Even 55t and 65t tanks are being absolutely wrecked beyond recognition by semi decent, 2000s ATGMs (admittedly placed well) ALL OVER the middle east since 2010. Imagine the latest and greatest ATGM and anti-tank rounds.
I was just discussing this issue over the IFV thread... allow me to clarify here as well.
We need to put the MBT losses to ATGMs in the recent past in proper context, because in each case these MBTs were lost during COIN ops (Merkavas vs Hezbollah, Leopards vs Kurds, Abrams vs Houthis). Tanks will never be good at COIN. Why? Because nothing will ever be 'good' at COIN. (There's a general point to be made here on the ridiculous nature of COIN doctrine in general, but let's ignore that discussion.) MBTs are inherently an aggressively maneuvering platform. If you park them in one spot for fire support, while it's your enemy (light infantry) that is maneuvering around you, or taking pot shots from hidden positions, it won't matter what protection the tank has. Even the latest APS, armor and countermeasures will fail against salvos of ATGMs eventually. No amount of protection can save a sitting duck.
But this does not mean MBTs are at a disadvantage against ATGMs, when tanks are being used in the manner they were designed for. In combined arms
maneuver warfare, MBTs can overcome any land based ATGM threat, because ATGMs rely on a very fragile kill chain and are very slow to acquire, (plus their ToT sucks.) Smoke screens alone invalidate the vast majority of ATGM threats, leaving only MMW ATGMs, and those are only available to the best gunships. The main threat to MBTs are still other MBTs, gunships/CAS and guided artillery. Light infantry ATGM teams, or IFVs equipped with ATGMs pose no major threat to MBTs in traditional land warfare.