Low rate of fire and weak firepower...

Hi all

Which decreed that the Zulus had 3000 losses at Isandhlawana ?

With the low rate of fire and weak firepower of the MH, it seems impossible ...

Cheers

Pascal

3000 was an estimate, from both British, Coloinal , and Zulu accounts. The exact number can never be know.

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

Zulu accounts ?

Since when the Zulus counted their losses they did not even know their numbers...

Pascal. It's says estimated. the British could not have know how many Zulu were killed that day, as most of their dead were carted away.

No estimate is possible ...

Littlehand

The British do not even know how many munitions were used by the defenders ...

No comparison can be made with the Rorke's Drift D statistics or the firepower of the defenders can be roughly estimated beings at 4% of hits ...

4% of hits is too much for Isandhlwana ...

Should know the expenditure of ammunition of each units at Kambula, Gingindlovu and Ulundi, regiment by regiment, and know the number of zulu corpses found in face each of these British regiment for each battle, to begin to make an assessment and then stay over's imagine the number of Zulus who were not killed by individual firearms ...

A sacred super interesting study that would realize that guns breech loading, the appearance of fighting currency, but are perhaps not as much No estimate is possible ...

hat would realize that breech loading rifles, change the face of battle, but may not be much more dangerous than that the muzzleloader rifles ...

Cheers

Pascal

I wonder how long it would have taken to remove 3000 dead bodies from the field. Does anyone know how many Zulu bodies were actually seen by those that visited the field months later.

Brickhill made reference to the Zulu daed,something along the lines of "It looked like the field was scattered with peppercorns"

Very good question Dave and the other good question is: Zulus calculated their losses after Isandhlwana?

Beings can, because the Zulu king may be said that a assegai was planted into the belly of the Zulu nation

Wonder what the king meant by that. Surly it would have been better to say " Bayonet"

He meant, if he really say that , that the loss of his army had been so heavy on the 22 and 23 January 1879 for the Zulu army, that the Zulu nation was fatally wounded ...

But he spoke only of Isandhlwana or of the three battles fought by his army the 22 and 23 January 1879 ?

Didn't they not lose more at Kambula than they did Isandlwana.

Should know the number of dead counted every battle ...

Isandlwana.
52 British officers and 806 non-commissioned ranks were killed. Around 60 Europeans survived the battle. 471 Africans died fighting for the British. Zulu casualties have to be estimated and are set at around 2,000 dead either on the field or from wounds. The Zulus captured 1,000 rifles with the whole of the column’s reserve ammunition supply.

Rorke's Drift.
Casualties: Zulu casualties are thought to have been around 500. The garrison of the mission station comprised 8 officers and 131 non-commissioned ranks. Of these 17 were killed and 10 wounded.

Kambula 
Wood’s force suffered 83 casualties. It is believed that 3,000 Zulus were either killed in the battle or died of wounds.

Follow-up:

The battle at Khambula significantly reduced the ability of the Zulus to resist the British invasion of Cetshwayo’s Zululand kingdom. The diversion of such a large force of warriors to the North enabled Chelmsford to relieve Pearson at Eshowe in the South and then press forward to the final defeat of the Zulus at Ulundi.

Regimental anecdotes and traditions:
The soldiers of the 13th and 90th Regiments expended an average of 31 rounds per man.
Wood appears to have considered the role of the Royal Artillery guns as decisive in the battle, firing shrapnel over longer ranges and case shot at short into the massed Zulu ranks.

Gingindlovu
Casualties: British casualties were 6 officers and 55 men; among the dead was Lieutenant Colonel Northey of the 60th Rifles. Zulu casualties were calculated at 1,000.
References:
Zulu War by Ian Knight (Pan Grand Strategy).

Ulundi.
Casualties: The British casualties were 3 officers and 79 men. Zulu casualties were said to be 1,500.

Yes, but this is not the exact number of Zulu corpses found and counted in each battles that would be the only usable figures ...

Skippy had posted something or was given some figures on the amount of ammunition fired by various regiments in various battles, but I can not find it ...

Hi pascal

Give rifle capable of firing 12 rounds per minute at 1450 yards to the British infantry was a utopia, given the use they have made ...

It's like giving a knife to a chicken ...

Their low rate of fire has not even the excuse of saving ammunition because they have never missed, as they tried to make out after ...

Everything happened by the fault of officers of all grades, present at Isandhlwana, who were to believe in a lunch on the grass ...

Otherwise they would have made ​​other arrangements and rates of fire and battle formations were different ...

warrior

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,Gobsmacked

Yes sir! the truth is hard to admit for you, but there is nothing of wrong with what I posted ...

British officers at Isandhlwana were all below ...

warrior

Warrior

You're crazy

Pascal the Rascal