The Mexican gunpowder dilemma

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... I am curious about the powder which was discovered on the 'Pelicano' vessel captured (300 barrels) which was said to have been under the proprietorship of a New Orleans dealer and apparently destined for Mexican forces. If this was the case, it begs the question, could this have been valued DuPont powder?...

This instead would be a "trilemma" Jim; the contraband powder riddle, not the the shifting of the battle result. What was the men ratio of attackers/defenders ... ten to one ? They say that in these things of sieges, are the defenders who have the odds in their favor, but hardly with these unequal proportions; bad powder, wrong volleys, whatever.
In such circumstances, Mexicans could well bear the luxury of several liabilities, but they also had some assets; their lancers, for one, whom actually slaughtered the last bunch of defenders, as it is well documented.
Speaking of liabilities and still a bit off (gunpowder) topic, did you know that, reportedly, the bayonet of the Baker, used by some Mexican forces, besides being a nuisance due to its weight which prevented aiming accuracy, tended to fall off the rifle as, after intense firing sequence, its holding device deformed ?


.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

This instead would be a "trilemma" Jim; the contraband powder riddle, not the the shifting of the battle result. What was the men ratio of attackers/defenders ... ten to one ? They say that in these things of sieges, are the defenders who have the odds in their favor, but hardly with these unequal proportions; bad powder, wrong volleys, whatever.
In such circumstances, Mexicans could well bear the luxury of several liabilities, but they also had some assets; their lancers, for one, whom actually slaughtered the last bunch of defenders, as it is well documented.
Speaking of liabilities and still a bit off (gunpowder) topic, did you know that, reportedly, the bayonet of the Baker, used by some Mexican forces, besides being a nuisance due to its weight which prevented aiming accuracy, tended to fall off the rifle as, after intense firing sequence, its holding device deformed ?


.

I think much of the issue historically with the Alamo is the very lack of agreement on so many details. It has never been entirely established as to how many Mexican troops were there, nor for that matter the accurate number of defenders. However, it seems now known that the attack made by Santa Anna was in early pre dawn hours, while most of the defenders were soundly asleep.
As well noted, Santa Anna had fully expected the rout of the defenders, and had strategically placed his lancers at locations where they would likely escape. Actually it was not just the last bunch of defenders, but there were at least two large groups and perhaps several smaller who attempted exiting the compound.
These actions should not be seen negatively as their emplacement was entirely overrun, and without any means of effective defense they had little other choice. They had been exhausted by the relentless artillery pounding by the Mexicans, which was more noise than anything else, but finally had ceased, no doubt part of Santa Annas plan. While the men had actually considered surrender, they could have escaped the day before as a number of open lines of escape were possible with the loosely positioned Mexican forces. If the defenders had been ready with loaded guns there may have been a better chance. Although the Alamo had 21 cannon, there was not only lack of ammunition, poor powder, but totally inadequate manpower for proper gun crews. To add to matters, there was sickness in the ranks (not just Bowie) and many men were in the hospital at the time of attack.

With the Mexican guns, even the accurate estimation of the models is unclear, but it is presumed these were India pattern muskets, which were sold off to the Mexican army after the end of the Napoleonic campaigns.
The Mexican forces termed these guns 'tecerlos' overall, unsure of translation.

While the Brown Bess' was issued at large to the rank and file, they did indeed use buck and ball (the buck was .35 cal) along with smaller than bore ball to account for fouled barrels.
I did reread the account by Joe (Travis' servant) and he was apparently describing his own wound, which was in his side, and from buckshot.

With the Baker rifles, it would appear that these were early models, and as they were with rifled barrels, the more elite cazadores received them and were trained in marksmanship. These were not in large number nor issued in an overall regulation, but those with them were skirmishers and snipers.
The first models (1 and 2) were issued with a huge sword bayonet (24") which added to the weight (over 9 lbs) and made the gun overall awkward.

It does not seem that the bayonet was broadly present with these, but it is noted that the trauma of muzzle blast would consistently weaken the hook and spring causing it to fall off. By the third model of these guns (1815) these bayonets were replaced by the familiar socket type.

These socket bayonets were used by the ranks with Brown Bess' with effect, and essentially in the melee of men trying to either load guns or get out of the chaos to regroup or escape within the compound. I have not found any specific mention of the Baker rifles with these huge sword bayonets thus far, but it seems doubtful there were many.

There is much we will never know about what really happened there, but recent publications have brought forth much very hard truth, though it mostly must be regarded as from reasonably to profoundly plausible.
Regardless, as in any battle, the valor of the men of all sides remains notably recognized in these difficult and terrible circumstances.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... However, it seems now known that the attack made by Santa Anna was in early pre dawn hours, while most of the defenders were soundly asleep...

The simplest of tactics .

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... With the Mexican guns, even the accurate estimation of the models is unclear ...

Not taking into account reportedly massive quantities of firearms left by the Spanish after independence, which seems not having been used, the basic equipment would have been British muskets with two different barrel lengths and the Baker.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...The Mexican forces termed these guns 'tecerlos' overall, unsure of translation...

