YaATW2KT: The Second Mexican-American War

[RN7]

Although U.S. Abram's were been fitted with DU armour from 1988 I would not think all of them had DU armour by the Twilight War. Certainly baseline M1's with 105mm guns would not have had DU armour, and the M1A1's of national guard units like the 49th Armored Division would be among the last to be fitted with DU armour. So U.S. tanks in the southwest would in general not have the same armour protection as those on the front lines in Europe.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by RN7

Although U.S. Abram's were been fitted with DU armour from 1988 I would not think all of them had DU armour by the Twilight War. Certainly baseline M1's with 105mm guns would not have had DU armour, and the M1A1's of national guard units like the 49th Armored Division would be among the last to be fitted with DU armour. So U.S. tanks in the southwest would in general not have the same armour protection as those on the front lines in Europe.

I agree with you there as to what they would have been issued with - in fact with all the armor shipped to Europe that would explain the mix of armor they had - i.e. that they didnt have the most up to date versions, with most likely their M1 tanks being older ones without the latest improvements

I can see the Mexican's taking advantage of the inherent weakness a tank has in urban combat to hit them from the sides and the rear and even the top armor - similar to how the Iraqis took on the M1's during the fighting in Baghdad - to go after the M1 and M1A1 and M1A2 where they were at their weakest as to armor

I dont see them engaging those tanks in open combat out on the plains or deserts with much success - but nailing them with an RPG-7 on the roof armor in fighting in Santa Barbara - yup that I can see especially if the US units didnt have any air support to notice that they were about to get ambushed from roof tops (i.e. by late 1998 and 1999)

[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?

[Olefin]

FYI - looking at Red Star Lone Star the Mexicans would have bought both the 4X4 and the 6X6 version of the VAB, at least per canon.

It was armed either with an M2HB machine gun or rarely a 25mm autocannon

So looking at actual versions you would be looking at either:

VAB 4x4 VCI T.20 - 4x 4 with a one man turret with a 20mm cannon or the VAB 6x6 VCI Toucan which is the 6X6 version - again both with a 20mm canon instead of the 25mm

The heavy machine gun version of the VAB carries a M2HB 12.7mm machine gun in an open turret; the light version sports the AA52 7.5mm machine gun in a similar arrangement

Thus they would appear to have bought the heavy machine gun version

The VCR-TT is a 6X6 which does have the 12.7mm heavy machine gun

The French do have a 25mm turret called the Dragar turret - it wasnt used on the VAB but it was used on the AMX-10P - they were sold to Singapore. Also they said the Mexicans had replaced the weapons on many of the VAB's with the Mk19 grenade launcher.

So now the question would be - VAB (per canon) or perhaps more VCR-TT to match what they had bought in the 80's?

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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?

The frontal protection of an M1A2 SEP is estimated at 940-960mm against armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) rounds, and 1,320-1,620mm against HEAT rounds.

This is believed to be only matched by the Challenger 2 (and possibly the Leopard 2A7), and is considered at least equal and probably superior to the frontal armour protection of the new Russian T-14 Armada tank. So if an anti-tank missile can penetrate the estimated resistance of the frontal armour of the M1A2 SEP against a HEAT projectile then the M1A2 SEP is not invulnerable.

[Olefin]

Been looking thru information on NATO countries (1989 OOB info) as to possible sources of equipment for Mexico for either SPG or APC

Italy - has a lot of old M-44''s in storage and considered obsolete

Spain - six old M-44's that were in storage

Belgium - at least six old M-44's and 28+ M-108's as well as a lot (and by that I mean 400+) of old M75 APC's - meaning that the most likely APC they would be willing to possible sell would be M-75's or the BDX that were originally assigned to their gendarmarie which was pulled out of military functions due to multiple scandals in the 80's - (they had 80 vehicles and would not have needed to retain that many for civilian use)

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by RN7

The frontal protection of an M1A2 SEP is estimated at 940-960mm against armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) rounds, and 1,320-1,620mm against HEAT rounds.

