|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jun 1, 2011 8:18:36 GMT -5
So, last night I was reading an article titled "Weapons that Won the War of Independence" by a gentleman named John L. Plaster in the current issue of monthly VFW magazine. It talks about the deal struck by Ben Franklin with King Louis XVI that netted an initial 37,000 smooth bore Charleville musket muzzleloaders in 1777 (plus more later).
What really caught my interest was the section that talked briefly about the more accurate Kentucky Long Rifle, and a mental image described in the story that was drawn from popular Alamo movies.
"Vulnerable, while reloading, and lacking a bayonet," Plaster writes, "the American rifleman relied upon his trusty tomahawk for close-quarters fighting or, in dire straits, wielded his empty rifle like a club, Davy Crockett-style."
It's amazing how popular tv or movie images find their way into other media and are readily accepted as fact but by most folk reading them (and apparently by the writer). Of course, David -- gosh, it drives me nuts to see "Davy" in print -- could have gone down swinging his rifle. Nobody lived to say for certain, and there are no Mexican accounts saying so. I tend to think he didn't ... but it sure looked good on film.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Jun 1, 2011 13:25:19 GMT -5
As we all understand, there are two distinct histories of the Alamo, the actual history and the popular culture history, and more often than not, the two histories intertwine. The public's perception of "Davy" Crockett is deeply embedded in the cultural history.
The popular history includes subjects such as weapons and tactics as well, e.g. the article mentioned by Paul. The frontiersman in close combat swinging his rifle is an indelible image virtually burned into the imagination. I still have my 1965 Daniel Boone (Fess Parker) lunchbox and Boone swinging his rifle is one of the images adorning it.
The tactic of using a 19th century long rifle as a club has a tremendous downside and little if any upside. In close combat, time is precious, and typically you have precious little of it. Long rifles average around 60 inches in length, and to utilize it as a club, you have to reverse the end, then raise it and swing it, which is time-consuming. The larger issue is the end result of smashing your enemy, which is breaking the neck of the stock. You now have one less opponent (perhaps), but you also have essentially disarmed yourself. But as Paul mentioned, images like this are readily accepted as fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 2, 2011 9:43:35 GMT -5
It's amazing how popular tv or movie images find their way into other media and are readily accepted as fact but by most folk reading them (and apparently by the writer). Paul, the myth of the Kentucky Rifle's role in the American Revolution and the War of 1812 is a lot older than the modern media. Like most myths, there is a factual foundation, but the exaggeration of the myth as almost become a historical "fact". For example Morgan's Riflemen played a key role in the American victory at Saratoga, but what often gets ignored is that Gates consolidated musket equipped Continental light infantry into a separate battalion under Dearborn, then brigaded Dearborn's command with Morgan to provide protection for the riflemen. The Battle of New Orleans, is another of the "great" victories of the Rifle in popular culture - but the history is radically different. It was American artillery, and naval gunfire that dominated that battlefield. As you say, the weaknesses of the Kentucky Rifle was it was a hunting rifle (and a civilian weapon of mutiple calibers, etc.) not a military rifle. The British with the Baker Rifle, the US with the Harpers Ferry model and other countries did create durable military rilfes that could utilize bayonets, and specialized units to use them, but the problems of slow loading, were not overcome to the invention of the minie ball. The fairly swift mass adoption of rifles by all modern armies soon followed. Perhaps one of the problems at the Alamo on March 6th, might have been that despite the capture of a mass of muskets from the Mexicans, that a large portion of the garrison still carried their personal weapons?? |
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Jun 2, 2011 10:50:35 GMT -5
Perhaps one of the problems at the Alamo on March 6th, might have been that despite the capture of a mass of muskets from the Mexicans, that a large portion of the garrison still carried their personal weapons??
Does anyone know of any other specific allocations of arms to other companies? Carey? Bowie? Seguin? Gonzales Ranging Company? |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jun 2, 2011 12:52:27 GMT -5
This is really getting interesting -- I'm glad I brought it up.
Yes, Hiram, I too have always been intrigued by the numbers and types of armament used by the defenders at the Alamo. There are times when a group of defenders with different types of firearms and other weapons can beat down an opponent. The Little Big Horn is a case in point, where the Indians had various types of carbines. One of the differences (there are several) at LBH is that the Indians could pour in more fire with repeating rifles, while Custer's men were dealing with a singl;e shot breechloader that had a history of jamming. I have to point out that some sources I've read say that Custer's men had more ammunition for their weapons while the Indians had to make their shots count because of limited ammunition.
At the Alamo, all things were more or less equal, except for lack of a bayonet. I doubt that the outcome would have been much different even had the defenders armed themselves with a musket capable of use with a bayonet. The numbers were overwhelmingly in favor of the Mexicans.
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jun 2, 2011 13:49:35 GMT -5
At the Alamo, all things were more or less equal, except for lack of a bayonet. I doubt that the outcome would have been much different even had the defenders armed themselves with a musket capable of use with a bayonet. Just to clarify, John W. Smith's "Report of Public Stores" dated Bejar, 3 February 1836, lists 450 bayonets (presumably captured at the siege of Bejar) delivered to the master of ordnance. Ampudia's inventory dated 6 March 1836 of Texan weapons captured at the Alamo listed "Unattached bayonets...200." Smith's "Report" also lists 368 "Muskets Carabins &c." delivered to the master or ordnance following the December 1836 capture of Bejar, some of which undoubtedly made it into the Alamo's inventory. So, the Texans had plenty of bayonets and probably plenty of muskets: the question is, did they make any use them? |
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Jun 2, 2011 14:57:58 GMT -5
Tom,
It's my opinion that the Alamo garrison made use of the captured arms that were in good condition, in addition to the muskets that they were already supplied with. I think the garrison had enough understanding of the advantage of musketry over riflery in repelling an assault, and put that knowledge to use in the defense of the Alamo.
