The T-72 was a reliable piece built upon lessons learned in WW-II and in no small part from copying German technology and the knowledge of captured German engineers.
The gulf war vintage M1 Abrams was a completely different class of weapon. Its domination of the battlefield was solely a function of being able to engage the Soviet-built armor the Iraqi's were fielding at a greater range than the Iraqis were able to return fire. The M1's were sending sabot'ed DU penetrators slicing through their tanks and the Iraqi rounds were falling a half-mile short in front of the Abrams. There wasn't even any need to utilize the superior speed and shoot-on-the-fly targeting capability of the tank.
At the same time, the Abrams was built to fight an armor war in the Eurpoean theater. Its turbine engines were incorporated based on the theory that they'd be travelling short distances and needing to get there fast. This proved to be a hindrance in the Gulf since there were vast distances to be travelled in non-combat situations. A diesel would be slower, but much more fuel efficient. The Abrams repeatedly outran the Army's ability to fuel and resupply it.
There's a building at Nellis AFB in Nevada. They call it the "petting zoo". It's full of every piece of old Soviet and Chinese built military hardware imaginable. Some of it is such unbelievable junk that you couldn't believe it would even function. It's simply a difference in philosophy- their premise is to build a bunch of disposable hardware and feed it and personnel into the battle in an overwhelming force. had we gone at it in Europe, it's possible their philosophy could have been proven right.
