YaATW2KT: The Second Mexican-American War

[RN7]

Been looking thru information on NATO countries (1989 OOB info) as to possible sources of equipment for Mexico for either SPG or APC

Italy - has a lot of old M-44''s in storage and considered obsolete

Spain - six old M-44's that were in storage

Belgium - at least six old M-44's and 28+ M-108's as well as a lot (and by that I mean 400+) of old M75 APC's - meaning that the most likely APC they would be willing to possible sell would be M-75's or the BDX that were originally assigned to their gendarmarie which was pulled out of military functions due to multiple scandals in the 80's - (they had 80 vehicles and would not have needed to retain that many for civilian use)


By 1992 Italy, Spain and Belgium had completely replaced the M44, and Belgium had completely replaced the M75 APC. No M44's or M75's are listed as being held in reserve.


Double post! How did that happen?

[Olefin]

Both countries still would have had them in reserve in Version 1 of the timeline - i.e. where the Cold War continued - they only got rid of them out of their reserves because of the draw down that occurred post 1989 with the reduction in force treaty

That draw down by the way is what would have given the Mexicans the ability to buy the AMX-VCI that they used in real life

So again its timeline

V1 timeline - M44's to buy for sure from both countries as well as M75's from Belguim

V2.2 timeline which includes the drawdown that occurred after the reduction in force treaty of 1989 - no longer in reserves and scrapped or sold off

So if you want a V1 Mexican Army they have M44's and possibly M75's that they could have bought for sure if the decision to do so was early 90's

If you want a V2.2 Mexican Army then they have AMX-VCI and older M109's and M108's and BDX available

The information on M44's and M75's in storage comes from the NATO 1989 OOB sites FYI - that show what NATO had on hand prior to the reduction of force treaty including reserve war
stocks

FYI - RN7 or anyone else for that matter - do you know if the info on those NATO 1989 sites for OOB is correct?

[Olefin]

I think the question on the timelines is the real relevance for what Mexico might have

Given a V1 timeline you would see older equipment and something more like the original Red Star Lone Star/Challenge Magazine 27 OOB

Given a V2.2 timeline you have all kinds of equipment that countries like Belgium, Italy, Spain, France, etc.. would have had to get rid of to meet the force treaty reduction guidelines - and thus you possibly get some (not all) but at least some of what you see in the fan canon Mexican Sourcebook which is a product of V2.2 timing

So in the end could Mexico have M44's from Italy or AMX-VCI's and BDX from Belgium - the answer is yes and no - all depending on what timeline you base your campaign on

Which for me with what I am writing means that I may have to look at a possible Appendix at the back that would say something like this

"This module was written as a V1 module. If you are running a V2.2 timeline campaign make the following changes to the Mexican forces - where it says M44 substitute with XXXX, where it says M75 (or whatever) then substitute with AMX-VCI or whatever"

That could be done even with the Kenyan module I released - if you are running it as V2.2 then have M8 AGS for Kenya - if you prefer the V1 timeline and vehicles then substitute the LAV-75 in its place

[Olefin]

FYI the OOB info I had is on multiple sites - originally credited to Andy Johnson and then with updates - cant get to the link here at work (its on the list of "hey you dont need to get on this site for work purposes" sites) but can post it later

[RN7]

Both countries still would have had them in reserve in Version 1 of the timeline - i.e. where the Cold War continued - they only got rid of them out of their reserves because of the draw down that occurred post 1989 with the reduction in force treaty

That draw down by the way is what would have given the Mexicans the ability to buy the AMX-VCI that they used in real life

So again its timeline

V1 timeline - M44's to buy for sure from both countries as well as M75's from Belguim

V2.2 timeline which includes the drawdown that occurred after the reduction in force treaty of 1989 - no longer in reserves and scrapped or sold off

So if you want a V1 Mexican Army they have M44's and possibly M75's that they could have bought for sure if the decision to do so was early 90's

If you want a V2.2 Mexican Army then they have AMX-VCI and older M109's and M108's and BDX available

The information on M44's and M75's in storage comes from the NATO 1989 OOB sites FYI - that show what NATO had on hand prior to the reduction of force treaty including reserve war stocks

Olefin did we not have a similar discussion about the AMX-VCI on earlier posts on this thread, and where did that lead?

I don't know were the author of the 1989 NATO ORBAT got his data from, but it is from the 1980's and is a mix match of different sources. Mine comes from the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) yearbooks for 1990-1991 and 1991-1992, and IISS data is compiled from government sources declared to the Treaty of Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE). All NATO and former Warsaw Pact countries were signatories of the CFE. The period 1990 to 1992 also marks the end of the Cold War and a point in history when all NATO and former Warsaw Pact countries retained their armed forces at Cold War levels, just before the post-Cold War draw down began.

In 1990 the M44 and M75 were out of service in Belgian, Italian and Spanish service. None were declared as held in reserve or even in storage by Belgium, Italy or Spain to the CFE. The M44 was completely replaced by the M109 in the 1980's, and the only NATO countries which still retained the M44 howitzer in service at this period was Greece and Turkey. The M59 which dates from the early 1950's was retired from frontline Belgian service in the early 1980's.

[RN7]

FYI - RN7 or anyone else for that matter - do you know if the info on those NATO 1989 sites for OOB is correct?

It was correct in the 1980's but as I stated its a mix match of data from different years in the 1980's. There are more accurate sources for this period.

[Olefin]

I will look at your info as well RN7 - thank you for the information. As for the AMX-VCI yes we have had that discussion - I am not talking about hundreds of them - I am talking about the confirmed sales and numbers that were in the Mexican OOB in reality by 1996- which was about 40 AMX-VCI and 18 BDX as being more of a V2.2 timeline where there was a reduction in force to have those vehicles be available versus V1 where the Belgians would have held onto them for sure

and actually I am going to look at Jane’s NATO Handbook 1990-91 as well - been told that IISS is not a good indication of reserve stocks while the Jane's is - there are versions of the NATO 1989 that reference both IISS that you cited and thus I will see what the most up to date is

[Olefin]

From a previous thread here - http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=4622&highlight=North+Atlantic+Treaty+Organization

NATO ORDER OF BATTLE - 1989

Andy Johnson’s References:
1. Almanac of Airpower 1989
2. Jane's Defense Weekly's published in the late 1980's
3. Military Technology’s World Defense Almanac 1988, 1989 and 1990
4. NATO Armies Today, Osprey Publishing 1987
5. NATO in Europe 1989
6. The British Army in the 1980’s, Osprey Publishing 1987
7. US Army Active Troop List, June 1988 and June 1989
8. US Army Field Manual 1-111 Aviation Brigades August 1990
9. US Army Green Book 1988, 1989, and 1990
10. US Army, British Army, Canadian Army, and assorted unit internet home pages

Note 1: Only the Combat and Combat Support units are listed. The Combat Service Support such as maintenance, medical, and transport were excluded.

References Added For Revised Edition:
Armies of NATO’s Central Front, David Isby and Charles Kamps, 1985
Jane’s Armour & Artillery, 1986-87 and 1992-93
ORBATs available at ORBAT.com
“Combined Arms,” GDW, Frank Chadwick, 1987
World Armies Today, John Keegan, 2nd Edition, 1983 (good for general organizational information)
IISS Military Balance 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 (last is particularly useful, as it has initial CFE declarations)
USNI’s Combat Fleets of the World 1988/89 and 1990/91
Various Micro Mark army lists for some specialist units (for example, Gurkhas, Spanish Marines and Paras, Greek special forces, etc)
Jane’s NATO Handbook 1990-91 (OOB comes straight from IISS, but best source out there for holdings of older equipment)
John Baugher’s US Aircraft Encyclopedia was extremely useful for nations holding US aircraft.

Note 1: Belgium held significant quantities of older equipment in reserve or storage during the end of the 1980s, including 28 (or more) M108 105mm SP howitzers, 419 (IISS) or 554 (Jane’s) AMX-VCI tracked personnel carriers, 77 M-75 tracked APCs (may have still been in some engineering units), 25 M-41s, plus unknown numbers of unmodified M-47 gun tanks, M114 155mm towed howitzers, M59 155mm towed howitzers, M115 203mm towed howitzers, M44 155mm SP howitzers, and likely significant numbers of M101 105mm howitzers.

APC: 514 AIFV-B (including variants), 525 M113A1-B (including variants), 554 AMX-VCI (reserve? Phasing out), 43 BDX, 77 M-75

So that has the IISS versions you mentioned in the OOB - so it would support the M-75 still being in hand in 1989 but not necessarily the M-44's (as in unknown numbers)

[RN7]

From a previous thread here - http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=4622&highlight=North+Atlantic+Treaty+Organization

NATO ORDER OF BATTLE - 1989

Andy Johnson’s References:
1. Almanac of Airpower 1989
2. Jane's Defense Weekly's published in the late 1980's
3. Military Technology’s World Defense Almanac 1988, 1989 and 1990
4. NATO Armies Today, Osprey Publishing 1987
5. NATO in Europe 1989
6. The British Army in the 1980’s, Osprey Publishing 1987
7. US Army Active Troop List, June 1988 and June 1989
8. US Army Field Manual 1-111 Aviation Brigades August 1990
9. US Army Green Book 1988, 1989, and 1990
10. US Army, British Army, Canadian Army, and assorted unit internet home pages

Note 1: Only the Combat and Combat Support units are listed. The Combat Service Support such as maintenance, medical, and transport were excluded.

References Added For Revised Edition:
Armies of NATO’s Central Front, David Isby and Charles Kamps, 1985
Jane’s Armour & Artillery, 1986-87 and 1992-93
ORBATs available at ORBAT.com
“Combined Arms,” GDW, Frank Chadwick, 1987
World Armies Today, John Keegan, 2nd Edition, 1983 (good for general organizational information)
IISS Military Balance 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 (last is particularly useful, as it has initial CFE declarations)
USNI’s Combat Fleets of the World 1988/89 and 1990/91
Various Micro Mark army lists for some specialist units (for example, Gurkhas, Spanish Marines and Paras, Greek special forces, etc)
Jane’s NATO Handbook 1990-91 (OOB comes straight from IISS, but best source out there for holdings of older equipment)
John Baugher’s US Aircraft Encyclopedia was extremely useful for nations holding US aircraft.

Note 1: Belgium held significant quantities of older equipment in reserve or storage during the end of the 1980s, including 28 (or more) M108 105mm SP howitzers, 419 (IISS) or 554 (Jane’s) AMX-VCI tracked personnel carriers, 77 M-75 tracked APCs (may have still been in some engineering units), 25 M-41s, plus unknown numbers of unmodified M-47 gun tanks, M114 155mm towed howitzers, M59 155mm towed howitzers, M115 203mm towed howitzers, M44 155mm SP howitzers, and likely significant numbers of M101 105mm howitzers.

APC: 514 AIFV-B (including variants), 525 M113A1-B (including variants), 554 AMX-VCI (reserve? Phasing out), 43 BDX, 77 M-75

So that has the IISS versions you mentioned in the OOB - so it would support the M-75 still being in hand in 1989 but not necessarily the M-44's (as in unknown numbers)

Excluding IISS most of these references are from the 80's, and I think IISS is by far the most accurate. Olefin do you have the IISS Military Balance yearbooks for 1990-1991 and 1991-1992?

On page 59 1990-1991 yearbook it list the Belgian Army as having the following numbers....

Tanks
334x Leopard 1
Light Tanks
133x Scorpion
25x M41
Recce
133x Scimitar
IFV
514x AIFV-B
533x M113
266x Spartan
8x YPR-763
419x AMX-VCI
43x BDX
75x M75

For 1991-1992 which I consider more accurate as this is the year/s that Belgium and every other member of NATO and the former Warsaw Pact declared their real figures to CFE, on page 51 it list the Belgian Army has having the following numbers....

Tanks
334x Leopard 1
Light Tanks
133x Scorpion
25x M41
Recce
153x Scimitar
IFV
514x AIFV-B
525x M113
266x Spartan
510x AMX-VCI
43x BDX
75X M75

So yes it the M75 is still in service, I do apologise as I over looked it as I was in a hurry doing something else at the time. But with the M75 we have the same quandary as we had with the AMX-VCI and its an even older design.

Also Belgium has no M47 tanks, M114 155mm towed howitzers, M59 155mm towed howitzers, M115 203mm towed howitzers, M44 155mm SP howitzers, but it did still had 21x M101 105mm howitzers.

It also had 11x M110 SP 203mm howitzers, 41x M109A3 155mm SP howitzers, 127x M109A2 155mm SP howitzers, and 28x M108 105mm SP howitzers.

[dragoon500ly]

No Abrams in U.S. service has ever been lost due to an enemy penetration of its frontal armour.

Even in the First Gulf War when some Abrams had not been retrofitted with DU armour all tank losses were due to friendly fire or the deliberate destruction of disabled tanks to deny the Iraqi's from using the tanks as war trophies. There is one disputed tank loss that may have been destroyed by an Iraqi T-72, but it wasn't destroyed from the front and even in this case the damage assessment done by the DoD found the remains of a US air launched Hellfire missile nearby.

In the Second Gulf War there were many Abrams tanks damaged due to the invasion of Iraq and the nature of the urban warfare that was fought there, but the vast majority were not knocked out and many were simply abandoned due to being made immobile and later recovered. Nearly all tank losses were due to friendly fire incidents, the deliberate destruction of abandoned tanks by U.S. forces, or being rendered write offs due to heavy damage from powerful IED roadside mines. There are a few cases where it is has been claimed that Abrams were destroyed by Iraqi forces using ambush tactics and destroying them with multi anti-tank missiles and even anti-aircraft guns. But battle damage to the Abrams tanks was clearly found to be in the rear and top of the tank, and was not found in the frontal or barely even in the side armour of the Abrams. Certainly no Abrams were lost due to Iraqi tanks.

Regarding a more sophisticated enemy like the Russian Army, I will honestly say that I haven't researched what the Russians currently have in enough detail to claim that the Russian do not currently process anti-tank missiles or sabot shells that can penetrate the frontal or side armour of an Abram's. But I do know how powerful these missiles and sabot shells would have to be do be able to do that. Russian tank and infantry forces are far more capable than the Iraqi's were, but if they have munitions with the ability to penetrate the frontal armour of an Abrams I would say they are not widely distributed. Also for every Abrams the Russians could destroy the U.S. Abrams could probably destroy five or more of their tanks.