The image of American frontiersmen methodically picking off opposing forces, is certainly iconic, but in the case of the Alamo, more of a popular culture manifestation.
At this point, my feeling is that inside the compound there were more muskets than rifles actually being used. On a numerical scale, with 1 being all riflery and 10 being all musketry, I'm sitting at about 6.5 at the moment. I'm open to a different conclusion supported by some documentation.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jun 2, 2011 15:48:15 GMT -5
As I pointed out in my Arms and the Alamo article in the Journal two issues back the numbers of muskets at the Alamo are pretty consistent all the way through. I don't have the figures to hand right now but essentially the numbers recorded in the armory when Bexar was surrendered in December 1835 tally with Smith's inventory and with Ampudia's inventory of what was found there after the battle, which rather suggests they sat in the armory all the way through and were never used.
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 2, 2011 16:26:58 GMT -5
At the Alamo, all things were more or less equal, except for lack of a bayonet. I doubt that the outcome would have been much different even had the defenders armed themselves with a musket capable of use with a bayonet. The numbers were overwhelmingly in favor of the Mexicans. I don't think the defenders using the bayonet would have made much of a difference, untrained men or semi-trained men are at an extreme disadvantage (as I believe Stuart pointed out elsewhere) against trained infantry with the bayonet. Rather I think the important difference would have been in the volume of fire at the close in fight at the North Wall. For example assuming a man has a loaded weapon to start with, keeps his cool (doesn't reload his weapon with mutiple charges or shoots his ramrod away, etc. etc) or become a casuality, a musket man can easily fire 10 rounds in the first 3 minutes, 19 in 6, 28 in 9 and so on until his weapon fouls. A rifleman (if he properly loads his weapon), however is only going to fire about 7 rounds in the first 3 minutes, 13 in 6, 17 in 9 etc. Assuming 30 musket men at the North Wall, a 9 minute fight, and and no causalities your talking a volume of fire of 840 rounds fired vs 30 riflemen laying down a volume of fire of 510 rounds. I hate making a battle a math equation, because it is so much more, but the difference is striking - even if one quibbles with the reload times i chose to use. On a sidenote given, historically, the number of rounds fired vs the numbers of casualities produced, I think the above is another illustration why the Mexican casuality figures are reasonable and accurate. |
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Jun 2, 2011 16:37:25 GMT -5
In referencing the number of muskets used by Alamo defenders, the question (at least in my mind) is more directly related to garrison members who carried muskets irregardless of the number of captured muskets.
Bexar was taken by utilizing artillery and musketry; eighty-nine veterans of that battle later died as members of the Alamo garrison. The men who fought in Bexar proved by their actions that they could more than match Cos' army in both artillery fire and close combat.
How many of the eighty-nine were using muskets on 6 March? Mexican artillerymen fought as infantry on 6 March, how many Alamo artillerymen fought as infantry that same morning? And again, musket or rifle?
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 2, 2011 16:43:31 GMT -5
I think that the breakdown of actual use of rifles vs muskets by the garrison was probably in the 50-50 range. It's speculative on my part, the only thing we know for sure is that the New Orleans Greys were musket equipped, and that it may be probable, that Travis 's cavalry was predominantly equipped with shotguns.
The rest of the men probably fought with the weapons they brought from home a mixture of rifles, muskets and shotguns. However, if I was a volunteer that didn't know better, and owned both a rifle and a musket, my inclination would be to take the rifle as I went off to war, for its longer range and accuracy. I don't think I would ever envision a close up deadly fight as what happened at the North Wall. Still, I expect the volunteers directly from the states or more settled area carried more muskets than rifles.
Even if issued with muskets from the armory, human nature, would lead a man to grab his personal property as he woke and rushed to the walls.
Pure speculation, but ....
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jun 3, 2011 1:14:42 GMT -5
As ever, not having been there I can't say with any certainty, but I'd be inclined to put the proportion of riflemen pretty high.
From a military perspective large calibre muskets with pointy things on the end are always going to be more effective than small calibre rifles in a stand-up fight, but very few of the Alamo defenders and none of their officers were professional soldiers. They believed the stories of the riflemen of Saratoga and New Orleans.
Now we do know that notwithstanding dodgy translations of Ehrenberg that a number of the New Orleans Greys were provided with muskets when they signed up to go to Texas, but did they want them? Did they really want heavy old smooth-bores, rather than sweet shooting lightweight rifles. And what about the rest? I think its significant that individual volunteers who turned up in Texas were being issued with rifles (the cost debited against any future pay - which is why we know). Grant's men, who mostly started off in Bexar, were casually referred to by Santa Anna as riflemen and this is confirmed by survivor testimony. In fact what's most significant is the casual nature of the references to rifles. There was nothing exceptional about carrying them and an underlying assumption that everyone carried them unless particularly noted otherwise.
And again we come back to that business of the same numbers of muskets recorded in the armory when Cos surrendered, when Smith carried out his inventory and when Ampudia counted them when it was all over.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jun 3, 2011 1:20:14 GMT -5
As to artillerymen. Again you have to remember that the defenders weren't professional soldiers. Proper gunners are traditionally taught to fight their guns to the end and the best ones do.
I would be inclined to think that for the most part those Alamo gunners who reached their guns that morning fired them off, but then instead of reloading while stoically ignoring the soldados clawing up the walls, they snatched up their rifles, pistols, butcher-knives, rocks or anything else that came to hand to fight off said soldados - or bugged out.
|
|
