you are currently viewing: Discussion Forum
 
 

 
 

The Rorke's Drift VC Discussion Forum
(View Discussion Rules)

** IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL USERS **

PLEASE NOTE: This forum is now inactive and is provided for reference purposes only. The live forum is available at www.rorkesdriftvc.com/forum


(Back To Topic List)

DateOriginal Topic
4th March 2002Zulus with martini-Henry rifles at Rorkes' Drift?
By Glenn Wade
It is said that the Zulu army had no Martini-Henry rifles at Rorkes' Drift but it is fact that the Indluyengwe regiment was part of the right horn that was sent to cut off survivors from the Inzanyati river. As we all know, Zulus had a tendancy to take most of the clothes and organs from their victims as well as their guns! There were three Zulu regiments at Rorkes' Drift and one of these was none other than the Indluyengwe who presumably had rifles and carbines from the fugitives of Isandlwana. They went up into the Oscarberg hill and, well, the rest is history! I would like others to share their opinions on this1
DateReplies
5th March 2002Dan Rudary
Hi Glenn,
All of the books that I have read on the battle and the Zulu War usually only say that the Zulus used flintlock and percussion guns at Rorkes Drift, usually with inferior powder, and often homemade bullets. In later battles, such as Khambula, I have read that the Zulus had some Martini-Henrys with them.

Your Friend,
Dan
5th March 2002Dave Nolan
Glenn
I hope that Adrian Greave's forthcoming book on Rorke's Drift will deal with this very issue - I can't wait.
Dave
5th March 2002Godfrey Harmer
Most books on the subject refer to sniping from the hills overlooking the mission station but do not mention the type of firearm used.The Zulus had older style firearms and tended to aim too high which was probably just as well depending who's side you favour
5th March 2002James Garland
The "Lancet" vol.2 (Jul y 1879) contains a report by D.Brown "Surgical notes on the Zulu War" He helped repair the numerous wounds received by the Rorke's Drift defenders and made the following comments. "The wounds were made by ordinary round bullets fired from smooth-bored guns. The ease with which most of the bullets were turned asise from their straight course after penetrating can, I think, be accounted for by the fact that they were fired, for such weapons, at considerable range, and the charges of powder must have been limited, as the enemy individually carry but one bullocks horn, transformed into a powder-flask; this is usually all they have." He also states "From the fact that the men at Rorke's Drift fought from behind shelter the wounds were all in the upper portion of thebody. Those that were killed were hit on the head" I hope this clears things up.

James
5th March 2002Gary Laliberty
Hi All,
I agree with the above posts. But I think Glenn would like an opinion on the Zulu regiment. Yes, Glenn you are right the iNdluyengwe did have some small actions with the British's fugitives. And 'may have' pick up a few Martini-Henry rifles, BUT most books say that no Martini-Henry rifles were used at Rorke's Drift. Glenn, few Zulus understood the need to keep their weapons in good order, however, and even fewer traders sold good quality powder, ammunition. Although a number of Zulus had been well trained by the many European hunters who had operated in the kingdom during the 1850's and 1860's, the majority of Zulus had little idea how to get the best out of their weapons.
Gary
6th March 2002Barry Iacoppi
You live and learn. I was under the impression that none of the Zulus at the Drift took part in the battle at Isandlwana. While they understood the basic concept of sighting a rifle they thought that the sights raised to their highest point made the bullet go harder. As a result many rounds went over the heads of their targets. Many African "freedom fighters" were to repeat this performance with their AK47s many years later.
6th March 2002Edward Bear
Withing some limiting parameters, the bullets (up to a point Lord Copper) do indeed go further if the barrel elevation is raised, but outside of the matched and zeroed/calibrated range table performance of the ammunition round and iron sight, and thus unpredictably, unless fall of short/strike can be used as a means of correcting fire over successive firings. An experienced user of a low velocity flintlock or percussion black powder weapon - with crude sighting in any case - might resort to that method, as well as not appreciating the importance of repeatable "holding and aiming" in weapons with flatter trajectories generally where "tangent sight" principles are being applied to converge point of aim and point of strike at the longer ranges. "Super-elevated" firing down a slope at longer ranges - depending on weapon ammunition type - could in some circumstances conceivably contribute to an improved probability of a hit. Although it is generally thought improbable that Zulus at Rorke's Drift had M-Hs, it is not impossible that some of them might have had them. Whether they could learn to apply effective fire with an M-H by self taught trial and error seems unlikely. And, there were no recorded instances of M-H rounds being the cause of death or wounding amongst the casulaties reported by Surgeon Reynolds.
6th March 2002James
Edward,
Perhaps I've missed something. Who or what is Lord Copper.

James
6th March 2002Andrew Banks
Sorry, I've come in late on this one.

Ed Yorke, after much research, stated in his recent book on R/Drift, that the Zulus were unlikely to have had M-Hs.

An after thought: The Zulus also thought that if they pulled the trigger quickly, then the bullet would go faster - not one of the principles of marksmanship that I remember. I'm told that they also tended to shut their eyes at the moment of firing. Maybe a slight against the one or two zulu sharpshooters, but it's a the remainder wonder that they hit anyone!
7th March 2002Edward Bear
A charcter in Evelyn Waugh's book "Scoop", a proprietor/editor press baron of the type found in the UK in the 1930s. His staff found it politic to agree with him. "Up to a point..." was the strongest form of disagreement thought prudent