YaATW2KT: The Second Mexican-American War

[RN7]

obviously the AMX-13 would fit in with the real life Mexican Army - i.e. the AMX-VCI that they did end up buying is the infantry carrier variant of the AMX-13 tank - so that plays right into the same general tonnage

I have little problem with Mexico using the AMX VCI in this period, but I don't think it's possible that they got them from Belgium due to the on going Cold War in Europe. France would be a much better source.

As part of the Paleme-4/6/7 deals France delivered 120 ERC-90, 48 VCR-TT, 40 VBL including 8 with Milan anti-tank missiles, 32 MO-120 RT 120mm mortars and 80 MILAN anti-tank missiles to Mexico in the 1980's. I see no reason why this arms trade would not continue into the 1990's, as we know that France delivered 4 AS-555 Fennec armed helicopters in 1993.

At this time France was in the process of upgrading its land forces with new equipment such as the LeClerc tanks, AMX-10RC, AMX-10P, VAB, GCT SF artillery and towed field artillery, anti-tank and air defence missiles etc. GDW also lists the AMX-40 tank. A whole generation of French military equipment was becoming obsolete in French usage in the later stage of the Cold War, including the AMX-30 tank, AMX-13, AMX-VCI, F3 SP artillery etc. France has a greater arms manufacturing capability than Belgium, and it could produce new vehicles far quicker than Belgium making it plausible that older vehicles could be replaced and become surplus. France and Mexico could agree to another Paleme deal in the 1990's to transfer second hand military vehicles and some new arms to Mexico.

The Mexican Army Sourcebook basically implies that this happened. I don't believe that the numbers listed in the Mexican Army Sourcebook that include hundreds of AMX-30 tanks would be possible, due mainly to the fact that Mexican forces and defence spending could not accommodate or afford these numbers. It would also lead to even bigger problems with the Americans who would not be happy with Mexico massively increasing its armed forces and capabilities south of the border, and would probably lead to major American political and trade problems with France and Mexico. However reduce those figures to dozens rather than hundreds and it would be less noticeable and more manageable. A few dozen AMX-30's, more AMX-13 and AMX-VCI and some F3 and towed artillery, along with some new French anti-tank missiles and SAM's etc and a dozen helicopters would not alarm the Americans that much as it would still be very modest in comparison to the numbers that U.S. forces have pre-war. It would also explain how Mexican forces were able to invade and hold American territory.

[Olefin]

I agree with RN7 on the AMX-13 - for one the Mexicans in real life bought the AMX-VCI which is the APC version. And its light enough that it would be something that would actually work with Mexico's pre-war needs - i.e. they werent looking to take on the US - so they werent thinking M1A1 they were thinking more like what do we need to take on rebels and possibly Guatemala or Honduras

The AMX-13 has got a good punch for a light tank as well. And I also agree with RN7 on the probable fact that the French wont be looking to sell them hundreds of anything - looking at the composition of the Mexican Army even a battalion worth of AMX-13 tanks and a battalion or two of AMX-VCI APC's gives them better combat power than before and its line with the size of previous French sales to Mexico.

Given the inherent weakness of American forces left in the US by the time of the invasion they may have been able to pull it off without even MBT's - even light tanks and armored cars may have been enough. And they did bring in Soviet Division Cuba for the muscle when they did need it to stop the charge of the 49th.

If you want to stay in line with canon then there should be at least a couple of battalions of the VAB as well if not more - Red Star Lone Star has that as the primary Mexican APC.

They are the canon APC - but the question is how many did they have - i.e. sure they had them in Texas - but that doesnt mean they had a lot of them. (and the ones I am thinking about would be the basic version equipped with either a machine gun or the 20mm cannon and most likely ones that are already 15 or so years old - i.e. from the original deliveries and about ready to be refitted)

[dragoon500ly]

Interesting, by the early 1980s, most of the French AMX-13 tank production was the 90mm and 105mm variants with many mounting quad SS-11 ATGMs.

Not only were there APCs but also self propelled howitzer and guns, and ADA variants.

One can almost see a Mexican Army purchase of 1-2 brigades worth from the French. Keeping the initial purchase at this level would give the Mexican Army a nice modifier against the light infantry/MP units that were fielded during the invasion as well as a useful force against what ever tanks the US could died in response.

