Remember the fall of The Alamo

[Ben Kenobi]

You can't have an accurate opinion on anything.

That American servicemen find their profession honorable? Absolutely I'll stand by this opinion.

[regexcellent]

Ben is the ****ing definition of chickenhawk. Not only is he in favor of the American military adventuring abroad without having served in it BUT he is also not even American.

e: I realize now that this accusation might not have anything to do with this thread (probably; I haven't read the whole thing or even much of it) but it was based on what I assumed the topic of conversation was purely on the basis of Ben's last post in the thread.

[DaShi]

Or to divide the body of Christendom for that matter, eh?

Which he pretty much did himself by being overly obtuse on many issues.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Casulties are casulties. I notice how your entire argument revolves around, 'nobody knows', when you dismiss the facts that we do know to arrive at your conclusion.

Parse, misquote and troll. The Hugo Chavez playbook, and yours too. Nice switch from "Kill ratio" to casualties. Most wounded, even then, returned to action. The facts we do know are the timelines for the battle and a fair handle on the forces present. There is no reliable info on Mexican casualties, you have a range of claims from absurdly low to absurdly high, and the common estimates are 400-600, based on averages of multiple reports, and which reports a given historian considers credible.

Once again, AS ALWAYS, you stuck your foot so far in your mouth with your 4:1 kill ratio claim that you're having to backpedal with your toes sticking out your ass.

As for 'amateur hour', they fought hard and well.

That's why sentries got killed in their sleep, guns were abandoned unspiked and they were overrun in less than an hour? Ok there.

This was a successful delaying action with minimal forces, at the cost of few casulties.

Not much of a delaying action at all. The delay was more due to the march inefficiency of Santa Anna's army, poor provisioning, many conscripts and green troops. The effective delay imposed by the Alamo defenders was from March 4 to March 7. Even if the Alamo had been undefended, Santa Anna's advance elements would have had to spend ten days waiting for the main force. Then they still had to get to Houston's army. The Alamo defenders with their guns, and Fannin's forces, combined with Houston's forces, would have been a match for Santa Anna's army unless ambushed or forced to fight on ground not of their choosing. You're just regurgitating the same myths they like to recite at the tour and in the Disney movie. Nice for Texan chest thumping, but useless for anything else. BTW, Fannin's total losses were about 310 men, and as a result of a slackly executed ordered retreat which had them caught in the open against Mexican cavalry.

[Alexander's Horse]

They were amateurs. Texicans at both Goliad and the Alamo should have retreated and consolidated. Especially as Santa Anna was such a buffoon, he'd think it was out of fear and he'd want his battlefield victory for his ego.

The Texicans wasted all that work to get artillery down to the Alamo, then they didn't know to lay it properly. Lots of time to improve the fortification, but they didn't figure that out either.

Thanks the clarification. I'm telling you now any commander tells me we're making a glorious stand but you can go if you want and I'm outta there

In fact when I watched the movie as a boy I really badly wanted Davey Crockett to leave because I didn't want old Davey to die. He was a huge hero to kids in those days, seems less so to later generations, not PC enough I guess. He should have been back in tennessee skinning coons...

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben is the ****ing definition of chickenhawk. Not only is he in favor of the American military adventuring abroad without having served in it BUT he is also not even American.

Hrm? Where did I say I was in favor of Obama's adventures in Libya and Syria? All I said is that American servicemen believe that their profession is an honourable one, to stand in defense of their nation. I'm not very clear what Libya has to do with national security.

As for not being an American - Americans have been fighting and dying to protect Canada because Canada is too ***** to have sufficient armed forces to protect themselves adequately.

[MichaeltheGreat]

That American servicemen find their profession honorable? Absolutely I'll stand by this opinion.

Another BK phantom shift. You were running your mouth about "dying gloriously" not "honorable profession." Typical of your lack of integrity and your dishonesty, though.

Perhaps you ought to take Benedict's image down - do you really think he'd approve of your BS, or your trolling and game playing using his likeness? Or maybe that's your real purpose, you're a member of an anti-Catholic cult and you want to pretend to be Catholic to discredit the organization.