This is believed to be only matched by the Challenger 2 (and possibly the Leopard 2A7), and is considered at least equal and probably superior to the frontal armour protection of the new Russian T-14 Armada tank. So if an anti-tank missile can penetrate the estimated resistance of the frontal armour of the M1A2 SEP against a HEAT projectile then the M1A2 SEP is not invulnerable.

Right, I get that. I guess what I meant to ask is whether DU has been combat tested.

There have been quite a few instances of manufacturers gaming the system and fudging test results. The proof is in the pudding. It's one thing to claim that DU armor can defeat X,Y,Z based on calculations and testing; combat is a truer indicator of a weapon's efficacy.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Right, I get that. I guess what I meant to ask is whether DU has been combat tested.

There have been quite a few instances of manufacturers gaming the system and fudging test results. The proof is in the pudding. It's one thing to claim that DU armor can defeat X,Y,Z based on calculations and testing; combat is a truer indicator of a weapon's efficacy.

I will agree with you there - with the prime examples being US and German torpedoes during WWII - which supposedly were ready to go and completely tested - and then both failed miserably

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Right, I get that. I guess what I meant to ask is whether DU has been combat tested.

There have been quite a few instances of manufacturers gaming the system and fudging test results. The proof is in the pudding. It's one thing to claim that DU armor can defeat X,Y,Z based on calculations and testing; combat is a truer indicator of a weapon's efficacy.

No Abrams in U.S. service has ever been lost due to an enemy penetration of its frontal armour.

Even in the First Gulf War when some Abrams had not been retrofitted with DU armour all tank losses were due to friendly fire or the deliberate destruction of disabled tanks to deny the Iraqi's from using the tanks as war trophies. There is one disputed tank loss that may have been destroyed by an Iraqi T-72, but it wasn't destroyed from the front and even in this case the damage assessment done by the DoD found the remains of a US air launched Hellfire missile nearby.

In the Second Gulf War there were many Abrams tanks damaged due to the invasion of Iraq and the nature of the urban warfare that was fought there, but the vast majority were not knocked out and many were simply abandoned due to being made immobile and later recovered. Nearly all tank losses were due to friendly fire incidents, the deliberate destruction of abandoned tanks by U.S. forces, or being rendered write offs due to heavy damage from powerful IED roadside mines. There are a few cases where it is has been claimed that Abrams were destroyed by Iraqi forces using ambush tactics and destroying them with multi anti-tank missiles and even anti-aircraft guns. But battle damage to the Abrams tanks was clearly found to be in the rear and top of the tank, and was not found in the frontal or barely even in the side armour of the Abrams. Certainly no Abrams were lost due to Iraqi tanks.

Regarding a more sophisticated enemy like the Russian Army, I will honestly say that I haven't researched what the Russians currently have in enough detail to claim that the Russian do not currently process anti-tank missiles or sabot shells that can penetrate the frontal or side armour of an Abram's. But I do know how powerful these missiles and sabot shells would have to be do be able to do that. Russian tank and infantry forces are far more capable than the Iraqi's were, but if they have munitions with the ability to penetrate the frontal armour of an Abrams I would say they are not widely distributed. Also for every Abrams the Russians could destroy the U.S. Abrams could probably destroy five or more of their tanks.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Been looking thru information on NATO countries (1989 OOB info) as to possible sources of equipment for Mexico for either SPG or APC

Italy - has a lot of old M-44''s in storage and considered obsolete

Spain - six old M-44's that were in storage

Belgium - at least six old M-44's and 28+ M-108's as well as a lot (and by that I mean 400+) of old M75 APC's - meaning that the most likely APC they would be willing to possible sell would be M-75's or the BDX that were originally assigned to their gendarmarie which was pulled out of military functions due to multiple scandals in the 80's - (they had 80 vehicles and would not have needed to retain that many for civilian use)

By 1992 Italy, Spain and Belgium had completely replaced the M44, and Belgium had completely replaced the M75 APC. No M44's or M75's were listed as being held in reserve.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Been looking thru information on NATO countries (1989 OOB info) as to possible sources of equipment for Mexico for either SPG or APC

