|
Post by Herb on Nov 4, 2013 1:14:52 GMT -5
Light is a factor, and we just don't have a good handle on what the exact conditions were. We know the phase of the moon, we know the effects of BMNT, but we don't know how much the cloud cover effected things. Given the phase of the moon, even with a cloudy sky - it in all probability wasn't black except looking straight down from the walls, and at the FAR horizon ie beyond musket and canister range.
Far more telling is the simple fact that the garrison was caught by surprise and doesn't appear to have made any preparation for an attack during limited visibility.
It is impossible for the number of men that Santa Anna deployed that close to the garrison not to make significant noise.
Santa Anna had the numbers, had a decent plan, but more importantly he understood and used the routine that the garrison had fallen into and literally caught them sleeping.
An awake and alert force could have made a huge difference.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Nov 4, 2013 3:41:56 GMT -5
I have often wondered about the noise factor. You bring up a good point. I've sat on the walls at the Waynamo at night back in the sixties (when I could hear) and it was absolutely amazing. I could hear people talking down at Alamo Village. I could hear a car come over the rise about ten miles north and continue to hear it as it came past the ranch and was nearly in Brackettville, six miles south! It's so quiet that sounds echo even though everything is flat! Yes, those fellas would have had to be unrealistically quiet for an alert garrison not to hear them from 200 yards away.
The scene in JLH's The Alamo where Billy Bob Crockett is just drifting off to sleep and yet he is awakened by the not-all-that-loud death rattle of the bayoneted outpost on the far side of the Alamo with walls in between seems very real to me in this regard.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Nov 4, 2013 19:52:56 GMT -5
"Outposts" the modern term is LP/OP for "LISTENING" Post/Observation Post. As you said sound at night is seemingly magnified.
This is really pretty simple. The problem is even the simple things are hard in combat. Basic Human nature (the desire for warmth, shelter, sleep - the basic comforts) and the desire for the calming effect of routine will conquer the POTENTIAL threat of death.
After only a couple of days of potential threat, people will grow complacent and will seek shelter out of the cold wind while on guard, daydream and even sleep. It takes active and aggressive leadership, to get people to do the unpleasant things (and educate them why) necessary to keep them alive.
It isn't because we know what happened, that makes me harp on the unpreparedness of the garrison to repel a limited visibility attack, it is simply the greatest threat and should have been prepared for. A few guards could observe the Mexican Army massing for an attack and alert the garrison during DAYLIGHT.
However, at night the possibility of the Mexican Army massing undetected much closer to the fortifications is obviously so much greater. The requirement for more men manning their posts, more LPs/OPs and aggressive patrolling is self-apparent. As is the requirement for key leaders being up, inspecting, checking, encouraging and sharing the hardships.
|
|
|
Post by estebans on Nov 5, 2013 7:00:43 GMT -5
I'm sure the moon's phase was one of the reasons Santa Anna's staff objected to assaulting so soon--to me, that was a lot of moon, and they were very lucky with the cloud cover. I think we get anachronistic due to light pollution--that "opaque light" through the clouds would put a glow on the terrain, against which the dark masses of the columns would show up, once they stood up. Dark blue uniform elements are pretty easy to spot against winter grass and bushes, especially massed in a column; isn't gray the toughest color, so dirty white campaign fatigues would be tougher? Would newly-sharpened bayonets and swords glint more than usual that morning? Would officers have made the men take some sand and polish metal elements like buckles and badges and buttons while waiting out the siege? I think there were things out there that would be visible enough if your eyes were used to that light.
The latter points up what Herb has been saying: You got to be on station in time for your eyes to get used to it. I believe he's said the defenders should have been standing to an hour before dawn each and every morning if they were under siege. Even if that hadn't been done, if they halt the barrage one night, you really had better stand to nice and early the next morning. And if the defenders are on the walls at that point, and have got the alert listening posts that Herb would have, they know something's up out there, and need only wait to get a general visual bearing on the column that's their business.
Because it seems to me that if you are firing at a column, there is sort of a rectangle framing the head and whatever of the flank is visible from your angle, and all you have to do is get your projectile into that box and you have a real good chance of harming someone. I think wanting a lot of visibility isn't taking this factor into account: If you can hit a person in daylight at 200 yards with your rifle, I bet you can hit that box at night at that distance. You can probably get a smoothbore into that box at longer ranges than you would try for hitting a single person in daylight. Round shot tears the column up real well if the cannon can put it into the box, and I agree with Herb that's the weapon that would do most of the work--but the rifles could help effectively, especially at longer ranges than the Mexicans would expect: The rifles would score routinely, while return musket fire from the column would score only sporadically, and maybe not until they were in canister range--the primary danger would be from Mexican skirmishers with rifles, and better-protected firing positions were in order for the defenders to help cope with that, and maybe a specific reaction team on each quadrant.
I don't know what kind of artificial lighting assist would work--at the initial long range, it doesn't take much to bring out glints on metal, and once the firing starts, you've got plenty of flashes to establish your bearings to line up on that box I mentioned. Maybe that box even lets you fire your piece with your eyes closed, until they get close enough that you're out to pick off officers. And it occurred to me that if it gets light quickly at that hour of the morning, then every time you've reloaded and look out there again, you can see a little better, and that speeds up the closer to dawn it gets. And as damaging the column tends to slow its progress down, you create more time to get your shots in before they're near the wall. Again, consider what happened with the Toluca Battalion, which sounds to me as though it were the only one to get hit as solidly as it should have been.