[Olefin]

If you look at the biggest armored vehicle buy the Mexicans had (in reality not the canon) it was the buy of approximately 500 vehicles (all APC's) from Belgium in 1994-1996 - given that you can assume that is about how many they would have been looking for in the canon timing as well with most of the buy leaning towards APC's

however some kind of light tank is a definite possibility as part of this mix for the canon versus the real life buy

again it comes down to Mexican behavior in the canon versus real life

if real life Mexico never saw the US as a serious enemy they had to arm themselves against and thus never looked at tanks as a need for their army

in the canon this changed - but the question is when did it change After the nuclear strikes on Mexico - in that case its too late to really arm themselves with new weapons like heavy tanks - or did it change years earlier - and the canon in many ways doesnt really address that.

Again the nature of the US forces that were in the border areas (keep in mind the 49th was deployed on peace keeping duties a long way from their native Texas when the invasion occurred) tends to suggest to me that this transformation in attitude happened after the nuclear strikes as the civil situation in the US and Mexico deteriorated and the Mexican government needed some way to rally their people around the flag. In other words the first inkling the US had of the invasion was seeing those Mexican APC's crossing the Rio Grande and striking over the border from Tijuana.

You would think if they had added a lot of heavy tanks to their arsenal the US would have been paying a lot more attention to that border at the least for the potential threat. Especially considering the only real country to buy those tanks to use against was us. Now a small number could be possible - ie.. they could be seen as an offset to the Nicaraguan Army which did have tanks (old T-54/55 and PT-76 light tanks). I could easily see Mexico telling a nervous US general in 1993 that the AMX-13 tanks they are getting are to take out the Nicaraguans if they ever come across the border - and thus they are never figured into US strategic decisions until they encounter them in Texas or CA

[RN7]

The main problem with Mexican versus US forces in the Twilight War is that U.S. forces have a whole load of weapons that can defeat all Mexican armour, but the Mexicans have none that can defeat the M1 Abrams tank.

The ERC-90 and AMX-13 armed with a 90mm gun can defeat lighter U.S. vehicles and older tanks, but not modern tanks. An AMX-13 armed with a 105mm gun can defeat the M48 and M60 tanks, but only if it is using HEAT or APFSDS rounds. It cannot defeat any variant of the M1 Abrams tank or an M60A3 with reactive armour. The ERC-90 and the AMX-13 are also very lightly armed vehicles and vulnerable to all U.S. tanks and anti-tank weapons. In fact they would also be vulnerable to the Bradley's 25mm canon.

Mexican forces also use the Milan missile. France supplied 80 Milan 1 missiles to Mexico in mid-1980's. The Milan 1 missile can defeat the M48 and M60 tank, but cannot realistically defeat any variant of the M1 Abrams tank or an M60A3 with reactive armour. The Milan is also wired guided and short ranged. The Milan 2 missile is a bit more powerful but the French kept this missile for themselves in this period, and it couldn't penetrate an M1 Abrams either.

[dragoon500ly]

The main problem with Mexican versus US forces in the Twilight War is that U.S. forces have a whole load of weapons that can defeat all Mexican armour, but the Mexicans have none that can defeat the M1 Abrams tank.

The ERC-90 and AMX-13 armed with a 90mm gun can defeat lighter U.S. vehicles and older tanks, but not modern tanks. An AMX-13 armed with a 105mm gun can defeat the M48 and M60 tanks, but only if it is using HEAT or APFSDS rounds. It cannot defeat any variant of the M1 Abrams tank or an M60A3 with reactive armour. The ERC-90 and the AMX-13 are also very lightly armed vehicles and vulnerable to all U.S. tanks and anti-tank weapons. In fact they would also be vulnerable to the Bradley's 25mm canon.

Mexican forces also use the Milan missile. France supplied 80 Milan 1 missiles to Mexico in mid-1980's. The Milan 1 missile can defeat the M48 and M60 tank, but cannot realistically defeat any variant of the M1 Abrams tank or an M60A3 with reactive armour. The Milan is also wired guided and short ranged. The Milan 2 missile is a bit more powerful but the French kept this missile for themselves in this period, and it couldn't penetrate an M1 Abrams either.

The actual armor thickness ranges from 40mm to 10mm, flank and rear of the AMX-13 is actually vulnerable to .50 BMG armor piercing and 40mm HVHEDP rounds.