During the Desert Storm timeframe, the DU inserts for the Abrams could not be penetrated by 125mm fire across the frontal 60 degree arc. This was due to the Iraqi use of "home-made" APDS ammo, I have come across one mention that Republican Guard T72s inspected after the Battle of 73 Easting had made in Russia APFSDS ammo, I have never been able to pin this down, with any degree of satisfaction.

It was kown that T62s of the RG did use limited amounts of Russian made ammo, but there were no confirmed armor penetration by this ammo on any Abrams. As for the T54/55s, they used locally produced ammo and there was extensive observation of "highly questionable quality control"...I have seen some reports that indicated that the Iraqis didn't even use stainless steel in their shot and even some that indicated that they only loaded HEAT and HE-Frag ammunition.

[Olefin]

No problem there RN7 - fyi I love the difference in the figures - I can see finding extra crates of ammo but an extra 91 AMX-VCI? Thats a hell of an oops ("sorry we forgot about those two battalions we had back behind that barn over there")

"Also Belgium has no M47 tanks, M114 155mm towed howitzers, M59 155mm towed howitzers, M115 203mm towed howitzers, M44 155mm SP howitzers, but it did still had 21x M101 105mm howitzers."

Does the IISS book list artillery - because the OOB says they have at least some M115 203mm towed howitzers in service

13th Artillery Group (Corps Artillery Command)
72nd Artillery Battalion: 12 203mm M115 towed howitzers

But then I try to verify it and cant find anything to back that up

See thats one of the issues with the OOB's - i.e. I see the area you are referring to and as you said there are no M115's there - and yet earlier it says they have them

[Raellus]

You guys can see now how hard it can be to create accurate OOBs/TOEs, even in the internet age. Imagine how hard the original writers had it!

[Olefin]

latest version of the OOB I could find for NATO 1989 is version 8.6

APC: 514 AIFV-B (including variants), 525 M113A1-B (including variants), 554 AMX-VCI (reserve? Phasing out), 43 BDX, 77 M-75 (as many as 600 M-75 in inventory as late as 1988) - which shows that a lot of M-75's got disposed of very quickly at the end of the 80's

I would also think Italy would be the source of any M44's that Mexico would get

i.e.

In addition, Italy held some obsolete equipment in storage: 36 M55 SP203mm, 108 M44 SP155mm.

They could easily get 12 M44's right there

[Olefin]

You guys can see now how hard it can be to create accurate OOBs/TOEs, even in the internet age. Imagine how hard the original writers had it!

The question again is what do people want - a V1 version or a V2.2 - factoring in the reduction in force treaty in 1989 changes the whole equation

its like saying what do you prefer - Original Star Trek Timeline or the one from the movies - both have Kirk, McCoy and Spock but they are very different when you look at the timelines

same here - the Mexican Army of V1 is not the Mexican Army of V2.2 - close but there would be differences

FYI - was looking at possible tanks for the Mexican Army - i.e. more than just the X1A - and what do I see - but Brazil's fleet of modified M41's also with a 90mm gun by the same guys who did the X1A - now that could be a real possibility for a Mexican tank buy along with getting their Stuarts updated - basically the same gun by the same company - i.e. simplifies ammo logistics - especially since thats the same gun on the EE-9

[RN7]

Does the IISS book list artillery - because the OOB says they have at least some M115 203mm towed howitzers in service

13th Artillery Group (Corps Artillery Command)
72nd Artillery Battalion: 12 203mm M115 towed howitzers

But then I try to verify it and cant find anything to back that up

See thats one of the issues with the OOB's - i.e. I see the area you are referring to and as you said there are no M115's there - and yet earlier it says they have them

IISS lists all equipment in the army, air force and navy (also marines, coast guard and other para-military), and that's what makes it the best source for data that I have ever come across. Others sources also seem to reference it a lot. However it generally does not list the numbers of ATGM's or light mortars in an army unless they are on a vehicle.

The only towed artillery that Belgium has by 1990 are 105mm M101's, all others are SP howitzers.

[RN7]

I would also think Italy would be the source of any M44's that Mexico would get

i.e.

In addition, Italy held some obsolete equipment in storage: 36 M55 SP203mm, 108 M44 SP155mm.

They could easily get 12 M44's right there

Italy had no M44 or M55 SP howitzers by 1990, although they do have 23x 203mm M115 and 423x 155mm M114.

[Olefin]

Italy had no M44 or M55 SP howitzers by 1990, although they do have 23x 203mm M115 and 423x 155mm M114.

I am going to go with the M44 and M55's being in storage there as per the NATO OOB - its in every version of the OOB and considering how many they bought having them in storage makes sense at least for V1.

For V2.2 they would have been long gone considering how fast Italy reduced its forces after the reduction in force treaty - that point is very clear that Italy was one of the quickest states to reduce their militaries after that treaty was signed.

Interestingly Italy may also be a place for Mexico to get tanks as well - ie. M-47's - found an article from 1988 discussing the italian Army and at that time they still had 500 of them that were still operational. That would also be a good tank for another reason - i.e. they were very similar in appearance to M-48's and M-60's - at least enough to possibly make someone hesitate and not fire on what might be a friendly tank - and give them a chance to get in the first shot

Keep in mind that Mexico wasnt looking to go to war with the US pre-Twilight War - they would be looking to have tanks that could take on possible Central American foes - i.e. T-54/55 that the Nicaraguans had being the most likely foe - the M47 would be a good potential choice

I see the same with their choices of anti-tank missiles - the MILAN would be a great T-54/55 tank killer - they may get a few HOT but the MILAN would have been the better choice as to cost and availability for them as to pre-war - and by the time it got hot with the US it would have been too late to get much in the way of new missiles or equipment

[RN7]

I am going to go with the M44 and M55's being in storage there as per the NATO OOB - its in every version of the OOB and considering how many they bought having them in storage makes sense at least for V1.

For V2.2 they would have been long gone considering how fast Italy reduced its forces after the reduction in force treaty.

Interestingly Italy may also be a place for Mexico to get tanks as well - ie. M-47's - found an article from 1988 discussing the italian Army and at that time they still had 500 of them that were still operational. That would also be a good tank for another reason - i.e. they were very similar in appearance to M-48's and M-60's - at least enough to possibly make someone hesitate and not fire on what might be a friendly tank - and give them a chance to get in the first shot


The problem I have is that these orbats date from the mid-1980's and are a mixture of estimates from different years in the 1980's. The M44 and M55 were built in the early to mid-1950's and were nearly 40 years old by 1990. The guns on the M44 and M55 may have been operational but the chassis and engines must have been clapped out, and getting replacement parts must have been near impossible. Was the U.S. still even making parts for the M44 and M55 at this time?

By 1990 Italy had completely replaced the M44 and M55 with the M110A2 and M109G/L SP howitzers, and they were already using MLRS. By 1990 the M55 was no longer even being used by any NATO country, and only Greece and Turkey used the M44. Greece had 49x M44 and Turkey had 150x M44. The Greeks and Turks got their M44's second hand from the U.S. and Germany in the late 1960's and 1970's. If Italy still held stocks of M44's it would be more likely that they would be going to fellow NATO members Greece and Turkey as complete units or spares.

There were 639 M47's declared to CFE as being held in storage in Italy in 1992. They were ex-Italian tanks that reverted to U.S. ownership and were to be used as reserve pool for NATO forces in southern Europe. Greece and Turkey still used the M47 tank at this time.

[Olefin]

The M44's for turkey we're in the process of being upgraded about that time. So actually there would be parts available for them more so than you would think given the age of the vehicles. Keep in mind that they are still operating them today and that they are only finally getting to the point where they're going to pull them out of service. That tells you that either there were lots of spares out there or that they found somebody to make more spares. As for the M 47 tank that's one thing I could definitely see the US approving the sale of some of them to Mexico. Especially if Mexico make the argument that they needed a battalion or so at most just in case the Nicaraguans sent those T 54s north. Again it's not an overwhelming number and it something you could see them making an argument for in reality.

By the way as someone who used to work for BAE it always amazes me how old some of the vehicles we had that we were still using. Especially the M88's and M109's. You would think a vehicle that was that old wouldn't be worth it to keep going but the army thought differently.

[RN7]

The M44's for turkey we're in the process of being upgraded about that time. So actually there would be parts available for them more so than you would think given the age of the vehicles. Keep in mind that they are still operating them today and that they are only finally getting to the point where they're going to pull them out of service. That tells you that either there were lots of spares out there or that they found somebody to make more spares. As for the M 47 tank that's one thing I could definitely see the US approving the sale of some of them to Mexico. Especially if Mexico make the argument that they needed a battalion or so at most just in case the Nicaraguans sent those T 54s north. Again it's not an overwhelming number and it something you could see them making an argument for in reality.

By the way as someone who used to work for BAE it always amazes me how old some of the vehicles we had that we were still using. Especially the M88's and M109's. You would think a vehicle that was that old wouldn't be worth it to keep going but the army thought differently.

The M44 and M52 were extensively upgraded by the Germans. This was done by upgrading the gun barrels (completely new 155mm barrels for the M52 from the M109) and by fitting new engines, drive trains and interior equipment. But it wasn't done for free!

From what we know about Mexico they weren't exactly big spenders, and the Mexicans would be getting the basic 1950's M44 from Italy and that's if Italy has any left. If the Greeks and Turks didn't want them for spares then Mexico would be getting what's left from Italian scrapyards.

I don't see any reason why the U.S. would approve the transfer of M47 tanks from NATO reserves in Europe to Mexico. The Warsaw Pact had a massive tank superiority over NATO in Europe.

[Olefin]

Oh I am not talking about a lot of M47's - I think if Mexico does buy tanks it will be at most a battalion or so - and they may not even do that - the more I read about the X1A the more I can see them sending those 45 M3/M5 they have to be turned into those - and possibly buy more from Brazil.

Definitely turns a WWII dinosaur into a much more effective tank

[RN7]

Oh I am not talking about a lot of M47's - I think if Mexico does buy tanks it will be at most a battalion or so - and they may not even do that - the more I read about the X1A the more I can see them sending those 45 M3/M5 they have to be turned into those - and possibly buy more from Brazil.

Definitely turns a WWII dinosaur into a much more effective tank

The U.S. and NATO planned to upgrade the M47's stored in Italy during the later Cold War, but then the Cold War ended and they weren't needed. But given how much NATO was out numbered by the Warsaw Pact in Europe in the Cold War there is no way that the U.S. is going to send a battalion or more of tanks to Mexico.

Considering how little money Mexico had to spend on defence during and after the Cold War how would it afford all of the equipment you are proposing?

[Olefin]

Lets look at the equipment

they had the money to buy several hundred AMX-VCI APC's and BDX APC's and then rework them and rearm them in real life in the early to mid 90's - thus this gives us a base for what they had to spend

So what are we looking at - 36 SPG's per the canon - all of them older models and ones that countries would be looking to get rid of

rebuild 45 light tanks into better tanks - or even buy ones that the Brazilians were retiring - not that expensive a cost

adding about 180 APC's of some sort and maybe not that many if you count the home build ones they had to get to the canon numbers - thats where the real spend would be and also buying MILAN or HOT missiles

thus could they have the money - the answer is yes - if they had the money for the AMX/BDX buy in real life they most likely had the money for the kind of buy I am proposing

What they didnt have was the money for the Mexican Sourcebook buy of literally over a thousand tanks - that they didnt have the money for unless you postulate a huge increase in oil prices

[RN7]

Lets look at the equipment

they had the money to buy several hundred AMX-VCI APC's and BDX APC's and then rework them and rearm them in real life in the early to mid 90's - thus this gives us a base for what they had to spend

So what are we looking at - 36 SPG's per the canon - all of them older models and ones that countries would be looking to get rid of

rebuild 45 light tanks into better tanks - or even buy ones that the Brazilians were retiring - not that expensive a cost

adding about 180 APC's of some sort and maybe not that many if you count the home build ones they had to get to the canon numbers - thats where the real spend would be and also buying MILAN or HOT missiles

thus could they have the money - the answer is yes - if they had the money for the AMX/BDX buy in real life they most likely had the money for the kind of buy I am proposing

What they didnt have was the money for the Mexican Sourcebook buy of literally over a thousand tanks - that they didnt have the money for unless you postulate a huge increase in oil prices

All of that would point to a major change in the direction of Mexican defence policy that never occurred during or after the Cold War.

Did the AMX-VCI/BDX buy occur during the Cold war, and with all the surplus defence equipment floating about after the end of the Cold War why did Mexico choose these old vehicles when it could have its choice of anything it wanted?

How many actual military vehicles are recorder as transferred from Belgium to Mexico? How long did the Mexicans take to covert all of them to DCN-1? Would upgrading and converting 40 year old SP howitzers without any parts being made be an easy thing? And then on top of that Mexico finds the money and expertise to buy and convert light tanks from Brazil, and then buy a whole load of anti-tank missiles from France?

That's a lot of effort for very little gain. If Mexico has money why not just buy some new or used material in good condition from France.

[Olefin]

The light tanks from Brazil would have been already converted if they bought ones from Brazil. They did that back in the 1970-80's. The X1A and it's variants were already done by Brazil and they are the ones who would have the expertise to be able to convert the Mexican tanks. And the company in Brazil was looking for more customers for conversions of their tanks. And that was done during the Cold War.

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/Brazil/Bernardini-X1A.php

Bernardini S/A Industria e Comercio (Bernardini Industrial and Commerce Company) of Sao Paulo was funded 1912. It was already a well-established vehicle manufacturer when it first earned a contract for the modernization of the M41 Walker Bulldog in service to the M41B and M41C standard

Variants
X1A (1975) – Based on the M3A1 Light Tank with a new diesel Saab-Scania 280 hp engine, improved suspension, improved armor, new fire control system, DEFA 90 mm (3.54 in) cannon, new turret. 80 converted. The first 80 vehicles were modernized from 1975 to 1978. They were given to Cavalry Regiments under the designation X1. Also known as the CC MB1 (Combat Car, Brazilian Model nr. 1) or X1A, it remained in service until the 1990’s.

X1A1 Carcara (1977) – Prototype with an improved chassis and six bogies, which never made it into production.

X1A2 (1979) – Final version based on the previous X1A1, and completely overhauled. Weighing 19 tons, it was armed with a new 90 mm (3.54 in) cannon and new 300 hp diesel engine. 30 rebuilt in 1982-83. Those 30 are actually in reserve still for the Brazilian Army to date.


