Save the Camp

Guest

SAS1 wrote: Had the Zulus used MH rifles Prior to the invasion

No, otherwise they would have had to RD! But Isandhlwana be? After recovery, albeit with their stories of decontamination, it may not be the case!

Posts : 1862 Join date : 2009-03-25

Was the British not there in 1878?

Guest

ciscokid wrote: I was seriously led to believe That MOST Zulu's About did Have muskets - something like the King got his crew together and got them t hold up Their rifles, he Realised not many Were armed so Told 'em to go to the white traders and get some guns.
:[url=http://ww

And toc! It is gone, the British were defeated because all Zulu warriors had muskets and MLR ...:[url=http://ww

Bizarre as the 24th guy did not have only one injured in the presence of 120 mm on the line of fire, look the Subject: Abandoned Still with 20,000 muskets and MLR, they could have done better! Sacred Zulu!:[url=http://ww

PS: ciscokid, the French with the onions are completely worn stereotype, dailleurs many French across the Channel to sell to the British who love it (there are able to sell their onions as an shallots Like me! that that I was a child, sold toads, saying it was frogs) and I can not tell you for the British living in France ... and I do not care because I am Breton , french is the paperwork for me there is only blood that matters ...:[url=http://ww

Posts : 1862 Join date : 2009-03-25

Subject: Re: How many rifles did the Zulus have? Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:46 pm
The supply of guns to the Zulu Nation started in 1860's when Shepstone gave Dunn permission to supply 250 guns.Subsequently, all thirteen future applications made by Dunn were denied.
Effectively barred from legally exporting guns, Dunn used Lourenco Marques as the point of distribution. From 1873 to 1879 it was estimated that Dunn supplied no less than fifteen thousand guns to Cetshwayo in the six year period.This trade was not considered illegal and leading commercial firms in Durban, including Beningfield and Sons, circumvented the ban introduced by the Natal Government by using LM as point of entry.
From the two hundred and fifty Tower muskets bought in 1860 for 2/6d each and sold for one gun per ten oxen, Dunn accumulated enormous wealth.
The fifteen thousand mentioned above included five hundred breech loaders and ten thousand barrels of gun powder, all technically legally supplied.

Subject: Save the camp Sun Sep 01, 2013 2:45 pm

Hi Rascal .
As you can see from 24th's post the zulu army did have many firearms , but as I said earlier they were of limited value in the effect they would have on the British Army .
Cheers 90th. Salute

Subject: Save the Camp Sun Sep 01, 2013 2:48 pm

I know that "The Film" says the zulu's had MH rifles at RD, and that they were captured at iSandlwana, but like most of "The Film" that is also fictional, as the zulu's that attacked RD were not at iSandlwana.

IF and I stress IF the zulu's did have any MH rifles at RD, then they must have been taken from the men fleeing from the massacre who had the misfortune to run into the zulu reserve that were on their way to attack RD.

Guest

old historian2 wrote :Regarding Ian Knights calculation posted by forum member sas1 1700 men

I have discounted 300 men who may not had rifles NNC ect - $Don\'t agree$ , there were many more soldiers of the infantry of the NNC without firearms, that!

So based on 1500 men with rifles at Isandlwana.I would have to have fun after this, one of these days, unit by unit

So this calculations is only taking into account men with rifles who were allocated 70 rounds each. DB states between 70-80 rounds but lets stick with the lower number.

70 x 1500 = 105,000 rounds between them at commencement of battle.

1500 men firing 6 rounds each per minute = 9000 rounds per minute - $Don\'t agree$ firing 6 rounds per minute EACH is impossible, they stayed 120 mm on the line of fire, stopped the fire 3X10 minutes and after you ,they have used 90mm X 6 cartridges = 540 cartridges ! cartridges by men! Whereas with scotch carts, they had 183 cartridges maximun by men (with 70 cartridges on each men and 112/113 cartridges per man in the scotch cart of each compagny)Also with 85 rifles per companies ,at the maximun and exhausting,using all their stock of ammunition on the line of fire, they have fired, two rounds per minute ,maximun ! ...

