The school brigade would have had some ADATS (tracked and wheeled) and FOG-Ms correct?

In open terrain they are not the most useful, but with some shoot and scoot even MBTs would need to think twice going against those.

What type of tanks and ATGM's was Soviet Division Cuba using? A T-72 tank with a 125mm gun cannot defeat the frontal armour of an any M1 Abrams, even with an armor piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot with depleted uranium round. Only the very latest Soviet anti-tank missiles would even damage yet alone defeat an M1A1.

I think that's a point in its favour in this particular scenario where we're looking for something that's not overpowered and that the Mexicans might plausibly have bought.

Yes, but it was a long, long time ago so I don't really remember any of the details.

Have to look at my US Army Vehicle Guide when I get home - I think the ADATS but not sure on the FOG-M

Per the canon they had T-72's (Red Star Lone Star) - but if I remember right the 49th wasnt an all M1 unit - again have to look at my US Army Vehicle Guide when I get home (unless you have one handy)

Both 1st and 2nd edition has the 49th armored division with five tank battalions (2 M1A1, 2 M1 and 1 M60A3). The orbat for 2000 has them with 1 M1A1, 8 M1, 4 M60A3, 7 Stingray and 3 LAV-75.

From American Combat Vehicle Handbook

"With the outbreak of hostilities with Mexico in 1998, the brigade was activated as a troop unit, using its available mix of weapons to create unorthodox operational units. Infantry was drawn from basic training camps at Fort Bliss and attached to ADA gun batteries (PIVAD and Diana) to create heavy machinegun combat teams. Because the brigade had no organic field artillery, it relied heavily on infantry mortars and developed its own doctrine for employment of ADA gun systems in the indirect fire role.

The School Brigade was able to hold the Fort Bliss area against repeated attacks, but was soon surrounded. Fighting its way free of the encirclement, the brigade retreated north, evacuating its equipment, personnel, and dependents through New Mexico. Once across the Canadian River, the brigade linked up with elements of the XC U.S. Corps in Oklahoma. In January of 1999, the School Brigade was attached to 49th Armored Division, with which it has served since."

It is actually in the 2nd ed Heavy Weapons Sourcebook. So it is not listed in unit assignments but it is US army weapon.

Thank you for the information RN7!

One thing that the Soviets did have was helicopter gunships - they are mentioned in Red Star Lone Star (if I remember they didnt mention exact numbers or types but it was definitely plural as in more than one or two) - one of the prime reasons to get the refinery was that it could produce avgas -and put those grounded gunships back into the air

That could explain how the Soviets beat the 49th - i.e. they had gunships with anti-tank weapons and fuel to put them in the air - and the 49th may not have had any by the time helos of their own by the time they encountered the Soviets - which if I remember right was in 1999 sometime

definitely would make the T-72's more survivable if the 49th is getting their heads handed to them by gunships and is busy maneuvering to engage them or throw off the missiles and as a result allows the Soviet tankers to get into position to not take on the M1's frontally

thus possibly explaining how a single Soviet Motor Rifle Division stops a five battalion armored division cold

The Cubans has armed Mi-24 and Mi-8 gunships - those definitely could have tipped the odds for the Soviets if the US ones are grounded from lack of fuel

The DIana battalions (will double check PIVAD) also had ADATS. 2ed also mentions 4 of the M1 based laser ADA system being at fort bliss.


Edit PIVAD equipped units had the Roland. so not useful as anti armor.

Ok how many people think that this subject may be one of the most fascinating and challenging ones there is on the board as to coming up with a realistic OOB for the Mexican Army at the time of the invasion?

I would vote yes for sure

I don't think that you need tension between the U.S. and Mexico to justify a major arms purchase, even one including light tanks. And I don't think that the U.S. would be particularly troubled by the purchase of a few dozen, older, practically obsolete models. Yes, the U.S. might be upset that Mexico isn't buying American, but if the purchases take place after the Soviets invade China, the U.S. (gov't and arms corporations) would be too preoccupied with providing weapons to the Chinese to care.

