RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 10-14-2010, 06:51 AM
Rainbow Six's Avatar
Rainbow Six Rainbow Six is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 1,385
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by headquarters View Post
with how amny tens of millions of Mexican background citizens and other south American citizens in the US - would using WMDs against the estados unidas de Mexico -and especially the big cities-be an option?
I tend to agree with HQ here...whilst I think tactical nuclear strikes on key military targets, supply lines etc is possible (perhaps even probable), I think the JCS might stop short of an attack on Mexico City...if the goal is simply to destroy Mexico's leadership, it's massively disproportionate; as well as HQ's argument, which I think is a good one, several other good reasons have already been put forth, not least the fact that the two countries have to live side by side after the War. Also, killing the Mexican Government may act as a barrier to future peace negotiations if there is no one on the Mexican side for the US to negotiate with? (I'm sure the original V1 timeline includes a statement about the European War after the first nuclear exchange that goes somewhere along the lines of "peace might have been possible but there were no Governments to talk to each other"?)

Just my tuppence worth...
__________________
A collection of articles written for the Twilight 2000 Role Playing Game

http://www.twilight2000files.com
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-14-2010, 09:39 AM
John Farson John Farson is offline
The Good Man
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 87
Default

Very interesting debate here. I too have always thought that Mexico would get nuked in the Twilight War after the Mexican Army crosses the border with Division Cuba. It's the degree of the U.S. strike that's the question, ranging from a full-blown attack (i.e. nuke every Spanish-speaking person between the Rio Grande and the Yucatan) to a targeted one (hit the rail hubs, the troop concentrations, supply junctions, the Mexican government in Mexico City etc.) and watch the Mexican Army and Division Cuba quickly run out of gas and supplies and disintegrate in a wave of mass desertions and surrenders.

As others have already pointed out, the JCS would have various things to take into account. First of all the total annihilation option is out, because at the end of the day Mexico isn't the USSR/Russia. You don't really need THAT many nukes to render Mexico harmless. And it's quite obvious that not everyone in Mexican political and military circles would support this mad scheme anyway. Also, the JCS has to take into account that any nukes too close to the border would potentially also endanger Americans with the fallout. Also, nuking your worst opponent in retaliation for his nuking you is different from nuking a country without nukes. Having said that, I do add the caveat that certain other non-nuclear countries would have also been hit hard (e.g. Canada and Japan).

That being said, it's also out of the question that the JCS would withhold from using nukes at all to stop the Mexican advance. The Mexican government has essentially stabbed the U.S. in the back. The nuclear strikes of Nov./Dec. 1997 have decimated the U.S. military and U.S. forces in America are stretched thin as it is. They have no way of conventionally stopping the Mexican advance. Any prior reluctance in using nukes is out the window as the nuclear genie hasn't just been let out of the bottle, it's been smashed out of the bottle. So nukes is what they'll use, against the Mexican military, transportation hubs and the Mexican government. There will be an attempt to avoid excessive civilian deaths, but it has to be said that with the nukes, the civil war, famine, epidemics and general political and social breakdown that Mexico will be just as worse off as the U.S., if not even more so.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-14-2010, 09:48 AM
John Farson John Farson is offline
The Good Man
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 87
Default

Having said all that, I do have to wonder, though, whether a Mexican invasion of the USA after the November nuclear strikes would really even have come to pass. IMHO, no Mexican government, regardless of what party running it, would be stupid/insane enough to consider stabbing the U.S in the back in such a scenario. They would have to consider that even after the nuclear exchange the U.S. would still hold a number of nukes in reserve, more than enough to bomb Mexico to the stone age if necessary. And I'm sure the JCS would warn the Mexican president, in no uncertain terms, that any aggressive moves toward the U.S. would be met with immediate, nuclear retaliation. And any constraints the U.S. might have once had in using nukes would be gone after the world blowing up and millions of people already dead.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-14-2010, 08:46 PM
kalos72's Avatar
kalos72 kalos72 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jacksonville Florida
Posts: 921
Default

Not to mention the fact that all their refinery capability has been nuked to hell...where are they getting the fuel.
__________________
"Oh yes, I WOOT!"
TheDarkProphet
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-14-2010, 10:22 PM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,687
Default

In 1998, the Mexican Army is probably getting its fuel from the same place the other combatants are: pre-Exchange stocks. It can't have escaped the notice of the Mexican leadership that in July NATO and the Pact start exchanging nuclear fires. Given the importance of oil to the world's economy and the war effort, everyone with an oil rig in-country probably starts thinking about stockpiles, if they haven't thought about this already. After 1998, though, the Mexicans probably switch to alcohol like everybody else.

