My point of historical point of deviation is 1974 and the oil crisis. Perhaps the USSR, Mexico, and Venezuela (maybe a few others) could form a counter to OPEC. Leading to closer ties between all three nations.

Could a hurricane force a shipment of Vehicles on its way to Venezuela to go to Mexico? Maybe the ship was delivering sample vehicles (Jeeps and Trucks?) for the Mexican Army to test, and Caracas (with 12 T-72s and 36 BMP1 - spit-balling the numbers here) was the next stop. American forces in the Caribbean kept the ship in port after the German war started. A stretch I know, but it feel like there might be an answer somewhere in here.

On a side note Leon Trotsky was exiled from the Soviet Union by Stalin and ended up in Mexico in 1937. He was assassinated by NKVD agents in Mexico City in 1940.

Mexico purchasing armoured vehicles from Brazil at some point sounds fairly plausible to me.

If we’re looking for valid reasons why the Mexicans would have Soviet armour as per City Of Angels I still think any of the following are possible

1. They were part of a shipment that were delivered to Cuba, either for use by Cuba’s own armed forces or the Soviets, and somehow or other they ended up getting shipped to Mexico. Maybe the Cubans were worried that the Americans might see them as some sort of threat (a possible invasion force?) and take pre-emptive action (i.e. nuke them) so struck a deal to give / sell them to the Mexicans.

2. A Soviet Op OMEGA. I think someone mentioned this up thread and it fits with my own opinion as to why Soviet freighters might be sent across the Pacific late in the War – Soviet High Command has decided that the Division Cuba troops could be of more use shoring things up back in the USSR so the freighters are sent to bring them home but there’s not enough room for all of their heavy gear so they agree to leave it for the Mexicans, unintentionally mirroring what the Americans did at Bremerhaven. Somewhere down the line maybe the whole thing gets called off (maybe the freighters all get sunk), but not before some armour has been handed over and possession, as they say, is nine tenths of the law.

2B. A less official OMEGA. Maybe a Soviet commander goes rogue, deserts his post in Texas and heads west with a number of a loyal troops (and their armoured vehicles). Their plan is to head for the west coast, commandeer a ship, and repatriate themselves to the USSR. Somewhere along the way they make friendly contact with a Mexican Army unit. The Soviets are ultimately successful (somehow) in taking over some sort of vessel but, as per 2 above, there isn't enough room for their vehicles so they leave them with their Mexican comrades in arms and sail off back to the Motherland.

Ok I officially love these ideas - and all have a limited amount of equipment involved so its not the whole Mexican Army with it - its just maybe one or two units

Getting material from Brazil obviously has one complication post war start - which is getting it thru the Caribbean to Mexico's Atlantic ports - but since most if not all shipments would have occurred prior to Mexico invading that probably wouldnt be an issue - and even afterward its possible - i.e. if they can transport Soviet Division Cuba to Mexico after the invasion then the USN presence in the Gulf must have been very minimal

RN - question - where did you get your data - this is what I have using http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade...e_register.php as the basis for the AMX-VCI deliveries

But I dont have access to a Jane's

Supplier/ No. Weapon Weapon Year of No.
recipient (R) ordered designation description of order delivery delivered Comments


Belgium
R: Mexico (401) AMX-VCI APC (1994) 1994-1996 401 Second-hand; incl some or most modernized before delivery; incl VTT/PM mortar carrier and ARV version; Mexican designation DNC-1

(95) BDX APC (1994) 1994-1995 (95) Second-hand; Mexican designation DNC-2

That would support that they all came from Belgium and not a mix of Belgium and France - per that site there was no transfers to Mexico from France of any equipment from 1993 to 1997 - that last such transfer was in 1993

4 AS-355/AS-555 Fennec Light helicopter (1992) 1992-1993 (4) AS-555AF armed

another source I have shows 40 AMX-VCI (i.e. as the DNC-1) in service in the Mexican Army in 1996 which shows at least that many would have been delivered and gone thru the conversion process both at SABIEX and at SEDENA

