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

quote:

---

The main difference here is the fact that weaponry has advanced way more from the days of the Alamo till now than from the Stone Age to the Alamo.

---

Well, are we going to use all of that stuff or just the Delta operators and their organic equipment?

I'm trying to assist this thread in understanding the core basics of combat.

The smallest unit I'm comfortable with saying can hold the position as described, with no outside support (no battalion mortars, no direct support artillery, no general support artillery, no helos, no fast movers, no naval gunfire - just what they bring to the fight) is a company. That would be about 20 to 1 or whatever, and it would be a (relatively speaking) slaughter of the assaulting force until the assault broke.

A small, Tier 1 operator force (these guys are aggressive, fast moving, lethal and fragile) will inflict LOTS of casualties on the Mexican army, but in addition to being the wrong sort of asset for the mission, it's just too few, IMHO.

quote:

---

I think fighting from behind a fortification gives the 24 a huge chance to succeed. It’s a bit of a man vs gorilla thing. Like that scenario, if everyone is 100% educated with no fear, then, yeah, maybe they pull off taking the fort even with massive casualties. I suspect them seeing tens of their guys at a time going down while they approach the walls is going to be heavily demoralizing.

---

I don't think this is terrible analysis. I'm trying to configure the force in my head - I'm not sure what is doctrinal, but 4 SAWs, 4 Mk12s and 16 M4s - now Delta can bring whatever they want, but as the commander, I would dictate same ammo for this. If the SAW gunners have a M4-armed assistant be an ammo bearer then those 8 function as my 4 MG teams. Maybe 600 rounds each, max. That's barely a minute of sustained fire, each. Let's say you already plan for your leadership elements (probably 1 unit commander and 2 assistants) to cross level ammo from the Mk12s (and say their spotters) to the SAWs - again, say 300 rounds each, that gives you another minute of fire for each of the 4 MG teams.

So, that would be a SAW gunner and bearer in 4 positions, in between there, the Mk12 guys and spotters would function as sniper teams (might be slightly more effective to actually bring 4 snipers, but then you would lose flexibility - in this context a Delta operator with a Mk12 is going to be operationally the same asset as a Delta sniper). That's choking down 2/3 of my force into 8 guns essentially.

So, leadership would be the unit commander, 2 assistants and then there would be a single 5-man unit with M4s as the reserve/QRF for breaches.

We need more guys. Period.

Bodies. Bodies everywhere.

is it 24 Deltas with the Alamo Garrison or 24 Deltas on their own?

the Alamo Garrison had 180-250 defenders in it

quote:

---

The 1836 Alamo battlefield spanned about 3 acres.

The fortified compound measured approximately 480 feet long (north to south) and 160 feet wide (east to west), giving it a defense perimeter of about 1,320 feet.
The enclosing outer limestone walls were 2 to 3 feet thick and 9 to 12 feet high.

---

24 men spread out that much wont be able to do much of anything

quote:

---

But did not still have rapid fire capabilities. Right? And the Zulu didnt march in formation across wide open ground in formation either. Correct?

---

The Zulus had some firearms, but as another poster said, they mostly had spears.

Their favorite tactic was a double envelopment maneuver with the two wings of the formation advancing ahead of the center, like the horns of a bull, which in fact was what they called it. With enough space and enough of a numbers advantage, it was very effective. While the British were dealing with the threat in front of them, they were getting flanked on both the left and right.

At Roarke's Drift, the British defense was centered on a stone house and some low stone walls, which gave them enough cover to hold off the Zulu charges, just barely.

“What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly?” Python, Monty.

quote:

---

We need more guys. Period

---

I think you’re discounting the Mexican Army’s reaction too much. The almost instant devastation and destruction of the CoC would cause an Incredible amount of chaos.

quote:

---

While I'm 100% confident 24 Delta would be superior to 24 regular soldiers, the difference in that scenario is marginal (Especially with the ammo limitation).

---

I've even tried to explain to some of the folks here that this is using a hammer to change a spark plug.

The correct asset to defend this position is the smallest unit reasonably expected to hold the position with reasonable casualties. That unit is a modern (leg) rifle company. Just wheeled vehicles and boots. No Bradleys, no howitzers, no tanks. About 130 troops, 60mm morters (M224), (I'll stick with pre-M7 changes), M4s, SAWs, M240Bs - leave all the rockets and AT stuff behind in favor of carrying more small arms ammo and mortar rounds.

Comfortably holds the position without air support and probably keeps their total KIA under 10%, maybe 5%. Again, give me a second company and we probably don't lose anybody. Heck, even an extra platoon might make it a laugher.

I’m sure that’s pretty accurate. But that is to defend against AK toting, RPG firing, and mortar lobbing retards with cell phones and some machine guns.

Attacking a fortified position full of Delta guys in the middle of fields with only muskets??? That’s an entirely different equation.

These guys were attacked by the Wagner group in Syria. They obliterated them. To say Delta Force is not trained and capable of defending a fortified position is a bit of a stretch.

What a stupid comparison, might as well ask if 1 atom bomb could have defended it