The Mexican gunpowder dilemma

[yulzari]

Indeed the technology existed for the Mexicans to make good powder had they decided to do so but the performance of the Mexican small arms and artillery as described in the Alamo and later war demonstrates that they did not choose to do so. Possibly they imported some good powder for their rifles. I have noted no rifle references in the commentaries.

The behaviour of the Mexican arms displays all the signs of poor powder. The Portuguese government mills shows how it could have been done. The Portuguese army had become accustomed to British powder in the Peninsula campaign with the extensive material support from Britain and was regarded as a very competent and reliable ally.

Tultepc by Mexico City has been a firework manufacturing centre for th past 200 years since Mexican independence and the end of the Spanish Royal gunpowder monopoly so Mexico did indeed make it's own gun powder in the relevant period, both for fireworks and blasting powder for mining.

BTW I notice that period Mexican gun flints found in Tucson were old French ones.

[fernando]

Portuguese were accustomed to gunpowder over four centuries before the Peninsular war, whether learnt from the British or whomever. Such is evidenced in history, based on countless artillery contacts. I don't think they would go as far as they did with low ratio gunpowder.

.

[fernando]

Hoping not to be boring but, this is the first time i read of Mexican gunpowder grade being put in concrete terms, rather than just bad, poor or mediocre.
I have extracted a couple of (hopefuly) interesting paragraphs from the work "Finding A Face: El Soldado Mexicano 1835-1848" by Kevin R. Young, Historian (San Antonio, Texas).
I hope the PDF i have created is amenable.

.

[Jim McDougall]

Yulzari, I want to thank you for some of the most informative and detailed perspective and insight into the dynamics of the varied types of black powder I have seen. It is clear you have expertise in this topic far beyond what is typically found in most resources concerning the differences and production of gun powder. I think in most cases these presume that readers already have some knowledge on these details and do not get far enough into particulars.

Fernando modestly suggests he is 'playing by ear' however I know he has far more knowledge than I do regarding firearms and ordnance, where I am very much the novice. Your well written explanations are excellent and most helpful.

From what I have found on the circumstances with Mexico and the powder 'dilemma' as I have described here, the poor results of the powder issued may add 'incompetence' to the 'mixture' of the situation over years.

It does seem that along with the poor military administration which had been pretty much the hallmark of New Spain through the 18th c into 19th, that firearms were indeed in considerable paucity in the frontiers in particular.
Apparently the few guns which were obtained were misused and not properly maintained by the soldiers, and armorers did not have proper tools, parts no expertise to repair them.
The lack of proper training and marksmanship was primarily due to lack of powder and ammunition to permit such drill.

It seems that by the time Santa Anna took over, the arsenals overall had been largely dismantled, probably for more centralized control as he became dictator. As has been suggested, the proper mixing of gunpowder does take specific skill, and while the necessary ingredients for it were certainly well available in Mexico, the skills for producing it were apparently not
In the campaigns discussed, one of the unfortunate circumstances was the incompetence of ordnance officers issuing incorrect ammunition to the soldiers for their weapons, which were Brown Bess while many were Baker rifles.

Here I would say that I imagine that the gun powder captured from New Orleans destined for Santa Anna was sorely needed.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Hoping not to be boring but, this is the first time i read of Mexican gunpowder grade being put in concrete terms, rather than just bad, poor or mediocre.
I have extracted a couple of (hopefuly) interesting paragraphs from the work "Finding A Face: El Soldado Mexicano 1835-1848" by Kevin R. Young, Historian (San Antonio, Texas).
I hope the PDF i have created is amenable.

.

Fernando...………..not boring!!! This is the exact topic we are trying to examine, and this is an absolutely excellent excerpt with key information. This is actually a source I had not seen, so thank you.

With regard to the Cazadores, these were actually of the more elite forces in the Mexican army, and as such they were better trained, excellent marksmen and were typically issued the Baker rifles. These are, as per their description, rifled and thus capable of accurate fire.