Would definitely love to see where you got the numbers above - would be very helpful indeed for further research


thank you very much

FYI I was doing some research over lunch and found a very intriguing tank that would fit perfectly in the Mexican Army - ever heard of the X1A and X1A2 light tanks - they were Stuart tanks that were modified by Brazil with a new engine, an improved suspension, new upper hull armor, modern fire controls and a 90 mm gun in a brand new turret - with the X1A2 going even further

and the Brazilians were finally phasing them out right about the time the Mexicans would have been looking for vehicles

they could have either:

a) just bought as many as they could get (which would up to 80 as the Brazilians were still using the X1A2's)

or

b) they had 45 Stuarts of their own - and they could have done the mod themselves under license or sent them to Brazil to get modified

that turns a bunch of elderly Stuarts with a pop-gun into a decent anti-armor vehicle with a gun that the South Africans were using to take out T54/55's in Angola

The same source. You just need to look harder

IMPORTER/EXPORTER TIV TABLES
Hit Export then Belgium
Hit Year: 1990-2016 (although in the first post I only put 1990-1996)
Hit Weapon category
This table shows general armored vehicle exports and not destination, but Belgium didn't sell armored vehicles to anyone but Mexico between 1994 and 1996. But then again on closer inspection Belgium also sold 87 Leopard 1A1 tanks to Brazil between 1997 and 1999 so maybe we can subtract that from Belgian exports to Mexico between 1997 and 1999.



You would think, but when you look at Belgian yearly exports of armored vehicles for this period this is not the case is it.

One factor we should bear in mind when considering the correlation of forces in the American Southwest is the fact that the war was fought in a conventional mode by US forces in Europe, East Asia, and the Persian Gulf for seven months before the first nukes were used. As regards aircraft, losses among US airframes in those theaters would have been staggering. Losses would have exceeded replacement by a huge margin. I say this not to disparage the USAF in any way, shape, or form. I don’t doubt that the USAF would have achieved a splendid exchange rate once the lessons learned by the People’s Liberation Army Air Force on the Far Eastern Front and the Luftwaffe over Europe were fully digested and put into practice.

Still, if we work with General Sir John Hackett’s proposition of an exchange rate of 2:5 in combat airframes in Europe as a starting point for the discussion, we are left with a massive load for the USAF to carry. We should consider several salient factors:

By the time the USAF gets directly involved on or about 12/1/96, the Soviets have been fighting an air war for 15-16 months. While they will have suffered serious losses, they will have had the time to ramp up production to offset those losses—at least partially. More importantly, their air crews will have two years of invaluable combat experience. In the air, this means the average number of flying hours for the surviving pilots will be very considerable indeed. Multiply that value times whatever factor flying those hours under combat conditions can be expected to yield, and we may find that that Soviet air crews at the end of 1996 are dramatically superior to what we might have expected in July, 1995 (before the start of the Sino-Soviet War).

Of course, not every pilot in the SAF (a blanket term to cover the various commands employing fixed wing combat aircraft) is going to have rotated through the Far East by the time the West Germans cross the border in October, 1996. But I would expect some effort by the senior leadership to rotate air crews and ground crews through the Far Eastern Front on some basis so that the benefits of operating in combat could be more widely distributed. By the same token, the Soviets would have good reason to rotate individual pilots or even whole regiments out of the Far East for rest, retraining, and refitting. Morale would suffer if the Far Eastern air regiments began to get the idea that they were doing all the heavy lifting for the nation while their comrades in Europe lived the easy life.

If we dig into the details, we may find that the experience of the SAF in the Far East might not translate perfectly evenly to Europe (or the Middle East) in every particular. The early air dominance of the SAF means that the institutional experience gained in air-to-air operations will be less than the experience gained in air-to-ground operations. The Chinese won’t allow the PLAAF to be wiped out entirely in unequal air-to-air fighting during 1995. They will do their best to keep a force in being that can challenge Soviet air supremacy at moments the Chinese will hope to choose. The Soviets definitely will have the chance to practice bomber escort and counter-air operations on an ongoing, if sporadic, basis during the first ten months of 1996.

