|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 8, 2007 11:12:05 GMT -5
Stuart comments though, that the outward thrust of the lunette provided the closest vantage point for the attackers (at least I think that's what he is proposing), but this is contingent on where Morales was staged before the assault, and I don't think we know that. If staged to the immediate south, or La Villita, the lunette may have been in his direct path, but if he was staged to the SW, that wouldn't necessarily be so. I think the stone house provided cover, more so than the lunette would have, but all this may be moot as well since I doubt the southern end o0f the fort was heavily manned, if at all, when the attack began. I also feel that the lunette area, once breached, would have left the soldados in much the same fix as if they'd entered through the palisade: they'd have been boxed in, and targets for whomever was on the south wall or SW corner firing down on them. Maybe Mark can give us some idea about fields of fire from that vantage point. I envision the SW corner to be considerably higher than the lunette, thus anyone holding that position would have the advantage. Stuart's interpretation of Filisola's remark about Morales' "daring move" leads him to speculate that taking the gate first may have been that 'bold move'. Filisola though, is very clear that Morales and Minon were at the SW position when they assaulted the area: "At the same time, to the South Colonels Jose Minon and Juan Morales with their columns skillfully took advantage offered by some small jacales with walls of stone and mud which were next to the angle corresponding to the West. By a daring move they seized the cannon which was placed on a platform, as were all the others in the enclosure." It seems to me that if they attacked the lunette first, they would have had to bypass the SW corner on their way to do so, thus exposing themselves to what fire there was. As Stuart has pointed out, we both agree that Morales' move at the south may have been the key to the entire assault. We both know we're splitting hairs about how this occurred, but that's what keeps this interesting (at least to us obsessive types!). Jim
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 8, 2007 11:43:43 GMT -5
From someone who really appreciated Ed's presentation a couple of years ago, I'm glad to see him join the fray at the South Wall! I've missed this source, too, about Morales being repulsed at the Main Gate. Although it makes sense, with what we do know. If, Morales was repulsed at the Main Gate, regrouped at the stone building, and then captured the SW corner and thus the Main Gate from the rear, Filisola's "daring move" makes a lot of sense. To me Filisola's statement: "At the same time, to the South Colonels Jose Minon and Juan Morales with their columns skillfully took advantage offered by some small jacales with walls of stone and mud which were next to the angle corresponding to the West. By a daring move they seized the cannon which was placed on a platform, as were all the others in the enclosure." clearly depicts an action starting from the SW and entering the compound by capturing the SW cannon platform, first. DLP's claim of seeing the men take cover in the ditch, in my mind, supports them coming from the SW and expanding out. Where if they came in through the Main Gate it would seem to me, he'd see them clearing the Low Barracks, and if taking cover, hiding behind the cannon position toward the south center of the compound that was focused on the Main Gate. Still, to me, if what Ed says happened, as a prequel to these events, it clarifies this action.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jul 8, 2007 14:21:48 GMT -5
In recreating the 1/48 scale Alamo model recently, I used all of the latest, as well as the previously known data. Most of it came from consultations with Jake Ivey, as well as his manuscript, which includes some absolutely crucial suryey information . One fact jumped out at me while building the south wall section, and Gary Foreman while photographing it immediately saw the same thing. That is, the lunette had a "blind spot," on the soutwest quarter, or angle. Guns were positioned to fire south, and east, but only the lunette gate faced to the west. This "fault" was supposedly covered by the 18 pounder, but here another serious problem for the defenders emerges. The Charli house situated outside the compound's SW corner, was a subsantial stone house, and could not be torn down, burned or destroyed as could the jacales in the area. So here, only 37 feet to the southwest was a strong, and fairly large position which provided both cover and concealment from fire from the 18 pounder. I can't speak for Morales, but if I was commanding the cazadores, and had any opportunity at all to survey the ground over which I was to attack, I'd make a bee-line for this house, and wait for the first or the best opportunity to dash for the SW salient. The distance is so short it would have taken literally 3 or 4 seconds at most to cover it. While waiting at this point, they would have been safe from any artillery fire fron the lunette, and could have just waited for their time to make the final dash.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 8, 2007 14:25:49 GMT -5
Please, tell me more about the lunette gate that faced west! Jim
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Jul 8, 2007 15:17:30 GMT -5
[Guns were positioned to fire south, and east, but only the lunette gate faced to the west. This "fault" was supposedly covered by the 18 pounder, but here another serious problem for the defenders emerges.]
