|
Post by sumaquel on Dec 14, 2009 18:59:53 GMT -5
jxm,
I agree with your observation, I believed that this battle is not an ordinary battle(the Americans call this battle as a mere "skirmishes")This battle is huge although not like Bagbag nor Calumpit but this one is also big.(it involves an entire land area of San Mateo starting from nangka river up north to montalban)I think Gen. Lawton needs more men to at-least capture one of Gen. Geronimo's Territory's.
The topography of the entire battlefield tells us a different story. No army could attack a well entrench, well defended position with only 13 lost on its men(My God! they were sittings ducks in the area)No Gen. could do such a thing(a direct assault on a well defended, well entrench position)without sacrificing more of his men.
Somehow I found Gen. Geronimo's word's correct when he said(on his last known interview)that the lost of Americans on that battle were on a "thousands". Heres some excerpt of the interview;
"The night came. It was dark. the soldiers were in feverish anxiety. Eleven o' clock, twelve o' clock came; the enemy had not yet appeared. The soldiers were in commotion; they were sleepless, ever ready, waiting the signal to make the attack. With the dawn of a new day news came that the Americans were approaching. Indeed, they came, and the two armies met on opposites sides of the historic river. The crystalline water of the river was tinged by the flow of blood from both camps. Thrice the Americans attempted to break the line in order to continue their march towards the city; but the Filipinos stood fast and resisted bravely. Thousands were shot among the Filipinos and thousands were killed among the Americans. Every attempt of the American force was in vain and every effort futile. This seeming defeat of the American Army aroused the ire of General Lawton and he made the supreme move to advance."
---Gen. Licerio Geronimo--
|
|
|
Post by dimasalang on Dec 14, 2009 21:20:21 GMT -5
jxm,
We(or at least I) do not believe heavy artillery/ordnance was used in this battle. Keep in mind, there was no sun. This battle took place during a storm. We previously looked up the recorded weather conditions of this time, and it is close to the equivalent of a full fledged typhoon(Manila being pounded by some of the heaviest rain they haven't seen in years), which is why the river had also swelled and became a raging rapid(if I remember correctly, 2 US soldiers drowned trying to swim across it). Also note, to move discretely through the countryside, Lawton and the companies trekked the entire night through torrent rains(starting in the late evening). Gen Otis called Lawton and asked him to stop this mission due to the weather conditions. Lawton continued anyways. Also to avoid detection, many of the troops traveled through the brush, not through open roads. To travel this far, in torrent rains, with no trails, led us to believe no heavy artillery/ordnance was used in this battle as the terrain was to difficult and the scheduled timing was to short to involve movement of heavy piece at such a great distance. Even if so, they probably would of been completely useless in a storm...imagine how many of their drenched rifles and ammunitions worked during this battle. This was intended to be a surprise attack(that was Lawtons specialty), but with a force this large, it was too tough to hide. It is of my own opinion that Gen Geronimo and his soldiers new the coming of Lawton and retreated, and the ones posted up at San Mateo was just a partial company. Looking at San Mateo, it is on high ground, but it is not a strong point as it is vulnerable from the north and south once troops cross the river...the storm and swelled river afforded Geronimos soldiers an extended stance. +800 US troops coming from 3 different directions is still hard to hide even in a typhoon. We have read some accounts that Gen Geronimo was not even present during the battle, and that he had left with the major portion of his army back to Montalban(Geronimo was in control of over +500 troops). US accounts did not suggest a large Filipino force at San Mateo. And Geronimos stronghold was in Montalban, not San Mateo. This scheduled mission was to take San Mateo first, and then proceed to Montalban.
Geronimos stronghold in Pinauran Montalban was defeated by the 42nd and 27th regiment in Nov 1900. Macky, is there even a name for this battle? This should be a well marked battle, as it was a major camp and stronghold for the 1st Republic. In a couple reports, it states this is the same stronghold described by the Spanish as being impenetrable and could not be taken by 800 spanish soldiers. Isn't this the same stronghold used as a temporary government post by Aguinaldo during the revolution(Mt Puray)? I can't find a link between Mt Puray and Pinauran.
I think it is important to note also, Lawton was the second highest ranking US general in the Philippines(Otis superseding him). He is the highest ranking general to ever die in battle outside of American soil. If Lawton did not die, he would of became the next Governor-General after Otis, not Gen Arthur MacArthur. I believe we would of seen a huge difference, not only of the war, but on how the islands would of been handled and treated if Lawton came to power. He is the last of the military generation where the Generals led in the front and marched in to battle along with their men.
|
|
|
Post by 26th on Dec 14, 2009 23:47:09 GMT -5
Dismasalang:
In what way are you saying Lawton was the highest ranking Gerneral to die in battle outside the USA? Was he leading a charge up the hill and died in hand to hand combat?
Lawton was only a "2 star" for Major General
Three Lt Generals "3 stars" died in WW2.
But only one, Lt General Buckner, US Marines on Okinawa was killed by Japanese Artillery while in the front lines with his men.
I think this makes him the highest to die in battle. What you think?
One was killed by a bomb but it was ours, in Italy. Bummer on that. "Friendly Fire" from above.
Great info on that battle. Funny that Lawton had another enemy named Geronimo. We all now he was part of the group to capture "our" Geronimo in Mexico. Good ending for him, he just took the long way around to it.