Stupid is as stupid does. While I'm inclined to agree that the invasion of the US was ill-considered and that its real purpose is to advance the game, I'm willing to play along because people do insane things when they feel they are under pressure. After the Germans had very clearly lost the war on the Eastern Front, Bulgaria joined the Axis and declared war on the Soviet Union. This was an insanely stupid thing to do, but it was done. The Japanese started a war in the Pacific under the assumption that the US would not use its overwhelming manpower and industrial advantage if the Japanese could establish a favorable position before beginning negotiations. We all know how well this turned out.

The Mexicans have a couple of reasons to think that a border skirmish with the US might turn out in their favor. The first is that the US has been very badly hurt. There hasn't been a chance like this in 150 years. The second is that the PRI needs a foreign adventure. In the wake of the nuclear attacks on Mexican oil, the collapse of the global economy, and the unequal distribution of relief supplies (in keeping with the racial and economic themes of Mexico), the PRI needs something to distract the people and unite the country. There's nothing like a little foreign adventure to fit the bill. With a nuclear guarantee from the Soviet Union (or maybe France?), the Mexican leadership might have felt that a border skirmish was practicable. A few fights, a few setbacks for the Americans, and they would come to the table with some modest territorial concessions. The Mexican Army would relinquish territory captured in excess of the concessions, and the PRI could claim to have reversed 150 years of shame. Everybody wins--except of course that the Americans chose to go nuclear instead of coming to the bargaining table.

The PRI invades the US for essentially the same reasons the Sauronski regime goes nuclear: they're out of power and probably dead if they don't do something decisive. [Expletive deleted] the fate of the nation--these guys have their lives and personal fortunes on the line. Neither government probably imagined things getting so out of hand. With the Americans NOT suing for peace, the Mexicans are forced to push ever deeper into US territory. Pretty soon, they are at the limits of their strength, and both sides are locked in a stalemate.


Webstral
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-15-2010, 12:55 AM
Matt Wiser Matt Wiser is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Auberry, CA
Posts: 888
Default

The Mexicans probably didn't think there would be nuclear retaliation, especially if Webstral is right and the Soviets promised nuclear support in event there was such action. No doubt they wondered what in the hell they'd gotten themselves into when cities like Hermosillo, Monterrey, Tampico, Chihuaha City, etc. go up in nuclear fire. Even a strike near Mexico City (their AF's main base is at Santa Clara, east of Mexico City, would drive that home, not to mention 10 KT on Benito Juraez IAP (Mexico City's main airport). The effects on the Mexican Army in the field would be serious from a supply standpoint, and moralewise...even more so. Especially units raised from cities that were hit, even if low-yield ground or near-ground bursts were used to destroy rail yards and other supply infrastructure (though the grunts wouldn't know that-they'd assume home just got totally slagged). The Mexican Army starts to break up as a result. Civil War is delayed, but it starts eventually. The Soviets in Division Cuba are past being screwed-they're being wheeled into the delivery room. They're 10,000 miles from home, a hostile civilian population around them, and their "allies" are getting ready to fight each other. Not a good place to be....
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them.

Old USMC Adage
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-15-2010, 12:39 PM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,687
Default

The [limited] nuclear option against Mexico brings a bit of the European flavor to North America. The US isn't up against an intact minor-to-medium power. Strikes againat the oil infrastructure, EMP, and attacks on the Air Force, Navy, and logistical infrastructure level the playing field a bunch.


Webstral
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-07-2011, 01:27 PM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,687
Default

I was thinking a bit about reconciling Turboswede's work with canon. What if Mexico rides the upsurge in arms sales in 1995 & 1996 by producing French equipment under license? If Mexico gears up to produce a handful of French AFV--such as VAB, Lynx, and scout cars--we could see a greater standardization of French-designed light AFV in the Mexican Army. Mexico could keep a few back for her own use. After the nukes start flying, Mexico could keep the factories operating and equip her own formations.

