[sudosysgen]

Huh? A Bradley is more survivable than a modern T-72? It's a light IFV, it's only advantage is to be more versatile and maneuverable. It is not going to be more survivable.

If you're talking about the autoloader - the kind of munition that would detonate the munitions on a modern T-72 would completely eviscerate any IFV.

If it really was more survivable than a modern tank, why would anyone even bother making tanks, when IFVs have about as much firepower when using ATGMs?

[stonogo]

How is a T-72 a "modern tank"? There are dozens of stories of both American (during various other wars) and Ukranian Bradley crews engaging T-72s and winning.

[sudosysgen]

Polish T-72s are modern tanks with tons of upgrades. They are not comparable to base model T-72s in Iraq. They have much improved armor, firepower, sensors, and mobility. It's a lot like how modern Abrams are barely comparable to the original model, which is only 6 years more recent than the T-72. In fact, the Russian T-90 and Chinese ZTZ99 are also heavily upgraded T-72s.

In the era of ATGMs IFVs can engage tanks and win, no matter the tank. In fact, an infantry soldier with an ATGM can engage basically any tank and win. That doesn't mean a soldier is more survivable or more capable than a tank.

A Bradley would be disabled or destroyed by many weapons any modern tank would shrug off, and it cannot provide sustained heavy fire as it has a very limited number of ATGMs.