WWW.1879ZULUWAR.COM

Zulu Dawn: General Lord Chelmsford: For a savage, as for a child, chastisement is sometimes a kindness. Sir Henry Bartle Frere: Let us hope, General, that this will be the final solution to the Zulu problem
 
HomeHome  CalendarCalendar  GalleryGallery  PublicationsPublications  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  
Latest topics
»  Isandlwana cultural centre
Today at 5:17 am by xhosa2000

» 'What if' Rorkes Drift question.
Yesterday at 3:40 pm by SRB1965

» A new book on the Frontier Light Horse
Yesterday at 7:03 am by rusteze

» LSGC to a SNCO 2/24th
Tue Oct 16, 2018 6:22 pm by Kenny

» AZW Personality
Mon Oct 15, 2018 7:36 am by Gardner1879

» Charlie Raw
Mon Oct 15, 2018 5:01 am by John Young

» Ferreira's Horse
Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:55 am by Commandergood

» Colonel J. S. Young
Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:12 am by John Young

» Capt. A. Gardner 14th Hussars (Staff Officer No.3 Column)
Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:36 am by ADMIN

»  Designer of Historical Boardgames
Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:39 am by xhosa2000

» ‘The Battle of Isandlwana’ by Charles Fripp
Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:22 pm by ymob

» Natal Mounted Police nominal rolls - Introduction
Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:32 am by Julian Whybra

» The Battle of Gingindlovu
Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:19 pm by 90th

» John Standish Surtees Prendergast Vereker, 6th Viscount Gort VC, GCB, CBE, DSO & Two Bars, MVO, MC (10 July 1886 – 31 March 1946)
Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:12 pm by 90th

» 1409 Pte David Lloyd, Defender of Rorke's Drift
Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:18 am by Mr Greaves

Major-General Sir William Penn Symons
( Isandula Collection)
History Buffs: Zulu
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 
Rechercher Advanced Search
Top posters
90th
 
littlehand
 
Frank Allewell
 
ADMIN
 
1879graves
 
rusteze
 
Chelmsfordthescapegoat
 
John
 
Mr M. Cooper
 
impi
 
Fair Use Notice
Fair use notice. This website may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. We are making such material and images are available in our efforts to advance the understanding of the “Anglo Zulu War of 1879. For educational & recreational purposes. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material, as provided for in UK copyright law. The information is purely for educational and research purposes only. No profit is made from any part of this website. If you hold the copyright on any material on the site, or material refers to you, and you would like it to be removed, please let us know and we will work with you to reach a resolution.
Top posting users this month
90th
 
Frank Allewell
 
xhosa2000
 
rusteze
 
SRB1965
 
Victorian Dad
 
John Young
 
Gardner1879
 
ADMIN
 
Julian Whybra
 
Most active topics
Isandlwana, Last Stands
Pte David Jenkins. 'Forgotten' Survivor of Rorke's Drift Returned to Official Records
Durnford was he capable.1
Durnford was he capable.5
Durnford was he capable. 4
The ammunition question
Durnford was he capable. 3
Durnford was he capable.2
Pte David Jenkins. 'Forgotten' Survivor of Rorke's Drift Returned to Official Records
The missing five hours.

Share | 
 

 Killed/wounded ratio?

Go down 
AuthorMessage
Mikran



Posts : 10
Join date : 2012-08-07
Location : Sweden

PostSubject: Killed/wounded ratio?   Wed May 15, 2013 9:20 pm

A while ago I discussed the comparatively low casualy figures of the Zulus, and I also touched upon the killed/wounded ratio. Now I'm wondering if there is any evidence of how many Zulus were wounded in each battle, and throughout the war? When looking at casualty figures from other historical battles, as well as AZW British casualties that should be held as well-documented, it is strikingly clear how many were wounded compared to the number killed. For instance, at Kambula the British had almost twice as many wounded as killed (including the mortally wounded), at Ulundi the ratio was 1:5 and at Gingindhlovu 1:6. If we compare that with other battles of the era like Sedan (1870), there was a killed/wounded ratio of 1:3 for the Prussians and almost 1:5 for the French. At Gettysburg the ratio for the Union army was 1:5 and 1:3 for the Confederates (presumably more wounded Confederates died due to lack of proper field hospitals).