Italy - has a lot of old M-44''s in storage and considered obsolete

Spain - six old M-44's that were in storage

Belgium - at least six old M-44's and 28+ M-108's as well as a lot (and by that I mean 400+) of old M75 APC's - meaning that the most likely APC they would be willing to possible sell would be M-75's or the BDX that were originally assigned to their gendarmarie which was pulled out of military functions due to multiple scandals in the 80's - (they had 80 vehicles and would not have needed to retain that many for civilian use)

By 1992 Italy, Spain and Belgium had completely replaced the M44, and Belgium had completely replaced the M75 APC. No M44's or M75's are listed as being held in reserve.


Double post! How did that happen?

[Olefin]

Both countries still would have had them in reserve in Version 1 of the timeline - i.e. where the Cold War continued - they only got rid of them out of their reserves because of the draw down that occurred post 1989 with the reduction in force treaty

That draw down by the way is what would have given the Mexicans the ability to buy the AMX-VCI that they used in real life

So again its timeline

V1 timeline - M44's to buy for sure from both countries as well as M75's from Belguim

V2.2 timeline which includes the drawdown that occurred after the reduction in force treaty of 1989 - no longer in reserves and scrapped or sold off

So if you want a V1 Mexican Army they have M44's and possibly M75's that they could have bought for sure if the decision to do so was early 90's

If you want a V2.2 Mexican Army then they have AMX-VCI and older M109's and M108's and BDX available

The information on M44's and M75's in storage comes from the NATO 1989 OOB sites FYI - that show what NATO had on hand prior to the reduction of force treaty including reserve war
stocks

FYI - RN7 or anyone else for that matter - do you know if the info on those NATO 1989 sites for OOB is correct?

[Olefin]

I think the question on the timelines is the real relevance for what Mexico might have

Given a V1 timeline you would see older equipment and something more like the original Red Star Lone Star/Challenge Magazine 27 OOB

Given a V2.2 timeline you have all kinds of equipment that countries like Belgium, Italy, Spain, France, etc.. would have had to get rid of to meet the force treaty reduction guidelines - and thus you possibly get some (not all) but at least some of what you see in the fan canon Mexican Sourcebook which is a product of V2.2 timing

So in the end could Mexico have M44's from Italy or AMX-VCI's and BDX from Belgium - the answer is yes and no - all depending on what timeline you base your campaign on

Which for me with what I am writing means that I may have to look at a possible Appendix at the back that would say something like this

"This module was written as a V1 module. If you are running a V2.2 timeline campaign make the following changes to the Mexican forces - where it says M44 substitute with XXXX, where it says M75 (or whatever) then substitute with AMX-VCI or whatever"

That could be done even with the Kenyan module I released - if you are running it as V2.2 then have M8 AGS for Kenya - if you prefer the V1 timeline and vehicles then substitute the LAV-75 in its place

[Olefin]

FYI the OOB info I had is on multiple sites - originally credited to Andy Johnson and then with updates - cant get to the link here at work (its on the list of "hey you dont need to get on this site for work purposes" sites) but can post it later

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Both countries still would have had them in reserve in Version 1 of the timeline - i.e. where the Cold War continued - they only got rid of them out of their reserves because of the draw down that occurred post 1989 with the reduction in force treaty

That draw down by the way is what would have given the Mexicans the ability to buy the AMX-VCI that they used in real life

So again its timeline

V1 timeline - M44's to buy for sure from both countries as well as M75's from Belguim

V2.2 timeline which includes the drawdown that occurred after the reduction in force treaty of 1989 - no longer in reserves and scrapped or sold off

So if you want a V1 Mexican Army they have M44's and possibly M75's that they could have bought for sure if the decision to do so was early 90's

If you want a V2.2 Mexican Army then they have AMX-VCI and older M109's and M108's and BDX available

The information on M44's and M75's in storage comes from the NATO 1989 OOB sites FYI - that show what NATO had on hand prior to the reduction of force treaty including reserve war stocks

Olefin did we not have a similar discussion about the AMX-VCI on earlier posts on this thread, and where did that lead?

