Sounds like a hoodwink to me. The announcement is notable for what it doesn't talk about; i.e. it perhaps advertises that there will be no detail in the engineering game. No roadblocks, no clearance of obstacles, no bulldozers, etc. Nothing of importance at the tactical level.
As Kerry points out, bridge loads are strategic layer options. Military police are the guys that check load bearing weights; they direct traffic. Logisticians figure out which units can take which bridges and that stuff gets sorted out well before the firefights start. A Tiger tank with a snorkel needs hours, not minutes, to prepare to swim a river. (No matter, no swimming or boats or amphib vehicles of any kind.)
I notice there are no pontoon or Bailey bridges, which were common in Normandy, though perhaps not in combat zones unless a counter-attack put them there.
Steve says up front that bridges won't be rated to the ton. They will also not be variable, and that there will not be "surprises" - i.e. all light tanks either can or can't cross safely no matter if they are 5 ton light tanks or 10 ton light tanks. Will there be cumulative damage effects ala the Bridge at Remagen? Time will tell. It may be safe to assume they don't want to load down a minor feature with a lot of extraneous detail.
One hopes the detail they don't bother to put in there will be added in elsewhere, as Kerry suggests. Infantry formations, close-assaults on tanks, and infantry prisoners, anyone?
