Spanish firepower at Santiago, Cuba - 1898

[binder001]

I was re-watching one of my favorite movies, John Milius' "Rough Riders". OK, it's just a movie, but did the Spanish army have any Maxim guns (or other rapid fire weapons) available in Cuba in 1898?

 

Thanks,

 

Gary

Edited May 12, 2008 by binder001

[Argus]

By the standards of the day, the clip loading mauser was a rapid fire weapon.

 

shane

[67th Tigers]

I was re-watching one of my favorite movies, John Milius' "Rough Riders". OK, it's just a movie, but did the Spanish army have any Maxim guns (or other rapid fire weapons) available in Cuba in 1898?

 

Thanks,

 

Gary

 

The Spanish infantry had smokeless powder bolt action Mauser rifles rather than black powder Krags or Trapdoor Springfields....

[sunday]

The Spanish infantry had smokeless powder bolt action Mauser rifles rather than black powder Krags or Trapdoor Springfields....

 

 

Yep, No MGs. The USians had an observation balloon (for a little time ), and Gatlings, and AFAIK use them to good effect raking the enemy (Spanish) positions so the infantrymen could not aim effectively.

 

Looks like that battle was a major factor for ditching the Krag, and adopt a copy of the Mauser in the form of the Springfield M1903.

 

At the end, another of our glorious defeats...

[JOE BRENNAN]

On original question, the nominal armament of several of the Spanish ships at Santiago included rifle caliber Maxims, and some heavier armament was landed, and many sailors assigned to the ground campaign. However, all sources seem to agree the Spanish didn't have MG's at the particular positions attacked by the US during that campaign.

 

Krag ammo was smokeles, same ammo used in the Gatling guns present at San Juan Hill (M1895's), .30/40. Roosevelt's unit also had two privately purchased Colt 1895 'Potato Digger' gas operated MGs' in 7mm Mauser, compatible with captured Spanish ammo. The Santiago campaign included only a few National Guard units with .45/70 black powder firing weapons; commented on a lot, and costly to a couple of those regiments, but not a really major factor. The fact that the US artillery used black powder versions of the M1885 3.2" ground recoiling gun (later versions used smokeless) was a bigger and more general factor, facilitating Spanish counterbattery.

 

It's true the US Army reconsidered the virtues of the Krag (able to top up magazine with one or more catridges with a round also chambered) v. clip loading in part based on the 1898 war. But the ballistic performance of the ammo the gun was designed around just wasn't that impressive either. OTOH the Norwegians used Krags through WWII, German occupation units too. The virtues and differences among bolt action rifles are often presented as more important than they actually were in the big scheme of things. The Spanish lack of MG's at San Juan Hill was a bigger problem for them than Krags v Mausers was for the US side, the Parker Gatling section was a key factor in that battle; and any number of other US deficiencies outweighed any problem with the Krag.

 

Joe

[Guest aevans]

Roosevelt notes the Gatlings for their morale effect on his men much more than he does for any material execution on the Spaniards. Also, he gives a good deal of credit to the relatively modern Spanish artillery (apparently firing shrapnell the whole time) for both accuracy and effectiveness.