As for the AMX- VCI/BDX they were bought in real life after the end of the Cold War and the numbers are public record - 400+ . So if in real life they had the money in the early 90's to make that buy then it's a good bet they had that money in the canon as well. If so that could be where the money comes from for the SPG's and APC's in the canon. And the numbers they would have needed easily are within that budget they had in real life. Keep in mind that Mexico had already bought 200+ armored cars and APCs and 80 MILAN missiles in the mid-1980s. Thus a second buy of similar size is definitely possible.

However a 1000 plus buy of tanks and APC's of the Mexican Sourcebook would be way beyond that level of budget

That would require something that gives them a lot of money - say oil going nuts and suddenly its a 100 dollars a barrel or something similar that leaves Mexico flush with cash

[Olefin]

Its too bad we dont know how much the sales actually were in a monetary sense to Mexico - i.e. how much Mexico paid for the vehicles, missiles, etc.. they bought - given that you could extrapolate as to what they could buy new versus second hand - or even use that to say ok thats either 100 AMX-VCI secondhand or 40 new VCR-TT or whatever

[kato13]

That would require something that gives them a lot of money - say oil going nuts and suddenly its a 100 dollars a barrel or something similar that leaves Mexico flush with cash

My timeline has that 100%. Middle East oil is disrupted and Russia Mexico and Venezuela reap the benefits.

[The Dark]

Looking at Belgium (based on Mexico's acquisition of Belgian APCs), what about the old Kanonenjagdpanzer 90s that Belgium got from Germany? In our timeline, they left service in the late 80s (I think), but in either the V1 or V2 timelines, they may have been sold to Mexico instead, since they're obsolete (it uses the M47's main gun), but better than what Mexico had.

[Olefin]

All of that would point to a major change in the direction of Mexican defence policy that never occurred during or after the Cold War.

Did the AMX-VCI/BDX buy occur during the Cold war, and with all the surplus defence equipment floating about after the end of the Cold War why did Mexico choose these old vehicles when it could have its choice of anything it wanted?

How many actual military vehicles are recorder as transferred from Belgium to Mexico? How long did the Mexicans take to covert all of them to DCN-1? Would upgrading and converting 40 year old SP howitzers without any parts being made be an easy thing? And then on top of that Mexico finds the money and expertise to buy and convert light tanks from Brazil, and then buy a whole load of anti-tank missiles from France?

That's a lot of effort for very little gain. If Mexico has money why not just buy some new or used material in good condition from France.

Well here is some info

http://www.un-register.org/HeavyWeapons/CountrySummaryReports.aspx?CoI=128

1994 - 95 BDX 168 AMX from Belgium to Mexico
1995 - 97 AMX 13 from Belgium to Mexico
1996 - 136 AMX 13 from Belgium to Mexico

Now those would be the AMX-VCI's - 401 total over three years

You also have the 28 LAV-150's the US sold Mexico in 1994

[RN7]

Well here is some info

http://www.un-register.org/HeavyWeapons/CountrySummaryReports.aspx?CoI=128

1994 - 95 BDX 168 AMX from Belgium to Mexico
1995 - 97 AMX 13 from Belgium to Mexico
1996 - 136 AMX 13 from Belgium to Mexico

Now those would be the AMX-VCI's - 401 total over three years

You also have the 28 LAV-150's the US sold Mexico in 1994


This site states in the national reports from Mexico that...

In 1994 Mexico received 70 BDX from Belgium, 268 AMX-13 (I presume VCI) from France, and 1 Fox from Britain.
In 1995 Mexico received 136 AMX-13 from Belgium.
In 1996 Mexico received 5 AMX-13 (Heavy) from Belgium

Then in the Mexico references to other countries reports it states...

In 1994 Mexico received 95 BDX and 168 AMX-13 from Belgium, and 28 ACV (unknown type) from the USA
In 1995 Mexico received 97 AMX-13 from Belgium
In 1996 Mexico received 136 AMX-13 from Belgium

The figures from both column don't add up, and they are contrary to the accurate SIPRA Arms Transfers Database at https://www.sipri.org/databases/armstransfers

[RN7]

The light tanks from Brazil would have been already converted if they bought ones from Brazil. They did that back in the 1970-80's. The X1A and it's variants were already done by Brazil and they are the ones who would have the expertise to be able to convert the Mexican tanks. And the company in Brazil was looking for more customers for conversions of their tanks. And that was done during the Cold War.

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/Brazil/Bernardini-X1A.php

Bernardini S/A Industria e Comercio (Bernardini Industrial and Commerce Company) of Sao Paulo was funded 1912. It was already a well-established vehicle manufacturer when it first earned a contract for the modernization of the M41 Walker Bulldog in service to the M41B and M41C standard

Variants
X1A (1975) – Based on the M3A1 Light Tank with a new diesel Saab-Scania 280 hp engine, improved suspension, improved armor, new fire control system, DEFA 90 mm (3.54 in) cannon, new turret. 80 converted. The first 80 vehicles were modernized from 1975 to 1978. They were given to Cavalry Regiments under the designation X1. Also known as the CC MB1 (Combat Car, Brazilian Model nr. 1) or X1A, it remained in service until the 1990’s.

X1A1 Carcara (1977) – Prototype with an improved chassis and six bogies, which never made it into production.

X1A2 (1979) – Final version based on the previous X1A1, and completely overhauled. Weighing 19 tons, it was armed with a new 90 mm (3.54 in) cannon and new 300 hp diesel engine. 30 rebuilt in 1982-83. Those 30 are actually in reserve still for the Brazilian Army to date.


As for the AMX- VCI/BDX they were bought in real life after the end of the Cold War and the numbers are public record - 400+ . So if in real life they had the money in the early 90's to make that buy then it's a good bet they had that money in the canon as well. If so that could be where the money comes from for the SPG's and APC's in the canon. And the numbers they would have needed easily are within that budget they had in real life. Keep in mind that Mexico had already bought 200+ armored cars and APCs and 80 MILAN missiles in the mid-1980s. Thus a second buy of similar size is definitely possible.

However a 1000 plus buy of tanks and APC's of the Mexican Sourcebook would be way beyond that level of budget

That would require something that gives them a lot of money - say oil going nuts and suddenly its a 100 dollars a barrel or something similar that leaves Mexico flush with cash


Well Olefin you may not agree with Mexico having a 1,000 plus buy of tanks and APC's in the Mexican Sourcebook, and to be honest I don't agree with the numbers either. But its definitely on the right path to giving the Mexicans a fighting chance against U.S. forces in the southwest.

Also the numbers you have been proposing on other posts are not that far off the Mexican Sourcebook, although the type of equipment is obviously different. But to be honest with you it would be a lot easier for Mexico to buy a battalion or two of tanks and other used or new equipment from France than going to the trouble of acquiring inferior equipment from other sources and then converting it to a standard that will still be lower than what they could get from France. After all as you have said Mexico is flush with oil money!

What Mexico needs is a tank killer, either tanks or anti-tank missiles, to take on American tanks. No matter what they could conceivably get they are not going to be able to handle an M1A1 outside of bushwacking them from the rear, but it is possible that there are not that many M1A1s in the southwest. On the other hand a modern tank or more powerful anti-tank missiles could take on M60's and baseline M1's with some success.

[Olefin]

The question again is more what does Mexico have for money for getting equipment - and an oil bonanza isnt in the canon (but just because its not mentioned doesnt mean it didnt happen)

In reality they got close to 500 old Belgian APC's that they bought second hand for bargain prices because the Belgians had to get rid of them per the treaty.

In V1 the Cold War is still going strong and they wont get that deal - but in V2.2 they would have most likely (again the treaty that forced vehicle reductions in Europe in V2.2 versus no treaty in V1)

But its a big step from there to the Mexican Sourcebook - and I think a step too far - just too many tanks and APC's and self propelled guns and ..... - i.e. its too big a build up to be believable that the depleted US forces could have stopped them

i.e. 1400 tanks versus a few light foot infantry divisions, one tank division and one under strength mech division with limited ammo and no air support would have been a massacre - i.e. you would have seen the Mexican flag waving over St Louis by the time they were done

when you read the canon per Frank Chadwick you see all he has is the Mexican's using two mechanized infantry brigades and three cavalry regiments that were battalion sized to do most of the heavy lifting vs a vs armored thrusts in the invasion - that right there shows just how small US forces must have been as to armor equipment that a force that size, supported by infantry brigades that dont have much in the way of armor, succeeded as they did

that and the complete lack of any mention of Mexican tanks in Red Star Lone Star I would think shows that any large tank buildup is very unlikely - but a smaller one that got ground up in the attack and thus by 2001 all thats left of them is rusting knocked out junk dotting the plains of Texas and valleys and deserts of CA with maybe a couple of survivors here and there - that makes a lot of sense considering the size of the opposition they faced (and the fact that Soviet Division Cuba seems to have done a lot of the heavy lifting stopping the 49th cold in Texas)

and there is a very real possible tank killer - i.e. the VCR-TH that had the HOT missiles - that they could have had to supplement the VBL's with MILAN's that they had from the 80's - after all they already had 48 VCR variants in their army

[kato13]

and an oil bonanza isnt in the canon (but just because its not mentioned doesnt mean it didnt happen)

(v1 focus below)
Simply put the timeline CANNOT follow the real world. Primary reason, the USSR survives and is strong enough to take on China while NATO is still a huge threat. Many things must have changed for the world to get what we got.

The V1 timeline was written in 1983 or 84 so one would think that nothing after that point is set in stone. Personally I start my variation in 1974 as the Oil Embargo continues longer leading to Mexico, Venezuela and Russia forming their own Oil pact. Venezuela, Nigeria and Indonesia suspend their membership to Opec at various times to take advantage of higher oil prices due to increased tension in the Middle East. Russia finds HUGE reserves near the Chinese border in 74 (embargo increases exploration) and after they can get it online they work hard to keep the Middle East pot stirring.

For me this validates the USSR surviving and the desire to take more lands from China.

I don't expect everyone to embrace this, but when explaining the game to people the first question they ask is how the USSR survived. This modification at least seems plausible.

[RN7]

An explanation to why there is no list of French tanks in Mexican service in Texas in the Red Star-Lone Star SB maybe because there are now none operational in the region because they bore the brunt of the initial invasion and took heavy losses. What was left of them could have been withdrawn back into Mexico.

The AMX-30 is not a good tank from the perspective of its armour protection. It is inferior to an M60 yet alone an Abram's, and its protection is inferior to most Soviet tanks. The French Army were glad to replace it with the vastly superior Leclerc. However its good by Mexican standards and it would have given them at least a chance. Most Mexican vehicles are vulnerable to heavy machine guns fire yet alone tanks and anti-tank weapons.

Off hand I don't know the composition of a Mexican armoured cavalry battalion/regiment. What 36-48 vehicles? Two battalions of AMX-30's would be less than a 100 tanks. A moderate force before the invasion that would likely have seen the brunt of combat against U.S. forces, and through losses, attrition and lack of spares would likely only be a fraction of its pre-invasion strength. The Mexicans probably withdrew the surviving 10-20 tanks back into Mexico as a reserve, in case American reinforcements from east of the Mississippi or the Pacific North West led to a major American counter-offensive that pushed through Texas and into Mexico itself.

HOT-1 missiles would also give the Mexican some teeth against older American tanks.

[RN7]

(v1 focus below)
Simply put the timeline CANNOT follow the real world. Primary reason, the USSR survives and is strong enough to take on China while NATO is still a huge threat. Many things must have changed for the world to get what we got.

The V1 timeline was written in 1983 or 84 so one would think that nothing after that point is set in stone. Personally I start my variation in 1974 as the Oil Embargo continues longer leading to Mexico, Venezuela and Russia forming their own Oil pact. Venezuela, Nigeria and Indonesia suspend their membership to Opec at various times to take advantage of higher oil prices due to increased tension in the Middle East. Russia finds HUGE reserves near the Chinese border in 74 (embargo increases exploration) and after they can get it online they work hard to keep the Middle East pot stirring.

For me this validates the USSR surviving and the desire to take more lands from China.

I don't expect everyone to embrace this, but when explaining the game to people the first question they ask is how the USSR survived. This modification at least seems plausible.

Oil and arms were the Soviets main exports, in fact they are still Russia's main exports today.

[Olefin]

An explanation to why there is no list of French tanks in Mexican service in Texas in the Red Star-Lone Star SB maybe because there are now none operational in the region because they bore the brunt of the initial invasion and took heavy losses. What was left of them could have been withdrawn back into Mexico.

The AMX-30 is not a good tank from the perspective of its armour protection. It is inferior to an M60 yet alone an Abram's, and its protection is inferior to most Soviet tanks. The French Army were glad to replace it with the vastly superior Leclerc. However its good by Mexican standards and it would have given them at least a chance. Most Mexican vehicles are vulnerable to heavy machine guns fire yet alone tanks and anti-tank weapons.

Off hand I don't know the composition of a Mexican armoured cavalry battalion/regiment. What 36-48 vehicles? Two battalions of AMX-30's would be less than a 100 tanks. A moderate force before the invasion that would likely have seen the brunt of combat against U.S. forces, and through losses, attrition and lack of spares would likely only be a fraction of its pre-invasion strength. The Mexicans probably withdrew the surviving 10-20 tanks back into Mexico as a reserve, in case American reinforcements from east of the Mississippi or the Pacific North West led to a major American counter-offensive that pushed through Texas and into Mexico itself.

HOT-1 missiles would also give the Mexican some teeth against older American tanks.

Per Frank Chadwick who helped write Red Star Lone Star this is the canon strength


Mechanized Infantry Brigades - 2

Each with two mech inf regiments with 40 VAB APC, one armored recon regiment (which was the size of a battalion) with 17 ERC-90 and 34 VAB APC and one SPG battalion of 6 M109 and 12 M108's

Thus the total he had for SPG's was 12 M109 and 24 M108 for the whole Mexican Army (i.e. betting he didnt know they had the 5 M8 Scott's)

There were also:

Armored Cav Regiments (sized as a battalion) - 3

Each with 17 ERC-90 and 34 VAB APC

Regional Brigades - i.e. Inf Brigades - 36 regional brigades

Each averaging one motorized cav regiment (really a battalion - see below), two infantry regiments and one battery of artillery

thus an armored cav regiment had a total of 51 vehicles, 17 ERC-90 and 34 VAB APC (defined as a squadron of of seventeen vehicles of ERC-90 and two squadrons of VAB APC)

so a little bigger but pretty close there RN7! Good estimate!