The Soviets will get plenty of practice flying air-to-ground missions. I suspect these pilots will be the first to suffer combat fatigue. CAS, interdiction, and other strike missions are highly dangerous against any defended target, as US pilots who fought over Vietnam can attest. Stand-off munitions will run short long before requests for air support do, meaning that Soviet air crews are going to have to fly into the teeth of the Chinese ground based air defenses to deliver bombs and rockets.

Ground based air defense systems will be at or near the top of list of materiel the Chinese request from the West. It’s hard to say where the Western powers will draw the line regarding provision of these items. I rather suspect that the United States will be inclined to be conservative, not wanting state-of-the-art systems to fall into Soviet hands. The French may be more willing to risk having their gear fall into Soviet hands in order to turn a profit in the short term and increase their influence in China over the long term. That’s all politics, which is a whole separate area for speculation. Suffice to say that I think that the fact that there are multiple Western suppliers who will be competing for money and post-war influence will cause the Chinese to receive more and better systems generally than if a single Western power were supplying them.

Consequently, the Soviets will be exposed to Western ground based air defenses in combat before the fighting starts in Europe. Conditions won’t be exactly the same, of course. Still, the Soviet pilots who survive their encounters over China will have dearly-purchased experience in how to deal with some of the same systems they will be facing in Europe and the Middle East once the fighting starts there.

Soviet ground crews will gain enormously, as will the air controllers. A year is a long time in an air war—long enough for procedures and training to be modified to fit real world circumstances. By the time the West Germans attempt to liberate East Germany, the Soviets will have the time and the motivation to rewrite their book on air operations from the air control and ground support standpoint. They will be highly motivated to ensure that these hard-won lessons are incorporated into every air regiment, whether that regiment fights in the Far East or not.

Going forward to the involvement of the USAF in WW3, the Americans are going to find themselves up against a foe in the air who is leaner and meaner than anything they might have encountered in July of 1995. The SAF definitely will be much smaller than it was at the start of the Sino-Soviet War. The personnel and aircraft will be better managed. Although the benefits of experience in the Far East will not be evenly distributed, the Americans are likely to find that the quality of Soviet tactics, battle management, and ground support are considerably superior to what might have been found two years prior. In Europe, the Americans are going to be up against the winners of the defensive air battle against the Luftwaffe.

So while the SAF the USAF encounters from 12/1/96 forward will be quantitatively inferior to the SAF of early 1995, the SAF will definitely be qualitatively superior to the SAF of 1995. Room exists for considerable speculation on how these two factors translate into overall combat power or combat power in a given theater. Historically, a relative handful of pilots have made a highly disproportionate percentage of the air-to-air kills. It’s hard to say who these pilots are going to be in peacetime, though history tells us that many of these guys are not the command’s favorite officers in peace time. By December 1996, the Soviets will have gone through the process of having peacetime troublemakers transition into wartime heroes. The transition may not be complete—look at how the Soviet military treated the Afghanistan veterans. However, the scale of the Sino-Soviet War may cause the senior leadership to have an attitude closer to that of the leadership in the Great Patriotic War than during the war in Afghanistan.

One thing I feel comfortable in asserting is that the pilots who are likely to become real achievers in the air are also likely to request reassignment to the Far East once the fighting starts and once the need for more pilots becomes clear. Air commanders in Europe and the Caucasus may see this as an opportunity to get rid troublesome officers for a time or maybe even permanently. In this sense, the cream of Soviet pilots probably ought to rise to the top. Though this process probably won’t be complete by December 1996, the Soviets certainly will be much further along than the Americans.

By the same token, the Pact air forces will be fewer in number of aircraft but much stronger in terms of experience by the time the West Germans cross the border in October 1996.

All this has to be taken into account when we assess the loss rate of US aircraft from 12/96 through 8/97. We also have to bear in mind that NATO will not enjoy the participation of French, Belgian, or Italian aircraft. The Luftwaffe will have been very badly damaged. The USAF will go into the fight with the experience of Operation Desert Storm under its belt, but this will not be anything like the kind of experience the Soviets will have gained in the Far East. Qualitatively and quantitatively speaking, the USAF and the SAF will be much more evenly matched in early 1997 than they would have been in early 1995. We should expect the exchange rate to reflect this reality. It may cost the USAF 1,000 aircraft to knock out 1,500 Soviet and Pact aircraft in 1997.