Webstral
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-07-2011, 09:22 PM
Matt Wiser Matt Wiser is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Auberry, CA
Posts: 888
Default

And those factories are targets when SAC flies south of the border. Not nukes, mind you, but there would be enough iron bombs available to do the job.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them.

Old USMC Adage
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-07-2011, 11:35 PM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Wiser View Post
And those factories are targets when SAC flies south of the border. Not nukes, mind you, but there would be enough iron bombs available to do the job.
Without arguing about whether the USAF would have assets to do the job in June 1998, the destruction of key Mexican plants fits nicely with the overall tone of Twilight: 2000.

Webstral
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 04-08-2011, 12:35 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,630
Default

I can see nukes being more likely than planes actually - most of the planes are occupied elsewhere in the world, a fact which surely had some bearing on Mexico's decision to invade. Nukes on the other hand....
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-08-2011, 02:02 AM
Matt Wiser Matt Wiser is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Auberry, CA
Posts: 888
Default

Not every SAC base is on GDW's target list, and then there's the recovery fields (fomer AF bases, civilian airports, and other AF bases-TAC, MAC, ANG, etc.). There'd be munitions available. And if conventional weapons aren't available in quantity, there's enough B-61s or B-83s left....
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them.

Old USMC Adage
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-08-2011, 01:34 PM
kalos72's Avatar
kalos72 kalos72 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jacksonville Florida
Posts: 921
Default

Anyone put together a list of nuclear targets by chance? Or even just strategic military/oil production targets...
__________________
"Oh yes, I WOOT!"
TheDarkProphet
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-27-2011, 10:53 PM
Lawstcause Lawstcause is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3
Default Just don't see it

I know this is an old thread but I just don't see the invasion working out the way the canon has it. First you've already discussed the Nukes and the fact that most of the Mexican equipment is dated. Also, I don't believe their troops are well trained enough to take on even what is left in the US.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-28-2011, 09:41 PM
Matt Wiser Matt Wiser is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Auberry, CA
Posts: 888
Default

Same here. Personally, I think GDW's writers got the idea from a passage in the book The Day After World War III, where the question is raised about the behavior of U.S. neighbors after a nuclear attack on the U.S. "Would Cuba, Mexico, or even Canada, try and encroach on the U.S. after a nuclear exchange?" (even though Canada would have taken its share of weapons...) And even if the Mexicans did try the invasion, SAC, even in its weakened state, would have enough weapons to see to it that the invasion is stopped in its tracks by blasting their supply lines with B-61s turned to the low yield setting. (somewhere betwen 20 and 40 KT)
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them.

Old USMC Adage
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-28-2011, 10:13 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,630
Default

It has to be remembered that the Americans had just been nuked and the vast majority of their military left in country was occupied with disaster relief missions. I don't know how many tanks and heavy weapons would be immediately at hand for something like that, but my guess is it would take them some time to re-equip and deploy for combat.
The Mexicans were also bolstered by the Soviets from Cuba, as well as the very effective distraction up in Alaska.
I agree that it would be stupid for the Mexicans to attack if the US was actually prepared to receive the assault, but that was far, far from the case in T2K.

As for attacking supply lines, perhaps the US President at the time didn't feel that nuking US soil, or anything close to it, was a very good idea given the massive destruction that had already been inflicted. Perhaps they were just paralysed from the overwhelming reality of the situation and by the time the authorisation was given it was too late to have any significant effect. Perhaps the planes simply weren't available, or the Mexicans routed their supplies through civilian areas, or any number of other viable and realistic reasons NOT to nuke them.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-28-2011, 10:47 PM
Matt Wiser Matt Wiser is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Auberry, CA
Posts: 888
Default

I'm not talking about supply lines in the U.S.; rather, those south of the border are those SAC singles out for attention. And by this time, according to canon, the JCS are the de facto government.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them.

