Marksmanship.

Hi All

As everyone knows, the NNC black infantrymen were zero with firearms like their Zulu opponents , they have only 5 cartridges or a box of cartridges ...

We never talk of the marksmanship of the NNH soldiers ? Given their origins, and despite modern weaponry, from the beginning of the war, their marksmanship was her superior to that of their comrades of NNC infantry ?

Cheers

Pascal

There is some mention of that in here.

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

Some infoe here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

According to "TROOP SERGEANT MAJOR SIMEON KAMBULA, DCM" the men under him were all good shots.

Hi Mate

It is good to know, it is those of Edental mission, but for others troops ?

Cheers

Pascal

In my opinion the NNH was not good troops, as they were not good scouts and they were not real riders not more, they are vulgar mounted infantry without the quality of the British mounted infantry...

Pascal MAHE wrote:

In my opinion the NNH was not good troops, as they were not good scouts and they were not real riders not more, they are vulgar mounted infantry without the quality of the British mounted infantry...

Fair enough, no more to be said!!!!

This is the truth, and that goes for the majority of British colonial troops in South Africa.

Totally agree

Of course, their only interest is their originality and sometimes their uniforms ...

forgive me for my ignorance, but what do the initials NNH and NNC stand for?

Hi free1954

NNH = Natal Native Horses and NNC = Natal Native Contingent. There was also the NNPC, the Natal Native Pioneer Corps ...

The NNH and NNPC are part of the NNC ,they are also infantry in the NNC but the infantry bears no particular name ( There was no NNI...)

These troops were composed of blacks living in Natal, they were from all black ethnic origins and there was even Zulu among them ... Most of their officers and non - commissioned officers were white.

White or black, these troops are not worth much and it was quite an embarrassment for all columns of invasions...

At the beginning there was none troops of the NNC in the columns n° 4 and n° 5, the blacks in these columns resulted from another lifting of native troops of the Transvaal and did not have the same organization...

These black troops of the Transvaal are not worth much and it was quite an embarrassment forthe columns n° 4 and n° 5...

Cheers

Pascal the Rascal

why do you assume that these troops were poor shots? i guess we can only judge them now by any previous actions that they may have been in. it has been my experience that most men who carry arms for a living know how to use them.

Hi free1954.
Just a small point NNH is Natal Native Horse , not Horses as Pascal has posted .
Cheers 90th.

Pascal,

Quote :

columns n° 4 and n° 5, the blacks in these columns resulted from another lifting of native troops of the Transvaal and did not have the same organization...

As someone who formerly lived in Swaziland, I did think the AmaSwazi formed Wood's Irregulars would ever think they were from the Transvaal.

'Jimu

it has been my experience that most men who carry arms for a living know how to use them.

It's false free1954, multiple historical examples prove otherwise in all wars and all ages, including the Zulu war ... For example, with all the black troops and also with the soldiers a British Imperial infantry battalion at Gingindlovu ,when the ignoble John Dunn had noticed at the officers of this battalion that the hikes of their their guns were incorrectly adjusted ...

But it is a good thing,that most men who carry arms for a living not know how to use them otherwise there would be even more men killed in wars ...

As someone who formerly lived in Swaziland, I did think the AmaSwazi formed Wood's Irregulars would ever think they were from the Transvaal.

It's false Jim, certainly many Swazis among the black troops of the column No. 4, but these did not come from Swaziland , and all black in this column were not Swazi, far from it, see my topic : Swazis in the first Anglo-Zulu War.


The Swazis wer a related people the military methods of the zulus,but avoidedl british colonial occupation thanks to their mountainous homeland and a policy of fighting alongside the whites alas,rather than again them.

They possed a spectacular army owing to their habit of wearing their full regalia in battle,something the Zulus no longer did .(Also the warriors assigned in the zulu war to Wood's Irregulars reported for duty wearing full Swazi regalia,including their impressive ostrich and sakabuli feather headress and mantle of animal skin ;they sem to have retained these in battle .Like their traditional enemy ,the zulu,they carried large hide shield and spears .African officers and NCOs received percussion firarms on a scale of about ten to each company of 100 men ;in addition these men received a belt ,bullet pouch and cap pocket.To differenciate the men of Wood 's Irregulars from the zulus (?)they wore strip s of coloured cloth around the head (?),although these is a suggestion that some wore these around the upper left arm .For the Wakkerstroom warriors the cloth was red and white ,and for those from Ultrecht blue and white ;Hamu 's zulus received cloth of red and yellow )

Nevertheless they were no match for the zulus in a stand-up fight, and their reluctance to join massively the british in the war of 1879 suggest that they knew it.