Once the Allies decide to attempt the knock-out blow General Hackett describes in The Third World War and which seems to inform the invasion of Poland, both the loss rate among US aircraft capable of ground attack missions and the demand for those missions will explode. We should bear in mind that the US is on the offensive in Korea and the Middle East during this time. The USAF is going to be deployed forward to the greatest extent possible to support the strategic decision to knock the USSR out of the war in 1997.

At the risk of putting too fine a point on the matter, I find it highly unlikely that there will be hundreds of American combat aircraft left in the United States by Thanksgiving 1997. Like the Army, the Air Force will have pushed almost everything forward, leaving just enough here to mind the store and train replacements. Those air units that remain as of late November 1997 will endure six months of post-apocalypse conditions before the Mexican Army crosses the border in the Southwest in June 1998. It should go without saying that such conditions are not conducive to unit readiness—especially for high-maintenance machinery like modern combat aircraft. While the American Southwest may not be entirely devoid of serviceable aircraft in mid-1998, the air situation probably will much more closely resemble that of the fighting in the Congo over the past couple of decades than that of pre-war American circumstances.

In the Twilight 1 and 2.2 timelines, this division already exists, and has existed since WW2. (It was my division when I was in the National Guard, BTW -- A Co 1/141st INF) It was reflagged as the 36th ID (or AD?) in the mid 00s.

And Mexico could also have obtained a couple of battalions of AMX-30 tanks from France. They were a lot better than Stuart tanks and the French were finally phasing them out right about the time the Mexicans would have been looking for vehicles. And the French will sell anything to anybody, excluding nuclear weapons.

Just quoting from GDW American Combat Vehicle Handbook Paul. But thanks and the T2K history has it in Oklahoma in 2000.

Minor piece of trivia that doesn't affect the bigger picture - it is possible that American units in the south western United States might include a small number of (West) German military personnel - the Luftwaffe ran an air defence school for its personnel at Fort Bliss since the 1960's. Presuming all personnel weren't immediately pulled back to Germany at the start of the War (and I see no reason why it should - training would still have to take place) some Luftwaffe personnel might have linked up with US units after Fort Bliss was overrun (the School Brigade is probably the most likely).

(IRL the Luftwaffe also had a permanent presence at Holloman AFB, NM, between 1996 and September this year but that was very much a post Cold War thing so I think unlikely to feature in the V1 timeline)

Its possible as there was a German Budesheer unit still listed in Canada with some British Army training units in one of the Canadian variant write-ups.

The AMX-30 is an idea but again it may come down to the Mexican transport systems - and if NAFTA occurred or not

Keep in mind that much of the improvement in Mexican roads, railroads and airports came about because of NAFTA - which would definitely allow them to better operate heavy tanks and armor

now that's not a big factor once they are in the US with its better roads and rail networks - but it is a factor pre-war - i.e. you dont buy equipment you cant operate in your own country

One of the reasons they went with the lighter armor wasnt just that they didnt expect to fight a foe equipped with heavy armor - it was because their road and rail network would never be able to sustain heavy armor using it

Actually if I had to go with a tank buy for Mexico I would be looking at the AMX-13 - much lighter than than the AMX-30 and perfect for Mexico's road and rail network - and still has a decent punch

and obviously the AMX-13 would fit in with the real life Mexican Army - i.e. the AMX-VCI that they did end up buying is the infantry carrier variant of the AMX-13 tank - so that plays right into the same general tonnage

remember they werent expecting to fight anyone armed with M1A1 tanks - their main foes were countries like Guatemala or Honduras or internal rebels

Also keep in mind who they initially faced - the light divisions and MP units they faced would have had very little in the way of armored vehicles and may have had almost no anti-armor weapons - i.e. by mid 1998 most stateside anti-tank missiles and launchers would probably have long ago been sent to Iran or Korea or Europe or Africa

