glacis:660
Lower front hull: 590

CE (mm)(1),
Turret: 1450-1700
Glacis:1000
Lower front hull: 860

now lets look at the leopard shall we.... hmm?

KE (mm)(1)
Turret: 920-940
Glacis: 620

now as we have no data for a Leopard A6 vs CE (mm)(1), we have to use the leopard A5 unfortunately, however, its similar enough to be acceptable in use, and this source is the only real one i could find, that was sufficently reliable.

CE (mm)(1), for leopard A5

Turret: 1730-1960
Glacis:750
Lower front hull:750

Now from this, we can sufficently draw conclusions, against KE, the challenger 2 is sufficent enough to be the better out the two, in KE, it scores 2 out of three, while leopard lower armour may be thicker, glacis, and turret armour vs KE on a challenger is superior, against CE, the challenger from the evidence, yet again comes out superior, while turret armour comes out superior for the Leopard, the glacis armour is deffintely a more overall winner out of the two, and from the infomation presented, so is the bottom hull armour for the challenger, this overall says that the challenger is the better armoured of the two, finally, least we forget, the challenger has armour, all round, which it is known for, and the challenger uses dorchester armour, not the chobham of the Leopard A6.