Also ,when the Natal government prepared to recruit a Native Contingent from its African population Lord Chelmsford authorised Col Evelyn Wood ,commanding N°4 Column,to raise 2000 men from the south - eastern Transvaal.In late December 1878 the landdrosts or magistrates of Utrecht and Wakkerstroom received an order calling men for service ,and by early January the ranks of Wood's irregulars began to swell as recruits arrived in batches at the camps at Balt Spruit.

While many of the men of this region were of Swazi origin,those recruited were not hired Swazi mercenaries.Chelmsford allowed Wood more discretion in the organisation of his African auxiliaries,resulting in a less formalised structure than in the infantry of the NNC.

Two battalions were formed ,led by Cdts J.Henderson and R.Roberts,and by 14 January numbered about 800 men with european officers;although the strenght reached 1065 men by 3 February,this was still far below the stated target.

Early in February ,deciding that the performance of the unit lacked discipline and overall organisation ,Col Wood placed it under Army officers:overall command went to Maj W.K.Leet,1/13th" light" infantry regiment ,with Lt C.Williams ,58 th Regiment,as his staff officer.A week later Wood disbanded the Wakkerstroom contingent except for about 50 men.At the third rout of the British army in this war,at HLOBANE at this time ,the reorganised 1st Battalion ,now under Cdt T.L.White ,numbered 240 men ,and the 2 nd Battalion ,still commanded by Roberts,mustered 277 men;Maj Leet accompagnied the 2 nd Battalion.

The defection to the British of Hamu kaNzide,an important Zulu leader,with 1300 of his adherents added 230 warriors to Wood's Column.These Zulu,many of the uThulwana regiment,also took part in the race pursuit of Hlobane,led by Capt C.Potter with Leet's staff officer William in overall command.

After this third rout of the British army in this war,most of Wood's Irregulars dispersed,only 58 being present at Kambula the following day .The unit did reassemble later and incorporated Hamu's Zulus.Major Leet resigned the command of Wood Irregulars in May 1879,and it was under Cdt White that about 330 men fought at Ulundi.

Before in November 1878,Col Wood recruited also about 50 African scouts from the Luneberg district and he obtained old Dragoon Guard cavalry tunics for them from Pietermaritzburg ,claiming these were "the only ones into they could squeeze their bodies,and in these the top buttons that would meet"He allowed six men to each company of the 90 th "light"infantry regiment .They do not appear to have had an official unit designation but served with the 90 th "light"infantry regiment until the war.Wood considered them invaluable on outpost duty ,as "their powers of hearing were extraordinary;[and]they could see further than we could with field glass".

Cheers

Pascal

Hi Marsupial

Just a small point NNH is Natal Native Horse , not Horses as Pascal has posted .

Horse or Horses, eh, we understand! I am not an English teacher, I do what I can with this language ...

Pascal the Rascal

Hi Rascal .
I realise you arent an english teacher as I'm not a french teacher , but if something can be corrected it needs to be done .
No disrespect meant on your English abilities . :p;:
M'supial .

Hi Marsupial

I know it is not a lack of respect from you my friend! But as I have great difficulty with the English language, it automatically make me jump, but then tell me would this change, there was an "S" or not to "Horse"?

Since there were more than 300 men and at least as many horses in this body, I put in the plural ...

Cheers

Pascal the Rascal

Hi Rascal .
I'm also not an english teacher the ' S ' just isnt on the end , as when you may say ' The 5th Australian Light Horse Regt ' you dont have
an ' S ' on the end of the word Horse . :p;: Hope this makes sense
Cheers M'supial

Hi Marsupial

Yes it's true, it's like "Chevau-Légers"(Light Horse in english) is written in French, it does not "S" to "horse" however, they are many horses in a regiment...

But in fact talking about the regiment, not of its members, so, do not put a "S", but for me it does not make sense ...

Cheers

Pascal the Rascal

Rascal that's the English Language for you ! . Many things dont make sense when it comes to the English Language.
Cheers 90th.

Yeah it's the language barrier

thank you gentleman for taking the time to respond. in reply to the statement that it's false that most men bearing arms don't know how to shoot i can only base my response on the people i have known, and i guess i come from a differen't culture than you do.

It is not a question of culture, has less to live in the Wild West in the nineteenth century or believe still live in this time ...

It's just a matter of let go in training fighters since the advent of mass army or even lack of budget, for example, U.S. soldiers who faced the Indian, shooting as bad as their opponents, by lack of training, lack of money to provide them with live ammunition to train ...