26th
|
|
|
Post by dimasalang on Dec 15, 2009 2:05:12 GMT -5
You are correct 26th!...I stand corrected! Let me rephrase that. Lawton is the highest ranking general to ever die in battle during the Phil-Am War.
|
|
|
Post by sumaquel on Dec 15, 2009 9:37:03 GMT -5
Lets stop treating this battle as simple and insignificant battle. The battle portrayed in the American report is not fitted for a Major General, like Gen. Henry Lawton.
To small indeed that it involves only one small town.(the San Mateo Poblasyon)
The battle in actuality is huge it involves at least two or three towns.(In the Dinweiddie Battle map, we failed to notice the "three line" fronting marikina. I believe that marikina was also attack by Gen. Lawtons men on that morning of December 19, 1899)
To understand my point, lets go back to the second battle of manila. Gen. Geronimo at that time was the commander of the third zone of manila. His area of responsibility is comprises of the following towns: 1)Mandaluyong 2)Pandakan 3)San Juan Del Monte 4)San Francisco Del Monte 5)San Mateo Poblasyon 6)San Mateo Montalban and 7)Marikina
Some of this town were attack and captured by the americans under Gen. Hall the opposing general to Gen. Geronimo.
He(Gen. Geronimo)retreated and garrison Marikina, San Mateo Poblasyon and San Mateo montalban later( since montalban was still part of San Mateo municipality at that time)when the Americans occupies the town of Mandaluyong, Pandakan, San Juan Del Monte and San Francisco Del Monte.(The Batasan/Payatas Hills was part of San Francisco Del Monte at that time)
This new position of the third zone which I now call "the Marikina, San Mateo poblasyon and San Mateo montalban line" is a formidable defensive line east of manila, It was trice been attack by the Americans but never been held.
I strongly believe that Gen. Lawton attack this entire San Mateo line(Marikina, San Mateo poblasyon and San Mateo montalban)in conjunction to its push to capture the Garrison of San Mateo poblasyon.
In my opinion the term "Battle of San Mateo" was not confine in the attack on San Mateo poblasyon only but rather refers to a much bigger battle, the direct attack on Gen. Geronimos line so to say "the Marikina, San Mateo poblasyon and San Mateo montalban line".
Sa palagay ko mas akma para sa isang Major General ang ganitong mas malaking scenario ng labanan...
|
|
jxm
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by jxm on Dec 15, 2009 17:18:06 GMT -5
Guys,
a cavalry squadron usually have a 1.65in (42mm) hotchkiss pack artillery. The beauty with pack artillery is that, you can disassemble it and "pack" them into 4-5 pack animals or cavalry horses as it is light and the caliber of the ordnance aint that heavy thats why it is sometimes referred to as a "mountain gun". This was usually stowed in pack animals in rough terrain and towed on favorable terrain. If horses made the trek with the cavalry chances are pack artillery did make it. In the reports, the formation has cavalry squadron attached to the operation not a section of cavalry troop, thus its command element where pack artillery is controlled is included in the formation.
Secondly, even in bad weather sun angle still plays a major role. Case in point, during typhoon ondoy, i shot in a rifle match in ft magsaysay (east-west orientation same as the lines of advance and resistance in the battle) at around the same time roughly before 10am and lighting conditions still played a major factor in the detection and engagement of targets as if it was sunny. Aside from the fast/quick haze and ocassional fast moving squalls(usually associated with typhoons) Pvt Mariano should have still relocated after engaging US forces. Self respecting rifle shooters know this for a fact.
Third, The conditions and mutual impressions between belligerents at that stage should be analyzed in a temporal context.
When, General geronimo withdrawn from San Juan, San Francisco portion of his forces, american commanders is in a paradoxical dilemma. They have to establish the main line of resistance (MLR), if you look at a bigger map, the resthouses of san francisco del monte ends in a deep ravine creeks (can still be seen along del monte ave just before west ave) that consitutes the diliman forests that stretches all the way to san juan del monte near what is now tuazon road beside the reservoir (incidentally the current location of diliman forests is considered the dense part of QC).
american commanders will have to know if the line was moved back in diliman or geronimo withdrawn all the way to marikina river. Two geographic obstacles pose as possible defensive strongpoints.
Lawtons elements did a right hook just after bagbag and went straight to the trail (i presume the current t sora ave). In my mind its purpose was "reconnaissance in force"
The scenario may have been
1.column from san juan del monte moves towards marikina 2. a second column towards the san mateo trail 3. If the withdrawing forces is still in diliman forests let the two columns trap them in between enabling the san francisco forces makes a general push. 4. If not determine its current location 5. Lastly, probe the strength of the MLR and establish its extent.
Gen Geronimo on his part is in a tactical dilemma, he already traded space for time, in order to organize his strength, he must hastily establish strong points in the two possible avenues of approach, marikina and san mateo. Does explains why he divided his forces into three groups. The marikina strongpoint, the San Mateo strong point and tactical reserve under his watchful eye.
Lawton on his part took initiative upon assessing that the opposing forces though significant is not the bulk of geronimo's forces. There is a huge chance to trap geronimo's forces between san mateo and marikina in a classic hammer and anvil maneuver if he can cross the river (his forces most probably the hammer and marikina column as the anvil). He saw his appointment with destiny and a ticket to a hi profile political life after the army.
