|
Post by stuart on Apr 2, 2008 13:41:30 GMT -5
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. I make no apology here for invoking the example of Culloden since I reckon without any false modesty to know more about what happened there than anybody now living... Traditionally the Jacobites are said to have been subjected to a prolonged artillery preparation of 20-30 minutes before mounting their attack, and at least one contemporary account put it as high as an hour. All of these estimates came from the Jacobite side - ie; the guys being shot at. Analysing some very clear accounts from the other side, the guys who weren't being shot at - both by reference to recorded timings and ammunition expenditure - the initial preparation actually just lasted 3 minutes!
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Apr 2, 2008 14:20:31 GMT -5
This is a good question, Herb. I've asked myself the same thing and initially came to the same conclusion as you did.
Going back to de la Pena's statements, he is not very specific on the type of ammo that was employed against the attacking columns. Although, in one instance he does mention shrapnel being used. Ditto for Filisola. And some of the language DLP used when describing the causalities caused by cannon fire does sound like shrapnel damage. Round shot is never mentioned. It's hard to say.
If solid round shot was initially loaded then followed by canister (shrapnel), that would imply some guns did fire a second time.
Here's a question. When the Mexicans entered the Alamo and turned the cannons on the long barracks...who was utilized as the gun crew? I don't believe your average soldado would have had the knowledge to load and fire the weapon. So who did?
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Apr 2, 2008 15:19:38 GMT -5
The type of ammunition isn't a problem. There were two types available to the Texians; solid roundshot, and canister; which could be actual (ie; copper or iron balls packed in a tin canister) or improvised; say musket balls, sewn into a cloth bag.
The cannon, as Wolf suggests were most likely loaded with roundshot, simply because it was most versatile and capable of being used effectively at any range. It would however have been the work of seconds to thrust a canister round on top of the ball before firing, so either/or was't likely to arise.
Incidentally although the immediate reaction is to assume that canister and better still double canister would have been most effective, a Confederate artillery officer named Haskell opined that in his experience roundshot was best for breaking up infantry attacks at very close range simply because the loud ringing crash of firing ball was far more intimidating than the actual casualties from canister.
I mention this because once again it impacts on perceptions of what was happening. Distant witnesses such as Loranca will have easily distinguished (and counted) the crash of roundshot, while the comparatively quieter sound of canister rounds being fired might indeed have merged with the general roar.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Apr 2, 2008 15:22:08 GMT -5
Here's a question. When the Mexicans entered the Alamo and turned the cannons on the long barracks...who was utilized as the gun crew? I don't believe your average soldado would have had the knowledge to load and fire the weapon. So who did? Glenn With apologies to Bill any fool who can load and fire a musket can do the same with a cannon. He won't be as good at it or as quick as a regular gunner, but at such murderously close range who's bothered?
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Apr 2, 2008 15:24:37 GMT -5
The treated rope for use with linstocks is one which has been saturated in a saltpeter (postassium nitrate) solution and dried. Any untreated dry rope could work for a short time, a very short time, but it would quickly burn out. The solution (a number of solutions work, including lead acetate and lye) is needed to slow down the burning process. Potassium nitrate, of course, is the main ingredient in black powder---along with charcoal (preferably softwood) and sulfur.
Campfires could, of course, be the source of lighting linstock slow matches but there proximity to the gun and its gunpowder source would be a high risk and rather foolish procedure.
[Whenever I participate in English Civil War events as a member of Fortescue's Regiment of Foot I truly appreciate flintlock technology; and when I'm participating in recreated Revolutionary War events I appeciate percussion technology!]
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Apr 2, 2008 15:36:34 GMT -5
Here's a question. When the Mexicans entered the Alamo and turned the cannons on the long barracks...who was utilized as the gun crew? I don't believe your average soldado would have had the knowledge to load and fire the weapon. So who did? Glenn With apologies to Bill any fool who can load and fire a musket can do the same with a cannon. He won't be as good at it or as quick as a regular gunner, but at such murderously close range who's bothered? Indeed. Since both are muzzleloading weapons they basically operate the same. [My good friends in Lamb's Artillery might cringe over this aforementoned statement, though!] Still, it is more difficult and challeging to tend the vent, seat a charge, vent pick the powder bag and fire the gun (without getting run over by the wheels after the gun discharges) than to fire a flintlock shoulder weapon. As such, it is probable that only a few guns may have been fired by the Mexican soldiers once they gained control of the main courtyard.
|
|
|
Post by ranger2518 on Apr 2, 2008 17:19:12 GMT -5
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. Or worse. Much, much worse. When I was at ROTC Advanced Camp at Ft. Lewis in 1985, a cadet left her tent in admin bivouac one night to hit the latrine and took her M16A1 with her but forgot to take it back. The next morning, the company tore the site apart looking for it...only to discover it stuffed behind the seat of one of the support unit trucks. When it was all over with the cadet was sent home to be kicked out of the program and the truck's driver, now a former SPC4, was on his way to Leavenworth.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 3, 2008 3:57:23 GMT -5
The type of ammunition isn't a problem. There were two types available to the Texians; solid roundshot, and canister; which could be actual (ie; copper or iron balls packed in a tin canister) or improvised; say musket balls, sewn into a cloth bag. Well, we Texans sometimes use langrage (junk shot) in a pinch, but I don't know if they did so at the Alamo.
|
|
|
Post by steves on Apr 3, 2008 15:39:49 GMT -5
The type of ammunition isn't a problem. There were two types available to the Texians; solid roundshot, and canister; which could be actual (ie; copper or iron balls packed in a tin canister) or improvised; say musket balls, sewn into a cloth bag. Well, we Texans sometimes use langrage (junk shot) in a pinch, but I don't know if they did so at the Alamo. Have a vague memory double canister wasn't unknown........would make sense when you know every shot has to count Steve
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 4, 2008 11:38:23 GMT -5
Or worse. Much, much worse. When I was at ROTC Advanced Camp at Ft. Lewis in 1985, a cadet left her tent in admin bivouac one night to hit the latrine and took her M16A1 with her but forgot to take it back. The next morning, the company tore the site apart looking for it...only to discover it stuffed behind the seat of one of the support unit trucks. When it was all over with the cadet was sent home to be kicked out of the program and the truck's driver, now a former SPC4, was on his way to Leavenworth. True, there are always worse scenarios. I wonder if anyone in history has ever been executed for loosing their rifle with their own weapon. It sounds like a bizarre movie plot, so probably not.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Apr 4, 2008 18:16:58 GMT -5
But why assume this turn-around would have been a knee-jerk reaction to a break-in? Perhaps one cannon was turned around late in the siege or even rolled down the ramp to cover the entrance. I mean, these guys must have made some preparations for a rout.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Apr 5, 2008 3:03:44 GMT -5
Packed a bag?
|
|