Sounds like you are more or less referring to a Merkava, which made design compromises to have as much frontal protection as feasible coupled with rear doors similar to infantry fighting vehicles for better enabling disembarkment of its crew and passengers.A tank hit by something that penetrates the hull is almost always dead, and so is the crew.
It is way more important to armor up the tank to make it harder to pen, in that regard the carousel autoloader is more suitable. Type 99s for example manage to have a very good armor to crew member/size ratio which is what would determine survivability.
Next generation tank would be determined by Army needs. Type 99As were built during the collapse of the Soviet Union and potentially also eyeing an American invasion of Korea, in that context a tank that could withstand waves of soviet or american armor was needed, so what they got was a good gun on a hardened platform that sacrifices reload speed from having a dedicated loader for more armor and smaller size.
In 2020 the needs are different. India immediately comes to mind. China might preferably want a breakthrough type tank, maybe even one that can act as troop transport.
Israel did that all for enhancing the survivability of precious manpower, but most larger countries would probably only go with that kind of design for a complete streamlining of their vehicle chassis lineup between main battle tanks and infantry fighting vehicles.
There are obviously certain benefits to a full standardization of your tracked armoured vehicles of course, where economies of scale in your tank assembly line within just a single manufacturing plant would become more attainable even if you are Norinco for example.