Old USMC Adage
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-29-2011, 12:09 AM
StainlessSteelCynic's Avatar
StainlessSteelCynic StainlessSteelCynic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 1,862
Default

It's also worth remembering that the writers at GDW were not trying to recreate a plausible real world scenario with the Mexican invasion of the USA - they were trying to create an interesting world for the PCs to adventure in.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-29-2011, 12:10 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,630
Default

Well in that case, perhaps they simply didn't have access to the necessary codes to use the nukes, OR saw using yet more nukes would be a serious Public relations problem in the future. Perhaps they just saw that the existing units on the ground would be able to at least contain the Mexican advance to the Texas region and once the situation in Europe had stablised, they could counterattack with veteran troops recalled from there and gain additional non-irradiated Mexican land for the US.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-29-2011, 01:51 AM
Matt Wiser Matt Wiser is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Auberry, CA
Posts: 888
Default

The JCS had to have the codes: look at the 1998 exchange, for starters. And given how things were going, using nukes to shatter Mexican supply lines and use a low-yield TLAM-N or ALCM on the Presidential Palace in Mexico City (10 KT) would have been very appealing, given the lack of conventional forces available to deal with the invasion. There are proceedures in place that, if the communication links to civilian leadership fail, the military takes over until a Presidential successor can be found. And that includes having nuclear release authority.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them.

Old USMC Adage
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 09-29-2011, 10:26 AM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,687
Default

Given that the Soviets obviously have a cozy-ish relationship with Mexico by mid-1998, a geunine nuclear guarantee might be in place. The nuke guarantee doesn't have to be a USSR-on-USA type of thing to be effective. We can imagine that the surviving Soviet government lets it be known that for every nuke used against Mexico (a Soivet ally), the USSR will use a nuke against a US ally. There are enough populations centers left in Germany, Denmark, Norway, Japan, etc. for a Soviet threat to mean something--if only that the US limits nuclear action to the barest minimum of strikes necessary to ground the Mexican Air Force and strangle the Mexican Army supply lines. Canada gets it pretty hard in Twilight: 2000. I haven't seen anything that says all of these strikes on Canada occur in 1997. What if one or more of the nuclear attacks on Canada is Soviet retaliation for American nuclear attacks on Mexico?
__________________
Were not innovating. Were selectively imitating. June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09-29-2011, 06:54 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,630
Default

Essentially canon indicates there are two main strategic exchanges - the November 1997 massive strike against the US, and a weaker one in autumn 1998 but was primarily aimed at industrial centres in the UK and Italy.
We also know the very first tactical warhead exploded on the 9th of July 1997, but their use continued right up to and probably beyond November.
A few individual warheads here and there ouside those basic guidelines isn't just compatible with canon, but I'd go so far as to say encouraged by it.
A GM just needs to be careful any additional strikes don't unbalance the known situation in favour of one side or the other.

However, it's my personal view the US would avoid nuking Mexico and it's supply lines if they possibly could - there's enough fallout floating around already, and as Web indicated, the Soviets have itchy trigger fingers and a demonstrated willingness to use it.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 04-29-2013, 09:36 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,390
Default

A very good work - but keep in mind that in reality the Mexican Army only operated M3 and M5 Stuarts and the M8 75mm Howitzer Motor Carriage based on the Stuart for tanks. The only three Shermans they ever had were ARV's.

Actually always thought that the Mexicans didnt have to have tanks to have done the invasion. They had lots of light armored vehicles that were armed with a variety of guns and missiles that would have been very dangerous against their opponents in the US even without tanks to back them up.

Basically you had several US training divisions, who had almost no armor and several other infantry, National Guard, and MP formations that at best were armed with M113APC's and maybe a sprinkling of old reserve tanks pulled out of depots.

With the fact that their invasion occured after the loss of most petroleum sources the fact that their army used lighter vehicles was probably its biggest asset - i.e. even if they were faced with Abrams tanks, those tanks were facing a lack of fuel to be able to operate properly

Now could they have bought Shermans from the Israelis and tanks from the French - the Shermans are certiainly possible and the French vehicles were confirmed by Red Star Lone Star. However considering the opposition that they faced and their general lack of heavy armor, if the Mexicans had been as well equipped with tanks as the Sourcebook indicates there is a good chance the only way they would have been stopped would have been by using nukes. So I would think they had them but that instead they relied more on the APC's and AC to do the dirty work of the invasion with the tanks only being called up when a very hard nut had to be cracked to conserve them as much as possible.

