Who was most culpable for the defeat at the Battle Of Isandlwana: Was Lord Chelmsford , Col Glyn, Col Pulleine, or Col Durnford.

waterloo50 wrote:

The force at Isandlwana was more than adequate, I think not. Look at the outcome. Regardless of how the men were positioned. A better line of defence could have caused higher casualties to the Zulu but I honestly believe that the speed and numbers of the Zulus and the tenacity in which they fell upon the line would have overwhelmed even a well entrenched army.

The subject of ammunition supply has been covered on the forum before but its worth mentioning Ian Knights take on this myth, 'the expenditure of rounds by font line companies in battles of the Victorian era is suprisingly low . During the battle of Khambula three months later, the imperial infantry expended in four hours an average of 33 rounds a man. The fighting at Khambula was no less intense than isandlwana.' The doctrine of the day was a slow and steady rate of fire. Each man in the 24th started the battle with seventy rounds each.'

Somehow CTSG I don't think that there is anything that I could say that would alter your thinking on the situation, however, I respect your opinion and enjoy debating with you.  

Regards

Waterloo

I'm hoping there will be others on here apart from Steve that will disagree with you.

Waterloo, not sure if you have already done so, but if not look at the "ammunition question" thread.

This from forum member John.

"Subject: Re: The ammunition question   Sun Jul 22, 2012 1:32 am
I have based this on 1100 men with rifles at Isandlwana. I'm not sure how many rounds the Coloinal regiments carried with them ( per person)

So this calculations is only taking into account 900 British soldiers who we know we're allocated 70 rounds each.

70 x 900 = 63,000 rounds between them, without resupply.

900 men firing 6 rounds each = 5,400 per minuite.

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

Based on 900 men firing for 60 minuites. 360 x 900 = 324,000 with resupply

So 324.000 take away the original 63,000 = 261,000 addional rounds would be required to keep the men supplied with ammuntion per hour.

But if we stick with the 63, 000 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 60,000 rounds unaccounted for. Not to mentioned those Zulus killed by artillery fire.

This is just a rough calculation as I have not included the Coloinal units.

So in a nut shell did they need a resupply. 900 seasoned men 70 rounds each. 63,000 rounds between them, 20,000 zulus."

Hope you see my point, when I say had the men been position correctly and ammo available.

CTSG

I'm sure a lot of people will not agree with me, its just my opinion but I'm here to learn.

Ulundi posted this sometime ago

'The recoil was perhaps a factor behind John Dunn’s remarks about the shooting of the British infantrymen at Gingindlovu explaining that ‘they were firing wildly in any direction.’ He goes further;

"I was much disappointed at the shooting of the soldiers. Their sole object seemed to be to get rid of ammunition or firing so many rounds a minute at anything, it didn’t matter what."

Just wondering if you think this was a factor at Isandlwana which would kind of support what I was saying about there being enough ammunition. In the heat of battle and with the ferocity of the attack it would make sense that ammunition was used rapidly. I recall Ian Knight saying the same thing about rates of fire and the reason for a slower rate of fire was so that men could pick their targets. It would have to be a very calm and experienced soldier to hold it together considering the size of the force that they were up against

Regards  

Waterloo.

The Soldiers John Dunn speaks about, we're raw recruits, the troops at Isandlwana were old well seasoned solders, lots of exprience. Not that, that can be said about the two commanding officers.

Ouch,  

somehow I knew that you would respond with that.

My point was that regardless of experience these men whom we must remember were fighting overwhelming odds would have shot at anything that moved. Maybe the firing was very controlled in the early stages of the attack, but as the enemy closed and men were withdrawing the rate of fire and the chances of hitting a target every time greatly diminished. A controlled rate of fire would not be maintained for very long. If this was the case then ammunition would have been used at a greater rate. I also thought that it was now an established fact that ammunition was indeed reaching the front line. If this was the case then with controlled rates of fire the amount of ammunition used should have been enough. Unfortunately as we all know the men were not fighting shoulder to shoulder.

Regards

Waterloo

I have no wish to take this post any further off topic so I will call it a day on this matter.

waterloo50 wrote:

Ouch,  

somehow I knew that you would respond with that.

My point was that regardless of experience these men whom we must remember were fighting overwhelming odds would have shot at anything that moved. Maybe the firing was very controlled in the early stages of the attack, but as the enemy closed and men were withdrawing the rate of fire and the chances of hitting a target every time greatly diminished. A controlled rate of fire would not be maintained for very long. If this was the case then ammunition would have been used at a greater rate. I also thought that it was now an established fact that ammunition was indeed reaching the front line. If this was the case then with controlled rates of fire the amount of ammunition used should have been enough. Unfortunately as we all know the men were not fighting shoulder to shoulder.

Regards

Waterloo

I have no wish to take this post any further off topic so I will call it a day on this matter.

If you read eyewitness accounts, the men at Isandlwana remained disciplined, it was only when the fire slacken off, did the problems start. At one point during the Battle the Zulu were stopped with the amount of fire being poured into them.
I did read somewhere that some of the men in various Compaines were laughing and becking the Zulu's to come on.

From Peter Quantrill.

"Well, the topic has had a good run and I would like to thank those who contributed for their interesting and informative views.
The bottom line remains that the battle commander was Pulleine and, as such, all battle decisions were within his control and command structure. He failed to adequately respond tactically to Zulu movements, and no matter the mitigating circumstances, was in my view culpable. I appreciate that this is not a view shared by all.
Best wishes,
Peter"

Thank you Peter for an interesting topic. Now, how about another!

Steve

It made for a great discussion.

Many Thanks.

Waterloo

It made for a great discussion.

Many Thanks.

Waterloo

Admin wrote:

From Peter Quantrill.

"Well, the topic has had a good run and I would like to thank those who contributed for their interesting and informative views.
The bottom line remains that the battle commander was Pulleine and, as such, all battle decisions were within his control and command structure. He failed to adequately respond tactically to Zulu movements, and no matter the mitigating circumstances, was in my view culpable. I appreciate that this is not a view shared by all.
Best wishes,
Peter"

Peter great topic, it's a pity the Lord Chelmsford bashers didn't take it more seriously. For me I think your correct when you say "Pulleine failed adequately to respond tactically to Zulu movements" possibly along with failing to cooperate with Col Durnford.