USMC vs Spanish mausers

[jon_norstog]

G'day, mauser list!

I usually post on the krag and trapdoor lists, but I do own a few nice mausers and hunt with them. I was doing a bit of reading about the USMC landing at Guantanamo in 1898 when I found this:

letter home from Sgt. Bloomfield W. Riddle, USMC

Our first landing in Cuba was an exciting and hazardous undertaking. The
bay of Guantanamo was our first landing place, and here lay in hiding
until about 2 o’clock in the night. Then the boats of Sampson’s fleet,
Marblehead, Suwanee, Oregon and torpedo boat Porter began a bombardment
of the city of Guantanamo. They kept up a steady fire until at daybreak,
at a given signal, 700 United States Marines charged upon the fort. For
thirteen hours we fought with Yankee pluck and about 7 o’clock the next
evening the Spaniards gave way and retreated. Then our boys gave such a
yell of victory that it could be heard a good mile. That yell I shall
never forget as long as I live.

Within five hours afterwards we had the city under control with 100
killed and 169 wounded on the Spanish side and but six killed and twelve
wounded on our side. You observe that the Spaniards are remarkably good
fighters, but they cannot hit a flock of barns, as they shoot too high.
I could hear the bullets whiz over our heads.

On the following day (Sunday), June 10, about 5 o’clock, the Spaniards
made a charge on us 3000 strong. The fight lasted until Monday morning
about 10 o’clock, when the enemy withdrew with many killed and wounded.
Our loss was small, only seven men being wounded. On Thursday, June 13,
in the afternoon, they fired on our pickets, killing two men. One poor
fellow had twenty-one shots in him and the other had fourteen. This made
our blood boil, of course, and we went at them with the spirit of
brutes, killing sixty and wounding ninety-five. On our side two were
killed and eighteen wounded. On Saturday, the 15, I was sent on the
scout to General Garcia, as I told you in the beginning of my letter. I
will tell you for what I went when I return home. This letter may never
reach home, but if it does, let me know if the United States army has
started for Cuba or not, for I can hear nothing here of the movements of
the troops.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++
"they shoot too high, the bullets whizz over our heads"

Every mauser I ever bought shot about a foot high at 100m. I think they were zero-ed for 300-350m as a regular practice. The Spanish regulars were pretty good - my guess is they were shooting high because of the way the rifles were sighted.

Just a thought. The Spanish American War has not been given the study it deserves, and the troops who served on both sides have also been kind of neglected. Like it was a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta instead of a deadly serious conflict between two major powers.

Just thought I would throw this out for discussion. What say ye, O mausered ones?

jn

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Jim K]

On the Mauser 93 rifle, the lowest sight leaf setting is 400 meters, and the battle sight (leaf down) setting appears to be about 300m.

So, it is entirely possible that the Spanish bullets were too high, though I would think well trained troops would adjust their aim accordingly.

At that time, the idea of a battle sight set to fire high was common. The Model 1903 battle sight was set at 500meters. The military always considered something called the danger zone or danger space. That idea was predicated on the concept of a mass of enemy troops, running or standing more or less erect, moving toward the rifleman.

The orders were always to aim low, so a shot hit the forward enemy low, the next rank higher, and so on until the downward path of the bullet struck the rear ranks. In other words, the rifle was thought of, not as a precision weapon but as a means of mass fire against a massed enemy, U.S. Civil War style.

If the battle mentioned was at close range, and the Marines were firing from a prone position or from behind cover, the Spanish could very well have been firing over their heads.

I agree that the Spanish American War is little noticed in history, even though it was that war that made the U.S. a world power, for better or worse. Had it not taken place, it is very possible the U.S. would have never become involved in WWI and might well have avoided WWII, not to mention more recent fighting.

Jim

[Patrick Chadwick]

Regardless of what nervous Spaniards may have done, the general verdict was that the 1893 Mausers beat the Krags both ballistically and in fire rate.

The result: the Springfield 1903 with a Mauser-type action.
See, for instance "Collecting Classic Bolt Action Military Rifles" by Paul S. Scarlata.

Patrick

[Jim K]

"the 1893 Mausers beat the Krags both ballistically and in fire rate"

Well, that is pretty much true, but a lot of the deficiency was newspaper hype, based on the normal American GI's belief that the enemy is always better armed than he is, plus a lot of editorializing from anti-government newspapers. The Mauser was just not that much better, and IIRC, U.S. troops won every firefight in which the Krag was up against the Mauser. The main reason was that the American troops engaged in fighting were mostly regular Army or Marines while most of the Spanish troops were poorly trained conscripts; the quality of the weapons was secondary.

In fact, the letter writer never mentions his rifle. Since he was a Marine, he was probably not carrying a Krag at all, but a 6mm Lee Navy.

Jim

[Calif-Steve]

Don't forget large numbers of Cubans aided the US, guides, scouts and friends. Spain had a very poor Army and a Navy that could hardly sail on the world's oceans. The US Army had been involved in the long standing Indian Wars and the US Army was very much battle ready. Krag rifle or not.

