Zulu use of firearms

Hi all

It seems to RD and Kambula, the Zulu warriors with firearms are separated from others to form fire support !

Is there evidence for this tactic to other battles ?

Cheers

PTR

Pascal MAHE wrote:

Hi all

It seems to RD and Kambula, the Zulu warriors with firearms are separated from others to form fire support !

Is there evidence for this tactic to other battles ?

Cheers

PTR

 If you go to the "Zulu War" Battle section. There's information there on the various battles.

It's done and it seems that there has to RD and Kambula they worn this tactic very efficasse, bizarre !

Hi Pascal

About a year ago there was an AZW themed day at the National Army Museum in London. One of the speakers was Professor John Laband. He gave an extremely interesting talk on the attitude of the Zulu towards firearms. Although I think it is generally accepted these days that the Zulu had quite a lot of firearms, most of these were quite old smoothbore muskets or rifled muskets. Even the latter were limited by their effective range - possibly a maximum of some 300 metres (the Shyiane terraces at RD are nearly 400 metres from the south "wall" of the defences).

There is little evidence that the Zulu changed their basic tactics to allow for the use of firearms, the possession of which was more in terms of a status symbol. The Zulu tactics were all about closing with their enemy and using their fearsome close combat weapons - the assegai and the knobkerrie. Conversely the British tactics were based on the opposite premise - using their long range weapons to keep the Zulus at a distance and NOT engage in close quarter action.

The ineffectiveness of the captured Marti-Henry rifles at Khambula is a point in question. Had the Zulu appreciated how the rifle should have been used, and had they developed rifle-only units, then Wood's position would rapidly have become untenable. However, to change a stabbing-spear army to a rifle equipped army - a major change in tactical doctrine - in a matter of weeks was just not possible.

Bill

Bonjour Monsieur

But yet, RD and Kambula, there are actually Zulu warriors had gathered because they had firearms, who actually made ​​a fire support to their peers without firearms is not it?

And if the warriors with weapons fire mixed with those who did, launched in a traditional assault, would rather in the forefront of the mass or squarely before as voltigeurs or rather, in the last ranks of the masses so as not to wipe the opposing fire and come alive and ready enough to the enemy?

And during a battle, the warriors recover and use firearms from their comrades and enemies killed?

Cheers

Pascal

Pascal

What evidence do you have that firearmed Zulus were operating in formed groups for fire support purposes at either RD or Khambula - as opposed to individuals doing their own thing ? I suspect you are reading too much into this.

As I've said, for the Zulu to use firearms tactically would have taken a major change in tactical doctrine and would have meant extensive "re-education" and training - the time was just not available for this, nor is there any evidence that it was in fact done, or even attempted. It is therefore probably not a good idea to compare them with Voltigeurs - as they reflects a totally different philosophy.

Bill

Monsieur

I reading too much into this, because I am passionate.

It is not ideal to change tactics in wartime, but given the urgency of the situation and the novelty of the situation, this is what was practiced to RD and Kambula ,because someone ago one who ordered the "Zulu musketeers and riflemen " to fight separately in these two battles here!

Dabulamanzi saw what happened to Isandhlwana and wanted to innovate !

Pascal

Hi Pascal

No, nothing to do with being passionate. It's to do with the interpretation of available facts. I don't think the evidence supports your theory that it was practiced at both RD and Khambula.

At RD possibly some of the iNdluyengwe may have picked up Martini-Henry rifles along the Fugitives Drift trail, but it is highly unlikely they would know how to fire them properly. So most of the "rifle" fire coming down on RD from the Shyiane was almost certainly rifled musket fire. And, as I've mentioned, the range is just too far to be effective. I suspect anyone hit in RD, was hit from a lone musket man firing from a bush a lot closer than the Shyiane, or was the "unlucky" recipient of a long range fluke shot.

At Khambula, although the Zulu had a lot of MHs from Isandlwana, they again demonstrated a lack of familiarity with the weapon - no doubt you have seen/read the accounts of bullets firing above the heads of the British troops (indicating the sights were set too high). The Zulu were carrying the rifles mainly as a status symbol/trophy - evidence that they had been at Isandlwana.

There is no evidence at either RD or Khambula that the Zulu used exclusively rifle armed companies

So, although it may have been a good idea to group Zulu firearmed men together, it was just not feasible. Zulu tactics that had evolved over some 30+ years could not be changed overnight. Nor would there have been time for the Zulu to practice with the new weapons and to learn new tactics to use them to any advantage.

Dabulamanzi was, I believe, fairly modern in his approach to firearms, but even he was not in a position to change Zulu tactics. After RD his failure earned him general disapproval, and although forgiven and put in command against Pearson, his performance at Gingindlovu shows no signs of differing from the standard Zulu tactics. Where did you get the information from that makes you state "Dabulamanzi ..... wanted to innovate" ?

Now, if Cetshwayo had sent Dabulamanzi on a course at the Army School of Musketry at Hythe ...... !! Unfortunately no evidence of this happening either !

Bill

PTR,

On a recent visit to Isandlwana I had the good fortune to meet with the descendants of Prince Shingana kaMpande, through the means of their inherited oral history they described to me how their forebear commanded one hundred and fifty riflemen at the Battle of Isandlwana.