I would add here, digressing from the powder issue but to the use of lances by Mexican cavalry, the resounding defeat of US dragoons by Mexican lancers in the first skirmish of the Mexican War (1846) was at San Pascual in California. This was noted to describe the skill of Mexican lancers over the supposedly well armed dragoons.
Actually, the US forces were well worn after one of the longest marches of the time, and were on blown horses and mules, armed with new type percussion rifles. It was extremely cold, and literally the middle of the night in early morning hours.

It as been claimed they were overtaken by Mexican lancers because the powder in their guns was wet from earlier rain, however the real reason was the cold fingers in total darkness could not secure the necessary firing caps on the guns. These were 'improved' M1833 Hall carbines which had a percussion system but flawed breech which often gapped over time, and the paper cartridges were loaded OK, but the priming caps were the bigger issue.
The paper cartridges, contrary to popular belief, were not truly dampened as they were held in cartridge cases which were treated to be moisture resistant.
After sunrise, fighting continued in degree with the guns of the dragoons firing as designed.

Beyond this, the Mexicans were not regular line cavalry, but vaqueros (ranchers) of militia armed with the lances they used for hunting and as previously mentioned, notably without firearms.
They were on familiar terrain, and excellent horsemen, well mounted .
Members of the American force were unable to adequately defend themselves.

The dramatized painting is of course compelling but as often the case, embellished. It is not clear whether the red pennons, or any were on the lances. The red is of course the 'no quarter' warning later described in the accounts of the Alamo and the deguello.
The image of the battle area reveals to rugged terrain they were in.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... It as been claimed they were overtaken by Mexican lancers because the powder in their guns was wet from earlier rain, however the real reason was the cold fingers in total darkness could not secure the necessary firing caps on the guns...

... And what did i remind you the other day ?

Originally Posted by fernando

...I gather that the use of the lance, such an ancient reliable weapon as it is, was not an alternative weapon for Mexicans specifically caused by bad gunpowder issues. It has been a long way before firearms were so reliable as to convince armies to abandon lances and other white arms ... all over the globe. A humid 'good' gunpowder or a 'soaked' flint (or even a percussion) musket/rifle would let you down in the more critical of occasions; something you Jim have often approached...

[Jim McDougall]

Yeah yeah! OK dad!!! I know, you did

Surprisingly though, the lance continued its use in many contexts even into the 20th c in WWI. German uhlans had incredibly long steel lances, and there were numerous contingents of Bengal and other lancers with Great Britain in a number of campaigns.

Most of what I have read on New Spain did note that the lance was favored over the use of guns as a primary weapon in the frontiers. As noted, the lack of powder and paucity of firearms themselves were key in that preference.
In the more metropolitan areas and cities this was not so much the case.

While one of the most intriguing conditions in New Spain was that remarkably obsolete arms and armor continued in use long after they were no longer in use in Europe. However, the use of the lance was not related to this proclivity of obsolete arms forms, such as the lance, but was actually more toward the notable use of the lance by American Indian warriors which revived the usefulness of them with the Spaniards.

Toward the unreliability of firearms, the advent of the use of the tomahawk by colonials was presented by the Indian tribes who learned that they had a window of attack using these as the colonists reloaded. Clearly this was not as opportune with soldiers using volley fire, but with loosely formed groups firing independently it was of course used as noted.

[David R]

Slightly off subject,but a reminder of how late lancers were used in the field. Indian Lancers in Mesopotamia WWI.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... Most of what I have read on New Spain did note that the lance was favored over the use of guns as a primary weapon in the frontiers. As noted, the lack of powder and paucity of firearms themselves were key in that preference...

How many of the following reasons were valid; education on its use inherited from ancients, simplicity (no need to resource other components to make it functional); the cost of firearms acquisition and continuous ammunition maintenance) ... and reliability !

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... While one of the most intriguing conditions in New Spain was that remarkably obsolete arms and armor continued in use long after they were no longer in use in Europe...

As also occurred (and still occur) in other continents; in a certain extent, colonized locals were not allowed to possess firearms above a determined grade.