Speed, payload? It's the Russian GAZ trucks against American 2.5 ton trucks. Then for the HEMMT...Soviets have a chassis, they use it for their wheeled MRL. Hmm...

Because mainly "amatuers" respond to Top Ten lists, and you need a "professional" to respond to a Top Ten on trucks?

Couple of things to throw into this mix. Capability Serviceability Running costs Commonality of parts with "commercial fleets" within the primary points of operation - eg no point in having a DAF if no one else in the country uses it. If its a "common" vehicle then it means that in emergency situations the military can surge with reduced risk, that parts can be source from commercial stocks if necessary service points in country (critical in nations such as australia where we have a land mass as big as the USA and a population the size of mumbai/bombay The condition of the roads and points of likely operation is also critical. Average build trucks don't survive in Australia, if they go inland the roads will test the suspension etc so its is critical that they survive hard conditions (it also then links in with the fact that if they break down in non urban areas, how quickly can parts be sourced to service them if it is time critical. Lots of other issues, but you get my point.

Thank you for your responses. My point is the diverse conditions make not only different tanks, but also different trucks. And tanks don't go very far or shoot very much without trucks. In fact Liddell Hart pointed out in his History of the Second World War, that what really got Hitler down in Russia was that Germany had failed to develop an adequate off-road lorry! It may be an oversimplification, but it is certainly a point considering the distances and condition of the roads in Russia.

Thomas, there is provbably truth in that. One of the lessons that the Russians obviously picked up was the US capacity to supply at will, over land, sea and air. Look at their model. Absolute numbers to try and saturate an air war, the dominance of submarines to choke off sea lanes and the use of armour as a cudgel. The interesting thing with land is how they cloned the studebaker 6's into probably one of the most successful 6x6 4x4 trucks in history. The russians certainly saw the advantages of an effective logistics model. The US has always been the model for provisioning... maybe its a legacy of their commercial strengths.

of being called an amateur by Shaka :-) Actually, I won't bother with a top ten list. But I will talk a little about tactical transportation. The old 2 1/2 ton M35 series is going out of the US military's inventories. For the most part, they have been replaced by either the venerable M923 series 5 ton trucks (entered US service in early 1980s and updated many times over) or by the 2.5 ton or 7 ton Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV). This are unit level trucks ( 1 or two in every kind of company for the supply sergeant / mess sergeant, etc. You also find some in towed 155mm artillery, and in transportation coorps light medium truck companies. In FA, Infantry & Armor units, the HEMMT cargo (10 tons) and HEMMT tanker (2500 gallons) is the main battalion level resupply vehicle. There are also some HEMMTs sprinkled throughout aviation, engineer, air defense, etc. units but the bulk are in the three mentioned. Logistics units, for the most part, use either the M923 series or FMTV series 5 ton/7 ton tractor and pull a series of trailers, usually 22 feet long or hauling 5,000 gallon fuel and water tankers. In corps and echelon above logistics units you will find commercial 10 ten tractors pulling 40 foot trailers. These are not cross country capable but work on the imnproved roads found in the rear areas. At the top end are the M1010 series Heavy Equipment Transporters. They can carry and M1 tank and its crew a long distance so you don't wear out the tracks in transport. They are found in US divisions, corps HET truck companies and some theater HET companies. Are these better than the European & Russian counterparts? I can't say. I do know that the US stuff works and works well.

Rommels personal vehicle was a British AEC Mammoth. The man obviously knew good quality trucks.. ;)

Actually: When I was a boy, I saw US Mack truck from WWI in everyday use by the company Oliemøllen in Århus Denmark. How is that for longviety????? The US Army brought them over for WW1 and didn't bother to bring them home afterwards.

Its funny, but did'nt the tanks in GW2 run low on gas because there weren't enough trucks'n'transport? Looks like every army can find space for amateurs occasionally... Lidell Hart was dead right. the russians may not have developed their operational theory after the war, but they were able to move deeper and faster than the germans through the US trucks and Jeeps. Hell, the convoys should have sent just canned food, trucks and jeeps, communications tech. The Tanks and aircraft were completly unsuited to Russian conditions and operations. (Russian soldiers called cans of spam 'Second fronts) Re truck maintence, thats also why the Toyota Landcruiser is so successful in Africa: Reliable, and plenty parts. How about ease of use and learning? Like WinsettZ said, many infantry drive logistics. Being able to tell a infantryman used to automatic cars to get in that truck, drive here safely without damaging the load, help unload and come back is a strategic asset. A well designed truck can make that possible, but a badly designed (poor visibility, non intuitive controls) machine places limits on the numbers capable of driving it in a hurry.

I will have to stick to US for the most part, but... Yes, as the 3rd ID and 1 MAR DIV got near Baghdad, they were low on fuel. But they were also days ahead of where anyone thought they would be in the war planning. And you are right, there were a shortage of fuelers in theater, but that turned out to be more a result of the combat units were able to move quicker than expected. And so there wasn't enough fuelers to keep up with the adjusted plan. And that was not for a want of trying. With everything pushing through a single port, the US logisticians had to prioritize. Not to seem like an apologist, but it was pretty amazing that the "gas passers" were able to do what they did. Truck reliability in the US forces has been pretty good. The FMTV had some problems at first but those have mostly been cleared up. All of the rest have been in US service for long enough to be very reliable. And all US vehicles have had automatic transmissions (less the M35 series 2.5 ton trucks) for 20 years. And the controls are very intuitive for your average GI. The heavy equipment haulers/line haulers are a little different, but you don't find those in units where there are "killers" anyway.