|
Post by stough on Sept 29, 2010 18:15:50 GMT -5
God dog, this has unleashed a $hit$torm of interest. LOL. Ok, so. I think I'm leaning towards the “deploy to line from column” theory. ( in the sense of, that's what they did- not what they should have done) However, to answer the question of “why I would have used column at the Alamo?”. I would have (with the obvious clarity of hindsight) used my units like Forrest did at Fort Pillow. My light troops (plus a company or two of line) would have fired on the wall to keep their heads down, while my column (three companies wide two companies thick) would have made a bee line for the fort. Once there, it's up and over, using the backs of the soldiers in the front ranks and whatever ladders and hand holds were available. Once they are over in force- game over. I would not have had my guys hanging out and engaging in a fire fight in line formation in conditions where their concealment was poorer than the enemy. No matter that I had the numbers. They aren't going to win by out shooting the enemy; they are going to win by closing with and destroying the enemy; by turning his formation into a mob. Which won't happen until their wall is pierced in force. The key is speed and mass, which is why I would have used column (with light support of course). On the other hand, maybe hanging out in line, and banging away until the defenders rate of fire decreased enough to allow an assault was the way to go. As to the French use of light infantry tactics, my most helpful sources right now are Gates' history of the Napoleonic Wars (especially his chapter on the Prussian Campaign) and Haythornthwaits Napoleonic Source book. I cite these not to show off, but to let you know where I’m getting most of my info from. Feel free to suggest any reading on the role of Formations and tactics in the French Infantry in Revolutionary/Napoleonic warfare. My main point in bringing up the Indian fighting style was that the American Revolution and French and Indian Wars were highly influential in the development of light infantry tactics in France and therefore the rest of Europe. I also think that the references to Waterloo and the Peninsular, may be somewhat out of place; as the fighting in Spain and at Waterloo are the exceptions rather than the rule for Napoleonic combat. I am glad we are focusing on the tactics of the French, as I think these are the tactics that would most apply to the Mexican Army at the Alamo. Although I am a huge fan of Rommel and Liddel Harts books, I believe they owe more to Hutiers tactics in WWI than to the events at the Alamo. Back to the original argument. If Cos' column approached from the North, then maneuvered to the west, my argument is moot. I am still curious as to how long a front these line formations covered. 6 1/2 Yards per company? (40 guys divided by 3= 13 guys wide; 2 guys per yard? X 3 companies; giving Cos a front of 40 yards?)
|
|
|
Post by stough on Sept 29, 2010 18:33:32 GMT -5
As to Santa Anna¡¦s overall plan. I would expect that he thought all the assault groups (dodged that column word ƒº) would be successful. However, based of the numbers of the units used, the types of units used, where his reserve was posted, not to mention the ladders distributed; all point to Santa Anna expecting the breakthrough to be to the North. (and if Chieftans assertion about the posting of Sesma¡¦s cavalry is correct, then this would support the North Wall as being the primary objective as well)
I also agree with Stuarts assertion that the Light infantries main objective was to fix the enemy. This is what I think they were trying to achieve on the south end. I believe their secondary mission was to assault the sw corner.
Just looking at the Alamo Map(s), the last wall I would want to assault would have been the South wall- that thing looks nasty. To heck with assaulting the Mission and palisade too. I¡¦d defiantly go for the North wall and the corners of the North wall. Primarily because the frontage was smaller; less guys could shoot at my guys.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Sept 29, 2010 19:05:14 GMT -5
Stough: Three companies wide even though they are two deep is a line not a column. Even though the three groupings of two companies in depth may be in column, the overall formation is a deployed line. The end result is that you have a line two ranks deep.
|
|
|
Post by stough on Sept 29, 2010 19:12:37 GMT -5
I keep rereading these posts and I think we primarily agree on what we are discussing with regards to light infantry.
One other thing. Is it possible that the Talouca battalion was in column? Pena’s assertion of that artillery blast taking out half a company would seem to support this idea.
By column, I am thinking of a company of 35-40 soldiers, 8-9 guys wide, 4-5 ranks deep.
By line, I am thinking of a company of 35-40 soldiers, 12-13 guys wide, 3 ranks deep.
