Perhaps it would be helpful to view the claims of this article through a cost/benefit analysis?

Clearly if the opponent had wanted to defeat this vehicle and take this ground, they could have.

That said, it seems likely that this vehicle substantially increased the expected cost of taking this ground, and it did so at very little cost/risk to the defenders.

This sort of device dramatically changes the equation of conflict. It seems this article does a pretty good (though unverified) job of making that case.