But the main reason is generally a matter of let go ...

But before the war against the Zulu, white settlers saw a very bad eye that firearms were given to blacks of Natal, he would have missed more that they know are in serve !

i was thinking more sir of the veterans i had known from the first world war onward. although my grandfather told he his father had fought against the apaches and had been regarded as a good shot
i just feel that to badmouth these troops so many years after the fact is a low blow. after all, we only have the words and writings of people who may have been predisposed to prejudice in the first place.

When I was young, many years ago now, I asked my Grandfather if he had ever killed anyone, like most kids did in those days. He told me he didn't know, but that reply came from a lot of the old soldiers. Possibly a polite way of saying mind your own buiness. But back then, every old soldier had their secrets. Real soldiers never tell!!

it was not so much that they had talked about their actions. only my grandfather just before he died at age 97, expressed remorse for those he had killed. but i have shot with and hunted with these veterans and i know they knew how to shoot and handle firearms.

free1954

Just compare the mass of munitions fired and the number of enemy casualties, see the Battle of the Rosebud in 1876, it took an average of 2,500 cartridges to reach a Sioux or Cheyenne horsemen ... A Rorcke's Drift, it takes a minimum 25 rounds to reach a Zulu warrior ...

In my family, they have fought the Germans and everything settled with automatic weapons and heavy weapons, as well as melee Because in general, infantry rifle fires are not profitable ...

It's all about training, I was also over-trained, I often think, so that my score, I was a real automaton with my assault rifle when I was in the infantry of Marine and had interest to pull very well if we were punished, not counting the time to disassemble and move up our weapons to clean weapons ect ...

So force to train, we arrived at something worthwhile, but for me the weapons, hunting and war is to stack ...

Cheers

Pascal

Chard1879

I know some veterans that have made the war in Indochina (1945-1954 ) and Algeria (1954-1962).

When they saw how Arabs torturing prisoners and mutilated the corpses (the kind of thing that made ​​the American Indians in the nineteenth century on all their opponents, white or not, of all ages and sex), I guarantee you they retaliated and they are not ashamed to say ...

Cheers

Pascal

Pascal, the number of rounds fired to number of kills ratio was not important. Often, troops fire rounds not to hit anyone, but to keep enemy heads down, deterrence and to cover colleagues. One night in Bastion a year or two ago, tens of thousands of rounds (let's say 30,000) were fired off in response to some small arms fire from some Taliban. In the morning, there was evidence of ZERO casualties.
The men of the camp in the early stages of the battle would have done this - they had no idea at this point remember, how many enemy warriors there were and that they would later be running low on ammo,.

The men of the camp in the early stages of the battle Would Have done this?

Fautx I calculated with IK Iin the past, even counting the dead time, the soldiers of the 24 th barely fired a shot at the minute, which is anormal, given their weapons ...

More at that time, the infantry firing at targets which saw ...

Techniques of the current fights are not comparable with those of the tIme there ...

Cheers

Pascal

Pascal MAHE wrote:

free1954

Just compare the mass of munitions fired and the number of enemy casualties, see the Battle of the Rosebud in 1876, it took an average of 2,500 cartridges to reach a Sioux or Cheyenne horsemen ... A Rorcke's Drift, it takes a minimum 25 rounds to reach a Zulu warrior ...

Cheers

Pascal

Pascal, are you questioning the slow rate of fire, or the shot to kill ratio, or both?
I remember reading on this forum somewhere, that back in 1879 the fire of a trained and experienced British regiment would have been, cool, level headed, slow and steady. (But they could have ratcheted this up to 4 or 5 rounds per minute if necessary).
I am sure the MH experts on here such as Neil would be able to clarify this.

the slow rate of fire and the number of shot to kill at Isandhlwana , is one of the causes of the defeat, which nobody thought ...

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

Quote :

John wrote:
Regarding Ian Knights calculation posted by forum member sas1 1700 men
I have discounted 300 men who may not had rifles NNC ect

So based on 1500 men with rifles at Isandlwana.

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

Based on 1 man firing for 60 minuites he would require 6 x 60 =360 rounds 

Based on 1500 men firing for 60 minutes. 1500 x 60 = 90,000 rounds an hour.

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, that leaves approximately 102,000 rounds unaccounted for. Not to mentioned those Zulus killed by artillery fire. 

[quote="Pascal MAHE"]free1954

Just compare the mass of munitions fired and the number of enemy casualties, see the Battle of the Rosebud in 1876, it took an average of 2,500 cartridges to reach a Sioux or Cheyenne horsemen



where sir did you get this number from? can you post a link to the source? thank you.