The primary question on these formations would be how many companies are deployed on the front line.
|
|
|
Post by stough on Sept 29, 2010 19:15:50 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure that the would be three deep, if in line. The British used two lines I believe, the French three. These guys liked the French. Could be wrong though.
|
|
|
Post by stough on Sept 29, 2010 19:23:58 GMT -5
I mention this, because the larger a firing line, the longer the frontage and the less room you would have going against that North wall.
And it has to be three companies for the both of them; any more and you start running out of room.
A two rank line of three companies is going to be 100 feet long. Combine that with Duque and you've just about covered the North wall from end to end, which doesn't leave much room for Romero.
On the other hand, maybe this is why Cos had to push over?
What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Sept 29, 2010 19:34:38 GMT -5
Stough: Agree with your point on Rommel. Liddell-Hart's book was cited in a somewhat different context and reason, the theory of the indirect approach and its relationship with what he termed the expanding torrent. His contribution was melding the two together.
It was actually Wolfpack's post about the cavalry. The documentary evidence as to their location and subsequent employment is rock solid.
I agree that all signs point to the main attack being in the north. The position of the reserve alone greatly supports conventional wisdom. Like I said I would have loved to be a fly on the wall at the pre-assault orders group and been privy to Santa Anna's reasoning and intent. Sometimes that intent is not adequately conceived by the written word.
I just continue to wonder why he allocated three companies of his best troops to an effort to seize this position if the only intention was to raise enough ruckus to pin any defenders that were there to assist the northern effort. In fact the seizure of the 18 pounder and the gate would certainly be beneficial to the northern effort but not critical. I guess a lot depends on where the assault on the southwest corner fits in time and sequence.
Don't think that the south side of the perimeter holds any special challenge. The entire side need not have been, nor was it, assaulted. They did their recon, probably with the recon in force on the 25th, determined the most vulnerable point, the southwest corner, and come 6 March did the job. I suspect, and will see if I can find any info on it that it was done with very few casualties.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Sept 29, 2010 20:02:01 GMT -5
Stough: It is not a matter of what I think about how Cos maneuvered. It is a matter of what Sanchez says about how he maneuvered. It is too bad that you have neither Nelson or Hansen. Admittedly I had to look a couple of times to fully grasp his graphics, but it's all there.
Toluca: I am not exactly sure where they were as part of the north wall group. That group's ORBAT lists Toluca with six line companies and a light company, along with San Luis with 3 line companies One could assume from this that the north group followed the same basic tactical formation as Cos (a subdivision of three groups with two up one back). The unit that was hardest hit could have been in one of the two front sub- groups. It could just as easily been to the rear and centered on the two leaders. Just as easily the Toluca could have been hit while still in column before final deployment into line.
The answer here is elusive for it all depends on when the guns that decimated them were fired. If they were fired early it would suggest that they may still be in column. If they were a little delayed in firing, that could mean they were in their final assault formation, but before the leading ranks reached the wall. If it was fired late that could mean that the two forward groups had reached the wall and were under the guns and an unfortunate detachment of the Toluca Battalion was in the reserve rank and received the brunt of the fire.
That is what makes this stuff so fascinating, a thousand piece jigsaw puzzle with 200 pieces missing.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Sept 29, 2010 20:44:25 GMT -5
Stough: Reference Reply 45
The column formation does not automatically create mass. In fact it may do just the opposite. No one is suggesting that because Cos or anyone else was in a line formation that he stood outside the walls and engaged in a stand up fire fight with the defenders.
Put yourself in the role of the defender of Cos' objective. Allocate yourself 10 men. Cos is coming at you in a column of squads (6 men approx) or platoons (20 men approx). His formation is massed but he has failed to achieve mass. Your ten against his six or twenty, with you higher and with some cover which gives you certain advantages. You have a good chance of breaking those first ranks and causing the attacker to fall back upon himself.
