|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 12, 2007 17:45:14 GMT -5
Here is a closeup of the lunette on the model Mark displayed at the Symposium in march. Note the gate on the west side of the lunette.  Here is the full, smaller-scale model that Mark also displayed.  AW |
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 13, 2007 1:04:49 GMT -5
Thanks for posting that. The figures on the low barracks roof give an interesting perspective on scale and without re-opening the debate as to which way Morales went in it's pretty obvious just how weak this area actually was when he came knocking.
There couldn't have been much more than one or two riflemen on the SW position - otherwise they'd have gotten in the way of the gun crew. Mark and I have already spoken of the limitations of that gun in dealing with a sudden assault from the Charli house area.
Not too many on the roof of the Low Barracks either - I know the model figures are just indicative, but I can't see that many every making it up there after the alarm was sounded. The Lunette likewise; even if it was manned at night which I still doubt, there's not many can shoot on men coming from the Charli house and no evidence of a cannon being fired.
In short its pretty obvious that the Texians couldn't drop enough of Morales' men to stop him before he got either to the SW position or the lunette, and even allowing for having just two ladders not a lot they could do once he got there.
He was in fast
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 13, 2007 7:41:07 GMT -5
It would seem that with the overwhelming number of Mexican forces concentrated at the north end of the fort, and especially if the defenders were caught napping, most of them would have rushed to the north to meet that threat. Morales's relatively tiny force would not have drawn similar attention and it's possible that few defenders were there to stop him. He may have met very little opposition and gotten in quickly. He seems to have been in the fort by the time de la Pena got over the north wall.
AW
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jul 13, 2007 19:52:26 GMT -5
If the model gives a fair representation of how the guns in the lunette were positioned, the one pointing to the east wouldn't have been good for much except enfilading a force attacking the palisade the last few yards before they reached it. And, if there was an abatis in front of the palisade, as evidence seems to bear out, that cannon must've been pretty redundant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 21, 2007 17:57:59 GMT -5
Mark, I'm not clear on why you have shown the stockade of the lunette being as high as you do. It appears to be maybe twelve feet high on the inside. Where does this come from?
Also, you are showing the tambour as being smaller than I had envisioned it from the archeological evidence. It appears to have far less room inside -- maybe not enough for servicing and recoil of the two (or three?) cannons. What am I missing?
|
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jul 21, 2007 23:55:55 GMT -5
Mark, I'm not clear on why you have shown the stockade of the lunette being as high as you do. It appears to be maybe twelve feet high on the inside. Where does this come from? Also, you are showing the tambour as being smaller than I had envisioned it from the archeological evidence. It appears to have far less room inside -- maybe not enough for servicing and recoil of the two (or three?) cannons. What am I missing? Rich, You are correct. This model, being in 1/144 scale (meaning 1 inch equals 12 feet) is somewhat off in this regard. This is an awful tiny scale to work in, and this and a lack of detail were the principal reasons that I ditched it and started over in 1/48 scale. You will see (in the book) that the larger scale model is more accurate with regards to height and size. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 22, 2007 9:20:46 GMT -5
Yep, that's what I figured. Just checking.
|
|
