AHC outfit the Mexican Army with the best military weapons for mexican-american war 2.0

Assuming that Mexico is somehow stable enough (no coups/revolts) and has the funds post texas revolution and that Mexico decided to fully modernize the Mexican Army with the best rifles,muskets,cannons to replaced their outdated/outclassed ones which ones would be best for the Mexican military to purshase to be equal weapon wise to the American army when war breaks out since the Mexican-American war is almost unavoidable
The weapons must have been built at most by early 1844 and arrive by mid 1845 so mexican army has at least a few months to train with their new weapons and artilery assumimg war breaks out around the same time as OTL due to Texas being annexed by USA
 
Assuming that Mexico is somehow stable enough (no coups/revolts) and has the funds post texas revolution and that Mexico decided to fully modernize the Mexican Army with the best rifles,muskets,cannons to replaced their outdated/outclassed ones which ones would be best for the Mexican military to purshase to be equal weapon wise to the American army when war breaks out since the Mexican-American war is almost unavoidable
The weapons must have been built at most by early 1844 and arrive by mid 1845 so mexican army has at least a few months to train with their new weapons and artilery assumimg war breaks out around the same time as OTL due to Texas being annexed by USA
How Buffed Mexico is? so I can get this straight up now
 
Well most of the Guns in the Mexican American war are just actually Napoleonic wars surpluses. Without the infighting and if Mexico is in a very good shape, more likely Santa Anna goes to march to the deep south and forced the US to peace out ITTL. liberating the slaves and causing a slave rebellion during the war to help Mexico win. Which is very likely if buffed like that
 
Last edited:
The United States has a large advantage in numbers and a massive advantage in industry, naval power that would ensure their victory.Also the US would have veteran troops from the Indian War.
 
Did the Mexican infighting cause Mexico to lose the Mexican-American war?
Yes, most commanders that hates Santa Anna ignores his orders, With a Unified front that is very likely instead of their okyish or good performance iotl
The United States has a large advantage in numbers and a massive advantage in industry, naval power that would ensure their victory.Also the US would have veteran troops from the Indian War.
Remember Mexico is buffed here mate
 
It won't change much. Both sides used smoothbore muskets, though the Americans had more percussion lock weapons. The Mexicans would have to buy newer percussion lock muskets from Britain, or France, which would help a little. The Mexicans had poor quality gunpowder, which hampered the effectiveness of their cannon, but the Americans would still have better artillery tactics. The cannon themselves weren't that different, but the Mexicans had older, less well maintained pieces.

Buying new weapons, and powder from foreign sources would cost a lot of money, and wouldn't necessarily be a game changer. On the strategic level the Americans would still have naval supremacy, so once hostilities start they'd be cut off from those foreign supplies. The Americans would still have a larger population to draw on, and more industry. Mexico would still be underdeveloped, and deeply divided politically, with deep social divisions, leaving a largely apathetic population. I don't think better weapons would've changed the outcome, there was just too many factors working against Mexico to change the outcome so easily.
 
Assuming that Mexico is somehow stable enough (no coups/revolts) and has the funds post texas revolution and that Mexico decided to fully modernize the Mexican Army with the best rifles,muskets,cannons to replaced their outdated/outclassed ones which ones would be best for the Mexican military to purshase to be equal weapon wise to the American army when war breaks out since the Mexican-American war is almost unavoidable
The weapons must have been built at most by early 1844 and arrive by mid 1845 so mexican army has at least a few months to train with their new weapons and artilery assumimg war breaks out around the same time as OTL due to Texas being annexed by USA
There wasn't a whole lot of variety in military weapons in this period, you have a few rifles here and there which are mostly too expensive to seriously consider as standard-issue for an army, a smaller number of mostly experimental breechloaders, and more or less the same muskets used in Napoleon's time. At the start of the 1840's countries were starting to replace or retrofit these with percussion-cap muskets, which OTL Mexico didn't do. ITTL they'd likely do the same thing as the British and retrofit their Brown Bess muskets with percussion locks. Cannons have even less variety, you're still just gonna be looking at various bronze, smoothbore pieces in varying sizes.

A lot of the newest and most sophisticated weapons in the 1840's are going to be American-made, which probably rules them out for Mexican purchase outside a small scale. The Mexicans could likely purchase the Brunswick rifle as a replacement for their Bakers, but they're still probably going to be a special weapon and I don't think the Brown Besses could be rifled the same way later American Springfields could since those were designed with the thought of being converted to a rifle in mind.
 
