Mongol Cavalry at the Alamo? Discussion

[MechAg94]

In the case you mention, it depends if they can open up at more than 400yds... If it's a big pile, yes, a horse every few strides, the horse can clear it (horses aren't that tall when dead).  Assuming the horses are approaching over a 2.4km wide front (one defender per meter of front), the horses would be in 40 ranks (5m apart).  So the dead ones would be about every 10m.  At a gallop, a horse can jump/dodge a 3 foot tall object randomly spaced 5m laterally and every 10m in direction of travel.  Mexicans/ww1/2 still lose.  Yes, machine guns are one of the main factors in the demise of cavalry, BUT it was the coincident appearance of machine guns, trench/wire/etc emplacements that did it.  Without all of those, cavalry waves like the Mongols in question would work (except with arty)... BUT the kind of Mongol charge we are discussing also didn't exist then...you have to follow the assumptions of the anachronism!  

Assume Mongol horde, then my logic is still valid (and I am loving this debate...what is the line about arguing with an engineer being like wrestling with a pig)

I imagine the Mongols could not fire at 300 yards and 20 times per minute all while dodging the dead bodies of their buddies and their buddies' horses.  If they were taking rifle fire at range, their effectiveness would be hit hard. 

The last successful cavalry attack on a machine gun emplacement was made with advantage of terrain and surprise so the gunners were unprepared and didn't see them coming. 

Barbed wire on the battlefield probably affected use of cavalry also.

[birdman]

Silly bear calvary.  Everyone knows the Mexicans forified thier 6 o'clock with a moat, which was full of sharks. With frickin laser beams on thier heads.

If you allowing lasers in the 19th century, why not allow Reason (from snow crash)...then I bet one guy could do it.

[MechAg94]

The problem as stated does not have two formations facing each other. It has cavalry at full gallop charging the Mexican rear. The training has already been done and is not part of the problem.

I suspect that the Mongols were not so much trained as raised to be bowmen.

As to maximum range, Google it.  I just did, and you won't believe me. Effective range?  As we often say -- I don't want to be the test case.

When I was an undergrad, we had a similar "What if."  What if all the Chinese armies started marching west?"

I hate to dredge up this from the 1st page, but if you follow all that, you have basically stacked the advantages so far to one side that they could go barehanded and still win.  What is the point of that?  Much better to just think about a Mongol army versus a typical Napoleonic Army.  Prepared, I think the Napoleonic Army would wipe the ground with them.

What about the Chinese Armies?   What if they met up with the Roman Empire?  What if the Mongols just went through a rain storm and couldn't use their bows?  What if something else?.......

[birdman]

I imagine the Mongols could not fire at 300 yards and 20 times per minute all while dodging the dead bodies of their buddies and their buddies' horses.  If they were taking rifle fire at range, their effectiveness would be hit hard. 

The last successful cavalry attack on a machine gun emplacement was made with advantage of terrain and surprise so the gunners were unprepared and didn't see them coming. 

Barbed wire on the battlefield probably affected use of cavalry also.

True.  I did mention trenches and entanglements in a previous post though.

Also, I assumed the Mongols didn't shoot arrows at all, but rather engaged with swords up close, hence my requirement that they still had a 2:1 advantage when arriving at the lines.

As for last successful attack, again, referring to a previous post, I don't think at any time since the Mongols were cavalry massed in anywhere close to those numbers.  If you reduce the numbers to a few hundred to a few thousand, the cavalry loses.  My whole point was given those numbers, rate of fire and ammo loads become the driving factor, regardless of firearm technology level.  If you changed it to 50,000 men on foot charging, the results would be the same, the defenders either can't fire fast enough, or run out of ammo. (look at the human wave attacks in Korea, or even the larger charges in early WWI...the ratios where they were "successful" were in the 20:1 range or greater).  I'm not saying it's smart, or effective, but with the right ratios and lack of entanglements and arty, it can work.

[Sheng_Pao]

I hate to dredge up this from the 1st page, but if you follow all that, you have basically stacked the advantages so far to one side that they could go barehanded and still win.  What is the point of that?  Much better to just think about a Mongol army versus a typical Napoleonic Army.  Prepared, I think the Napoleonic Army would wipe the ground with them.