[Olefin]

Oil and arms were the Soviets main exports, in fact they are still Russia's main exports today.

and they also were exporting Russians as well especially what they called undesirables in the Soviet era

[Olefin]

FYI oil prices per barrel in real life

https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp


year price price adjust for inflation
1990 $23.19 $43.32
1991 $20.20 $36.31
1992 $19.25 $33.58
1993 $16.75 $28.39
1994 $15.66 $25.86
1995 $16.75 $26.91
1996 $20.46 $31.91
1997 $18.64 $28.43
1998 $11.91 $17.89
1999 $16.56 $24.28

[Raellus]

(v1 focus below)
Simply put the timeline CANNOT follow the real world. Primary reason, the USSR survives and is strong enough to take on China while NATO is still a huge threat. Many things must have changed for the world to get what we got.

The V1 timeline was written in 1983 or 84 so one would think that nothing after that point is set in stone. Personally I start my variation in 1974 as the Oil Embargo continues longer leading to Mexico, Venezuela and Russia forming their own Oil pact. Venezuela, Nigeria and Indonesia suspend their membership to Opec at various times to take advantage of higher oil prices due to increased tension in the Middle East. Russia finds HUGE reserves near the Chinese border in 74 (embargo increases exploration) and after they can get it online they work hard to keep the Middle East pot stirring.

For me this validates the USSR surviving and the desire to take more lands from China.

I don't expect everyone to embrace this, but when explaining the game to people the first question they ask is how the USSR survived. This modification at least seems plausible.

I like it, Kato.

[RN7]

FYI oil prices per barrel in real life

https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp


year price price adjust for inflation
1990 $23.19 $43.32
1991 $20.20 $36.31
1992 $19.25 $33.58
1993 $16.75 $28.39
1994 $15.66 $25.86
1995 $16.75 $26.91
1996 $20.46 $31.91
1997 $18.64 $28.43
1998 $11.91 $17.89
1999 $16.56 $24.28


In the T2K timeline I'd say the price of a barrel of oil would climb to an all time high from October 1996 onwards.

[Olefin]

FYI one idea for where Mexico got the money to buy new equipment - the US

We give Mexico a lot of military assistance and aid - and I can see a Mexican official going to the US and saying "we need military assistance to be able to build up our army to resist the threat from the Nicaraguans and their Soviet allies" and the US saying "sure that sounds like a great idea"

and then a few years later really not thinking so when the equipment said aid bought starts pouring across the Rio Grande

[Olefin]

In the T2K timeline I'd say the price of a barrel of oil would climb to an all time high from October 1996 onwards.

I would say earlier - starting with the Soviet China War, peaking and then going down, then peaking again in October of 1996 and going from there - and could be another source for late buys for Mexico from places like Brazil or Argentina - i.e. where they thought there was no way any fighting could come near them

[Raellus]

Olefin, I believe that I may have seized upon an explanation for Howling Wilderness' seemingly nonsensical demobilization figures AND figured out a way for the U.S.A. to push Mexican forces off of American territory without those troops. AFAIK, the figures in HW refer solely to the U.S. troops returning home from Europe.

What about the 15,400 U.S. troops listed by the v1.0 U.S. Army Vehicle Guide as being in Korea in the summer of 2000. What if they were evacuated in late 2000/early 2001, and made back it to the west coast? 15,000 combat veterans could do a lot to eject the Mexican forces that remain on U.S. soil in early 2001. This could explain why most of the Omega evacuees are demobilized without breaking canon.

If you use this idea, I expect a credit. ;)

Give it some thought.

[Olefin]

FYI starting to lean more towards the French Mk F3 155mm SPG (possibly with AMX-VCA support vehicles) as what the Mexicans would have had. Its an older gun that was still in service for sure both with the French and other countries, gives them a 155mm gun but is much more low cost and thus something Mexico could afford a lot easier. And considering Mexico's road and rail network its a light lighter than any other 155mm SPG they might be looking at.

[Olefin]

FYI the link I posted on the Netherlands OOB about Dutch surplus weapons sales has some very interesting info for a V2.2. Mexican Army as far as where they might have got weapons

if you look it not only has weapons they had to dispose of but how many, where they were sold in the real world timeline and most importantly what they cost - i.e what the sale price would have been

https://www.bicc.de/uploads/tx_bicctools/paper5.pdf

you hardly ever see info like that

i.e. 1995 cost for a Leopard I tank - 100,000 dollars, M113A1 30,000-75,000 and some going as low as 25,000, M110A2 for 300,000, 81mm mortar for a 1000 bucks, M-1 carbines for a 100 bucks, etc..

want to buy a company of Leopard I tanks and an ARV - that will be 2 million bucks

need 10,000 Uzis to equip some new reserve infantry regiments - that will be another 2 million bucks

meaning you could actually possibly price out what it might take for the Mexican Army to buy a bunch of stuff for V2.2. for the increase in their army that occurred courtesy of the Netherlands Army

[mpipes]

Here is my take on Mexico's military buildup.

[The Dark]

Here is my take on Mexico's military buildup.

The first question that comes to my mind is where did the surplus AMX-30S come from, since only 190 were made and all were delivered to Saudi Arabia (and, to the best of my knowledge, all of them are still there).

One possibility for a Mexican armored force would be buying Chinese Type 59 or Type 69 tanks, both of which were for sale in the 1980s in our timeline. The Type 59-II with 105mm L7 cannon would allow for fair commonality with Western vehicles for ammunition and spares would be available from Cuba, and they were relatively inexpensive. The AMX-40E4 (the 1985 prototype) was expected to cost around $2.5 million in series production (and those estimates always seem to wind up on the low side), which was a few thousand more than modernized AMX-30 tanks. In the 70s and 80s, T-55 series tanks cost less than 1/10th of that price. Even if there was a ridiculous mark-up for the Type 59-II, it should still be possible to buy 4 or 5 of them for each AMX that could be bought. The big question would be whether it would be politically possible; I personally think it would, since they'd be seen by the US as semi-obsolete and relatively easy to defeat, but they'd give Mexico an inexpensive armored force with decent firepower.

[RN7]

The first question that comes to my mind is where did the surplus AMX-30S come from, since only 190 were made and all were delivered to Saudi Arabia (and, to the best of my knowledge, all of them are still there).

The French were still building the AMX-30 (variants of it) as late as 1994, and the Twilight 2000 timeline is different and its possible the French could have built more.

[RN7]

FYI the link I posted on the Netherlands OOB about Dutch surplus weapons sales has some very interesting info for a V2.2. Mexican Army as far as where they might have got weapons

if you look it not only has weapons they had to dispose of but how many, where they were sold in the real world timeline and most importantly what they cost - i.e what the sale price would have been

https://www.bicc.de/uploads/tx_bicctools/paper5.pdf

you hardly ever see info like that

i.e. 1995 cost for a Leopard I tank - 100,000 dollars, M113A1 30,000-75,000 and some going as low as 25,000, M110A2 for 300,000, 81mm mortar for a 1000 bucks, M-1 carbines for a 100 bucks, etc..

want to buy a company of Leopard I tanks and an ARV - that will be 2 million bucks

need 10,000 Uzis to equip some new reserve infantry regiments - that will be another 2 million bucks

meaning you could actually possibly price out what it might take for the Mexican Army to buy a bunch of stuff for V2.2. for the increase in their army that occurred courtesy of the Netherlands Army


There is a lot of stuff the Mexicans could buy at bargain prices, but as regards to tanks and anti-tank missiles other NATO countries might not be willing to sell them to Mexico as the Americans would not approve of it. But certainly France and the Soviets would sell their stuff or would have no objection to them being sold second hand.

[The Dark]

The French were still building the AMX-30 (variants of it) as late as 1994, and the Twilight 2000 timeline is different and its possible the French could have built more.

True, but even other desert countries didn't want the AMX-30S - Qatar bought the AMX-30B2 in 1977 and the UAE bought the AMX-30B the same year. I think the perceived problem with the S model was the downrated engine (620 horsepower, where most AMX-30 were 720). This reduced mobility, which was supposed to be the tank's primary defense. The S also has inferior stabilization and fire control to the B2, and isn't designed to fire APFSDS shells (which the B2 can use). My personal opinion is that if someone in the early/mid-80s was going to go high-end enough to get AMX-30 tanks, they'd go for the B2 instead of the S. If the B2 was too expensive, there'd be better choices than the almost-as-expensive S.

[mpipes]

TAB-30
Under a modernization program initiated in the late 1980s, the Mexican government undertook programs to substantially upgrade its armor and mechanized capabilities. In 1988, SEDENA purchased 300 AMX-30S main battle tanks from the French government, which had been held in reserve since the late 1970’s. Part of the agreement involved the local upgrading of the tanks to the B2 standard with replacement diesel power packs by SNECMA and new GIAT 105mm guns.
With the backing of the Mexican government, a joint venture (Tecnologías de la Defensa Nacional - “TDN”) was formed by Grupo Bocar and Grupo KUO to remanufacture the French AMX-30S to the AMX-30B2 standard, the refurbished tanks known as the Tanque Medio de Batalla-30 or TAB-30.
The tanks acquired by Mexico were “S” tropicalized variants intended for desert use. As delivered, the original AMX-30Ss included the addition of sand shields, an upgraded cooling system, air conditioning and an engine down rated to 620 hp. In addition, the AMX-30S substituted the Sopelem LRF day/night sight for the laser rangefinder used on the AMX-30B2.
The first production TAB-30 entered service with the Mexican Army on January 26th, 1990 and had a number of improvements added to the AMX-30B2 standard. The TAB-30 was equipped with a new fire-control system using a laser rangefinder, weapon stabilization system, and sensors for wind, temperature, and humidity. Due to the closed environment of the TAB-30’s air-conditioned fighting compartment, a fume extractor was added to the 105mm GIAT main gun.
For improved power a Cummings-Mexico diesel engine with fully automatic transmission was installed to increase speed, operating range, and fuel capacity. The commander's and driver's stations were modernized as well, and the vehicle can lay its own smoke screen by injecting diesel fuel into the exhaust system.
After the initial batch of 50 TAB-30 upgrades were completed in 1992, SEDENA decided to upgrade future tanks by adding a set of spaced armor side skirts. Experience had shown that the primary threat to armor was the shaped charge and spaced armor skirts were intended to provide some defense against light anti-tank weapons. Spaced armor was also added to the turret front.
By 1994 SEDENA had found that the spaced armor was insufficient to defend against the shoulder launched rockets employed by insurgents in the south and the drug cartels of the north. The decision was made to fit an indigenously designed explosive reactive armor package to deal with HEAT based weapons. The system was similar to the Israeli Blazer reactive armor of the 80’s and it is believed that Israel provided assistance in the development of the TAB-30 ERA package. In 1996 SEDENA began upgrading its TAB-30 fleet with ERA tiles. Also, in 1996, the Mexicans took delivery of several dozen additional AMX-30s which were upgraded to TAB-30 standards.
By the time of the U.S. invasion approximately 30% of Mexico’s tank strength consisted of AMX-30S and TAB-30 medium tanks. Of those, 90% had been upgraded to TAB-30 standards while 10% remained AMX-30 or AMX-30S variants. However, only TAB-30s were used in the invasion. By 2000, all of the AMX-30 variants in service had been upgraded to the TAB-30 standard. During the initial assault in 1998 most of Mexico’s stock of ERA tiles were depleted. While tiles continued to be produced throughout the war, logistical problems prevented most replacements from reaching units engaged in combat with U.S. forces.
TAB-30 $586,000 D, G, AvG, A 400 kg 37.75 tons Crew: 4 Mx: 17 Passive IR (D), Image Intensification (G, C), Thermal Imaging (G, C) Shielded
TAB-30 148/107 34/29 Fuel: 1150 Con: 316 Trtd T6 TF55Sp,TS22 TR13 HF64 HS14Sp HR8
TAB-30 +4 Good 105mm GIAT Gun, 20mm GIAT M-621 Autocannon, MAG (C) 47x105mm, 480x20mm, 2070x7.62mm

[Olefin]

As I have said before - if Mexico had that many tanks they wouldnt have been stopped unless the US used a bunch of nukes to do it - could they have had a small force of tanks - yes - but a large one - not likely unless you want to rewrite the canon to say that the US nuked the Mexican tank forces to stop them.

Its especially evident that they didnt have that number of tanks because if they had both of the tank brigades that were still in the US would have been deployed to stop them - and of the two neither was used to stop the Mexican Armor in the canon

Also if they have that number of tanks why bring Soviet Division Cuba to Mexico? They wouldnt need them

So its a choice of a much smaller number of tanks or multiple US tactical nukes (also not mentioned in the canon) to stop them

[mpipes]

Olefin,

I don't disagree to a point, but it does also go to the heart of the problem with canon.

I think we would use nukes. With the limited numbers of nuclear weapons used, you still have thousands in place. Barksdale AFB, Castle AFB, and Carswell AFB are all intact with at least a couple of hundred B61s and SRAMs in the storage bunkers. The B61 has a low-yield setting of about 300 tons; a handful, at least, of those are going to be used to take out logistic targets inside Mexico.

But you don't need nukes to stop the tanks. You hit the logistics train - fuel - with fighters. Carpet bomb the logistic tail if have to with B-52s (at least some of which are still flying). Keep in mind; B-52 and other jet aircraft CAN fly on alcohol. You just don't want to do because of the effects on the fuel system. The SW territory covers a lot of land. Even 1000 tanks are not going to give you a lot of armor density in the territory. However, you can't overrun the US without tanks. There would absolutely be enough residual US military force to take on a light armored force. Your training units alone are going to be able to muster at least a couple of hundred tanks, attack helicopters, and attack fighters. An invader is also going to run into a buzz saw of rifle-armed militia of one type or another that have spent YEARS hunting; and now they have something to hunt. And then there are the hundreds of ATGMs, recoilless rifles, etc. So even if you have 300-700 tanks, you are going to run into trouble, and lots of it.

[Olefin]

Olefin,

I don't disagree to a point, but it does also go to the heart of the problem with canon.

I think we would use nukes. With the limited numbers of nuclear weapons used, you still have thousands in place. Barksdale AFB, Castle AFB, and Carswell AFB are all intact with at least a couple of hundred B61s and SRAMs in the storage bunkers. The B61 has a low-yield setting of about 300 tons; a handful, at least, of those are going to be used to take out logistic targets inside Mexico.

