In the end all the NAFO vs. Vatnik back-and-forth about Western or Russian tanks being superior to one another is moot. As we've seen in Ukraine, tank-on-tank engagements are rare. Most tanks are getting killed by ATGMs, artillery, air or mines, and no tank is going to fare much better than another against those. Tanks are designed to operate within an army, and all the elements of that army, tank and non-tank, are supposed to help one another against the things that "counter" them.
Yes, the T-72 is an old design pushed to the limit of upgradeability. Its main fault is that the crew is basically considered expendable in exchange for a tank that is small, light, and reasonably well armored. Western designs are deliberately more concerned with keeping the crew alive and well, as the expense of a larger, heavier tank. Yet neither a M1A2 Abrams, a Challenger 2, a Leopard 2, a T-72B3 or a T-90MS is going to avoid at least a mission kill if they run over a 12.5lb can of Soviet forbidden tuna or take a modern top-attack ATGM or artillery bomblet to the roof. The only difference is how likely is that crew is going to live to fight another day, and how repairable the tank is, both of which are choices the army that commissioned these tanks made. But the vehicle will be out of the fight regardless.
Of course, this requires nuance. LP doesn't have it. His arch-enemy Gonzo doesn't either. And the people who try to offer them that vital nuanced view just get thrown insults in return.
