|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 21, 2007 13:27:38 GMT -5
I may be asking the wrong question (or perhaps it's already been answered), but to what extent did the flashes impair the vision of the guy doing the firing, especially in the darker period of the fighting? Closing one eye would spare that eye the effects of the flash, but wouldn't there be some vision impairment, at least for an immediate period?
Also - somewhat related -- how many rounds was a soldato likely to get off while charging the fort and then trying to mount the walls or gain entrance elsewhere? I'm wondering how much shooting was actually done before the Mexicans got into the fort.
AW
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Nov 21, 2007 14:02:27 GMT -5
If you don't close an eye you'll pretty much lose your night vision. I've been told that closing one eye preserves the night vision in that eye, but for me personally while the open eye is totally lost, the closed eye is still somewhat degraded. Your full night vision does seem to return faster if you close one eye. I can't give you any percentages or anything just personal experience with tank cannon.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Nov 21, 2007 14:15:31 GMT -5
Also - somewhat related -- how many rounds was a soldato likely to get off while charging the fort and then trying to mount the walls or gain entrance elsewhere? I'm wondering how much shooting was actually done before the Mexicans got into the fort. AW I don't think that there was any serious firing by the attacking soldatos until the attack stalled at the walls. Firing muskets by line companies were generally done at the halt. There have been various distances given for how far the Mexican Army was from the walls before they actually attacked. Within Pistol Shot, Musket Shot and 300 yards were all mentioned. (though the 300 yards seems the most probable to me). Stuart can probably give you the standard march times for a formation using the different rate of marches to reach the walls, but it's probably around 3 minutes or so without stopping to fire and reload.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 21, 2007 16:07:41 GMT -5
Three minutes sounds about right. I always prefer to be empirical about these things.
I have to disagree on the lighting effects though. In the first place closing one eye when shooting or when paralume goes up is one thing, but the amount of bright light produced by gunpowder weapons in the dark has to be seen to be believed. Its totally unlike modern weapons. Moreover as Bill rightly pointed out its random and more than a touch disorientating. There are individual musket flashes, there are volleys, there are cannon, usually uncontrolled and unpredicable; preserving might vision is the least of your worries. Bill also mentioned smoke - which gunpowder weapons produce in great quantities. In confined spaces like the Alamo plaza, let alone inside any of the structures this tends to hang about which obviously obscures things at the best of times, but in darkness and semi-darkness the flashes bounce off it rendering it even more opaque than usual.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 21, 2007 21:35:38 GMT -5
Like so much else that's emerged from discussions here, this casts the battle in a very different light (no pun intended) than we have been accustomed to thinking about. Certainly nothing like the movie renditions (save the 2004 version, which at least showed the night conditions, skyrockets and a lot of flashes).
This kind of vision impairment would only have added to whatever amount of confusion already existed, and I imagine it must have been considerable. The ability of officers to communicate, or even be seen, also must have been impaired. The battle may well have proceeded largely on individual initiative and how well prepared soldiers on either side were to understand and pursue objectives. And would Morales have had an easier time of it fighting with far fewer troops against a (presumably) small number of Texians at the south end, where there may have been less smoke or flashes? Just random thoughts from a novice at this stuff.
AW
AW
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Nov 22, 2007 10:48:36 GMT -5
Again, I don't think flash was much of a problem - imo, practically all of the battle took place in the gray of morning twilight, when night vision is irrelevant.
Powder Smoke, however, could be a vastly different story. As Stuart mentioned the walls would act to trap the smoke as would the cloud cover I forget the weather term (inversion?) created by clouds, but they generally hold smoke close to the ground instead of allowing it to rise and disperse.
