![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Here is my take on Mexico's military buildup.
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The first question that comes to my mind is where did the surplus AMX-30S come from, since only 190 were made and all were delivered to Saudi Arabia (and, to the best of my knowledge, all of them are still there).
One possibility for a Mexican armored force would be buying Chinese Type 59 or Type 69 tanks, both of which were for sale in the 1980s in our timeline. The Type 59-II with 105mm L7 cannon would allow for fair commonality with Western vehicles for ammunition and spares would be available from Cuba, and they were relatively inexpensive. The AMX-40E4 (the 1985 prototype) was expected to cost around $2.5 million in series production (and those estimates always seem to wind up on the low side), which was a few thousand more than modernized AMX-30 tanks. In the 70s and 80s, T-55 series tanks cost less than 1/10th of that price. Even if there was a ridiculous mark-up for the Type 59-II, it should still be possible to buy 4 or 5 of them for each AMX that could be bought. The big question would be whether it would be politically possible; I personally think it would, since they'd be seen by the US as semi-obsolete and relatively easy to defeat, but they'd give Mexico an inexpensive armored force with decent firepower.
__________________
Writer at The Vespers War - World War I equipment for v2.2 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The French were still building the AMX-30 (variants of it) as late as 1994, and the Twilight 2000 timeline is different and its possible the French could have built more.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
True, but even other desert countries didn't want the AMX-30S - Qatar bought the AMX-30B2 in 1977 and the UAE bought the AMX-30B the same year. I think the perceived problem with the S model was the downrated engine (620 horsepower, where most AMX-30 were 720). This reduced mobility, which was supposed to be the tank's primary defense. The S also has inferior stabilization and fire control to the B2, and isn't designed to fire APFSDS shells (which the B2 can use). My personal opinion is that if someone in the early/mid-80s was going to go high-end enough to get AMX-30 tanks, they'd go for the B2 instead of the S. If the B2 was too expensive, there'd be better choices than the almost-as-expensive S.
__________________
Writer at The Vespers War - World War I equipment for v2.2 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
TAB-30
Under a modernization program initiated in the late 1980s, the Mexican government undertook programs to substantially upgrade its armor and mechanized capabilities. In 1988, SEDENA purchased 300 AMX-30S main battle tanks from the French government, which had been held in reserve since the late 1970’s. Part of the agreement involved the local upgrading of the tanks to the B2 standard with replacement diesel power packs by SNECMA and new GIAT 105mm guns. With the backing of the Mexican government, a joint venture (Tecnologías de la Defensa Nacional - “TDN”) was formed by Grupo Bocar and Grupo KUO to remanufacture the French AMX-30S to the AMX-30B2 standard, the refurbished tanks known as the Tanque Medio de Batalla-30 or TAB-30. The tanks acquired by Mexico were “S” tropicalized variants intended for desert use. As delivered, the original AMX-30Ss included the addition of sand shields, an upgraded cooling system, air conditioning and an engine down rated to 620 hp. In addition, the AMX-30S substituted the Sopelem LRF day/night sight for the laser rangefinder used on the AMX-30B2. The first production TAB-30 entered service with the Mexican Army on January 26th, 1990 and had a number of improvements added to the AMX-30B2 standard. The TAB-30 was equipped with a new fire-control system using a laser rangefinder, weapon stabilization system, and sensors for wind, temperature, and humidity. Due to the closed environment of the TAB-30’s air-conditioned fighting compartment, a fume extractor was added to the 105mm GIAT main gun. For improved power a Cummings-Mexico diesel engine with fully automatic transmission was installed to increase speed, operating range, and fuel capacity. The commander's and driver's stations were modernized as well, and the vehicle can lay its own smoke screen by injecting diesel fuel into the exhaust system. After the initial batch of 50 TAB-30 upgrades were completed in 1992, SEDENA decided to upgrade future tanks by adding a set of spaced armor side skirts. Experience had shown that the primary threat to armor was the shaped charge and spaced armor skirts were intended to provide some defense against light anti-tank weapons. Spaced armor was also added to the turret front. By 1994 SEDENA had found that the spaced armor was insufficient to defend against the shoulder launched rockets employed by insurgents in the south and the drug cartels of the north. The decision was made to fit an indigenously designed explosive reactive armor package to deal with HEAT based weapons. The system was similar to the Israeli Blazer reactive armor of the 80’s and it is believed that Israel provided assistance in the development of the TAB-30 ERA package. In 1996 SEDENA began upgrading its TAB-30 fleet with ERA tiles. Also, in 1996, the Mexicans took delivery of several dozen additional AMX-30s which were upgraded to TAB-30 standards. By the time of the U.S. invasion approximately 30% of Mexico’s tank strength consisted of AMX-30S and TAB-30 medium tanks. Of those, 90% had been upgraded to TAB-30 standards while 10% remained AMX-30 or AMX-30S variants. However, only TAB-30s were used in the invasion. By 2000, all of the AMX-30 variants in service had been upgraded to the TAB-30 standard. During the initial assault in 1998 most of Mexico’s stock of ERA tiles were depleted. While tiles continued to be produced throughout the war, logistical problems prevented most replacements from reaching units engaged in combat with U.S. forces. TAB-30 $586,000 D, G, AvG, A 400 kg 37.75 tons Crew: 4 Mx: 17 Passive IR (D), Image Intensification (G, C), Thermal Imaging (G, C) Shielded TAB-30 148/107 34/29 Fuel: 1150 Con: 316 Trtd T6 TF55Sp,TS22 TR13 HF64 HS14Sp HR8 TAB-30 +4 Good 105mm GIAT Gun, 20mm GIAT M-621 Autocannon, MAG (C) 47x105mm, 480x20mm, 2070x7.62mm |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
As I have said before - if Mexico had that many tanks they wouldnt have been stopped unless the US used a bunch of nukes to do it - could they have had a small force of tanks - yes - but a large one - not likely unless you want to rewrite the canon to say that the US nuked the Mexican tank forces to stop them.