But you don't need nukes to stop the tanks. You hit the logistics train - fuel - with fighters. Carpet bomb the logistic tail if have to with B-52s (at least some of which are still flying). Keep in mind; B-52 and other jet aircraft CAN fly on alcohol. You just don't want to do because of the effects on the fuel system. The SW territory covers a lot of land. Even 1000 tanks are not going to give you a lot of armor density in the territory. However, you can't overrun the US without tanks. There would absolutely be enough residual US military force to take on a light armored force. Your training units alone are going to be able to muster at least a couple of hundred tanks, attack helicopters, and attack fighters. An invader is also going to run into a buzz saw of rifle-armed militia of one type or another that have spent YEARS hunting; and now they have something to hunt. And then there are the hundreds of ATGMs, recoilless rifles, etc. So even if you have 300-700 tanks, you are going to run into trouble, and lots of it.

You can stop tanks with nukes - the canon has literally dozens of references to armored divisions, brigades and regiments getting almost wiped out by them (2nd Armored Division is a prime example, also the Russian division that was wiped out going thru Riga)

And in this case I completely agree with you - if you want the Mexicans to have tanks in that number you have to have nuke strikes - its the only way to stop them

[Raellus]

Don't fall victim to the logical fallacy of false dichotomy.

More tanks helps explain Mexico's success in taking parts of the U.S. Southwest (and continuing to hold U.S. territory past 2000).

More tanks doesn't have to mean nuclear warfare.

The U.S. would be reluctant to use nuclear weapons on its next-door neighbor due to the dangers of fallout. Here in Tucson, most of the big weather systems, especially during the summer monsoons, arrive from Mexico. Also, I think that the U.S. military would be confident that they could eject the Mexican military from U.S. territory with conventional forces. Obviously, when reconciling canon, it becomes apparent that the U.S. was unable to do that through 2001. That doesn't mean it didn't happen after that (unless you stick to the 2300 stuff- IMHO, the two settings need to be officially divorced from one another).

IMHO, people creating/running campaigns set in CONUS after 2000 should focus on ways for players to help eject the MA and Soviet forces still on U.S. soil instead of trying to RETCON canon. If we just focus on why the Mexican invasion couldn't have worked, we are effectively undermining a rich adventure setting.

The U.S. could winnow down the Mexican AFV fleet through conventional means and guerrilla warfare. San Diego, L.A., and Phoenix would be graveyards for dozens (if not hundreds) of poorly employed enemy tanks.

Give the Mexicans more tanks, then PCs are up against greater odds. I don't see a problem with that.

[Olefin]

Don't fall victim to the logical fallacy of false dichotomy.

More tanks helps explain Mexico's success in taking parts of the U.S. Southwest (and continuing to hold U.S. territory past 2000).

More tanks doesn't have to mean nuclear warfare.

The U.S. would be reluctant to use nuclear weapons on its next-door neighbor due to the dangers of fallout. Here in Tucson, most of the big weather systems, especially during the summer monsoons, arrive from Mexico. Also, I think that the U.S. military would be confident that they could eject the Mexican military from U.S. territory with conventional forces. Obviously, when reconciling canon, it becomes apparent that the U.S. was unable to do that through 2001. That doesn't mean it didn't happen after that (unless you stick to the 2300 stuff- IMHO, the two settings need to be officially divorced from one another).

IMHO, people creating/running campaigns set in CONUS after 2000 should focus on ways for players to help eject the MA and Soviet forces still on U.S. soil instead of trying to RETCON canon. If we just focus on why the Mexican invasion couldn't have worked, we are effectively undermining a rich adventure setting.

The U.S. could winnow down the Mexican AFV fleet through conventional means and guerrilla warfare. San Diego, L.A., and Phoenix would be graveyards for dozens (if not hundreds) of poorly employed enemy tanks.

Give the Mexicans more tanks, then PCs are up against greater odds. I don't see a problem with that.

Or alternatively they had more tanks - but they never had the time to properly train enough mechanics and get enough spare parts

So they start the war with more tanks - but by 2001 they are very rare indeed - so its really what do they have in 2001 that matters -not what they had in 1998

[RN7]

Obviously, when reconciling canon, it becomes apparent that the U.S. was unable to do that through 2001. That doesn't mean it didn't happen after that (unless you stick to the 2300 stuff- IMHO, the two settings need to be officially divorced from one another).

That's a good point. 2300AD is a very different game to T2K, and I have never been comfortable with how the world of 2300AD developed as much of it doesn't make sense.

[Olefin]

That's a good point. 2300AD is a very different game to T2K, and I have never been comfortable with how the world of 2300AD developed as much of it doesn't make sense.

I agree totally with you about 2300AD - I dont see any way that the US allows Mexico to keep the Southwest and CA - that right there is where that whole timeline breaks down for me. Have Texas go independent - sure that I can see. After all they were their own country to begin with before they joined the US. But as I have pointed out before there is no way (especially not in a devastated world after the war) that Mexico holds onto Southern CA when virtually all of its water comes from northern California and the Colorado River.

Meaning that if somehow they held onto it LA becomes a dusty small city until they can do desalinization of the Pacific on a huge scale. And the wouldnt be possible given the timeline for a very long time. About the only area that could get enough water would be the Imperial Valley and San Diego and that is only if the Mexicans held onto the Yuma area and the US didnt decide to cut off the Colorado River by diverting it elsewhere.

I dont think the original authors knew the water situation in Southern CA - I lived there for years and you figure out pretty quick how fast that outside the area getting water from the various water transportation systems its a desert.

[Olefin]

US military moving to the border to stop border crossings - hmm sounds eerily familiar

[rcaf_777]

IMHO, people creating/running campaigns set in CONUS after 2000 should focus on ways for players to help eject the MA and Soviet forces still on U.S. soil instead of trying to RETCON canon. If we just focus on why the Mexican invasion couldn't have worked, we are effectively undermining a rich adventure setting.

The U.S. could winnow down the Mexican AFV fleet through conventional means and guerrilla warfare. San Diego, L.A., and Phoenix would be graveyards for dozens (if not hundreds) of poorly employed enemy tanks.

Give the Mexicans more tanks, then PCs are up against greater odds. I don't see a problem with that.

Making a realistic timeline does not undermine a rich adventure setting, consider the following.

Cuba wanting to survive a war as a sovereign nation and formally informs the Soviets that its division must leave Cuba. Cuba knows that the US could bomb and take its island by force before and help (if any) could arrive from the USSR.

Mexico agrees to “employ” the division as advisors in its war against Cartel forces. The USSR excepts this offer as it’s the best it option, no ones wants to risk assets on what is now a Category C division of old and injured men. Certain Mexican forces see this as a good thing to help route out corruption in the army and police

Mexico agrees to provide some sea transport and Cuba is willing too as long as they leave. No tanks or AFV make the trip due to space, just arms and ammunition, AT missiles and jeeps and trucks.

US reaction to the move is mixed the soviets troops are hardly frontline or Special Forces, but this sudden influx of Soviet arms all be it small is disturbing. US plans for combat with Mexico is reviewed and certain assets are spooled up for keeping an eye on the Mexican problem.

Unknown to many is that a few these new arrivals are really Spetsnaz GRU and GRU Signals personnel disguised as ordinary conscripts. They are of course report to the embassy for further orders.

The Soviets do what they promise and assist in taking down the cartels all the while forging friendships, teaching tactics and propaganda.

After the bombs drop a Mexico decides to retake territory it as long considered as part of Mexico.

The US Army at home is a weakened state with most of its troops engaged in disaster relief or deploying for parts elsewhere. The Mexicans with GRU help are able to cross the border in key spots and overcome the few remaining under-equipped US forces. However, the inept Mexican Commanders outrun their limited supply lines and the offensive halts. Many people take to guerrilla warfare, which forces many units into major cities and out of the countryside.

Add to this the Soviet nuclear destruction of Mexican Oil resources (to keep it out of US hands) and you have a good setting to what is described in version 2.2 maybe 1

You a have Soviet and Mexican troops on US soil, with some troops who have gone rogue after the Soviet Nuc parts of Mexico.

In some parts where troops have fallen back, you could find regional warlords American, Soviet or Mexican or ???

You have a great setting for PC’s to be a Long Range Surveillance Patrol conducting operations. Which gives them a chance for squad on squad combat which something I always liked.

[ArmySGT.]

Mexico doesn't need to have modern or 1970s, 1980s era tanks to explain there success in T2k.

1) The U.S. has sent the Active Divisions with the highest readiness and training to Europe, Middle East, and Asia.
2) Green, new formed Divisions, and cadre only divisions are all that are on U.S. soil.
3) Mexican nationals throughout the U.S. are providing real time intelligence to the Mexican government.
4)The Mexican military has experienced troops and well trained or lead professional soldiers/ sailors/ airmen at all levels.
5) The Mexican forces have all their equipment consolidated and their logistics reserve forward deployed.

Do not confuse the professional Mexican Armed Forces with the poor people coming to American to find work in menial labor.

The Patrons, Mexican Oligarchs, are every bit as wealthy, educated, and political as the 1% in the U.S.A.

They were educated at Harvard, Oxford, the Sorbonne and operate billionaire corporations.

[Olefin]

Mexico doesn't need to have modern or 1970s, 1980s era tanks to explain there success in T2k.

1) The U.S. has sent the Active Divisions with the highest readiness and training to Europe, Middle East, and Asia.
2) Green, new formed Divisions, and cadre only divisions are all that are on U.S. soil.
3) Mexican nationals throughout the U.S. are providing real time intelligence to the Mexican government.
4)The Mexican military has experienced troops and well trained or lead professional soldiers/ sailors/ airmen at all levels.
5) The Mexican forces have all their equipment consolidated and their logistics reserve forward deployed.

Do not confuse the professional Mexican Armed Forces with the poor people coming to American to find work in menial labor.

The Patrons, Mexican Oligarchs, are every bit as wealthy, educated, and political as the 1% in the U.S.A.

They were educated at Harvard, Oxford, the Sorbonne and operate billionaire corporations.

The Mexican Army of the V1 and V2.2 timeline is a combination of both a volunteer and conscript army.

Their officers were good but their NCO's werent - at least not in the mid-90's - that changed after the Chiapas revolt. Their Marines and Paras were every bit as professional as our guys are. However their army at the time of the invasion in the main was not trained or equipped for any type of land war. They were mostly trained to deal with disasters and service and security work inside Mexico.

Thus their army was definitely not trained for the invasion and combat against the US Army or trained to take on insurgents. And their equipment was not up to the standard it is today - they only succeeded because even though their armor was crap and they didnt have a lot of it they at least had some - and we didnt. Thats why the advance into CA basically came to an end when they hit the guys from the 40th around Bakersfield as they finally got into that area from Oregon.

and thats why if the Soviets hadnt landed in Texas the timeline would be instead "the counteroffensive by the 5th Army succeeded in clearing Texas by early 2000 of the Mexican forces and the Texian Legion although there was almost another year of fighting against marauders and remnant Mexican units"

[Olefin]

https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pdffiles/PUB638.pdf

Great article on the Mexican armed forces and how they have evolved over time - lots of details that are useful for the game

couple of outtakes that shows the difference between today's Mexican Army and the Army at the time of V1 and V2.2

So yes is the Mexican Army of 2018 what ArmySgt described it as? The answer is yes

Was it that Army in 1997-98 at the time of the invasion in the V1 and V2.2 timeline - the answer is no

"The 1994 Zapatista uprising had two effects on the Mexican
military, principally the Army, that persist to this day. First, it served
as a wakeup call for a proud institution that found itself held at bay
by a group of lightly armed peasants, which brought international
scrutiny upon the country and its security policies and forces.
Second, it provided sound justification for additional funding for
modernization. This was quickly recognized and taken advantage
of by the military hierarchy. In addition to significant equipment
purchases, the institution embarked upon a thorough review of
its professional development of the officer corps, as well as of its
training and organization."

secondly

"The senior leadership of the armed forces recognized that
perpetuation of the status quo was not enough to ensure the forces’
utility in the future, and that a far more focused approach was needed.
Over the period of 10 years, massive improvements to barracks and
training facilities have been made throughout the country, and new
courses for Special Forces and the Army in low intensity warfare
developed. The most significant changes have, however, been in the
field of professional development for officers. Schools and courses
were developed for all rank levels, with successful completion being
a prerequisite for advancement. There is a course for captains, a
course for majors and lieutenant colonels, and a senior course for
colonels and brigadiers, all based at least in part on the American
equivalents. "

[rcaf_777]

5) The Mexican forces have all their equipment consolidated and their logistics reserve forward deployed.

The Mexican army suffers from a lack of logistical support vehicles since is an army of defense not an expeditionary army, I checked Janes at work and the army currently has 571 logistics vehicles to support a Army of 271,000 most theses trucks are Chevrolet Kodiak, M35 2-1/2 ton cargo truck, Mercedes-Benz "Kurzhauber" (Brazilian-built) and possible the Freightliner Business Class M2 which are short to medium range. So using this trucks for long range would be hard give that each truck would be over loaded with materials. I could'nt find any info on wreckers or refuelers both of which you need for any logistical train.

Also how much war stocks would mexico have on hand, the Mexico army in the 1990 has lots of equipment from Europe and the US. So I don't see them getting a lot from anyone one the shooting starts in Europe. Ammo might be an issue too.

[Olefin]

The Mexican army suffers from a lack of logistical support vehicles since is an army of defense not an expeditionary army, I checked Janes at work and the army currently has 571 logistics vehicles to support a Army of 271,000 most theses trucks are Chevrolet Kodiak, M35 2-1/2 ton cargo truck, Mercedes-Benz "Kurzhauber" (Brazilian-built) and possible the Freightliner Business Class M2 which are short to medium range. So using this trucks for long range would be hard give that each truck would be over loaded with materials. I could'nt find any info on wreckers or refuelers both of which you need for any logistical train.

Also how much war stocks would mexico have on hand, the Mexico army in the 1990 has lots of equipment from Europe and the US. So I don't see them getting a lot from anyone one the shooting starts in Europe. Ammo might be an issue too.

Ammo would be a major issue for the Mexican Army when it comes to anti-tank missiles and artillery ammo for anything beyond mortars. For instance the VBL's that they bought could fire MILAN missiles - but in the real world timeline they only bought 20 total Missiles - and even if they bought more once they are gone they are gone

For some items they would be ok - their military is self sufficient in munitions production for their small arms and mortars and also produces small arms as well. The Fabricas Militares produce under license the Heckler and Koch G-3 7.62-mm assault rifle, HK-21 light machine gun, MP-5 sub-machine gun, P7M13 gun, as well as various calibers of mortars in Mexico.