As for the one Armored Division the US did have that was used to oppose the invasion - that single Division would have been opposed by both the Soviet Divison Cuba, with its heavy tanks, and also by overwhelming numbers of Mexican light armored vehicles armed with recoilless rifles, ATGM's and cannons, not to mention infantry using anti-tank rockets and recoilless rifles of their own.

You could see the 49th being overwhelmed much the way the Germans were overwhelmed in WWII - trying to stop large numbers of inferior vehicles that one on one an Abrams could deal with easily - but ten or twelve to one they couldnt. (especially once the Soviets showed up to aid the Mexicans with modern MBT's)

Keep in mind that given the timing of the invasion the most probable tanks they faced were M60's/M48's/Stingrays/Sheridans and not many of them no matter what the type (in formations outside of the 49th that is).
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 04-30-2013, 08:18 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,681
Default

I like the idea of giving the Mexicans a few battalions of tanks. It makes them a more formidable opponent and helps explain (or justify) their initial military success. I don't think that a battalion of French AMX-30s or whatever would make them unstoppable, though. That generation of MBT would be fairly vulnerable to most types of LAWs, let alone ATGMs.

I've also proposed that the Mexicans use their rather large fleet of commercial 16-wheeler cargo trucks to supply their mechanized and light armored forces. Well supplied with gasoline, they'd have an edge over their American adversaries in terms of mobility.

Like I said, any relatively realistic way to make the MAF tougher makes a SW CONUS campaign all the more interesting/challenging.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 05-01-2013, 08:22 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,390
Default

Even the Stuarts that they had in real life would have been effective in the invasion. Remember that the 49th and the 40th had to be moved south of combat them but werent in place when the initial invasion occurred.

So their main opponent would have been National Guard and police units armed with mostly M-16's and machine guns and possibly not even any anti-tank weapons at all. In that situation a Stuart would have still been a very effective weapons (as they showed during the revolt in the Yucatan in the 90's against similiar armed rebels)

The sourcebook adds a lot more than a couple of battalions of tanks - if they had really had that most likely they would have penetrated further into the US and gotten to Vegas or Utah.

Also keep in mind, and I am putting it in bold not to shout but to make a point, the canon has absolutely no mention in it of Mexican tanks.

Red Star, Lone Star says the following about the Mexican Army - which is that the AFV's they mention in their units are almost universally the ERC-90 Armored Car, a 6 x 6 amphibious armored car, equipped with a 90mm gun.

The only tanks mentioned in the whole module are the Soviet ones in Soviet Division Cuba.

The canon magazine article on the Mexicans had this in it as well

Armored Vehicles: Armored cavalry regiments and armored recon battalions included a squadron of seventeen ERC-90 armored cars and two squadrons of infantry in VAB armored personnel carriers (both of French manufacture).
Some motorized cavalry regiments included a mixed squadron of VABs and ERC90s (trucks and jeeps carried the other squadrons of the regiment).
Mechanized infantry regiments included forty VAB APCs.


Notice no mention of tanks at all.

Putting together the only two canon mentions of the Mexican Army composition points plainly to a singular fact - that the Mexican Army is not a tank equipped army, but instead an army of armored cars, APC's and light armored vehicles.

Which exactly matches the reality of the Mexican Army makeup during that time.

While the Sourcebook is a great source of information, its inclusion of so many tanks in the Mexican Army is clearly not supported by the canon articles and modules.

However the rest of its armor for the Mexican forces, especially the light armored vehicles, APC's and AC's is supported by the canon for sure.


Again keep in mind who stopped the 49th's counter attack - it was the Soviet Division Cuba's heavy tanks, not the Mexicans. They may have slowed them down and burned their ammo and fuel but it was the Soviet tanks that were able to stand up to the tanks of the 49th, not Mexican ones.

Actually if they had had that many tanks the invasion may never have happened - I dont see the US stripping the Southwest of all its armored units if the Mexicans are both unfriendly to the US and have several battalions of tanks in their army. That would have made them a major threat and thus they would have kept more forces there, especially forces with anti-tank weapons and tank support.

