Unnecessarily provocative headline. First off, the article doesn't say which tank it was. Secondly, is there anything to lead us to believe that this happened because of the tank being night blind? Motor accidents happen during daytime too, and tanks are susceptible to unfortunate accidents like any other motor vehicle. The headline carried the implication that this happened due to its night-blindness.
"Night blindness" in the case of tanks refers to an inability to fight in the dark, not an inability to see where they are going. Thermal sensors and other such upgrades are meant to enable weapons to be guided in the dark, not to see where the tank it going. When they say night blindness, they don't mean lack of headlights.
So this incident is no reason to call for a retirement of the tanks - it is an insult to the driver of the tank to suggest that he was stupid enough to drive blind.
"Night blindness" in the case of tanks refers to an inability to fight in the dark, not an inability to see where they are going. Thermal sensors and other such upgrades are meant to enable weapons to be guided in the dark, not to see where the tank it going. When they say night blindness, they don't mean lack of headlights.
So this incident is no reason to call for a retirement of the tanks - it is an insult to the driver of the tank to suggest that he was stupid enough to drive blind.