[giblets]

America is clearly doing a pretty good job of protecting Canada seeing how Canada hasn't been invaded in 200 years.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Ben is the ****ing definition of chickenhawk. Not only is he in favor of the American military adventuring abroad without having served in it BUT he is also not even American.

e: I realize now that this accusation might not have anything to do with this thread (probably; I haven't read the whole thing or even much of it) but it was based on what I assumed the topic of conversation was purely on the basis of Ben's last post in the thread.

It's consistent with his usual BS, so you're not missing anything.

[Ben Kenobi]

Parse, misquote and troll. The Hugo Chavez playbook, and yours too. Nice switch from "Kill ratio" to casualties. Most wounded, even then, returned to action. The facts we do know are the timelines for the battle and a fair handle on the forces present. There is no reliable info on Mexican casualties, you have a range of claims from absurdly low to absurdly high, and the common estimates are 400-600, based on averages of multiple reports, and which reports a given historian considers credible.

Which is historical evidence in favor of my position. Now that we've established that there is evidence backing up what I said, we can move on. Also - 1800 at the Alamo was only 1200 at San Jacinto. Do the Texans win without 600 fewer Mexicans?

Once again, AS ALWAYS, you stuck your foot so far in your mouth with your 4:1 kill ratio claim that you're having to backpedal with your toes sticking out your ass.

Backpedal? You admitted my evidence was correct.

As for 'amateur hour', they fought hard and well. That's why sentries got killed in their sleep, guns were abandoned unspiked and they were overrun in less than an hour? Ok there.

After 2 weeks of seige. Funny how you left that part out.

Not much of a delaying action at all. The delay was more due to the march inefficiency of Santa Anna's army, poor provisioning, many conscripts and green troops.

Still two weeks that were crucial for Houston.

The effective delay imposed by the Alamo defenders was from March 4 to March 7.

Nope, two weeks. Had the Alamo been undefended, Bexar would have fallen 2 weeks earlier and Houston wouldn't have made it to the Sabine.

The Alamo defenders with their guns, and Fannin's forces, combined with Houston's forces

Sure, if they were all magically in the same place. They were not in the same place, and they were not together. Also, Houston's forces at San Jacinto a month later were not the same as Houston's forces a month earlier.

Fannin's total losses were about 310 men, and as a result of a slackly executed ordered retreat which had them caught in the open against Mexican cavalry.

Nearly twice that of the Alamo for zero delay at Goliad. As I said, you want to criticize someone, criticize Fannin, not Travis. Travis did his job, Fannin did not.

[Ben Kenobi]

America is clearly doing a pretty good job of protecting Canada seeing how Canada hasn't been invaded in 200 years

Indeed they haven't. America has been a good neighbour.

[Ben Kenobi]

Another BK phantom shift. You were running your mouth about "dying gloriously" not "honorable profession." Typical of your lack of integrity and your dishonesty, though.

It is you who are attempting to split this concept apart, not the servicemen. The concept is the same for both.

Or maybe that's your real purpose, you're a member of an anti-Catholic cult and you want to pretend to be Catholic to discredit the organization.

Laughable from a bitter ex-catholic. He's Der Panzerkardinel, have you not forgotten?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Which is historical evidence in favor of my position. Now that we've established that there is evidence backing up what I said, we can move on. Also - 1800 at the Alamo was only 1200 at San Jacinto. Do the Texans win without 600 fewer Mexicans?

Which position? The 4:1 Kill ratio claim, which would be 775 KIA and probably double as many wounded based on typical battlefield casualty rates mortality of Napoleonic era field medicine and weapons types? Claims of casualties (KIA and WIA) are as low as 70 Mexican dead and 130 wounded, to 600 at the high end. So NOTHING supports your actual position, just the backpedal.

Do you actually know anything about the battle of San Jacinto? Santa Anna decided everyone should take a nice little siesta out in the open without any pickets or sentries or any form of prepared position. He could have had double or triple the number of men, they still would have routed with extreme casualties. Something about waking up from a nap with a musket ball down your throat and a bayonet up your ass tends to demoralize people. Without surprise and a "gimme" tactical situation, the Texicans don't win in any event. With the situation Santa Anna handed them, they win against double the numbers.

After 2 weeks of seige. Funny how you left that part out.

