[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Keep in mind the thread with the very real possibility that the tanks and other armored vehicles at the Littlefield collection, many of which had live barrels and operational fire control systems, would have been used in 2000 and 2001 to get the CA MilGov units some armor

I wonder how much of it would have gone to the collection with the V1 timeline and without a collapse of the Soviet Union. In that rather darker world less of this stuff would have gone to collectors and more kept by nation states for reserves and militia call ups or training. That said some of it would be a more of a logistical burden than help as armor support. I would see them in the defense of critical assets like air fields, rail yards, supply depots, and refineries before I would see burdening a unit with even one. Their too susceptible to modern light anti armor weapons lacking spall liners, fire extinguishers, compartmentalized fuel, and ammunition.

Originally Posted by Olefin

and remember that the Mexican's only real tank they had (at least based on real world info) was the Stuart tank

I would have sworn they had some Shermans and Lees too. I don’t know why in this any of the timelines that this Mexican army did not atleast purchase some T55s from Cuba or Nicaragua. Those are light enough to move quickly with a civilian semi and low boy trailer.

Originally Posted by Olefin

As for the Sheridans taking on other tanks - most likely by the time the Army got around to getting more of them in the fight their wouldnt have been many tanks on the other side left to get in the fight

Tanks draw fire. Everybody moves under the umbrella of their own fire support.

Originally Posted by Olefin

most likely they would have been used openly against infantry that didnt have ATGM's or RPG's - look at the Texas module for instance - the marauder and Mexican units described had very few of either of those weapons - there a Sheridan could be decisive in a battle -

The first operational kill of a tank is world war one and that was with artillery, the preferred engagement method. ATGMs and LAWs are defensive weapons.

Originally Posted by Olefin

and there is always this - its cold blooded but it works - i.e. you use the Sheridans to draw fire and find the enemy ATGM's and tanks and then take them out with the only M1A1 or M60 or M48 you have operational

Shouldn’t need to do that. A maneuver commander preps probable locations with artillery fires that only stop (shift to the next target) as the armor platoon arrives on it with infantry support.

Doctrinally, on first sighting the flash and smoke of an ATGM the crew executes a turn toward the launcher or oblique across the front, fires smoke grenades, and starts the smoke generator. The gunner engage the launch are with the coaxial machinegun aided by thermal sights to make life hard for SACLOS systems like Mexican BGM-71 TOW 1 systems. The Battalion FO behind them is shifting BN 81mm mortars onto the enemy ATGM source using the armors tracers to backtrace the launcher. The Brigade FO is calling down the Divarty reserve 105mm to saturate that area too. The infantry support is going to dismount move up, call for a shift fire by the BN and BDE FOs and then mop up that launcher and any support it had. Any commander that was using his troops as live bait would be sacked and probably court martialed for good cause. Soldiery is dangerous but, one expects not to be wasted needlessly. You can get a new tank from the factory is six months or a year but, crewmen are going to need 18 years to hatch.