[terafo]

I would say that Bradley is actually more valuable, since it can serve wider range of missions, while having higher crew survival rate and being more maneuverable.

[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.

[jacquesm]

Without crew trained on that particular vehicle the value drops steeply.

[cglace]

I guess that's why they were trained on that particular vehicle…

Just like the Ukranian crews were trained on leopard, Abrams, etc

[mynameisnoone]

No. Apples vs. oranges. While UA lacks IFVs, they first need main battle tanks. IFVs without MBTs doesn't comprise a survivable mixed combat element. Main battle tanks with troops with AGTMs is a starting point, IFVs would enhance their mobility but cannot replace the priority of having MBTs before IFVs.