They told me how those riflemen slid forwards through the long grass towards the centre of the British line. On reaching that position they fired a controlled volley into the British ranks, inflicting heavy casualties on the opposing forces.

Now I know there are those cast uncertainties on the value of Zulu oral histories, so I checked all the references I could on Prince Shingana's role at Isandlwana, in the aforementioned John Laband's work 'Rope of Sand', he mentions that Prince Shingana commanded one hundred and twenty riflemen at Isandlwana, so may be there is a element of truth to the oral history after all.

'Jimu

Jim, interesting there a reference to this by a Zulu Warrior, evidently he claimes this tatic was used at Isandlwana. I will try to find it.

Mister Bill

No, nothing to do with Being passionate. It's to do with the interpretation of available facts. I do not think the evidence supports your theory That It was Practiced at Both RD and Khambula. the evidence supports for my theory are RD and Khambula !

At RD possibly some of the iNdluyengwe May Have picked up Martini-Henry rifles Fugitives Drift along the trail, it is highly unlikely goal Would They know how to fire em properly.And why not, this kind of gun is a easier jobs that a musket or MLR!

do not suspect anyone hit in RD, was hit from a lone man musket firing from a bush a lot closer than the Shyiane, gold was the "unlucky" recipient of a long range shot fluke. So there either I'm not in agreement, the range is good for a MLR.

At Khambula, altho the Zulu Had a lot of MHs from Isandlwana, They again Demonstrated a Lack of familiarity with the weapon - And yet they are british soldiers injured or killed by this type of rifles armed zulus groups ,not zulu amaviyo of rifles armed warriors ,only groups of warriors with such weapons from all regiments or better abaQulusi warriors

There is no evidence at Either RD or Khambula That the Zulu army rifle used Exclusively companies

So, altho It May Have Been a good idea to group firearmed Zulu men together, it was just not feasible. Zulu tactics That HAD Evolved over some 30 years Could not be changed overnight. Nor Would Have Been there for the Zulu time to practice with the new weapons and new tactics to learn to use 'em to have any advantage.They improvised! They fit!

Dabulamanzi was, I believe, fairly modern in His approach to firearms, aim even he was not in a position to exchange Zulu tactics. After RD His failure earned him general disapproval, and altho forgiven and put in command against Pearson, His performance at Gingindlovu shows no signs of Differing from the standard Zulu tactics. Where did you get the information from That makes you state "Dabulamanzi ..... wanted to innovate"? Simple deduction for what happened to RD.

Cheers

Pascal the  

Hello Monsieur Jim

This awesome post!

Obviously this is self-evident matter of logic, it has make this to RD and Kambula, so why not to Isandhlwana?

And day one of the forum members tell me that it was also made in the battles after Kambula!

But think of abaQulusi, I bet they did it too!

And to the siege of Eshowe ?

Cheers

Pascal the  

Mister"petites mains "

"petites mains " wrote :I will try to find it..Bravo "petites mains "!

Cheers

Pascal the  

kwajimu1879 wrote:

PTR,

On a recent visit to Isandlwana I had the good fortune to meet with the descendants of Prince Shingana kaMpande, through the means of their inherited oral history they described to me how their forebear commanded one hundred and fifty riflemen at the Battle of Isandlwana.

They told me how those riflemen slid forwards through the long grass towards the centre of the British line.  On reaching that position they fired a controlled volley into the British ranks, inflicting heavy casualties on the opposing forces.

Now I know there are those cast uncertainties on the value of Zulu oral histories, so I checked all the references I could on Prince Shingana's role at Isandlwana, in the aforementioned John Laband's work 'Rope of Sand', he mentions that Prince Shingana commanded one hundred and twenty riflemen at Isandlwana, so may be there is a element of truth to the oral history after all.

'Jimu

that is an interesting story. are there any other references to Zulu rifle companies?

Yes, but for Isandhlwana it is too good to be true!

Pascal MAHE wrote:

Yes, but for Isandhlwana it is too good to be true!

?

Hello Monsieur kwajimu1879  

It took the Zulu saw, which happened to Isandhlwana to organize some kind of fire support to RD and Kambula  !

Best regards

Pascal

Say it again!

Hello Mr.Chelmsfordthescapegoat

Say it again! With pleasure ! : It took the Zulu leaders see themselves that were arrived at Isandhlwana to organizes some kind of fire support to RD and Kambula  !

Best regards

Pascal

can anyone point me to any other references to zulu rifle companies at islandwanna?

As examples, there is what kwajimu1879 written above and what happened to Rorcke's Drift and Kambula proving that the Zulus were tempted to make fire support of attacking warriors with warriors, with others warriors all equipped with firearms. But .. they were all of the same regiments or companies? or gathered for the occasion ?

Don't here much anymore from " kwajimu1879 " he was quite a interesting member! Hope he's ok. Admin any reason why he hasn't been on of late?

He's seems to have disappeared around the time Col Mike McCabe passed away. Just a thought.

Last visit of kwajimu1879 the Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:33 am...

Jim is well, working on another project, which is taking up most of his time.

thank you gentlemen for the replies.

So much the better