RPG Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #301  
Old 03-16-2018, 03:40 AM
mpipes mpipes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 288
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 03-16-2018, 08:31 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 3,003
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 03-16-2018, 10:04 AM
mpipes mpipes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 288
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 03-16-2018, 10:15 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 3,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpipes View Post
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.
You can stop tanks with nukes - the canon has literally dozens of references to armored divisions, brigades and regiments getting almost wiped out by them (2nd Armored Division is a prime example, also the Russian division that was wiped out going thru Riga)

And in this case I completely agree with you - if you want the Mexicans to have tanks in that number you have to have nuke strikes - its the only way to stop them
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 03-16-2018, 03:00 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern AZ
Posts: 3,833
Default

Don't fall victim to the logical fallacy of false dichotomy.

More tanks helps explain Mexico's success in taking parts of the U.S. Southwest (and continuing to hold U.S. territory past 2000).

More tanks doesn't have to mean nuclear warfare.

The U.S. would be reluctant to use nuclear weapons on its next-door neighbor due to the dangers of fallout. Here in Tucson, most of the big weather systems, especially during the summer monsoons, arrive from Mexico. Also, I think that the U.S. military would be confident that they could eject the Mexican military from U.S. territory with conventional forces. Obviously, when reconciling canon, it becomes apparent that the U.S. was unable to do that through 2001. That doesn't mean it didn't happen after that (unless you stick to the 2300 stuff- IMHO, the two settings need to be officially divorced from one another).

IMHO, people creating/running campaigns set in CONUS after 2000 should focus on ways for players to help eject the MA and Soviet forces still on U.S. soil instead of trying to RETCON canon. If we just focus on why the Mexican invasion couldn't have worked, we are effectively undermining a rich adventure setting.

The U.S. could winnow down the Mexican AFV fleet through conventional means and guerrilla warfare. San Diego, L.A., and Phoenix would be graveyards for dozens (if not hundreds) of poorly employed enemy tanks.

Give the Mexicans more tanks, then PCs are up against greater odds. I don't see a problem with that.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure module, Rook's Gambit, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, and co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 03-16-2018, 03:04 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 3,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
Don't fall victim to the logical fallacy of false dichotomy.

More tanks helps explain Mexico's success in taking parts of the U.S. Southwest (and continuing to hold U.S. territory past 2000).

More tanks doesn't have to mean nuclear warfare.

The U.S. would be reluctant to use nuclear weapons on its next-door neighbor due to the dangers of fallout. Here in Tucson, most of the big weather systems, especially during the summer monsoons, arrive from Mexico. Also, I think that the U.S. military would be confident that they could eject the Mexican military from U.S. territory with conventional forces. Obviously, when reconciling canon, it becomes apparent that the U.S. was unable to do that through 2001. That doesn't mean it didn't happen after that (unless you stick to the 2300 stuff- IMHO, the two settings need to be officially divorced from one another).

IMHO, people creating/running campaigns set in CONUS after 2000 should focus on ways for players to help eject the MA and Soviet forces still on U.S. soil instead of trying to RETCON canon. If we just focus on why the Mexican invasion couldn't have worked, we are effectively undermining a rich adventure setting.

The U.S. could winnow down the Mexican AFV fleet through conventional means and guerrilla warfare. San Diego, L.A., and Phoenix would be graveyards for dozens (if not hundreds) of poorly employed enemy tanks.

Give the Mexicans more tanks, then PCs are up against greater odds. I don't see a problem with that.
Or alternatively they had more tanks - but they never had the time to properly train enough mechanics and get enough spare parts

So they start the war with more tanks - but by 2001 they are very rare indeed - so its really what do they have in 2001 that matters -not what they had in 1998
Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 03-17-2018, 09:25 AM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
Obviously, when reconciling canon, it becomes apparent that the U.S. was unable to do that through 2001. That doesn't mean it didn't happen after that (unless you stick to the 2300 stuff- IMHO, the two settings need to be officially divorced from one another).
That's a good point. 2300AD is a very different game to T2K, and I have never been comfortable with how the world of 2300AD developed as much of it doesn't make sense.
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 03-17-2018, 01:03 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 3,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RN7 View Post
That's a good point. 2300AD is a very different game to T2K, and I have never been comfortable with how the world of 2300AD developed as much of it doesn't make sense.
I agree totally with you about 2300AD - I dont see any way that the US allows Mexico to keep the Southwest and CA - that right there is where that whole timeline breaks down for me. Have Texas go independent - sure that I can see. After all they were their own country to begin with before they joined the US. But as I have pointed out before there is no way (especially not in a devastated world after the war) that Mexico holds onto Southern CA when virtually all of its water comes from northern California and the Colorado River.

