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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.