|
Post by TRK on Apr 1, 2008 8:03:54 GMT -5
Perhaps our Spanish experts can clear this one up. Did DLP really refer to volleys (plural) or cannon fire, or discharges (singular)? Somebody get me a copy of DLP's manuscript, and I'll set the record straight once and for all
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Apr 1, 2008 9:46:57 GMT -5
We aren't sure whether DLP was referring to the lunette or the dry acequia when he stated that Morales "had taken refuge in the trenches he had overrun trying to inflict damage on the enemy without harming us." If Morales' soldados were in a trench and still in a position to shoot at the defenders, I'd have to say DLP was referring to the dry acequia. But it's quite possible that Morales had possession of both the lunette and the acequia.
Judging from several of the elevated views in Marks book, the Texans would have had an unimpeded line-of-sight shot at Morales' men as they ran down the ramp and attacked the Low Barracks. Even a better shot was available if the soldados advanced on the gunade or anywhere along the west wall.
So if the four-pounder was loaded, I feel the defenders could have gotten off at least one shot. If not at Morales, then probably at the soldados surging toward them from the north.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Apr 1, 2008 16:41:08 GMT -5
I'm not so sure, Stuart. Judging from Marks model, there appears to be ample space to maneuver the guns into place (pp. 98). Bonham, Dickinson, and the gun crews must have seen the Mexicans working their way toward the church. In fact, Dickinson did tell his wife that the Mexicans were "inside the walls." So I wonder, what did they do when they realized the battle and the Alamo was lost? Certainly they would have tried to contest the Mexicans entry into the church? But how?
If I were there, and had the courage to stay, I would have tried to get as many of those guns as I could turned around to face the enemy. If I was unable to depress them sufficiently I would have tried to "jack-up" the rear of the gun to achieve the necessary angle. Failing that, I would still turn the guns around and hope some of the enraged soldados would disregard their survival instinct and charge up the ramp. I mean if you're going to die...why not try?
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Apr 1, 2008 18:36:05 GMT -5
The Spanish word for "volley" and "discharge" is quite similar (descarga, I believe), so I agree with your word of caution.
However, there is ample evidence the Alamo's battery's were loaded and ready to fire. In spite of being caught sleeping, the cheering and the bugle calls drew a nearly instantaneous response from the garrison. De la Pena's account provides several examples of shrapnel brutalizing the attack columns. Gen. Filisola was also of the impression that the defenders cannons were "ready and alert."
It would not make sense, lets say, for one cannon at the north battery (fortin de teran) to be loaded while the other tubes lay empty. By all accounts the rifles and muskets were loaded...why not the cannon? The defenders either knew or must have sensed the end was near. They must have anticipated that an assault was going to occur sooner or later. So I feel they would have been somewhat prepared.
It's impossible to truly know just what guns fired or how many times they fired. All we can really know for sure is that some of them did.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Apr 1, 2008 18:50:15 GMT -5
Glenn, The east church battery (Fortin de Cos) was some 26 or 27 feet wide and at least 24 to 25 feet deep, so turning at least one gun around would not have been a problem. You raise an interesting point about the guns being loaded at the north wall. While they may have been loaded, I am sure that the slow-matches wound around the linstocks, which were required to fire them were not lit. Assuming that there were lanterns lit (which were the ignition source for the matches) the sleepy gunners no doubt fumbled terribly with the matches trying to get them in contact with the lanterns, all the while hundreds of shouting Mexicans were descending upon them. This undoubtedly took valuable seconds, which the Texans could not afford to lose. Mark
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Apr 1, 2008 22:44:15 GMT -5
Yeah, Mark. I wondered about that myself. And I would have to agree with you. It's unlikely the linstocks were lit. So I suppose the next question is "Did the defenders have the time to light their linstocks?"
Well, judging from DLP's statements, it appears they did. The Mexicans screaming and yelling "Viva Santa Anna" and "Viva Mexico," not to mention Capt. John Baugh sounding the alarm, apparently gave the Texans a few precious seconds to light their linstocks and charge their muskets. We don't know how much time elapsed between the cheering and when the actual attack signal was given. I'm sure it wasn't much time but it appears to have been enough because the guns fired.
