Tank transporters

Factual Questions
1

A question (or few) for Bear Nenno, Loach, and any other groundpounders who wander past:

I was always under the impression that tanks, SP artillery, and other tracked vehicles were carried to their destinations in order to a) save wear and tear on the treads, b) keep them from tearing up the streets, and c) get them there in a reasonable time. However, comma…

I was looking at a couple of TO&Es this afternoon, and am now somewhat confused. The first, dated May 2004, is for a Force XXI armoured division. I counted 1124 tracked vehicles, but only 24 HETs (M1070 + M1000) - an average of 46.83 loads per HET. The other, dated Jun 2007, is for an HBCT; it shows 337 tracked vehicles, but only two (Two! Count them! Two!) LETs (M916 + M870). That’s 168.5 loads per transporter!

So what’s the deal here? Am I wrong about how often transporters are needed/used? Are there transporter companies out there somewhere***** that act as a taxi service, picking up their customers at point A and dropping them at point B, then returning home to wait for the next job? Or what?

  • In MEBs, perhaps?
2

You’re already looking at outdated MTOE. The mechanized brigades under the changes that came circa 2013, along with the major end strength cuts, are now called Armored Brigade Combat Teams not Heavy BCTs.

A MEB isn’t really a logistics specific organization. The sort of fill the gap between maneuver (Infantry Armored, and Strkyer) BCTs and Functional Support Brigades. They also no longer exist in the Active Component organization, only in the two reserve components (mostly in the National Guard.) They are a discussion in and of itself.

For lighter combat vehicles other flatbed support is possible through civilian contract. I won’t say it’s impossible for the heaviest vehicles, like main battle tanks, but I never heard of it.

The ground pressure from even the heaviest variants of the Abrams, per square inch, is actually lower than something like an up-armored HMMWV. Tight turns on roads that wouldn’t be weight rated for trucking CAN be an issue because of the sideways pressure. Mostly it’s the total weight on things like bridges and overpasses that is the major issue in route planning not tearing up pavement. In fact that’s why we usually use rubber track pads instead of all steel tracks with cleats that bite into the surface. As the weight went up from the earliest variants of the Abrams, new HET systems were introduced. The earlier variants had issues with ground pressure and not distributing weight across a longer wheelbase.

By the time you get down to the ABCT, those flatbeds are a maintenance asset. The intent of those is not to move the brigade. It’s to move stuff that can’t be towed.

Reducing track wear is a nice to have, especially in peacetime. It’s not as bad as you are probably thinking it is though.

Don’t assume it let’s you move all that much faster to HET vehicles around. Sure they travel a little faster when they are actually moving. The process takes time though doing things like loading, securing, and unloading. That operation also comes with some risk, if not as bad as a rail load (that can and does kill people if they aren’t careful.)

3

Just an uninformed guess.
The logistics might get very obscure and complex. They probably include maintenance schedules and costs. A piece of equipment has a schedule of various maintenance routines depending on running time or mileage and other more exotic things with military equipment. What you might do with the equipment can depend on these things. It can get strange with very regimented systems such as the military. With possible rigid budgeting quirks playing a part. Use it or lose it budget concepts. Do we have to run our equipment enough to require using the maintenance budget, or risk that budget getting cut? It can get very ridiculous. Take the tanks out for a spin, so we can use that budgeted amount, so we can show it is a required amount.
This sort of thing isn’t just in the military or other government departments. It builds up in large businesses and organizations.

4

TLDR version - Support battalions and companies provide the Heavy Equipment Transposters HETs. Some active and more in the National Guard and Reserve. More than you want to know is here (pdf!)
https://acc.dau.mil/adl/en-US/714566/file/78570/US%20Army%20Logistics%20Quick%20Reference%20Guide%2018Feb14.pdf

From pg 37.
Units/capabilities that are typically attached to a CSSB include:

  1. Composite Truck Company (CTC)
    Composite truck companies are a new type of transportation unit that are one of the three base units attached to the CSSB in 2020.

Heavy CTCs have a basis of one company per division with an ABCT. There are five CTC (HVY) in the active component and three in the ARNG.
A CTC (HVY) consists of:
 40 PLS trucks and 40 PLS trailers
 18 Heavy Equipment Transporters
(HET) and 18 70-ton trailers
 20 MTV cargo trucks with trail

From pg 44.
14. Transportation Combat Heavy Equipment Transport (HET) Company
The Transportation Combat Heavy Equipment Transport (HET) Company (colloquially known as a “HET Company”) is a versatile and sought-after resource on the battlefield.