Meaning that if somehow they held onto it LA becomes a dusty small city until they can do desalinization of the Pacific on a huge scale. And the wouldnt be possible given the timeline for a very long time. About the only area that could get enough water would be the Imperial Valley and San Diego and that is only if the Mexicans held onto the Yuma area and the US didnt decide to cut off the Colorado River by diverting it elsewhere.

I dont think the original authors knew the water situation in Southern CA - I lived there for years and you figure out pretty quick how fast that outside the area getting water from the various water transportation systems its a desert.
Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 04-03-2018, 03:10 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 3,003
Default

US military moving to the border to stop border crossings - hmm sounds eerily familiar
Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 04-03-2018, 09:10 PM
rcaf_777's Avatar
rcaf_777 rcaf_777 is offline
Staff Headquarter Weinie
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Petawawa Ontario Canada
Posts: 1,104
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
IMHO, people creating/running campaigns set in CONUS after 2000 should focus on ways for players to help eject the MA and Soviet forces still on U.S. soil instead of trying to RETCON canon. If we just focus on why the Mexican invasion couldn't have worked, we are effectively undermining a rich adventure setting.

The U.S. could winnow down the Mexican AFV fleet through conventional means and guerrilla warfare. San Diego, L.A., and Phoenix would be graveyards for dozens (if not hundreds) of poorly employed enemy tanks.

Give the Mexicans more tanks, then PCs are up against greater odds. I don't see a problem with that.
Making a realistic timeline does not undermine a rich adventure setting, consider the following.

Cuba wanting to survive a war as a sovereign nation and formally informs the Soviets that its division must leave Cuba. Cuba knows that the US could bomb and take its island by force before and help (if any) could arrive from the USSR.

Mexico agrees to “employ” the division as advisors in its war against Cartel forces. The USSR excepts this offer as it’s the best it option, no ones wants to risk assets on what is now a Category C division of old and injured men. Certain Mexican forces see this as a good thing to help route out corruption in the army and police

Mexico agrees to provide some sea transport and Cuba is willing too as long as they leave. No tanks or AFV make the trip due to space, just arms and ammunition, AT missiles and jeeps and trucks.

US reaction to the move is mixed the soviets troops are hardly frontline or Special Forces, but this sudden influx of Soviet arms all be it small is disturbing. US plans for combat with Mexico is reviewed and certain assets are spooled up for keeping an eye on the Mexican problem.

Unknown to many is that a few these new arrivals are really Spetsnaz GRU and GRU Signals personnel disguised as ordinary conscripts. They are of course report to the embassy for further orders.

The Soviets do what they promise and assist in taking down the cartels all the while forging friendships, teaching tactics and propaganda.

After the bombs drop a Mexico decides to retake territory it as long considered as part of Mexico.

The US Army at home is a weakened state with most of its troops engaged in disaster relief or deploying for parts elsewhere. The Mexicans with GRU help are able to cross the border in key spots and overcome the few remaining under-equipped US forces. However, the inept Mexican Commanders outrun their limited supply lines and the offensive halts. Many people take to guerrilla warfare, which forces many units into major cities and out of the countryside.

Add to this the Soviet nuclear destruction of Mexican Oil resources (to keep it out of US hands) and you have a good setting to what is described in version 2.2 maybe 1

You a have Soviet and Mexican troops on US soil, with some troops who have gone rogue after the Soviet Nuc parts of Mexico.

In some parts where troops have fallen back, you could find regional warlords American, Soviet or Mexican or ???

You have a great setting for PC’s to be a Long Range Surveillance Patrol conducting operations. Which gives them a chance for squad on squad combat which something I always liked.
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier.
Reply With Quote
  #311  
Old 04-03-2018, 11:55 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old 04-04-2018, 08:11 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 3,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
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.
The Mexican Army of the V1 and V2.2 timeline is a combination of both a volunteer and conscript army.

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 08:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 04-04-2018, 08:25 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 3,003
Default

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. "
Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 04-05-2018, 08:17 AM
rcaf_777's Avatar
rcaf_777 rcaf_777 is offline
Staff Headquarter Weinie
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Petawawa Ontario Canada
Posts: 1,104
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
5) The Mexican forces have all their equipment consolidated and their logistics reserve forward deployed.
The Mexican army suffers from a lack of logistical support vehicles since is an army of defense not an expeditionary army, I checked Janes at work and the army currently has 571 logistics vehicles to support a Army of 271,000 most theses trucks are Chevrolet Kodiak, M35 2-1/2 ton cargo truck, Mercedes-Benz "Kurzhauber" (Brazilian-built) and possible the Freightliner Business Class M2 which are short to medium range. So using this trucks for long range would be hard give that each truck would be over loaded with materials. I could'nt find any info on wreckers or refuelers both of which you need for any logistical train.

Also how much war stocks would mexico have on hand, the Mexico army in the 1990 has lots of equipment from Europe and the US. So I don't see them getting a lot from anyone one the shooting starts in Europe. Ammo might be an issue too.
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier.
Reply With Quote
  #315  
Old 04-05-2018, 09:58 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 3,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcaf_777 View Post
The Mexican army suffers from a lack of logistical support vehicles since is an army of defense not an expeditionary army, I checked Janes at work and the army currently has 571 logistics vehicles to support a Army of 271,000 most theses trucks are Chevrolet Kodiak, M35 2-1/2 ton cargo truck, Mercedes-Benz "Kurzhauber" (Brazilian-built) and possible the Freightliner Business Class M2 which are short to medium range. So using this trucks for long range would be hard give that each truck would be over loaded with materials. I could'nt find any info on wreckers or refuelers both of which you need for any logistical train.

Also how much war stocks would mexico have on hand, the Mexico army in the 1990 has lots of equipment from Europe and the US. So I don't see them getting a lot from anyone one the shooting starts in Europe. Ammo might be an issue too.
Ammo would be a major issue for the Mexican Army when it comes to anti-tank missiles and artillery ammo for anything beyond mortars. For instance the VBL's that they bought could fire MILAN missiles - but in the real world timeline they only bought 20 total Missiles - and even if they bought more once they are gone they are gone

For some items they would be ok - their military is self sufficient in munitions production for their small arms and mortars and also produces small arms as well. The Fabricas Militares produce under license the Heckler and Koch G-3 7.62-mm assault rifle, HK-21 light machine gun, MP-5 sub-machine gun, P7M13 gun, as well as various calibers of mortars in Mexico.
Reply With Quote
  #316  
Old 04-05-2018, 05:56 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern AZ
Posts: 3,833
Default Again, just use civie trucks!

Regarding logistics, yes, the Mexican army was never flush with trucks. However, especially after NAFTA, the civilian 18-wheeler fleet ballooned. Thousands of 18-wheelers originating in Mexico cross the border into the U.S. every day, carrying everything from fresh produce to consumer electronics (and sometimes contraband). In the event of a war with the U.S.A. (i.e. T2K), the Mexican military could requisition those thousands of civilian cargo carries to cart supplies for the invasion force. It's really just that simple. Problem solved.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure module, Rook's Gambit, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, and co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
Reply With Quote
  #317  
Old 04-05-2018, 07:49 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcaf_777 View Post
The Mexican army suffers from a lack of logistical support vehicles since is an army of defense not an expeditionary army, I checked Janes at work and the army currently has 571 logistics vehicles to support a Army of 271,000 most theses trucks are Chevrolet Kodiak, M35 2-1/2 ton cargo truck, Mercedes-Benz "Kurzhauber" (Brazilian-built) and possible the Freightliner Business Class M2 which are short to medium range. So using this trucks for long range would be hard give that each truck would be over loaded with materials. I could'nt find any info on wreckers or refuelers both of which you need for any logistical train.
The Mexican-Armed Forces uses commercially available truxks. Jane's reports on military equipment. There are fuelers using the same chassis as a dump truxk as would be available to any construction company.
Down at unit levels, they use Dodge 2500s and Ford F250s like the U.S. Once used Chevy Blazers (CUCV).