The 75mm version was an adoption of a WWII German gun, it can fire AP, HE, Canister and Smoke. The 90mm is the same lightweight version as mounted of the AML-90 armoured car, it fires HEAT, HE and Canister. This was why the French started mounting SS-11 missiles in an effort to counter T-62 tanks.

Perhaps the greatest weakness of the tank is its autoloader, the two six round drums have to be loaded from the outside of the tank and they must load the same type of ammo, the left drum could be loaded with HEAT and the right drum with HE for example.

The usual tactics involved creeping up on target, firing off as many rounds as possible (the 12 rounds could be fired in about 1.5 minutes) and retiring rapidly back, and getting out of the turret and reloading the drums.

[Olefin]

And that is why they brought Soviet Division Cuba along for the ride - i.e. to have people who had the tanks and the ability to take out M1A1 tanks

also keep in mind that they most likely used the terrain to their advantage when it came time to take on US tanks (i.e. avoided fighting any kind of long or mid-range fight where their guns had zero chance of doing anything) - much like the US did when they took on superior tanks in WWII - and they may have fought M1 tanks using infantry tactics if the US actually sent tanks into the cities or built up areas (i.e. took a page out of the Russian Stalingrad book on fighting tanks)

one reason I am highly doubting, in my opinion, they had MBT's in any numbers at all is the description of two battles in the canon - the one in Texas where a bunch of military cadets held off the Mexican Army for three days and finally had to be beaten by massed artillery - and the stand of the School Brigade at El Paso (which was armed basically with anti-air weapons and not anti-tank) which eventually only retreated because they were about to be enveloped

either of those stands make good sense against light armored vehicles

but MBT's would have made short work of either force (definitely the military cadets and most likely the School Brigade as well)

That makes me lean to either them depending on Soviet Division Cuba (which wasnt in either battle) or a possible small silver bullet force that they would only use after all else failed and after US tanks numbers had been degraded as much as possible beforehand instead of attempting to engage in tank on tank battles first

[Olefin]

FYI has anyone else read Trial By Fire - Harold Coyle's book about a US Mexico war

[RN7]

The actual armor thickness ranges from 40mm to 10mm, flank and rear of the AMX-13 is actually vulnerable to .50 BMG armor piercing and 40mm HVHEDP rounds.

This is the problem with the AMX-13. Its not a tank, and it could be defeated by even a heavy machine gun.

[Olefin]

Which does make the AMX-13 a possible light tank that the Mexicans did have and engaged the School Brigade with (to their detriment) - ie.. they would have had ammo like that which would have stopped the Mexican attack cold

Whereas an MBT most likely may have have shrugged that off and overran them almost immediately

[kato13]

The school brigade would have had some ADATS (tracked and wheeled) and FOG-Ms correct

In open terrain they are not the most useful, but with some shoot and scoot even MBTs would need to think twice going against those.

[RN7]

And that is why they brought Soviet Division Cuba along for the ride - i.e. to have people who had the tanks and the ability to take out M1A1 tankst

What type of tanks and ATGM's was Soviet Division Cuba using A T-72 tank with a 125mm gun cannot defeat the frontal armour of an any M1 Abrams, even with an armor piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot with depleted uranium round. Only the very latest Soviet anti-tank missiles would even damage yet alone defeat an M1A1.

[Rainbow Six]

This is the problem with the AMX-13. Its not a tank, and it could be defeated by even a heavy machine gun.

I think that's a point in its favour in this particular scenario where we're looking for something that's not overpowered and that the Mexicans might plausibly have bought.

FYI has anyone else read Trial By Fire - Harold Coyle's book about a US Mexico war

Yes, but it was a long, long time ago so I don't really remember any of the details.

[Olefin]

The school brigade would have had some ADATS (tracked and wheeled) and FOG-Ms correct

In open terrain they are not the most useful, but with some shoot and scoot even MBTs would need to think twice going against those.

Have to look at my US Army Vehicle Guide when I get home - I think the ADATS but not sure on the FOG-M

[Olefin]

What type of tanks and ATGM's was Soviet Division Cuba using A T-72 tank with a 125mm gun cannot defeat the frontal armour of an any M1 Abrams, even with an armor piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot with depleted uranium round. Only the very latest Soviet anti-tank missiles would even damage yet alone defeat an M1A1.

Per the canon they had T-72's (Red Star Lone Star) - but if I remember right the 49th wasnt an all M1 unit - again have to look at my US Army Vehicle Guide when I get home (unless you have one handy)