D-fenceUhh you might want to make a second opinion after you read this http://www.gamingforums.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=114384
Must admit that the picture you referred to with a tank stuck on a molehill is annoying and must be a bug. I was referring to the original post on this thread. Fortifications, bomb craters, steep hills etc... Those places were off limits to armour... But not in vanilla BF though! Read a book on a german tank commander who saw ww2 from a StuG III... The number of roadwheels and track his crew had to replace were staggering. So tanks getting immobilized were so common during the war.. So my point being that you can't make any serious attempt at simulating armoured warfare without that annoying factor... But many of the posts on this thread seem to suggest that armour should be able to go all over the place.
I think the issue is with consistency. If we were ACTUALLY simulating breakdown and/or immobilization it'd be one thing. But we're not, really. This is just a bug in the game, not a breakdown simulation. I actually don't think adding this would be a good idea, either, since we don't have destructible terrain and no way to make real tank traps and such. Plus, there'd be no consistency to the methods you'd use. Terrain could immobilize a tank, but a shot to the treads wouldn't? A molehill or pothole would freeze a tank, but landmines to the treads wouldn't?