Please keep in mind that the guns in question, though "positioned to fire south and east," still were able to be quickly repositioned (albeit slightly due to the confines of the lunette) within an approximate 45-degree radius (and assuming that a gun crew of at least four men were there to service it). Whether they were repositioned is another speculative matter. The Alamo, of course, was never designed to be a fort. Hence, its inherent weakness and vulnerability to a well-armed and determined antagonist.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jul 8, 2007 15:50:29 GMT -5
[ Guns were positioned to fire south, and east, but only the lunette gate faced to the west. This "fault" was supposedly covered by the 18 pounder, but here another serious problem for the defenders emerges.]Please keep in mind that the guns in question, though "positioned to fire south and east," still were able to be quickly repositioned (albeit slightly due to the confines of the lunette) within an approximate 45-degree radius (and assuming that a gun crew of at least four men were there to service it). Whether they were repositioned is another speculative matter. The Alamo, of course, was never designed to be a fort. Hence, its inherent weakness and vulnerability to a well-armed and determined antagonist. The southern lunette gun firing through an embrasure (believed to be a six-pounder) even when traversed the maximum distance to the right, or to the southwest, would still miss the southeast corner of the Charli house by some 90+ feet (30+ yards), so the Charli house still presented a golden opportunity to any attacking force in the sector. No doubt the Mexicans would have, if they had had time to complete the defenses of the Alamo in 1835, demolished this house to clear the field of fire for the 18-pounder.
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Jul 8, 2007 18:14:24 GMT -5
[ Guns were positioned to fire south, and east, but only the lunette gate faced to the west. This "fault" was supposedly covered by the 18 pounder, but here another serious problem for the defenders emerges.]Please keep in mind that the guns in question, though "positioned to fire south and east," still were able to be quickly repositioned (albeit slightly due to the confines of the lunette) within an approximate 45-degree radius (and assuming that a gun crew of at least four men were there to service it). Whether they were repositioned is another speculative matter. The Alamo, of course, was never designed to be a fort. Hence, its inherent weakness and vulnerability to a well-armed and determined antagonist. The southern lunette gun firing through an embrasure (believed to be a six-pounder) even when traversed the maximum distance to the right, or to the southwest, would still miss the southeast corner of the Charli house by some 90+ feet (30+ yards), so the Charli house still presented a golden opportunity to any attacking force in the sector. No doubt the Mexicans would have, if they had had time to complete the defenses of the Alamo in 1835, demolished this house to clear the field of fire for the 18-pounder. Good point, Mark, but my observations did not necessarily focus on the house but on the impact of any group of men approaching between the southeast corner of the house and the possible firing range of a turned (to the right) southern lunette gun.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jul 8, 2007 18:40:32 GMT -5
While there is no perfect, no-risk way to assault a fortification, there is, in the case of Morales' options, a route by which he could, and did, reduce this risk. The houses, both jacale and stone, afforded him cover for much of the way to the southwest corner of the Alamo's walls. And if his men were, however briefly, exposed to fire from one of the lunette's guns, this was certainly better than attacking "straight up the pipe" as it were, from the south, or the southeast, which would have exposed them much longer to this fire. Any infantry commander worth the title would see these houses as the way to go. Sure, for a very short time the men would be exposed to possible fire from the lunette, but ONLY for a brief time. Any other route would expose his men for a much longer period of time to this fire. This method had the added bonus of shielding his men from fire from the 18-pounder, especially if they made it as close as the Charli house, at which point the barrel of the 18-pounder could not be depressed enough to strike the western edge of the Charli house any lower than about 8 feet high. Of course, this is "close enough" when langrage is used, but the defenders would have probably had time to get off only one shot, before the Mexicans dashed in and were upon them.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 8, 2007 19:43:42 GMT -5