Thus his mission from recon in force became a full scale push. Its a huge gamble as no evidence is seen that he communicated with the marikina column nor the fact that he knows that the marikina column actually crossed the river and is pushing northwards across the marikina flood plain. In my observation no opposing lines were properly established south by the americans (please highlight if evidence thus exist, have not made proper temporal chart on the battle).
Thus i can only conclude, the whole line was not attacked simultaneously and not in a coordinated fashion. Lawton's mission was to find the terminal flank of the line (recon in force) and undertake aggressive probing (enough to establish a proper bridgehead) and organize a coordinated breakout.
But I do believe that mutually exclusive push on the same line occurred as the marikina line of geronimo is already in contact with the marikina column of US forces. Otis have not yet assessed the situation in San Mateo ( and recalculate it with the Marikina situation) when Lawton reached San Mateo. There is no strategic brilliance yet, otis the overall commander is under the fog of war when lawton died.
|
|
|
Post by VeeVee on Dec 16, 2009 13:35:23 GMT -5
Posting for Macky... new map
|
|
|
Post by sumaquel on Dec 16, 2009 22:48:32 GMT -5
This is my partial recreation of Gen. Geronimo's line in San Mateo poblasyon and San Mateo montalban. According to Col. James Parker, there were two major entrenchment on the southern part of the poblasyon facing the town of marikina.(It appeared later during the August battle of San Mateo that this entrenchment were located on the vicinity of the Nangka River and ampit river in San Mateo)
I always assume that all line fronting the marikina river(fronting west)were all dug-up for entrenchment and fortification(since that the Americans were on manila west of San Mateo) they might attack on this location.
On the northern part of the Poblasyon is the San Mateo Montalban. On the same reason, all lines facing the river(west) is also entrench by Gen. Geronimo's men.
One particular barrio were being mentioned by early katipuneros to have been a place of a pitch night battle(Same day DEC. 19, 1899)between the Filipinos and the Americans, the name of the barrio is "Curayao".(Mark on the map as red square near the river in montalban)
I visit the place last year, but not able to survey the whole area due to sudden rainfall.(If I'm not mistaken old entrenchment and fortification of the Barrio can still be seen above on google map)
I dont know what happen to Gen. Geronimo's army in Marikina, no information yet, but it appears to me that the place was also attack that day(Dec. 19, 1899--see Deinweiddi Map)
San Mateo Montalban was attack by Gen. Lawton's squadron of cavalry(11th Cavalry)Marikina was also attack by an unknown unit of Gen. Lawton on that same day. The Poblasyon was also attack and captured by a larger and much bigger force of a combine unit of the 27th, 29th Inf, one squadron of the 11th cavalry and the troop I 4th cavalry--with a possible participation of 2 companies of dismounted 4th cavalry(200 strong)under a certain Capt. Rivers--)
This battle is big... the battlefield is huge...(I still wonder why it was being called by the Americans as a mere skirmishes)
It's a battle between two Major General.(According to G. Ocampo his lolo's rank at that time were Major General.---He had shown me a big picture frame with photos of Gen. Lawton and Gen. Geronimo(with captions below on each photos) "Major General"---)
This should be a battle between two opposing "Brigade", but unfortunately american report tells us that he(Gen. Lawton)had just a regiment when he attack the whole san mateo line ???Hindi yata nalaman ni Gen. Lawton na isang Brigada(Geronimo's Brigade)ang kakaharapin niya sa san mateo....
|
|
|
Post by dimasalang on Dec 18, 2009 21:17:29 GMT -5
jxm,
Even if heavy ordnance was used, I dont see the point you are trying to make if it were there or not. Makes no difference really and has no play in the death of Gen Lawton or in this battle. With or with out it, the town of San Mateo still would of been taken.
There is also a hell of a lot more details then what is currently posted in this thread. Macky, Richard, and myself exchanged emails 3-4 times daily for a good 2-3 months straight strictly in regards to this battle...Macky living Manila, Richard being from San Mateo, and myself just being an enthusiast of this war. Id say we didn't just have the regular chit chat but serious discussions, reports of all officers present, newspaper articles, studying map drawings, studying photographs, interviews of filipino soldiers, on going analysis from what we feel were newly uncovered evidence, etc... We even found reports from elementary kids who were present at the battle living in San Mateo who wrote about the battle for a school project(these same reports were printed in a American newspaper). You have several good points, but I think your drawing conclusions from just looking at the tip of the ice berg.
|
|
|
Post by sumaquel on Dec 18, 2009 23:55:21 GMT -5
Kevin,
Your only saying that because your basing most of your analysis on the american documents. But if you have the chance to process and analize the battlefield then baka mag-iba ang pananaw mo.
The battlefield tells us a different story, different from the american account. Bluff, hills, river and plains(Topography)all mute witness to that battle , if processed correctly it will give us an idea on to what happen in san mateo.(Example:Have you seen the flooding in san mateo during Typhoon Ondoy?if that was the case at that time then Gen. Lawton and Gen. Geronimos men will be both swifth down to Laguna de bay and no winner in the battle of san mateo he he he.
