if you could return to the Alamo with modern weapons. What would you like? For me a modern weapons platoon.

AC130 Gunship.

Modern artillery and tanks

A-10. Go ugly early.

To be dropped somewhere on the march through south Texas

quote:

---

To be dropped somewhere on the march through south Texas

---

Hell no. I want to be able to live here today.

Several Barrett .50 cal rifles and a couple thousands rounds

Couple of fully loaded AH-1's or AH-64's and a squad of scout snipers. Pop Santy Anna from afar, then toy with the rest of them as the hightailed it back to Old Mexico.

This is one of my favorite topics of conversation around the campfire at deer camp when the whiskey or scotch has been flowing and my father and his military buddies are in attendance. I know you guys will figure out the outcome when all branches are represented. It's a fun outcome.

Honestly? A single belt served 30 cal machine gun(probably a 1917 or a maxim is plenty) would have done it. The first time it opened up on an assaulting force, the Mexican army would have been wearing the collective brown pants. Limber that ****er on a light gun carriage and proceed to walk through the streets of SA raining hell.

That or the .338 edge my boss had built. At 1500yds, the first officers that started dropping with big holes in their heads probably would do it.

There actually was a (very badly written) alt-history book written about this a few years back. I can't remember the name. But the just was a small squad with fully auto M4's... and it changed the battle.

+1 on the AC

I really doubt it would take more than one standard infantry squad with 2 M249s, 2 M320/M203, 5 M4 carbines plus throw in an M240B team on top of the long barracks.

Similar line of thought:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Guns-South-Harry-Turtledove/dp/0345384687

quote:

---

January 1864--General Robert E. Lee faces defeat. The Army of Northern Virginia is ragged and ill-equpped. Gettysburg has broken the back of the Confederacy and decimated its manpower.
Then, Andries Rhoodie, a strange man with an unplaceable accent, approaches Lee with an extraordinary offer. Rhoodie demonstrates an amazing rifle: Its rate of fire is incredible, its lethal efficiency breathtaking--and Rhoodie guarantees unlimited quantitites to the Confederates.
The name of the weapon is the AK-47.

---

Spoilers:

The Rhoodie guy is a South African. They've discovered time travel, and decide that helping the south is the way to keep blacks "in their place" for their time. It doesn't work out like they expected, but it's been a while since I read it, and I don't recall exactly how.

This is the book...

Remember The Alamo

what if Santa Anna had had some of the above? How long does it take to get to DC in 1836?

He didn't; they didn't.

a more interesting question would be "what if Travis, the 26 year old blowhard lawyer from Alabama, had listened to all the local Tejanos who told him SA was on the march?" What could he have done different? He didn't have the livestock to haul all the artillery away and lacked the horses to mount the men, so he might have retreated to Gonzalez, been trapped by Mexican cavalry out on the prairie like Fannin was, and massacred there or surrendered and been shot like Fannin.

What happened in San Antonio may have been the best possible outcome for his command, especially from a historical memory standpoint.

The real tragedy of the Alamo and Goliad was the poisonous hatred for Mexicans which the outcomes mandated. All because one megalomaniacal narcissist general engaged in a little ethnic cleansing; which most of his command opposed. Had he starved out the Alamo, which would have taken a week more or less, and paroled the Goliad captives, a lot of the venom which anglo conquerors built up would not likely have happened.

quote:

---

The real tragedy of the Alamo and Goliad was the poisonous hatred for Mexicans which the outcomes mandated. All because one megalomaniacal narcissist general engaged in a little ethnic cleansing; which most of his command opposed. Had he starved out the Alamo, which would have taken a week more or less, and paroled the Goliad captives, a lot of the venom which anglo conquerors built up would not likely have happened.

---

I can't recall which historian talked about this, but is it true that the anti-Mexican hatred came more from the post-1836 settlers than from the pre-1836? Basically, the people there at the Revolution hated Santa Anna, but the latecomers hated all Mexicans.

Thoughts?

James Crisp at North Carolina State wrote a book on the growth of anti Mexican hatred as a result of the rebellion and said that before the atrocities the anglos were dismissive but largely tolerant of the Mexicans.

A book about the Beale Colony efforts in the early 1830s suggested the same and the impression I have from my readings is that the protestant anglos felt a mixture of pity and contempt for the Mexicans, the majority of whom, in their opinion, were illiterate, lazy and oppressed by the church and shackled by their government.

One M-2 at each corner of the plaza would have done the trick.

Early Texas Rangers who kept body counts didn't count Mexicans.

The Hispanic population in Texas nearly tripled from the 5,000 Hispanics before 1836, to 14,000 of Mexican origin during the first federal census in Texas in 1850. The troubles driving emigrants from Mexico to Texas apparently outweighed the cultural differences of the colonist from the north.

At the onset of the revolution, there were 50,000 Texians to 5000 Mexicans living in Texas. I'd fairly say that the increase in immigrants, the atrocities of the Revolution, and later the onset of the Mexican-American war had something to do with the anti-Mexican attitude of those of Anglo decent.

Not really a debate if you allow an entire squad of weapons on whether or not it could have been held. A better debate would be if the Alamo could have been held with a single extra defender with any weapon of choice, but they had to be able to carry it and carry all ammo.

Adds a new twist. I still think an M240B would do. One man can carry a lot (although he better have a pack and it's going to be damn heavy) vs a .50 cal or MK19. He can carry one or the other but probably not the tripod needed or any ammo.

The 240 up high on the long barracks would shred anything.

A couple dozen Claymore mines would have done the trick nicely

A single automatic weapon would probably have done it. Empty a 20 round magazine into the front ranks once or twice, and the rest of the army runs back to Mexico. For the guy wanting an A-10, heck, a Cessna 152 making a low pass would have been seen as witchcraft and panicked them all.

quote:

---

Gonzalez

---

et tu, Huisache?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Gonzalez

---

et tu, Huisache?

---

huh?

Huisache:

You misspelled the name of what I think is his beloved hometown.

lol. Weesatch has forgotten more about Texas history than I'll likely ever know. He can spell it any way he wants.

whose hometown? Yo estoy de Beeville

As for the misspelling of Gonzales, I suspect the reasons for my error are two: I did not look at the monster map of Texas that sits on the wall about 20 inches from my head and about half my practice now is criminal defense and and about half my clients are named Gonzales/Gonzalez; the two local judges use the Gonzales spelling.

lo siento but not much.

give me a handful of pissed of lance corporals with 240s, a few logs of Copenhagen, and interlocking fields of fire....war's over boys, let's go home.

quote:

---

Adds a new twist. I still think an M240B would do. One man can carry a lot (although he better have a pack and it's going to be damn heavy).

The 240 up high on the long barracks would shred anything.

---

VERY true. Even better on a Cougar MRAP.

Chris Kyle in the Tower of the Americas with tons of ammo....