Rolling_Eudaimonia
New member
- 571
- 2
- 0
- Location
- New York State
We designed our trucks supposedly to operate in all theaters of operations from Arctic to Tropical conditions. And since the Soviet Union and Western Europe were a major theater of operation for both the US and Soviets I don't understand why our trucks would be so underrated when compared to the opposition? It seems to me that if wanted to counter a rapid advance of the Soviet Union during the cold war we would have needed trucks that wouldn't have gotten stuck when attempting to resupply shifting front lines. Look at what the Germans did with either Opel Trucks in WWII they put Panzer I and II chassis on the back end to make them work better in snow and mud.Because it wasn't needed. The 2 1/2 ton cargo truck is not the last resource for moving cargo for the US military. If things needed to be transported off road further than what a Deuce or 5 ton could handle, there are always helicopters. I'm not saying that you can't put lockers in your truck, just that the military saw fit not to since it wasn't needed. Everything will get stuck, no matter what it is or how it's built. Eventually you will run into something it can't handle. The military chose not to over-design the trucks since it didn't suit the purpose. The title of this thread poses the question of why they were not built to your satisfaction and the answer is obvious and just as true as the first time the question was answered in this thread. The US military didn't feel the need to add lockers to the majority of the trucks. The Russian trucks are a completely different story and are built to deal with a completely different theater with different parameters. I'm sure if we had intended to invade the Soviet Union during the Cold War, we would have designed trucks to deal with the challenges there. Naturally the amount of tanks the Soviets had made an invasion suicide, so it was not seriously considered nor were vehicles to do so.
Just because the Russian's had an advantage in armor numbers doesn't make an invasion suicide if you have a 10 to 1 or better kill ratio. If Germany had attacked Russia first and not rest of Europe it possible that even if the Russian had produced 50,000 T-34 and T-34/85 tanks the superior capabilities of the German Panther and Tiger tanks would have offset the numerical advantage if Germany could have controlled the skies in conjunction with with armor advantages. Everyone talks about how great the T-34 is and in 1941 it was but by 1944 it was outdated in both armor protection and firepower when compared to the Panther Series tanks that had a 2000m standoff kill range on the T-34 and T-34/85. The IS series was the only tank in the theater that could tackle the Panthers and Tigers at range and they didn't have enough of them at the time. The Su-85 and Su-100 tank killers were medicore at best.
Would I have put money on the M48s and M60's vs the Soviet tanks? I think thing the T-55 and T-62 would have given the M60s' and M48s' a decent fight. I think however that limited depression of the soviet hemispherical turret would have proven a problem in a more defensive posture had the soviets not broken the defenses of Nato in a single push.
This is the video that seems to show the front moving and the rears not moving on the Deuce... Now both of the other tires on the truck could be spinning but it is sort of odd to get two sides of axles not moving usually you'll get one tire to slip and not the others.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdN9DwkqVdg&feature=related[/media]