I would hate to be facing a platoon of AMX-13 or X1A tanks with nothing but possibly a battery of 105mm howitzers to back me up and my heaviest weapon being machine guns

the other reason they may have had such success - if you read up on the 46th it says they were dispersed big time doing stuff like security and disaster relief and supporting food distribution - they may not have even had heavy weapons on them when the Mexicans came storming across the border -

i.e. those 50's and anti-tank weapons and even most of their armored vehicles (because of fuel shortages) that they did have may have been sitting safe back at their base area and not even in place when suddenly it went from distributing food to trying to fight Mexican armored vehicles

And not having heavy tanks definitely gives them a great reason to bring in Soviet Division Cuba in my opinion - i.e. hey the US is sending in an armored division - we arent equipped to fight them

but Soviet Division Cuba - which is basically a motor rifle division - had heavy armor for sure - and I would like to tie this to what Webstral said - they also had helicopter gunships and fuel for them (i.e. Red Star Lone Star even mentions they are grounded now for lack of fuel) - and there is a good possibility the 49th didnt have any air support or very limited anti-air weapons by the time of the battle with Soviet Division Cuba

I would not want to be the commander of the 49th if that was the case when those gunships started making their runs and all they had was the 50's mounted on the tanks when they ran out of AA missiles

@Olefin: I like your idea of up-gunned Stuart tanks. They would give the Mexican Army a bit of an advantage against the armor-poor U.S. forces in CONUS without being overpowering (a .50 HMG firing AP rounds could still kill a Stuart). It also has a certain exotic factor that I like. Add those up-gunned Stuarts to the Brazilian wheeled APCs and you have a formidable- but not too formidable- AFV force to lend punch and mobility to the MA invasion force. I haven't made up my mind yet, but I almost like that idea better than the idea of transfers of French and/or Belgian AFVs. Plus, it doesn't mess with the continuing Cold War alternate history of the v1.0 timeline.

@Web: Your eloquent and well-reasoned treatise on comparative air-power would fit really well in my In Defense of the Red Army thread. Would you mind if I copied most of it over there (attributed to you, of course)?

It may have been mentioned before, but have any of you considered the West German-designed, Argentinian-made TAM as a candidate for Mexican MBT of the Twilight War?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanque_Argentino_Mediano

I would classify it more as a medium tank than a true MBT (at least compared to its contemporaries) but it's definitely got more hitting power than a Stuart. Argentina was shopping it around in the 1980s but didn't get any buyers. Still, if the Mexicans made an offer in the early 1990s, I'm sure cash-strapped Argentina would have reopened production lines. And I think that the Mexicans historically had an APC built on a similar, German-designed chasis, so there could be parts compatibility there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedena-Henschel_HWK-11

I also think that the upgunned Stuarts have that Mad Max kind of tank idea that fits in well with a post-apocalyptic game - i.e. its like the kind of tank that Tank Girl would have had (especially since the one she had in the movie was a supposedly upgunned Stuart with a 105mm cannon on it)

and it sure adds surprise - "hey Sarge isnt that a Stuart?"
"Yup but that sure as heck isnt a 37 on her. Never seem anything like that. What the heck is she armed with? The Mexicans actually think an old Stuart can do us any harm?"

Followed by laughing and a then a loud boom - and even a louder boom when the 90mm round blows the M113 that is parked behind them apart.

What are the chances of Mexico buying tanks from the United States in the early 90's? Would the US potentially sell something like surplus M47's or M48's to the Mexicans? Or maybe the CG Stingray?

Just a thought...

Actually the Stingray was the first tank that came to mind - i.e. they were looking for buyers big time - but not sure they would allow them to be sold to Mexico

It's there to be used, sir.

That's a cool twist, and certainly thickens the fog of war, but, personally, I'd like to take every opportunity to incorporate uncommon weapons and equipment into the T2KU. You just don't see up-gunned Stuarts, Argentinian TAMs, and Brazilian wheeled AFVs in any of the standard T2K settings.

Any and every Frankenstein vehicle, and patch work moth-ball vehicle upgrade. It just wouldn't be t2k otherwise.

All of them are good ideas for Mexico - I especially like the up-gunned Stuarts and the Brazilian AFV's - and considering they already have 40+ Stuarts its the perfect fit for their Army

Olefin here's something else for you to have a peek at, as mentioned by Raellus, Argentina did produce some of its own armour but they also had a large quantity of tanks that were surplus to requirements after they got the TAM into service.