Based on 1 man firing for 60 minuites he would require 6 x 60 =360 rounds $Don\'t agree$

Based on 1500 men firing for 60 minutes. 1500 x 60 = 90,000 rounds an hour. $Don\'t agree$

Stick with 105,000 the rounds which they had beween them at commencement of battle. And it is said approximately 3000 Zulu were killed at the battle $Don\'t agree$ , that leaves approximately 102,000 rounds

( 1 round per zulu :[url=http://ww )

unaccounted for. Not to mentioned those Zulus killed by artillery fire.

artillery to kill fewer Zulu she fired ammunition! :[url=http://ww

3000 Zulu Were killed at the battle, or you saw it play ?:[url=http://ww

Subject: Save the camp Sun Sep 01, 2013 2:52 pm

Hi Martin .
I agree with you 100 % . You need to study mo

Cheers 90th.

Subject: Re: Save the Camp Sun Sep 01, 2013 2:52 pm

Pascal. Those figures were based on the what ifs. If you read the ammuntion question topic. You will see by prior posts to the one posted by OldH how those figures came about!

Subject: Re: Save the Camp Sun Sep 01, 2013 2:57 pm

Mr M. Cooper wrote:: I know that "The Film" says the zulu's had MH rifles at RD, and that they were captured at iSandlwana, but like most of "The Film" that is also fictional, as the zulu's that attacked RD were not at iSandlwana.

IF and I stress IF the zulu's did have any MH rifles at RD, then they must have been taken from the men fleeing from the massacre who had the misfortune to run into the zulu reserve that were on their way to attack RD.

That was the only answer to them having MH rifles at RD. but they didn't have much ammuntion! Maybe the odd one or two found in a pouch or on the gound! But as we know, their fire would have been off as they did not know the working of the sights. And I don't recall any defenders being killed or wounded by MH rounds.

Subject: Save the camp Sun Sep 01, 2013 3:07 pm

Hi Littlehand .
You are correct , there is no evidence of anyone being Killed or Wounded at RD from the result of rounds fired from a MH.
I do seem to remember I posted the Medical details of the Killed and Wounded at RD which explained the wounds etc etc .
Cheers 90th. You need to study mo

Guest

Listen living encyclopedia, legend of this forum ect...

Now the question is whether LC theCommander in Chief could save the camp and if Pulleine Commander in Chief in the camp could have saved !C'est le topic...

It would put you in line, in 2011, was rehashed me that Zulu had only 2% of rotten muskets and MLR at Isandhlwana and RD and now they had muskets, MLR and now BLR in mass , to fight...

Well the 24 th post is excellent, but if they were so many muskets, MLR and now BLR, why the 24th guy did not have only one injured in the presence of 120 mm on the line of fire, look the Subject: Abandoned

Still with 20,000 muskets and MLR and now also BLR , they could have done better! Sacred Zulu!

Now the question is whether LC the Commander in Chief could save the camp and if Pulleine Commander in Chief in the camp could save the camp !...Impossible with 20,000 elite shooters in front of them :[url=http://ww

Cheers

Pascal

Guest

Wounded by bullets RD, were killed by bullets Enfield!

And I like to know what kind of soldiers equipped with MH were beings encountered by the warriors of the reserve before attacking RD ...

The only warriors of the reserve, which could retrieve modern rifles are the 500 warriors of the regiment Uthulwana who fought at Isandhlwana on the far left of the left horn ... And those, do not go to RD ...

Subject: Re: Save the Camp Sun Sep 01, 2013 3:49 pm

Pascal
No!
There is evidence that members of the iNdluyengwe pursued the Fugitives and crossed the Mzinyathi. Therefore its possible that they would have had the oportunity to pick up the odd Martini, the chances of getting ammunition would have been really slim untill they returned to isandlwana but they cant be ruled out completely.

