WesWorld

The Mexican Army will be reorganized to make it more efficient, effective, and reduce operating costs.

The current organization:

Quoted

10 Infantry Divisions
5 Cavalry Divisions (each with 30 AT-17 tanks)
1 Armored Cavalry Brigade*
1 Naval Infantry Division

Divisions about 15,000 men.

The new organization will be:

10 infantry divisions (3 brigades each), each will be given limited mechanization and a mounted battalion. One brigade in active duty, two in reserve.

The 5 cavalry divisions will be disbanded, the horses will be mostly sold off at bargain prices to farmers, a few kept for the infantry divisions.

The men will form 4 new divisions (each with two brigades active, one in reserve).

1 Armored division
2 Mechanised Infantry division
1 Airborne division

The Naval Infantry division will be split, with the navy keeping a brigade, while the Army gets an Amphibious Assault division. There have been serious inter-service arguments over the new Amphibious division and it might end up as an independent unit.

Most of the equipment has already been purchased. Due to cost the 10 Infantry divisions will keep the Mendoza 36 rifle, only the special divisions will get the new FX-35 semi-automatic rifle.

One of the driving forces and results of the organization was the need for a new tank. The Mexican Army at the time fielded three types of tanks. The AT-27, the AT-31, and the LT-1 Ontosski. The AT-27 had proven to be reliable and useful, but was getting old. It did not have the armor or weapons to function as a heavy tank, nor the speed and maneuverability of a medium tank. The AT-31 was fast, maneuverable, reliable, and well liked by its crews, but woefully under-gunned. The LT-1 was a tank in name only, more accurately described it was a tracked light weapons platform, with minimal armor.

The decision was taken to proceed forward with a home brewed medium tank design, to replace the AT-27. Maneuverability, speed, and range took priority over armor and weapons. The Christie suspension system had been proven on the AT-31's and served as a starting point. The hull and drive train of the new tank where based on an enlarged version of the AT-31 with the help of Atlantean advisers. The turret mount was based on previous Mexican experience with the AT-27 and several river boat designs. It allowed several different version to be built using the same hull.

The first production version of the new tank (called the AT-40 Lobo) would roll of the assembly line in February of 1940. Several different versions would be produced:

AT-40M, full turret, single 47mm cannon (regular)
AT-40A, shielded mount, twin 47mm AA guns (anti-air)
AT-40C, shielded mount, single 76.2mm cannon (tank destroyer, self propelled artillery.)
AT-40I, full turret, single low velocity 75mm gun (infantry support)

The design can also support versions mounting twin 25.4mm cannons (in full turret), 105mm howitzers (open mount), and quad 50cal MG anti aircraft guns. However, none of those version are being considered for production.


Regular , infantry support, and tank destroyer versions.


Apart from the new tank, Mexico looked at three other vehicles to round out its armored forces. To meet its heavy tank requirements, Mexico choose to go against conventional wisdom by not going with a tracked vehicle. Two very similar designs where looked at, the T18 Boarhound from the US and the T3 Wolfhound from Atlantis. With both designs still in the prototype stages, Mexico has not made a selection yet.



The final vehicle being looked at, was the Ford T17 Deerhound. Negotiations are ongoing to build the vehicle at the Ford subsidiaries in Mexico, using the same turret mount as the AT-40, allowing it to carry the same weapons suite.

My only concern is the AT-40A may not have the sufficient size to carry 2x47mm AA guns. It might make more sence to mount 4x25.4mm guns.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
My only concern is the AT-40A may not have the sufficient size to carry 2x47mm AA guns. It might make more sence to mount 4x25.4mm guns.

I think I'd echo that thought. The various medium tanks with single 40mm guns tended to have rather massive mountings.

How big is the AT-40? M18 Hellcat sized? I'd think it would be difficult to mount the 76.2mm gun on anything much smaller.

The tank is about the size of a Hellcat, I estimated 17 tons, so slightly smaller?

I guess I can drop the twin 47mm mounting for a twin 25.4mm mounting. Thought the M24 which was slightly larger did have a twin 40mm mounting.

The twin 40mm guns on the M19 Gun Motor Carriage are a 1944 development from the US - as you say, a larger vehicle, with a smaller gun. I'm skeptical about mounting two 47mm guns on a 1941 tank, though I'd venture to say a single 47mm gun or a twin 25mm would be quite acceptable.

I was thinking that earlier too. I assume the 47mm gun is the same in both preposed 47mm armed tanks? If so its likely cheaper to give the design with a single gun a DP capability or use a smaller caliber for the AA version.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
I was thinking that earlier too. I assume the 47mm gun is the same in both preposed 47mm armed tanks? If so its likely cheaper to give the design with a single gun a DP capability or use a smaller caliber for the AA version.