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcaf_777 View Post
Also how much war stocks would mexico have on hand, the Mexico army in the 1990 has lots of equipment from Europe and the US. So I don't see them getting a lot from anyone one the shooting starts in Europe. Ammo might be an issue too.
Mexico produces their munitions at home for their small arms, 20mm, 90mm, 106mm, 105mm (arty). I haven't found anything that suggests they produce missiles of any sort. As well as their mortars in 60mm, 81mm, 107mm, and 120mm. I am unsure of the Naval munitions (Gearing xlass DD) though that likely would be the case. Missiles is probably more to do with licenses, than ability. Mexico produces electronic locally.

Given that this is very difficult to track down. The SEDENA (Mexican Defense Department) doesn't give out information as a rule. I have been through several Mexican websites for their own military enthusiasts and modellers. The M3A1, for example, 30 of these plus 15 M5A1s were reieved in 1947. I have a black and white photo of them on parade in 1982 (? unsure) and any recent photos are only of those made into monuments at gates. The M8A1 Gun Motor Carriage has turned up in two different photos with either a desert paint or a woodland digital pattern paint job, new tracks, and road wheels. The M8 Greyhounds appear on parade rearmed with the 20x139mm RH202 (seems single belt) that is produced under licenses in Mexico, even with a KPV mahinegun in one. With new paint new tires. The motor has to be replaced, with what I don't know.

I have a mashed together .pdf trying to keep it all straight.
Reply With Quote
  #318  
Old 04-05-2018, 08:15 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcaf_777 View Post
The Mexican army suffers from a lack of logistical support vehicles since is an army of defense not an expeditionary army, I checked Janes at work and the army currently has 571 logistics vehicles to support a Army of 271,000 most theses trucks are Chevrolet Kodiak, M35 2-1/2 ton cargo truck, Mercedes-Benz "Kurzhauber" (Brazilian-built) and possible the Freightliner Business Class M2 which are short to medium range. So using this trucks for long range would be hard give that each truck would be over loaded with materials. I could'nt find any info on wreckers or refuelers both of which you need for any logistical train.

Also how much war stocks would mexico have on hand, the Mexico army in the 1990 has lots of equipment from Europe and the US. So I don't see them getting a lot from anyone one the shooting starts in Europe. Ammo might be an issue too.
There is 3 of these M32 chencha (M4 conversions) Armored Recovery Vehicles.
http://fotos.miarroba.es/fo/2978/1C4...1C45CEB84C.jpg

They have a 8V92T Detroit Diesel now instead of the old radial.
Reply With Quote
  #319  
Old 04-05-2018, 10:08 PM
StainlessSteelCynic's Avatar
StainlessSteelCynic StainlessSteelCynic is offline
Registered Registrant
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 2,375
Default

ArmySGT. I have a vague recollection that the Mexican M8 Greyhounds were fitted with a commercial truck engine to replace the old motor.
I will have to check my books because I can't remember where I saw that info and obviously I can't be certain it's accurate.
Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 04-05-2018, 10:48 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 3,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
The Mexican-Armed Forces uses commercially available truxks. Jane's reports on military equipment. There are fuelers using the same chassis as a dump truxk as would be available to any construction company.
Down at unit levels, they use Dodge 2500s and Ford F250s like the U.S. Once used Chevy Blazers (CUCV).

Mexico produces their munitions at home for their small arms, 20mm, 90mm, 106mm, 105mm (arty). I haven't found anything that suggests they produce missiles of any sort. As well as their mortars in 60mm, 81mm, 107mm, and 120mm. I am unsure of the Naval munitions (Gearing xlass DD) though that likely would be the case. Missiles is probably more to do with licenses, than ability. Mexico produces electronic locally.

