|
Post by dave on Mar 10, 2015 10:03:31 GMT -6
The US Army used the facility before a commercial operation was established. Is that close? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 10, 2015 10:19:19 GMT -6
It is correct, not close.
The Alamo site was taken over by the U S Army, and the area that exists today was used by the U S Army as a Quartermaster depot until the ACW, when it was used by the CSA for the same purpose. The distinctive hump in the façade and the roof on the chapel were installed by the U S Army. Lon Tinkle's "13 Day To Glory" contains some sketches of the place, a rubble filled ruin when the Army arrived. It was used again by the U S Army post ACW and was replaced by the Quartermaster Corral (a place still standing and in use by the Army as headquarters U s Army North-5th Army) at Fort Sam Houston.
Thereafter the long barracks area was a department store the façade built upon the existing structure. Pictures of it that way are plentiful. All that was torn down and Senora de Zalava and Clara Driscoll fought like cats and dogs on how best to preserve the place.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 10, 2015 11:51:53 GMT -6
Tom: I neglected to answer your question on Earhart on the other thread, which that lunatic HR now owns.
No she was not shot as a spy by the Japanese. She transformed herself into Rosalind Russell, went on her journey round the world without Fred McMurray, crashed her Lockheed Electra into the Pacific causing the navy to mount a multi-carrier search for her. Fred McMurray recovered from his grief in time to blow the Akagi to bits in his dive bomber at Midway and raise three sons, the fertilized eggs of which were left by Russell in deep freeze prior to her departure. It was a CIA plot about eight years before the CIA came into existence.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Mar 10, 2015 12:42:28 GMT -6
QC I think I remember a Rexall drug store on the western side of the shrine from my 1960 visit. I know that the state of Texas has taken over operation of the Alamo from the DRT but did the DRT still keep the library and other buildings on the property? With the state running things have the deficits or whatever the DRT did wrong but taken care of? Will the DRT over take back control or have they permanently disqualified themselves. I would imagine that was a very messy divorce. Here in Mississippi when they changed the make of of the student body to include men at the Mississippi University of Women the alumnae caused quite a stir. The women were angry and many made life miserable for the powers to be and husbands in more ways than one. They nearly overcame the change. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 10, 2015 14:21:08 GMT -6
Dave: I don't know. My daughter told me there was a big flap going on, but I know none of the details. Without the Alamo though the DRT is a big nothing.
There is just a row of various kinds of stores on the west side of the plaza now. None stand out to me.
As far as I know the DRT owns the library, and the gift shop.
Tom: The movie was Flight to Freedom, the perennial bad guy Richard Loo was in it as well. Must have come out in the latter part of 42, and probably contributed to more Earhart bushwa conspiracies than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 10, 2015 16:45:55 GMT -6
I remember that at some point it was a warehouse, and I believe an army depot. It never was finished as a church but I believe that the Church held the land and just rented it out for a long time. Perhaps what preserved it was that it was useful enough building not to be torn down until it was rediscovered as a Texas Icon.
Beth
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 10, 2015 17:23:39 GMT -6
Actually the chapel was not even what you might call a building until the U S Army came. Just four incomplete walls were there. Lord has two sketches following page 112 that are taken from the Army survey of the place prior to it being finished and as you correctly state used as a warehouse, as was the long barracks
Keep in mind here that in 1836 the long barracks was the front facing part of the convento. The rest of the convento had fallen down and some of the other walls behind the long barracks were from what remained of the convent. Smeltzer's Store being on the site actually preserved what would have probably otherwise been torn down had it not been there. As it is part of the convento that remained when the store was torn down was later itself torn down in preservation efforts. Between the back of the long barracks and the chapel today is a wall with a gateway into the court yard. When the store was torn down, and also during the siege that wall was the facing wall of the convento's side.Another similar wall was just behind it. Maybe that second wall was in such a bad state it could not be repaired. Nelson has a picture of it though, and we can draw certain conclusions about time of siege appearance from it.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Mar 10, 2015 18:11:57 GMT -6
Qc looking into the change of management it started in 2010 when there arose a division within the drt. I would imagine that was tough fight. regards dave
|
|
|
Post by mac on Mar 11, 2015 3:39:44 GMT -6
Lots of thoughts but to try to stay on track of the defence of the Alamo theme. It seems that the Alamo fell fairly quickly once the assault was made, no doubt a tribute to the planning and execution by the Mexicans but and here is the question. Could a more professional command and force have held the Alamo longer with the same resources? Part 2 would they try to defend the whole space? Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 11, 2015 8:00:53 GMT -6
The total time Mac was on the order of two hours give or take depending upon the time you start the attack (when the Mexicans started moving or the time the Texians detected them) and the time you say its over (when organized resistance ended or when the last few defenders were dispatched).
The attack plan itself was a gem.