Last edited:
Assuming that Mexico is somehow stable enough (no coups/revolts) and has the funds post texas revolution and that Mexico decided to fully modernize the Mexican Army with the best rifles,muskets,cannons to replaced their outdated/outclassed ones which ones would be best for the Mexican military to purshase to be equal weapon wise to the American army when war breaks out since the Mexican-American war is almost unavoidable
The weapons must have been built at most by early 1844 and arrive by mid 1845 so mexican army has at least a few months to train with their new weapons and artilery assumimg war breaks out around the same time as OTL due to Texas being annexed by USA
How buffed mexico is here, tell us compared to the US
 
If Mexico is more powerful does the USA go to war with them in the first place?
Yes they do. It was a more warlike age, and the Americans weren't afraid of Mexico, even if it was stronger then in the OTL. As it was the war took 2 years, and was easier then they thought it might have been. The U.S. achieved it's objectives in the first few months, the whole Mexico City Campaign was just to force the Mexicans to accept reality. They weren't going to retake the lands they lost, no matter how long they fought.
 
Yes they do. It was a more warlike age, and the Americans weren't afraid of Mexico, even if it was stronger then in the OTL. As it was the war took 2 years, and was easier then they thought it might have been. The U.S. achieved it's objectives in the first few months, the whole Mexico City Campaign was just to force the Mexicans to accept reality. They weren't going to retake the lands they lost, no matter how long they fought.
So they basically think that they can beat everyone and overconfident that marching to Mexico city is just a piece of cake, in that time.?
 
So they basically think that they can beat everyone and overconfident that marching to Mexico city is just a piece of cake, in that time.?
No piece of cake, by any means. The march from Veracruz to Mexico City was one of the finest examples of military skill in that era. When Winfield Scott cut his communications with his base at Veracruz, and marched off to Mexico City the Duke of Wellington pronounced that Scott was lost. The Mexicans had almost all the military advantages, of numbers, defensible terrain, and fortifications, and they didn't lack courage ether, yet Scott leveraged them out of position, after position, with almost no frontal assaults. Scott was simply a military genius, who I would argue was the best American general of the 19th Century, if not in all of American History.

On the overall question of confidence in defeating Mexico, yes the Americans had little doubt they would win. They started the war with a solid hold on Texas. They controlled the Santa Fa Train, giving them a good route into New Mexico. The Navy had no trouble taking coastal California, blockading the Gulf, and taking Veracruz as a base for Scott. John C. Freemont, Steven Kearny, and other army leaders were able to secure American control of the future State, with only a few dozen casualties. With their more aggressive artillery tactics Zachery Taylor defeated the much larger army commanded by Santa Anna, at the Battle Buena Vista. The Americans simply out fought the Mexicans in most of the actions of the war. You might call it arrogant overconfidence, but in this case it turned out to be justified.
 
No piece of cake, by any means. The march from Veracruz to Mexico City was one of the finest examples of military skill in that era. When Winfield Scott cut his communications with his base at Veracruz, and marched off to Mexico City the Duke of Wellington pronounced that Scott was lost. The Mexicans had almost all the military advantages, of numbers, defensible terrain, and fortifications, and they didn't lack courage ether, yet Scott leveraged them out of position, after position, with almost no frontal assaults. Scott was simply a military genius, who I would argue was the best American general of the 19th Century, if not in all of American History.

On the overall question of confidence in defeating Mexico, yes the Americans had little doubt they would win. They started the war with a solid hold on Texas. They controlled the Santa Fa Train, giving them a good route into New Mexico. The Navy had no trouble taking coastal California, blockading the Gulf, and taking Veracruz as a base for Scott. John C. Freemont, Steven Kearny, and other army leaders were able to secure American control of the future State, with only a few dozen casualties. With their more aggressive artillery tactics Zachery Taylor defeated the much larger army commanded by Santa Anna, at the Battle Buena Vista. The Americans simply out fought the Mexicans in most of the actions of the war. You might call it arrogant overconfidence, but in this case it turned out to be justified.
I dont know why but I imagine Santa Anna as Napoleon and Winfield Scott/Zachary Taylor as Wellington. Its like the Napoleon of the West, meets the Wellington of the West. After seeing this reply
 
I dont know why but I imagine Santa Anna as Napoleon and Winfield Scott/Zachary Taylor as Wellington. Its like the Napoleon of the West, meets the Wellington of the West. After seeing this reply
Of the 7 battles he commanded, Santa Anna won only twice. Wellington in his career in 100s of battles lost 1 battle where he was in command. Napoleon lost a few more but in comparison to his victories, his defeats were pitifully small. Santa Anna, despite his posturing, had nowhere near the talent or skill to be called the Napoleon of the West. Scott and Taylor miles ahead of Anna in military skill, whilst Wellington and Napoleon were arguably equal to one another, making this comparison rather wrong really.
 
Of the 7 battles he commanded, Santa Anna won only twice. Wellington in his career in 100s of battles lost 1 battle where he was in command. Napoleon lost a few more but in comparison to his victories, his defeats were pitifully small. Santa Anna, despite his posturing, had nowhere near the talent or skill to be called the Napoleon of the West. Scott and Taylor miles ahead of Anna in military skill, whilst Wellington and Napoleon were arguably equal to one another, making this comparison rather wrong really.
Well he called himself the Napoleon of the West, and its just the irony I imagined.
 
Top