[Raellus]

Regarding logistics, yes, the Mexican army was never flush with trucks. However, especially after NAFTA, the civilian 18-wheeler fleet ballooned. Thousands of 18-wheelers originating in Mexico cross the border into the U.S. every day, carrying everything from fresh produce to consumer electronics (and sometimes contraband). In the event of a war with the U.S.A. (i.e. T2K), the Mexican military could requisition those thousands of civilian cargo carries to cart supplies for the invasion force. It's really just that simple. Problem solved.

[ArmySGT.]

The Mexican army suffers from a lack of logistical support vehicles since is an army of defense not an expeditionary army, I checked Janes at work and the army currently has 571 logistics vehicles to support a Army of 271,000 most theses trucks are Chevrolet Kodiak, M35 2-1/2 ton cargo truck, Mercedes-Benz "Kurzhauber" (Brazilian-built) and possible the Freightliner Business Class M2 which are short to medium range. So using this trucks for long range would be hard give that each truck would be over loaded with materials. I could'nt find any info on wreckers or refuelers both of which you need for any logistical train. The Mexican-Armed Forces uses commercially available truxks. Jane's reports on military equipment. There are fuelers using the same chassis as a dump truxk as would be available to any construction company.
Down at unit levels, they use Dodge 2500s and Ford F250s like the U.S. Once used Chevy Blazers (CUCV).

Also how much war stocks would mexico have on hand, the Mexico army in the 1990 has lots of equipment from Europe and the US. So I don't see them getting a lot from anyone one the shooting starts in Europe. Ammo might be an issue too. Mexico produces their munitions at home for their small arms, 20mm, 90mm, 106mm, 105mm (arty). I haven't found anything that suggests they produce missiles of any sort. As well as their mortars in 60mm, 81mm, 107mm, and 120mm. I am unsure of the Naval munitions (Gearing xlass DD) though that likely would be the case. Missiles is probably more to do with licenses, than ability. Mexico produces electronic locally.

Given that this is very difficult to track down. The SEDENA (Mexican Defense Department) doesn't give out information as a rule. I have been through several Mexican websites for their own military enthusiasts and modellers. The M3A1, for example, 30 of these plus 15 M5A1s were reieved in 1947. I have a black and white photo of them on parade in 1982 (? unsure) and any recent photos are only of those made into monuments at gates. The M8A1 Gun Motor Carriage has turned up in two different photos with either a desert paint or a woodland digital pattern paint job, new tracks, and road wheels. The M8 Greyhounds appear on parade rearmed with the 20x139mm RH202 (seems single belt) that is produced under licenses in Mexico, even with a KPV mahinegun in one. With new paint new tires. The motor has to be replaced, with what I don't know.

I have a mashed together .pdf trying to keep it all straight.

[ArmySGT.]

The Mexican army suffers from a lack of logistical support vehicles since is an army of defense not an expeditionary army, I checked Janes at work and the army currently has 571 logistics vehicles to support a Army of 271,000 most theses trucks are Chevrolet Kodiak, M35 2-1/2 ton cargo truck, Mercedes-Benz "Kurzhauber" (Brazilian-built) and possible the Freightliner Business Class M2 which are short to medium range. So using this trucks for long range would be hard give that each truck would be over loaded with materials. I could'nt find any info on wreckers or refuelers both of which you need for any logistical train.

Also how much war stocks would mexico have on hand, the Mexico army in the 1990 has lots of equipment from Europe and the US. So I don't see them getting a lot from anyone one the shooting starts in Europe. Ammo might be an issue too.

There is 3 of these M32 chencha (M4 conversions) Armored Recovery Vehicles.
http://fotos.miarroba.es/fo/2978/1C45DF26912945CEB8F21C45CEB84C.jpg

They have a 8V92T Detroit Diesel now instead of the old radial.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

ArmySGT. I have a vague recollection that the Mexican M8 Greyhounds were fitted with a commercial truck engine to replace the old motor.
I will have to check my books because I can't remember where I saw that info and obviously I can't be certain it's accurate.

[Olefin]

The Mexican-Armed Forces uses commercially available truxks. Jane's reports on military equipment. There are fuelers using the same chassis as a dump truxk as would be available to any construction company.
Down at unit levels, they use Dodge 2500s and Ford F250s like the U.S. Once used Chevy Blazers (CUCV).

Mexico produces their munitions at home for their small arms, 20mm, 90mm, 106mm, 105mm (arty). I haven't found anything that suggests they produce missiles of any sort. As well as their mortars in 60mm, 81mm, 107mm, and 120mm. I am unsure of the Naval munitions (Gearing xlass DD) though that likely would be the case. Missiles is probably more to do with licenses, than ability. Mexico produces electronic locally.

Given that this is very difficult to track down. The SEDENA (Mexican Defense Department) doesn't give out information as a rule. I have been through several Mexican websites for their own military enthusiasts and modellers. The M3A1, for example, 30 of these plus 15 M5A1s were reieved in 1947. I have a black and white photo of them on parade in 1982 (? unsure) and any recent photos are only of those made into monuments at gates. The M8A1 Gun Motor Carriage has turned up in two different photos with either a desert paint or a woodland digital pattern paint job, new tracks, and road wheels. The M8 Greyhounds appear on parade rearmed with the 20x139mm RH202 (seems single belt) that is produced under licenses in Mexico, even with a KPV mahinegun in one. With new paint new tires. The motor has to be replaced, with what I don't know.

I have a mashed together .pdf trying to keep it all straight.

You need to start searching websites in Spanish - found out a lot of info on what they had that way - and google translate fills in the holes in my rusty Spanish from high school (Vice President of our Spanish club here).

The answer on missiles is that they dont produce any of them - no capability to produce them at all. And after they got their butts handed to them in the fighting in the Yucatan by a bunch of rebels armed worse than the kids from Red Dawn they bought more equipment and got a lot better trained.

Keep in mind for V1 and V2.2. you are talking a Mexican Army that is still depending in many ways on WWII or not much younger equipment - the only tanks they had were 50 or so Stuarts, a few M8A1 Gun Motor Carriages and three Sherman tank retrievers. And no SPG's of any sort except said M8A1's, nothing heavier than a 105 for a howitzer (and not many of those) and only about 20 MILAN missiles in total.

They did get some stuff from the French but the big APC buy that they did of ex-Belgian APC's didnt happen till 1995 and many didnt get delivered till later than that - and in V1 those vehicles would have stayed with the armies in Europe - it took the treaty on conventional arms reduction in our timeline (and probably in V2.2 as well) to have them be available

In fact their most effective anti-armor teams most likely would have used recoilless rifles mounted on Jeeps or light trucks - made for a very mobile and effective anti-armor combo

[swaghauler]

Regarding logistics, yes, the Mexican army was never flush with trucks. However, especially after NAFTA, the civilian 18-wheeler fleet ballooned. Thousands of 18-wheelers originating in Mexico cross the border into the U.S. every day, carrying everything from fresh produce to consumer electronics (and sometimes contraband). In the event of a war with the U.S.A. (i.e. T2K), the Mexican military could requisition those thousands of civilian cargo carries to cart supplies for the invasion force. It's really just that simple. Problem solved.

There were approximately 1/2 Million CDL trucks running in Mexico during the 90's (it's about four times that now compared to our roughly 4 million trucks). The big issue is how many would be serviceable. The Mexican fleet was around 70% "new" (in other words, a 1990's vintage model) because of the NAFTA agreement. Meanwhile, the US had hit its "10-year Turnover" in 1993 for over 80% of the fleet. For those who don't know, the "Life Expectancy" of a CDL Truck is roughly 10 Years & 1 Million Miles before replacement is inevitably needed (most Trucks run 100K miles a year on average). This would mean that most of these trucks would be 90's models with COMPUTERIZED FUEL INJECTION. Once The Exchange occurs and the resulting EMPs, these trucks will NEVER move again, not without a new computer module. This would leave between 100k and 150k unaffected trucks in Mexico and roughly 500K to 600K trucks in the US.

This does highlight one of the "horrors" of The Exchange, The EMPs will knock out most vehicles, electric, communications, and electronics. While a great number of City services are "hardened" to survive a nuke, they rely on diesel generators in an emergency. Most cities have a 7-day supply of fuel. After that, the water and sewage STOP FLOWING! Today any major US city only has THREE DAYS of consumables in its stores/commercial properties and this was still only 7 days in the late 90's. SEVEN DAYS and the natives will certainly begin to kill each other for food and water (and maybe as early as 3 days if shortages were present at the start).

[Olefin]

The EMP bursts wouldnt have fried that many trucks but it would certainly have affected anything in the area where the nukes were used - i.e. no nukes in western NY or PA so those areas would have been fine - versus LA area where the detonation of three 500 kiloton plus nukes one after the other would have definitely fried just about every ignition and electrical device there was in the basin

[swaghauler]

The EMP bursts wouldnt have fried that many trucks but it would certainly have affected anything in the area where the nukes were used - i.e. no nukes in western NY or PA so those areas would have been fine - versus LA area where the detonation of three 500 kiloton plus nukes one after the other would have definitely friend just about every ignition and electrical device there was in the basin

This is one of the areas in which GDW was WAY OFF. In their defense, it's not like they could just Google it. The Russians ALWAYS planned on high-altitude detonations to cause widespread failure of Civilian Infrastructure. There was even a posting about it in a thread on this forum. I disagree with the NUMBER of large strikes BOTH SIDES made in the original Canon (as you already know I don't follow Canon without reason). In my Exchange, only about a dozen ICBMs are launched with the SPECIFIC purpose of causing EMP. The Russians (I start with V2.2) also EMP Poland, Germany, The UK, and (supposedly by accident) Northeastern France near the Rhine and along the Channel. Ground targets which are hit by nukes at all are only hit by smaller nukes (150kt or less) launched by ships or subs (so as not to trigger a general Exchange) or TAC Nukes (50kt or less) fired by artillery.
In my scenario, most of the major damage inflicted in Poland was done by large Thermobaric Munitions like the attack on Warsaw. They cause the same physical damage as nukes without the radiation so no "slow death in the rubble." There is also a precedent for this. When Putin attacked Grozny in 1999, he asked about using poison gas. After he was informed that the UN would treat that as a "war crime," he chose Thermobaric Munitions instead. The Chechens were literally INCINERATED trying to defend the city. It fell in days. Thermobarics carry all the horror of a nuke without the fallout.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Those people caught in thermobaric weapon attacks typically die from the pressure wave and/or asphyxiation before their (now dead) bodies are incinerated.
This is still a very unpleasant way to die, you're either crushed by the over-pressure or the vacuum created by all that oxygen being rapidly consumed ruptures your lungs.
In some circumstances, the fuel burns but does not detonate, then you see deaths by incineration.

[Olefin]

This is one of the areas in which GDW was WAY OFF. In their defense, it's not like they could just Google it. The Russians ALWAYS planned on high-altitude detonations to cause widespread failure of Civilian Infrastructure. There was even a posting about it in a thread on this forum. I disagree with the NUMBER of large strikes BOTH SIDES made in the original Canon (as you already know I don't follow Canon without reason). In my Exchange, only about a dozen ICBMs are launched with the SPECIFIC purpose of causing EMP. The Russians (I start with V2.2) also EMP Poland, Germany, The UK, and (supposedly by accident) Northeastern France near the Rhine and along the Channel. Ground targets which are hit by nukes at all are only hit by smaller nukes (150kt or less) launched by ships or subs (so as not to trigger a general Exchange) or TAC Nukes (50kt or less) fired by artillery.
In my scenario, most of the major damage inflicted in Poland was done by large Thermobaric Munitions like the attack on Warsaw. They cause the same physical damage as nukes without the radiation so no "slow death in the rubble." There is also a precedent for this. When Putin attacked Grozny in 1999, he asked about using poison gas. After he was informed that the UN would treat that as a "war crime," he chose Thermobaric Munitions instead. The Chechens were literally INCINERATED trying to defend the city. It fell in days. Thermobarics carry all the horror of a nuke without the fallout.

I was actually surprised they didnt include EMP large scale attacks - they were in the novel War Day that had been published in 1984 - in fact those attacks were what caused most of the damage to the US in the exchange in that war - and the US fried the Soviets with EMP as well. They definitely overestimated the effects of EMP from the local nuclear attacks - those would have cause issues in the area surrounding the detonations but wouldnt have affected areas hundreds of miles away

[ArmySGT.]

ArmySGT. I have a vague recollection that the Mexican M8 Greyhounds were fitted with a commercial truck engine to replace the old motor.
I will have to check my books because I can't remember where I saw that info and obviously I can't be certain it's accurate.

I have heard it mentioned, but I have not been able to confirm it. It makes sense that they would have to. The original gasoline motor would have to be worn out and there isn't parts in abundance anymore. Making the fleet diesel makes sense too.

I have photos of them on parade and have seen their 5th of May parades with M8 on parade sporting 20mms or 14.5 KPVs and new radio antennas.

The Mexican Armies OPSEC is 1000% better than the U.S. Army definitely.

[Olefin]

Actually there is lots of stuff online showing what the M8's were re-equipped with. You just need to be able to either habla espanol or alternatively use a lot of google translate

[ArmySGT.]

You need to start searching websites in Spanish - found out a lot of info on what they had that way - and google translate fills in the holes in my rusty Spanish from high school (Vice President of our Spanish club here).

http://rtvmodeler.com/MEX/tierra/global.htm

http://todopormexico.foroactivo.com.mx/f43-vehiculos

http://www.hollilla.com/picviewer.php?tid=2982730

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/spoelstra/g104/mexico.htm

http://the.shadock.free.fr/Surviving_Panzers.html (you have to searh by individual vehicles. It is large PDFs all on one vehicle as used by every nation that fielded it. The Mexican M3A1s are all monuments now.

https://www.taringa.net/posts/info/10301240/Armamento-del-Ejercito-Mexicano.html

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Armamento_del_Ej%C3%A9rcito_Mexicano

https://www.scribd.com/doc/304960189/Worldwide-Equipment-Guide-2014-FINAL-Vol-1-Ground-Systems


*

*
*
*
*
*
*

[Olefin]

or you can go here and do translate to find out if the M8 is armed differently and what engine it has -
https://www.facebook.com/SentinelMexico1/posts/729029930533996:0

Carro blindado ligero de reconocimiento 6x6 de fabricación estadounidense, Ford M8 A1 Greyhound modificado, del Ejército Mexicano, en las instalaciones de la 25/a Zona Militar, en esquema pixelado selvático en verdes, que es el último de varios empleados por este longevo carro blindado.