Given that this is very difficult to track down. The SEDENA (Mexican Defense Department) doesn't give out information as a rule. I have been through several Mexican websites for their own military enthusiasts and modellers. The M3A1, for example, 30 of these plus 15 M5A1s were reieved in 1947. I have a black and white photo of them on parade in 1982 (? unsure) and any recent photos are only of those made into monuments at gates. The M8A1 Gun Motor Carriage has turned up in two different photos with either a desert paint or a woodland digital pattern paint job, new tracks, and road wheels. The M8 Greyhounds appear on parade rearmed with the 20x139mm RH202 (seems single belt) that is produced under licenses in Mexico, even with a KPV mahinegun in one. With new paint new tires. The motor has to be replaced, with what I don't know.

I have a mashed together .pdf trying to keep it all straight.
You need to start searching websites in Spanish - found out a lot of info on what they had that way - and google translate fills in the holes in my rusty Spanish from high school (Vice President of our Spanish club here).

The answer on missiles is that they dont produce any of them - no capability to produce them at all. And after they got their butts handed to them in the fighting in the Yucatan by a bunch of rebels armed worse than the kids from Red Dawn they bought more equipment and got a lot better trained.

Keep in mind for V1 and V2.2. you are talking a Mexican Army that is still depending in many ways on WWII or not much younger equipment - the only tanks they had were 50 or so Stuarts, a few M8A1 Gun Motor Carriages and three Sherman tank retrievers. And no SPG's of any sort except said M8A1's, nothing heavier than a 105 for a howitzer (and not many of those) and only about 20 MILAN missiles in total.

They did get some stuff from the French but the big APC buy that they did of ex-Belgian APC's didnt happen till 1995 and many didnt get delivered till later than that - and in V1 those vehicles would have stayed with the armies in Europe - it took the treaty on conventional arms reduction in our timeline (and probably in V2.2 as well) to have them be available

In fact their most effective anti-armor teams most likely would have used recoilless rifles mounted on Jeeps or light trucks - made for a very mobile and effective anti-armor combo
Reply With Quote
  #321  
Old 04-05-2018, 10:56 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 1,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
Regarding logistics, yes, the Mexican army was never flush with trucks. However, especially after NAFTA, the civilian 18-wheeler fleet ballooned. Thousands of 18-wheelers originating in Mexico cross the border into the U.S. every day, carrying everything from fresh produce to consumer electronics (and sometimes contraband). In the event of a war with the U.S.A. (i.e. T2K), the Mexican military could requisition those thousands of civilian cargo carries to cart supplies for the invasion force. It's really just that simple. Problem solved.
There were approximately 1/2 Million CDL trucks running in Mexico during the 90's (it's about four times that now compared to our roughly 4 million trucks). The big issue is how many would be serviceable. The Mexican fleet was around 70% "new" (in other words, a 1990's vintage model) because of the NAFTA agreement. Meanwhile, the US had hit its "10-year Turnover" in 1993 for over 80% of the fleet. For those who don't know, the "Life Expectancy" of a CDL Truck is roughly 10 Years & 1 Million Miles before replacement is inevitably needed (most Trucks run 100K miles a year on average). This would mean that most of these trucks would be 90's models with COMPUTERIZED FUEL INJECTION. Once The Exchange occurs and the resulting EMPs, these trucks will NEVER move again, not without a new computer module. This would leave between 100k and 150k unaffected trucks in Mexico and roughly 500K to 600K trucks in the US.

This does highlight one of the "horrors" of The Exchange, The EMPs will knock out most vehicles, electric, communications, and electronics. While a great number of City services are "hardened" to survive a nuke, they rely on diesel generators in an emergency. Most cities have a 7-day supply of fuel. After that, the water and sewage STOP FLOWING! Today any major US city only has THREE DAYS of consumables in its stores/commercial properties and this was still only 7 days in the late 90's. SEVEN DAYS and the natives will certainly begin to kill each other for food and water (and maybe as early as 3 days if shortages were present at the start).
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 04-05-2018, 10:59 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 3,003
Default

The EMP bursts wouldnt have fried that many trucks but it would certainly have affected anything in the area where the nukes were used - i.e. no nukes in western NY or PA so those areas would have been fine - versus LA area where the detonation of three 500 kiloton plus nukes one after the other would have definitely fried just about every ignition and electrical device there was in the basin

Last edited by Olefin; 04-06-2018 at 07:49 AM. Reason: spelling error
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 04-05-2018, 11:38 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 1,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
The EMP bursts wouldnt have fried that many trucks but it would certainly have affected anything in the area where the nukes were used - i.e. no nukes in western NY or PA so those areas would have been fine - versus LA area where the detonation of three 500 kiloton plus nukes one after the other would have definitely friend just about every ignition and electrical device there was in the basin
This is one of the areas in which GDW was WAY OFF. In their defense, it's not like they could just Google it. The Russians ALWAYS planned on high-altitude detonations to cause widespread failure of Civilian Infrastructure. There was even a posting about it in a thread on this forum. I disagree with the NUMBER of large strikes BOTH SIDES made in the original Canon (as you already know I don't follow Canon without reason). In my Exchange, only about a dozen ICBMs are launched with the SPECIFIC purpose of causing EMP. The Russians (I start with V2.2) also EMP Poland, Germany, The UK, and (supposedly by accident) Northeastern France near the Rhine and along the Channel. Ground targets which are hit by nukes at all are only hit by smaller nukes (150kt or less) launched by ships or subs (so as not to trigger a general Exchange) or TAC Nukes (50kt or less) fired by artillery.
In my scenario, most of the major damage inflicted in Poland was done by large Thermobaric Munitions like the attack on Warsaw. They cause the same physical damage as nukes without the radiation so no "slow death in the rubble." There is also a precedent for this. When Putin attacked Grozny in 1999, he asked about using poison gas. After he was informed that the UN would treat that as a "war crime," he chose Thermobaric Munitions instead. The Chechens were literally INCINERATED trying to defend the city. It fell in days. Thermobarics carry all the horror of a nuke without the fallout.
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 04-06-2018, 05:17 AM
StainlessSteelCynic's Avatar
StainlessSteelCynic StainlessSteelCynic is offline
Registered Registrant
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 2,375
Default

Those people caught in thermobaric weapon attacks typically die from the pressure wave and/or asphyxiation before their (now dead) bodies are incinerated.
This is still a very unpleasant way to die, you're either crushed by the over-pressure or the vacuum created by all that oxygen being rapidly consumed ruptures your lungs.
In some circumstances, the fuel burns but does not detonate, then you see deaths by incineration.
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 04-06-2018, 07:51 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 3,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swaghauler View Post
This is one of the areas in which GDW was WAY OFF. In their defense, it's not like they could just Google it. The Russians ALWAYS planned on high-altitude detonations to cause widespread failure of Civilian Infrastructure. There was even a posting about it in a thread on this forum. I disagree with the NUMBER of large strikes BOTH SIDES made in the original Canon (as you already know I don't follow Canon without reason). In my Exchange, only about a dozen ICBMs are launched with the SPECIFIC purpose of causing EMP. The Russians (I start with V2.2) also EMP Poland, Germany, The UK, and (supposedly by accident) Northeastern France near the Rhine and along the Channel. Ground targets which are hit by nukes at all are only hit by smaller nukes (150kt or less) launched by ships or subs (so as not to trigger a general Exchange) or TAC Nukes (50kt or less) fired by artillery.
In my scenario, most of the major damage inflicted in Poland was done by large Thermobaric Munitions like the attack on Warsaw. They cause the same physical damage as nukes without the radiation so no "slow death in the rubble." There is also a precedent for this. When Putin attacked Grozny in 1999, he asked about using poison gas. After he was informed that the UN would treat that as a "war crime," he chose Thermobaric Munitions instead. The Chechens were literally INCINERATED trying to defend the city. It fell in days. Thermobarics carry all the horror of a nuke without the fallout.
I was actually surprised they didnt include EMP large scale attacks - they were in the novel War Day that had been published in 1984 - in fact those attacks were what caused most of the damage to the US in the exchange in that war - and the US fried the Soviets with EMP as well. They definitely overestimated the effects of EMP from the local nuclear attacks - those would have cause issues in the area surrounding the detonations but wouldnt have affected areas hundreds of miles away
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 04-07-2018, 05:31 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic View Post
ArmySGT. I have a vague recollection that the Mexican M8 Greyhounds were fitted with a commercial truck engine to replace the old motor.
I will have to check my books because I can't remember where I saw that info and obviously I can't be certain it's accurate.
I have heard it mentioned, but I have not been able to confirm it. It makes sense that they would have to. The original gasoline motor would have to be worn out and there isn't parts in abundance anymore. Making the fleet diesel makes sense too.

