With no explanation, label text_A→text_B with either "DON'T KNOW", "NO" or "YES".
text_A: Rolf-Dieter Müller comments that the war in North Africa, while as bloody as any other war, differed considerable from the war of annihilation in eastern Europe, because it was limited to a narrow coastline and hardly affected the population. Showalter writes that: "From the desert campaign’s beginning, both sides consciously sought to wage a "clean" war—war without hate, as Rommel put it in his reflections. Explanations include the absence of civilians and the relative absence of Nazis; the nature of the environment, which conveyed a "moral simplicity and transparency"; and the control of command on both sides by prewar professionals, producing a British tendency to depict war in the imagery of a game, and the corresponding German pattern of seeing it as a test of skill and a proof of virtue. The nature of the fighting as well diminished the last-ditch, close-quarter actions that are primary nurturers of mutual bitterness. A battalion overrun by tanks usually had its resistance broken so completely that nothing was to be gained by a broken-backed final stand."
text_B: From the way the passage is written, could you draw the conclusion that a battle tank's armor is relatively weak in places, perhaps due to weight constraints, and hence while a tank is practically invulnerable from the front, it may be weak from behind or from the side?
NO.