Yes there was a storm that night, yes there were flooding at that time but it was not that strong(the storm)and it was not that high(the flooding)
Deinweddie battle map recorded an island at the center of the river, it suggested that the heavy storm 7:00 o'clock that evening had already subsided before lawton move to bluff in san mateo. Otherwise expect heavy flooding in san mateo if the recorded storm continue overnight and did not subsided---then water will fill the island(disappeared due to heavy flooding)that Deinweiddi saw that morning of Dec. 19, 1899---)
It is necessary for me to understand first the river to understand the event that transfired on that morning of December 1899.
They were sitting ducks in the area bacause of the river flooding. They stay on that perilous position for five hours(5:00 am in the morning until they finally find a ford at 9:00 am and cross san mateo)
How good was the Tiradores dela muerte then for killing only 13 american officers? This group of Filipino Sharpshooters were noted to be the best among the many filipino sharpshooters of the Republican Army(Luna Sharpshooters, Torres Bugallon Sharpshooters, Gregorio Del Pilar Sharpshooters--this group is also a noted shapshooters, they were credited on the killing of Col. Stotsenberg in the battle of Guagua--and the Gen. Mariano Llanera Brigades sharpshooters)or were they trying to hide their original losses?(No mention on how many enlisted men were shot, just officers)
Is Gen. Cerio lying when he said that "thousands of americans were shot dead in san mateo during the battle?"Remember that he was the opposing general to Gen. Henry Lawton and that he was also present in the battlefield. Mapanghahawakan ba ang mga sinabi niya?
If he was right, then he unintentionaly provides a clue on the real scale and scope of the battle in san mateo.
|
|
|
Post by dimasalang on Dec 19, 2009 13:13:24 GMT -5
I'd just like to say right now, doing research with others is just like watching a movie together. A group of 10 people can watch the same movie at the same time, and afterwords, all 10 would have enjoyed the movie, BUT they all can still have different feelings and opinions about the same movie they all watched...and at times can see things completely different from another viewers perspective. There is no right or wrong answer, just a difference in observation and opinion. IMO, the same holds true when researching or looking back at our history...and for me, I enjoy debating about it.
Macky,
I never stated the storm or weather was the same to that of Typhoon Ondoy. NEVER. I am not the one that brought up Ondoy in to this topic. If an Ondoy hit Manila during that time, the entire US military would be underwater in Manila. I never said it was a full fledge typhoon either, just that it was almost close to a seasonal typhoon...and obviously it was heavy enough to increase the size of the river. Richard was the one who found the rain fall record of Dec 1899 around Manila, and we all agreed it was excessive, not by todays standards, but of that era. Please don't get my posts twisted with others. I would say, out of any one in this forum, you know my thoughts better then all others here.
I know me and you have always had a disagreement here in regards to American accounts and Filipino accounts. Again, this isn't just going by what American officers or US military documents report. There were articles from places other then the US. Also, you remember the elementary kids reports...did these filipino kids talk of the thousands of lives lost?? They lived in the town and witnessed the aftermath of the battle, none of them talked of excessive loses. So yes, I do think Cerio or whom ever wrote that documentwas a bit exaggerated. I thought you mentioned before that it was Cerios grandson(E. Ocampo) who wrote that report of so many soldiers being killed on both sides...the same report that claims Lawton wore some type of suit of armor and Gen Cerio himself shot Lawton through the neck(his only vulnerable spot) with his pistol. If thousands, or even hundreds of soldiers died, I believe we would of seen more articles from around the world that indicated that. Where was the celebration on the Filipino side afterwords if thousands killed was indeed fact?...and did any other Filipino general, Filipino newspapers, Aguinaldo, or any other Filipino leader acknowledge the great losses of thousands at San Mateo? You wont find that documented by any of them "on the Filipino side". Macky that is only one paper. All other accounts seem to closely fit together in one way or another like a puzzle. I never discredited that article either, as I know some articles, even if they seem far fetched, can still hold clues. I know you still think I only go by American accounts, but they have several eyewitness reports on this battle, so we must look through them and not ignore them completely. I believe I mentioned previously in email, this is my belief with what we have at present, and that it is NOT concrete...if we found anything new(diary, some lost filipino military report, etc), then I would gladly add that to my analysis and possibly change my view. It has been a long while since we've discussed anything through emails. At this time I don't recollect anything that stands out as being different...let me know or remind me if there is anything else that states differently from what I believe.
|
|
|
Post by sumaquel on Dec 19, 2009 19:53:03 GMT -5
Peace Kevin,
The problem is that, I also found to much understatement and under-figures on the American account he he he(if Gen. Geronimo is exaggerated on the figures of American losses in the battle, the Americans on their part is doing too much understatement and under-figures on their reports)
Ang problema, di na natin alam kung ano na ang totoo...so I turn to the battlefield.
We all know that topography wont lie and I found that most of the American account on the assault of the San Mateo--with regards to the terrain-- is somehow true.(they exactly describe the terrain of the place)ang problema lang ay yung nais nilang palabasin(you cannot assault a well entrench, well positioned and well barricaded enemy line---with some help of natural barriers like river and bamboo lines---without loosing to much of your men. History will tell us that this statement is true.
G. Ocampo's Account
I found his account erroneous, but he admit later to us during one of my interview that some members of the NHI(National Historical Institute)and the "Kaanak ng mga bayani 1896" told him that it was not his lolo who killed Gen. Lawton. Somehow he is amenable that his account is erroneous.(He admit to us that as apo of the general, he only writes what he had heard on his uncle(Miroy Geronimo)story about his lolo cerio.
