ad. 1: i realy can't reproduce it - forget.
ad. 2: look at this film
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaXKh0A04gw
ad. 3: look at this film
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B4yy5iKlb8

Additionaly, this is quiet funny behaviour:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxyMJ1b1I44

In my opinion, this is a global problem not only tanks in Arma 3. All military equipment has a low ability to overcome obstacles in Arma 3.
The main characteristic of military equipment - high permeability. It is necessary to change the game.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8zN0znisOw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny4VFzUBUUs

Hi Lex my russian comrade. What you both posted (the videos) show the one big difference between Games and RL : the destroyable nature. ArmA lacks the feature. The problem with the T-Walls is that you put the center of the tank on a wall so the tracks have no friction. The problem where you cant deive over the small wall comes like i said from the non destroyable nature . I must admit the 3 video is funny but still the problem is the destroyable house. Lexs videos (like always russian sources) are to the topic but doesnt help in anything.
Facts on the Mercava aka Slammer:
Space to ground 47cm
If i find more i will add.

TheMasterofBlubb, i can't agree that tracks have no friction. At least front part of them have. Besides i have strange impression that until i go forward on vertical part of T, trackss act like they have contact with groung and after stop they act like they have not. And additionally tank was, i don't know how to say it, "snapped" to problematic position.

You need weight to use the friction especially when not the full tracks touch the ground. Thats why i posted this 47cm when you put an obstacle underneath the tank with more than 47cm it will get stuck. A real tank would destroy the wall easily but its not possible in ArmA right now. A tanks weakest spot is his bottom because you easily can get stuck on it and without help you cant move away. What could be is that the fraction model is missing the front part of the tracks.

Hello fighters. Modern tanks have a weight of 40-60 tons. Their modern gas turbines or diesel engines can accelerate the tank to 70 km \ hour.
This weight and strength are no barriers. But to sit on my stomach this machine can.
That is supposed to work normally - how to cross the hurdle. This rule is every technology and limited ground clearance.
But in practice, there should be no problems with the obstacles that the tank will intersect perpendicular or at an angle. Both tracks of the tank must touch the ground or obstacles.
In the video, the top 10 tanks of different countries. There are interesting pictures, which show that the flotation tanks in Arma 3 is reduced by 60-70% . 60% of obstacles in the game should be easy to break under the weight of the machine. The remaining 10% - a landscape in which the tank is stuck crossing uneven ground. So my opinion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBqa6qErdeU

Lex pls use another translator you are hardly to understand. I have the feeling that you just repeated my statement that when a tank is sitting on his belly he cant move anymore and that many obstacles in ArmA are not destroyable like this small stone walls or shelters. So the tank is limited by the absence of simulation technology (what in my opinion would be to hard to change.

I see you forgot about such simple physic mechanism like tilting which should solve this situation.

TheMasterofBlubb your intention was to write "would be to hard" or "wouldn't be to hard"?
Because if like in original sentence i suppose you are joking.
The simplest way to implement it will be to replace obstacle which has a contact with a much heavier object with debris. Yes it wouldn't be elegant but it would work and effect would be much more playable than lack of such mechanism.
Other way is to segment obstacles (Bohemia prooved that they can do such "sofisticated" things).
Then my statement is such mechanism is at most moderate to introduce for proffesional team. Much more work is with segmentation of object (however it should be rather simple ant-work).

Professional team of what size? No it wasnt sarcastic what i meant is that it is to difficult to implement destroyable obstacles. As a programmer i can say better to wait for a good solution before using a workaround. Its just double work. I agree tilting would help much but we need to adress this to TankX and PhysX that are not the best solution in my opinion (but BI have their reasons). The segmentation could solve many problems BUT imagine what happens with the netcode bottlenecks if you double or tripple the amount of things to sync , just imagine. Some thing need to be sacrificed to make the game better. Thats no insult its just a quote of a friend. Sometimes its better to focus on other things like a really good netcode and than for example bring in segmentation or completly destroyable obstacles.

Well, this is strict academic discussion.
Engine of Arma3 is about litlle bit less than 15 years old and currently this is quiet funny there is no such things like obstacle destruction.
If you mention that Bohemia has a reason to not introduce small obstacle destroying, then as a programmer i can say that something is screwed up in the engine (if it is). I don't see any other reasonable cause.
You ask me about size of the team... well i don't know, depends how many seniors :). Often i really don't understand some decisions of BI: eg. they develop some not necessary islands instead of improovement and polishing physics (yea! money!).
Anyway tank movement is bugged and those are at least moderate bugs.
Regards.

Just google how many they are. Tank and normal physics are made by nvidia not BI alone. And yes the engine is 15 years old so you think its capable to use obstacle destruction?

In Arma3 there are a lot of subjects having the simplified destruction. Simply it develops on the earth. It not really looks good, but it is better than jamming of heavy cars in them.
Option - the heavy tank moving through obstacles.
http://www.hmonghot.com/YjFMa0lBOE5OMkUz