"Alamo - how wide were Mexican assault columns" Topic

I'm testing BLOODY DAWN and have to decide how many entry zones to allow the Mexicans (who will attack with up to five columns, though they can instead hold one or more off table in reserve). Early playtesting used ten zones, which meant three columns could hit the south wall including the palisade, plus a fourth column hitting the sw corner and 18 pounder. Or four columns could hit the north wall including the corners.

This proved unbalanced as a game; the Texan defenders had to split their fire among too many columns, and the Mexicans rarely were slowed in their attack. My thinking now is to use seven entry zones rather than ten, so that the north wall, say, could be hit by three columns but no longer by four (unless the fourth is brought on as a reserve behind one of the others, as happened in the real battle).

But the question for the historian is, how wide were these columns? That of course depends on how deep they were. The Sanchez Navarro map (and I am aware that not everyone accepts it as authentic) shows Cos approaching the Alamo in a column of three lines. Cos had at least 300 men, perhaps 400: the entire Aldama battalion (six fusilier companies plus one of cazadores) plus three more fusilier companies of the San Luis Battalion. IF each line is three companies wide, and if each company is in two ranks, then the width might be about 45 – 50 men.

Sanchez Navarro shows Cos being deflected from the north wall and swinging to hit the west wall, in process bringing a second of its three elements up beside the first element, with the third element centered in the rear. At this point the width of Cos' column, assuming SN's mp is to scale, is almost half the length of the west wall.

I can't find any certain evidence on whether the Mexicans were using two ranks or three. And the SN map is little enough to go by. In the end I will do what makes the game the most playable and balanced. But I'd be glad of any advice, data, or comments from anyone.

link is the link to the Sanchez Navarro map.

I would suggest that a column would have one company or two company frontage. You seem to be describing too wide a frontage. Also they should be three deep. This is according to French and Spanish drill manuals that I assume the Mexicans were using ones derived from these.

Assume the cazadores were in skirmisg order. Each company was 48 men. So the Bn had 336 men. So the column has 288 men. Attack column would have a frontage of 16 men and a depth of 18 men. A column of division would have 32 men and a depth of 9 men.

Stephen

link

If this is accurate:

The Alamo Assault Columns:

NORTH: Duque [316 men]

Tolucca [ 240 men] (320 men – 40 untrained men – Grenadier Co 40? men)
1/2 San Luis Potosi [76 men] (1/2 x (452 – 200 untrained men – Grenadier Co 50? men – Cazadore Co 50? men))

NORTHWEST: Cos [303 men]

Aldama [227 men] (390 men – 113 untrained men – Grenadier Co 50? men)
1/2 San Luis Potosi [76 men] (see above)

EAST: Romero [304 men]

Jimenez [180 men] (274 men – 24 untrained men – Grenadier Co 35? men – Cazadore Co 35? men)
Matamoros [124 men] (272 men – 78 untrained men – Grenadier Co 35? men – Cazadore Company 35? men)

SOUTH: Morales [120 men]
Cazadore Co's from Jimenez, Matamoros, and San Luis Potosi

RESERVE: Amat [345 men]
Grenadier Co's from assault bns [160 men]
Zapadores [185 men]

CAVALRY: Sesma [290 men

If accurate, Cos had about 300 men in ten companies. I understand that three ranks was the drill, but I've also read speculation that the understrength companies might have gone to two ranks to maintain the correct frontage.

It certainly makes sense to me that a column making a night assault would want the control of greater depth; they can always deploy into a wider front when they get to the fight.

My rules assume a deep column because I use about 600-700 miniatures for an assault force of double that; I put down casualty markers but do not remove figures, assuming the casualties are replaced by men coming up from the rear.

But I am reluctant to ignore the Sanchez Navarro map. Small and possibly unreliable data beats no data at all.

"Texan defenders had to split their fire among too many columns, and the Mexicans rarely were slowed in their attack."

But true for the real battle which only lasted than 90 minutes.

Well from paintings they had the companies about 8 men wide.

Oh and there were only 4 columns of around 500 men each.

link

Santa Anna was lucky that there were only around 182 fighting men there because if there were twice that number he probably would have lost the battle.

Because having around 600 dead & wound when you out number the enemy by 11-1.

Which brings us to Col Fannin who was an idiot to surrender which ended up with his nearly 350 men killed.

He should have continued fighting.

There was a fifth column, the reserve, that SA committed behind Duque/Castillon at the north wall.

The garrison may have numbered about 240 rather than 180. I let the Texans choose which size, but the smaller the garrison the fewer Mexicans they need to kill/wound to win the game.

There's a Fannin-at-the-Alamo scenario in the rules. It assumes the Mexicans take time to breach the walls in several places before an assault. And of course SA has the 1500 men who were at Goliad, if Fannin is at the Alamo. It does make for a rather different battle and game.

Well from paintings they had the companies about 8 men wide.

That's interesting. Which paintings do you mean?

When I worked on the Alamo movie, one of my friends translated a Mexican Infantry drill manual from 1830. Infantry were formed two-ranks deep, and I don't recall an assault column, just the basic "column of companies" marching column. However, this was a fairly basic manual, clearly structured for the rapid training of militia, and the forming of an assault column just may not have been included in the manual, even if it was done. For that matter putting together ad hoc assault columns probably isn't that difficult.

My understanding of assault columns in general is that they could be several companies wide, and the companies were spaced out with gaps front-to-back (should be enough for a company to wheel 90 degrees). During an assault they probably stacked up.

The main issue at the Alamo, I would imagine, is getting the right amount of frontage for the attack, and then stacking up successive lines behind it.

A little more information about the 1830 Mexican manual. It only had two-rank formations. Some sections of it were so similar to the 1830 "Scott's" Tactics that I suspect they were both copying from the same manual (probably British given the use of only two-ranks).

The French introduced a new manual in the early 1830s (1832?), which was adopted in the United States as Scott's 1835 Infantry manual. That manual reintroduced the United States to three rank tactics, although two-ranks were also covered. The Mexicans may have adopted their own version of the French manual between the time the manual I had access to was published, and the Texas Campaign.

It seems SA had a great many recruits along (and the presence of a large number of brand-new "recruits" from prisons was a factor in Cos' defeat in 1835) and left them in camp when time came to assault the Alamo. That could be from questions about their reliability under fire, but seems more likely to be due to their lack of drill.

On a different but related topic, I have always given the Texans extra firepower on opening turn because they all had several firearms, but I recently found some discussion, based on a Mexican source or two, that 600+ Mexican weapons were recovered after the Alamo fell (which would have come from Cos' surrender in 1835) and that the garrison may have each had as many has five or six loaded muskets. Some commentators on the forum doubted that many could be kept ready to fire over a long period.

But it seems likely that the initial fire hitting the Mexican columns was VERY heavy, and not just the langrage from the artillery. That's another (and off-setting) design element for the rules, how much extra dice to give the opening volley.