I don't know were the author of the 1989 NATO ORBAT got his data from, but it is from the 1980's and is a mix match of different sources. Mine comes from the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) yearbooks for 1990-1991 and 1991-1992, and IISS data is compiled from government sources declared to the Treaty of Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE). All NATO and former Warsaw Pact countries were signatories of the CFE. The period 1990 to 1992 also marks the end of the Cold War and a point in history when all NATO and former Warsaw Pact countries retained their armed forces at Cold War levels, just before the post-Cold War draw down began.

In 1990 the M44 and M75 were out of service in Belgian, Italian and Spanish service. None were declared as held in reserve or even in storage by Belgium, Italy or Spain to the CFE. The M44 was completely replaced by the M109 in the 1980's, and the only NATO countries which still retained the M44 howitzer in service at this period was Greece and Turkey. The M59 which dates from the early 1950's was retired from frontline Belgian service in the early 1980's.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Olefin

FYI - RN7 or anyone else for that matter - do you know if the info on those NATO 1989 sites for OOB is correct?

It was correct in the 1980's but as I stated its a mix match of data from different years in the 1980's. There are more accurate sources for this period.

[Olefin]

I will look at your info as well RN7 - thank you for the information. As for the AMX-VCI yes we have had that discussion - I am not talking about hundreds of them - I am talking about the confirmed sales and numbers that were in the Mexican OOB in reality by 1996- which was about 40 AMX-VCI and 18 BDX as being more of a V2.2 timeline where there was a reduction in force to have those vehicles be available versus V1 where the Belgians would have held onto them for sure

and actually I am going to look at Jane’s NATO Handbook 1990-91 as well - been told that IISS is not a good indication of reserve stocks while the Jane's is - there are versions of the NATO 1989 that reference both IISS that you cited and thus I will see what the most up to date is

[Olefin]

From a previous thread here - http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.p...y+Organization

NATO ORDER OF BATTLE - 1989

Andy Johnson’s References:
1. Almanac of Airpower 1989
2. Jane's Defense Weekly's published in the late 1980's
3. Military Technology’s World Defense Almanac 1988, 1989 and 1990
4. NATO Armies Today, Osprey Publishing 1987
5. NATO in Europe 1989
6. The British Army in the 1980’s, Osprey Publishing 1987
7. US Army Active Troop List, June 1988 and June 1989
8. US Army Field Manual 1-111 Aviation Brigades August 1990
9. US Army Green Book 1988, 1989, and 1990
10. US Army, British Army, Canadian Army, and assorted unit internet home pages

Note 1: Only the Combat and Combat Support units are listed. The Combat Service Support such as maintenance, medical, and transport were excluded.

References Added For Revised Edition:
Armies of NATO’s Central Front, David Isby and Charles Kamps, 1985
Jane’s Armour & Artillery, 1986-87 and 1992-93
ORBATs available at ORBAT.com
“Combined Arms,” GDW, Frank Chadwick, 1987
World Armies Today, John Keegan, 2nd Edition, 1983 (good for general organizational information)
IISS Military Balance 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 (last is particularly useful, as it has initial CFE declarations)
USNI’s Combat Fleets of the World 1988/89 and 1990/91
Various Micro Mark army lists for some specialist units (for example, Gurkhas, Spanish Marines and Paras, Greek special forces, etc)
Jane’s NATO Handbook 1990-91 (OOB comes straight from IISS, but best source out there for holdings of older equipment)
John Baugher’s US Aircraft Encyclopedia was extremely useful for nations holding US aircraft.

Note 1: Belgium held significant quantities of older equipment in reserve or storage during the end of the 1980s, including 28 (or more) M108 105mm SP howitzers, 419 (IISS) or 554 (Jane’s) AMX-VCI tracked personnel carriers, 77 M-75 tracked APCs (may have still been in some engineering units), 25 M-41s, plus unknown numbers of unmodified M-47 gun tanks, M114 155mm towed howitzers, M59 155mm towed howitzers, M115 203mm towed howitzers, M44 155mm SP howitzers, and likely significant numbers of M101 105mm howitzers.

