modern weapons

[Big Al]

Which tends to be how the rules play as they stand.

[Cubster]

Which tends to be how the rules play as they stand.

Then my work here is done, but if you ever have need of me, just close your eyes and wish ....

[zedeyejoe]

It's not a question of 'I wonder' though Al, it's a question of documented fact that Zulus stated they hated facing the bayonet and witnesses on both sides said unless the British soldier was outnumbered and attacked from more than one side, he had the advantage. Casualties from thrown weapons were very few and far between.

And that if the Zulus got to contact, they wiped the British out. To imagine that somehow the British won the hand to hand with Zulus seems a little strange.

But Chelmsford apparently had the same view

The British under Chelmsford pitched camp at Isandlwana on 20 January but did not follow standing orders to entrench. No laager (circling of the wagons) was formed. Chelmsford did not see the need for the laager, stating, "It would take a week to make." But the chief reason for the failure to take defensive precautions appears to have been that the British command severely underestimated the Zulu capabilities. The experience of numerous colonial wars fought in Africa was that the massed firepower of relatively small bodies of professional European troops armed with modern firearms and artillery, and supplemented by local allies and levies, would march out to meet the natives whose ragged, badly equipped armies would put up a brave struggle, but in the end would succumb. Chelmsford believed that a force of over 4,000, including 1,000 British infantry armed with Martini-Henry rifles, as well as artillery, had more than sufficient firepower to overwhelm any attack by Zulus armed only with spears, cowhide shields and a few firearms such as Brown Bess muskets.

But even there it seems that fire-power was seen as the key to victory rather than out-fighting the Zulus man to man. But it has been interesting to see that people think that British infantry could out-fight Zulus.

Best example seems the battle of Ulundi, with no defensive ramparts for the British, just a straight fight and the British only outnumbered 3:1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... The_battle
As we can see, the British strangely enough did not use their superior close-combat ability to defeat the Zulus, they shot them!

And another one, Zulu victory this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Intombe

and one where the British were victorious in hand to hand,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kambula

The Zulus soon forced their way into the cattle Kraal and fought hand-to-hand with men of the 1/13th company. The cattle in the kraal hampered both sides, but with Zulu pressure mounting up the heavily outnumbered British troops managed to extricate themselves and pull back to the redoubt. Zulu riflemen were now able to open fire from behind the walls of the kraal to give their advancing comrades cover. At about this time the right horn came on again from the north-east, charging across the north face of the redoubt towards the guns and the eastern sides of the laager.

Although now attacked on both sides, Wood appreciated that the situation to the south was critical and ordered two companies to clear the Zulus off the glacis. Led by Major Hackett the men formed in line with bayonets fixed and charged across the open ground, forcing the Zulus back over the rim. The troops then lined the crest and opened volley fire into the packed warriors in the ravine. The counter-attack had succeeded perfectly but Hackett’s men suddenly found themselves under fire from their right, where Zulu marksmen had concealed themselves in a refuse tip. Hackett sounded the 'Retire' and his men returned to the cover of the laager, but not before losing a colour-sergeant, a subaltern and himself receiving a blinding head wound. The sight of this withdrawal encouraged the Zulus in the ravine to charge again, but along the narrow killing zone in front of the laager they could not this time prevail against the controlled volleys from behind the wagons and the redoubt.

[Cubster]

Right, so you're saying that because the British relied on their principle strength, ie. their superior firepower, that disproves the documented accounts that Zulus attacking a bayonet armed man one-on-one were at a disadvantage?

Your examples here -

Ulundi - irrelevant to the discussion because the Zulus never got close to the British firing line.
Intombe - a small British force was cut off by the swollen river and was still only defeated when Zulus worked between the firing line and the river bank and thus FLANKED the formation ... as I stated.
Kambula - again an action where the bullet mostly decided the issue, but the example of the bayonet charge was of a successful one.

Once again, just in case there is any confusion over this. If a Zulu attacked a man with rifle and bayonet frontally, he was at a disadvantage in close combat. This is something that was attested to in plenty of first-hand accounts and has similarly been confirmed by every single account of the AZW I have ever read.

