Tank Survivability c. 2000 and Tank Transporter Question

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The MAZ535 and MAZ537 truck has formed the basis for Soviet and WTO tank transporters for many years, still in use today in some places or in an updated form.

Tank Transporter MAZ-537G with MAZ/ChMZAP-5247G Semitrailer
http://ebook30.com/history/history/1...mitrailer.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAZ-535
http://translate.googleusercontent.c...iqN2pgh_iy4ivg google translation of Russian site
http://translate.googleusercontent.c...kCXW_qslAcVNPQ google translation of Russian site
http://www.military-today.com/trucks/maz_537.htm
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...ing_tanks.JPEG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAZ-7310 updated version
http://translate.googleusercontent.c...rz7eEm9DBvobMQ google translation of Russian site, latest tank transporter
http://translate.googleusercontent.c...j9tYn61-_RdnGQ google translation of same Russian site, this one's about the trailers

Can't say much for NATO transporters but I believe Paul Mulcahy has them on his site

[kato13]

Semi OT

Somewhere I have a list of how much railroad rolling stock is needed for every type of US battalion. I believe it was a planning document for NTC transport logistics.

If anyone is interested, let me know and I can dig it up.

[Legbreaker]

I can't say much about today, but I do recall that for the majority of WWII, British tank designers were restricted to only the width that could be carried on British trains. Later in the war this restriction was dropped and some really good designs were finally able to see the light of day.

Modern tanks may not be as easily transportable by rail as one may wish. Tunnels constructed in the 19th and early 20th centuries as well as bridges are going to present serious hurdles for transportation which in some cases may force delays of hours, days or even weeks if an alternate route can't be found/used.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Modern tanks may not be as easily transportable by rail as one may wish. Tunnels constructed in the 19th and early 20th centuries as well as bridges are going to present serious hurdles for transportation which in some cases may force delays of hours, days or even weeks if an alternate route can't be found/used.

It will depend on the country and that will be hard to know. If I take the exemple of France and Belgium, it won't be a problem. Both countries have adapted their old 19th and early 20th centuries tunnels (or closed them). In addition, for France (I don't know for Belgium) our main land bases have a dedicated railway station. You should not forget that in most Western European countries, it is forbidden to roll your tanks on roads. Moving them with trucks in peacetime is extremely difficult. You need the authorizations, you need a special organization and our road tunnels have seldom been adapted.

Leg, you forgot something else. In Europe, trains have been used for centuries to move oversize goods.

I would suspect that to be true for Germany as well because it has a well developped railroad system.

I would be pretty confident for the Soviets also which are among the rare countries to retain dedicated railway troops.

One thing to check may be to see if a country has been developping the transportation system which consist of putting full trucks on train. If it has, you can be sure that tanks can be moved around that way. It's not absolutely accurate, however, as France for exemple can move tanks but has falleen behind in adopting that system for trucs.

What will remain an interesting source of problem, however, will be the difference between the rail system. A train leaving for France will not be able to go to Spain. A train from Russia will face similar problems... At least you can be sure to roll your trains from Paris to Warsaw. I took trains which were coming from Warsaw since I was a kid.

I hope all that is clear, I'm not sure.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Leg, you forgot something else. In Europe, trains have been used for centuries to move oversize goods.

Well, it was the British system that started it all off...

Elsewhere, as you rightly point out, it could well be a different story, but after a few months of combat, railway lines are sure to have been damaged, with bridges and tunnels destroyed. There will be limited routes available for the trains to take.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Well, it was the British system that started it all off...

Elsewhere, as you rightly point out, it could well be a different story, but after a few months of combat, railway lines are sure to have been damaged, with bridges and tunnels destroyed. There will be limited routes available for the trains to take.

Entirely agree. Railways are especially vulnerable and what you describe will be even more true after the first nukes start to fall. Nevertheless, I use them in my game and consider that in some areas (for exemple the trans-Siberian) large portions have been repaired. There are no more aircraft to destroy them and they have become less vulnerable again. I also use armored trains to protect them (more often than not a big word for reinforced wagons) and, again, as in WW2, these trains are carrying replacement rails. A trip by train can be very long.

The other main advantages come from the fact that I considered that a limited amount of steam powered locomotive are still available. Funny enough, you might have no train rolling in england but some in Wales (I think the wales have maintained part of their rolling stock in working order: Great Little Trains of Wales). The same will be true for Italy... New ones can even be built as they don't need modern machinery for their production.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Before you dismiss trains in England, look up the Strategic Steam Reserve
http://www.willys-mb.co.uk/strategic-reserve.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/Oubliet...atReserve.html