And as for your debate with Cyborg; AFAIK this was a problem not because of the carousel auto-loader (which is shielded from the crew compartment by a thick metal plate), but because of the practice employed by T-72 crews to store spare ammo/charges right in the compartment. The Russian ERA-equipped T-72s and T-80s took dozens of hits in Chechnya from multiple directions and often from above ground-level - before being put out of action. Perhaps a good part of the reason was that many Russian tankers simply moved all spare ammo out of the crew compartment, and withdrew from action temporarily when the ammo in the auto-loaders was used up, in order to retrieve the spare ammo and load it.
This is obviously not such a great situation but far from a significant design problem (it lowers the effective ammo load rather than crew survivability) - the next Russian tank will implement a different design that will do away with any storage of any ammo near the crew; but although the neccessity for such a design change is recognized; the Russian MoD tellingly, is no hurry to introduce such a tank.
BTW, if you want to compare the T-72 and the M1 Abrams for example; a good place to look at will be at the 1991 Gulf War. But not at Saddam's tanks though. Rather, Kuwait's M-84s that the Americans gave much praise to, and which equaled or exceeded the M1 Abrams of the time in a number of key parameters.