BUT ... if the formation becomes fragmented and Zulus are able to attack a British soldier from two or more directions at once, he's a goner. When Zulus were able to close with the British, it was because they had flanked them or swamped them with overwhelming numbers. The bullet was the killing weapon of choice, but even if that failed to stop the man, the bayonet was a very good second line. At Rorke's Drift the bayonet was used - not just over the barricades - to drive Zulus back time and again.

[zedeyejoe]

Right, so you're saying that because the British relied on their principle strength, ie. their superior firepower, that disproves the documented accounts that Zulus attacking a bayonet armed man one-on-one were at a disadvantage?

Nope, just saying that the idea of British beating the Zulus in hand-to-hand combat seems strange and I provided examples to back my view. And yes an important part of that calculation was that there were:
a) more Zulus and
b) even though lots of them were killed, they still kept on coming.
So it does not matter if the British soldiers were better than Zulus in hand-to-hand combat (and I would prefer a spear and shield over a Martini-Henry with bayonet but thats just a personal choice) they were even better at shooting Zulus dead. As in the Indiana Jones film, when a man with a gun is faced with a man with a sword, the best idea is to shoot the swordsman.

So to get a better simulation of Anglo-Zulu warfare, the best idea is to switch the given shooting and combat factors around, so that the British play to their strength of shooting, rather than seeking to get into combat.

[Cubster]

Nope, just saying that the idea of British beating the Zulus in hand-to-hand combat seems strange and I provided examples to back my view.

And yes an important part of that calculation was that there were:
a) more Zulus and
b) even though lots of them were killed, they still kept on coming.
So it does not matter if the British soldiers were better than Zulus in hand-to-hand combat (and I would prefer a spear and shield over a Martini-Henry with bayonet but thats just a personal choice) they were even better at shooting Zulus dead. As in the Indiana Jones film, when a man with a gun is faced with a man with a sword, the best idea is to shoot the swordsman.

So to get a better simulation of Anglo-Zulu warfare, the best idea is to switch the given shooting and combat factors around, so that the British play to their strength of shooting, rather than seeking to get into combat.

Well I think that's an important point there. In order to examine instances where a Zulu warrior would find himself at close quarters with a British soldier with fixed bayonet, we must of course think of how it could come about. Clearly a formed firing line would indeed blast big holes in anyone running straight at them and thus the best way an Impi had of taking them down was to get behind them and attack from two directions. The Zulus weren't fools and didn't throw their lives away for nothing and the famous 'Horns of the Bull' battle formation clearly showed the emphasis placed on mobility and flanking moves. And as you state, overwhelming numbers for the Zulus were indeed essential.

I think as well there's a difference between trying to simulate a realistic recreation of the preferred tactics of the antagonists and simulating what was possible. I can only repeat that there are many accounts, from both sides, of Zulu warriors closing within a few feet of the bayonet and then being unwilling to close, which was of course usually fatal since it left them a sitting duck for a bullet. They didn't fear the bullet, but they feared the bayonet, perhaps because they understood warfare by steel more and their fighting styles were developed for going one-on-one with another man armed with spear and shield. Many soldiers after Rorke's Drift for instance, praised not only the rate of fire and stopping power of the MH, but also the effectiveness of the lunger bayonet, which had a triangular cross-section, allowing it to penetrate and be withdrawn easily without getting stuck.

I like the idea of your swapping over the values and think it will probably give a good effect, but perhaps as much because we must assume that if a Zulu unit has actually managed to close with a firing line, it's because they have somehow managed to infiltrate or break up the British unit in a way that isn't able to be represented on the table.

[zedeyejoe]

It can all be seen from the battles, Uludni being a good one, nice formed British formation blows away the Zulus (but they managed to get close) and they were only outnumbered 3:1.

Rorkes Drift, British win despite being outnumbered 40:1 and with no artillery.

Intombe, Zulus surprise the British and get into contact. Zulus have something like 5:1 - 8:1 superiority and kill 60 out of the 100 British. Incidentally the Surviving British get away by using concentrated volleys.

