![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Have to look at my US Army Vehicle Guide when I get home - I think the ADATS but not sure on the FOG-M
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
It is actually in the 2nd ed Heavy Weapons Sourcebook. So it is not listed in unit assignments but it is US army weapon.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 Last edited by Olefin; 10-20-2017 at 01:37 PM. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
"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." |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Edit PIVAD equipped units had the Roland. so not useful as anti armor. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module Last edited by Raellus; 10-20-2017 at 01:48 PM. |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|