I haven't heard much about its status lately, but in the '90s, Mexico was fighting an insurgency against a guerrilla group called the Zapatistas in its Chiapas state. Perhaps the arms buy was part of an attempt to quash this rebellion. Perhaps, Guatemala was believed to be aiding and abetting said rebels. Perhaps the Mexican government was trying to pick a fight with Guatemala in order to distract its own population from various domestic issues (poverty, corruption, etc.).

And tanks- especially light tanks- wouldn't necessarily make it that much easier for the Mexicans to overrun the School Brigade, for example. There are lots of historical examples of well-trained, experienced, well-led infantry, without its own armor, of holding off a force equipped with armor for a couple of days or three.

Actually the AMX-13 is a perfect example of a light tank from the post WWII era.

When you consider a tank design, picture a triangle, one point is maneuverability, the second is firepower and the third point is protection.

The AMX-13 has excellent maneuverability and decent firepower, protection is poor. But it was designed for a reconnaissance role. When I was stationed in Germany, during the maneuvers that light tank could run rings around a M-60A1, and if it could get close enough it's cannon was a decent threat against flank armor. The turret also gives this tank an advantage, the cannon is mounted fairly high, and from the front it is a narrow design. This allows the AMX-13 to occupy a hull down position and reveal very little of its turret, coupled with good camouflage, makes the blasted thing very hard to detect.

It's ability to pour a burst of 3-6 rounds and then run away, does make it a threat.

But remember, it was designed for the European battlefield.

During the Six Day War, the IDF fielded three battalions of AMX-13s, due to the shortage of MBTs, they used the -13s as main battle tanks and they suffered heavy losses when used outside their designed role.

So the Mexican Army buying light tanks, very possible, equally possible is their suffering heavy losses, especially when going up against TOW/Dragon/Tank Breaker/Hellfire. Toss in M-48A5/M-60A3/M-1, and you have a nasty little surprise for the Guard and Reserve units, but one that would be quickly worn away by battlefield and maintenance losses.

If I remember correctly, didn't the author use a Nicaraguan armor brigade equipped with T-72s?

This. Even early-model M72 LAWs and old recoilless-rifles just taken out of mothballs would be able to defeat any of the tanks we've mentioned so far, including the AMX-30 and TAM.

What these AFVs do is give the Mexicans increased firepower and mobility. Coupled with surprise, this upgraded Schwerpunkt explains the dramatic early success of the Mexican invasion, and goes a little way in explaining why the Mexicans still hold territory in the U.S. in 2000 and beyond.

Concur, by the time of the invasion, you would have the bottom of the barrel scraping to defend the U.S. southwest.

This is why I argue that the 49th Armored gets shipped to Europe, this leaves no significant armor force to cover the New Mexico, Arizona, Texas front until the 50th Armored gets shipped down from Ft Knox, Ft Drum to act as reinforcement, and since the 50th AD had so many problems with its training...now the Mexicans get a slim edge over the American armor.

I would agree with you there Raellus - and keep in mind that the Germans broke thru the French in 1940 and achieved victory using tanks that in many ways were inferior to the ones the French had both in terms of quantity and quality.

And one big reason for the success may be who they are facing - i.e. a bunch of light infantry divisions converted from training divisions, military police units, a widely scattered National Guard infantry division that hadn't seen any fighting yet (i.e. the 46th), a rebuilt National Guard division that was equipped with a grab bag of armor including Engineering tanks masquerading as the real thing (the rebuilt 40th minus one of its brigades) and a single National Guard tank division that wasnt there to face the initial attack (the 49th) and hadnt seen any combat yet

and most likely with very limited air support due to fuel shortages and lack of aircraft

probably the best units they initially faced were the School Brigade and the 177th (which isnt even in the canon) and they were heavily outnumbered

all of whom would be facing fuel and ammunition shortages and major communication and logistics issues from the effects of the nuclear attacks

i.e. in other words they didnt face the best the US had at the top of their game - if they had that invasion would have been stopped cold in its tracks

One other factor that might have also lead to their success may have been the Americans underestimating them

I.e. that it was just the Mexican Army how hard can they be?