Los Greyhound, de diseño y operación de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, fueron adquiridos por nuestro país en 1947, 40 unidades destinadas al recién creado 12/o. Regimiento de Caballería Mecanizada (12/o. RCM) en la ciudad de Puebla.

Inicialmente portaban el cañón original contra carro M6 de 37 mm, sin embargo estos vehículos han sufrido varias modificaciones locales, la primera importante de ellas fue la sustitución del cañón M6 por un Hispano Suiza AKAN Mk.46 de 20 mm.

En 1988 se realiza una nueva modificación, ahora a la estructura del carro, reemplazando los faldones laterales por unos diferentes y aprovechando el espacio entre el eje delantero y los dos traseros para colocar ahí bidones de combustible o agua y un neumático de repuesto. Además se le agregaron nuevas luces y nuevos neumáticos con mejor poder de tracción.

En 1992 se realiza una nueva modificación y mejora, con un paquete de actualización de la empresa estadounidense NAPCO International, sustituyendo el motor original Hercules de 110 hp a gasolina por un Detroit 4-53N V4 a diesel de 140 hp y ametralladora de 7.62mm coaxial, aunque también se han visto ejemplares con lo que parecen ser M2 Browning .50 en la misma posición. Además, físicamente este carro sufrió extensas modificaciones en su estructura, sobre todo en los laterales, se le agregaron troneras y mirillas de cristal blindado. Debido a estas modificaciones, el espacio entre el eje delantero y los traseros desapareció y el neumático de repuesto se reposicionó en la parte superior trasera del vehículo. En la parte superior se le agregaron dos escotillas, se reemplazó del sistema eléctrico y se agregó un nuevo sistema de comunicación interna.

En el año 2000 sufre su última actualización reemplazando el anterior cañón por uno nuevo de 20 mm del tipo GIAT F2 francés, al parecer de origen sudafricano y su sistema de alimentación se colocó encima de la torreta. El de la imagen corresponde a esta última versión, aunque se le ha removido el cañón y ametralladoras. Empleaban también como arma secundaria un M2 Browning de calibre .50 montada en su afuste.

A la fecha siguen activos la mayoría dentro del 6/o y 9/o Regimientos Blindados de Reconocimiento en la ciudad de Puebla.

Poseen un blindaje que va de los 19 mm en la parte delantera a los 3 mm en partes menos críticas. Emplean una tripulación de cuatro elementos

which translates to

Light armored car of reconnaissance 6x6 of American manufacture, Ford M8 A1 Greyhound modified, of the Mexican Army, in the facilities of the 25 / a Military Zone, in pixelated jungle scheme in greens, which is the last of several employees by this long-armored armored car.


The Greyhounds, design and operation of the Second World War, were acquired by our country in 1947, 40 units for the newly created 12 / o. Mechanized Cavalry Regiment (12 / RCM) in the city of Puebla.

Initially they carried the original gun against the M6 ​​37 mm car, however these vehicles have undergone several local modifications, the first important of which was the replacement of the M6 ​​cannon by a Hispano Suiza AKAN Mk.46 of 20 mm.

In 1988 a new modification is made, now to the structure of the car, replacing the side skirts by different ones and taking advantage of the space between the front axle and the two rear to place drums of fuel or water and a spare tire. In addition, new lights and new tires with better traction power were added.

In 1992 a new modification and improvement is made, with an update package of the American company NAPCO International, replacing the original Hercules engine of 110 hp to gasoline by a Detroit 4-53N V4 to diesel of 140 hp and machine gun of 7.62mm coaxial , although they have also seen specimens with what appear to be M2 Browning .50 in the same position. In addition, physically this car underwent extensive modifications in its structure, especially on the sides, were added pockets and windows of armored glass. Due to these modifications, the space between the front axle and the rear axles disappeared and the spare tire was repositioned in the upper rear part of the vehicle. In the upper part, two hatches were added, the electrical system was replaced and a new internal communication system was added.

n the year 2000 it suffers its last update replacing the previous one with a new one of 20 mm of the type GIAT F2 French, apparently of South African origin and its feeding system was placed on top of the turret. The one in the image corresponds to this last version, although the cannon and machine guns have been removed. They also used as a secondary weapon a M2 Browning caliber of .50 mounted in its support.

To date, the majority remain active within the 6th and 9th Armored Reconnaissance Regiments in the city of Puebla.

They have a shield that goes from 19 mm in the front to 3 mm in less critical parts. Employ a crew of four elements

Thus the question - "Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic View Post
ArmySGT. I have a vague recollection that the Mexican M8 Greyhounds were fitted with a commercial truck engine to replace the old motor.
I will have to check my books because I can't remember where I saw that info and obviously I can't be certain it's accurate."

Answer - yes they replaced the old gas engines with a Detroit Diesel motor back in 1992 - thus for the canon they would have diesel engines not gasoline

[Olefin]

Want to know stuff about the Mexican Army, Air Force, etc.

https://www.facebook.com/SentinelMexico1/

for instance

Camion 4X4 de fabricación nacional Chevrolet Kodiak K5500 arrastrando un obusero de fabricación estadounidense Rock Island Arsenal M2A1 de calibre 105 mm pertenecientes al Heroico Colegio Militar.

which is

National 4X4 truck manufactured by Chevrolet Kodiak K5500, dragging a US-made Rock Island Arsenal M2A1 105 mm caliber gun belonging to the Heroico Colegio Militar.

Or you can go to this forum run by people who used to be in the Mexican Armed Forces

http://defensamexico.activoforo.com/f1-ejercito-mexicano

for great info like - ORBAT - Batallones de Infantería del Ejército Mexicano (Actualizacion 2013)

or Aumentó a más del doble la cifra de efectivos de Sedena en últimos 37 años

Mexico DF. The Secretary of National Defense (Sedena) announced that the number of its troops has more than doubled in the last 37 years, going from 92 thousand 559 in 1976 to 212 thousand 208 in 2013.

In response to a request for information, the agency delivered a list of its members from year to year, beginning in 1976. In the document, it is noted that as of 1997, the number of its members remained almost the same.

For example, in 1997 there were 182,328 personnel; in 1998, the figure was the same as the previous year; in 1999 and 2000, the number was 182 thousand 329 items, respectively. For 2001, it increased by 2 thousand 814 elements compared to the previous year to reach 185 thousand 143.

[mpipes]

The discussion on lack of trucks in the Mexican Army reminds me how I planned to solve a lack of vehicles at Kunsan AB, ROK if we went to war in the late 80s.

There appeared to be a profound shortage of logistic and general purpose vehicle for a period of time if war started. We were getting a LOT of additional equipment, personnel, and supplies coming in but really not that many vehicles for at least several weeks. There simply were not enough vehicles on base to support the missions and move the equipment to destinations. What to do?

Solution was simple enough. We coordinated with the ROK army on base to get a couple of platoons for support and identified all the local car and truck dealers in Kunsan City. If war broke out, we would get 4 - 5 buses of "drivers" and escorted by several trucks of armed ROK army troops would start hitting the dealerships, seizing their vehicles (providing the proper receipts of course), which we would drive back to the base. As I recall, the plan was to seize about 200 light trucks (pick ups) plus about 20-30 tractor-trailers. Problem solved.

[The Dark]

Answer - yes they replaced the old gas engines with a Detroit Diesel motor back in 1992 - thus for the canon they would have diesel engines not gasoline

According to Zaloga's book on the Greyhound, the NAPCO power package was also bought by Cameroon, Cyprus, Ethiopia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Jamaica, Morocco, Venezuela, and Zaire. In addition to replacing the engine, the transmission was replaced by an Allison AT-545.

[swaghauler]

The discussion on lack of trucks in the Mexican Army reminds me how I planned to solve a lack of vehicles at Kunsan AB, ROK if we went to war in the late 80s.

There appeared to be a profound shortage of logistic and general purpose vehicle for a period of time if war started. We were getting a LOT of additional equipment, personnel, and supplies coming in but really not that many vehicles for at least several weeks. There simply were not enough vehicles on base to support the missions and move the equipment to destinations. What to do?

Solution was simple enough. We coordinated with the ROK army on base to get a couple of platoons for support and identified all the local car and truck dealers in Kunsan City. If war broke out, we would get 4 - 5 buses of "drivers" and escorted by several trucks of armed ROK army troops would start hitting the dealerships, seizing their vehicles (providing the proper receipts of course), which we would drive back to the base. As I recall, the plan was to seize about 200 light trucks (pick ups) plus about 20-30 tractor-trailers. Problem solved.

That is a really GOOD idea. I was surprised to see that 40% of the trucks in the US (the total of which is just over 2 Million in 1998 and 4 million today) are generally present in just TWO locations, Long Beach CA and Newark NJ, the two biggest cargo terminals in the US. I didn't realize just how concentrated commercial trucking in the US is until I researched it.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

NOTE: There is a reason my reply is so long.
It does relate to the game I promise!

That is a really GOOD idea. I was surprised to see that 40% of the trucks in the US (the total of which is just over 2 Million in 1998 and 4 million today) are generally present in just TWO locations, Long Beach CA and Newark NJ, the two biggest cargo terminals in the US. I didn't realize just how concentrated commercial trucking in the US is until I researched it.
I believe that is probably the result of the push for "centralizing" by most businesses/corporations and governments.
Centralizing a network (of any sort) results in some large cost savings because obviously, you don't have as many buildings. vehicles, staff etc. etc. to manage and pay for.
But it also makes the system vulnerable if a break occurs in the central part of the network or in the transport system.

For example, many food shops these days don't have a storeroom, what's on the shelf or in the fridge is all the stock they have. They rely on small deliveries every day (or every two/three days) to keep supplied rather than having one or two big deliveries in a week.
If anything happens to interupt the supply chain, those deliveries do not happen and the shop runs out of whatever product was being delivered. I've experienced this myself in Australia when the local shops didn't have bread or milk for a few days due to delays in the transport system.

So the point of all that exlanation? The push towards centralizing networks began (as near as I remember) in the early 1990s although the general public didn't really notice much change until the 2000s. If your Twilight timeline starts in the mid-1990s or later, centralizing of networks can be a real hindrance (lethal in some cases) to people away from any distribution centres at the start of the war and more so after the end of the war.
For example, food supplies are not going to reach the smaller locations or those little stores out on the secondary highway for example. In fact, once the transport stops, most stores will run out of basic foodstuffs within two to three days (three or four if they're really well stocked or really lucky).
Hospitals might have good stocks of medical supplies for a while but smaller medical centres or individual doctors offices will be depleted very quickly.

Centralizing is much more profitable than having a distributed network with many smaller warehouses & supply systems but it does literally "put all your eggs in one basket".
However it does provide a "resource rich location" for anyone close to that supply centre. Which also makes the PC's job easier if they want to recover supplies - assuming they can get to the distribution centre!

[swaghauler]

NOTE: There is a reason my reply is so long.
It does relate to the game I promise!


I believe that is probably the result of the push for "centralizing" by most businesses/corporations and governments.
Centralizing a network (of any sort) results in some large cost savings because obviously, you don't have as many buildings. vehicles, staff etc. etc. to manage and pay for.
But it also makes the system vulnerable if a break occurs in the central part of the network or in the transport system.

For example, many food shops these days don't have a storeroom, what's on the shelf or in the fridge is all the stock they have. They rely on small deliveries every day (or every two/three days) to keep supplied rather than having one or two big deliveries in a week.
If anything happens to interupt the supply chain, those deliveries do not happen and the shop runs out of whatever product was being delivered. I've experienced this myself in Australia when the local shops didn't have bread or milk for a few days due to delays in the transport system.

So the point of all that exlanation? The push towards centralizing networks began (as near as I remember) in the early 1990s although the general public didn't really notice much change until the 2000s. If your Twilight timeline starts in the mid-1990s or later, centralizing of networks can be a real hindrance (lethal in some cases) to people away from any distribution centres at the start of the war and more so after the end of the war.
For example, food supplies are not going to reach the smaller locations or those little stores out on the secondary highway for example. In fact, once the transport stops, most stores will run out of basic foodstuffs within two to three days (three or four if they're really well stocked or really lucky).
Hospitals might have good stocks of medical supplies for a while but smaller medical centres or individual doctors offices will be depleted very quickly.

Centralizing is much more profitable than having a distributed network with many smaller warehouses & supply systems but it does literally "put all your eggs in one basket".
However it does provide a "resource rich location" for anyone close to that supply centre. Which also makes the PC's job easier if they want to recover supplies - assuming they can get to the distribution centre!

You are correct in your posting here. What was called "JUST IN TIME DELIVERY (now known as virtual warehousing)" began in the late 80's and became standardized in the mid 90's. The average urban center has just 3 days worth of consumables on the stores' shelves. Most gas stations have just 5 days worth of gas on hand and many large chains now use regionalized "Distribution Centers" which WILL have inventory warehoused for (usually) a dozen or so stores. VERY LARGE chains like WALMART will have either one or a couple of distribution centers in a given State (for the US), or a small country (like in Europe), while smaller chains might have a Distribution Center in a cluster of three or so States (in the US) or a couple in Europe (total). It depends on how hard it is to transport goods in a given region. For an example, WALMART has a distribution center on I80 (SouthEast of me) that services all of Northern Pa (there's another one near Philly somewhere). It is FIVE MILLION SQUARE FEET UNDER ONE ROOF with 180 Truck Docks for big rigs to load and unload at. I've been told this is a smaller Distribution Center for WALMART.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

snip... It depends on how hard it is to transport goods in a given region. For an example, WALMART has a distribution center on I80 (SouthEast of me) that services all of Northern Pa (there's another one near Philly somewhere). It is FIVE MILLION SQUARE FEET UNDER ONE ROOF with 180 Truck Docks for big rigs to load and unload at. I've been told this is a smaller Distribution Center for WALMART.
It's both amazing and frightening to see these sites, they are massive in all senses of the word. There's two near the main airport here in Perth, Western Australia, one each for the two main supermarket chains and while nowhere near as large as the Walmart one you mentioned, they both dwarf everything around them including many airport buildings.