What about the Chinese Armies?   What if they met up with the Roman Empire?  What if the Mongols just went through a rain storm and couldn't use their bows?  What if something else?.......

Remember that Napoleonic armies were very rigid in discipline, while Mongols, and most other Asiatic (Manchu, Ottoman, Seljuk, etc) forces almost never used formations in battle. They used melee assaults, and the Mongol cavalry in this instance would be firing arrows all the way UNTIL they come within sword range, then the fearsome Charay comes out.
For an idea of how a Mongol attack looked like, here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBgLjsNJvFs This was a battle between Mongols and Abbasid cavalry in Kazakhstan, during Hulagu Khan's drive westward.

[MechAg94]

They may not have been disciplined, but they used better tactics than a lot of the armies they faced in Easter Europe from what I understood.  They had a lot more experience than most of the people they faced.

[birdman]

They may not have been disciplined, but they used better tactics than a lot of the armies they faced in Easter Europe from what I understood.  They had a lot more experience than most of the people they faced.

True, after years of this kind of attack, not only would they have experience, but anyone who wasn't the Mongol equivalent of a Spartan warrior was dead.

Oh, that's a good one.  Leonidas and the 300, in Thermopylae, vs the same Mongol horde.
Nevermind, that's not a good one.

How about revolutionary war infantry (either side) vs the Spartans at Thermopylae?

[Sheng_Pao]

True, after years of this kind of attack, not only would they have experience, but anyone who wasn't the Mongol equivalent of a Spartan warrior was dead.

Oh, that's a good one.  Leonidas and the 300, in Thermopylae, vs the same Mongol horde.
Nevermind, that's not a good one.

How about revolutionary war infantry (either side) vs the Spartans at Thermopylae?

If the Revolutionary War infantry is foolish enough to make a bayonet charge, the Spartans would turn them into meat jelly. Spartans were trained from young to become warriors. Their muscles were toned from years of practice with swords and shields. There is simply no way the napoleonic infantry will even last a minute against them. If the Spartans have bows and arrows, they can also match the napoleonic infantry in the open field. If not, the Spartans, assuming they know about their opponents' guns, can simply lay down prone when the volley fires so the volley passes over them, then charge while the infantry is reloading and mince them up.

[birdman]

In terms of accurate range, rate of fire, and lethality (against unarmored targets), how does a ancient Greek bow fare? 

[Sheng_Pao]

In terms of accurate range, rate of fire, and lethality (against unarmored targets), how does a ancient Greek bow fare? 

Not sure about ancient Greek archery, since there is not that much written about it. But in Homer's "Odyssey", Odysseus' bow was pretty powerful, look at what it did to the rowdy suitors in his hall. It was made from plain wood, if I got that correct, with no laminates or enhancements. On the other hand, the Persian Sasanids were using bows with laminates and some even got bows made from all steel

Lets assume that the Spartans use the plain wood, Odysseus-type longbow. I've shot a board-bow before and with aimed fire, I hit a hummock at 75 yards away. With volley fire, these arrows are definitely lethal out to 300 yards or more. If the Spartans open up the battle by exchanging volley fire with the napoleonic infantry, I suppose the 300 of them would stand in line and deliver volley after volley. The rate of fire of arrows are far more than muzzleloading flintlocks, and with the harassment of hundreds of arrows raining down on them nonstop, I doubt the napoleonic soldiers would even have the nerve to stand still and load their cumbersome flintlocks.

[De Selby]

Yeah, sorry, but musket aed infantry with any discipline at all would shred any bow armed force to pieces.  There is a reason that gunpowder fueled armies dominated over time.  It is not because more primitive armies were lacking in muscle tone that might have saved them.

The proof positive of this is in the exploding casualty numbers that come with guns.  They are better killing machines, period.  With gunpowder we've managed to rack up casualties that might have widened ghengis khan's eyes.

[roo_ster]

Yeah, sorry, but musket aed infantry with any discipline at all would shred any bow armed force to pieces.  There is a reason that gunpowder fueled armies dominated over time.  It is not because more primitive armies were lacking in muscle tone that might have saved them.

The proof positive of this is in the exploding casualty numbers that come with guns.  They are better killing machines, period.  With gunpowder we've managed to rack up casualties that might have widened ghengis khan's eyes.

What DS wrote.  There were several such meetings during the dawn of the gunpowder age and later.  It generally required a profound screw up on the part of the gunpowder army for them to lose.

And don't get me started with horse-mounted cavalry vs gunpowder-equipped infantry, given equal discipline...

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

I wonder how much of the effectiveness of early firearms was due to the ungodly amount of noise they made?

I think the Spartans would be annihilated. Shields and armor didn't do well against bullets.

[De Selby]

Anyone aware of studies on the maneuverability of infantry armed with muskets as compared to more primitive methods?  I would suspect that guns would give an army a lot more flexibility in how it will deploy on the field. 

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

Just give the Mongols Phasers and the Mexicans Disruptors.   

[makattak]

I wonder how much of the effectiveness of early firearms was due to the ungodly amount of noise they made?

I think the Spartans would be annihilated. Shields and armor didn't do well against bullets.

Ah, but what if they were wearing L3 body armor with .308 trauma plates and a second plate duck taped to the armor?

Spartans all the way.

[MechAg94]

Ah, but what if they were wearing L3 body armor with .308 trauma plates and a second plate duck taped to the armor?

Spartans all the way.

Nope.  That armor is still not suitable to stop bayonets much more than the laminate armor.  Also, that armor only protects the chest.  While a Spartan might continue to function with a stab wound, a musket ball in the thigh is not the same.  The helmet is also inadequate.  I doubt you would find the Marines standing shoulder to shoulder doing volley fire trusting their armor.

The Spartans' big advantage at Thermopylae was they were heavy armored infantry while the Persians had no equivalent.  The Persians just didn't have heavy spears or straight swords designed for armored opponents.  Other forces wouldn't have that issue.

[MechAg94]

Anyone aware of studies on the maneuverability of infantry armed with muskets as compared to more primitive methods?  I would suspect that guns would give an army a lot more flexibility in how it will deploy on the field. 

I think it is less the guns and more the lack of long spears and pole arms, but I agree on the added flexibility.  Musket armed armies also get no advantage from stacking infantry deep.

[MicroBalrog]

I imagine the Mongols could not fire at 300 yards and 20 times per minute all while dodging the dead bodies of their buddies and their buddies' horses.  If they were taking rifle fire at range, their effectiveness would be hit hard. 

I have read in several books Santa Ana's infantry were armed mostly with Napoleonic war-era muskets. If true I doubt they'd be able to consistently hit stuff at 400 yards.

[MechAg94]

I have read in several books Santa Ana's infantry were armed mostly with Napoleonic war-era muskets. If true I doubt they'd be able to consistently hit stuff at 400 yards.

Yeah, that was a bit before the introduction of rifled muskets and mini-balls.  Santa Ana called himself the Napoleon of the West if I remember correctly.  I thought I read that in the Mexican War 20 or so years later rifled muskets were much more common at least on the US side.

I was just thinking that volley fire by masses of muskets would be just as accurate and deadly at 300 or 400 yards as arrows. 

[makattak]

Nope.  That armor is still not suitable to stop bayonets much more than the laminate armor.  Also, that armor only protects the chest.  While a Spartan might continue to function with a stab wound, a musket ball in the thigh is not the same.  The helmet is also inadequate.  I doubt you would find the Marines standing shoulder to shoulder doing volley fire trusting their armor.

The Spartans' big advantage at Thermopylae was they were heavy armored infantry while the Persians had no equivalent.  The Persians just didn't have heavy spears or straight swords designed for armored opponents.  Other forces wouldn't have that issue.

I forgot one of the first rules of the internets.

Let me fix it:

Besides, I'm sure the Marines would have no chance if the Spartans were equipped with tactical wheelbarrows. (NOW is the sarcasm strong enough for people to catch it? )

[MechAg94]

Considering the nature of the OP and some of the follow on posts, how could you expect me to detect sarcasm? 

[makattak]

Considering the nature of the OP and some of the follow on posts, how could you expect me to detect sarcasm? 

Ah, but what if they were wearing L3 body armor with .308 trauma plates and a second plate duck taped to the armor?

Spartans all the way.

I thought everyone would immediately know it was a mall ninja joke.

[MechAg94]

Are you talking about your post or the OP?   

[seeker_two]

So.....mall ninjas vs. innernet commandos......who wins?.....