Isandhlwana; Facts About the Battle

[Absalom]

For much of history, the British considered a rifle with bayonet attached to be a lance. They didn't practice sustained fire or rapid reloading. Actually, most European armies deployed that way, but the British probably persisted in using that doctrine for a longer period of time.
[/URL]

Coincidentally, some decades ago I watched a demonstration of this by some reenactors at a military museum in Britain (I honestly don't remember which one, they have so many of them over there, we visited a ton; I'll have to dig out the old photos some day).

The Zulu wars were one of their topics, and they demonstrated (with a rubber bayonet and wolden assegai) how one-on-one the soldier really didn't have a chance unless he caught the Zulu off-guard; the guy playing the Zulu got the soldier every time, because he effectively had two weapons: he deflected the bayonet thrust with the shield and then nailed him with the assegai. Because of the clumsy weight and momentum of the rifle, once that bayonet tip was headed in the wrong direction, it was impossible to get it redirected in time to parry the lightning-fast assegai thrust. Add to that the numerical superiority of the Zulu, and once it got to hand-to-hand combat on an open unprotected battlefield like Isandhlwana, it was pretty much over.

 

[the ringo kid]

I dont know if the following is correct or not? having read it from one of the stories printed many years ago in: Military History Magazine but--in the story--the write stressed that part of the reason for defeat at Islandulwana--was because whoever was in charge of ammo--refused to release it for lack of orders--calling this a big discipline type thing. When orders were recieved--was too late to do any good.

Like I said,I dont know if that is true and had anything to do with the British defeat at that battle?

 

[GatorFarmer]

There was a once famous poem about the defeat of an Anglo Egyptian Army, primarily armed with .43 Remington Rolling blocks, by Mahdists. It contained a line about the Gatling jamming. Except the Brits actually had Gardner guns in that battle.

Rockets were said to work well against natives, inspiring terror. Similar was said of the later katyushas and the nebelwerfer and their ability to shake up inexperienced troops. But in tropical conditions I imagine reliability was an issue.

I wonder what the marksmanship training of British troops was at the time. Probably not very good. Armies were cheap and ammunition expensive whereas it was said that hunger and Jack Frost were always ready recruiters.

The Red Cross puts a huge death toll in India AFTER independence. https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/india-pakistan-kashmir-1947.htm

While the British were not above pitting folks against each other, they largely prevented the Hindu versus Muslim violence that took place after independence and ever since. To this day Pakistanis and Indians hate each other and have hard feelings over the events leading to both being independent countries.

The Zulus certainly had access to firearms, mainly smoothbore flintlock tradeguns.

I had always heard the opposite, that a man with a bayonet and rifle had the advantage against sword, spear etc.

The last big bayonet charge by American Army troops seems to have been in Korea. It worked.

The USMC still trains with the bayonet and developed what amounts to a Kabar that fits on your rifle in recent years as a distinctive bit of kit.

There is a now classic Marine text, I believe called Cold Steel, about how to use your Kabar and your bayonet in hand to hand combat with Chinese hordes. Originally published in Leatherneck magazine a serial, it became at least semi official.

The Red Army always seemed to prefer the bayoent fixed on Mosin Nagants, viewing the two as part of the same system. With the long reach of a bayonet plus a wood stock and steel buttplate...I would think the rifleman had the edge.

 

[Coldshooter]

For much of history, the British considered a rifle with bayonet attached to be a lance. They didn't practice sustained fire or rapid reloading. Actually, most European armies deployed that way, but the British probably persisted in using that doctrine for a longer period of time.
[/URL]

During the French Indian War the British destroyed the fighting ability of French troops on the Plains of Abraham with three quick volleys. My mother's French ancesters were there. Later in the Zulu wars the expediant of lagering the wagons learned from the Boers, along with gatling guns led to great slaughter of the Zulu. My father's Welsh ancesters were at that one so I have read up on both a bit. A different generation including my grandfather's brother served in the Boer war.

 

[Dennis The B]

I dont know if the following is correct or not? having read it from one of the stories printed many years ago in: Military History Magazine but--in the story--the write stressed that part of the reason for defeat at Islandulwana--was because whoever was in charge of ammo--refused to release it for lack of orders--calling this a big discipline type thing. When orders were recieved--was too late to do any good.

Like I said,I dont know if that is true and had anything to do with the British defeat at that battle?

That was one of the factors in Pulleine's defeat. The British Quartermasters were sticklers about issuing ammunition, since it was their hides if it, or other supplies turned up missing. Ammunition, and other supplies were signed out to the approved authority from each unit, and no one else. Usage was noted, and unused ammo had to be returned and accounted for by each unit.

There's a scene from "Zulu Dawn" which captures the bureaucracy of the Quartermaster Corps. While the scene is dramatically embellished, it made the same point as the MHQ article.