Cheers

Guest

springbok9

And on what soldiers of what units they have found these MH ,by curiosity ?

Cheers

Subject: Re: Save the Camp Sun Sep 01, 2013 4:58 pm

There are a number of cairns going up and over mpethe that point to significant number of ffugitives. We do know that a number of sightings took place of men stumbling through the rocks, is it not then within the bounds of possibilities that they would have been imperial troops? We also know that a number of the escapees rode other peoples horses therefore again its possible that troops commandeered transport. In addition of course was the mounted infantry. That potentially puts a number of troops on the oposite side on the Manyimyama.
Most of the British casualties took place on the western side of isandlwana so again early fugitives would have made there way either by the road or adjacent to it. Its again possible that arms could have been collected down by the stream from these men.
Yes its speculative but it is possible. So to outright say there were no MH at RD would take a brave man. Wether they could have been used or not is an entirely different issue.
Cheers

Guest

springbok9 It is true that all the fugitives were not all made the same way, according to their position and history to escape the right horn, and he must also know that the NNC infantry had MH ...

For ammunition that is another question, the fugitives of 24 th should not have many cartridges on them, when the Zulu overtaken and blacks of NNC even less ...

By cons, people always forgetting the carbines of the mounted troops recovered by the Zulus!

In fact we must also know that no modern weapons have been recovered from a Zulu cadaver at RD ...

Any ways to get back to "how to save the camp," I do not think that the firepower of the zulus is a real nuisance, despite the MH recovered , for LC troops if they arrived at Isandhlwana after a forced march ...

In this regard, when it is really left to return to Isandhlwana 22, he marched his guys of the 2/24 th as the Napoleonic infantry, they were fast enough, like what, starting early, the camp may have been saved ...no ? springbok9 Save the Camp please...

Posts : 705 Join date : 2012-05-05

If the zulu fire wasnt a problem,how we're soldiers wounded on the firing lines

Guest

Yes Ray63 I do not think that the firepower of the zulus was a real nuisance and yes how we're soldiers wounded on the firing lines , look the Subject: Abandoned Salute

Guest

So nobody has an idea on what could be done on 22 January, to save the camp Isandhlwana, yet when we have fun again, ever, some battles, this is the kind of questions that arises primarily ...

Posts : 158 Join date : 2012-07-01

Pascal, like you said earlier, if mounted troops arrived in time they could have rode in between the horns and supported Durnford and broke the left horn. If this was done they might would have forced the Zulus to fall back, if anything it could have saved more lives.

Commander Howse

Guest

Yes Masson , this is the most beautiful maneuver, most likely, and I'm sure it would have been successful! It is in this direction that must dig ...

I do not see any other solutions!

Cheers

Posts : 158 Join date : 2012-07-01

If the Zulus were not expecting it maybe some artillery with infantry support firing on the back right horn to disrupt it, but neither would have time to get there. The mounted troops would be the only ones who could have gotten there in time. They would have to make sure they did not get trapped, and the only way was too break the horns which could have been done. Durnford position himself perfectly for it put was just out numbered and low to no ammunition. If he had more ammunition he could have done it by himself.

Commander Howse

Guest

Masson

Suppose the left horn is caught between two fires, even with only the LC cavalry on the arrears on the left horn ...

The zulus imagine that other troops arrived in the back behind the LC cavalry , so the left horn folds on the chest, if the left horn and the chest can be contained, it frees mounted troops, that of the British extreme right under Durnford to go in front of the right horn coming from behind the Mount Isandhlwana ...

Meanwhile the seven companies of 24 th, infantry and cavalry of the NNC and RA contain the chest ...

The problem is the Zulu right horn, Durnford would he have enough mounted men to contain and what would be the best place for it!

It also appears that during the battle, no senior British officers, is not worried about the Zulu right horn!

They forget that the Zulu armies had two horns?

Yet they saw the right horn, at the beginning of the battle, as they fired about it first, at 800 yards !

They saw after that it would go from behind Mount Isandhlwana ...