Again, it's hard to say what guns fired and which ones did not or how often they discharged. But it's clear, as I read de la Pena's account, that the cannons were operational and effective. Filisola thought so as well. In fact, in DLP's account, he mentions four separate incidents involving casualties from cannon fire. And it's unlikely it was all caused by just one or two guns. I wouldn't be surprised if all of the cannon on the north wall got off an initial shot with some discharging a second time. But not much more then that.
As an owner of a few black powder weapons, I know it doesn't take much moisture to dampen a charged weapon. Just a little humidity. So I have my doubts the flash pans of the many muskets contained a dry charge of powder. While the musket itself was most likely loaded with powder and ball, the flash pans were probably empty and required a charge before the gun could be fired. The only exception would be the few percussion rifles some defenders carried.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Apr 2, 2008 0:48:33 GMT -5
I day say Bill Chemerka will weigh in on this one as well, but speaking from experience of firing black powder with slow-match (both from muskets and cannon), the problem in this case doesn't come from the powder - the Texians should have been using quills - but from the match. Apart from the problems of getting it lit quickly in the first place unless it is kept warm and dry it can be difficult to get it to burn hot enough to ignite the powder - which I suspect may be one reason why film makers sem to prefer huge flaming torches
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Apr 2, 2008 8:23:19 GMT -5
I day say Bill Chemerka will weigh in on this one as well, but speaking from experience of firing black powder with slow-match (both from muskets and cannon), the problem in this case doesn't come from the powder - the Texians should have been using quills - but from the match. Apart from the problems of getting it lit quickly in the first place unless it is kept warm and dry it can be difficult to get it to burn hot enough to ignite the powder - which I suspect may be one reason why film makers sem to prefer huge flaming torches The guns (artillery) may or may not have been loaded. But that is not a problem. Two semi-experienced gunners at the muzzle could load the powder charge and the projectile in about 10 seconds (Gen. Burgoyne's best gun crew on the eve of his 1777 invasion of the US loaded and fired in four seconds!). The problem was lighting the linstock's treated rope and keeping it lighted. That could take seconds or minutes. And it usually takes the later, according to my experience with Lamb's Artillery (since 1980), the companion unit to Daniel Morgan's Rifle Co. in the Brigade of the American Revolution. Once that quill (which contains the priming charge) was inserted in the touch hole and "prime" was called out, the gun was ready to fire. But again, the problem with the apparent lack of Alamo artillery firing probably originated with linstocks not being ignited in a timely manner. [Note: an artillery "volley" can be either a single firing from one piece or multiple firings from more than one gun.]
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Apr 2, 2008 10:14:38 GMT -5
I'm noticing on page 145 of Mark's book that he shows a lit lantern sitting by the 18-pounder. His note about it says, "A lantern was necessary to have by each gun, to be used as an ignition source for the slow match affixed to the linstock." Would this have been a complete solution to the timing problem or would the problems with the linstock's treated rope remain the weak link in the process? I would think that holding the linstock in the lantern flame (if even for ten or fifteen seconds) would do the trick. But then... I'm not... REAL soldier. Never fought anybody but the tourists.
Also, as far as rifles and muskets of the defenders are concerned, wasn't it frontier proceedure to sleep with your rifle in the bedroll with you to keep it warm and dry? Priming pan never filled until you were ready to shoot?
In any event, early pre-dawn battles were what was expected back then, so I would think that most or all of these issues would have been addressed and solutions found. No?
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Apr 2, 2008 10:58:47 GMT -5
But then... I'm not... REAL soldier. Never fought anybody but the tourists. I don't know, from some of the pictures I've seen, some of them are scarier then some armies I'm familiar with! I don't have the personal experience of Bill, or Stuart, but have read where the gunners would often spin the lit match besides their bodies, to keep it lit and burning hot. Don't know if it's true, but kind of makes sense. The other thing about preloaded cannon, is loaded with what? Round shot or canister? I kind of expect round shot as the defenders were surely hoping to open fire at maximum range. As we discussed in San Antonio, what the attackers thought of the defenders volume of fire, was relative to where the attackers were. DLP as an aide to Duque was where some of the heaviest fire was received - his impressions were going to be very different from Lorcana who experienced no fire or relatively little. From an overall perspective Lorcana or Santa Anna or Almonte or Sanchez-Navarro would have a better perception of what the true overall volume of fire was. For example, if only 10 shots were fired and they were all fired at you - you're going to record a heavy volume of fire, while your neighbor 50 yards away will say there was no resistance. You would be correct about what was happening where you were, but your neighbor would be more correct about the whole battle. Elapsed time and volume of fire are two things that are the most distorted by the immediate participants.