Pascal a lot of ammuntion when you consider "Indian losses are estimated at around a dozen killed and 20 wounded" Something is very wrong!!

This could be Pascal's link see ammuntion fire at the bottom....

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

Something was very, very wrong if this is true..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
This source says 80,000


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

Firstly

They stayed 120 minutes on the line of fire and stopped to fire three times, in my opinion they have fired for 90 minutes, no more.

secondly

He had to spend 90 cartridges per men, ammunition they had on them and some of those who were in cars that supplied companies.

Thirdly

Nobody takes 6 shots per minute with an MH for 60 minutes or 90 minutes ... The reglement of the line of fire would be 4 shots per minute in volley fire and this rate has certainly never been reached ...

Fourthly

On line fire, each company has 70 cartridges maximun by men, a maximum of 5600 to 5950 cartridges + 9600 cartridges in the company car = a maximun of 15200-15550 cartridges per company ...

In conclusion, if the companies had taken all their cartridges in 90 minutes, which did not take place, each company would have fired :
- 85 soldiers per company at the maximun x 2 cartridges fired per minutes per each soldiers = 170 cartridges fired per each soldiers in 90 minutes .
- 170 cartridges x 90 minutes on the line of fire = 15 300 cartridges fired per each compagny ...

But they have drawn less than this, because it seems that the ammunition in cars have been little used ...

As Ian Knight, Ian Castle and I had calculated at the beginning of the 90s, each soldiers on the line of fire, fired 90 cartridges in 90 minutes , or a shot at the minute ...

85 x 90 rounds = 7650 rounds fired by each company on the line of fire in 90 minutes (and only a maximum of 70 rounds fired by the soldiers of the provisional company of the 2/24 th ,because this unit have not a supply car ...)

Because it seems that the ammunition in cars have been little used ...

You see, it is far from the rates of fire that you indicate and of the regulatory rates of fire...

Fifthly

A Rorcke's Drift, the shooting took place at close range and in much better conditions that at Isandhlwana. Yet it took a minimum of 25 rounds to hit a Zulu ...

But Isandhlwana,on the line of fire , it takes a lot more for a hit (50 rounds to hit a Zulu ? ),as long as the Zulus are not in the camp ...

sixthly

Once in the camp, the ammunition supply is random for the defenders ...

Seventh

Artillery and rocket launchers, have Fired very little and were not particularly deadly for the Zulu...

The fire of the mounted troops took less time, was less powerful and less deadly for Zulu ...

The firepower of the infantry of the NNC and the civilians present is ridiculous ...

In the melee in the camp, the Zulu losses are lower than in face of the enemy fire on the line of fire...

Conclusion

There is certainly no 3000 Zulu, knocked out at Isandhlwana ...

Cheers

Pascal

free1954

During the Indian Wars, the fires of the U.S. Army is quasiement zero unless in melee with the pistols, same for the Indians with firearms ,but not with their bows, but at less than 50 yards ...

In fact all is decided in melee or by shooting to less than 50 yards ...

Cheers

Pascal

Pascal your estimates of fire rates is inaccurate, as is your the expenditure rates in battles of similar intensity. There is no doubt when severely pressed the fire rate can be increased, but the Zulu's were not Khamikaze pilots and were not going to rush headlong into the companies. I don't do guesswork where ever possible, but draw on contemporary evidence


We know from Woods reports that the average fire rate per man was 33 at Khambula, at Maiwand Afghanistan in 1880, H company who were severely pressed on the left of the line, were engaged for nearly three hours, we know this, because Priese the O/C actually recorded the expenditure and wrote to his father that his company (approx 90 men) expended 4620 rounds of ammunition, which is approximately 52 rounds over three hours. Maiwand can be classed as Intense, or maybe even more so than Isandlwana, given that the Yakubs forces had artillery, Cavalry and 20,000 infantry and irregulars.

Yes, when pressed the fire rate can be enhanced Mc Neill wrote after Tofrek "We subjected the enemy to a 20 minute hail of fire", thats the Berkshires and the RMLI blasting at very short ranges, casualties (dead) on the Mhadist side was 1650, you have to do the maths here but 600 men (not counting the Bombay Infantry) firing point blank, for twenty minutes.? it should in your hypothetic scenario lated less than five.

Pascal your estimates of fire rates is inaccurate ???

Oh I said that we laugh!

