What was the warfare like in the Mexican-American war?

I'm trying to get a picture of what the fighting and tactics of that war was like? Was it more similar to the revolutionary war? the ACW? the Napoleonic wars? What was warfare in the mid-1840's like?
 
AFAIK, neither side had the top of the line newest hardware. Both sides kinda thought they were fighting with Napoleonic tactics, but neither side really did, if only because the forces involved were way smaller. Both sides were bedeviled with poorly trained forces... the Mexicans with conscripts with no training, the Americans with militia forces that were really unreliable. The Mexicans were widely considered to have the better cavalry, but the Americans definitely had the better leadership...
 

amphibulous

Banned
AFAIK, neither side had the top of the line newest hardware.

Very untrue. The US has just invested in state of the artillery that had double the range of the Mexican's, and was in the process of re-arming with breech loading rifles. It was a complete mismatch technologically.

..Although even this was less important than that Mexico was effectively at civil war and generals and politicians were more interested in fighting each other than the US.
 

Robert

Banned
The Mexican Army infantry was armed with the Brown Bess, a rifle supplied by Great Britain. It was the same weapon that the British had used during the American Revolution some 70 years earlier. The Brown Bess was designed for an era where the firing of the weapon was primarily to induce shock in an enemy, which would then be taken down by a bayonet charge. The rifle had no sight, so it couldn't be aimed accurately, and had an effective range of 75 yards. To make matters worse the Mexicans had to use domestic gunpowder which was weak, and had to be used in such quantity and only firing from the hip was possible. To aim from the shoulder would result in injury.

The Mexicans used a double line of soldiers, who would fire together, hoping for a shotgun effect against a target. However, due to poor training it took the Mexican soldiers two minutes to reload their weapons.

At the time U.S. rifles had an effective range of 150 yards, and the rate of fire was one to two rounds per minute.

U.S. Soldiers, and the volunteers, were trained or used to firing accurately at a target (in many civilian cases it was the primary course of meat in their diet).

One reason (besides the leadership of Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott, and the lack of it from Santa Anna) for the U.S. victory was Mexican Soldiers were our ranged and could fire only half has often as U.S. Soldiers.
 
The Mexican Army infantry was armed with the Brown Bess, a rifle supplied by Great Britain. It was the same weapon that the British had used during the American Revolution some 70 years earlier. The Brown Bess was designed for an era where the firing of the weapon was primarily to induce shock in an enemy, which would then be taken down by a bayonet charge. The rifle had no sight, so it couldn't be aimed accurately, and had an effective range of 75 yards.

You're overstating things a bit here. The Bess wasn't a precision weapon (it also wasn't a rifle) but it was still an effective weapon. Well drilled troops using it could do far more than just shock the troops on the receiving end.

The Mexicans used a double line of soldiers, who would fire together, hoping for a shotgun effect against a target. However, due to poor training it took the Mexican soldiers two minutes to reload their weapons.

Do you have a source for 2 minutes? I'm not denying or agreeing with the fact that the Mexicans were badly drilled (my knowledge on the conflict is limited) but I find it hard to believe that anyone can handle a Bess badly enough to only get 1 shot every 2 minutes from her.
 
The Mexican Army infantry was armed with the Brown Bess, a rifle supplied by Great Britain. It was the same weapon that the British had used during the American Revolution some 70 years earlier. The Brown Bess was designed for an era where the firing of the weapon was primarily to induce shock in an enemy, which would then be taken down by a bayonet charge. The rifle had no sight, so it couldn't be aimed accurately, and had an effective range of 75 yards. To make matters worse the Mexicans had to use domestic gunpowder which was weak, and had to be used in such quantity and only firing from the hip was possible. To aim from the shoulder would result in injury.

The Mexicans used a double line of soldiers, who would fire together, hoping for a shotgun effect against a target. However, due to poor training it took the Mexican soldiers two minutes to reload their weapons.

At the time U.S. rifles had an effective range of 150 yards, and the rate of fire was one to two rounds per minute.

U.S. Soldiers, and the volunteers, were trained or used to firing accurately at a target (in many civilian cases it was the primary course of meat in their diet).

One reason (besides the leadership of Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott, and the lack of it from Santa Anna) for the U.S. victory was Mexican Soldiers were our ranged and could fire only half has often as U.S. Soldiers.

What rifles were the US infantry supplied with? I thought it wasn't untill the civil war that rifled muskets became standard? Along with the development of the minie ball.
 
I think Robert Leckie wrote that a goodly number of Mexican casualties were caused by friendly fire. A lot of them discharged their weapons on command just to discharge them without bothering to see what they were pointing at.
 
The Mexican Army was plagued by a lack of long range rifles and cannons and could not charge effectively without being mowed down. The Mexican soldier were also poorly trained and in the case of Santa Anna he pressed some of his own peons from his haciendas to serve in his army. Conditions for the Mexican soldier was pretty grueling even outside of battle. For example, when Santa Anna marched from San Luis Potosi to Saltillo, a 240 mile march, about 5000 soldiers died; a full fourth of the army. Mexico had also pretty much been at Civil War with each other since independence and thus the fight was pretty lopsided. This is not to say the United States was not plagued by troubles but some of this had to do with short term enlistments and volunteers, for example in Tyler's army, went home and forced the army to wait for new recruits to arrive. American troops also had a problem with morale for example during the battle at Buena Vista the Americans only lost 673 men but during the battle a full 1,500 deserted the Army and fled. Thus the Americans, including desertions, lost as much as Santa Anna in two days of fighting
 
During the Mexican-American War, the books I have state that the US Infantry had several types of longarm in use - flintlock and percussion muskets as well as some with rifles. The rifle was apparently accurate to 500 yards, though of course effective range when you are under fire is usually somewhat less:cool:.
 
During the Mexican-American War, the books I have state that the US Infantry had several types of longarm in use - flintlock and percussion muskets as well as some with rifles. The rifle was apparently accurate to 500 yards, though of course effective range when you are under fire is usually somewhat less:cool:.

I'd be really skeptical of that '500 yard' range of any pre-minie ball rifle.. or for that matter, even one with minie balls. You could probably get a ball to go that far, but 'accurate'? Nah...
 
What rifles were the US infantry supplied with? I thought it wasn't untill the civil war that rifled muskets became standard? Along with the development of the minie ball.

I'm going to have to agree with this. And as for breech loaders, they weren't even common during the Civil War (ok, late war cavalry units tended to have a lot of them, but in terms of infantry even at the end we're talking muzzle loaded minie balls).
 
I'd be really skeptical of that '500 yard' range of any pre-minie ball rifle.. or for that matter, even one with minie balls. You could probably get a ball to go that far, but 'accurate'? Nah...

Thomas Plunket of the 95th Rifles shot 2 French officers at a distance of up to 600 yards during Moore's retreat in Spain. It's a pretty isolated event, but it was possible.
 
One overwhelming advantage for the Americans was that the US Army fielded so-called "flying artillery" (horsedrawn mobile field batteries that could be relocated to any part of the battle as needed). In many battles where the Mexicans were on the verge of turning the US flanks, the American commanders would simply bring in their flying artillery to blast away the Mexicans with grape before they knew where they were being hit from. The mobility of the US field guns also allowed them to place their batteries high up on overlooking ridges and hills that the Mexicans had left unguarded because they couldn't imagine anyone being able to drag their artillery up there.
 
Top