I have photos of them on parade and have seen their 5th of May parades with M8 on parade sporting 20mms or 14.5 KPVs and new radio antennas.

The Mexican Armies OPSEC is 1000% better than the U.S. Army definitely.
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 04-07-2018, 05:42 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 3,003
Default

Actually there is lots of stuff online showing what the M8's were re-equipped with. You just need to be able to either habla espanol or alternatively use a lot of google translate
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 04-07-2018, 06:07 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
You need to start searching websites in Spanish - found out a lot of info on what they had that way - and google translate fills in the holes in my rusty Spanish from high school (Vice President of our Spanish club here).
http://rtvmodeler.com/MEX/tierra/global.htm

http://todopormexico.foroactivo.com.mx/f43-vehiculos

http://www.hollilla.com/picviewer.php?tid=2982730

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/spoelstra/g104/mexico.htm

http://the.shadock.free.fr/Surviving_Panzers.html (you have to searh by individual vehicles. It is large PDFs all on one vehicle as used by every nation that fielded it. The Mexican M3A1s are all monuments now.

https://www.taringa.net/posts/info/1...-Mexicano.html

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:...rcito_Mexicano

https://www.scribd.com/doc/304960189...Ground-Systems


*

*
*
*
*
*
*
Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 04-07-2018, 08:45 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 3,003
Default

or you can go here and do translate to find out if the M8 is armed differently and what engine it has -
https://www.facebook.com/SentinelMex...029930533996:0

Carro blindado ligero de reconocimiento 6x6 de fabricación estadounidense, Ford M8 A1 Greyhound modificado, del Ejército Mexicano, en las instalaciones de la 25/a Zona Militar, en esquema pixelado selvático en verdes, que es el último de varios empleados por este longevo carro blindado.

Los Greyhound, de diseño y operación de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, fueron adquiridos por nuestro país en 1947, 40 unidades destinadas al recién creado 12/o. Regimiento de Caballería Mecanizada (12/o. RCM) en la ciudad de Puebla.

Inicialmente portaban el cañón original contra carro M6 de 37 mm, sin embargo estos vehículos han sufrido varias modificaciones locales, la primera importante de ellas fue la sustitución del cañón M6 por un Hispano Suiza AKAN Mk.46 de 20 mm.

En 1988 se realiza una nueva modificación, ahora a la estructura del carro, reemplazando los faldones laterales por unos diferentes y aprovechando el espacio entre el eje delantero y los dos traseros para colocar ahí bidones de combustible o agua y un neumático de repuesto. Además se le agregaron nuevas luces y nuevos neumáticos con mejor poder de tracción.

En 1992 se realiza una nueva modificación y mejora, con un paquete de actualización de la empresa estadounidense NAPCO International, sustituyendo el motor original Hercules de 110 hp a gasolina por un Detroit 4-53N V4 a diesel de 140 hp y ametralladora de 7.62mm coaxial, aunque también se han visto ejemplares con lo que parecen ser M2 Browning .50 en la misma posición. Además, físicamente este carro sufrió extensas modificaciones en su estructura, sobre todo en los laterales, se le agregaron troneras y mirillas de cristal blindado. Debido a estas modificaciones, el espacio entre el eje delantero y los traseros desapareció y el neumático de repuesto se reposicionó en la parte superior trasera del vehículo. En la parte superior se le agregaron dos escotillas, se reemplazó del sistema eléctrico y se agregó un nuevo sistema de comunicación interna.

En el año 2000 sufre su última actualización reemplazando el anterior cañón por uno nuevo de 20 mm del tipo GIAT F2 francés, al parecer de origen sudafricano y su sistema de alimentación se colocó encima de la torreta. El de la imagen corresponde a esta última versión, aunque se le ha removido el cañón y ametralladoras. Empleaban también como arma secundaria un M2 Browning de calibre .50 montada en su afuste.

A la fecha siguen activos la mayoría dentro del 6/o y 9/o Regimientos Blindados de Reconocimiento en la ciudad de Puebla.