Could a more professional force held longer? Possibly, but giving prevailing circumstances, shortages of food, water, and ammunition, I suspect not much longer. The best argument is that a more professional force would not have tried to hold it in the first place. Cos fell back into the Alamo in December and could not hold it. The place was slightly better prepared for defense since then, but not much. We can assume a more professional force would have done more in preparation, but there are limits on what they had to work with, and material with which to work. The one thing you can say of a positive nature, is that a professional force would not have been caught napping, literally napping, and have be surprised.
Some of that question must also take into consideration that there would have been a different commander with that professional force. Travis was abysmal as a commander, but at the same time a remarkable leader. It is doubtful that many men could have held that garrison together for as long as he did. For that alone he deserves any accolade directed toward him.
The space was quite large, given the fact that there was somewhere between a third and half a mile of wall space to defend with probably less than 200 men, a full third of which were dedicated gun crews. Reducing that space would entail tearing down buildings and walls to clear fields of fire. Additionally a smaller area would reduce your options for internal maneuver, and provide a more compact target for artillery. I conclude then that they did the right thing by trying to hold what they did overall. Could they have preplanned a retreat from the walls and led the Mexicans into fire traps within the plaza? Probably, and in some instances they did. Had the main attack not had a superbly executed supporting attack over the southwest corner it could have been a real bloody affair, more then it was already, trying to cross that plaza.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 11, 2015 9:02:59 GMT -6
Ahhh, a focused thread.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 11, 2015 10:07:06 GMT -6
Would it have been better to do what some folks have suggested and just defend half of the property, looking at a map you can clearly see that the place could be split into two large compounds, look at the map below and imagine if either one of these compounds would be better without the other; The place whole; Now with just the right hand compound; Now with just the left hand compound; What do you think, would it have been better to shorten you firing step by demolishing either one of these compounds? Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 11, 2015 10:39:14 GMT -6
OK, lets engage in a review of the situation, and a putting into context, in light of the above suggestion.
1) The Texians were expecting reinforcements before the anticipated arrival of Santa Anna, thought to be arriving in mid April.
2) The location of the Alamo is on a rise above the town on the southern end of the compound. Destruction of the plaza area, would give any attack on the compound a mask, a defilade in the field of fire.
3) Where are you going to get the combat engineer company along with the bulldozers that would be required to take any of that place down?
4) Were I Santa Anna's artillery commander and came upon any of these suggestions for a reduced compound I would loudly exclaim Say it isn't so. No Brr Fox don't throw me in the briar patch. In short it would be a direct and indirect fire dream come true.
5) Where are they going to house the defenders?
6) Where are they going to keep those cattle, still on the hoof.
7) They were there, at least in part because of the presence of all those damned guns, which partially offset their deficiency in numbers. Where are they going to place them in a reduced compound?
8) You are thinking exclusively like an Infantryman Ian, when what is required is to think combined arms and logistics.
That map contains the basic outline of the place but is sadly deficient in accurate detail. I suspect it dates from the mid-1950's. Much work and new knowledge has been obtained since then. That second drawing is a spot on Disney Alamo.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 11, 2015 10:54:10 GMT -6
1. re-enforcements would allow for a larger area. 2. I was not aware of any rise. 3. that would be a problem with so few men. 4. can't answer number four. 5. that does make sense if re-enforcements were expected. 6. what happened to that cattle when the siege started. 7. apart from the artillery this would mainly be an infantry fight. 8. it was just an idea of mine to shed some light on a question written by Mac I think, the map is not very good but it allowed me some scope to slice the place in two.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 11, 2015 11:37:28 GMT -6
1) Exactly, but also recall they the had no intention if those reinforcements arrived of defending the Alamo exclusively. There were other earthwork defenses surrounding SA and both Main and Military Plazas in SA itself were defensible.
2) I was unaware of it also for a looooooong time, until I asked myself why were there so many damned steps going down from Alamo Plaza to River walk. The answer of course was that the southern portion of the compound was located on a rise that leveled off as you go north toward Houston street, which is located just inside what would have been the location of the north plaza wall.
3. Those buildings were substantially constructed of limestone and covered with adobe plaster. They were far from the mud huts most people think they are. It would take a major effort to tear them down and clear the rubble from the area. Limestone is in plentiful supply in the San Antonio area and you see that manifested in many ways as you drive around the city.
4) The more compact the target, the easier it is to place destructive fire on it.
5) The sheltered area of the compound could barely house the defenders that were there. Most of the defenders were quartered in the town for lack of space before the seize began, moving into the Alamo when the Mexicans showed up. There was no room for any reinforcements had they arrived as expected before what they thought was the April deadline.
6) The cattle remained on the hoof until they were killed at butchered to provide rations.
7) All fights are combined arms fights, sustained by logistics, regardless. Always think combined arms in everything you do.
I have looked at this many times myself in terms of both your and Macs comments and questions. The compound was too big to defend and too small not to defend completely, which sounds like double talk. I have played out may destruction whiffs and none of them work.
|
|