While they probably tried to dispose of them in the normal manner they didn't succeed and they were still in Argentina as of 2002. These tanks are Shermans, they had about 450 initially and then upgraded 250 of them with more modern engines and other systems but also with... a 105mm main gun.

They remained in service until 1994, probably too late for a version 1 timeline but kinda about the right time for v2.
This article gives a lot more detail https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war...tell-us.html/3

Now that would be a hell of a surprise, the X1 light tanks and the Sherman Repotenciado mediums as the basis for a battle group. That 105mm would give the Mexicans some hitting power without the unbelievable totally Soviet armoured force proposed by City of Angels.

I will take a look for sure

FYI for those wanting to see stats for the X1A and X1A-2 tanks Paul already has them on his site

http://www.pmulcahy.com/tracked_lcv/brazilian_tlcv.htm

The U.S. sort of didn't sell much in the way of heavy or modern equipment to Latin American countries because most of them have unstable political histories. They might use them against their neighbours or even U.S. forces if they had to intervene.

They did sell the M48 and M60 tanks to Brazil, but not to any other Latin American country except for one M60 to Argentina for evaluation. I think the only reason they sold tanks to Brazil was because other Latin American countries were buying West European and Soviet tanks, or in Argentina's case building the German designed TAM medium tank.

However they might sell the Stingray to Latin America including Mexico. It wasn't really a full sized tank and was designed for export. It was a modern design with a decent gun but had weak armour, and it would be only a limited threat to U.S. armoured forces.

I would have no issue with Mexico using the AMX-13. It was largely obsolete in French service due to the demanding combat environment that would be expected in a European War. But it would suit Mexican defence priorities before the Twilight War.

Good find! I was unaware that Argentina had any number of modernized Shermans. I really like this idea, and I think it would work just as well for the v1.0 timeline.

So, as I envision it, by the time of the invasion, Mexico's pre-existing army AFV fleet would have been bolstered by:

Ex-Argentinian Up-gunned Shermans*
Ex-Brazilian X1A & X1A-2 light tanks
Newer make Brazilian EE-9 Cascavel and EE-11 Urutu wheeled AFVs

They could probably acquire these on the cheap, prior to, or even after the Soviets go to war with the PRC.

This would improve the MA's firepower, helping to explain their impressive initial gains, without making them unstoppable or un-ejectable.

Now, if we could just come to a consensus on how the Mexican Army gets its hands on some Soviet armor...

*Turboswede's MASB already had the MA using up-gunned Shermans but I can't recall the provenance- I think they may have been acquired from the Israelis.

Here are some sites that I found when I was running a brief New Mexico-based T2K PbP a few months back. The first site has pics of several IRL Mexican AFVs. The second has lists of said, including the numbers fielded (I can't vouch for the accuracy of the figures, but it's a start).

https://aw.my.com/en/forum/showthrea...mored-Vehicles

http://www.armyrecognition.com/mexic...tion_desc.html

I have little problem with Mexico using the AMX VCI in this period, but I don't think it's possible that they got them from Belgium due to the on going Cold War in Europe. France would be a much better source.

As part of the Paleme-4/6/7 deals France delivered 120 ERC-90, 48 VCR-TT, 40 VBL including 8 with Milan anti-tank missiles, 32 MO-120 RT 120mm mortars and 80 MILAN anti-tank missiles to Mexico in the 1980's. I see no reason why this arms trade would not continue into the 1990's, as we know that France delivered 4 AS-555 Fennec armed helicopters in 1993.

At this time France was in the process of upgrading its land forces with new equipment such as the LeClerc tanks, AMX-10RC, AMX-10P, VAB, GCT SF artillery and towed field artillery, anti-tank and air defence missiles etc. GDW also lists the AMX-40 tank. A whole generation of French military equipment was becoming obsolete in French usage in the later stage of the Cold War, including the AMX-30 tank, AMX-13, AMX-VCI, F3 SP artillery etc. France has a greater arms manufacturing capability than Belgium, and it could produce new vehicles far quicker than Belgium making it plausible that older vehicles could be replaced and become surplus. France and Mexico could agree to another Paleme deal in the 1990's to transfer second hand military vehicles and some new arms to Mexico.