Very hard to quantify that for us with what we are doing but if the writers took that approach you could see them figuring the US units would be too confident and approach a fight without really considering that the Mexican Army might be better equipped and motivated than they gave them credit

If you look at Trial by Fire (the book I mentioned earlier) the US units feel that way when they encounter Mexican units - and as a result take much heavier casualties than anyone expected

On a side note, I've been trying to get better info on those Argentinian upgraded Shermans.
Even looking through Jane's for the relevant years there's not a lot of information but I do have the following for the powerpack that was used.

Paraphrasing from Jane's Armour and Artillery 1986-87, page 950

Poyaud 520 series engines developed to a requirement of the French army although weren't used by the French army. Based around a common cylinder of 135mm bore and 122mm stroke. The modular construction of the engines allowed them to be offered in many configurations for many different vehicles (including Soviet) chiefly naturally aspirated (NS suffix), turbo-charged (S1 suffix), turbo-charged with charge-air intercooling (S2), turbo-charged with oil-cooled pistons and intercooling (S25) and turbo-compounded using the "Hyperbar" process (S3).
All variants were apparently direct injection and water cooled.
It seems as though the engines could be supplied to a buyer in kit form for assembly at their point of destination.

The Argentinian upgraded Shermans were fitted with the 520 V8 S25, meaning they used the turbo-charged, oil-cooled piston, intercooler version. This developed 2500rpm at 570HP (420kW). It looks as though this engine was designed for US vehicles of the post-WW2 era e.g. M4 Medium, M36 and M41.

I haven't found anything to state these were petrol/gasoline or diesel except for the article I originally linked. I'm inclined to think diesel because they were all direct-injection but that's just a guess. I'm hoping someone with a better knowledge of engines than me (which pretty much means just about everybody!), can make a better assessment of that.
What all of that means for game stats I'll leave (again!), to people with a better understanding of engines.

I haven't found anything specific about the 105mm gun except for the article I linked that states it was a French gun. Given that the French had tested a 105mm on the AMX13, they certainly would have had the tech knowledge for designing one suitable for refitting to the Shermans.

The Poyaud 520 is a V-8 diesel engine. The Sherman Repotenciado's gun was a license-built version of the 105mm from the AMX-13, the coax was a MAG-58, and the pintle MG an M2HB. Many of them were rebuilt Sherman Firefly, since England repaid some of its debt to Argentina by giving them Shermans at scrap metal cost. To make room for the gun upgrade and increased shell size, it had no radio operator (not a big deal with modern radios) and no loader (big deal, since it didn't have an autoloader). It's not really relevant to this discussion, but a lot of the Shermans in Saving Private Ryan were Repotenciadoes.

Paraguay is (or was, as of 2015) still using three of them as ceremonial vehicles for the Presidential Escort Regiment. The three in use are SN 15919 (built by Baldwin in September 1943), SN 40351 (built by ALCO in November 1943), and SN 6057 (built by Chrysler in November 1942).

There were also Chilean Shermans (which Paul has listed under the Israeli tanks, since they're modified Israeli Shermans). They bought Israeli M-50 and M-51 Shermans and re-engined them with Detroit Diesel 8V71T engines. The M-51 (105mm) was kept with its existing armament, but the M-50 (75mm) was re-armed with IMI's 60mm HVMS cannon (which was also used in Chilean Chaffee tanks).

Update re: Argentina's upgraded Shermans. And I've just noticed The Dark posted while I was compiling all this! :(
According to the following site, the French 105mm gun was the CN-105-57 L/44
https://aw.my.com/us/news/general/et...-years-sherman
Right down but not quite the bottom of the page.

