re: What If 24 Delta Force Soldiers Defended the Alamo?

quote:

---

I need military experience to evaluate whether or not a small group of delta guys could take on 2000 infantry from the 1830s?

---

For me to consider your opinion over mine? Yes.

quote:

---

He said Delta, not Seals

---

quote:

---

With modern weapons, loads of ammunition, and equipment vs the Mexicans with muskets.. me and 23 hand picked friends could hold it.

---

I'm concerned that some of you folks are wholly unfamiliar with certain data points like the Battle of Isandlwana (among others).

Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie are standing on the wall of the Alamo, chatting and having their morning coffee, when suddenly, Santa Anna’s army shows up on the horizon.

Crockett turns to Bowie and asks: “We pouring concrete today?”

I think 8 soldiers with M16s and plenty of ammo would have done it.

quote:

---

The British at that battle was overcome because they were slow to fire with muskets.

---

No. They had breech loaders (about 12 rounds per minute) and some light guns. Most of the Zulu had animal skin shields and lances.

And it was only 10 to 1. You guys are talking about 100 (up to maybe 200) to 1 in this scenario.

#Logistics

quote:

---

The problem - as always - is one of logistics. Ammunition and modern fire support would be far, far, far more important to holding this particular position (in historical context) than any quality or even capability of a modern, however elite, small unit.

24 modern soldiers against, at a minimum, 2000 early 19th Century soldiers is a bad bet. Just being able to deliver fire and maintain ammunition supply in that environment is a big question for me.

---

Ammo is the crucial limiting variable, but on the flip side, how much time they have matters. If Delta was given a week to run ops at night they could severely frick up the COC and equipment of the Mexicans. If they had modern night vision it would be as OP as the semi-auto rifles (until the batteries ran out, similar to ammo)

quote:

---

The British at that battle was overcome because they were slow to fire with muskets

---

This is not correct. They had the Martini-Henry breach loading rifle. It was large caliber and could fire 12 rounds a minute. They lost more due to the disposition of their forces (spread too far out for mutual support and supply) than their equipment. 20,000 vs 1800 out in the open also made a huge difference, obviously.

Put those rifles in the hands of the Alamo defenders or give the Brits a fort (like at Rorke’s drift) and either probably wins

quote:

---

Plus, you don’t have to kill every soldier.

---

That works both ways and your 24-man force has far, far fewer reserves - just injuries and exertion during movement can result in attrition for such a small force.

quote:

---

You decimate his troops at the outset and he’s likely pulling back.

---

I'm not going to completely discount the shock factor of facing such a formidable small force.

And, so you folks don't think I'm completely crazy, I don't think it would be a "no way the 24 hold out". I just wouldn't bet on it.

Just 50 or 60 would have me feeling better about victory. If I didn't already say it, if I knew the number for sure was about 2k Mexican troops, a modern rifle company with a light mortar section and their organic machineguns would likely be more than enough to hold the position. First of all - a rifle company is trained and equipped to hold a fixed position against a modern battalion.

If the real number was actually higher (up to 5k in some reports, although I do think it was likely between 1800 and 3000), I think the company could probably still hold the position.

Regardless, compared to the 24 operators, the rifle company will have more organic ammo to waste on suppression, mortars would help function as counterbattery to the Mexican guns, and company machineguns would do a lot of killing until the assault was broken.

That's how I see it going.