Not that I’d ever expect a Western journalist to actually research anything they print, but tanks have always been vulnerable to artillery. The supposed invulnerability of the Abrams/Challenger came from the fact that they never saw combat against a peer military until Ukraine, and now that they have eaten a precision barrage or three they turn out to be just another tank.
The weak point of every tank is the bottom and the top, because those are least vulnerable in the combat for which tanks are designed, so they can be left way less armored. But long range 155mm artillery gun or a well placed mine hit exactly those parts. Note Soviets tried to take care of the roof at least by having round turrets, but all the modern NATO tanks have flat roofs since they never before had to fight when enemy had air or artillery advantage, they literally forgot it can happen.
Not that I’d ever expect a Western journalist to actually research anything they print, but tanks have always been vulnerable to artillery. The supposed invulnerability of the Abrams/Challenger came from the fact that they never saw combat against a peer military until Ukraine, and now that they have eaten a precision barrage or three they turn out to be just another tank.
At least we can take solace in the fact that the value of about $10 million per tank is solidly grounded in reality.
The weak point of every tank is the bottom and the top, because those are least vulnerable in the combat for which tanks are designed, so they can be left way less armored. But long range 155mm artillery gun or a well placed mine hit exactly those parts. Note Soviets tried to take care of the roof at least by having round turrets, but all the modern NATO tanks have flat roofs since they never before had to fight when enemy had air or artillery advantage, they literally forgot it can happen.