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Apr 2, 2008 12:06:27 GMT -5
I'm noticing on page 145 of Mark's book that he shows a lit lantern sitting by the 18-pounder. His note about it says, "A lantern was necessary to have by each gun, to be used as an ignition source for the slow match affixed to the linstock." Would this have been a complete solution to the timing problem or would the problems with the linstock's treated rope remain the weak link in the process? I would think that holding the linstock in the lantern flame (if even for ten or fifteen seconds) would do the trick. But then... I'm not... REAL soldier. Never fought anybody but the tourists. Also, as far as rifles and muskets of the defenders are concerned, wasn't it frontier proceedure to sleep with your rifle in the bedroll with you to keep it warm and dry? Priming pan never filled until you were ready to shoot? In any event, early pre-dawn battles were what was expected back then, so I would think that most or all of these issues would have been addressed and solutions found. No? Excellent questions! The lantern was a necessary item for lighting the treated rope on the linstock. Now then, placing a linstock in position with a fixed piece of three-strand rope for lighting purposes is not a quick and easy task. Sometimes the rope would have to be removed from the linstock before lighting. Again, all of these small adjustments take time. To be sure, the Alamo gunners were prepared but after catching their first night of zz's in well over a week the deep-sleep (?) situation could have compounded reaction times for all the necessary actions needed to load the guns. Sleeping with your weapon? Absolutely! A frontier practice that I used as early as basic training at Ft. Dix in 1966. I did it to protect it from the rain while sleeping in my field tent (actually my shelter half and George Hundley's shelter half!).
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Apr 2, 2008 12:59:57 GMT -5
What about the availability of small campfires the defenders may have used for heat? Could they have been utilized to light a linstock?
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 2, 2008 13:03:27 GMT -5
Sleeping with your weapon? Absolutely! A frontier practice that I used as early as basic training at Ft. Dix in 1966. I did it to protect it from the rain while sleeping in my field tent (actually my shelter half and George Hundley's shelter half!). I didn't know much about frontiersmanship at Ft. Sill in 1986, but slept with my rifle ( Spit Far ) like other basic trainies. We did not want our weapons stolen by the drill sergeants during night, which would result in torturous rifle drills in the morning.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Apr 2, 2008 13:09:32 GMT -5
Bill (or anyone)
You mentioned the rope was treated. What was the rope treated with (oil, wax, etc) and in what manner??
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Apr 2, 2008 13:33:08 GMT -5
Bill (or anyone) You mentioned the rope was treated. What was the rope treated with (oil, wax, etc) and in what manner?? Glenn There are various recipes, including a saltpetre solution, but I always preferred boiling the stuff in wine vinegar - a 16th/17th century recipe Everything I've ever tried (or borrowed) however has been very hydroscopic - absorbing the slightest hint of moisture to the detriment of its burning heat. The start-up procedure is something like this... You pick up your length of slow-match which should have been secreted somewhere warm and dry, perhaps about your person - and remember the few seconds lost while you find it and get it out. It then needs to be lit. This can indeed be done (and often has been done) by dangling it into a convenient camp-fire, but it doesn't immediately burst into flames, oh no sir, it'll start smouldering and you then have to blow on it to coax it into life, swinging it vigorously often helps (and looks good), and then every time you use it you need to blow on it again to raise the temperature that little bit. Don't get me wrong, it works, but its not quick and its not sure - which is why friction primers were such a hit in the Civil War. In theory there is an alternative of keeping a length of slow match lit at all times, but apart from the mind-numbing tediousness of nursing it along hour after hour night after night, you're going to burn your way through an awful lot of the stuff and in reality it's not going to be done unless an attack is expected really imminently
|
|