Tucker recorded. 'The sentries on the other side did the same. Of course the men were up in a moment, some men sleeping under the wagons and some in the tents; but before the men were in their positions the Zulus had fired a volley, thrown down their guns... and were around the wagons and on top of them, and even inside with the cattle, almost instantly. So quickly did they come, there was really no defence on the part of our men; it was simply each man fighting for his life, and in a few minutes all was over, our men being simply slaughtered.

As per the scenario in Black Powder of course.

We have been playing games with the British out-numbered 4:1, with a couple of pieces of artillery and the British cavalry coming on as a variable. With the full British force on table, the British win (but it is a hard fought battle) without the cavalry it can go either way (mainly based on how good the Zulu command rolls are).

As for the ability of the British infantry fighting with bayonet in the game, they don't get easily overwhelmed but they will lose simply because they are fighting and not spending their time shooting. And so far we have not even given the Zulus guns!

Now the closest I can see to the battle going either way is Kambula (which is why I posted the link). Zulus do manage to get into HtH combat but still lose. And we have the example of a successful bayonet charge. So plus 1 for the British skill with bayonet theory from that one. But the Zulus still lose mainly from being shot at (and of course they had their own rifles).

[Cubster]

I think a little imagination and manipulation of events is a good idea if you want to stage a variety of AZW battles and give each side a chance of winning, because once the British are formed and protect their flanks (either by forming square or another way) it's pretty much just a case of the Zulus throwing themselves at the guns and hoping the British run out of ammo. The Zulus did have plenty of guns of their own of course (they had more rifles and muskets than the garrison at Rorke's Drift by some way) but didn't have the training to use them to their best effect and were short of ammo (they even used river pebbles!).

Intombe River was really no more than a moderate sized skirmish (as Rorke's Drift was) and is an example of the sort of thing that appeals to me. If the Zulus and British are set victory conditions before the battle beyond just slaughtering each other, for example, that would liven things up. Perhaps the Zulus are trying to drive some cattle off the board, a British supply column needs to break through, a wagon full of guns is stuck in a ford and needs to be rescued before the Zulus tool up. You don't even need to include British firing lines at all, but could have a game based around contact with one of the myriad mounted infantry irregular units available to the British player.

[jazbo]

cripes, did my little post unleash all this debate?!

"But it has been interesting to see that people think that British infantry could out-fight Zulus."

1-to-1 the zulu (or any native), for all their skill at close range fighting, was no better than a Regular with his bayonet, and in most cases due to a lack of training or discipline actually worse. 1-2-1 I see little evidence in any colonial period of man with sword/spear beating man with bayonet, in fact I would say the fear of the man with the bayonet was far greater than the other way around in most cases.

There was hand to hand combat in several AZW battles, and on every occasion the Zulus won the following conditions were present:

1. Disordered or dispersed formations
2. Exposed flanks
3. Outnumbered

The British bayonet charge at Khambula hill is a shining example of why people think the British infantry could outfight the Zulu - because they did, the same as they outfought the Mahdists, Pathans and everyone else in hand to hand with regularity. The myth of the redcoat being slain by a skillful and wily opponent is just that. Most of their opponents had no training at all, the Zulu's were very much the exception.

Of course the British used firepower rather than close quarter, thats just common sense based on the weaponry available and I don't really understand the Ulundi at 3:1 odds example. To follow that example through though, even if the zulus had reached the square, just like in the Sudan, would they have been able to break it up and destroy the British? I suspect not - there is not a single example of natives breaking a British Brigade square and destroying it.

"So to get a better simulation of Anglo-Zulu warfare, the best idea is to switch the given shooting and combat factors around, so that the British play to their strength of shooting, rather than seeking to get into combat."

Definintely not. You are making the British brittle in close combat, which they simply were not. It was numbers that counted for the natives. The whole point is that if the British could be pulled apart and outflanked, the natives stood a chance. So the native player must use his numbers to get around the British (which is why the British used close order squares most of the time). If a unit of Zulu of the same size as a unit of British infantry are fighting in close order then the result could go either way. But when that extra Zulu unit comes in on the rear - that's how they win.