Using the unit’s 96 HETs and 96 HET trailers, a HET Company can perform an operational or tactical relocation of heavy maneuver forces, including the move or relocation of an ABCT in a single lift. Rules of allocation call for five HET companies to move one ABCT. There are at total of 14 HET companies in the Total Force – three in the active component, six in the ARNG and five in the USAR.

Other portions of the OP. Yes, back in Desert Shield/Storm transport people tried to use local commercial trucks prior to arrival of the reserve companies. Didn’t work out to well. On the road from Dammam to Riyadh, you would see the commercial trucks broken down with shredded tires within 10 to 20 miles outside of town. Some tractors had single drive axles and the trailers with only two axles.

Here’s a link to a HET image: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/aovrRETxqh4/0.jpg

War story.
Driving north along the main highway from Dammam toward Kuwait (occupied by S. H.) there was a truck stop/chicken and rice restaurant just before the turn to the northwest along Tapline Rd, a.k.a MSR Dodge. I’m enjoying my half chicken before heading to the frontier (MREs) and a Saudi guy is at the next table. He’s got some status from the appearance and quality of his thobe (man’s clothing). We are in the men’s section apart from the “family” section that would have the women and children. Two US soldiers come in, peel off the helmets and drop down their long blond hair. M16s, flack vests, and helmets get hung over the chair and one orders the two chicken dinners. The Saudi guy is furiously kneading his rice and staring intently. He says to me, “How much for the women, I want to buy them.”:eek: I reply that they are not for sale; I actually don’t know if he’s looking for an actual sale or hookup. He persists that he wants to know how much for one and sort of clarifies that he thinks they are there to service male soldiers. I attempt to dissuade him by going back to they are all soldiers, male and female. This is not a Middle East concept. Anyway, the girls finish and break out smokes. Finish, roll up the hair, on with the flak vests, helmets and rifles, and out the door. The Saudi has never blinked while staring at them. A minute goes by and he can’t stand it; “I must have one”, and heads for the door. I’m on his tail to try a prevent an international incident - I’m sure they would have plugged him. Outside the girls are coming up either side of the HET cab - checked the load per requirements. One climbs up (and it’s way up) on the passenger side - the other passes up the helmets and rifles, goes and climbs up the driver side. Fires up the tractor and guns the tractor/trailer combo by us complete with an M1 tank. The Saudi gent is slack jawed at this point. Interesting meeting of two cultures.

5

More from Desert Storm - As of February 4, 1991, the cornerstone of the Desert Storm heavy transport fleet consisted of 456 M911 tractors with a like number of M747 trailers. However, since this total fell far short of the required total, the Army was forced to resort to a variety of sources to satisfy the shortfall. For example, 48 additional transport tractors were purchased from Mack Truck. These tractors were used to pull 24 Kalyn trailers and 24 Landoll trailers.

Short history of the Mack Truck order. http://articles.mcall.com/1991-01-30/business/2787759_1_mack-trucks-tank-haulers-mack-canada

6

Another source with a B&W picture.

7

Was any of that English? :slight_smile:

8

That is false.

We have women in the military service.

Do not confuse the retardness of the Saudis with the entire Middle east region.

(taking allowance for the tale tales telling that is so common)

9

Good point.
Thanks for providing the insight.

10

How about back in WWII? Did Guderian’s or Patton’s tanks drive on their own power when not in combat or tactical maneuverinv, or were they hauled on big trucks? (I’ve read that they used railroads when possible.)

11

From the OP:

It’s my understanding that modern tanks, under their own power, can already go about as fast as a transport truck anyway. Though I don’t know how much fuel they’d consume to do so, and the miscellaneous wear and tear is probably more expensive on a tank’s engine than on a truck’s.

12

Many thanks for the responses, especially the link – and the story :smiley: – from smithsb.

A couple other questions about army trucks:

I see a lot of places that say troop benches can be put in the back of trucks, but other than one site that says a Renault Sherpa 5 (5ton 6x6) can carry 24 men, I can’t find anything that says how many. So how many men are carried in an LMTV or MTV truck?

I also see a lot of pictures of FMTV trucks with M2s on top of the cabs, but only one photo of an armed HEMTT and none of an armed PLS.***** Is it that uncommon to put a machine gun (M2 or other) on the big trucks, or are those particular vehicles just camera-shy?

  • I do have to say, though, that the pictures of the HEMTT with the Phalanx CIWS mounted on the back were utterly fascinating…
13

Collapsable troop benches are integrated into modern cargo trucks like the ones you’re talking about. The benches go along the outer wall and fold down when not needed. There is probably a parts kit or system that adds a central row of benches in order to double the troop carrying capacity, but I can’t recall ever seeing one, and they’re certainly not a common thing. As I think about it, they almost certainly exist, but I’ve never seen it.

3 in the cab and 12 in the back. It’s definitely possible to fit twice that in the back, though; especially if you drop the benches and sit everyone facing the rear. It’s going to be a tight fit, and against the rules, but sometimes it is the appropriate solution to a problem. Unless of course you had the mystery center row of benches alluded to in the paragraph above. In that case, you could easily and legally carry an extra 12 in the back.

They all have turret holes built in, but it’s pretty uncommon for any of them to have weapons mounted. Most combat logistics patrols will have dedicated security, so there is little need to have big guns on the supply trucks. The pogues in those trucks would have little experience with heavy weapons anyway. Worse than ineffective, they might be a liability in a fight. Certainly a wild card. Could be an asset, could be a liability, but definitely an unknown.

14

Also, in reference to the question in the OP, the most common way to move heavy equipment within peaceful countries or from state to state is via train or commercial contracted carriers. When armored units need to go to California to conduct training, they move all their vehicles by rail.
Right now I’m in the middle of planning for a few weeks of training up in northern Alaska. We are not going to drive the HMMWVs from Anchorage. There isn’t a go-to transportation company who is at the ready to move them for us, either. We simply contract a commercial trucking company to ship it for us.
A surprisingly large amount of transportation is done through civilian contracts. I’ve flown to combat or training missions on commercial chartered flights more often than on military aircraft. I guess it’s cheaper or easier to charter a 747 from Southwest or Omni than it is to get a C-17 to take handle the same troop movement. All that happens at a level much higher than me. I wasn’t even aware of all those CTCs and military transport companies smithsb talked about. I am curious what they do all day. Hell, in Korea we drove our Bradleys from Casey to KTC when it was time to conduct training. It was only a 20-30 mile journey, but that convoy takes weeks of planning and hours upon hours to execute. Every single intersection from A to B had to be manned by road guard personnel to block traffic (Seems like a police escort would have been the simpler solution, but I was a lowley CPL, what do I know). Either way, it would have been a lot easier to put the tanks and Bradleys onto trucks and transport them that way. But we didn’t have that luxury. We simply drove the vehicles. Most of the time, we managed to not run over any of the local population.

15

Nitpick: It’d be very expensive to charter a 747 from Southwest, since you’d first have to pay to buy them the aircraft, and then hire a bunch of experienced crew for them.

(one of the reasons that Southwest is cheaper than most is that their fleet consists entirely of 737s, so any of their crewmembers can work on any of their planes, and they all use the same spare parts, and so on.)

16

Briefly on the aircraft front …

DoD mostly contracts with a dozen-ish oddball cargo and passenger charter operations for the bulk of personnel & freight movement. These are mostly companies most people have never heard of.

In addition, there’s something called CRAF: Civil Reserve Air Fleet - Wikipedia.

When a big bulk of stuff needs moving, the mainstream airlines can be hired (or in an emergency sorta conscripted) to provide the massive volumes needed. During the main build-up and drawdowns around Desert Storm the mainstream airlines were moving a few thousand troops per day. Which was a drop in the bucket for the industry but is not something USAF is even remotely sized to handle.

17

The general point is that serious military hardware like tanks etc. is only needed by the military. When it comes to hauling it on public roads, there are any number of hauliers who do that stuff all the time and have the right equipment and skills. From the military point of view, there is no need to keep a load of very expensive kit standing around doing nothing.

Near to where I live in the UK there is a heavy haulage company who specialise in railway engines and carriages; they can often be seen carrying old steam engines or brand new London Underground carriages. They are are one of the go-to hauliers when the army have some tanks that need moving as the army have sold off all their own trucks.

Of course, heavy tanks are yesterday’s weapons anyway.