Mark, how high do you think the walls were at the SW corner, and how high was the lunette? I'm curious, as both the "low wall" and the palisade were considerably higher than I'd imagined. Jim
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jul 8, 2007 19:59:57 GMT -5
Mark, how high do you think the walls were at the SW corner, and how high was the lunette? I'm curious, as both the "low wall" and the palisade were considerably higher than I'd imagined. Jim Jim, The walls of the old Charli carpenter shop (at the southwest corner) upon which the 18-pounder was emplaced, were right at about 12 feet high. The actual firing platform was about 10 feet high, meaning that the platform had a small "parapet" of 2 feet. This low parapet allowed the gun to fire "en barbette," or over the top of the walls, which in turn allowed a great arc of fire from this gun. The lunette was in the neighborhood of 7 or 8 feet high at the top of its earthen parapet, with another three feet or so of palisade extending its height to about 10 or 11 feet. The SW corner, being almost the same height, did not really command the lunette, but it was possible that the 18-pounder could be trained on a portion of the lunette.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 8, 2007 20:58:22 GMT -5
I had never imagined the lunette as being this high. Maybe it's from all the artistic renderings and cinematic depictions, but I'd always imagined it as relatively low ground in relation to the rest of the south end. How did the design enable firing small arms, or were the men exposed as at the northern wall? Jim
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jul 8, 2007 23:01:50 GMT -5
I had never imagined the lunette as being this high. Maybe it's from all the artistic renderings and cinematic depictions, but I'd always imagined it as relatively low ground in relation to the rest of the south end. How did the design enable firing small arms, or were the men exposed as at the northern wall? Jim The ditch dug around the lunette gives us a clue as to its height. The ditch was about 10 feet wide and 5 feet deep, allowing a huge amount of earth to come from it. The earth around the lunette was not 7 or 8 feet tall in its entirety, but rather was this height at the highest point, with a face, or glacis with a definite downward slope. The palisade allowed men standing behind it on a low firing step to fire through loopholes between the palisades.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 9, 2007 1:07:50 GMT -5
I think its also worth observing that none of the guns in the Alamo were pivot mounted. Generally speaking they would only have a fairly restricted arc of fire, especially if they were firing through embrasures. If its firing en barbette there's more scope to spike it around in a different direction, but its going to take time, which to judge from the apparent speed of Morales assault - whether he took out the SW gun position or the western side of the lunette - is a luxury they didn't have. Remember Mark's entirely reasonable estimate of the time needed to cover the ground between the Charli house and the wall; that just isn't time to (wake up?) identify the threat and turn the gun around before he and his men are under ans starting to climb the wall
|
|
|
Post by edubravsky on Jul 9, 2007 19:24:21 GMT -5
I based my conclusions on the following accounts. Fillisola: "...Morales with their columns skillfully took advantage offered by some small jacales with walls of stone and mud which were next to the angle corresponding to the west. By a daring move they seized the cannon which was placed on a platform...They made their way into the fortified area of the quarters, assiting the efforts of General Amador." Caro: when discussing the action at the south wall said "the resistance was equally stubborn". Potter: (Although not always entirely accurate, he did interview many Mexican participants) "The column ...was at first repulsed, and then took refuge among some old houses outside of the barrier, near its south-west angle, till it was rallied and led on..." The Mexican participant who sent a letter to El Mosquito Mexicano stated that all the columns entered the Alamo at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 9, 2007 19:30:28 GMT -5
Thanks, Ed. Potter continues to add to the contoversy, doesn't he? Jim
|
|