All, as Herb said, hinging on getting the proper warning they should have had but did not get. And I guess I'm adding Santa Anna's preference for attacking in column.
It might be an interesting exercise to make a banner-type image of the head of a column and set it up out in the country at night in winter with a similar gibbous moon and see how it looks with and without cloud cover, and how well you can hit it from your perch. Probably a long-running exercise if you are also trying to get the same moon phase in the same sign at a similar declination with similar cloud cover, but I'd wanna see what it looked like without clouds too. It seems like a factor that could actually be tested by someone with a plethora of patience. If the Mexican troops really were ordered to lie down for several hours in advance, that suggests that visibility, especially to cannon, was a concern even with the cloud cover. The rifle fire would have been a nasty addition to that, although I just heard someone claim there probably weren't really that many rifles in the Alamo, maybe 25% max.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Nov 5, 2013 9:02:35 GMT -5
Had a lot of experience in night operations, but it was ancient history. So a few years ago, I took my rifle out on a night with similar moon conditions (i live in the country so little light pollution). I could see clearly beyond 150 yards. Aiming the rifle was my only problem. As long as I was aiming at a distance or shooting up there was no problem. However, shooting down ie when the Mexicans reached the walls, it was impossible to aim. The blade sight disappears when pointed much below the horizontal. I don't know, but I think at about 25 yards or so, aimed fire from the walls would have been impossible.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Nov 5, 2013 14:45:19 GMT -5
Absolutely superb observations, both of you. These are all factors that could have contributed to those few moments. Alamo Village would be a wonderful site for such a study, as long as it is remembered that our Alamo faces east rather than west, thus probably suggesting being on the south wall for such a study. Alas, that area between the south wall and the village has a slight downhill pitch rather than up the valley, and that might make a difference, but it might be a very narrow one. Another variant might be that there are hills in the way of the sunrise, and much much closer than Powder House Hill (ridge) in San Antonio. This would reduce ground light from breaking dawn. John R. Knaggs, author of The Bagles are Silent in 1977 (one of my students at Penn State saw title on the spine of the book on my shelf and thought I was reading about Jewish food. ), spent a night at the Waynamo to get a feel for pre-dawn light, but without these fine details. His one comment that I remember was that he was making notes with a red pen and realized that he could see no color -- the writing looked black. To my knowledge, this is the extent to which someone has experimented with morning light at Alamo Village.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Nov 5, 2013 15:12:31 GMT -5
Since dawn light is a factor, perhaps a bit of information about the elevation of Powder House Hill would be helpful. At 2,200 yards from the Alamo, the Watch Tower and Powder House were still not on the highest point in that line, which was more than 400 yards beyond it. The Alamo apse is at 665 feet above sea level, the Powder House site is at 730 feet and the crest of the ridge behind it is at 742 feet. My model is on a flat ground plane with no elevations other than the structures, but we know that the Watch Tower was 30 feet high so we can look at the structure in the photos and assume that its base was 65 feet higher, or slightly more that twice as high as the structure. Add another third of its height and you have the hill's skyline as seen from the Alamo. That's how much horizon skylight would have been blocked. Not a lot. In the first picture, I illustrated the height of Powder House Hill and elevated the Watch Tower from these calculations. This would have been the view from the Alamo and the amount of daybreak blocked.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Nov 5, 2013 19:09:16 GMT -5
I think you all make good points and it's likely that Santa Anna was shrewd enough to take the darkness and early light into account for his battle plan. But overall, I think the main feature of his battle plan was concentration of force on the narrow flank of the North Wall. Given the size of the plaza, I figure he estimated the Texans could barely spare 50 men to defend it. The 1200 men of the three columns he sent against the North outnumbered the defenders more than 20 to 1. Add to that the Southern column, although small, could make enough racket to pin down many South Wall defenders so that few could leave to reinforce the North, even if they had the time to get there. Given that, adding in the semi-darkness, the moon and early sunrise, gave the Mexicans just about every advantage they would need to win. Since no one has really been able to determine what degree of darkness or light the battle was fought under, it's still speculation as to it effect on the battle. It keeps me interested.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Nov 5, 2013 19:09:50 GMT -5
I think you all make good points and it's likely that Santa Anna was shrewd enough to take the darkness and early light into account for his battle plan. But overall, I think the main feature of his battle plan was concentration of force on the narrow flank of the North Wall. Given the size of the plaza, I figure he estimated the Texans could barely spare 50 men to defend it. The 1200 men of the three columns he sent against the North outnumbered the defenders more than 20 to 1. Add to that the Southern column, although small, could make enough racket to pin down many South Wall defenders so that few could leave to reinforce the North, even if they had the time to get there. Given that, adding in the semi-darkness, the moon and early sunrise, gave the Mexicans just about every advantage they would need to win. Since no one has really been able to determine what degree of darkness or light the battle was fought under, it's still speculation as to it effect on the battle. It keeps me interested.
|
|