I also find out that most of his account was a copy only of Dr. Antonio Isidro's last known interview of the General.
Dr. Antonio Isidro Account
Dr. Antonio Isidro is a UP professor in the 1920's who manage to interview the general before his death in January 16, 1924.(did I not send you a copy of his account?)
Base on his account, the general told him that the lost of the Americans at that time was in a thousand indication of a large scale fighting in San Mateo. He also narrated to him his observation of a desperate Lawton(Different from a casually walking, confident Lawton of the American reports)
Children's Account Erroneous
I find their account erroneous, how come that they know all those things that only a soldiers in the battlefield knows. They should be at home with their parents since war is going on then in San mateo..
Typhoon Ondoy
It was just an example Kevin, if the rain did not stop during that night flooding will sure occur in San Mateo. But no flooding recorded at that time only the rising of the river. Deinweiddei battle map recorded a small island in the middle of the river, indication that the water level in the river is not that high.
Disagreement on our research project
This disagreement with us is temporary, I hope someday we sit all together(You, me and Richard)process the battlefield and all the documents that we have collected. Brainstorm all the facts separate what is myth and what is fact And somehow makagawa tayo ng isang conclusion na magsasabi kung ano nga ba talaga ang totoong nagyari sa san mateo..
110 years, its been long overdue!!
Peace be with you Kevin..
Merry Christmas..
Macky
|
|
|
Post by VeeVee on Dec 21, 2009 22:45:10 GMT -5
|
|
jxm
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by jxm on Dec 22, 2009 2:35:04 GMT -5
jxm, Even if heavy ordnance was used, I dont see the point you are trying to make if it were there or not. Makes no difference really and has no play in the death of Gen Lawton or in this battle. With or with out it, the town of San Mateo still would of been taken. There is also a hell of a lot more details then what is currently posted in this thread. Macky, Richard, and myself exchanged emails 3-4 times daily for a good 2-3 months straight strictly in regards to this battle...Macky living Manila, Richard being from San Mateo, and myself just being an enthusiast of this war. Id say we didn't just have the regular chit chat but serious discussions, reports of all officers present, newspaper articles, studying map drawings, studying photographs, interviews of filipino soldiers, on going analysis from what we feel were newly uncovered evidence, etc... We even found reports from elementary kids who were present at the battle living in San Mateo who wrote about the battle for a school project(these same reports were printed in a American newspaper). You have several good points, but I think your drawing conclusions from just looking at the tip of the ice berg. Your analysis and detail is good, but there is no details chronologizing the battle, this just appeared this just happened. I come undone, there is much material on battle of cannae two thousand years ago compared to this battle. Am looking at it from a combat commanders standpoint. Sorry to say, deployment, employment and decisions with regards to time, material and effort by belligerent commanders is lacking. Your material is exhaustive but not sufficient to my pleasure. Its plainly simple. Just imagine, there are few combat cases where defense and attack on a fortified position occurred at this juncture in time. The next time it was properly recorded is in Russo-Japanese war and finally the western front in WWI. This battle is contributory to military doctrine albiet small but still significant. Why so? maybe by sheer luck or a stroke of genius by Gen Geronimo. Imagine this guys chasing nationalist forces were accustomed to the american indian wars and served as LTs during the civil war. And they are being grinded by a filipino self appointed general. Just look at the facts 1. Geronimo learned his lesson from battles a few weeks earlier a. He has no effective weapon against cavalry b.He has to lengthen the standoff distance with his enemies as his artillery is far more deadly and accurate. c. His enemies is good at combined arms i.e. infantry, cavalry and artillery in one single monolithic action. 2. Geronimo used the river as if it was a minefield a. It can bog down troops (and it did leaving isolated troops in the island sandbar) b. It can break the formation of a general attack, grinding the push down to a halt isolating forward formations (again it did). 3. Geronimo gained wisdom and maturity as a commander a. Conventional forces is not the answer he has to employ unconventional means. b. He used the "Tiradores" as long standoff forces way before the Germans used them in the trench war stalemate of WWI. Lastly, I dunno why you said artillery is not material to the outcome of the battle. I dunno if you are accustomed to the basic equations of conventional warfare...... 1. As good margin defenders always have a standing advantage over attackers. Putting an open ground in between increases the margin, making that open ground perilous to cross without defender's fire increases it more, thats why minefields and concertina wire were invented exactly for this purpose. In this case it was the river. 2. An infantry ratio of 3:1 is minimum to assault a fortified position provided that assault attrition is needed to sustain attack momentum and the initial impetus is in the hands of the assault forces (not considering force multipliers ie machinguns and artillery). a. Lawton have no initial impetus, your research already shows that Geronimo knows about the flying column lead by Lawton acting as reconnaissance in force. He also knows where it will come from and general time of day or day of week. b. Lawton did not outnumber Geronimo or has no indication in the reports that he has superior numbers over the defenders. c. Thus Lawton is emboldened by sheer madness? or maybe he has a force multiplier? I can only surmise two possible candidates cavalry and artillery. In this case cavalry is a pretty stupid choice with the river swelling. 