All this reminds me of a story I read decades ago like one of those "weird war tales" published in the 1980s-90s although this one was a collection of short stories rather than a comicbook.
It was a collection of "strange" tales set during the Vietnam War and this particular one involved a US Army soldier telling about the construction in South Vietnam of the largest PX store outside the USA. It was so large it stocked everything from Zippo lighters to motorbikes and everything inbetween. It was so large you could get lost for hours wandering around inside it and it was very easy to hide from someone among all the shelves and goods.

The narrator goes on to tell of one of his comrades who worked in the PX and as far as he knew, never returned home at the end of his tour of duty. In fact, even though the war had been over for some years, there had still been no record of his comrade ever returning to the US. As far as the narrator knew, his friend was still hiding out in the PX store and living off all the supplies there.

[pmulcahy11b]

[

https://www.scribd.com/doc/304960189/Worldwide-Equipment-Guide-2014-FINAL-Vol-1-Ground-Systems
*

A long time ago, I decided to get a subscription to Scribd, charged $9.99 per month. I recommend it to anyone, it is really worth it.

[Targan]

It's both amazing and frightening to see these sites, they are massive in all senses of the word. There's two near the main airport here in Perth, Western Australia, one each for the two main supermarket chains and while nowhere near as large as the Walmart one you mentioned, they both dwarf everything around them including many airport buildings.

Yes, they stand out against the background as you fly in.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Yes, they stand out against the background as you fly in.

Second place I'd be going in the zombie apocalypse - first stop is home to pick up my old army gear (I've still got a full set of the old green webbing and an Austpack).

[.45cultist]

Second place I'd be going in the zombie apocalypse - first stop is home to pick up my old army gear (I've still got a full set of the old green webbing and an Austpack).

I still have my ALICE gear and the mags to fill the pouches.

[castlebravo92]

I know this is an old thread, but...

I had deep reservations about a successful Mexican invasion of the U.S. Southwest, having bought Red Star/Lone Star as a kid when it first came out in '86 or '87 and being a Texas native. About 15 years later I even traded some emails with Loren K. Wiseman on the subject.

I mean, the 49th Armored Div by itself could probably reduce the Mexican army to giblets by itself.

These days, I'm a little more receptive to the idea.

1. The Mexicans don't invade until June of 1998. By this time, the post-attack "recovery" has begun to fail, cities were starting to starve as the government started routing food to critical areas, and letting the rest twist on the vine.

2. Federal Emergency Plan-D (and a slew of related classified Executive Orders) are pretty draconian. Imagine the government coming, taking everything you own, kicking you out of your house (or moving in 5 additional families), drafting you into a labor battalion - and if you refuse, you don't get to eat (the food they confiscated from you), or they shoot you. In a lot areas, especially rural or semi-rural that weren't actually starving, the government coming in to take everyone's stuff probably isn't that popular.

3. The units the US has in reserve, for the most part, aren't that good. Most are training divisions hastily mobilized, probably are far from full strength, suffer from high desertion rates, and are likely less well equipped and trained than first echelon Mexican forces (but probably on par with 2nd echelon forces).

4. These forces, despite operating on US soil, are not operating with secure rear areas. In fact, there is no rear - their presence in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and beyond are contested by marauders, and anti-government partisans. It's hard to sustain offensive momentum when your whole logistics network is subject to constant attack.

5. Conversely, the Mexican military is advancing concurrently with a mass population migration from Mexico that largely displaces the native population. And at least initially, this would allow the Mexicans to recruit locally as they advanced with the population to offset combat losses. The US 85th Infantry Division would probably struggle a bit to do the same around Tyler, TX in comparison.

6. Using canon resources like Allegheny Uprising, some of these refugee camps or settlements (domestic and otherwise) can have 40k to 80k people in them. If 5% of those camps are "militia", those by themselves represent a non-insignificant amount of potential combat power and threat. How do you deal with those refugees (many of whom want what your military has - food, fuel, weapons) while simultaneously dealing with the Mexican army and the Soviet Division Cuba?

7. Net net, you have an American population that's largely hostile to your presence trying to eject a foreign army and large population migration that's also hostile to your presence over a supply line that is long and unstable (it's the same distance from Colorado Springs to Brownsville, TX as it is from Berlin to Moscow), and you're conducting your counter offensive during the most acute phase of the post-attack collapse (Autumn 1998 through mid-1999).

One angle that is hard to rationalize though is that the Soviets nuke Mexican refineries about a month after hitting the US, and a few months later...the Mexicans ally with the Soviets to invade the US (although, I guess technically you could argue the Mexicans don't know who actually nuked them).

[Raellus]

Great analysis, castlebravo92. Or may I say, bravo? :D

Another factor that might help the Mexican invaders is tensions between Anglo-American and Mexican-American communities, especially if New America propaganda has begun to take hold in the Southwest. This might drive some 1st or 2nd gen Mexican-Americans who would have otherwise remained loyal to the USA into the arms of the invaders. In other words, stoked fears of a Mexican fifth column result in the emergence of a Mexican fifth column.

I've also posited an alliance of sorts between the Mexican military and narco gangs operating in the USA in the lead-up to the invasion. The latter could provide intel before the invasion and undertake sabotage and assassination ops during.

Re the nuking of Mexican refineries, does anyone know who's responsible? I remember that question being debated here. I'm not very familiar with CONUS cannon, having focused primarily on Europe and Korea during the length of my fandom. IIRC, canon doesn't answer this question definitively, but I could be wrong.

If the Soviets did indeed nuke the Mexican refineries, one possible explanation is that, for whatever reasons, pre-war, Mexico had better relations with the USSR than with its northern neighbor and were predisposed to suspect American perfidy when the strikes occur. This could be due to a number of factors- trade disagreements between Mexico and the USA (is NAFTA part of the T2kU?); tensions resulting from the escalating Drug War; harsh measures taken to stem illegal immigration. This tension would help the Soviets pull off a brilliant Maskirovka, convincing the Mexican gov't that the USA was behind nuclear strikes on Mexican refineries. In all likelihood, the KGB was feeding the Mexican gov't and military intel suggesting that the US was planning to nuke Mexican refineries well before the attacks occurred. So, when it happened, the fait accompli had already been established (and confirmation bias is a powerful thing).

The Soviets would therefore have two motives for nuking the Mexican refineries. One, deprive the USA of Mexican oil and two, prompt the Mexicans to retaliate against USA.

It wouldn't be the first time a European power tried to foment conflict between Mexico and the USA. The Germans failed to sway the Mexican gov't with the Zimmerman Telegram c.1917, but maybe the Soviets succeed with the "Fisherovich Fax" in 1998.

-

[castlebravo92]

Re the nuking of Mexican refineries, does anyone know who's responsible?
-

Logically, it would have to be the Soviets, in order to deny access to the United States. For the same reasons, the US wouldn't nuke Mexican refineries in December of 1997, since those would be potential resources the Americans could use to rebuild, if they could trade or extort for it. In fact, most of the neutral countries that were nuked had to have been nuked by the Soviets.

In my head, this is how I picture it:

- Russia nukes US on Nov 27, 1997, with some exchanges continuing into December.

- Russia extends nukes to Canada on Dec 12, 1997.

- Presumably, they nuke Mexico some time after nuking Canada but before year's end (after all, Canada was a NATO member active in the war, while Mexico was a neutral nation).

- Mexico's government unravels, PRI-PPS take back control, and invade.

[ToughOmbres]

Logically, it would have to be the Soviets, in order to deny access to the United States. For the same reasons, the US wouldn't nuke Mexican refineries in December of 1997, since those would be potential resources the Americans could use to rebuild, if they could trade or extort for it. In fact, most of the neutral countries that were nuked had to have been nuked by the Soviets.

In my head, this is how I picture it:

- Russia nukes US on Nov 27, 1997, with some exchanges continuing into December.

- Russia extends nukes to Canada on Dec 12, 1997.

- Presumably, they nuke Mexico some time after nuking Canada but before year's end (after all, Canada was a NATO member active in the war, while Mexico was a neutral nation).

- Mexico's government unravels, PRI-PPS take back control, and invade.

Eminently reasonable. If all else fails the narrative background for a GM could go something like "Mexico, taking advantage of the chaos and to protect the burgeoning refugee population, launched an all-out attack across the Rio Grande."

[ToughOmbres]

I agree with you that many Mexicans harbor resentment towards the U.S., resentment that can be traced back to the 1848 war and even earlier to the Texas War of Independence. But the 1/2 of Mexico "stolen" by the U.S. did not have "all the cities and highways and industry in it". In fact, most of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona were very sparsely populated with Mexican citizens and their distance from the Mexican national capitol in Mexico City made administering and controlling said territories extremely difficult for the Mexican government. Furthermore, the territories in question were extremely underdeveloped when the U.S. decided to attempt to take them by force. In fact, the Mexican government originally invited U.S. settlers into Mexican Texas in order to "civilize" it (i.e. suppress hostile Native American tribes and develop the region economically). This was easier for the Mexican government than trying to settle and control the region itself. Of course, this turned out to be a bad idea for the Mexican government as soon the American settlers in Texas far outnumbered the Mexican population there and began agitating for independence.

I'm not justifying the 1848 Mexican War or the annexation of Mexican territory that followed, but I wanted to clear up the misconception that the region annexed by the U.S. was a particularly "rich" prize, at the time.

For Context, the U.S. and Mexico had an incredibly difficult relationship to try to navigate.
1. As early as Andrew Jackson's presidency, the US offered to buy California. Mexico refused to even discuss the matter.

2. US admittance of Texas into the Union was another friction point.

3. Mexico welcomed US settlers into TX-up to a point. Mexican officials wanted some presence against Native Americans and lawless elements. American migrants such as S.F. Austin were glad to have the land, less then enthusiastic about observing the terms and conditions that came with the land.In particular, the Mexico Constitution at the time banned slavery. Americans came in huge numbers and brought slaves with them in direct violation of Mexican law which infuriated Mexican officials.

4. By the Polk Administration, President Polk was very aware of the potential of the China trade for both missionary and trade ties-San Diego was a potential port, naval base AND and possible end for a southern-route Transcontinental Railroad. One of the leading advocates of a southern route for the Transcontinental Railroad was Secty of War Jefferson Davis btw.

5. Candidly, Polk was willing to settle for dividing Oregon with Britain but more than willing to go to war with Mexico. When asked about this seeming contradiction, Senator Thomas Hart Benton put it best-"Because dear sir, Britain is so strong and Mexico is so weak." (His words, not mine).

6. Last but not least, an increasingly democratic America was a sharp contrast to autocratic Mexico under Santa Anna-there were also border disputes (Rio Grande vs. the Nueces River) and the question Mexican debts owed to the US and US citizens.

Just context from a historian and my .02 for background. "Alas, Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States." -author unknown.

[castlebravo92]

For Context, the U.S. and Mexico had an incredibly difficult relationship to try to navigate.
1. As early as Andrew Jackson's presidency, the US offered to buy California. Mexico refused to even discuss the matter.

2. US admittance of Texas into the Union was another friction point.

3. Mexico welcomed US settlers into TX-up to a point. Mexican officials wanted some presence against Native Americans and lawless elements. American migrants such as S.F. Austin were glad to have the land, less then enthusiastic about observing the terms and conditions that came with the land.In particular, the Mexico Constitution at the time banned slavery. Americans came in huge numbers and brought slaves with them in direct violation of Mexican law which infuriated Mexican officials.

4. By the Polk Administration, President Polk was very aware of the potential of the China trade for both missionary and trade ties-San Diego was a potential port, naval base AND and possible end for a southern-route Transcontinental Railroad. One of the leading advocates of a southern route for the Transcontinental Railroad was Secty of War Jefferson Davis btw.

5. Candidly, Polk was willing to settle for dividing Oregon with Britain but more than willing to go to war with Mexico. When asked about this seeming contradiction, Senator Thomas Hart Benton put it best-"Because dear sir, Britain is so strong and Mexico is so weak." (His words, not mine).

6. Last but not least, an increasingly democratic America was a sharp contrast to autocratic Mexico under Santa Anna-there were also border disputes (Rio Grande vs. the Nueces River) and the question Mexican debts owed to the US and US citizens.

Just context from a historian and my .02 for background. "Alas, Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States." -author unknown.

Almost completely off topic, but my wife is Mexican-American and we'll get into these debates on "whose land is it anyway" when the topic of immigration comes up. I make it a point to tell her that first Spain and later Mexico invited white settlers into Texas from America (and also Europe) because they were struggling to find Spanish or Mexican settlers dumb enough to settle Comancheria. The Comanches burned back the Spanish settlement line almost 1,000 miles back into Mexico except for some fortified towns like El Paso and San Antonio.

The short-lived Texas Republic was one of those improbable flukes of history. Fight the Texas revolutionary war 100 times, and the Texans probably lose 98-99 times out of a 100. Mexico was actually a well developed, well populated state in 1835, while Texas was a sparsely settled backwater frontier. Texas had no business beating Mexico.

Even when the US and Mexico went to war in 1845, a lot of Europeans thought the "professional" Mexican army built on the European model would make quick work of the rag-tag militia army of the Americans.

[Raellus]

Y'all probably knew about this already, but in case you didn't, Six Flags is named that because the flags of Spain, Mexico, France, Republic of Texas, the CSA, and USA have flown over the state where the company was founded.

https://investors.sixflags.com/investor-overview/company-history#:~:text=Throngs%20flocked%20to%20Six%20Fla gs,and%20provided%20the%20park%27s%20name.

-

[bash]

One thing to consider if that after TDM the countries outlined on maps no longer functionally exist. Federal power only extends as far as agencies and military units that recognize that authority. So Mexico and Force Cuba invading isn't so much resisted by the US government but a bunch of individual towns in the invaded states.

Additionally I imagine the situation in Mexico likely isn't too different than the US with MilGov, CivGov, and New America. Multiple factions in Mexico have different influence with different military units and relationships with Russia and Cuba. The force invading the US is just one of the power blocs in the country.

I would also posit that post-TDM the US southwest is going to have seen a massive wave of emigration. Deserts have a low carrying capacity. A lot of cities of the Southwest are impractical without a lot of fuel-intensive infrastructure.

So not only is the southern border not have a lot of coordinated defense but what people are left don't have a lot of resources available to defend against a moderately coordinated and cohesive force. That's even ignoring the heavy handed and draconian resource stealing by the USG.