|
Post by elcolorado on May 28, 2008 12:28:07 GMT -5
I have to differ with you, Stuart. I can't say what books Travis read or didn't read but I do not believe he was all that knowledgeable in the art of siege warfare.
Travis, if you recall, was a lawyer turned (untrained) cavalry officer, not a professional soldier. He was sent to San Antonio to serve under Neill and not as commander of the Alamo. So I question his preparedness as well as his military knowledge.
I also recall reading somewhere (can't remember) the Alamo garrison observed the Mexicans in the wooded areas by the river constructing scaling ladders. If this is true, it would cast doubt on the theory that Travis was somehow expecting the Mexicans to open a breach in the outer walls before launching an attack.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 28, 2008 14:58:01 GMT -5
There is actually, as I suggested at the end of the post a significant difference here between Travis and Santa Anna. Travis was indeed an amateur, but one who very much fancied himself as a soldier and will therefore have been familiar through his romanticised reading with the theoretical punctilio of conducting a siege. Like most young officers he knew enough to be more dangerous to his men than to the enemy Santa Anna on the other hand, although its always been too easy to despise him (wrongly), was a real soldier and as such knew that what mattered was winning by whatever means...
|
|
|
Post by tmdreb on May 28, 2008 18:41:47 GMT -5
A typical day inside the walls probably went something like this, the bombardment commenced early in the morning, with the garrison, except for sentries, and absolutely necessary work parties, under cover ie in the buildings. The men would have worked at digging the ditches inside the buildings (shown by Sanchez-Navarro), filling the cowhide barricades at the doors, loopholing the walls, and other defensive measures that the could do under cover. In addition there would be an occasional sortie outside the east wall for firewood etc. Cooking, and eating meals and the other daily necessities and the occasional catnap. In the evening, when the Mexican bombardment ceased fire, would be when the garrison really came to life, and the most strenuous activities occurred. With the predominant activities being work parties repairing any damage done during the day's bombardment and extensive efforts to reinforce the walls, these work parties would have continued probably well after midnight, every night. Then the garrison would finally go to sleep, catching but three or four hours sleep before the whole mind numbing, claustrophobic routine repeated itself day after mind numbing day. So, this is pretty much the opposite of what we saw in the 2004 film. I do very much like that movie, but the scene of the Texians scrambled all over the walls making repairs in broad daylights while the Mexicans were generous enough to restrain themselves to merely adjusting their aim always bothered me.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on May 29, 2008 11:26:13 GMT -5
My guess is that the daylight-only bombardment by the Mexicans was not out of some humanitarian urge on their part to give the garrison some rest ( I know no one suggested this), but rather was due to their not wanting to unnecessarily waste shot and powder. In the daylight, the fall of each shot can, for the most part, be observed, and minor corrections be made by the gunners to their piece. At night, this cannot with reliability be done. So why not give the gunners some rest, and save on unecessary waste? I don't know how much powder, or how many shot and mortar shells the Mexicans brought with them, but I doubt that they had an unlimited supply.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on May 29, 2008 12:14:15 GMT -5
That sounds right, Mark.
By the 1850s, and probably before, there was a procedure for night firing at fixed targets. It was detailed in Instruction for Heavy Artillery, published by the U.S. War Department in 1851, and also repeated in U.S. field artillery manuals during the Civil War. The gun had to be on a wooden platform for the method to work. Long, wooden strips were nailed in parallel fashion, one to the inside of each wheel and one on each side of the trail. The target was zeroed in during the day, and the elevation of the piece was "saved" by measuring between fixed points on the barrel and the trail. Then, at night the piece was fired, using the wooden strips as references for the alignment of the gun.
However, after describing this procedure, the manual cautioned that night firing "should be limited to a small number of rounds, as it consumes ammunition to little advantage." (emphasis mine)
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 29, 2008 15:01:41 GMT -5
I wonder what the Mexican purposes were for the daytime bombardment. Since the big guns had not yet arrived, and the artillery that did have was not damaging the fort itself, was the purpose really to eventually effect a breach? Or, was it to keep the Texians stressed out all day? Of course, as was described earlier, once the heavier guns arrived they really did go about hammering the walls and Travis tells us that "every shot goes through." Thus, it was only a matter of time (a day or two perhaps) before a breach could have been made, but Santa Anna threw away the book and went for the night surprise attack. Of course, there is Glenn's point about the Mexicans constructing scaling ladders in plain sight of the Texians, tipping them off to the liklihood of an assault. Which brings me back to where we were about a year ago when we began speculating on how surprised the Texians were, how many were asleep in the barracks with no state of alert regarding a possible assault at any time.