Now give yourself the same ten men, with the same area to defend, and he comes at you as he did with sixty to eighty man fronts. Different story. He has created overwhelming mass from a line formation at the decisive place and time and you are toast
Also don't presume that the attackers were that exposed and the defenders shielded. Check out BMNT (Beginning Morning Nautical Twilight) on Google. Santa Anna chose the time for the assault for a reason, and that reason was not only because it was dark. He could have assaulted at one in the morning. It was dark then too. The Google definition is better and more complete than any I could give you.
|
|
|
Post by stough on Sept 29, 2010 21:57:41 GMT -5
Chieftan @ 7:30- Well said. One of the benefits I was hoping to get from this boards was a better idea of what the attack and positioning looked like. You guys are coming through with aces all around. It is curious as to why he would use these troops as he did and to what his intent was. And who was really the man behind the idea for that matter. My guess is that they were to do what they did. Pin them down and pierce that corner.
|
|
|
Post by stough on Sept 29, 2010 22:19:01 GMT -5
Chieftan @ 52- Again well said
Chieftan @53- Without a doubt the defenders gave off a silhouette.
My main point was that it moves faster. The bottom line was they had to get over that wall. To my mind there were only two ways to do it. 1) Wear them down with fire and then go over or 2) Pin them down with fire and go over fast. Am I wrong in thinking that you favor #1, while I favor #2 as far as the North wall goes?
Certainly well directed fire could have made that wall untenable. However, I keep thinking of Travis’ death. Single shot to the head- not riddled with bullets. This seems like he’s leaning over; which implies he’s more concerned with the troops at the base of the wall then a firing line.
As to their formation, or how that formation looked, I think we could rule out some possibilities based on the frontage available (243’9 feet?). Compare that with how much space deploying in line would take and we can corroborate the information available. Is this a silly idea?
Also, I still have a hard time letting go of the idea that they bumbled about once or twice before they got it together and finally made a concerted effort to get over that wall. The Sanchez map (that I can see- on Wiki) seems to support that view.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Sept 29, 2010 22:28:35 GMT -5
stough: When the Alamo needs storming again, and the Mexican government greatly blunders and puts me in command, I am going to put it in my post battle memoirs that my real intention was to quickly overcome the southwest corner and attack the north wall from the rear, and the massed attack to the north was one great big attention getting gotcha. I even further fooled you as to my intent by placing my reserve in the north so you would be convinced my main effort would be there. I would further state that I am not responsible for any misconceptions that historians and others have about my intentions based upon the completely irresponsible conduct of Juan (Can't Write A Clear Operations Order) Amador JR.
Until then I will content myself with conventional wisdom and announce to all concerned that my concerns about the mission of those assaulting the southwest corner are groundless and without merit.
And the Republic of Texas is once again saved from my wrath.
|
|
|
Post by stough on Sept 29, 2010 22:35:15 GMT -5
Off toipic: Nice to meet you guys. 1)I"m a 46 year old 7th Grade teacher (Been teaching for 11 years; my second year teaching Texas History- still learning it). 2) have a history degree; focussed on military history 3) Did a two year hitch in the army from 94-96. 1/16 1st Division; mechanized infantry 4) Working on building a scale replica of the alamo and its attackers/defenders with my 7th grade students. Second year we worked on it. Last year we go t the building done and painted 900 Mexican soldiars and all the defenders. This year we are painting about 700 more Mexican soldiars and redoing the building that can be improved. Yes, it's a blast and they love it. The intent is to get it set up and then mark it like a crime scene and enable them to use the modle and the primary sources to tell the story. 5) Going to the Alamo this staturday- I live in Austin 6) Just ordered Hanson's book- it should be here by the 22nd.
|
|
|
Post by stough on Sept 29, 2010 22:37:11 GMT -5
Typing without spell check= misery.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Sept 29, 2010 22:58:19 GMT -5
Stough: I feel your pain about spelling. Once you post and your post comes up hit the modify button. Spell check is available to you there. Then just go ahead and edit.
If you got to be one, be a BIG RED ONE.
Also get Nelson's "The Alamo An Illustrated History" along with Huffines "Blood of Noble Men" In my view all three are essential. Both of the last two will help you with your modeling efforts, and both should be available at the Alamo gift shop. San Jose also has Nelson. Can't remember seeing Alan's work there.
Would like to see some in progress photos of the model. You have probably found with this as I have with my ship models that research time to building time is a 90-10 proposition.
|
|