That’s the opposite of what every interview I’ve heard with T-72 crews and official test documentation about the reliability of the T-72’s autoloader. In fact here is official CIA test documentation that contradicts your statement:
(page 17 talks about the autoloader)
Now there are circumstances would be believable if said T-72 was very old and had a lack of maintenance (but idk at this point in time so if you want to clarify you can) then I could see the autoloader being unreliable but tbf all tanks would be unreliable if they lacked maintenance and were old.
But back to the original point at hand. T-72’s autoloader critical mechanism that pushes the round into the breach is much larger and not behind the ammo however, the critical mechanism is still quite small and would still be a moot point as it sits between the gunner and the commander. Any hit to the autoloader would 100% kill the commander and gunner.
Here is an interview with a syrian tank commander as well who states the autoloader is reliable.
the 3 feet of air that is engulf on fire…
not to mention that you also have some large fuel tanks that will also take a lot of energy to heat up, not to mention that the combustion inside of the engine would be quite bad, and stil that “tin can” is several times larger than the ammo bay
true, my bad, still the volume of air is much larger on the crew compartment than the one on the bustle, air inside of it will heat up faster, also the fuel tanks are behind of the fire wall so it will privide more isolation on the crew compartment as only a small amount of the fire wall is actually exposed.
Also in the case of the Abrams the fire wall is much thicker than the base of the ammo rack