Sorry, but that is simply not true. Armor gets eliminated at a lot of situations or at least gets next to eliminated.
First exception: TDs and SHTDs that work reliable against the front of a lot of targets (especially with vet or abilities like HVAP).
Second exception: ATGs that work reliable against the front of a lot of targets (especially 17pdr/Pak43)
Third exception: Howitzers
Fourth exception: Multiple offmap abilities which deal reliable (consistent) damage from all approaching angles or from the top (penetration = 100%)
Everything might have been a slight hyperbole, but the general point still stands: Attacks from the rear are meant to be more effective so that armor matters. Armor still matters in most of the setups, especially in those involving heavily armored tanks and in next to all involving the Elefant which was taken here as an example for debate.
From a design and intuition stand point, it is good that the attack direction matters because it intuitively makes sense that shots at the front armor do not penetrate as often.
So don't get it worse. A damage reduction (although not wanted as Sander93 said) would nerf rocket strafe equally at all game modes for example. I'm not in for allied nerfs that hit 3v3/4vs4 harder than 1vs1/2vs2. Thats the wrong direction.
I am not sure if I am missing something here, but unless you have been pushed back heavily or pushed the enemy, units generally stand in the middle of the map. So it should not matter that much if you attack from the front or the back, or what am I not getting here? Why is this more special for 3v3/4v4 than for small modes? Large modes generally have more delay on plane based attacks, I just don't get why the direction is that important if units are fighting in the middle of the map anyway. If you could elaborate on that, that would be good.