APC: 514 AIFV-B (including variants), 525 M113A1-B (including variants), 554 AMX-VCI (reserve? Phasing out), 43 BDX, 77 M-75

So that has the IISS versions you mentioned in the OOB - so it would support the M-75 still being in hand in 1989 but not necessarily the M-44's (as in unknown numbers)

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Olefin

From a previous thread here - http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.p...y+Organization

NATO ORDER OF BATTLE - 1989

Andy Johnson’s References:
1. Almanac of Airpower 1989
2. Jane's Defense Weekly's published in the late 1980's
3. Military Technology’s World Defense Almanac 1988, 1989 and 1990
4. NATO Armies Today, Osprey Publishing 1987
5. NATO in Europe 1989
6. The British Army in the 1980’s, Osprey Publishing 1987
7. US Army Active Troop List, June 1988 and June 1989
8. US Army Field Manual 1-111 Aviation Brigades August 1990
9. US Army Green Book 1988, 1989, and 1990
10. US Army, British Army, Canadian Army, and assorted unit internet home pages

Note 1: Only the Combat and Combat Support units are listed. The Combat Service Support such as maintenance, medical, and transport were excluded.

References Added For Revised Edition:
Armies of NATO’s Central Front, David Isby and Charles Kamps, 1985
Jane’s Armour & Artillery, 1986-87 and 1992-93
ORBATs available at ORBAT.com
“Combined Arms,” GDW, Frank Chadwick, 1987
World Armies Today, John Keegan, 2nd Edition, 1983 (good for general organizational information)
IISS Military Balance 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 (last is particularly useful, as it has initial CFE declarations)
USNI’s Combat Fleets of the World 1988/89 and 1990/91
Various Micro Mark army lists for some specialist units (for example, Gurkhas, Spanish Marines and Paras, Greek special forces, etc)
Jane’s NATO Handbook 1990-91 (OOB comes straight from IISS, but best source out there for holdings of older equipment)
John Baugher’s US Aircraft Encyclopedia was extremely useful for nations holding US aircraft.

Note 1: Belgium held significant quantities of older equipment in reserve or storage during the end of the 1980s, including 28 (or more) M108 105mm SP howitzers, 419 (IISS) or 554 (Jane’s) AMX-VCI tracked personnel carriers, 77 M-75 tracked APCs (may have still been in some engineering units), 25 M-41s, plus unknown numbers of unmodified M-47 gun tanks, M114 155mm towed howitzers, M59 155mm towed howitzers, M115 203mm towed howitzers, M44 155mm SP howitzers, and likely significant numbers of M101 105mm howitzers.

APC: 514 AIFV-B (including variants), 525 M113A1-B (including variants), 554 AMX-VCI (reserve? Phasing out), 43 BDX, 77 M-75

So that has the IISS versions you mentioned in the OOB - so it would support the M-75 still being in hand in 1989 but not necessarily the M-44's (as in unknown numbers)

Excluding IISS most of these references are from the 80's, and I think IISS is by far the most accurate. Olefin do you have the IISS Military Balance yearbooks for 1990-1991 and 1991-1992?

On page 59 1990-1991 yearbook it list the Belgian Army as having the following numbers....

Tanks
334x Leopard 1
Light Tanks
133x Scorpion
25x M41
Recce
133x Scimitar
IFV
514x AIFV-B
533x M113
266x Spartan
8x YPR-763
419x AMX-VCI
43x BDX
75x M75

For 1991-1992 which I consider more accurate as this is the year/s that Belgium and every other member of NATO and the former Warsaw Pact declared their real figures to CFE, on page 51 it list the Belgian Army has having the following numbers....

Tanks
334x Leopard 1
Light Tanks
133x Scorpion
25x M41
Recce
153x Scimitar
IFV
514x AIFV-B
525x M113
266x Spartan
510x AMX-VCI
43x BDX
75X M75

So yes it the M75 is still in service, I do apologise as I over looked it as I was in a hurry doing something else at the time. But with the M75 we have the same quandary as we had with the AMX-VCI and its an even older design.