Some more info that may or may not be helpful because the poster has English as a secondary language and his translations are a little tricky to understand for me (being unfamiliar with the way Spanish grammar works). Lots of images though including photos of operating Shermans in the celebration parade of Argentina's 200 years of independence (2016 I believe).
http://tank-encyclopedia.org/Forum/s...2366&pid=46838

This page has some more info and states that the crew was reduced to just three men.
https://m.facebook.com/TheArmorJourn...28587243927757

Some minor history of three upgraded Shermans given by Argentina to Paraguay but mentions the new tracks fitted to the tanks (T49 type track and drive sprocket). What this means for game stats regarding speed, travel move and so on I'll leave to wiser heads than mine.
http://www.blitz72.com/2012/01/parag...erman-firefly/

Model vehicle site with some extra info, specifically new radio gear and auxillary fuel tank. Speculating on my part, guess that means fuel economy is not much better than original Shermans?
http://www.track-link.com/gallery/5133
http://www.track-link.com/gallery/4169

Even if the lower number is used for the total number of upgrades (120 versus 250), that still leaves a healthy number of 105mm gunned tanks if we're going to use them to bolster Mexican forces. Some idle speculation: if the three-man crew is accurate, that would also fit into the idea of early initial success for Mexican forces (when the Sherman force is at full strength), but later they aren't so effective as they suffer attrition and extended supply lines and therefore making the surviving three-man crews have to carry more of the burden.

Edit: According to the following site, the French 105mm had an auto-loader hence a human loader was not required. Right down the bottom of the page, under the image of the Sherman with the Argentine flag flying behind it.
http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_m..._variants.html

The tank design philosophy of the 1950's and 1960's was for tanks to be designed with the firepower of a heavy tank, the speed and mobility of a light tank and the protection of medium tank. These tanks were known as the universal tank or the MBT, a trend opposed to the heavy tanks of the Second World War and early post-war years. Light tanks such as the AMX-13 were still in fashion as they acted as scouts for the heavier tanks. The Leopard 1, AMX-30 and most Soviet tanks were built to this design philosophy. The U.S. also went with this philosophy and developed the M47, M48 and M60 from the Second World War era M26 Patton with a bigger gun and a more powerful engine.

The British Army who had plenty of negative experiences against heavy German tanks in the Second World War didn't follow this philosophy. In 1966 they introduced the Chieftain tank which was the first newly designed mass produced British tank since the Second World War. The Chieftain was built like a block of iron with a 120mm rifled gun. All of the fast mobile tanks could outrun it, but they could not outrun the range of its rifled gun and the second this English bruiser got you in its gun sight you were dead and there was nothing your tank could do about it.

Then the Yom Kippur War broke out in 1973, and the Soviet supplied the Arabs with AT-3 Sagger anti-tank missiles and nearly shot the Israeli tank fleet to pieces through destroying or damaging 800 Israeli M48's, M60's and Centurions, as well as many other light tanks. The Israelis who know a thing or two about tank warfare wanted to buy hundreds of Chieftain tanks from Britain and even licence build it, as it was the only Western tank that new Soviet anti-tank missiles could not defeat and it was greatly superior to every tank in the world. The Israelis never got the Chieftain because the Arabs would likely cut off oil supplies to Britain. North Sea Oil had not yet come on line. But the next generation of Western tanks (Challenger 1/II, Leopard 2, LeClerc, M1 Abrams and the Israeli Merkava and Japanese Type 90) closely followed the attributes of the Chieftain because on the battlefield the heavy tank is king

The Soviet uniquely kept with their baseline MBT design, but did so out of necessity and not because they wanted to. Soviet tanks were transported by railway over vast distances, and the rail gauge of Soviet railway tunnels restricted the dimensions of Soviet tank design. They can't make them any wider, which is why later Soviet and Russian tanks look longer and have remained lighter in weight than Western tanks as they cant increase the tonnage or protection without making the tank wider. Earlier Chinese tanks also followed this philosophy as they are basically copies of Soviet tanks.