So perhaps, rather than doing the British down on combat dice for no reason, it might be better to look at why they lost combats - disorder. So lets give the Imperials a -1 morale save if disordered, so the natives get in, disorder them, and then the rate of saves goes down.

[zedeyejoe]

With me its slightly different. I like to think could the Zulus have won with a different use of their forces? When they did get into contact then that seems like a victory for the Zulus. The British certainly dominated the place where they were but they could not be everywhere and fighting at night would have cut down on effectiveness of British fire-power. But in a game you do the best you can in the situation.

The first thing to do however before trying out new tactics with the Zulus was to get the rules to better simulate the historical battles because without that the new tactics would be pointless.

In real life of course the Zulu were doomed because the British Empire would just add more troops until the job was done.

Its one of those wars where although the forces were very different, the battles were close enough that you think it might have gone differently if only...

1-to-1 the zulu (or any native), for all their skill at close range fighting, was no better than a Regular with his bayonet, and in most cases due to a lack of training or discipline actually worse. 1-2-1 I see little evidence in any colonial period of man with sword/spear beating man with bayonet, in fact I would say the fear of the man with the bayonet was far greater than the other way around in most cases.

Possibly but irrelevant as the combats were not 1:1 (lots of Zulu vs smaller numbers of British) and of course the battles were won by shooting, not fighting HtH. That being my point, people taking the idea that the British could win the combats and then using that as the basis of their reasoning. Actual battles, show that fighting HtH the Zulu had the advantage however that happened.

I don't know where the 'Fear factor' comes in the casualty rate at Rorkes Drift alone show how determined the Zulu attack was. Also Zulu training (example, dancing on thorns) was legendary. Like in Russia, as Stalin said "It takes a brave man to be a coward in the Soviet army." See

The psychological effect was that war was regarded as the ideal state, the only state which gave a man what he wanted. Until he was old and wealthy, and naturally desired to keep his possessions in tranquillity, a time of peace was a time of trouble. He had no chance of distinguishing himself; and if he were a young bachelor, he could not hope to be promoted to the rank of 'man' and be allowed to marry, for many a long year. It is true that in a time of war he might be killed; but that was a reflection which, in those days, did not in the least trouble him. For all he knew, he stood in just as great danger of his life in time of peace. He might unintentionally offend the king; he might commit a breach of discipline which would be overlooked in wartime; he might be accused as a wizard, and tortured to death; the eye of the king might just happen to fall on him when the king thought that his vultures overhead might be hungry and needed some food or that an antbear hole should be filled with some corpses.(34) Knowing therefore, that a violent death was quite likely to befall him in peace as in war, and as in peace he had no chance of gratifying his ambitious feelings, the young Zulu was all for war.

Captain Parr(25) relates that not long before the Zulu war broke out, a missionary was expatiating to Cetshwayo, who had one of his regiments seated around him, of the danger he ran of hell fire. 'Hell fire!', repeated Cetshwayo, 'Do you frighten me with hell fire? My army would put it out. See!' he continued, pointing to a veld fire which was burning over a considerable tract, and calling to the officer commanding the regiment, 'Before you look at me again, eat up that fire.' In an instant the whole regiment, shouting the war cry, was bounding towards the fire, which was 'eaten up' without regard to those who were maimed and permanently impaired.

http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol044sb.html

But once again, would love to see examples of when the Zulus feared to fight the British HtH, I have one if it is of interest

At one stage during the battle of Isandlwana, the British fire was so hot that the Zulus seemed to have had enough and a movement of withdrawal became noticeable, when, according to tradition, a lone voice filled a moment's silence and trailed across the field of battle: 'Ihlamvana bul' umlilo kashongo njalo!' 'The little branch which extinguished the fire (started by Walmsley and Rathbone at the battle of Ndondakusuka in 1856: a euphemistic reference to Cethswayo the king) never gave such an order!' The backward movement stopped immediately, the Zulu army rose as one man and made its final devastating rush upon the British camp.