I'm not against mechanics changes like adding armour damage reduction or similar, however comparing Aurora level combat to modern warfare is useful in some ways, but the extreme energy levels and masses involved changes the scale and even basic mechanics significantly.
I'll start with my observations of modern tank design considering I've spent the last 6 months researching this area (mostly youtube, heh).
Firstly tanks aren't invincible, they all have significant weak points and even small arms can can cause a technical knockout by damaging essential systems like optics, tracks etc. easily repairable after a battle. WWII tanks usually had semi exposed and lightly armoured engine decks which could allow severe disabling with high calibre machine guns or Molotov cocktails. Side, rear, top and bottom armour is generally weak, but will defeat small arms easily.
The real armour is always on the front, on modern Tanks the turret face is especially thick. As this is the area that should be facing whatever you're firing at. I'll take the Abrams as an example, it's turret face is almost a metre thick with armour rated as being worth about 600-800 mms of standard steel armour plate vs a kinetic penetrator and 1300 mms vs high explosive anti tank.
Important to note is the round this tank fired contains a penetrator that's 600 mm long, essentially you need a projectile as long as the depth of the armour to achieve penetration. Range has a massive impact too, at 4km you get half the penetration.
Modern composite armour however is fragile and less likely to take repeated hits as solid steel like in WWII. But there are recorded instances on an Abrams taking dozens of RPG hits with the crew being safe, the tank was damaged beyond repair however. RPGs work somewhat differently to Kinetic penetrators however, relying on creating a high energy plasma of melted copper which operates like a cutting torch blowing a thin hole through steel. Composites do well against this.
Now off the derail, you mention armour damage resistance. Let's take WWII steel armour when hit there's 3 outcomes, deflection, partial penetration, and full penetration.
Deflection is a result of the angle the armour is at how hard the armour is and it's mass, Germans and sometimes the British used far harder armour than others which made it great at deflection, but brittle which had flaws.
Generally only undersized rounds, rounds fired ad extreme range or hits at high angle were deflected, but it was still significant to stop these rounds. Against the lighter armoured areas all these hits would possibly penetrate. Except for small arms which every part of a tank is usually well armoured against .
Partial penetration is what we're really interested in, what happens when a round that can't get through the armour hits? If the armour is well made you get a crater, even kinetic energy weapons release a decent quantity of heat at impact which deforms the plate around the shell. It may weld itself into the hole however, but another hit in the same spot might get through.
If the armour is brittle as the soviets found with late war german armour even a partial penetration might gouge a far larger chunk out, or even crack the armour.
Generally though armour damage is basically plastic deformation where armour basically melts out of the way and this is how I picture auroras armour to work.
The idea of damage absorption is rather flawed as either an impact is deflected or it actually damages the armour without getting through, Aurors does model this by having individual boxes that ablate away.
Consider the weapons we have, nuclear weapons, lasers, high energy rail guns, all these would turn armour into plasma at impact, in fact the nuclear weapon is the less effective weapon as it's energy isn't concentrated, The us army found that regular steel plate is very resistant to point blank detonations, ablating enough to protect itself from the heat. The physical shove of detonation is vastly more damaging.