On paper you would have expected a U.S. armored division equipped with M1 Abrams to have obliterated Division Cuba and whatever Mexican forces were fighting with them in Texas. But this did not happen, and part of the reason why the 49th Armored Division wasn't more successful might have something to do with its war history rather than the capabilities of the Soviets.

From American Combat Vehicle Handbook

" A national guard division consisting of the 1 st, 2nd and 3rd Brigades (all Texas NG). The division was brought into federal service on 1 November 1996 and moved to Chicago, Illinois in early 1997 in preparation for transit to Europe. Due to a shipping shortage and concerns as to the safety of shipping in the north Atlantic, the division remained in the Chicago area through out the spring and summer. In late 1997, the division was deployed in a disaster relief and emergency security role in the northern Illinois and Indiana area,
but soon was moved out of the Chicago metropolitan area. The division's 1st Brigade moved to Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, the 2nd Brigade to Camp Atterbury, Indiana, and the 3rd Brigade and division headquarters to Springfield, Illinois.

With the outbreak of hostilities with Mexico in mid-1998, the division moved south by road and river barge to Fort Sill, Oklahoma and came under command of the newly formed XC Corps. By autumn, the division was involved in sporadic and confused combat on a broad front against elements of the Mexican Army, marauder bands, and numerous paramilitary organizations. In 1999, the division was used to spearhead the 5th U.S. Army's drive to clear Texas of hostile armed bands, and suffered heavy vehicle losses in central Texas when the division was counterattacked by the Soviet "Division Cuba." By late 1999, the division had withdrawn to southern Oklahoma where the front was stabilized."


The division was sent all over the mid-west and then dispersed on security and relief duties before it was sent south. Then it was involved in numerous skirmished with the Mexicans, bandits and paramilitaries even before its got into a fight with Division Cuba. It must have lost vehicles through combat, attrition and having its units transferred all over the place before it even got to Texas. What was left of the 49th division may not even have all been in Texas when they clashed with the Soviets. Its supply train was also probably running through a couple of states by the time of the battle, and no doubt fuel shortages effected its effectiveness and tactical deployment.

American Combat Vehicle Handbook mentions it suffered heavy vehicle losses in central Texas when the division was counterattacked by the Soviet "Division Cuba." But its doesn't state what those losses were. I doubt they were M1 Abram's as neither the Mexicans or Soviets had much that hand handle them in a head on clash. More likely lighter vehicles and M60's.

Good catch on this. I knew the AMX-13 had an autoloader, but none of the sources I found mentioned one in the Argentinian Shermans. That would make the Shermans a bit more useful, since it would give them a much better rate of fire with a gun capable of defeating M60 frontal armor at 2+ kilometers.

The Argentine Shermans are an interesting branch in armoured vehicle history and one that I'd never really heard much about before. It really caught my curiosity so I spent an entire evening typing into the search engine any combination of Argentina, Sherman, upgrade and tank! Perhaps I was a little obsessed :D

I really expected Janes or at least Bart Vanderveen to have some reference to them (Vanderveen made a lifetime hobby for many people out of his own interest in military vehicle history) but none of Vanderveen's Wheels & Tracks magazine I checked had any mention and Janes was minimal at best (with most of the relevant info being found in the Armour & Artillery yearbooks for 1986-87 and 1987-88 yearbooks).
I was surprised by Vanderveen' lack of info as his Historic Military Vehicles Directory (compiled from Wheels & Tracks in 1989) includes the Argentine DL43 Nahuel Medium tank which was itself ousted by Shermans but no mention of the upgraded Shermans.
This is one time when the internet really put the books to shame.