I see it written 'tercerlos', but the correct (original) term is 'tercerola', as per Spanish dictionaries. This is the name they gave to a short version of the India pattern, which the Brits called 'Sergeants carbine'.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... With the Baker rifles, it would appear that these were early models, and as they were with rifled barrels, the more elite cazadores received them and were trained in marksmanship... The first models (1 and 2) were issued with a huge sword bayonet (24") which added to the weight (over 9 lbs) and made the gun overall awkward....

Heavy, ma non troppo, Jim ;
"Following the German style the Baker Rifle was designed to accept a sword-bayonet of some 24 inches long. Therefore the first bayonet for the Baker Rifle was a single-edged flat sword of 23 inches length. It was brass handled with a knuckle bow and clipped onto a muzzle bar. It weighed 2 pounds and, as later reports confirmed, created difficulties for firing when it was attached to the rifle muzzle".

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... I have not found any specific mention of the Baker rifles with these huge sword bayonets thus far, but it seems doubtful there were many...

Yet they existed ... but in fact not all rifles were equipped with them .

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... Regardless, as in any battle, the valor of the men of all sides remains notably recognized in these difficult and terrible circumstances...

Yes, a tribute to those who are the pawns in such games.

Attached:
Three of the few cannons that were left back in the Alamo site.


.

[Jim McDougall]

Fernando, if I may say so, absolutely excellent research and constructive support as well as defining modifications to observations! Thank you, and I very much appreciate the itemized attention to particular details.

This is exactly the kind of interaction that is so helpful in discussions and helps so much in developing threads. I think that often people misperceive varying kinds of modifications as corrections but in fact they are essential additions in true fact finding discourse and not personally oriented.

Actually your additions are entirely helpful in adding important dimension to my findings, and key information I may have overlooked or inadvertently omitted.
Thank you so much, really learning far more than I had thought.....the material is so much deeper than I have realized, and your insights outstanding.

Teamwork in investigative research and discussion. Excellente' !!!

[Jim McDougall]

Moving on, I think I have found some interesting perspective on the situation with back powder and the supply to the Mexican army in this time.
Apparently at the time of the 'Texas Revolution', the United States was actually in a pretty much 'business as usual' state as far as commerce in the Gulf of Mexico. This appears to have included supplies to the Mexican army of Santa Anna and through his appointed agents in New Orleans.
The Texians had a small navy of several ships that were patrolling and blockading movement of such supplies in the gulf, and it appears that Yucatan and Maramoros were key port locations for the Mexican trade.

One ship that was captured was Mexican, but owned by Americans (the Pelicano) and apparently had supplies including 300 barrels of powder mingled in with flour and other commodities. Two other American ships were taken also carrying arms, ammunition and powder for the Mexican Army. One ship, a brig from Boston, also had a contract to transport Mexican soldiers to Texas.

While this sounds provocative, it must be remembered that the United States was not at war with Mexico, it was a revolt of the Texians against Mexico. In fact there was considerable uproar of the 'commerce' in the Gulf being disturbed by these nautical situations, and the Texians even accused of piracy!

It would seem that the campaigns in Texas had Santa Anna with a notable shortage of supplies, which apparently included powder. That being the case, perhaps the powder on hand was 'cut' or altered to go farther?
Had the powder being used by Mexico been supplied through New Orleans?, as noted that regular commerce through that major port had been well established.

It would seem that Mexico may have been obtaining powder through New Orleans with Santa Anna through a firm he had business with, and through purchase orders via his worldwide agent for provisions and materials such as ammunition etc.

[fernando]

Still some missing links may be found out there, to be brought in for connection or, if preferred, a consolidation of all loose episodes in a solid timeline. Poor gunpowder, yes but, basically due to weak components, lack of know how, or adulterated by one of two reasons; economic interests based on bad faith, or 'cut' to extend its stocks due to contextual shortage ... hardly a measure, due to its technical naivety. And then, which of those motives motivated Mexicans to acquire extra gunpowder from abroad ? And from when have they realized they needed such supplements ? Why thinking that the Pelicano was the first ship to transport gunpowder for Santa Ana forces? I wouldn't call it contraband, as that would be one sided point of view. Wouldn't it be interesting to spot a publication narrating the gunpowder saga, viewed from inside by a Mexican (documented) author ? Forgetting that is the historian that makes the history, as real or according to his taste. No, just a politically naked synopsis on the subject.


.

[yulzari]

This all reinforces the idea that Mexican powder was not of a firearm quality and they sought to remedy that by imports as the Mexican producers were unwilling or unable to source and suitably process the necessary quality of ingredients for firearm quality powder. All gun powder uses the same basic ingredients but there are major differences in the purity of them, type of wood and charring processes and how they are incorporated and then processed. There is little that can be done to bring firework powder up to firearm standards . I could go into tedious detail but gun powder making is far more complex than just chucking together the 3 basic ingredients and making the best of it is a very subtle affair which is, even now, not fully understood.