However, the rising of the sun just beyond the horizon acts to heat the air and create pre sunrise breezes, which obviously would help dissipate the smoke. Despite this, if the battle was heated at all inside the compound, the smoke and shadows would have had significant impact.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Nov 22, 2007 11:33:28 GMT -5
Again, I don't think flash was much of a problem - imo, practically all of the battle took place in the gray of morning twilight, when night vision is irrelevant. Powder Smoke, however, could be a vastly different story. As Stuart mentioned the walls would act to trap the smoke as would the cloud cover I forget the weather term (inversion?) created by clouds, but they generally hold smoke close to the ground instead of allowing it to rise and disperse. However, the rising of the sun just beyond the horizon acts to heat the air and create pre sunrise breezes, which obviously would help dissipate the smoke. Despite this, if the battle was heated at all inside the compound, the smoke and shadows would have had significant impact. wolfpack, I think that you may have hit on a significant point, about the smoke. When I was in SERE (Survinal Evasion Resistance and Escape) School, many years ago, I remember a cooking method taught to us called, I think, a "Dakota Stove," which, when built properly, makes the smoke from your cooking fire lay close to the ground. You dig a fire pit a few feet deep, and go up about a foot from the botton, and dig a lateral flue about three feet long, then at the end of that 3 feet, make a 90 degree turn up towards the surface, where the smoke exits. You cover the actual fire pit, forcing the smoke to run through the channel, or flue. The smoke is cooled by the earth, so that when it emerges, it lays close to the ground. What I am getting at by all this is that, due to the very cold air that morning, I'm sure that the smoke hung very close to the ground, or at least about head high or a little higher. Mark
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Nov 22, 2007 13:45:19 GMT -5
Again, I don't think flash was much of a problem - imo, practically all of the battle took place in the gray of morning twilight, when night vision is irrelevant. Powder Smoke, however, could be a vastly different story. As Stuart mentioned the walls would act to trap the smoke as would the cloud cover I forget the weather term (inversion?) created by clouds, but they generally hold smoke close to the ground instead of allowing it to rise and disperse. However, the rising of the sun just beyond the horizon acts to heat the air and create pre sunrise breezes, which obviously would help dissipate the smoke. Despite this, if the battle was heated at all inside the compound, the smoke and shadows would have had significant impact. wolfpack, I think that you may have hit on a significant point, about the smoke. When I was in SERE (Survinal Evasion Resistance and Escape) School, many years ago, I remember a cooking method taught to us called, I think, a "Dakota Stove," which, when built properly, makes the smoke from your cooking fire lay close to the ground. You dig a fire pit a few feet deep, and go up about a foot from the botton, and dig a lateral flue about three feet long, then at the end of that 3 feet, make a 90 degree turn up towards the surface, where the smoke exits. You cover the actual fire pit, forcing the smoke to run through the channel, or flue. The smoke is cooled by the earth, so that when it emerges, it lays close to the ground. What I am getting at by all this is that, due to the very cold air that morning, I'm sure that the smoke hung very close to the ground, or at least about head high or a little higher. Mark Smoke of all kinds is most affected by wind (or the lack of it). With limited March 6 wind, combatants provided most of the "wind" via their respective movements as individuals and in groups. Temperature is not a major factor in the density of smoke; however, moisture is. Humidity, for example, is absorbed by smoke particles which, in turn, makes the smoke more dense. Humidity, though, was not a factor on March 6, 1836. The gunsmoke generated during the Battle of the Alamo was a hellish blend of blinding volleys, swirling cloud-like wisps, and near-choking patches of haze, especially for those firing from within closed rooms.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Nov 23, 2007 20:35:41 GMT -5
I didn't know we had so many weathermen on the forum. This information has been very insightful or shows the lack of sight on that hazy battleground of long ago.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 23, 2007 22:24:01 GMT -5
That's how I'm starting to see it -- a lot of confusion, poor visibility and unclear targets if the smoke built up enough and the Alamo walls acted to trap it. Would that sort of smoke cause eye irritation or choking?
AW
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 24, 2007 4:20:16 GMT -5
I don't recall eye irritation or actual choking, but powder smoke inside rooms can certainly be concentrated enough to cause coughing.
As those who've been there will also testify the sound amplification from gun-shots inside rooms has to be experienced to be believed - one reason why I'm a little inclined to deafness these days.
|
|