It was fascinating to read the background and history but also to see that Argentina (and Paraguay too) still had some in operating condition into the 2000s where they were using them to test a new mine plough (and of course, having them feature in the 200th anniversary parade).

A list of major U.S. units in the southwest in 2000 by pre-war composition. This would exclude some additional units attached to corps HQ's, and also army helicopter units which are likely to be grounded due to a lack of fuel. This does not include current losses from combat, attrition and other factors.

49th Armored Division: Oklahoma
2 M1A1 battalion
2 M1 battalion
1 M60A3 battalion
1 M113 CAV battalion
2 M2 battalion
2 M113 battalion
1 MLRS battalion
3 SP 155mm battalion
1 M998 Roland AD battalion

40th Infantry Division (Mechanised): California (2 brigades only)
2 M1 battalion
2 M60A3 battalion
1 M113 CAV battalion
2 M2 battalion
4 M113 battalion
1 MLRS battalion
3 SP 155mm battalion
1 M998 Roland AD battalion

46th Infantry Division: California
1 M60A3 battalion
2 M113 battalion
7 Light Motorized battalion
1 MLRS battalion
1 SP 155mm battalion
2 Towed 155mm battalion
1 M741 Chaparral AD battalion

85th Infantry Division (Light): Louisiana (1 brigade only)
9 Foot Infantry battalion
3 Towed 105mm battalion

91st Infantry Division (Light): California9 Foot Infantry battalion
3 Towed 105mm battalion

95th Infantry Division (Light): Oklahoma
9 Foot Infantry battalion
3 Towed 105mm battalion

98th Infantry Division (Light): Louisiana (1 brigade only)
9 Foot Infantry battalion
3 Towed 105mm battalion

100th Infantry Division (Light): Colorado
9 Foot Infantry battalion
3 Towed 105mm battalion

45th Field Artillery Brigade: Oklahoma
3 Towed 155 or 105mm battalion

65th Field Artillery Brigade: Utah
3 Towed 155 or 105mm battalion

153rd Field Artillery Brigade: California/Nevada
3 Towed 155 or 105mm battalion

169th Field Artillery Brigade: Colorado
3 Towed 155 or 105mm battalion

6th Air Defence Artillery Brigade: Oklahoma
3 M998 Roland or M741 Chaparral AD battalion

111th Air Defence Artillery Brigade: Colorado/New Mexico
3 M998 Roland or M741 Chaparral AD battalion

49th Military Police Brigade: California
Light motorized or foot infantry only

221st Military Police Brigade: California
Light motorized or foot infantry only

225th Engineer Brigade: Louisiana
Light motorized infantry with some engineer vehicles

Cadet Brigade: Colorado
Light motorized or foot infantry with a few tanks, AFV and air defence vehicles

School Brigade: Oklahoma
Light motorized or foot infantry only

10th Special Forces Group: some units Colorado
Company sized light motorized or foot infantry only

19th Special Forces Group: some units in Utah
Company sized light motorized or foot infantry only

RN7, I'm not clear on your source for those figures. IRL, a lot of those units existed only on paper. According to the U.S. Army Vehicle Guide, some them had attached armor, for example, the 95th LID lists some M60s but your list omits these. Is it a hybrid list? (i.e. part RL, part canon) I hope I don't sound cranky, because I'm not. Just curious.

Unified Theory
 

I'm trying to come up with a concept that will unify the ideas upon which the Mexican invasion and subsequent occupation of the American Southwest are predicated on. Here's what I've come up with.

Suppositions:

• In a alternate timeline (v1.0 is the way to go, IMHO), NAFTA doesn't happen, or if it does, in a somewhat modified format.
  
• Oil markets are bullish and Mexico receives an influx of petro-dollars.
  
• Mexico has to deal with a resurgent insurgency in its southern states. Fairly or not, Guatemala is accused of collusion with the guerillas.

Ergo:

There is a minor trade dispute with the U.S. Not enough for either nation to feel threatened by the other, but enough to make them both grumpy with one another.