3. How did Lawton or remnants of his forces mitigate the tiradores and undertake the rivercrossing on the flanks? A krag-jorgensen rifle? give me a break! Have you actually shot the rifle? I did! So with the 7mm Mauser. You may hit a few tiradores but not mitigate its effectiveness. Guess how? (ill give you a hint its the issue of contention called artillery) 4. The breastworks and the MLD (main line of defense) must have been manned with spanish rolling block remingtons (it is abundant and ammunition can be loaded with locally manufactured black powder and lead castings). The rolling block of nationalist forces were loaded with an 11mm round, thats a 1mm short of the 50 BMG (12.7mm), it may not be effective up to 2000meters like the 50BMG but its balistically equal to the 50BMG at 500meters if used en masse(thats why it was still considered as a breech loading musket until the turn of the century). Its like receiving machinegun fire if you are 500 meters from the MLD. If you look at your maps, a formation was pinned down in the island sand bar bec it is just darn difficult to cross a river and receive 11mm fire at the same time. So lets ask the question, why is it important to establish if artillery was used? 1. Was Geronimo a coward and would fall back upon initial contact considering if we say there was no artillery used to attack him and he has solid fortifications and superior number? My GOD our ancestors are buffons! We deserve what we got! 2. Lawtons death clearly established that individual engagement/standoff distance was around 300m or more. This means his forward units are cutoff, and the defenders will just have to move reserves parallel to the other bank as a crossing point is established thereby decimating the cavalry in the process of crossing as there is no artillery to pin the enemy and cover the crossing forces. That did not happen. Geronimo's forces were static when the crossing occurred and not exploit the opportunity to ambush slow crossing forces in open ground. Its either our ancestors were grossly inept (should have been shot for cowardice en masse) or maybe, just maybe they were pinned down by artillery. Worse, artillery may only be the method employed to silence tiradores positions. Look in your 3 month email exchanges, there should be evidence that remnants of geronimo's forces were trapped between the south and north crossing columns. These souls were unlucky enough to hold the line and were trapped when artillery fire was employed as the river crossing commences. Without artillery, Geronimo would have survived to do battle in the same line on another day, but he did not and his defense collapsed due to superb employment of infantry, cavalry and decisively artillery. Lastly, any analysis on a battle is not complete without inclusion of psychology, burden of command, ballistics of weapons used, employment tactics and deployment of forces. 2-3 emails daily 2-3 months straight between 3 persons is not good enough in this case. Combat is fluid, combat is confusing, combat shows greatness and weakness of commanders and individual participants. I can not imagine that it can not be considered as part of the process. Sorry for this blunt retort my friend, you have no monopoly in analysis and you have no right to conclude that I am looking at the tip of the ice berg (i can also counter the same but I would not bec it aint proper). You do not have the experience and expertise I have as much as I do not claim to possess yours. Lets put this behind us, as I only intend to contribute and not to engage into verbal skirmishes. All I initially intended is to test your research and data against what I know. For my own selfish needs, I only wish to recreate the Lawton shot with a 7mm rifle and document the first recorded sniper engagement in Philippine history. Thus looking at this from a combat standpoint.
|
|
|
Post by sumaquel on Dec 22, 2009 3:32:58 GMT -5
Wow!! Jxm, You mean you cannot assault a fortified position without the help of an artillery? Then its possible now that the casualty on the american forces is tremendous(if not in a thousand)since that He (Gen. Lawton)insist on crossing the river without the help of a Artillery.
|
|
jxm
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by jxm on Dec 22, 2009 11:15:48 GMT -5
Wow!! Jxm, You mean you cannot assault a fortified position without the help of an artillery? Then its possible now that the casualty on the american forces is tremendous(if not in a thousand)since that He (Gen. Lawton)insist on crossing the river without the help of a Artillery. Should have been tremendous. I can imagine four infantry companies 2 platoons deep. Three companies moving forward one in reserve maybe in the center situated with a battalion commander. It can only be done with one line of rank (partial platoon) crossing one at a time so as not create confusion with several ranks on water. The natural line of drift of the attack is towards the island were rudimentary cover is available. For Geronimo to effect great damage, firing and target order should have been as follows . 1. A section of tiradores concentrating on the river crossing reserve and american command post 2. Infantry riflemen pin down and select forces about to ingress to the river. 3. Infantry muskets enfilading fire on people on the water 4. Firing order given when first rank reached the island and second rank is commited on the river and next rank about to move into position. But because of the lay of the ground, the attack developed into a slow spearhead, it probably saved their souls. All ranks funneled into the island creating the detached pocket which required Lawton's direct attention. I conclude it could have been hundreds of casualties if the whole defensive line observed firing discipline. It seems that our compatriots were jumpy and fired even before Lawton committed more troops in the river. But definitely the first crossing formation sustained numerous casualties rendering as much as 50% of the lead formation ineffective.
