|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 4, 2009 11:30:35 GMT -5
I spent some time recently digging for some info I had on Napoleonic Artillery, while I couldn't find all that I was looking for I did find this particualr table, that some may find interesting.
BTW. This data is for French artillery, but would be similar to the Alamo pieces.
12 pounder: (ball) max range 1800m, max effective range: 900m, (canister) max range 580m
8 pounder: (ball) max range 1500m, max effective range: 800m,
(canister) max range 450m
6 pounder: (ball) max range 1250m, Max effective range: 750m,
(canister) max range 430m
4 pounder: (ball) max range 1200m, Max effective range: 700m,
(canister) max range 400m
8inch Howitzer: max range 700-1200m (variable) canister 200m.
All ranges could be increased (round shot) on hard soil by firing richochet ie skipping the round on the ground (also increased its effectiveness). Using the same mthod with canister would not increase its range, but would dramatically increase its effectivness.
Some other info crew size and trail box (the ammunition
boxes shown in Mark Lemon's model) capacity and rate of fire by cannon size.
12 pounder: 15 men (8 trained); 9 roundshot, one rd per min
8 pounder: 13 men (8 trained); 15 roundshot, two rds per min
4 pounder: 8 men (5 trained); 18 roundshot, 2-3 rds per min
Normal doctrine called for opening fire on an attacking enemy with roundshot at max effective range, then shifting to canister at around 400 meters. The British having invented shrapnel, in the US later called case shot, would open with round shot, shift to case then shift to canister as the enemy closed.
An attacking unit that was marching would cross roughly 100 meters a minute.
Given how close the Mexican Army was to the walls of the Alamo, before attacking, and assuming that all the cannon were already loaded, the Mexicans were not exposed to more than two shots from any one cannon before closing the walls.
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 4, 2009 11:33:57 GMT -5
Question: Does anybody know how waterproof/weather tight these trail boxes were? How long could ammunition be stored in them and still be assumed to be usable?
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jun 4, 2009 11:51:08 GMT -5
Trail boxes were just for ready use ammo and small tools, with the bulk of the ammo being carried in caissons
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jun 4, 2009 20:13:48 GMT -5
While browsing through the Texas Toy Soldier show in San Antonio last week, I met a guy named Ron Barzso, who makes miniature soldiers, and other related items. I noted that he had produced and was selling an incredibly detailed and accurate set of 18 cannon, all properly mounted, which reflects the latest research on the subject of the Alamo's artillery. They are I think 1/32 scale. I bought a set, even though I don't collect such things, just because they were so beautifully made, and very accurate. Those interested can visit: www.barzso.comMark |
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jun 4, 2009 20:30:35 GMT -5
I've heard of Ron Barzo, but not water-proof wooden ammo boxes. There is one lesson I've learned
about water. It can get into almost anything given the right conditions. Barzo is well-known and got
his start making miniatures of my distant cuz Robert Rogers and his rangers in the 1990s. I see them
once in awhile on Ebay.
|
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Jun 5, 2009 12:53:47 GMT -5
I'm not 100% sure of this since I didn't research it but the limber chests used in the mid 19th centuery were I think, fitted with a copper covered wooden lid and were of course painted with an oil base paint. This does not make them waterproof but goes a long way in that direction. I have seen reenactors use trail boxes with an oilcloth covered lid but again, this doesn't make them waterproof.
Of course trail boxes wouldn't hold a heck of a lot of ammo due to their small size... limber chests can and do hold alot of ammo. Is there any research/documentation to point to the use of trail boxes or limber chests by Alamo gun crews?
I'd always thought the Mexican army wouldn't have suffered much from artillery fire once things got kicked off due to the surprise, speed of covering the ground to the walls and because of the impossibility of depressing the muzzles of the guns to bare on soldados at the walls.
|
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Jun 5, 2009 12:55:48 GMT -5
I've got a copy of an 1841 US artillery manual that I'll try and dig through and see if there's anything applicable there(different systems and all). I also have a repop of an 1830's militia manual covering among infantry and cavalry, artillery tactics... might be something in there of some use but I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 6, 2009 12:14:13 GMT -5
I've got a copy of an 1841 US artillery manual that I'll try and dig through and see if there's anything applicable there(different systems and all). I also have a repop of an 1830's militia manual covering among infantry and cavalry, artillery tactics... might be something in there of some use but I doubt it. Thanks, Scott, I appreciate the effort! |
|
simon
Full Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by simon on May 22, 2010 5:30:37 GMT -5
Hi,
Can anyone tellm me how many 4pdr cannons were defending the stockade section of the Alamo?
Some 'plans' show 4 others only 1
Thank you
Sime
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on May 22, 2010 9:51:26 GMT -5
I've got a copy of an 1841 US artillery manual that I'll try and dig through and see if there's anything applicable there(different systems and all). I also have a repop of an 1830's militia manual covering among infantry and cavalry, artillery tactics... might be something in there of some use but I doubt it. Scott-some of that might be covered in the ordnance manual. I only have part of a copy of the one from the early 1840's.... |
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on May 22, 2010 10:00:53 GMT -5
The best evidence points to one. Both of the known contemporary plats by Sanchez-Navarro and Labastida show one gun there. The copy of the January/February Jameson plat shows four, but he also shows four guns up on the northern west wall, which were most likely repositioned before the siege actually began. It is probable that, if four guns existed at the palisade, they were likewise repositioned before the siege.
|
|
simon
Full Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by simon on May 22, 2010 15:15:29 GMT -5
Thanks a lot
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on May 22, 2010 15:38:01 GMT -5
R. M. Potter was the first to show 4 guns at the stockade; either he had information collected from locals, or veterans, or he made a surmise. Or, he may in fact have been showing the "improvements" made by Andrade, not Jameson, and described to him by Bexarenos.
It might also be that de Zavala, or someone else, relying on Potter, added the four guns in that copied version of the Jameson plan.
|
|
simon
Full Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by simon on May 23, 2010 2:03:49 GMT -5
Hi
Presumably (and assuming) that the stockade did have 4 guns at some point prior to the siege, there would have been four embrasures for firing through?
cheers
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on May 23, 2010 5:45:04 GMT -5
Hi Presumably (and assuming) that the stockade did have 4 guns at some point prior to the siege, there would have been four embrasures for firing through? cheers Simon Simon, I suspect the 4 guns came after the siege, placed there during General Andrade's commandancy, if indeed they had ever been there at all. |
|