The Mexican Army Sourcebook basically implies that this happened. I don't believe that the numbers listed in the Mexican Army Sourcebook that include hundreds of AMX-30 tanks would be possible, due mainly to the fact that Mexican forces and defence spending could not accommodate or afford these numbers. It would also lead to even bigger problems with the Americans who would not be happy with Mexico massively increasing its armed forces and capabilities south of the border, and would probably lead to major American political and trade problems with France and Mexico. However reduce those figures to dozens rather than hundreds and it would be less noticeable and more manageable. A few dozen AMX-30's, more AMX-13 and AMX-VCI and some F3 and towed artillery, along with some new French anti-tank missiles and SAM's etc and a dozen helicopters would not alarm the Americans that much as it would still be very modest in comparison to the numbers that U.S. forces have pre-war. It would also explain how Mexican forces were able to invade and hold American territory.

I agree with RN7 on the AMX-13 - for one the Mexicans in real life bought the AMX-VCI which is the APC version. And its light enough that it would be something that would actually work with Mexico's pre-war needs - i.e. they werent looking to take on the US - so they werent thinking M1A1 they were thinking more like what do we need to take on rebels and possibly Guatemala or Honduras

The AMX-13 has got a good punch for a light tank as well. And I also agree with RN7 on the probable fact that the French wont be looking to sell them hundreds of anything - looking at the composition of the Mexican Army even a battalion worth of AMX-13 tanks and a battalion or two of AMX-VCI APC's gives them better combat power than before and its line with the size of previous French sales to Mexico.

Given the inherent weakness of American forces left in the US by the time of the invasion they may have been able to pull it off without even MBT's - even light tanks and armored cars may have been enough. And they did bring in Soviet Division Cuba for the muscle when they did need it to stop the charge of the 49th.

If you want to stay in line with canon then there should be at least a couple of battalions of the VAB as well if not more - Red Star Lone Star has that as the primary Mexican APC.

They are the canon APC - but the question is how many did they have - i.e. sure they had them in Texas - but that doesnt mean they had a lot of them. (and the ones I am thinking about would be the basic version equipped with either a machine gun or the 20mm cannon and most likely ones that are already 15 or so years old - i.e. from the original deliveries and about ready to be refitted)

Interesting, by the early 1980s, most of the French AMX-13 tank production was the 90mm and 105mm variants with many mounting quad SS-11 ATGMs.

Not only were there APCs but also self propelled howitzer and guns, and ADA variants.

One can almost see a Mexican Army purchase of 1-2 brigades worth from the French. Keeping the initial purchase at this level would give the Mexican Army a nice modifier against the light infantry/MP units that were fielded during the invasion as well as a useful force against what ever tanks the US could died in response.

If you look at the biggest armored vehicle buy the Mexicans had (in reality not the canon) it was the buy of approximately 500 vehicles (all APC's) from Belgium in 1994-1996 - given that you can assume that is about how many they would have been looking for in the canon timing as well with most of the buy leaning towards APC's

however some kind of light tank is a definite possibility as part of this mix for the canon versus the real life buy

again it comes down to Mexican behavior in the canon versus real life

if real life Mexico never saw the US as a serious enemy they had to arm themselves against and thus never looked at tanks as a need for their army

in the canon this changed - but the question is when did it change? After the nuclear strikes on Mexico - in that case its too late to really arm themselves with new weapons like heavy tanks - or did it change years earlier - and the canon in many ways doesnt really address that.

Again the nature of the US forces that were in the border areas (keep in mind the 49th was deployed on peace keeping duties a long way from their native Texas when the invasion occurred) tends to suggest to me that this transformation in attitude happened after the nuclear strikes as the civil situation in the US and Mexico deteriorated and the Mexican government needed some way to rally their people around the flag. In other words the first inkling the US had of the invasion was seeing those Mexican APC's crossing the Rio Grande and striking over the border from Tijuana.