Its especially evident that they didnt have that number of tanks because if they had both of the tank brigades that were still in the US would have been deployed to stop them - and of the two neither was used to stop the Mexican Armor in the canon Also if they have that number of tanks why bring Soviet Division Cuba to Mexico? They wouldnt need them So its a choice of a much smaller number of tanks or multiple US tactical nukes (also not mentioned in the canon) to stop them |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Mexico doesn't need to have modern or 1970s, 1980s era tanks to explain there success in T2k.
1) The U.S. has sent the Active Divisions with the highest readiness and training to Europe, Middle East, and Asia. 2) Green, new formed Divisions, and cadre only divisions are all that are on U.S. soil. 3) Mexican nationals throughout the U.S. are providing real time intelligence to the Mexican government. 4)The Mexican military has experienced troops and well trained or lead professional soldiers/ sailors/ airmen at all levels. 5) The Mexican forces have all their equipment consolidated and their logistics reserve forward deployed. Do not confuse the professional Mexican Armed Forces with the poor people coming to American to find work in menial labor. The Patrons, Mexican Oligarchs, are every bit as wealthy, educated, and political as the 1% in the U.S.A. They were educated at Harvard, Oxford, the Sorbonne and operate billionaire corporations. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Their officers were good but their NCO's werent - at least not in the mid-90's - that changed after the Chiapas revolt. Their Marines and Paras were every bit as professional as our guys are. However their army at the time of the invasion in the main was not trained or equipped for any type of land war. They were mostly trained to deal with disasters and service and security work inside Mexico. Thus their army was definitely not trained for the invasion and combat against the US Army or trained to take on insurgents. And their equipment was not up to the standard it is today - they only succeeded because even though their armor was crap and they didnt have a lot of it they at least had some - and we didnt. Thats why the advance into CA basically came to an end when they hit the guys from the 40th around Bakersfield as they finally got into that area from Oregon. and thats why if the Soviets hadnt landed in Texas the timeline would be instead "the counteroffensive by the 5th Army succeeded in clearing Texas by early 2000 of the Mexican forces and the Texian Legion although there was almost another year of fighting against marauders and remnant Mexican units" Last edited by Olefin; 04-04-2018 at 07:46 AM. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pdffiles/PUB638.pdf
Great article on the Mexican armed forces and how they have evolved over time - lots of details that are useful for the game couple of outtakes that shows the difference between today's Mexican Army and the Army at the time of V1 and V2.2 So yes is the Mexican Army of 2018 what ArmySgt described it as? The answer is yes Was it that Army in 1997-98 at the time of the invasion in the V1 and V2.2 timeline - the answer is no "The 1994 Zapatista uprising had two effects on the Mexican military, principally the Army, that persist to this day. First, it served as a wakeup call for a proud institution that found itself held at bay by a group of lightly armed peasants, which brought international scrutiny upon the country and its security policies and forces. Second, it provided sound justification for additional funding for modernization. This was quickly recognized and taken advantage of by the military hierarchy. In addition to significant equipment purchases, the institution embarked upon a thorough review of its professional development of the officer corps, as well as of its training and organization." secondly "The senior leadership of the armed forces recognized that perpetuation of the status quo was not enough to ensure the forces’ utility in the future, and that a far more focused approach was needed. Over the period of 10 years, massive improvements to barracks and training facilities have been made throughout the country, and new courses for Special Forces and the Army in low intensity warfare developed. The most significant changes have, however, been in the field of professional development for officers. Schools and courses were developed for all rank levels, with successful completion being a prerequisite for advancement. There is a course for captains, a course for majors and lieutenant colonels, and a senior course for colonels and brigadiers, all based at least in part on the American equivalents. " |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests) | |
|
|