The actual casualty counts, especially those of the Zulu, is something which has generated a lot of speculation. The Zulu killed about 1350 at the battle. However, about half were native contingent troops and constabulary, and mercenaries. This, in and of itself, may be part of the reason the battle was lost, since their training and discipline were suspect. The non-British losses were estimated at around 650, roughly half. The Zulu themselves lost a large number of men, nearly as many as the British, although there have never been any real counts of the Zulu losses.

The British 24th Regiment of Foot bore the brunt of casualties, and they later distinguished themselves at Rourke's Drift.

 

[Texas Star]

I dont know if the following is correct or not? having read it from one of the stories printed many years ago in: Military History Magazine but--in the story--the write stressed that part of the reason for defeat at Islandulwana--was because whoever was in charge of ammo--refused to release it for lack of orders--calling this a big discipline type thing. When orders were recieved--was too late to do any good.

Like I said,I dont know if that is true and had anything to do with the British defeat at that battle?

This was probably true to some degree, but if you read the whole thread, you'll see that one of the main points I made (or was made by the documentary I cited) is that ammunition DID reach the troops in at least some positions. They knew how to break open the boxes in the absence of the proper screwdrivers, and many pull tabs to the inner liners were found at the positions of the troops who fired there...and died there. These pull tabs were similar to those on modern cans.
The ammunition boxes were sealed internally to protect ammunition under tropical conditions. Bent main screws gave mute testimony that the troops indeed broke open boxes, lacking the proper tools to enter them. Metal detectors have recently found many of both these screws and the pull tabs.

My post of the program has been deleted here, so I guess it violated one of the Rules, although I read them first and think it was within guidelines. Apparently not. But if you go to YouTube and Search for Secrets of the Dead and Isandlwana, you should find the program. It's worth the search. I was fascinated. Seeing the evidence found and interpreted and the firing of the rifles on the basement range in an army museum was very interesting.

Someone raised the question of the Dutch-descended "settlers." All I dare say here is that Cape Town was founded in 1652, not long after the Pilgrims landed in MA. They did not encounter the Bantu tribes until they were at the Great Fish River, halfway across South Africa, in the 1750's. I cannot mention the original inhabitants here. But those who became the Zulu and others were overrunning and largely exterminating them. Their ancient rock paintings date back at least 40,000 years. But that's an anthropological issue, beyond the intent of this thread.

 

[zzzippper]

My post of the program has been deleted here, so I guess it violated one of the Rules, although I read them first and think it was within guidelines. Apparently not. But if you go to YouTube and Search for Secrets of the Dead and Isandlwana, you should find the program. It's worth the search. I was fascinated. Seeing the evidence found and interpreted and the firing of the rifles on the basement range in an army museum was very interesting.

It is still there, at post #22.

 

[Texas Star]

It is still there, at post #22.

Oh: yes, I just found it, but when I made the above post, I saw a white square there. My computer warns me that this site is running some malware program and the speakers even kick in with bits of commercials at odd times.

It's likely that my reception of the board is affected by whatever program is referred to. This is the only site where I get such warning notices from my anti-spyware.

I'm glad that the program is still visible. I just couldn't see it earlier.

 

[Imissedagain]

The Blue Nile / Moorehead

This is a good read about the peaceful Dark Continent.

 

[transit]

I have a 577-450 Martini Henry cartridge in my collection that's a battlefield pickup from the Zulu wars. It's a wrapped cartridge with a separate head or cap enclosing the rear. The cartridge is in fair to poor condition but has some history behind it.

Could you post a pic? I'm a buff, degree in history, I'd love the opportunity to see something that was actually from the period.

 

[Cyrano]

The problem wasn't the extraction capabilities of the Martini, it was the weakness of the cartridge rim. All the extracting capability in the world is useless unless the cartridge can stand the force, and I doubt those multi-part Martini cases could. As an example, here's a copper 45-70 case that the extractor of a Trapdoor pullled right through. The Trapdoor doesn't have much extraction capability but had too much for the soft, copper cartridge case. With the design of the Martini case, I'm not surprised if sometimes the head of the case would come out but the body remained stuck in the chamber.

 

[Texas Star]

Could you post a pic? I'm a buff, degree in history, I'd love the opportunity to see something that was actually from the period.

Can you view the video mentioned/linked in post number 22? I think you'd find it quite interesting, and it shows actual artifacts from the battlefield and rifles being fired.

 

[transit]

Can you view the video mentioned/linked in post number 22? I think you'd find it quite interesting, and it shows actual artifacts from the battlefield and rifles being fired.

I did.

Outstanding!

I'd just still like to see a nearly century and a half year old cartridge that was actually on a battlefield in the area of operations that we're discussing.

That's hot.

The documentary was terrific. It had new info for me, and I am a buff!!

I don't put a lot of stock into the eclipse thing; anyone who's familiar with black powder...

-One can clearly envision the visibility problems with no need for enhancement.

I'd still just like to have the opportunity to see a genuine, vintage, cartridge from that part of the world at that point in history.