Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
|
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