|
Bowie
Dec 2, 2011 4:11:10 GMT -5
Post by stuart on Dec 2, 2011 4:11:10 GMT -5
We're going a touch off-topic here, but there are in fact a fair few "gross" errors in the Sharpe books, perhaps the most important being that he assumes rifles and land pattern firelocks used compatable ammunition, when in fact the production Bakers were carbine bore.
As to loading speed it is possible to drop an unpatched ball straight down the barrel without ramming, but only if its a little undersized and certainly not if the barrel is already fouled with residue. In actuality the ramrod was necessary at all times and a mallet was supplied for hammering it in with a patched ball. Loading time was always slow and that was why riflemen were normally interlocked with ordinary light infantry.
As to the breakouts, I'm inclined to think that it would be very odd if nobody got away. Apart from the fact that Santa Anna referred in his official despatch to a few escaping, its worth bearing in mind just how many escaped from the Goliad massacre in far less favourable conditions; which would explain those survivors encountered on the Nacogdoches road and perhaps a few others besides.
|
|
|
Bowie
Dec 2, 2011 10:31:40 GMT -5
Post by Chuck T on Dec 2, 2011 10:31:40 GMT -5
Thanks Stuart. I did not know that.
|
|
|
Bowie
Dec 10, 2011 22:15:48 GMT -5
Post by tman56 on Dec 10, 2011 22:15:48 GMT -5
Chuck,
In addition to what Stuart noted, I'd add that the four rounds a minute for a smoothbore musket require using a paper cartridge with a premeasured powder charge, with the paper used for wadding. If you have to measure the powder for the shot, it slows you down. If you don't measure the powder charge, you run the risk of either having the ball drop short (if you undercharge), or of doing serious damage to your shoulder or even bursting the barrel (if you overcharge). As Stuart said, you can get an undersized ball down the barrel without ramming, but you have to hope and pray that the ball reaches the bottom of the barrel or you can burst the barrel.
If you have access the YouTube, there's a video of a redcoat getting off three rounds with a Bess in 46 seconds. The title of the video is Brown Bess Musket: Three Shots in 46 Seconds. If you've never seen this done, it might be interesting to you.
Terry Todish
|
|
|
Bowie
Dec 11, 2011 0:00:00 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 11, 2011 0:00:00 GMT -5
I saw a reenactor in Williamsburg get off at least 3 rounds in under a minute using paper cartridges, and he didn't look like he was hurrying.
|
|
|
Bowie
Dec 11, 2011 18:10:02 GMT -5
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 11, 2011 18:10:02 GMT -5
Shoot, in a minute, I wouldn't even be able to remember where I put the bullet?
|
|
|
Bowie
Dec 11, 2011 19:51:51 GMT -5
Post by Paul Sylvain on Dec 11, 2011 19:51:51 GMT -5
If you have access the YouTube, there's a video of a redcoat getting off three rounds with a Bess in 46 seconds. The title of the video is Brown Bess Musket: Three Shots in 46 Seconds. If you've never seen this done, it might be interesting to you. Terry Todish Thanks -- going there right now. Paul
|
|
|
Bowie
Dec 11, 2011 21:33:37 GMT -5
Post by estebans on Dec 11, 2011 21:33:37 GMT -5
I had seen that three-shot vid. Notice how he gets wrong-footed on the final shot somehow--was that just getting off-balance, or pulling the trigger a hair too soon, or a charging error that changed the recoil?
Must confess that when I watched that again, I couldn't help but follow it with the "firing the Lewis gun" video and wish the north wall had had just one of those . . . I gather from what Stuart and others have said that whatever tactical advantages the Texian rifles might have had were negated by darkness and the loss of pickets on the fateful morning, plus the math problem of simply not having enough riflemen to achieve the rate of fire needed to take full advantage of the rifle's accuracy. And all the specific counters that would maximize the defenders' effectiveness, all those seem like they would have required a degree of military discipline that nobody could have imposed on that garrison, not even Bowie, no matter how admired he was.
|
|
|
Bowie
Dec 11, 2011 22:51:21 GMT -5
Post by tman56 on Dec 11, 2011 22:51:21 GMT -5
I hadn't watched that video all the way through this time (I watched it a few months ago), and I forgot about that third round.
