Apart from fanatics and from exeptionally brave savages like the Zulus, irregular warriors, be they Pathan hill-men or Somalis or Boxers or Boers, have no stomach for the infatryman's cols steel.
That hospital treated men rarely had bayonet wounds is just proof of the deadly effect of bayonet and butt. In furor a man stabs or hits as long as the victim moves. Little left for the doctor.
The expanding Zulu power inevitably clashed with European hegemony in the decades after Shaka's death. In fact, European travellers to Shaka's kingdom demonstrated advanced technology such as firearms and writing, but the Zulu monarch was less than convinced. There was no need to record messages, he held, since his messengers stood under penalty of death should they bear inaccurate tidings. As for firearms, Shaka acknowledged their utility as missile weapons after seeing muzzle-loaders demonstrated, but argued that in the time a gunman took to reload, he would be swamped by charging spear-wielding warriors
The bullet is a fool, the bayonet is a fine chap.
Invisible officer wrote:Isandlwana 1879 went well until the British ran out of ammunition.
Invisible officer wrote:Hmm, may be an old nut but for the contemporary officers a very important one and failing Isanldwana amo supply was teached as a how to do not textbook action for decades, true or not.
That the Bayonet is a romantic weapon is a modern statement few WW I soldiers would follow.
Veterans of the Great War, when interviewed, tended to play down the impact of the bayonet during the war. Many remarked (partly in jest) that the bayonet was used primarily as a splendid means of toasting bread, and for opening cans, to scrape mud off uniforms, poking a trench brazier or even to assist in the preparation of communal latrines.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest