YaATW2KT: The Second Mexican-American War

[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

[Raellus]

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?

Actually, I failed to take that into consideration. However, how do we know that DU makes the Abrams' frontal armor "invulnerable" to contemporary ATGMs, both NATO and WTO in origin?