Pulleine or Durnford and have not worried about it ?

Cheers

Posts : 158 Join date : 2012-07-01

I do not know if they did not worry about the right horn, they just could do nothing about it. If the left horn was destroyed all you would have to do is to move your right flank over to your left flank and let them come to you, they could maneuver to adsorb the blow by pivoting on the extreme left inward an hopefully outlast the advance. The center will have to hold and maneuver to prevent the left horn from reforming, and hope the Zulus only hand a one plan tactic and could not adapt to the situation. This situation would probably not work unless LC's mounted troops were in the thousands.

I was planing on if the left horn broke outflanking the Zulu's bull chest, and pushing them into the right horns disrupting there advance, and with the confusion allowing the infantry to get out of there to a better location reforming and getting ready for the Zulu's advance if they regroup. At this time Zulus would be vulnerable due to the mounted Infantry.

Commander Howse

Guest

Yes maybe the folds of the left horn of the chest would have forced the chest to fold a moment ...

Then the 24 th Infantry and all those who were with her would have been a moment of respite to reform very close camp ...

In fact troops could beings detached from 24 th to go in front of the right horn, for example, two companies of 2/24 th ...

Posts : 158 Join date : 2012-07-01

Pascal you got it, of course this depends on what time the reinforcements would have shown up. If you had more reinforcements come dripping in they could swoop in from the left and out flank the right horn while 1/24th holds the right horn and whats left of the chest within the camp. Hopefully they would have gotten to the ammo cart and have been resupplied.

Commander Howse

Guest

Yes gradually reinforcements of Lord Chelmford arrive and force the left horn and the Zulu chest to change their line of battle in a different direction which would relieve the 24 th ! And a part of this regiment could go find a good position to host the right horn, it could work ...

Posts : 158 Join date : 2012-07-01

Of course, I would have forgotten the camp and formed everybody in a defensive square or whatever with the ammo carts in the saddle and held out as long as I could. Then when/if reinforcements come the Zulus would have to act and most likely make themselves vulnerable or even better get caught off guard and retire.

Commander Howse

Posts : 158 Join date : 2012-07-01

It would work but timing is everything and it would have to be a running formation, since there was no time to come up with a plan of action. And for everybody that was worried about the Zulus that were around LC's location a small mounted force scouting and the infantry could protect LC and Mounted Infantry force's flank.

Commander Howse

Guest

No need to plan Masson , they undertake as and when they arrive, the left horn and chest are forced to deal with them, not knowing what happens to them over ...

As the left horn and chest do not know what happens, they lose time to reform and change the front ... And forgetting the camp ...

This intervention LC, would have saved the third column ... The camp and garrison ect ...

Posts : 158 Join date : 2012-07-01

Pascal, now that Isandlwana has been saved, would Wood have lost and probably been destroyed at Battle of Khambula? It was the destruction of the 3rd Column at Isandlwana that he fortified the camp, or would the scare at Isandlwana still make him fortify his camp?

Commander Howse

Guest

Saw without the disaster to Isandhlwana, no victory at Kambula ! Very Happy

Now we must save Wood, knowing that he will not build a fortified camp, since we just won the battle of Isandhlwana, however, may be that the Zulus would not have attacked Wood ...

But after the victory of Isandhlwana, the third column is blocked because it was done well shaken ... Very Happy

Posts : 158 Join date : 2012-07-01

Oh by the way Durnford wins the VC for the victory at Isandlwana. I still think he should have gotten it anyway, but that is my opinion.

Commander Howse

Posts : 158 Join date : 2012-07-01

Wood most likely beaten or weaken and the weaken # 3 column would not be able to relief Pearson. The # 3 column and #4 column would have to fall back to Natal and who knows what would have happen. Zulus lost at Isandlwan but was able to stop the invasion of Ulundi. So the Zulus still win round 1.