He made a big mistake. He's lucky he was firing blanks, or he could have hurt himself (or someone in the crowd) pretty badly. He had a hangfire, where the charge in the pan goes off, but then there's a delay before the charge in the barrel goes (this can happen for a variety of reasons). You always want to keep the firelock tight into to shoulder until the main charge goes off. Otherwise, it can jump, like the one in the video does.
There was a TV documentary a while back were they were live firing some flintlocks, and the guy firing a Bess didn't have it securely into his shoulder. It flew up into the air, and if his hand hadn't gotten hung up in the sling, it probably would have flown backward over his shoulder quite a distance. You could tell it was unplanned, and it was interesting and a good safety reminder.
|
|
|
Bowie
Dec 12, 2011 1:11:01 GMT -5
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 12, 2011 1:11:01 GMT -5
I gather from what Stuart and others have said that whatever tactical advantages the Texian rifles might have had were negated by darkness and the loss of pickets on the fateful morning, plus the math problem of simply not having enough riflemen to achieve the rate of fire needed to take full advantage of the rifle's accuracy. And all the specific counters that would maximize the defenders' effectiveness, all those seem like they would have required a degree of military discipline that nobody could have imposed on that garrison, not even Bowie, no matter how admired he was. I have even felt that Santa Anna's strategy on hitting mostly the north end was designed to turn these Texian disadvantages into Mexican victory. If you think of it, from the attackers' point of view, the north wall was backlighted. The sky was lightening to the southeast and "skylighting" the defenders on top, sometimes literally on top. From the defenders' point-of-view, they were looking down into a sea of darkness beyond the wall, which threw its own shadow from the increasing southeastern light. Each shot fired by a defender must have blinded him from the flashpan for quite some time. Basically, it wouldn't have mattered if he had a Pennsylvania rifle, a Brown Bess or a stick. All marksmanship advantage was lost.
|
|
|
Bowie
Dec 13, 2011 20:56:46 GMT -5
Post by Paul Sylvain on Dec 13, 2011 20:56:46 GMT -5
Rich, these are great observations that I never even thought about. Now you've got me thinking about the assault in a slightly different way.
Paul
|
|
|
Bowie
Dec 13, 2011 22:58:47 GMT -5
Post by sloanrodgers on Dec 13, 2011 22:58:47 GMT -5
Even before the rising of the sun, wasn't the moon full?
|
|
|
Bowie
Dec 14, 2011 0:13:17 GMT -5
Post by Herb on Dec 14, 2011 0:13:17 GMT -5
83% full. See the thread, "When did the attack begin"
|
|
|
Bowie
Dec 14, 2011 10:24:31 GMT -5
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 14, 2011 10:24:31 GMT -5
De la Pena noted that the moon was covered by clouds, which almost seemed in conjunction with the attack plan, as he recalled it. I think it was dark when the attack started and the effects Rich described likely took place. The rising sun in the east also played into Santa Anna's plan to station his cavalry in that direction, where they could mop up Texians who bolted from the fort. That was the most likely direction they would take if the bulk of the Mexican force was pressing down from the north. And, of course, the sun would be in their eyes, the Mexican cavalry backlit, and the Texians clear, lighted targets for them.
|
|
|
Bowie
Dec 14, 2011 16:54:53 GMT -5
Post by Hiram on Dec 14, 2011 16:54:53 GMT -5
83% full. See the thread, "When did the attack begin" On the subject, DLP writes "The moon was up, but the density of the clouds that covered it allowed only an opaque light in our direction, seeming thus to contribute to our designs."
According to USNO on 6 March 1836 @ longitude W98.5, latitude N29.4 (San Antonio) moon phase was waning gibbous with 87% of the Moon's visible disk illuminated.
Here's a link describing waning gibbous in some detail.
earthsky.org/moon-phases/waning-gibbous
|
|
|
Bowie
Dec 14, 2011 17:26:33 GMT -5
Post by sloanrodgers on Dec 14, 2011 17:26:33 GMT -5
83% full. See the thread, "When did the attack begin" I thought it was close. Thanks for the information, but the battle's moon phase isn't a big enough issue for me to look elsewhere. I just wanted to throw my question out there and meet my self-imposed quota for an occasional post. Sounds like it was partly cloudy with a chance of death anyway.
|
|