Firstly

They stayed 120 minutes on the line of fire and stopped to fire three times, in my opinion they have fired for 90 minutes, no more.You're okay ? Who does not agree ?


secondly

He had to spend 90 cartridges per men, ammunition they had on them and some of those who were in cars that supplied companies.On line of fire, the numbered companies of the 24 th, could not use more than 15,550 cartridges in 90 minutes ,You're okay ? Who does not agree ?...

Thirdly

Nobody takes 6 shots per minute with an MH for 60 minutes or 90 minutes,We're talking about human beings, not machines ... The reglement of the line of fire would be 4 shots per minute in volley fire and this rate has certainly never been reached ,otherwise they would have missed ammunition and would not stay on the line of fire, 120 minutes,You're okay ? Who does not agree ?...

Fourthly

On line fire, each numbered companies of the 24 th has 70 cartridges maximun by men, a maximum of 5600 to 5950 cartridges + 9600 cartridges in the company car = a maximun of 15200-15550 cartridges per company ,and they have not received additional ammunition on line fire ,you're okay ? Who does not agree ?......

In conclusion, if the companies had taken all their cartridges in 90 minutes, which did not take place, each company would have fired :
- 85 soldiers per company at the maximun x 2 cartridges fired per minutes per each soldiers = 170 cartridges fired per each soldiers in 90 minutes .
- 170 cartridges x 90 minutes on the line of fire = 15 300 cartridges fired per each numbered companies of the 24 th ...You're okay ? Who does not agree ?...

But they have fired less than this, because it seems that the ammunition in cars have been little used ...You're okay ? Who does not agree ?...

As Ian Knight, Ian Castle and I had calculated at the beginning of the 90s, each soldiers on the line of fire, fired 90 cartridges in 90 minutes , or a shot at the minute ...Because we're talking about human beings, not machines ...[color=yellow]You're okay ? Who does not agree ?...

85 x 90 rounds = 7650 rounds fired by each company on the line of fire in 90 minutes (and only a maximum of 70 rounds fired by the soldiers of the provisional company of the 2/24 th (because this unit have not a supply car ...)You're okay ? Who does not agree ?...

And because it seems that the ammunition in cars have been little used.You're okay ? Who does not agree ?... ...

You see all, it is far from the rates of fire that indicated by some members of the forum and of the regulatory rates of fire.You're okay ? Who does not agree ?......



Fifthly

A Rorcke's Drift, the shooting took place at close range and in much better conditions that at Isandhlwana. Yet it took a minimum of 25 rounds to hit a Zulu ...You're okay ? Who does not agree ?...

Also at Isandhlwana,on the line of fire , it takes a lot more for a hit (50 rounds to hit a Zulu ? ),as long as the Zulus are not in the camp ...You're okay ? Who does not agree ?...

sixthly

Once in the camp, the ammunition supply is random for the defenders ...You're okay ? Who does not agree ?...

Seventh

Artillery and rocket launchers, have Fired very little and were not particularly deadly for the Zulu...You're okay ? Who does not agree ?...

The fire of the mounted troops took less time, was less powerful and less deadly for Zulu ...You're okay ? Who does not agree ?...

The firepower of the infantry of the NNC and the civilians present is ridiculous ...You're okay ? Who does not agree ?...

In the melee in the camp, the Zulu losses are lower than in face of the enemy fire on the line of fire...You're okay ? Who does not agree ?...

Conclusion

There is certainly no 3000 Zulu, knocked out at Isandhlwana ...You're okay ? Who does not agree ?...

Cheers

Pascal

where did the number for the zulu casualties come from originally? i can only find a few historian versions online.

With an army like this, all the figures, in terms of their number of men or their losses are hypothetical, no, are valid only the number of counted dead may give an idea, but there is no two witnesses giving the same version ...All that you can read on this is wrong !

This is exactly like the wars against your Indian fellow ...

Cheers

Pascal

Pascal MAHE wrote:

With an army like this, all the figures, in terms of their number of men or their losses are hypothetical, no, are valid only the number of counted dead may give an idea, but there is no two witnesses giving the same version ...All that you can read on this is wrong !

This is exactly like the wars against your Indian fellow ...

Cheers

Pascal

so true sir. but i just can't believe that at islandwana all those rifleman, firing all those rounds, over that amount of time, would not have done significant damage to the zulus. i'll bet the warriors who faced the british guns once were reluctant to do so again.

No, if they are less tenaces in battle after the disaster they have suffered at Kambula , at the battles of Gingindhlovu and Ulundi, they go anyway, if the British fire power is superior to everything they have endured before ...

Say they are patriotic and even ultra patriots and impetuous, like the three regiments from the Corp umCijo or the regiment inGhobamakhosi

Cheers

Pascal