In article ,
wrote:
On Jan 29, 11:07*am, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Movement of tanks. *That is the origin of the clearance, lane width and
bridge-strength requirements--and in turn limits the height, width and
weight of new US tanks.

I'm not sure that's true.

demonstrating merely that you don't know what you don't know. grin

Tanks are not very kind to concrete roadway
surfaces,

True, but irrelevant in a combat environment.

nor do they move very fast,

Hah. Modern tanks are capable of moving -quite- fast (i.e. exceeding the
speed-limit on most U.S. highways), especially if you remove the governor
on the engine.

and of course drink up fuel.

Accurate -- Consumption is measured in "gallons per mile". grin

I
would think if tanks have to be moved any sort of distance they would
be loaded onto trains.

In combat situations, trains are rarely available to the aggressor.

For long=distance movement in a combat environment, "tank transporters",
a special-purpose heavy-duty semi-trailer rig is commonly used.


*HOWEVER*, tanks are *heavy* -- substantially surpassing the legal load
limits on most highways. An "M1A1", alone, NOT INCLUDING the weight of
the transporter vehicle, is close to double the legal weight limit on most
highways.

They are also _big_. TWELVE ft wide. (needless to say, that doesn't fit 'in'
a standard traffic lane, with any safety margin Eight ft tall -- not
including any antennas -- _before_ considering the height of the transporter.
(a flat- bed type trailer will have a bed level that is approximately 5' above
ground.)