And Red Star, Lone Star mentions several times how lightly equipped the US forces were in Texas during the invasion.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 05-01-2013, 05:58 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,681
Default

Olefin, Mexican tanks may not be canonical, but if this embelishment livens up someone's game world, what's the big deal? I mean, not to get all finger pointy here, but you seem to blatantly cherry pick when it comes to canon. For just one example, Mexican tanks don't get a pass since they're not mentioned in canon, but you're all good with a total rewrite of published sources like HW and a couple of the other modules. I'm not trying to start crap with you here, but you are not the arbiter of canon. If Turboswede wants to add tanks to the MAF ORBAT, let him. If you don't like it, don't use it.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 05-01-2013, 06:33 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,390
Default

Not trying to scrap his whole work - just pointing out that the Mexicans never had any appreciable tank force - but also pointing out that the whole canon invasion works just fine with the armored forces that they did have and also how the sourcebook that Turboswede is presenting said invasion outside of the tank forces mentioned.

After all they arent facing fully equipped US armored divisions when they go in - at best the US might have some Sheridans or some light armored vehicles that are patrolling navy bases and the like - against that kind of equipment the Mexican armored forces would be very effective (which is the story the canon tells) and also the story that Turboswede tells.

And I dont see the US stripping the Southwest of armor the way they did if the Mexicans were both a) unfriendly and b) had an army with a large force of tanks. Under that scenario, for instance, the 49th would have been in Texas when the invasion occurred and probably stopped it dead in its tracks.

Turboswedes's work is very good - an excellent sourcebook - and i do plan on using it. I only point out that the canon works on the Mexican Army do not show them as having any tanks in either of the works published on the makeup of the Mexican Army. I would think that it would be highly unlikely that every Mexican tank got knocked out by the US during the invasion - some would have survived for sure and still been in Mexican units in 2000.


As for HW and Kidnapped - those modules have tons of flaws in them that have nothing to do with Mexico having tanks or not. Including things like how does Colorado Springs get hit by a nuke earlier in the war but somehow MilGov is headquartered in a city that would have been destroyed by said nuke? But that horse has been beaten to death and no reason to bring it back to life yet again.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 07-24-2015, 11:26 AM
Apache6 Apache6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 212
Default Is there a functional link to a Mexican Army Sourcebook?

Is there a functional link to a Mexican Army Sourcebook?
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 07-24-2015, 12:37 PM
.45cultist .45cultist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 935
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apache6 View Post
Is there a functional link to a Mexican Army Sourcebook?
Try Paul Mulcahy's page, there was a link to a good one. I'm going to use it for an alternative SW. BTW, the 49TH AD(TNG) isn't a pack of lightweights, a lot of ex-1ST Cav guys in it. The chief drawback of U.S. forces is too tech savvy. I met a MONG cadre NCO at my friend's surplus store. He made all thier guys, even the platoon leaders put their phones, GPS units in a box and issued compasses, maps, and protractors out for land navigation. War has a steep enough learning curve with out OJT in lower tech skills.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 07-24-2015, 02:07 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,390
Default

And the 49th, contrary to what some have said, was well equipped with up to date tanks when the Mexicans invaded. Per the canon books they received Stingrays and other vehicles to replace vehicle losses after the failed offensive into Texas, not before that.

Have a feeling their defeat at the hands of the Soviets and the Mexicans had more to do with them not having proper air support - as per the Texas module the Soviets had and still have helicopter gunships - if the 49th went in expecting only ground opponents and wasnt properly equipped with anti-air weapons or didnt have them ready to rock they might have taken a nice beating from the air even before they engaged the Soviet tanks.

The Soviet air contingent may be the real story of why the US Army didnt succeed in taking back Texas - especially considering I am betting the Mexican Air Force had long been shot out of the sky and they werent expecting to face anything more menacing from the air than bird droppings.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
mexico, north america, sourcebook


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A complete NATO Orbat (1989) kato13 Twilight 2000 Forum 2 11-19-2009 06:34 AM
Geocoding (was "Canon Mexican Locations") pmulcahy11b Twilight 2000 Forum 2 07-12-2009 09:46 PM
Canon Mexican Locations. kato13 Twilight 2000 Forum 7 07-12-2009 07:08 PM
Lead up to the Mexican Invasion Turboswede Twilight 2000 Forum 10 07-05-2009 02:08 AM
Mexican Army Sourcebook Turboswede Twilight 2000 Forum 57 06-08-2009 07:54 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.