DP guns really won't work on tanks. You'll really need a special turret for an AA mount.

It would be the same gun, just the mountings would be different. I'll just push the twin 47mm version back a few years.

Block I, would be the 47mm turret, 75mm LV, and a twin 25.4mm AA. Tank would weigh in at 17 tons.

Block II, be the 75mm* HV, and 105mm howitzer. Weight would increase to 19 tons and the tank would enter service in 1942.

Block III, might be an entirely new vehicle, but would mount the 75mm HV in a full turret, and include the twin 47mm. Tank would be around 24 tons, with entry date of 1944.

*I'm using Atlantean weapons so I'll stick with the 75mm

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
It would be the same gun, just the mountings would be different.

For clarification, I'd presume the 47mm AA gun is a box-fed automatic/semiautomatic, while the 47mm AT gun is hand-loaded from the breech like most guns?

I was thinking clip fed like the Bofors 40mm. Was there much difference between different versions of the Bofors 40mm?

Mexico uses twin AA at sea, single DP at sea, single and twin AA on land, single Tank(AT-27), single AT on land, and single lightweight on aircraft. How much difference would there be between the different versions?

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
I was thinking clip fed like the Bofors 40mm. Was there much difference between different versions of the Bofors 40mm?

So far as I'm aware, no - but again to the best of my knowledge, the Bofors 40mm was never put on a tank that wasn't an antiaircraft tank. The British tanks, for instance, had the breach-loaded 2-Pounder:

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Mexico uses twin AA at sea, single DP at sea, single and twin AA on land, single Tank(AT-27), single AT on land, and single lightweight on aircraft. How much difference would there be between the different versions?

Potentially quite a bit, because the tank guns really shouldn't be automatic, while the AA guns and the aircraft guns would have automation of some sort.

That's an interesting side-line though. Given the space constraints on small tanks OTL during WW2 and the often limited crew to commander and loader, or sometimes the commander being gunner and loader too, why didn't they used automatic guns in tanks?

Yes they are bulky but for guns around the 40mm calibre it may have allowed a light tank to be more effective by letting the commander and gunner get on with their respective tasks rather needing to double-up as loaders too. The drawbacks are the size of the magazine, potential jams and where the cases get flung out afterwards.


The British in WW currently mount the 6pdr semi-auto AA gun on the Crusader chassis, but that's a hefty gun.

Here is the OTL 40mm Crusader, a pretty big mounting. In WW this pic doubles as my 6pdr AA tak.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
That's an interesting side-line though. Given the space constraints on small tanks OTL during WW2 and the often limited crew to commander and loader, or sometimes the commander being gunner and loader too, why didn't they used automatic guns in tanks?

An automatic gun large enough to be effective in an AT role would take up significantly more space inside the turret, and they were still box-fed weapons. You might get a few more rounds off initially, but then you'd have to keep feeding it in even more cramped quarters than if you had a regular gun.

Auto-loaders have been very rare on tanks in all periods. The only one which comes to mind is that on the postwar French AMX13 - and that was due more to the adoption of the oscillating turret than anything else.

With the proliferation of ammunition types - AP, APDS, HE, HEAP etc, having your ammunition pre-loaded limits your tactical options.

These came out better than expected.

Not bad at all. Nicely done!

The turrets seem to fit quite well onto the T18 but results in a fairly massive vehicle.

Why did Mexico go with the wheeled tank route? I can see it making sense for operations in the North of the country, but would be less convinced with jungle use towards the South and the Federation.

I like the look of them for one. But Mexico currently has no true tank, their only combat vehicle is the wheeled ERC 90 Lynx, they also operate the tracked AMX-VCI but only the APC version. So I was going to have WW Mexico go mainly wheeled. And I found the perfect vehicle:

M38 Wolfhound

Only a few of the T18/T3 will be bought and they will be used like the M18 Hellcats were originally intended to be used, as a strategic reserve that can be moved rapidly to counter an enemy breakthrough. Also they are supposed to operate with my mechanized (aka motorized) infantry divisions which at the moment are all wheeled.

Mexico is also working on a national road network. Having wheeled vehicles means that they can move internally easier and without having to use the railroads. The jungles of Central America are in mountainous terrain where even tanks can't operate, so no loss there.

*grumble* forgot this computer saves in jpeg and not in png...



Got these from: Junior General

Good site for land stuff. Above is the Mexican Army's artillery and tanks currently in service. Below are the armored cars I am looking at, the French one looks intriguing.