You're missing the point. The surface area of the lens is irrelevant. The point is that striking the lens with a hammer made no effect until severely striking it with the claw end, which is simulating only the most severe of accidents. Taking chips out of the glass is going to be just as difficult or easy whether the glass is 52mm or 77mm. The only difference the larger front element makes is if there is an impact strong enough to actually break it, in which no filter would ever save you.
Like I said in that post you quoted, it's not simply the fact that the front element is resilient on its own, it's the fact that if the filter shatters (which is very likely on any impact that deforms the ring), the shards of glass can very easily scratch the surface of your front element. Broken glass is very sharp, much sharper than anything else that would ever touch the front of your lens. You have to realize that those filters are very thin glass, and any impact that would damage your front element will certainly shatter your filter, thus increasing the risk of front element damage.
Hitting the lens from the side or the hood isn't going to damage the front element anyway, so the idea that it wouldn't break the filter is irrelevant.
You also run the risk of deforming the filter ring in an impact, which can permanently damage the threads on the front of the lens, as well as cause the filter to be stuck on the front of the lens. There have been instances where filters are stuck on the front so bad that the lens was damaged when trying to remove them.
Furthermore, physical damage aside, adding any extra glass to the front of the lens introduces unnecessary lens flares and halos that can compromise your photos, making your $2000 lens look like a $200 lens.
So lemme get this straight...
Smacking the lens face with a claw hammer MIGHT damage it if you hit it hard enough but a couple sprinkles of shattered glass from a filter will spell its doom.
Smacking into something accidentally MIGHT cause damage to the lens threads but accidentally smacking the lens filter into something will so irrevocably damage those threads that the lens will be unusable if you then remove the filter.
Lens flares and halos will just JUMP out from your images if you're foolish enough to use a UV filter.
I now know what caused the tsunami in Japan that wiped out billions in real-estate an toppled one and half nuclear reactors. All those Japanese were out taking pictures with lens filters!
Seriously... The REAL advantages of a UV filter do not include impact resistance. You install a CLEAN filter over a CLEAN lens to prevent micro-scratches. A good UV filter will cut haze both indoors and outdoors. High altitudes and/or pics near water or humid conditions will all be improved with a UV filter. The exception would be that guy that tossed a $10 filter from Walmart or Bestbuy onto that $2000 lens that was mentioned above. Like anything else, there's quality and garbage alike to be had. There are also different grades/gradients of UV filter that depend on correct selection for conditions.
A QUALITY UV filter is worth it's weight in gold for either film or digital cameras though the reasons differ some between the two.
If you've been taught to believe that, that's false, you may want to consider listening to someone else. It sounds a lot like something rationalized by one person who's trying to frantically spread his gospel (photography teacher maybe). Fact is, the benefits outweigh the liabilities by pretty large margin with exception of the most controlled environments under carefully metered conditions.