Drummer Boy 14

Posts : 2008 Join date : 2011-08-01 Age : 25
 | Subject: Was it always going to be a defeat?? Wed Dec 14, 2011 5:07 pm | |
| Considering that the Zulus managed to get into the fortifications at Kambula And that Kambula had been prepared for an attack for a long timePlus the Zulus getting very close to the Square at Ulundi I can't help but think no matter what was done on the 22nd of January The camp would always have fallen. Any one else any thoughts Cheers DB14 |
|
tasker224

Posts : 2101 Join date : 2010-07-30 Age : 56 Location : North London
 | Subject: Re: Was it always going to be a defeat?? Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:25 pm | |
| DB14, I agree with your thoughts. I think it was always going to be the Zulus' day. Even if the 2/24th hadn't split off from the camp, I still think the Zulus would have won the day. (The disaster would have been twice as big; Chelmsford and the 2/24th got lucky). |
|
90th

Posts : 10680 Join date : 2009-04-07 Age : 66 Location : Melbourne, Australia
 | Subject: was it always going to be a defeat Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:31 pm | |
| Hi DB14. I'm afraid so , there was nothing really that could have been done to save the camp . Others will talk of Laagering , Breaking open Ammo boxes etc etc . But , these are all viewed in HINDSIGHT . According to Wood the Kambula battle was a '' very close run thing '' . If he thought they were lucky to have held on then you can bet with surety it was damn close to becoming another Isandlwana . Cheers 90th. |
|
24th

Posts : 1862 Join date : 2009-03-25
 | Subject: Re: Was it always going to be a defeat?? Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:00 pm | |
| Look RD. Fought the same day 139 men fortifications installed in hours. 5000 Zulus. |
|
Drummer Boy 14

Posts : 2008 Join date : 2011-08-01 Age : 25
 | Subject: Re: Was it always going to be a defeat?? Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:08 pm | |
| RD was diffrent The place to defend was smaller. The Zulus didn't attack at once They didn't have flanks Cheers DB14 |
|