Commander Howse

Posts : 1086 Join date : 2012-05-12 Location : NYC

Commander Howse wrote:: Oh by the way Durnford wins the VC for the victory at Isandlwana. I still think he should have gotten it anyway, but that is my opinion.
Commander Howse

Even if he had been found deserving, I believe that one could not win the VC posthumously back then.

Posts : 158 Join date : 2012-07-01

Nevill Coghill and Teignmouth Melvill both did.

Comander Howse

Posts : 1086 Join date : 2012-05-12 Location : NYC

Commander Howse wrote:: Nevill Coghill and Teignmouth Melvill both did.

Comander Howse

OK, but are you sure those were awarded contemporaneously? In other words -- and I may be getting confused with the Medal of Honor or something like that during the American Civil War -- some medals were only rewarded years, or even decades, AFTER THE BATTLE when it became accepted practice to hand out gongs posthumously. So while you might look at the rolls of the medal winners now, some of the names listed would not have been there a year after the battle.

Posts : 158 Join date : 2012-07-01

You are correct it wasn't until 1902 many soldiers received the award but not the medal posthumously, but in 1907 you could receive the Victoria cross award and medal posthumously. In any case after Durnford was proven that he did not disobey orders he should have received the Victoria Cross.

Commander Howse

Posts : 1086 Join date : 2012-05-12 Location : NYC

Commander Howse wrote:: In any case after Durnford was proven that he did not disobey orders he should have recieved the Victoria Cross.

Commander Howse

On that issue you'll get no argument from me. - 6pdr

Posts : 2558 Join date : 2009-04-06 Age : 62 Location : UK

The posthumous VC was started in 1905

Subject: save the camp Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:19 pm

John I think you may find it was in 1907 ? . Happy to be corrected .
90th. Salute

Posts : 2558 Join date : 2009-04-06 Age : 62 Location : UK

My information states. The posthumous VC was only started in 1905, among the first recipients in 1907 were Lts Melvii & Coghill.

Perhaps one of the medal experts can advise. Like you happy to be corrected?

Posts : 2558 Join date : 2009-04-06 Age : 62 Location : UK

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Subject: Save the camp Mon Sep 02, 2013 9:00 pm

Hi John.
What is the source of your info stating 1905 ? . It isnt wikipedia is it ? . Here is my info and no mention of 1905 .
This taken from ' British Gallantry Awards by Abbott & Tamplin ' page 317 .
'' London Gazette of 8th August 1902 , King Edward V11 approved the issue of 6 posthumous crosses , arising from the south african war of 1899 - 1902 , to the personal representatives of the deceased concerned . The question then arose as to what should be done in respect of six similar cases which had been gazetted between 1859 and 1897 , and for which no crosses had been issued . Although a precedent had now been set for the posthumous award of crosses , it seems that for some time the King resisted making those further awards , and it was not until 1907 that they were gazetted , and the crosses transmitted to the personal representatives of the deceased ''. Hope this helps .
90th.

Posts : 2558 Join date : 2009-04-06 Age : 62 Location : UK

Look at the link above.

Or use the search box on the left home page!:[url=http://ww

Subject: save the camp Mon Sep 02, 2013 9:10 pm

John I've seen the link , think I'll stick to the evidence in the book that I posted ! . Search box is a good idea you should try it ! Shocked

. I also seem to remember I've also posted this evidence once or twice previously , you can look it up you know where ! :[url=http://ww . Give it a go you may learn to like it ! . agree

90th :[url=http://ww

Posts : 420 Join date : 2011-05-14

John & 90th,

Despite what happened in 1902, it still took a further five years.

Please see the following link:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

'Jimu

Subject: save the camp Mon Sep 02, 2013 9:58 pm

Hi Jimu.
Always happy to get confirmation . John , I assume your happy to have been corrected ? :[url=http://ww.
90th.

Posts : 2558 Join date : 2009-04-06 Age : 62 Location : UK

They were awarded in 1907. The act for Posthumous awards was past in 1905 ?

» Save the Colours!
» Coghill and Melvill issue
» HALLAM-PARR: new camp the 23/01 for