Also Belgium has no M47 tanks, M114 155mm towed howitzers, M59 155mm towed howitzers, M115 203mm towed howitzers, M44 155mm SP howitzers, but it did still had 21x M101 105mm howitzers.

It also had 11x M110 SP 203mm howitzers, 41x M109A3 155mm SP howitzers, 127x M109A2 155mm SP howitzers, and 28x M108 105mm SP howitzers.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by RN7

No Abrams in U.S. service has ever been lost due to an enemy penetration of its frontal armour.

Even in the First Gulf War when some Abrams had not been retrofitted with DU armour all tank losses were due to friendly fire or the deliberate destruction of disabled tanks to deny the Iraqi's from using the tanks as war trophies. There is one disputed tank loss that may have been destroyed by an Iraqi T-72, but it wasn't destroyed from the front and even in this case the damage assessment done by the DoD found the remains of a US air launched Hellfire missile nearby.

In the Second Gulf War there were many Abrams tanks damaged due to the invasion of Iraq and the nature of the urban warfare that was fought there, but the vast majority were not knocked out and many were simply abandoned due to being made immobile and later recovered. Nearly all tank losses were due to friendly fire incidents, the deliberate destruction of abandoned tanks by U.S. forces, or being rendered write offs due to heavy damage from powerful IED roadside mines. There are a few cases where it is has been claimed that Abrams were destroyed by Iraqi forces using ambush tactics and destroying them with multi anti-tank missiles and even anti-aircraft guns. But battle damage to the Abrams tanks was clearly found to be in the rear and top of the tank, and was not found in the frontal or barely even in the side armour of the Abrams. Certainly no Abrams were lost due to Iraqi tanks.

Regarding a more sophisticated enemy like the Russian Army, I will honestly say that I haven't researched what the Russians currently have in enough detail to claim that the Russian do not currently process anti-tank missiles or sabot shells that can penetrate the frontal or side armour of an Abram's. But I do know how powerful these missiles and sabot shells would have to be do be able to do that. Russian tank and infantry forces are far more capable than the Iraqi's were, but if they have munitions with the ability to penetrate the frontal armour of an Abrams I would say they are not widely distributed. Also for every Abrams the Russians could destroy the U.S. Abrams could probably destroy five or more of their tanks.

During the Desert Storm timeframe, the DU inserts for the Abrams could not be penetrated by 125mm fire across the frontal 60 degree arc. This was due to the Iraqi use of "home-made" APDS ammo, I have come across one mention that Republican Guard T72s inspected after the Battle of 73 Easting had made in Russia APFSDS ammo, I have never been able to pin this down, with any degree of satisfaction.

It was kown that T62s of the RG did use limited amounts of Russian made ammo, but there were no confirmed armor penetration by this ammo on any Abrams. As for the T54/55s, they used locally produced ammo and there was extensive observation of "highly questionable quality control"...I have seen some reports that indicated that the Iraqis didn't even use stainless steel in their shot and even some that indicated that they only loaded HEAT and HE-Frag ammunition.

[Olefin]

No problem there RN7 - fyi I love the difference in the figures - I can see finding extra crates of ammo but an extra 91 AMX-VCI? Thats a hell of an oops ("sorry we forgot about those two battalions we had back behind that barn over there")

"Also Belgium has no M47 tanks, M114 155mm towed howitzers, M59 155mm towed howitzers, M115 203mm towed howitzers, M44 155mm SP howitzers, but it did still had 21x M101 105mm howitzers."

Does the IISS book list artillery - because the OOB says they have at least some M115 203mm towed howitzers in service

13th Artillery Group (Corps Artillery Command)
72nd Artillery Battalion: 12 203mm M115 towed howitzers

But then I try to verify it and cant find anything to back that up

See thats one of the issues with the OOB's - i.e. I see the area you are referring to and as you said there are no M115's there - and yet earlier it says they have them

[Raellus]

You guys can see now how hard it can be to create accurate OOBs/TOEs, even in the internet age. Imagine how hard the original writers had it!

