If the united states had one machine gun do you think they could have won the battle at the alamo?

Answer 1

If you was to take an M-60 say back in time to assist indefending the alamo then it is very possible that it might have made the difference. For one once the Mexicans started taken casualties at long range then it would have had a major psychological impact on them. An M-60 can be moved quickly so their artillery would have a hard time zeroing in on it. If you put it on the roof of the tallest building it would give you a 360 degree field of fire also. One key factor I think though was how far away was General Santa Anna. My first shots would blow his head out of the saddle. That also could make a huge difference. Target the leadership, and with the soldiers in the Alamo might have been able to pull it off. Also if you have an M-60 covering 1 side you could distribute most your forces over 3 sides instead of 4. That would help a bit.

Answer 2

The USA was not physically involved in the Battle of the Alamo. And no, one machine gun against over 3000 enemies with only 185 defenders would not have made any ultimate difference. You can only place a mg in once spot and and point it in one direction.This doesn't really help in the long run.

Answer 3

The United States did not participate in the Battle of the Alamo.

Machine guns had not been invented yet, and if they had existed the Mexican Army might have had them too.

Also, the Mexican Army had 6000 men, and used only 1800 of them versus the ~200 inside the Alamo. So the Texans were doomed in any case.

Answer 4

The United States wasn't at that battle. It was Mexican (Texan) rebels against the Mexican Government.

Texas didn't become part of the USA until 1845, nearly ten years after the Battle of the Alamo.

Answer 5

the united states did not fight at the alamo,only texans, with davie crockett and 14 of his men from tennesse. texas was not a state then, but the men that fought at the alamo did win, by holding santa anna off they gave general sam houston enough time to finish training his troops, so that santa anna was defeated at san jacinto, and texas won independence from mexico. but to answer your question, no the alamo was surrounded by the mexican army the machine gun would have only covered a certain area.

Answer 6

The US wasn't part of Texas's war of Independence in 1836. The Mexican-American war was in the 1840's AFTER Texas was a Republic.

A machine gun can be defeated with a squad of men or artillery. So it would have taken at least thirty or forty machine guns considering the size of the Mexican army

Answer 7

the history books tell us we won the Alamo, but the truth is that not only Anglos were fighting for the Alamo so were Mexicans because of the promises they were told and they believed. but who cares now Tejas is part of the United States and I live in it but I much rather be living in California were I was born Texans are Conservatives and narrow minded and in California you can just be your self and no one cares. So who cares about the Alamo now?

Answer 8

It depends how much ammo, what distance( if it was a few hundred yards damage would be decreased), and how experienced the man shooting the thing was. Also the model would be a factor if it was a m-60, or a browning 50, and there was a U.S. gunner on that puppy and alot of ammo it is possible.Also if you know anything there were thousands of Mexicans and remember there artillery could kill the gunner without loosing guys.But unfortuantly we will never no.
Hope this helped!

Answer 9

No ... Santa Anna's field artillery would have taken it out. As Patton said, a fix fortification is a monument to man's stupidity. To hold the mission was a fool's gambit.

Answer 10

I don't know what you know about the Alamo.
But they did win!!! Didn't Texas become a State? Sure the slaughter the Americans, Like Day Crockett, Jim Bowie. But at the end Americans won!!!!