AW
|
|
|
Post by TRK on May 29, 2008 19:27:16 GMT -5
Since the big guns had not yet arrived, and the artillery that did have was not damaging the fort itself, was the purpose really to eventually effect a breach? Or, was it to keep the Texians stressed out all day? Evidently, both, as well to enforce the perception that the Mexicans had the Texans cornered and were in charge. The Mexicans fired between 294 and 334 solid shot, up to 8-pdr in caliber, and those were probably for opening a breach, counterbattery fire, and doing general damage to perceived strong points in the compound. The 112 howitzer shells fired were for causing damage to living things in and outside of the compound, and any physical damage a lucky detonation might cause to the fortifications. Those 86 rounds of canister the Mexicans expended during the siege were most likely directed at any work, forage, and skirmishing parties that were out in the open and within range, or possibly any exposed defenders on the walls, as canister wasn't very effective at range or in indirect fire situations.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 30, 2008 0:49:15 GMT -5
Exactly... how can you have a siege without some sort of bombardment. After a while people are going to ask what the point of the gunners might be?
|
|
|
Post by stuart on May 30, 2008 0:54:48 GMT -5
Can anyone remind me where this story about the Texians seeing the Mexicans building their scaling ladders came from? It provided an ominous warning in the film, but Joe doesn't mention it and none of the other known survivors got out after Santa Anna took the decision to go.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on May 30, 2008 11:22:36 GMT -5
Can anyone remind me where this story about the Texians seeing the Mexicans building their scaling ladders came from? It provided an ominous warning in the film, but Joe doesn't mention it and none of the other known survivors got out after Santa Anna took the decision to go. I want to say Esparza, but I can't find it.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 30, 2008 15:18:34 GMT -5
Can anyone remind me where this story about the Texians seeing the Mexicans building their scaling ladders came from? It provided an ominous warning in the film, but Joe doesn't mention it and none of the other known survivors got out after Santa Anna took the decision to go. It's from Sutherland. You can find it in Hansen, page 152, second paragraph. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 30, 2008 20:18:44 GMT -5
But Sutherland wasn't there. Where did he get this story? It may be untrue and we are back to Travis and the defenders assuming they were in siege mode and would remain there until a breach was made or significant help arrived.
AW
|
|
|
Post by Herb on May 31, 2008 9:29:40 GMT -5
But Sutherland wasn't there. Where did he get this story? It may be untrue and we are back to Travis and the defenders assuming they were in siege mode and would remain there until a breach was made or significant help arrived. AW Yeah, I was thinking the same. Most of his source for what was going on inside the Alamo was JW Smith, but Smith left the night of March 3rd - so if this was the case, that means nothing had happened the two previous days before the 6th and any temporary extra alertness had been worn down by the same old routine. His other possible source would have been Dickinson, or possibly Joe, but I can't find mention anywhere from them.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 1, 2008 17:22:14 GMT -5
If they had clearly spotted the Mexicans constructing scaling ladders, in full view of the garrison, how dull would Travis had to have been to NOT maintain a lot sharper lookout and state of alert that night?
AW
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jun 2, 2008 0:47:07 GMT -5
It does seem a rather obvious point. Escalading a fortress out of hand wasn't unknown, we tried it at Fort Erie in 1813 and at Bergen op Zoom in 1814 (and on both occassions it went badly wrong), but surprise was absolutely essential and knocking up ladders in the open is rather inconsistent with that aim. In other words (a) the Mexicans wouldn't have contructed their ladders within sight of the garrison - after all with Bexar at their back they had both concealment, workshops and labour - and (b) if they had do so, the garrison would have been alerted.
I therefore come back to my earlier point that with no breach in the walls, Travis neither had cause to contemplate surrender nor an immediate apprehension of an assault - which is what Santa Annaill have been banking on, otherwise why do it?
|
|