Poseen un blindaje que va de los 19 mm en la parte delantera a los 3 mm en partes menos críticas. Emplean una tripulación de cuatro elementos

which translates to

Light armored car of reconnaissance 6x6 of American manufacture, Ford M8 A1 Greyhound modified, of the Mexican Army, in the facilities of the 25 / a Military Zone, in pixelated jungle scheme in greens, which is the last of several employees by this long-armored armored car.


The Greyhounds, design and operation of the Second World War, were acquired by our country in 1947, 40 units for the newly created 12 / o. Mechanized Cavalry Regiment (12 / RCM) in the city of Puebla.

Initially they carried the original gun against the M6 ​​37 mm car, however these vehicles have undergone several local modifications, the first important of which was the replacement of the M6 ​​cannon by a Hispano Suiza AKAN Mk.46 of 20 mm.

In 1988 a new modification is made, now to the structure of the car, replacing the side skirts by different ones and taking advantage of the space between the front axle and the two rear to place drums of fuel or water and a spare tire. In addition, new lights and new tires with better traction power were added.

In 1992 a new modification and improvement is made, with an update package of the American company NAPCO International, replacing the original Hercules engine of 110 hp to gasoline by a Detroit 4-53N V4 to diesel of 140 hp and machine gun of 7.62mm coaxial , although they have also seen specimens with what appear to be M2 Browning .50 in the same position. In addition, physically this car underwent extensive modifications in its structure, especially on the sides, were added pockets and windows of armored glass. Due to these modifications, the space between the front axle and the rear axles disappeared and the spare tire was repositioned in the upper rear part of the vehicle. In the upper part, two hatches were added, the electrical system was replaced and a new internal communication system was added.

n the year 2000 it suffers its last update replacing the previous one with a new one of 20 mm of the type GIAT F2 French, apparently of South African origin and its feeding system was placed on top of the turret. The one in the image corresponds to this last version, although the cannon and machine guns have been removed. They also used as a secondary weapon a M2 Browning caliber of .50 mounted in its support.

To date, the majority remain active within the 6th and 9th Armored Reconnaissance Regiments in the city of Puebla.

They have a shield that goes from 19 mm in the front to 3 mm in less critical parts. Employ a crew of four elements

Thus the question - "Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic View Post
ArmySGT. I have a vague recollection that the Mexican M8 Greyhounds were fitted with a commercial truck engine to replace the old motor.
I will have to check my books because I can't remember where I saw that info and obviously I can't be certain it's accurate."

Answer - yes they replaced the old gas engines with a Detroit Diesel motor back in 1992 - thus for the canon they would have diesel engines not gasoline

Last edited by Olefin; 04-07-2018 at 08:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 04-07-2018, 08:47 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 3,003
Default

Want to know stuff about the Mexican Army, Air Force, etc.

https://www.facebook.com/SentinelMexico1/

for instance

Camion 4X4 de fabricación nacional Chevrolet Kodiak K5500 arrastrando un obusero de fabricación estadounidense Rock Island Arsenal M2A1 de calibre 105 mm pertenecientes al Heroico Colegio Militar.

which is

National 4X4 truck manufactured by Chevrolet Kodiak K5500, dragging a US-made Rock Island Arsenal M2A1 105 mm caliber gun belonging to the Heroico Colegio Militar.

Or you can go to this forum run by people who used to be in the Mexican Armed Forces

http://defensamexico.activoforo.com/...rcito-mexicano

for great info like - ORBAT - Batallones de Infantería del Ejército Mexicano (Actualizacion 2013)

or Aumentó a más del doble la cifra de efectivos de Sedena en últimos 37 años

Mexico DF. The Secretary of National Defense (Sedena) announced that the number of its troops has more than doubled in the last 37 years, going from 92 thousand 559 in 1976 to 212 thousand 208 in 2013.

In response to a request for information, the agency delivered a list of its members from year to year, beginning in 1976. In the document, it is noted that as of 1997, the number of its members remained almost the same.

For example, in 1997 there were 182,328 personnel; in 1998, the figure was the same as the previous year; in 1999 and 2000, the number was 182 thousand 329 items, respectively. For 2001, it increased by 2 thousand 814 elements compared to the previous year to reach 185 thousand 143.

Last edited by Olefin; 04-07-2018 at 08:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 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


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.