Papua New Guinea

sounds fishy to me. a pile of vehicles does not make a very good bridge. although military doctrine does tend towards "do what you have to do to get the job done, because your life may depend on it"

What vehicles?....
"The ones you are driving"?....
Fine, so why are you driving it?... I will presume its needed.....

Broken vehicles?... yes, that makes sense, but I was also under the impression that scrap vehicles stayed where they were?.....

I can see how maybe a trailer bed would make a good "bridge" over say a narrow ravine......
But again, just how many trailers do you cart around "just in case"?...

the catch-22 is, if you cannot get across the ravine, you have no use for the vehicles, either.

Could vehicles be rolled into a ravine to make a crossing in an impromptu and hurried fashion? Yes, providing the ravine is not to large and the vehicle is placed correctly and the structure of the vehicle is strong enough to allow other vehicles to pass over it and is likely to require more prep than simply "rolling the vehicle" into the ravine. (dirt and logs are probably also going to be required)

However, vehicles, when you have them are a precious item and it is highly unlikely for a useable vehicle to be thrown into a ravine (or multiple vehicles), simply because you're in a hurry.

The link below has a lot of photos from the Pacific and shows that US and ANZAC troops were quit good at making use of trees/logs and other materials to bridge ravines, rivers and marshy areas.

www.allworldwars.com/The-War-Against-Japan-Pictorial-Record.html

Now, in support of this "myth", it is possible that temporary bridges were constructed that incorporated the use of vehicles, ie. temporary pontoon bridges across shallow streams to speed up the crossing process of both men and equipment, or the more likely use of a few vehicles to help support a temporary bridge, constructed specifically to speed things along. Such as this example from the USMC on Guadalcanal.

www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-C-Guadalcanal.html
Photo courtesy of Col James A. Donovan, Jr.
---------------------------
When the 5th Marines entered the jungle from the beachhead, and had to cross the steep banks of the Ilu River, 1st Marine Division engineers hastily constructed a bridge supported by amphibian tractors. Though heavily used, the bridge held up.


"At 0641 on 7 August, Turner signalled his ships to "land the landing force." Just 28 minutes before, the heavy cruiser Quincy (CA-39) had begun shelling the landing beaches at Guadalcanal. The sun came up that fateful Friday at 0650, and the first landing craft carrying assault troops of the 5th Marines touched down at 0909 on Red Beach. To the men's surprise (and relief), no Japanese appeared to resist the landing. Hunt immediately moved his assault troops off the beach and into the surrounding jungle, waded the steep-banked Ilu River, and headed for the enemy airfield. The following 1st Marines were able to cross the Ilu on a bridge the engineers had hastily thrown up with an amphibian tractor bracing its middle. The silence was eerie and the absence of opposition was worrisome to me riflemen. The Japanese troops, most of whom were Korean laborers, had fled to the west, spooked by a week's B-17 bombardment, the pre-assault naval gunfire, and the sight of the ships offshore. The situation was not the same across Sealark. The Marines on Guadalcanal could hear faint rumbles of a firefight across the waters."

Thanks for the links and information once again FM.

Depends on how badly damaged the vehicle is. If there is reason to think that it can be repaired - or possibly even be taken apart for spare parts - then it will get moved. Even if the vehicle is a write off, chances are that you could still move it.

In this case is it also possible that the vehicles being moved were captured enemy vehicles.

Having taken a look at what would have been available, it seems that the some of the tracked landing vehicles in use by the USA in WW2 may have been suitable as the base for an infantry bridge. These had flat tops, over which you could probably place boards to create a bridge for infantry, possibly jeeps and maybe tanks (The Sherman only weighed 35 tons, and would have been narrow enough to navigate over such a bridge. The TLV were just over 3 metres wide, the Sherman just over two and a half metres wide.)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Vehicle_Tracked

Yep, a piece of equipment that breaks down is typically shoved off to the side, out of the way and any sensitive materials either removed or destroyed (if need be) and the mission continues.

Naturally not all situations call for destruction and the vehicles crew may simply be left with the vehicle to await recovery. Possibly with extra security, if needed or possible to spare the troops for security.

The amount of breakdowns or vehicles damaged by other means (enemy fire, IED, accident, etc.), may also result in the mission being scrubbed/aborted. (such as Operation Eagle Claw being aborted at Desert One)

Note: the decision to abort Operation Eagle Claw, at Desert One was made BEFORE the collision between the helo and the C-130.
The abort was authorized due to 2 of the 8 helos not reaching Desert One, 1 of the 6 that did make it, had a hydraulic failure and the spare parts were on one of the choppers that didn't make it.
6 helos were deemed the minimum required for mission success, prior to the mission, though it "could" be done with 4 if there were no more failures.
The MH-53 helos were known for problems with cold starts, and since the 5 useable helos would be grounded and hidden at the Desert Two location for nearly 24 hours, it was deemed by commanders on the ground to be too risky to continue and they asked the President for permission to abort, which was granted.
The collision and fire occurred after the abort and while preparing to refuel aircraft to fly out of Iran.

The M3 was the same width as the M4, so if the latter could physically fit on top of a TLV so could the former - in fact it would probably be more practical as the M3 was around half the weight as the Sherman.

The real advantage would not automatically be allowing tanks to pass, rather it would allow troops and supplies to be moved forward and casualties removed to the rear much more quickly and in greater numbers than you could manage with TLV's alone. In this case if you could use TLV's to create a bridge that was wide and strong enough for a Sherman, you'd have no problems moving trucks or Jeeps over it*.

(*From what I can tell all WW2 US military vehicles were about two and a half meters wide. As I noted the TLV's were some three meters wide, so while it might require careful driving there is no reason you couldn't use TLV's as the base of a bridge to allow other vehicles to pass over an obstacle.)

Former, you are a star - couldn't find any images or information about TLV's being used in this way.

*Edit*

Given that no one who has a TLV is going to let MB drive anything over it, what could MB use as a substitute? Any ideas?

Did the US Military use anything similar enough to the old TLV's that they might have mothballed and be willing to let MB use?