[Olefin]

latest version of the OOB I could find for NATO 1989 is version 8.6

APC: 514 AIFV-B (including variants), 525 M113A1-B (including variants), 554 AMX-VCI (reserve? Phasing out), 43 BDX, 77 M-75 (as many as 600 M-75 in inventory as late as 1988) - which shows that a lot of M-75's got disposed of very quickly at the end of the 80's

I would also think Italy would be the source of any M44's that Mexico would get

i.e.

In addition, Italy held some obsolete equipment in storage: 36 M55 SP203mm, 108 M44 SP155mm.

They could easily get 12 M44's right there

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Raellus

You guys can see now how hard it can be to create accurate OOBs/TOEs, even in the internet age. Imagine how hard the original writers had it!

The question again is what do people want - a V1 version or a V2.2 - factoring in the reduction in force treaty in 1989 changes the whole equation

its like saying what do you prefer - Original Star Trek Timeline or the one from the movies - both have Kirk, McCoy and Spock but they are very different when you look at the timelines

same here - the Mexican Army of V1 is not the Mexican Army of V2.2 - close but there would be differences

FYI - was looking at possible tanks for the Mexican Army - i.e. more than just the X1A - and what do I see - but Brazil's fleet of modified M41's also with a 90mm gun by the same guys who did the X1A - now that could be a real possibility for a Mexican tank buy along with getting their Stuarts updated - basically the same gun by the same company - i.e. simplifies ammo logistics - especially since thats the same gun on the EE-9

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Does the IISS book list artillery - because the OOB says they have at least some M115 203mm towed howitzers in service

13th Artillery Group (Corps Artillery Command)
72nd Artillery Battalion: 12 203mm M115 towed howitzers

But then I try to verify it and cant find anything to back that up

See thats one of the issues with the OOB's - i.e. I see the area you are referring to and as you said there are no M115's there - and yet earlier it says they have them

IISS lists all equipment in the army, air force and navy (also marines, coast guard and other para-military), and that's what makes it the best source for data that I have ever come across. Others sources also seem to reference it a lot. However it generally does not list the numbers of ATGM's or light mortars in an army unless they are on a vehicle.

The only towed artillery that Belgium has by 1990 are 105mm M101's, all others are SP howitzers.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Olefin

I would also think Italy would be the source of any M44's that Mexico would get

i.e.

In addition, Italy held some obsolete equipment in storage: 36 M55 SP203mm, 108 M44 SP155mm.

They could easily get 12 M44's right there

Italy had no M44 or M55 SP howitzers by 1990, although they do have 23x 203mm M115 and 423x 155mm M114.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by RN7

Italy had no M44 or M55 SP howitzers by 1990, although they do have 23x 203mm M115 and 423x 155mm M114.

I am going to go with the M44 and M55's being in storage there as per the NATO OOB - its in every version of the OOB and considering how many they bought having them in storage makes sense at least for V1.

For V2.2 they would have been long gone considering how fast Italy reduced its forces after the reduction in force treaty - that point is very clear that Italy was one of the quickest states to reduce their militaries after that treaty was signed.

Interestingly Italy may also be a place for Mexico to get tanks as well - ie. M-47's - found an article from 1988 discussing the italian Army and at that time they still had 500 of them that were still operational. That would also be a good tank for another reason - i.e. they were very similar in appearance to M-48's and M-60's - at least enough to possibly make someone hesitate and not fire on what might be a friendly tank - and give them a chance to get in the first shot

Keep in mind that Mexico wasnt looking to go to war with the US pre-Twilight War - they would be looking to have tanks that could take on possible Central American foes - i.e. T-54/55 that the Nicaraguans had being the most likely foe - the M47 would be a good potential choice

I see the same with their choices of anti-tank missiles - the MILAN would be a great T-54/55 tank killer - they may get a few HOT but the MILAN would have been the better choice as to cost and availability for them as to pre-war - and by the time it got hot with the US it would have been too late to get much in the way of new missiles or equipment

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Olefin

I am going to go with the M44 and M55's being in storage there as per the NATO OOB - its in every version of the OOB and considering how many they bought having them in storage makes sense at least for V1.

