YaATW2KT: The Second Mexican-American War

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Olefin

FYI - an important consideration for V1 versus V2 versions of the game is the implementation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe

V1 has the Cold War continuing - so this treaty never occurs

V2 was published in 1990 and I dont think this treaty was part of it but I may be wrong

V2.2 as published in 1993 - and if it includes that treaty then you would have had a big draw down in vehicle stocks in Europe that would let countries like Mexico have a shot at armored vehicles, SPG's and other things that most likely they wouldnt have in V1

Example - Belgium kept ancient M44 SPG's in their emergency war stocks right up to the end of the Cold War and only finally disposed of them when the Treaty was signed along with M108's that had also been assigned to their war stocks - thus both vehicles are much more likely open to Mexico buying them in V2.2 than in V1

The invasion of the US by Mexico is in both versions - but all the canon material we have for that area (and if I am wrong please point it out) was V1 timing - but the Mexican Sourcebook was written in the V2.2 era - thus there is much more equipment available for a V2.2 game in terms of surplus from Europe versus in a V1 timeline

so the real question as to what the invasion force and the Mexican Army may have been is are we looking at a V1 timeline or a V2?

Without going into personal preferences or the positives or negatives of V1, V2 and V2.2, I think stating which version you are referring to when discussing aspects of Twilight 2000 would prevent a lot of confusion. Mixing and matching details from very different timelines just doesn't work.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by RN7

Without going into personal preferences or the positives or negatives of V1, V2 and V2.2, I think stating which version you are referring to when discussing aspects of Twilight 2000 would prevent a lot of confusion. Mixing and matching details from very different timelines just doesn't work.

AMEN

[Raellus]

I avoid this issue by completely ignoring the v2 timelines.

v1.0 is the original, and the one I grew up with. I left the country in 1987 and didn't even know there was a second version until about ten years ago. I can't imagine why anyone whose originally exposure to T2K was with v1.0 would willingly use the v2 timelines.

IMHO, the timeline didn't need revamping. They should have declared it an alternative history game, instead of trying to rehash it around RL events. But, that's just me.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I avoid this issue by completely ignoring the v2 timelines.

v1.0 is the original, and the one I grew up with. I left the country in 1987 and didn't even know there was a second version until about ten years ago. I can't imagine why anyone whose originally exposure to T2K was with v1.0 would willingly use the v2 timelines.

IMHO, the timeline didn't need revamping. They should have declared it an alternative history game, instead of trying to rehash it around RL events. But, that's just me.

and again

AMEN

need some kind of meme to go with the AMEN

[The Dark]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I avoid this issue by completely ignoring the v2 timelines.

v1.0 is the original, and the one I grew up with. I left the country in 1987 and didn't even know there was a second version until about ten years ago. I can't imagine why anyone whose originally exposure to T2K was with v1.0 would willingly use the v2 timelines.

IMHO, the timeline didn't need revamping. They should have declared it an alternative history game, instead of trying to rehash it around RL events. But, that's just me.

I avoid this issue by completely ignoring the v1 timeline (since my first copy was v2.2).

However, I suspect I'm one of the youngest members of this board, since I'm barely older than v1 and was 10 when v2.2 was released.

[Raellus]

I totally get it, Dark. It's like Star Wars. I love the originally trilogy and can't stand the prequels. My kids, however, love the prequels. It's about what you grew up with. I don't think that I would have rediscovered and reconnected with T2K if it weren't for simple nostalgia. Sometimes, your first love is your most enduring love.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I totally get it, Dark. It's like Star Wars. I love the originally trilogy and can't stand the prequels. My kids, however, love the prequels. It's about what you grew up with. I don't think that I would have rediscovered and reconnected with T2K if it weren't for simple nostalgia. Sometimes, your first love is your most enduring love.

Cant beat the Empire Strikes Back, just the best!

[Draq]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I avoid this issue by completely ignoring the v2 timelines.

v1.0 is the original, and the one I grew up with. I left the country in 1987 and didn't even know there was a second version until about ten years ago. I can't imagine why anyone whose originally exposure to T2K was with v1.0 would willingly use the v2 timelines.

IMHO, the timeline didn't need revamping. They should have declared it an alternative history game, instead of trying to rehash it around RL events. But, that's just me.

V1 has the setting and ambiance perfect. The system takes a bit of getting used to, but does the job

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Draq

V1 has the setting and ambiance perfect. The system takes a bit of getting used to, but does the job

I think it's pretty common to combine the V1 timeline with the V2.2. rules. That's certainly been the case in any game I've played in - I can only one recall one PbP game that tried to use the V1 rules and it never got out of the blocks.

[The Dark]

Originally Posted by Draq

V1 has the setting and ambiance perfect. The system takes a bit of getting used to, but does the job

It does take some getting used to having an 11-year-old Special Forces Weapon Specialist who weighs 100+ kilograms. It's extremely unlikely, but just barely possible to have EDU 1 and high enough other stats to get an extremely low MEB. With a MEB of 12 or less (again, lower is better), it's possible to get less than 1 year in combat. Per the age section, that means age is 1 (MEB) + 1 (EDU) + 8 + 1d6. Roll a 1, and the character's 11 years old. Since none of the service branches require EDU, they could roll Special Forces or Ranger, though they can't be anything higher than a Spec 4.

Edit: Being fair, though, 2.2 has its own problems. IIRC, elephants are as common as sniper rifles for Warsaw Pact characters, which suggests a rather bizarre alternate universe with a secret Siberian elephant-breeding program to...uh...have heavy draft animals in case of a nuclear war?

[Olefin]

FYI found some interesting information on the BDX armored personnel carrier that in real life Mexico bought from Belgium. They may actually be a real contender for a canon APC. They were originally designed by Timoney Technology as the Mark IV and VI for the Irish Army and then licensed for manufacture by Beherman Demoen in Belgium as the BDX.

The production of the BDX was completed in 1981 in Belgium and they were delivered from 1978-1981. There was a supposed to be a follow ons, including a 6x6 version of the Timoney Mk V and a new vehicle made by Vickers called the Valkyr but neither ever went anywhere (for one reason there was the big draw down in global purchasing due to armies reducing in size). Only two Valkyr's were ever delivered both to Kuwait before the invasion.

I could see in V1 the Valkyr going into production as the improved BDX and then seeing Belgium making the older version available for export. Or alternatively Mexico buying them new as their APC since export orders was one of the big reasons for it being developed.

link to the information on the vehicle - https://www.forecastinternational.co...fm?ARC_ID=1190

[Olefin]

One other idea might be that they buy more VCR-TT from France and that is the canon APC instead of the VAB. I.e. they had already bought 48 of various versions in reality by the mid-80's and that vehicle was a pure export only vehicle. Meaning that in a V1 world they wouldnt have to rely on vehicles that might not have been surplused as they were in the real world.

And the VCR-TT is definitely a good match for them for an APC - i.e. they would already have spare parts, manuals, etc. and familiarity with the vehicle

and there is a version of it that could definitely help the Mexicans with US armor - i.e. there was a tank-destroyer version of the VCR/TT, designated the VCR/TH, fitted with an antitank missile turret for launching the HOT wire guided ATGM (antitank guided missile).

The VCR/TH mounts four HOT missiles on the turret ready to fire with ten reloads inside the vehicle.

The other interesting fact is that there was a less expensive version of the VCR/TH with the MCT copula that fired the MILAN. No one ever ordered it but it sounds tailor made for Mexico

So have Mexico order 100-150 plus of the standard version plus a couple of dozen tank-destroyer versions in say 1992-1993 timing to add to the 48 they had already and bingo - you have the canon APC (but with it being the VCR-TT instead of the VAB) for the mech and cav units and they can use the other APC's they already had spread out thru their infantry brigades

so a good possibility or not really?

[The Dark]

The VCR was unpopular because of its expense, but I could see Mexico acquiring a few more because it's mechanically very similar to the ERC-90. Since they use MILAN but not HOT, they'd would probably go with the Milan version if they picked an ATM launcher. Possibly the Armored Reconnaissance Regiments use the VCR, since they're the units with the ERCs, while other units use less expensive APCs?

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by The Dark

they could roll Special Forces or Ranger, though they can't be anything higher than a Spec 4.

Edit:

The Rangers will take any rank, even an E-none out of AIT, but the Special Forces will only take an SP4 if he's "promotable" (ie, has already the OK from his superiors and has been before the promotion board). Of course, this will all fall by the wayside in a T2K timeline (any of them).

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by The Dark

The VCR was unpopular because of its expense, but I could see Mexico acquiring a few more because it's mechanically very similar to the ERC-90. Since they use MILAN but not HOT, they'd would probably go with the Milan version if they picked an ATM launcher. Possibly the Armored Reconnaissance Regiments use the VCR, since they're the units with the ERCs, while other units use less expensive APCs?

Now that makes a lot of sense - i.e. would mean logistics, support, maintenance issues reduced accordingly - so lets say you use the canon numbers of 34 APC per regiment for the three cav regiments and the two recon regiments attached to the mech brigades - thats a total of 170 - meaning they would need to buy around 120 or so - not that big a number considering the numbers of ERC-90 they bought mid-80s'

I looked at prices I found and it appears the VCR-TT is about 20-25% less in cost than the VAB depending on options but I couldnt find an apples to apples comparison with the same US year dollars

VCR-TT Unit Price. In equivalent 2003 United States dollars, the
unit price of the base Véhicule de Combat à Roues 6x6
vehicle is $327,600; for the 4x4 version, the price is
$287,900. The unit price for the TT2 version is
$333,400, and the newest Véhicule de Combat à
Roues-2 has a projected unit price of $352,000.

https://www.forecastinternational.co...DACH_RECNO=398

VAB - Price Range. In 2009 U.S. dollars, the 6x6 VAB
Improved reportedly maintains a unit price of $397,000.

https://www.forecastinternational.co...DACH_RECNO=106

[The Dark]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Now that makes a lot of sense - i.e. would mean logistics, support, maintenance issues reduced accordingly - so lets say you use the canon numbers of 34 APC per regiment for the three cav regiments and the two recon regiments attached to the mech brigades - thats a total of 170 - meaning they would need to buy around 120 or so - not that big a number considering the numbers of ERC-90 they bought mid-80s'

I looked at prices I found and it appears the VCR-TT is about 20-25% less in cost than the VAB depending on options but I couldnt find an apples to apples comparison with the same US year dollars

VCR-TT Unit Price. In equivalent 2003 United States dollars, the
unit price of the base Véhicule de Combat à Roues 6x6
vehicle is $327,600; for the 4x4 version, the price is
$287,900. The unit price for the TT2 version is
$333,400, and the newest Véhicule de Combat à
Roues-2 has a projected unit price of $352,000.

https://www.forecastinternational.co...DACH_RECNO=398

VAB - Price Range. In 2009 U.S. dollars, the 6x6 VAB
Improved reportedly maintains a unit price of $397,000.

https://www.forecastinternational.co...DACH_RECNO=106

2003-2009 is a 16.6% increase in the dollar, so the 6x6 would go from $327,600 to ~$382,000, about a 4% difference in price between the 6x6 VCR and the VAB. The 4x4 would be ~335,700, the TT2 $388,700, and the VCR-2 $410,400.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Olefin

One other idea might be that they buy more VCR-TT from France and that is the canon APC instead of the VAB. I.e. they had already bought 48 of various versions in reality by the mid-80's and that vehicle was a pure export only vehicle. Meaning that in a V1 world they wouldnt have to rely on vehicles that might not have been surplused as they were in the real world.

And the VCR-TT is definitely a good match for them for an APC - i.e. they would already have spare parts, manuals, etc. and familiarity with the vehicle

and there is a version of it that could definitely help the Mexicans with US armor - i.e. there was a tank-destroyer version of the VCR/TT, designated the VCR/TH, fitted with an antitank missile turret for launching the HOT wire guided ATGM (antitank guided missile).

The VCR/TH mounts four HOT missiles on the turret ready to fire with ten reloads inside the vehicle.

The other interesting fact is that there was a less expensive version of the VCR/TH with the MCT copula that fired the MILAN. No one ever ordered it but it sounds tailor made for Mexico

So have Mexico order 100-150 plus of the standard version plus a couple of dozen tank-destroyer versions in say 1992-1993 timing to add to the 48 they had already and bingo - you have the canon APC (but with it being the VCR-TT instead of the VAB) for the mech and cav units and they can use the other APC's they already had spread out thru their infantry brigades

so a good possibility or not really?

Mexico getting these vehicles is a possibility but the problem that I see if the type of anti-tank missile that the Mexicans would be using.

The Milan missile has an armour penetration (HEAT) of 350mm.
The HOT-1 missile has an armour penetration (HEAT) of 850mm
The HOT-2 missile has an armour penetration (HEAT) 900-1,250mm

The frontal armour protection of a baseline M1 is estimated at 350-470mm against armour piercing kinetic energy rounds fired from a tank gun, and between 650-700mm against chemical rounds such as HEAT ammunition or anti-tank missiles

The frontal armour protection of the M1A1 is estimates at 600-900mm against armour piercing kinetic energy rounds fired from a tank gun, and between 1,320-1620mm against chemical rounds such as HEAT ammunition or anti-tank missiles. The 120mm M256 gun on the M1A1 can penetrate the armour of any Soviet or Chinese made tank of this period (1990's) with APFSDS-T, APFSDS-DU and HEAT rounds.

The Milan will not penetrate the frontal armour of a baseline M1 tank. The HOT-1 will penetrate the frontal armour of a baseline M1 tank but it will not penetrate the armour of a M1A1, and even the HOT-2 will not penetrate the frontal armour of a M1A1.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by RN7

Mexico getting these vehicles is a possibility but the problem that I see if the type of anti-tank missile that the Mexicans would be using.

The Milan missile has an armour penetration (HEAT) of 350mm.
The HOT-1 missile has an armour penetration (HEAT) of 850mm
The HOT-2 missile has an armour penetration (HEAT) 900-1,250mm

The frontal armour protection of a baseline M1 is estimated at 350-470mm against armour piercing kinetic energy rounds fired from a tank gun, and between 650-700mm against chemical rounds such as HEAT ammunition or anti-tank missiles

The frontal armour protection of the M1A1 is estimates at 600-900mm against armour piercing kinetic energy rounds fired from a tank gun, and between 1,320-1620mm against chemical rounds such as HEAT ammunition or anti-tank missiles. The 120mm M256 gun on the M1A1 can penetrate the armour of any Soviet or Chinese made tank of this period (1990's) with APFSDS-T, APFSDS-DU and HEAT rounds.

The Milan will not penetrate the frontal armour of a baseline M1 tank. The HOT-1 will penetrate the frontal armour of a baseline M1 tank but it will not penetrate the armour of a M1A1, and even the HOT-2 will not penetrate the frontal armour of a M1A1.

Keep in mind that frontal armor numbers dont tell the whole tale - i.e. just because you cant penetrate the frontal armor doesnt mean that you cant engage the tank successfully - thats why many tanks that are successfully engaged with anti-tank missiles are hit on the side or the rear or go for the bogies and tracks. Blow the track off a tank and its not going anywhere - still deadly but only within the radius of its gun and only for so long.

And if you look at the armor that was left in the US there were a lot of tanks that at HOT-1 could definitely engage - i.e. older M48 and M60 tanks

and the MILAN would be definitely useful against Bradley's, M8's and Stingrays

I am thinking of a mix of MILAN and HOT-1 missiles for the Mexicans being fired from VBL and VCR vehicles and them finding out very quickly that you had better not shoot for the frontal armor if you want to stay alive

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Keep in mind that frontal armor numbers dont tell the whole tale - i.e. just because you cant penetrate the frontal armor doesnt mean that you cant engage the tank successfully - thats why many tanks that are successfully engaged with anti-tank missiles are hit on the side or the rear or go for the bogies and tracks. Blow the track off a tank and its not going anywhere - still deadly but only within the radius of its gun and only for so long.

And if you look at the armor that was left in the US there were a lot of tanks that at HOT-1 could definitely engage - i.e. older M48 and M60 tanks

and the MILAN would be definitely useful against Bradley's, M8's and Stingrays

I am thinking of a mix of MILAN and HOT-1 missiles for the Mexicans being fired from VBL and VCR vehicles and them finding out very quickly that you had better not shoot for the frontal armor if you want to stay alive

MILAN and HOT-1 can engage lighter U.S. military vehicles and older tanks, but not the Abrams. I know a tank can be hit from the rear or sides, but if the Mexicans were successfully able to disable M1 and M1A1 tanks that way it would imply that U.S. forces were tactically inept i.e. tanks charging in without any following infantry support and walking into ambushes.

[Olefin]

and that might be the possibility for how the 49th got nailed and how the 40th took losses - the 49th was a National Guard unit with no combat experience and the 40th was rebuilt using new recruits - in neither case were they experienced - and they may have been overconfident - again I think that factored a lot into the Mexican success

"its just the Mexicans they dont have anything that can hurt us" - followed by the three lead M1's blowing up as the missiles hit them in the sides

and keep in mind that neither of the units equipped with M1 tanks were part of the initial response to the invasion - it took a while for them to be re-deployed due to fuel shortages and disruptions in the rail network and by then the Mexicans had already come in quite a ways

[Rainbow Six]

Once the invasion has started you could always have the Mexicans managing to seize US vehicles and put them into service - give them an M1 of their own.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Olefin

and that might be the possibility for how the 49th got nailed and how the 40th took losses - the 49th was a National Guard unit with no combat experience and the 40th was rebuilt using new recruits - in neither case were they experienced - and they may have been overconfident - again I think that factored a lot into the Mexican success

"its just the Mexicans they dont have anything that can hurt us" - followed by the three lead M1's blowing up as the missiles hit them in the sides

and keep in mind that neither of the units equipped with M1 tanks were part of the initial response to the invasion - it took a while for them to be re-deployed due to fuel shortages and disruptions in the rail network and by then the Mexicans had already come in quite a ways

The 49th Armoured Division was the key U.S. armoured force in the southwest following the Mexican invasion. I recall that Soviet Division Cuba was mainly responsible for the 49th Armoured Divisions losses in Texas and retreat to Oklahoma.

From City of Angels we also know that Mexican forces in Los Angeles are uniquely using Soviet arms and vehicles.

The MILAN missile will not defeat the Abram's, although HOT-1 in the right conditions might get a result, But I think looking at what type of anti-tank missiles the Soviets had or could have sent to the southwest might be the answer to why U.S. armoured forces were defeated and retreated.

[Olefin]

I actually like the HOT-1 combined with the MILAN for their vehicles - its a good mix and would be effective against everything but the heaviest tanks.

Now having the Cubans provide them with RPG's (along with Soviet Division Cuba) makes pretty good sense - but all they had was the RPG-7

Otherwise what they had was:

106 mm recoilless rifles, Carl Gustav recoilless rifles and RL-83 Blindicide

The US sold them the MK153 SMAW (not sure on the date) but not sure if they sold them any HEAA anti-armor rockets or not.

And remember the 49th was out of position on peacekeeping duties in the upper Midwest when the Mexicans invaded - so initially they wouldnt have had any tanks opposing them there (the 46th was in Texas as was the School Brigade but neither of them had any tanks)

and the 40th was still rebuilding and out of position as well - so they picked a good time to invade - i.e. the tank forces that usually would be there to stop them dead were all elsewhere

[Olefin]

FYI - the more I think about it the more it looks like the canon authors went out of their way to make sure that the Mexican invasion succeeded no matter what - i.e. moving the two divisions that had the best chance to stop it cold out of CA and TX, having the two training tank brigades that had enough tank firepower and experience to blow the Mexican Army away never really engage the Mexicans (i.e. one entered Texas but only to fight the Texian Legion - which they supposedly all but destroyed but then rebuilt enough to wipe out the 85th the following year), having Soviet Division Cuba join the fun because otherwise there was no way the Mexicans could have held the 49th, etc..

i.e. its way too many things going their way - and then having HW have the 90th Corps and the 40th fall apart?

sorry but frankly why are they so dead set on having the US lose the Southwest and Texas that it appears they went way way out of their way to have the Mexican invasion succeed as they did (and then the US never come to take it back even 300 years later)

I mean you can have a US that doesnt want to be a global superpower anymore without having them be reduced to a country so weak that they literally get pushed around by Mexico to where they never try to take back parts of their country that had been theirs for a 150 years and refuse to support their own people when they rebel to try to take back CA and AZ

Was someone that up for being able to play as a character who used to serve in the Texas Space Navy in 2300AD?

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Olefin

i.e. moving the two divisions that had the best chance to stop it cold out of CA and TX, having the two training tank brigades that had enough tank firepower and experience to blow the Mexican Army away never really engage the Mexicans

I think that this is pretty easy to explain. It's simply because the invasion took the U.S. by surprise. The U.S. was preoccupied with the world war v. the Soviets/WTO; they weren't looking south. Why would they? All that armor was desperately needed elsewhere. Why keep in in the CONUS. I mean, even if you don't want to send it overseas, send it to Alaska.

Originally Posted by Olefin

sorry but frankly why are they so dead set on having the US lose the Southwest and Texas that it appears they went way way out of their way to have the Mexican invasion succeed as they did (and then the US never come to take it back even 300 years later)

I think this is about creating a playable setting. In order to make CONUS a place where T2K adventures can take place, the designers needed to have a shooting war in the U.S. They were trying to create a setting for a post-apocalyptic military RPG. There would be no CONUS campaign/modules if the U.S. just whooped Mexico in the opening rounds.

How else do you make the U.S. a battleground? A straight up civil war would be hard for a lot of players to swallow (killing virtual fellow countrymen)- that's why there's very few descriptions of combat between MilGov and CivGov. All things considered, the Mexican invasion is the most realistic option. It's much more realistic than a Soviet invasion of the mainland, a-la "Red Dawn", or a full-scale Cuban invasion of Florida and/or the Gulf Coast. Canada is the final option- would a Canadian invasion be more believable? That's a rhetorical question.

The bottom line is, to make CONUS a campaign site/major adventure setting, you need a Mexican invasion.

Don't give up on making the Mexican invasion work. We were making progress here.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by RN7

The MILAN missile will not defeat the Abram's, although HOT-1 in the right conditions might get a result, But I think looking at what type of anti-tank missiles the Soviets had or could have sent to the southwest might be the answer to why U.S. armoured forces were defeated and retreated.

The myth of the M1/MIA1 Abrams' invulnerability to second-gen ATGMs has been busted for quite some time. Most recently,

http://warisboring.com/what-destroyed-this-abrams-tank/

Spoiler: It was either a Milan or a relatively old Chinese ATGM.

Massed RPG fire killed an Abrams during the 2003 "Thunder Run" into Baghdad.

Bottom line, the Abrams was the best tank of its generation, but, even in its heyday, it wasn't unbeatable.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The myth of the M1/MIA1 Abrams' invulnerability to second-gen ATGMs has been busted for quite some time. Most recently,

http://warisboring.com/what-destroyed-this-abrams-tank/

Spoiler: It was either a Milan or a relatively old Chinese ATGM.

Massed RPG fire killed an Abrams during the 2003 "Thunder Run" into Baghdad.

Bottom line, the Abrams was the best tank of its generation, but, even in its heyday, it wasn't unbeatable.

Raellus you are aware that all current U.S. Abram's have depleted uranium (DU) armour, and that export Abram's don't?

Abram's exported to Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Morocco and Saudi Arabia do not have DU armour, but are fitted with the Chobham armour package. Chobham was cutting edge in the late 1980's, but is now considered fairly average. The British Challenger 2 tanks use the far more effective second generation Dorchester armour.

Officially the Abram's exported to Australia also lack DU armour, but is believed that Australian Abram's have been fitted with DU due to the 68 plus ton weight of their tanks.

The Chinese HG-8 is an amalgamation of technology copied from American TOW, Franco-German MILAN and British Swingfire anti-tank missiles. There has also been 12 improved models that followed the original HJ-8 missile of the 1980's, designated HJ-8A to HJ-8H, each incorporating improved features over the previous model. The later models of the HG-8 have an armour penetration (HEAT) of 800-1,100 mm, which is similar to modern versions of the MILAN (MILAN 3 and ER) missile but still not near enough to penetrate a U.S. M1A1/A2. The MILAN 1 used by the Mexicans had an armour penetration (HEAT) of 350mm.

Bottom line is the Abram's was never the best tank of its generation, but it was one of the best and remains so. The frontal armour of the baseline M1 was not unbeatable, but the Mexicans had nothing that could realistically penetrate its armour at the time in real life. The frontal armour of the M1A1 was to all intensive purposes invulnerable to anything Mexico had, and most things the Soviets had.

[mpipes]

And even if you do penetrate the armor, most Abrams can be repaired. To be completely destroyed, you usually have to detonate the ammo magazine, and that is truly a rare event in an Abrams.

From the video, its hard to tell. The turret looks mostly intact. I suspect a fuel fire, which likely means a rear or rear side hull hit.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by RN7

Raellus you are aware that all current U.S. Abram's have depleted uranium (DU) armour, and that export Abram's don't?

Abram's exported to Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Morocco and Saudi Arabia do not have DU armour, but are fitted with the Chobham armour package. Chobham was cutting edge in the late 1980's, but is now considered fairly average. The British Challenger 2 tanks use the far more effective second generation Dorchester armour.

Officially the Abram's exported to Australia also lack DU armour, but is believed that Australian Abram's have been fitted with DU due to the 68 plus ton weight of their tanks.

The Chinese HG-8 is an amalgamation of technology copied from American TOW, Franco-German MILAN and British Swingfire anti-tank missiles. There has also been 12 improved models that followed the original HJ-8 missile of the 1980's, designated HJ-8A to HJ-8H, each incorporating improved features over the previous model. The later models of the HG-8 have an armour penetration (HEAT) of 800-1,100 mm, which is similar to modern versions of the MILAN (MILAN 3 and ER) missile but still not near enough to penetrate a U.S. M1A1/A2. The MILAN 1 used by the Mexicans had an armour penetration (HEAT) of 350mm.

Bottom line is the Abram's was never the best tank of its generation, but it was one of the best and remains so. The frontal armour of the baseline M1 was not unbeatable, but the Mexicans had nothing that could realistically penetrate its armour at the time in real life. The frontal armour of the M1A1 was to all intensive purposes invulnerable to anything Mexico had, and most things the Soviets had.

Keep in mind that the Mexican invasion and the fighting that occurred during it was all conceptually finalized and written in 1986 - i..e two years before the introduction of depleted uranium armor. Meaning that as far as the authors knew the best armor the M1 tank would have (and any of its variants in the game) would have been the original armor for the M1 tank. I.e. if they had bought HOT-1 missiles they could have had a fighting chance against it.

The depleted uranium armor wasnt in the original version of the game.

However it was in Version 2 and 2.2 of the game. But the Mexican invasion including Red Star Lone Star and Challenge 27 were never re-described for that version - you have to wonder if they would have possibly added more weapons for the Mexican Army given the now much better armored M1A1 and M1A2 of V2 and 2.2

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Keep in mind that the Mexican invasion and the fighting that occurred during it was all conceptually finalized and written in 1986 - i..e two years before the introduction of depleted uranium armor. Meaning that as far as the authors knew the best armor the M1 tank would have (and any of its variants in the game) would have been the original armor for the M1 tank. I.e. if they had bought HOT-1 missiles they could have had a fighting chance against it.

That's true but the armour protection of the M1 was still too strong for MILAN-1 missile, and the frontal armour of the M1A1 (before been fitted with DU armour) could survive HOT-1.

Originally Posted by Olefin

The depleted uranium armor wasnt in the original version of the game.

However it was in Version 2 and 2.2 of the game. But the Mexican invasion including Red Star Lone Star and Challenge 27 were never re-described for that version - you have to wonder if they would have possibly added more weapons for the Mexican Army given the now much better armored M1A1 and M1A2 of V2 and 2.2

True but DU was developed during the Cold War and U.S. tanks would have been fitted with it, and were in fact from 1988.