[jon_norstog]

Jim is right about the marines being armed with Lee rifles. They really poured out the fire with them, too. Som eof the Spanish COs swore later that they were up against machine gun fire.

There are a lot of misunderstandings currentabout the Spanish American war, including that the Spanish soldiers wouldn't fight. They fought to the knife at El Caney. They taught us a lesson at Las Guasimas we should have remembered for Viet Nam.

As for the Krag, take a look at who is winning the timed-fire events for vintage military rifles. Krags and Schmidt Rubins, mostly because they can be fired so fast. Once you get the lunchbox full of shells, a krag basically fires itslef, just a few nudges with your finger to keepthings moving.

later

jn

[Jim K]

The main criticism of the Krag was that it could not be fed from a clip as the Mauser could. That was a handicap in sustained fire. But in conditions of sporadic firing, the Krag had the advantage that its magazine could be "topped off" without opening the bolt, an advantage it shared with the later Johnson M1941 (though the Johnson could also be clip loaded).

Rifle selection is based in good part on an army's tactical doctrine, and in the minds of the selection board, ease of reloading a partially empty magazine outweighed the ability to use a "stripper" clip or an en-bloc clip even though rifles using both were submitted for testing.

In 1899, Springfield developed a method of clip loading for the Krag (the Parkhurst attachment), but tests showed it did not have a great advantage over normal loading, and by the time tests were completed, plans had been made for a new rifle which would be based on the Spanish Mauser and would be designed for clip loading.

Jim

[Art]

Don't forget large numbers of Cubans aided the US, guides, scouts and friends. Spain had a very poor Army and a Navy that could hardly sail on the world's oceans. The US Army had been involved in the long standing Indian Wars and the US Army was very much battle ready. Krag rifle or not.

The Spanish Army was actually very good and some wonder what would have happened had the Spanish Government actually thought they could win the war. As it was the Spanish Government expected their army to salvage the national pride by "looking good losing" Something they accomplished very well.

At El Caney three companies of the 29th Regimiento de Infanteria "La Constitucion" a total 0f 467 infantry supported by two field pieces held against Brig Gen. Henry W. Lawtons's entire 2nd Division, about 7,000 men, for more than 8 hours. The Americans suffered 461 total casualties. The Spaniards held until they ran out of ammunition. By that time only 80 of the Spanish infantry were left standing. The following depicts the death of the Spanish Commander Joaquin Vara de Rey y Rubio as described by one of his company commanders: "General Vara de Rey was standing in the square opposite the church when word was brought to him about three o'clock that the last round had been distributed to our troops. The General reluctantly gave the order to witdraw and retreat to Santiago. A moment later he was shot through both legs. I immediately found a stretcher and directed four men to carry the general to a place of safety, but the bullets were whizzing all around us, and General Vara de Rey was struck in the head and killed. The litter bearers were also shot, and the general's brother, Lieutenent Antonio Vara de Rey was wounded."

Because the Spanish flank at El Caney could not be turned San Juan and Kettle hills had to be taken by frontal assualt. The fighting at San Juan and Kettle hills cost the Americans 438 dead and wounded total Spanish casualties were 235. The heights there were taken only by the brilliant courage of the 9th, 10th Cavalry (colored,) the 1st Volunteer Cavalry (Rough Riders,) and the leadership of Theodore Roosevelt who richly deserved his much delayed medal of honor.

With the fall of the high ground at El Caney, San Juan and Kettle hills Santiago was indefensable and surrendered effectively ending the war.

The United Sates Army in Cuba, to its great credit, prevailed over a tough, well trained, well equipped and very determined army.

[jon_norstog]

Art,

you are telling it like it is. or was, I guess. I think maybe 30 or 40 Spanish troops got out of El Caney, but they really did their jobs. The Americans thought they would just fold up like a cheap suit.

The American units were good, too. The 9th and the 10th Infantry the 24th and 25th Cav, the 1st and 76th NY Volunteers. You mauser guys want to read something good, get "The Little War of Private Post" by Charles Johnson Post.

There are several factors involved in the Span-Am War being sort of forgotten. First, I think the WW I experience was so ghastly it eclipsed the public memory of the earlier war. Second, you can't dig much into the Span-Am without facing the inconvenient fact that the "colored" troops were some of the best soldiers in the world: disciplined, courageous and cool under fire. These were the men Sumner sent up on the left to stiffen the Rough Riders' flank - just in case. This was not something a lot of Americans of the day wanted to know. By WW I the story was that the Black troops were worthless and we lost a lot of military effectiveness by relegating them to labor battalions.

And yeah, the US Army and Marines had gotten to be pretty tough and well-trained themselves, compared to the troops who died at Greasy Grass and White Bird 20 years earlier. How they got so good is a story in itself.

jn

[Calif-Steve]

The comments about Black Soldiers are spot-on. Pres. Wilson was Southern Gentleman and would have no integration in his army. From the top down it went out-segregate tihis army or else. These Orders lasted until 1947!