The performance of T-80s in Chechnya or Merkavas in Lebanon was even more abysmal but it doesn't make either one of those a bad tank. And sending any tanks in heavily forested Finnish terrain that rarely yields lines-of-sight of more than 50m would likely result in a similar outcome. There's really no question which tank is more survivable when hit, the T-72 or the Leo2A4. The former one has a notable tendency to zippo. According to operational studies conducted by the Allies shortly after WW2, the single most important factor determining the outcome of a tank vs. tank engagement was initiative; which side got to fire the first shots. A mediocre tank in a mediocre tank sitting in an ambush position had an advantage over an excellent crew in an excellent tank advancing forward. In this day of sophisticated fire control systems, main gun stabilization and laser rangefinders the sophistication of these systems is key in maximizing the probability of shooting first. The T-72 has pretty rudimentary fire control systems by today's standards. Only the B3-version has been upgraded with (French) FLIR and modern fire control systems. It still lacks the commander-gunner hunter-killer capability, the commander's ability to fire the main gun or a panoramic sight, all of which came standard in Western late 80's tanks, such as the Leo2A4. The rest of the T-72 fleet operate active infrared torches that are just absolutely horrible. I haven't found any evidence for or against the claim that the T-72 would have superior mobility in "terrain found near Russia"=pretty much every terrain, save for tropical forest. I'll revisit the Armour Museum meeting next saturday so I'll be able to confirm then. Lots of old cronies there with plenty of experience from both types. All I know it's slow af to reverse. Logistics don't really favour the T-72 because it's a maintenance nightmare. In a post earlier in this thread I elaborated the difficulty of replacing the Soviet tank's drivetrain. Although the T-72 is lighter, both tanks have similar fuel consumption, roughly 3-5l/km depending on the terrain. If the T-72 was a miracle of cost-effectiveness and not an aging platform nearing the end of its not-totally-obsolete-when-upgraded-life, surely the cash-strapped FDF would have kept the T-72s operational. In reality they weren't considered useful enough to be mothballed and moved to the reserves, instead they were scrapped and the spares were sold to CZ. No, it's not a long-range air defenst system. There are probably some reasons why it was preferred over the longer-range MBDA Aster, or why the United States of A chooses to protect the airspace of Washington DC with the same system. Vanilla Ice is good at coming up with reasons I hear.