If we take these statistics into account, could it be that total Zulu casualties were bigger than previously thought? When the British counted dead Zulus on the battlefields, did they include those wounded who were dispatched on site? Were dead Zulus carried off the battlefield by their comrades during retreats? Could it be assumed that the Zulu killed/wounded casualty rate might have been somewhere in the area of at least 1:2 or 1:3?
Back to top Go down
tasker224

avatar

Posts : 2103
Join date : 2010-07-31
Age : 51
Location : North London

PostSubject: Re: Killed/wounded ratio?   Thu May 16, 2013 3:44 am

Mikran, the killed/wounded ratio from any skirmish, fight, battle etc depends on many, many, factors.
In the AZW, the only way to know for sure is if records were kept, but the Zulus did not keep records.
At the Somme in 1916 on the first day, the Germans inflicted a killed:wounded ratio of 1:2 on the British and Allied troops and they were going at slow moving targets in open ground with heavy artillery and machine guns from a relatively close range.
Therefore, I do not think it is safe to assume that the Zulus suffered anywhere near a similar ratio in the battles of the AZW. Salute
Back to top Go down
Chelmsfordthescapegoat

avatar

Posts : 2565
Join date : 2009-04-25

PostSubject: Re: Killed/wounded ratio?   Thu May 16, 2013 6:49 am

Mikran, Heres some information from Col: Mike Snook. Zulu War Author / Historian.

"A number of points to ponder:

The Zulus were magnificent and athletic light infantrymen well versed in the use of ground, cover and 'skirmishing' style tactics - they were not the suicidal lemmings so ridiculously portrayed at the end of Zulu where the whole Zulu nation appears to get wiped out in about two and a half minutes.

RD was substantially a night battle - the only light after 7.30 pm was that which came from the burning hospital [thatch]. Difficult to shoot anything in those conditions. Couple this with dreadful muzzle flash from the MH rifle which ruins the firer's night vision with every shot (and I don't just mean one's own shots). After the first couple of hours the rifles were too hot and people's shoulders too bruised to take a proper aim with all due regard to the principles of marksmanship.

In front of the north wall there was a great deal of cover - not least a five foot high stone wall - which ran pretty much the length of the defences and served as a ready made dead ground FUP [military jargon - forming up point]. Additonally there was a good deal of dead ground at either end of the north wall - beneath the rocky ledge beyond the hospital, at one end, and same effect down beyond the cattle kraal at the other. Beyond the cattle kraal, outside the perimeter, there was a second, much larger, stone-walled stock pen - again perfect cover for many hundreds of men. Key, then, is the fact that the Zulus were not making the long exposed approaches that one sees in Zulu. They got in close, early, and then they stayed there - most of them would have spent the battle on their bellies, crawling about behind walls and ditches, squatting on their haunches, waiting the order for their particular 'company' to try a rush on the defences

Attacks were short lived and furious - they bubbled out of cover at short range. In between times there was a great deal of musket and rifle fire being poured into the post - not only from Shiyane - but from the close cover as well. Another myth is that most of the Brit casualties were shot from Shiyane - in fact the majority occurred from fire being poured in at close range. There was a lot of snap-shooting going on at fleetingly exposed targets. Such targets are extremely difficult to hit, if the firer is jinking about too.

The Zulus were kept out of RD, in the main, by the voulme of British fire. And the bayonet only when it came to it...

You can fire an awful lot of rounds without hitting anything under the conditions I have described."