Instead of taking a progressive approach, spending those petro-dollars on building badly-needed infrastructure and helping the impoverished peasants that support the rebels, the Mexican government, succumbing to pressure from its military establishment, decides to spend the money on armaments instead, so that it can finally "pacify" the restive southern states.

Because of the trade dispute with the U.S., Mexico conscientiously decides not to buy American. But because of American diplomatic clout, they can't buy current generation armor (and the Mexican government isn't foolhardy enough to try to buy Soviet). So, they look to buy used from non-aligned nations. France is upgrading its MBT fleet from the AMX-30 to the Leclerc, so Mexico approaches the French to buy retired AMX-30s. The French aren't necessarily non-aligned, but they always try to do their own thing, so they agree to sell the Mexicans a regiment's worth of AMX-30s, and to throw in a bunch of retired AMX-13s as well. A deal is struck.

OR

Mexico and Argentina broker a deal for the former to purchase a fleet of new-build TAM tanks from the latter, and Argentina offers to throw in its upgraded Shermans to sweeten the deal.

AND (regardless of which of the two above alternatives you select)

In the meantime, Mexico looks into upgrading its existing armor force. It makes a deal with Brazil for the latter to upgrade its fleet of M3 Stuarts to the X1 status. Brazil offers to sell some of its own upgraded fleet of X1A-2s to Mexico as well. A preliminary agreement to buy some Brazilian EE-11 Urutus and EE-9 Cascavels is reached as well.

This unified theory explains some of the tension between Mexico and the U.S. and justifies/explains Mexico's acquisition of non-American AFVs in the run up to the invasion.

A couple other possibilities would be Peruvian or Nicaraguan T-54/55. Peru had 375 and Nicaragua had 156 (136 from the Soviet Union and 20 probably from Libya). Nicaragua in particular has had trouble maintaining theirs, so they might have been willing to trade vehicles for other equipment.

The only problem with the T-54/55 is that they really arent that much better than the AMX-13 or even the 90mm armed armored cars they have. Against M1's they pretty much would be target practice. Still better than nothing though

While I agree with you there, I think there's something to be said for the psychological impact when the US units first come into contact with Mexican forces.
If the Mexicans were able to keep the deal low key, the importance of such a deal could end up lost in the confusion of the third world war and so when US units first encounter the Mexican force, they could be thinking, "Well it's not like the Mexicans really have any tanks... wait a minute, what's that? OH CRAP!"

So yeah, the psychological impact of being confronted with an enemy force that's very different to how the US troops imagined them to be can go some way to helping explain initial Mexican successes.

Its a bit of a hybrid list.

The divisions and some of the recognisable known brigades are canon from the composition of army divisions and selected non-divisional units list in the American Combat Vehicle Handbook 2nd edition. Just basic pre-war organisation to show what type of equipment these units would likely be using in 2000. None would be at any way near full strength.

The other artillery and AD brigades are regional based National Guard brigades that are likely to have remained behind in the area after regular army artillery and AD brigades from the southwest were sent overseas or elsewhere. The two special forces groups were also regional based and a company or two from either unit are likely to be still in the region. I gave each brigade 1 battalion of artillery or SAM's instead of 3. I'll change that.

GDW does list the 95th ID having 3 M60A3, but it was still a light infantry division.

The 98th light infantry division also had 4 M60A3, and the 100th light infantry division had 1 M1A1, 1 M1 and 4 M60A3.

The French Eryx ATGM might penetrate the frontal armour of an earlier M1 Abrams with a lucky hit, but not the M1A1. The Eryx was also used by Canada, Malaysia, Norway and Turkey,

According to Paul Mulcahy's page: The Eryx was also used during the Twilight War by the Swiss and Austrians, as well as special operations units of the US, Great Britain, Mexico, Israel, and Jordan.

Other missiles which might do a number on an M1

Franco-German HOT-2. The earlier HOT-1 was widely exported. The more powerful HOT-2 wasn't exported much until after the Twlight War period.

Soviet AT-14 Kornet. From Paul's page it was available from 1994. But I think it was probably kept with elite Soviet units in Europe.

Soviet AT-15 Springer: From Paul's page it was not in widespread as it was first used in the Ukraine in 1997. Again not likely to be sent to Mexico.

Soviet AT-16 Scallion: New air launched missile used by Su-25, Su-27 and latest Soviet attack helicopters (not Hinds). Not in widespread service.

Also the Hellfire (AGM-114L, K and L), the TOW-2B and C and the TOW-3 missiles could do the job.

I would think that the most likely ways the light infantry divisions got their hands on tanks would probably be either tanks that were in storage at various depots or ones that were originally supposed to be in other units - i.e. like the grab bag of armor that the 40th got when it was reformed in the US. The small number of heavy tanks that ended up in Kenya for instance came from a shipment that was supposed to be going to Turkey but got re-purposed to go to Kenya instead. You could see the light divisions getting tanks in a similar fashion - especially considering when they were formed I am betting that they were grabbing anything they could find to give themselves some armor.

There were tons of ships returning empty from Europe (and I guess the Middle East and Korea) throughout the war. Could some of the Armor be tanks that were deemed too hard to fix in theater perhaps requiring total rebuilds.

Now that I think about it. Given how compressed the Korean theater would be, if there is territory loss there simply might not be room for a tank that would be out of commission for 30+ days. Sending it back to the US might be more likely there than other theaters.

At the height of the Vietnam War, it was standard practice to ship damaged/worn out armored vehicles back to the States to one of the Army Depots for rebuilding. The main depot for this work was Anniston AD in Alabama. Even the Vietnam War ended in 1973, Anniston still had large numbers of M-48s and M-113s that were being rebuilt as late is 1989.

FYI looking at possible SPG's for the Mexican Army as well

In real life at that time what they had were five still operational M8 Howitzer Motor Carriage with 75mm howitzers

They could have gotten more of them (by then probably from collectors only) or possibly retrofitted some of their M5 tanks to M8's - but I think there is a better source for them

Frank Chadwick has them outfitted with M109's and M110's but I dont see that happening - they just dont fit the overall motif of the Mexican Army - but I have a pretty good idea what they might have for SPG's if they did get more in time for the invasion - which would be Spain

Spain by 1989 had fully transitioned to M109 and M110 howitzers - but they had a lot of older ones that were still functional - i.e.

24 M-44AA 155mm SPG
4 M-55 203mm SPG
48 M-108 105mm SPG
8 M-52A1 105mm SPG

All with Spanish language operational and repair manuals

Thats a nice little haul of SPG's that would be available for sale - even if say only half of them were still operational and OK for sale

And while not as capable as an M109 or M110 they are a heck of a lot better than a handful of old M8 Howitzer Motor Carriages

Yeah I think M109s strains the credibility a bit but M110s? I really can't see the US selling them to Mexico for any reason whatsoever.
The US might not allow Spain to sell their surplus 155 and 203mm SPGs to Mexico but I imagine they would have less objection to the sale of the 105mm SPGs. Even just the M108s would be a significant boost for the Mexican forces.

By 1992 Spain had disposed of some of these units.

Spanish artillery stocks in 1992.

12 M110A2 SP 203mm
102 M109A1 SP 155mm (6 Marines)
48 M108 SP 105mm
12 M52A1 SP 105mm (12 Marines)

24 M115 203mm
84 M114 155mm
160 M1931/37 122mm
182 Mod 56 105mm (12 Marines)
284 M-26 105mm

Correct - so the question is would some of those possibly be disposed by transferring them to Mexico?

And that still leaves a good amount of M108's to possibly transfer to Mexico - maybe not all of them - but even as few as 16 of them would greatly add to Mexico's capabilities as to SPG's