YaATW2KT: The Second Mexican-American War

[mpipes]

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 1970s. 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 (Tecnolog-as de la Defensa Nacional - oeTDN) 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 oeS 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-30s 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 80s 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 Mexicos 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 Mexicos 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

[Olefin]

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

[mpipes]

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.

[Olefin]

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

[Raellus]

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.

[Olefin]

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

[RN7]

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.

[Olefin]

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.

[Olefin]

US military moving to the border to stop border crossings - hmm sounds eerily familiar

[rcaf_777]

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 oeemploy the division as advisors in its war against Cartel forces. The USSR excepts this offer as its 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 PCs to be a Long Range Surveillance Patrol conducting operations. Which gives them a chance for squad on squad combat which something I always liked.

[ArmySGT.]

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.

[Olefin]

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"

[Olefin]

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. "

[rcaf_777]

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.

[Olefin]

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.