|
|
|
Post by sumaquel on Jan 2, 2010 2:11:43 GMT -5
Wow!! Jxm, You mean you cannot assault a fortified position without the help of an artillery? Then its possible now that the casualty on the american forces is tremendous(if not in a thousand)since that He (Gen. Lawton)insist on crossing the river without the help of a Artillery. Should have been tremendous. I can imagine four infantry companies 2 platoons deep. Three companies moving forward one in reserve maybe in the center situated with a battalion commander. It can only be done with one line of rank (partial platoon) crossing one at a time so as not create confusion with several ranks on water. The natural line of drift of the attack is towards the island were rudimentary cover is available. For Geronimo to effect great damage, firing and target order should have been as follows . 1. A section of tiradores concentrating on the river crossing reserve and american command post 2. Infantry riflemen pin down and select forces about to ingress to the river. 3. Infantry muskets enfilading fire on people on the water 4. Firing order given when first rank reached the island and second rank is commited on the river and next rank about to move into position. But because of the lay of the ground, the attack developed into a slow spearhead, it probably saved their souls. All ranks funneled into the island creating the detached pocket which required Lawton's direct attention. I conclude it could have been hundreds of casualties if the whole defensive line observed firing discipline. It seems that our compatriots were jumpy and fired even before Lawton committed more troops in the river. But definitely the first crossing formation sustained numerous casualties rendering as much as 50% of the lead formation ineffective. Jxm, So If we view it from a combat commanders point of view, the american losses on that battle(american forces facing san mateo poblasyon alone)is most-likely tremendous. But how about the american losses on its flanking and diversionary attack on san mateo montalban, ampid and Nangka(Base on Tiya Ina's account, Hipag of Gen. Licerio Geronimo)heavy fighting occurred on the southern part of san mateo river(most probably on the vicinity of now Brgy. Ampid and Nangka) No indication then that the american flanking attack on this area(Ampid & Nangka)was successful since that according to Col. James Parker there were two major entrenchment on this part of san mateo(This may also mean that there was a heavy concentration of troops on this area) On the other-hand on its flanking attack up north, Deinweiddi battle map recorded a small portion of Gen. Lawtons dismounted cavalry crossing most probably somewhere in Dulongbayan to outflank the defender of san mateo poblasyon... while his squadron of mounted cavalry is pounding san mateo montalban and its Barrio defender...it appears to me, base on your analysis that no river crossing on san mateo montalban(most probably)because of the flooding river.... Obviously the american report recorded only the fighting in "san mateo poblasyon" and not on the entire battlefield(all sectors of the battle---from montalban, curayao, burgos, dulongbayan, gitnang bayan, san mateo poblasyon, ampid, nangka and marikina----) Do you have any idea on how to assess the american losses on this sector of the battle?
|
|
|
Post by dimasalang on Jan 4, 2010 4:24:49 GMT -5
Sorry for the late reply, I actually replied and then my computer crashed. I did not save my post so I had to retype this.
[/b] Your analysis and detail is good, but there is no details chronologizing the battle, this just appeared this just happened. I come undone, there is much material on battle of cannae two thousand years ago compared to this battle. Am looking at it from a combat commanders standpoint. Sorry to say, deployment, employment and decisions with regards to time, material and effort by belligerent commanders is lacking. Your material is exhaustive but not sufficient to my pleasure. Its plainly simple. Just imagine, there are few combat cases where defense and attack on a fortified position occurred at this juncture in time. The next time it was properly recorded is in Russo-Japanese war and finally the western front in WWI. This battle is contributory to military doctrine albiet small but still significant. Why so? maybe by sheer luck or a stroke of genius by Gen Geronimo. Imagine this guys chasing nationalist forces were accustomed to the american indian wars and served as LTs during the civil war. And they are being grinded by a filipino self appointed general. You speak of "my own analysis". Where did you read my entire analysis on the battle of San Mateo? You never read it, cause it was never posted here. Only two people have read it, and it will stay that way. These two people know why...and I don't care to elaborate why in this forum. What you read here in this forum(mostly from Macky) is just tid bits and "general" knowledge of the battle. Macky and myself have read through all the same documents...but still, Mackys analysis and my own analysis differ, in case you didn't notice.
You say you are "looking at it from a combat commanders standpoint", but you don't even know all the details. And from earlier in your post, you didn't even know this battle was fought during a storm. Do you even know how long this battle lasted? Do you know why Lawton left cover and moved out in to open field? Sure the American forces were "bogged" down by the river...but obviously not significant enough to turn the tides of this battle. The Americans still made it across and took the "entrenched" town.Im curious to know where you are getting your data from? How many troops did Gen Geronimo have? How many troops did Lawton have? What was Lawtons strategy?...we know this because we have the documents in our disposal on what Lawtons officers have reported. You say Lawton was outnumbered?...thats new to me.
Ill just say this for the record in regards to Lawton and Geronimo. Geronimo knew well enough of the river to use it, but he did not dictate or add it to his equation of the river itself "swelling and turning in to a rapid"...you cant predict weather and the time of attack by the opposing force. A minefield is permanent, weather and a raging rapid is not...you can't calculate those factors to benefit you. You yourself would know not to add that and rely upon unpredictable obstacles in strategic warfare. Because this river was unpredictable it was of utmost importance to Gen Otis...he calculated for "worse case scenario". He called for Lawton that same night to cease this campaign because of the storm that would swell the river and would possibly hinder their troops. Lawton on the other hand truly believed the storm would stop over night and the river would have died down. He miscalculated, the storm continued through the entire night(ughm Macky), and once they reached San Mateo that morning the river swelled in to a near roaring rapid. Given the time of Lawtons death, this did not matter. If the mounted cavalry made it across the river at the original crossing ford, it still would not have stopped the shot that killed Lawton. All the river did was delay the capture of the town by a few hours. Did artillery have a play in this?..we really don't know, cause no American report has stated that it had an impact. By the way, we actually did cover this in our emails. Since we have covered so much ground, all of this I don't keep memorized. I did a quick search through our emails(took less then a minute) and have found out what type of artillery was brought to this battle. But there is nothing stated on how this artillery was strategically used.