You would think if they had added a lot of heavy tanks to their arsenal the US would have been paying a lot more attention to that border at the least for the potential threat. Especially considering the only real country to buy those tanks to use against was us. Now a small number could be possible - ie.. they could be seen as an offset to the Nicaraguan Army which did have tanks (old T-54/55 and PT-76 light tanks). I could easily see Mexico telling a nervous US general in 1993 that the AMX-13 tanks they are getting are to take out the Nicaraguans if they ever come across the border - and thus they are never figured into US strategic decisions until they encounter them in Texas or CA

The main problem with Mexican versus US forces in the Twilight War is that U.S. forces have a whole load of weapons that can defeat all Mexican armour, but the Mexicans have none that can defeat the M1 Abrams tank.

The ERC-90 and AMX-13 armed with a 90mm gun can defeat lighter U.S. vehicles and older tanks, but not modern tanks. An AMX-13 armed with a 105mm gun can defeat the M48 and M60 tanks, but only if it is using HEAT or APFSDS rounds. It cannot defeat any variant of the M1 Abrams tank or an M60A3 with reactive armour. The ERC-90 and the AMX-13 are also very lightly armed vehicles and vulnerable to all U.S. tanks and anti-tank weapons. In fact they would also be vulnerable to the Bradley's 25mm canon.

Mexican forces also use the Milan missile. France supplied 80 Milan 1 missiles to Mexico in mid-1980's. The Milan 1 missile can defeat the M48 and M60 tank, but cannot realistically defeat any variant of the M1 Abrams tank or an M60A3 with reactive armour. The Milan is also wired guided and short ranged. The Milan 2 missile is a bit more powerful but the French kept this missile for themselves in this period, and it couldn't penetrate an M1 Abrams either.

The actual armor thickness ranges from 40mm to 10mm, flank and rear of the AMX-13 is actually vulnerable to .50 BMG armor piercing and 40mm HVHEDP rounds.

The 75mm version was an adoption of a WWII German gun, it can fire AP, HE, Canister and Smoke. The 90mm is the same lightweight version as mounted of the AML-90 armoured car, it fires HEAT, HE and Canister. This was why the French started mounting SS-11 missiles in an effort to counter T-62 tanks.

Perhaps the greatest weakness of the tank is its autoloader, the two six round drums have to be loaded from the outside of the tank and they must load the same type of ammo, the left drum could be loaded with HEAT and the right drum with HE for example.

The usual tactics involved creeping up on target, firing off as many rounds as possible (the 12 rounds could be fired in about 1.5 minutes) and retiring rapidly back, and getting out of the turret and reloading the drums.

And that is why they brought Soviet Division Cuba along for the ride - i.e. to have people who had the tanks and the ability to take out M1A1 tanks

also keep in mind that they most likely used the terrain to their advantage when it came time to take on US tanks (i.e. avoided fighting any kind of long or mid-range fight where their guns had zero chance of doing anything) - much like the US did when they took on superior tanks in WWII - and they may have fought M1 tanks using infantry tactics if the US actually sent tanks into the cities or built up areas (i.e. took a page out of the Russian Stalingrad book on fighting tanks)

one reason I am highly doubting, in my opinion, they had MBT's in any numbers at all is the description of two battles in the canon - the one in Texas where a bunch of military cadets held off the Mexican Army for three days and finally had to be beaten by massed artillery - and the stand of the School Brigade at El Paso (which was armed basically with anti-air weapons and not anti-tank) which eventually only retreated because they were about to be enveloped

either of those stands make good sense against light armored vehicles

but MBT's would have made short work of either force (definitely the military cadets and most likely the School Brigade as well)

That makes me lean to either them depending on Soviet Division Cuba (which wasnt in either battle) or a possible small silver bullet force that they would only use after all else failed and after US tanks numbers had been degraded as much as possible beforehand instead of attempting to engage in tank on tank battles first

FYI has anyone else read Trial By Fire - Harold Coyle's book about a US Mexico war?

This is the problem with the AMX-13. Its not a tank, and it could be defeated by even a heavy machine gun.

Which does make the AMX-13 a possible light tank that the Mexicans did have and engaged the School Brigade with (to their detriment) - ie.. they would have had ammo like that which would have stopped the Mexican attack cold

Whereas an MBT most likely may have have shrugged that off and overran them almost immediately