For V2.2 they would have been long gone considering how fast Italy reduced its forces after the reduction in force treaty.

Interestingly Italy may also be a place for Mexico to get tanks as well - ie. M-47's - found an article from 1988 discussing the italian Army and at that time they still had 500 of them that were still operational. That would also be a good tank for another reason - i.e. they were very similar in appearance to M-48's and M-60's - at least enough to possibly make someone hesitate and not fire on what might be a friendly tank - and give them a chance to get in the first shot

The problem I have is that these orbats date from the mid-1980's and are a mixture of estimates from different years in the 1980's. The M44 and M55 were built in the early to mid-1950's and were nearly 40 years old by 1990. The guns on the M44 and M55 may have been operational but the chassis and engines must have been clapped out, and getting replacement parts must have been near impossible. Was the U.S. still even making parts for the M44 and M55 at this time?

By 1990 Italy had completely replaced the M44 and M55 with the M110A2 and M109G/L SP howitzers, and they were already using MLRS. By 1990 the M55 was no longer even being used by any NATO country, and only Greece and Turkey used the M44. Greece had 49x M44 and Turkey had 150x M44. The Greeks and Turks got their M44's second hand from the U.S. and Germany in the late 1960's and 1970's. If Italy still held stocks of M44's it would be more likely that they would be going to fellow NATO members Greece and Turkey as complete units or spares.

There were 639 M47's declared to CFE as being held in storage in Italy in 1992. They were ex-Italian tanks that reverted to U.S. ownership and were to be used as reserve pool for NATO forces in southern Europe. Greece and Turkey still used the M47 tank at this time.

[Olefin]

The M44's for turkey we're in the process of being upgraded about that time. So actually there would be parts available for them more so than you would think given the age of the vehicles. Keep in mind that they are still operating them today and that they are only finally getting to the point where they're going to pull them out of service. That tells you that either there were lots of spares out there or that they found somebody to make more spares. As for the M 47 tank that's one thing I could definitely see the US approving the sale of some of them to Mexico. Especially if Mexico make the argument that they needed a battalion or so at most just in case the Nicaraguans sent those T 54s north. Again it's not an overwhelming number and it something you could see them making an argument for in reality.

By the way as someone who used to work for BAE it always amazes me how old some of the vehicles we had that we were still using. Especially the M88's and M109's. You would think a vehicle that was that old wouldn't be worth it to keep going but the army thought differently.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Olefin

The M44's for turkey we're in the process of being upgraded about that time. So actually there would be parts available for them more so than you would think given the age of the vehicles. Keep in mind that they are still operating them today and that they are only finally getting to the point where they're going to pull them out of service. That tells you that either there were lots of spares out there or that they found somebody to make more spares. As for the M 47 tank that's one thing I could definitely see the US approving the sale of some of them to Mexico. Especially if Mexico make the argument that they needed a battalion or so at most just in case the Nicaraguans sent those T 54s north. Again it's not an overwhelming number and it something you could see them making an argument for in reality.

By the way as someone who used to work for BAE it always amazes me how old some of the vehicles we had that we were still using. Especially the M88's and M109's. You would think a vehicle that was that old wouldn't be worth it to keep going but the army thought differently.

The M44 and M52 were extensively upgraded by the Germans. This was done by upgrading the gun barrels (completely new 155mm barrels for the M52 from the M109) and by fitting new engines, drive trains and interior equipment. But it wasn't done for free!

From what we know about Mexico they weren't exactly big spenders, and the Mexicans would be getting the basic 1950's M44 from Italy and that's if Italy has any left. If the Greeks and Turks didn't want them for spares then Mexico would be getting what's left from Italian scrapyards.

I don't see any reason why the U.S. would approve the transfer of M47 tanks from NATO reserves in Europe to Mexico. The Warsaw Pact had a massive tank superiority over NATO in Europe.