Adrian Wintle Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Rorke's Drift was trumpeted partly to counteract the ignominy of the massacre inflicted on the British encampment at Isandlwana earlier in the same day (and the opening sequence of the film). Though equipped with the latest Martini-Henry rifles, the British troops were taken by surprise and overwhelmed by weight of numbers, a well-drilled military force and superior tactics. There were three main issues at Isandlwana: 1. The British force was split. I their defence, there was little indication that a very large Zulu force was nearby and it is not clear that, given #2 and #3 below, the outcome would have been much different if it wasn't. 2. The fixed portion of the British force was in a very open defensive line, with gaps between the units. This allowed individual units to be enveloped - the defensive position was always going to be enveloped - a centre and two wings (horns) was the normal Zulu tactical formation. 3. There were ammunition supply issues, both in the distance from the supplies to the units and the famous lack of tools to open the ammunition boxes. I consider # 2 to have been the worst issue. A tight square might have fared a lot better. Adrian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Yes, Zulu was an excellent movie. Rorke's Drift was trumpeted partly to counteract the ignominy of the massacre inflicted on the British encampment at Isandlwana earlier in the same day (and the opening sequence of the film). Though equipped with the latest Martini-Henry rifles, the British troops were taken by surprise and overwhelmed by weight of numbers, a well-drilled military force and superior tactics. That's an interesting and I think relevant take. There are many parallels of battles with little real strategic impact being trumpeted to improve morale at home. As an example, the related battles at Trenton in December, 1776 and Princeton in January 1777 have a similar historical echo that is disproportionate to their military significance. So too are actions like "Custer's Last Stand". The 19th century is an ugly one for wars whose presumed purpose is now shrouded in history. The Afghan, Sikh and Northwest Frontier wars, and wars in Crimea, Egypt, Sudan and then South Africa don't view well through a contemporary prism. Were the soldiers under Elphinstone retreating from Kabul in 1842 any less brave than those in the Natal? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 The 19th century is an ugly one for wars whose presumed purpose is now shrouded in history. Has anything changed in 135+ years? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 75C Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Has anything changed in 135+ years? Agreed - I sometimes have a hard time working out our involvement in the more recent ones... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium skipepsi Posted January 28, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 28, 2014 Men comitting boys having never fought themselves........ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adams442T Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Interestingly the 'no screwdrivers' issue has been somewhat discounted in recent years. The MH .45 ball ammunition boxes had a top centre slide held by two brass screws, which in extremis could easily be driven out by a judiciously applied rifle butt. I actually saw this demonstrated at Thetford Camp back in the late 60s. I think the greater problem was with the Commissariat and it's rigid control of distribution amongst the troops. Soldiers desperate for more ammunition were turned away from supply wagons by Commissariat Officers because they were from 'the wrong unit'! Though the mind boggles at this 'jobs-worth' attitude in the circumstances it was typical of a peacetime army not yet adjusted to the realities of fighting the Zulu. It reminds me of the service loo paper in the 60s, printed Ministry of Defence, in green for the army, light blue for the RAF, and dark blue for the navy. We had some turn up at Thetford which was Navy issue and they seriously weren't going to allow us to use it until the 'Old Man' stepped in and said, "If the Navy want it back after we've used it I suggest you send it to them!" Again, classically, the press at the time denigrated the Zulu as 'mindless savages' only to transform them later into 'noble warriors'. After they were well defeated and sufficient time had passed of course.......... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 28, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 28, 2014 Men comitting boys having never fought themselves........ To be very blunt Mick I would hardly call some of them 'men' - just wimpish fellow travellers out to impress their political mates and not having the faintest idea of what they were doing (and not helped in some cases by senior military officers whose lives in Whitehall had totally divorced them from reality). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium BR60103 Posted January 29, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 29, 2014 Again, classically, the press at the time denigrated the Zulu as 'mindless savages' only to transform them later into 'noble warriors'. After they were well defeated and sufficient time had passed of course.......... A line from, probably, Beyond the Fringe: "That was when we thought he was a Mau-Mau terrorist. We now know he was a freedom fighter." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londontram Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Again, classically, the press at the time denigrated the Zulu as 'mindless savages' only to transform them later into 'noble warriors'. After they were well defeated and sufficient time had passed of course.......... I'm always reminded of the Blackadder line "if you saw someone in a skirt, you shot him and nicked his country" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londontram Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 It reminds me of the service loo paper in the 60s, printed Ministry of Defence, in green for the army, light blue for the RAF, and dark blue for the navy. We had some turn up at Thetford which was Navy issue and they seriously weren't going to allow us to use it until the 'Old Man' stepped in and said, "If the Navy want it back after we've used it I suggest you send it to them! This reminds me of the story of a squaddy who on finding only three sheets of toilet paper in his issue ration pack complained to his sergeant who said “What you complaining for? That’s all you need, one to wipe up, one to wipe down and one to polish off” Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Btw has anyone read the latest Max Hastings book on WW1? Just picked it up over here (where it is a new release) yesterday. A quick scan seems to imply he is promoting a revisionist view of the senior officer corps of the British Army... Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium skipepsi Posted January 30, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 30, 2014 Btw has anyone read the latest Max Hastings book on WW1? Just picked it up over here (where it is a new release) yesterday. A quick scan seems to imply he is promoting a revisionist view of the senior officer corps of the British Army... Best, Pete. Yes I have read it Pete despite his right wing views and dodgy behaviour in the falklands my son bought it for me for Christmas. The view he has of French (general) is pretty close to calling him a coward IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 30, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 30, 2014 Btw has anyone read the latest Max Hastings book on WW1? Just picked it up over here (where it is a new release) yesterday. A quick scan seems to imply he is promoting a revisionist view of the senior officer corps of the British Army... Best, Pete. This sort of revision has been going on for some years Pete as people got fed up with or saw through Alan Clark's 'Lions Led By Donkeys' populist approach of the 1960s. Some of the Great War Generals were extremely good, and they weren't just German, but they all had to learn about a new way of fighting war and it took them time to do that. Rawlinson has been 'blamed' - in many respects less than fairly I think - for the huge losses on the Somme but there are not so many folk shouting from the roof tops his highly skilled Generalship of 1918 in not only halting but reversing the German thrust towards Amiens and then taking it forward as advance back to Mons. By 1918 the British army (including the Dominion troops), in particular was using advanced tactics of combined air, armour, artillery,infantry and even cavalry co-irdination that was achieving some spectacular advances against a far from demoralised German army. Meanwhile in that same year American Generals were learning the same lessons - and in itially suffered similar levels of casualties - that the British had learnt on the Somme in 1916. And never forget one thing - one of the most popular figures among British troops returning from the Western Front and in the years following the war was Douglas Haig. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
62613 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 You can probably add to that by pointing out that in 1914, the B.E.F. went to war with 4 divisions and 100,000 men; by 1918, the British Army on the Western Front had 45 divisions and 1.4 million men. There were not sufficient officers suitable for commanding large masses of men, and for the staff work involved. Remember, even in the Boer War, the expeditionary force was quite small. Meanwhile, the Germans mobilised 40(?) divisions in 1914, and the French about the same. What everyone seems to forget is, in Britain at least, it's the politicians who start wars, and the generals have to toe their line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium skipepsi Posted January 30, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 30, 2014 According to Hastings it was only 50,000 he also only covers the prelude to WW1 and up to Christmas 1914. I would not say he revised anything about the British general staff as I said previously (post 37 ) he stops short of calling General French a witless coward but not by much. In turn they all get it the french, the russians, austrians and germans all show themselves as unable to adapt quickly to the war of the masses losing thousands of men before any kind of understanding dawns. Given I don't even like the author looking at his extensive research I see no reason to doubt what he says about the early months of the war. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.