3 ms·

> It takes the same time for an armored division to travel from coast to coast as it would for a legion to march across the Roman Empire, at least a week. This

> It takes the same time for an armored division to travel from coast to coast as it would for a legion to march across the Roman Empire, at least a week. This sounds like a dramatic underestimate in the case of heavy infantry (a legion). Elite infantry units similar to Scipio Africanus' legions went from Tarraco to Carthago at 26 miles per day forced march which is a pretty high rate of speed [1] Using the excellent Orbis site from Stanford [2], it is possible to calculate this at accurate detail @ ~179 days marching 30KM a day, from Tarraco to Alexandria, which is across the empire. Comparing that against an armored division, it would depend on which armored division since some are more road capable and limited mainly by fuel supplies. An M1A2 can go on roads at 45MPH and has a range of 265 miles. [1] https://www.academia.edu/4825296/Observations_on_marching_Roman_legionaries_velocities_energy_expenditure_column_formations_and_distances https://www.academia.edu/4825296/Observations_on_marching_Ro... [2] https://orbis.stanford.edu/ https://orbis.stanford.edu/

Someone 4y ago
Can an M1A2 ride across the USA without breaking down? Reading https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1789.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports..., page number 29 (page 53 of the PDF), it seems many would break down if driven only 375 km. That’s less than the range you claim they have. That’s one reasons why tanks, when not in action, get transported on trailers. The text even says “significant numbers of failures were recorded during months with zero usage”, indicating that keeping a M1 parked isn’t easy, either.
- OrvalWintermute 4y ago
  You're conflating fleet size numbers with the individual. And, an armored division is designed to recover vehicles with their own trucks, while retaining mobility. Military planning is all about %s, e.g. 80% are functional based on a table of equipment (TOE) > That’s one reasons why tanks, when not in action, get transported on trailers. While that may be a minor reason, the actual big reasons are the most current M1A2 SEP tanks at ~147,200 pounds destroy roads, convoy operations are a giant pain, tanks are an immense hazard to trucks and cars, and the fuel consumption is off the charts, making this not economical. > The text even says “significant numbers of failures were recorded during months with zero usage”, indicating that keeping a M1 parked isn’t easy, either. Zero usage doen't mean that preventitive maintenance checks & services cease. Given that even idling a 1500hp turbine for maintenance is a major undertaking that is a good amount of start/stop and usage of the entire system, even if getting no road time.

Someone 4y ago

Can an M1A2 ride across the USA without breaking down? Reading https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1789.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports..., page number 29 (page 53 of the PDF), it seems many would break down if driven only 375 km. That’s less than the range you claim they have. That’s one reasons why tanks, when not in action, get transported on trailers. The text even says “significant numbers of failures were recorded during months with zero usage”, indicating that keeping a M1 parked isn’t easy, either.

OrvalWintermute 4y ago
You're conflating fleet size numbers with the individual. And, an armored division is designed to recover vehicles with their own trucks, while retaining mobility. Military planning is all about %s, e.g. 80% are functional based on a table of equipment (TOE) > That’s one reasons why tanks, when not in action, get transported on trailers. While that may be a minor reason, the actual big reasons are the most current M1A2 SEP tanks at ~147,200 pounds destroy roads, convoy operations are a giant pain, tanks are an immense hazard to trucks and cars, and the fuel consumption is off the charts, making this not economical. > The text even says “significant numbers of failures were recorded during months with zero usage”, indicating that keeping a M1 parked isn’t easy, either. Zero usage doen't mean that preventitive maintenance checks & services cease. Given that even idling a 1500hp turbine for maintenance is a major undertaking that is a good amount of start/stop and usage of the entire system, even if getting no road time.