10 days of only a "siege" because the Texicans holed up and stuck in place. They were able to send and receive couriers and even reinforcements until the main force arrived. Some "siege." And the Mexican advance forces were under orders to halt, and would have done so without a Texican in sight, because they had completely outmarched Santa Anna's main force which was half conscript peasants. Sitting on your ass immobilizing yourself and waiting for the enemy does not constitute a siege. Bastogne was a siege, Lengingrad was a siege. The Alamo was only a "siege" because it feels better for the Texans to have a myth.

Still two weeks that were crucial for Houston.

Two weeks that would have happened in any event, given how far behind Santa Anna's main force was and how green it was. Then there was the additional six weeks Santa Anna took between the Alamo and San Jacinto. Had the Mexicans moved to engage Houston's army in the same order of march and timing as they had at the Alamo, e.g. without consolidation of forces, Houston, especially with the Alamo forces and guns at his disposal (hint, Houston only had two light guns at San Jacinto - add the Alamo guns to that equation and think about how that would shred the Mexicans in any standup fight), could have easily beaten the Mexican forces in detail, especially because Santa Anna was too egotistical and pigheaded to unify his own forces and give command of the field to a subordinate on the scene.

Nope, two weeks. Had the Alamo been undefended, Bexar would have fallen 2 weeks earlier and Houston wouldn't have made it to the Sabine.

Sorry, fumduck, Bexar would have fallen to advance elements who were too few in number and supply to press Houston, and more importantly, had no orders and no freedom of action to do so, because Santa Anna had to have the "glory" to himself and he was 10 days behind with his main force. So the Mexican advance force had to sit and wait. It was another two weeks after the Alamo until Fallin's forces were captured, another week before they were killed, and three more to get the Mexican army's asses to San Jacinto, after Santa Anna established contact with all the army, and then devised another of his brilliant "divide my forces into three wings essentially out of contact with each other and incapable of timely support, reinforcement or coordinated operations" plans.

Sure, if they were all magically in the same place. They were not in the same place, and they were not together. Also, Houston's forces at San Jacinto a month later were not the same as Houston's forces a month earlier.

They should have been. Dividing an inferior defensive force and spreading it over great distance violates every source of infantry doctrine to that time from Sun Tzu to Jomini. Santa Anna was so ****ing slow and ponderous in his march due to levying conscripts and supply problems that Houston had plenty of time. The only thorn in his side would have been from de Urrea and the Mexican cavalry. Had de Urrea been in overall command, the Texans would have had a tough time. Same thing if Santa Anna had given command of the field and freedom of operation to de Urrea, but Santa Anna held up everything so he could get the "glory" and not have to deal with de Urrea as a more popular and far more competent domestic rival. Enough was known about Santa Anna's pace and style of command that the Texicans should have concentrated and used the time they had to train.

Nearly twice that of the Alamo for zero delay at Goliad. As I said, you want to criticize someone, criticize Fannin, not Travis. Travis did his job, Fannin did not.

Fannin WAS ORDERED to retreat, fumduck. Too late. You can blame Houston et al for that, Fannin should never have been hung out to dry at Goliad - he was too isolated in an untenable position. Fannin could also have held out for 20 years, it would be irrelevant, as he was engaged by de Urrea's forces, not Santa Anna's, and de Urrea was deliberately kept by Santa Anna from having any role in San Jacinto.

[MichaeltheGreat]

It is you who are attempting to split this concept apart, not the servicemen. The concept is the same for both.

Ah, yes, the Beniverse. Where "honorable profession" is synonymous with "die gloriously." You're a real ****ing clown. So do your so-called "servicemen" use vaseline when you service them?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Thanks the clarification. I'm telling you now any commander tells me we're making a glorious stand but you can go if you want and I'm outta there

There's nothing "glorious" in it, one way or another. That's motivational horse**** (sorry ) for another era by and for the uninformed.

In fact when I watched the movie as a boy I really badly wanted Davey Crockett to leave because I didn't want old Davey to die. He was a huge hero to kids in those days, seems less so to later generations, not PC enough I guess. He should have been back in tennessee skinning coons...

The movie was pretty entertaining, so were the tours as a kid.