From the sound of your post, the Krag was an ineffective rifle in this war. That is far from the truth...and I'll state it loud and clear here, "the Krag won the war". You can quote me on that. The Krag is not the best or greatest battle rifle of that time, but in the hands of experienced well trained troops, it proved enough to get the job done properly. Once Aguinaldo and the government authorized guerrilla warfare, this ended the "fortified entrenched warfare". How do you think the Americans won against guerrilla warfare?...with artillery?? The Krag was so effective to American troops they wrote songs about it. No doubt about it the Mauser was far superior then the Krag...but the Mauser was in extreme short supply. The Mauser was so great in the Spanish American War, the Americans later copied the design and developed the M1903. The Cubans were well equipped with Mausers, the Filipinos were not. And yes I have shot a Krag. I liked it so much I actually planned to buy one from CMP just recently, but all the hundreds they just got in stock are all unserviceable drill rifles and relics with missing parts. I want a complete working rifle, not a project.
In regards to the Rolling Blocks used. The rollers back then were inferior to the Krags. Rollers themselves are IMO not accurate enough for battle. And accuracy drops off even more so with BP. Accuracy significantly drops with inexperienced troops with zero range time. I would not be comparing any +100 year old 11mm roller cartridge next to the likes of a .50BMG. Those are completely two different animals. That is like comparing the 9mm to the 10mm(when the 10mm is ballistically closer to the .357magnum). When speaking of calibers, 1mm is significant. Is the 45ACP similar to the 50AE?..nope. And the 45ACP is larger then the rollers 11mm cartridge, and the 50AE is the same in diameter as the 50BMG(even those are completely different). Just because the size of the caliber is close in size does not mean they are close in ballistic performance. Just to add a correction also, the Spanish rollers were chambered in the 11.5mm(.43 Spanish Reformado cartridge), not the older original 11mm as most people for some odd reason still believe. Sure you can shoot a 11.5mm out to 500 yards, but precision and accuracy are not there out of a Rolling Block. Gee, I wonder how I know all this?...maybe because I am also a firearms enthusiast who has started collecting C&R rifles, all the while covering this in our emails. And yes, I do have a Mauser in 7mm as well; not the Spanish Oviedo but the Chilean 93 model, which is essentially the same exact rifle.
Replicating that fatal shot. Did you know it took several shots from Bonifacio to hit Lawton? Did you know there was a report of one of the American troops that heard the distinctive Mauser shots at the moment Lawton went down and they all knew where this man was posted? We have this info and I would say could be of extreme value to youre own research. But to you our research was not good enough to know any of this. How can you criticize any report with out reading it "thoroughly"...so why should we share this information with you?
Since you really think our 3 months of analyzing is not "good enough" with out even looking at it, then I would say yes you are just jumping to conclusions and I wouldn't trust any analysis performed on your part. From all your posts you already proved you draw conclusions with out all or enough data to go by..which is why I stated, you are only looking at the tip of iceberg. With out even a general understanding of the battle itself. Is that how you analyze and do research? I never once questioned your expertise or experience in warfare, just all the claims you are making in regards to this battle...cause from your analysis so far, it is severally lacking. I would not have mind Macky or myself sharing with you what we have so far and then hearing your thoughts, all you had to do was ask...but you have already made your point in regards to our lack of research. No monopoly in analysis?...how could you say that and draw that conclusion with out even reading our entire research and analysis. No monopoly of analysis but yet all that is posted here is from one of our members and you are drawing your own conclusion and research from it.[/color]
|
|
|
Post by 26th on Jan 4, 2010 12:16:05 GMT -5
Dimasalang:
I like the "Red" better than CAPITAL letters. haha
You guys keep it up because in the background, I have been enjoying the information regardless on how you guys see it.
I still get a kick out of Lawson chasing two Geronimo's.
Peace Rudy/26thCav
|
|
|
Post by sumaquel on Jan 7, 2010 11:36:01 GMT -5
TIRADORES DELA MUERTE'S EXPLOIT IN THE BATTLE OF MARIKINA
I am reading this Fil-am war book saying that "for the first time in the Insurrection, they were fighting a well trained Insurrectos who knew how to aim and fire their Mauser rifles effectively". This group of Filipino Insurgents, according to the author, were using a "European style" tactics in battle.
On the other Fil-am war book(quoting the same regiment and same battle in Marikina)It was said that those who attack the column in Marikina were a group of Filipino Sharpshooters.(They were the one quoted as "the well trained Insurrectos who knew how to aim and fire their Mauser rifle and the one who used a European Style Tactics"
Sino itong mga sharpshooters na ito sa Marikina na ayon sa author ng libro ay bihasa sa paggamit ng kanilang mga ripleng mauser? Sa aking opinyon mga Tiradores Dela muerte ito ni Gen. Licerio Geronimo na naka-talaga sa Marikina command ni Col. Hermogenes "Bara" Bautista.
Simple lang ang paliwanag ng aking opinyon;
1. Ang Marikina ay sakop ng Tercera Zona ni Gen. Licerio Geronimo. 2. Wala nang ibang unit ng mga Sharpshooters(Tiradores)na nag-ooperate sa lugar(Tercera Zona)Maliban sa mga Tiradores dela Muerte ni Gen. Licerio Geronimo.
|
|