Back to top Go down
John

avatar

Posts : 2547
Join date : 2009-04-07
Age : 56
Location : UK

PostSubject: Re: Killed/wounded ratio?   Thu May 16, 2013 6:57 am

Some good points there.. Perhaps we look to the film to much for answers... agree
Back to top Go down
Chelmsfordthescapegoat

avatar

Posts : 2565
Join date : 2009-04-25

PostSubject: Re: Killed/wounded ratio?   Thu May 16, 2013 7:00 am

Agree John, we forget most of the fighting was done in darkness. I know the burning hospital provided some light, but in most cases you can't shoot what you can't see!!!
Back to top Go down
impi

avatar

Posts : 2308
Join date : 2010-07-03
Age : 38

PostSubject: Re: Killed/wounded ratio?   Thu May 16, 2013 7:39 am

I think Mike makes a lot of sense!! Never thought of it that way. It would have been only natural, that the Zulu's spent most of thier time on their bellies, avoiding the shots. I'm still surprised that the rifles lasted as long at the ammo?
Back to top Go down
Ulundi

avatar

Posts : 557
Join date : 2012-05-06

PostSubject: Re: Killed/wounded ratio?   Thu May 16, 2013 8:48 am

Quote :
The Zulus were kept out of RD, in the main, by the voulme of British fire. And the bayonet only when it came to it...

Quote :
I'm still surprised that the rifles lasted as long at the ammo
scratch

Back to top Go down
impi

avatar

Posts : 2308
Join date : 2010-07-03
Age : 38

PostSubject: Re: Killed/wounded ratio?   Thu May 16, 2013 9:07 am

Ulundi. After prolonged use the weapon system would get fouled to the point that it was almost impossible to reload. This problem was caused by the thin rolled brass cartridge and the black powder propellant. However only one defender makes reference to this " Pte Henry Hook" That's why I said
Quote :
I'm still surprised that the rifles lasted as long at the ammo
Back to top Go down
90th

avatar

Posts : 9832
Join date : 2009-04-07
Age : 62
Location : Melbourne, Australia

PostSubject: Killed / Wounded ratio    Thu May 16, 2013 4:38 pm

John I wouldnt look to the film to answer any questions ! :p;: , or Zulu Dawn for that matter , I'm sure some are guilty of doing so on both films . Shocked
90th
Back to top Go down
Mikran



Posts : 10
Join date : 2012-08-07
Location : Sweden

PostSubject: Re: Killed/wounded ratio?   Thu May 16, 2013 8:10 pm

Interesting discussion about Rorke's Drift, fighting darkness etc, but I can't really see what the last posts have to do with the topic?
Back to top Go down
Frank Allewell

avatar

Posts : 6923
Join date : 2009-09-21
Age : 71
Location : Cape Town South Africa

PostSubject: Re: Killed/wounded ratio?   Thu May 16, 2013 9:48 pm

Mikran
I think what CTSG is saying (from Mike Snook) is that the defenders laid down a massive amount of blanket fire during the night time. They could not see into the darkness so literally volley fired into the night at any sound. Considering the amount of cover the impi had hundreds of rounds would have impacted into the stone walls, cook house etc. Therefore the kill ratio would have been minimal.
There really is no way of knowing what the wounded situation would have been. Suffice to say that Bertram Mitford mentions that on his tour there where many instances of bullet wounds. Harry Lugg also relates a story of meeting a wounded zulu after the war and exchanging stories.

Regards
Back to top Go down
impi

avatar

Posts : 2308
Join date : 2010-07-03
Age : 38

PostSubject: Re: Killed/wounded ratio?   Fri May 17, 2013 1:39 am

There was 400 odd, wounded Zulus killed in the melee fields, after the Battle. Possibly victims of ramdom shots
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Killed/wounded ratio?   

Back to top Go down
 
Killed/wounded ratio?
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
WWW.1879ZULUWAR.COM  :: GENERAL DISCUSSION AREA-
Jump to: