Zulu war arms

[Invisible officer]

It's an old discussion what arms the British forces carried in the early part of the war.

Fot the British infantry it's clear, the .450 Martini Henry rifle Mk II, introduced in 1875. The cavalry had the .450 Martiny Henry carbine, pattern sealed on 26.11.1877 , a much shorter and inferior arm. In some movies we saw carbines with the infantry.

The problems start with the Artillery. Empress ZWB 28 includes a bombardier, stated as carrying a Martini Henry carbine. But the RA Martini Henry carbine was not ready in 1879, only on the 21.7.1879 was the artillery carbine (A.C1) approved for horse and field artillery. At Isandlwana the N/5th RA had the old Snider carbine. Anyway only 12 carbines per battery (or 2 per gun crew), the NCO's got Revolvers like the officers.

The mounted colonial forces did not get Martini Henry carbines but the Swinburn Henry. Same ammunition but a different mechanism. Fortunately they look very much like the Martini Henry so there is no problem with the 28mm miniatures.

The NNC mounted units got them too. But there is no official document about that. The white colonial units had Snider carbines before they changed to the Swinburn Henry carbine. We may assume that these stayed in South africa. So we can not be 100% sure that not some of the mounted NNC had this arm. That some carried spears in addition is a little strange but without bayonets there was reason for that.

The NNC foot got only a one in 10 gun equipment. Most state old Rifles = Enfields. But 1877/78 the Government produced a large number of smoothbores, looking like the 2 Band Enfield. Intended for use by native forces. Again that is more important for rules than makers since they look alike.

The Zulus should include an assortment of muzzleloaders and Sniders before Isandlwana. Then Martini Henry Rifles and Swinburn Henry carbines. For a plastic range I hope for both otions We can't refight that battle with MH armed Zulus.

[Dr Dave]

From my own perspective - did the mounted infantry carry sabres? There's a print by an artist who was there at GinginIilovu (spelling) and he shows them with sabres....?

[Invisible officer]

In 1879 the mounted Infantry used the Swinburn Henry Carbine, not the MH Rifle. The MI was intended to serve as scouts, not as shock cavalry so there was little use for a sword.

The sword pattern worn by the cavalry was the 1864 one, it had a chequered two part leather grip that tended to twist in the hand of the user and needed a lot of training to be of any use. The sheet steel bowl often damaged the clothing, for that reason the RHA got permission to revert to the 1853 pattern with three bar guard.

The Line IInfatry officer carried the 1845 sword, with a gilt brass guard. It's a nice item but of little fighting value. Steel scabbards are regulation but some officers used leather ones without official permission in the field. The Rifle's one was identical but with a steel guard.

The Scottish 91st officers wore the 1828 pattern sword with removable steel guard. The officer's of the 91st Highlanders wore in the field instead of the big basket guard a steel cross bar. That was first sanctionized in the 1883 Dress regulation for the HLI and in 1885 for all regiments. But as often in the British army officers wore what they wanted long before any official paper permitted that. (The 42nd never used that bar and the HLI stoped using them in 1905 and simply ignored the 1911 regulation) Leather scabbard.

Artillery officers should have worn the 1821/64 pattern with three bar steel hilt.


Many photos show officers without swords but these are all taken out of action so......

[Dr Dave]

It's really the swords and the MI in particular that interests me. You seem to think that they were not carried? I thought that the whole point of the MI was to provide some regular mounted British troops. Surely scouting was in the province of the numerous colonial mounted units - none of which carry swords. At Gingindlovu the 2nd Sqdn MI fight and this picture was drawn by an artist who witnessed the battle (name escapes me): http://www.britishbattles.com/zulu-war/gingindlovu.htm - go to the bottom of the page and it shows "British" mounted troops in action with swords. Are these 2nd MI? Hence, my problem - do my MI figures need swords?

None of the photos I have of MI show the correct angle!

[Invisible officer]

No, you need no swords. MI was like classic dragoons. Half men, half animal, mounted infantry.

The victorian illustrators had a lot of fantasy, a cavalry charge was ever a great sight.

The MI had to guard the main force against surprise attacks and scout ahead. Or raid. They did it with local horses and needed no strong chargers. Callwell wrote in the 1906 edition on p. 422 that they often had mere pony to transport them from fighting place to fighting place. He states that in Rhodesia MI sometimes charged by horse with fixed bayonets. His Small wars was the textbook the army used. In 1881 he was with RA in Natal, so I think he could be relied as an expert with first hand colonial experience.

The Australian Light Horse of WW I fame are just MI but did charges, without swords.

[grant]

OK, I can't resist.

In the Anglo-Zulu War, arms came in matched pairs, a LEFT and a RIGHT.
There were some exceptions. This included the hapless Durnford, who's left arm had suffered a fall from a horse whilst chasing down the amaHlubi, and then took a nasty spear to it!

[Cubster]

Surely scouting was in the province of the numerous colonial mounted units - none of which carry swords. At Gingindlovu the 2nd Sqdn MI fight and this picture was drawn by an artist who witnessed the battle (name escapes me): http://www.britishbattles.com/zulu-war/gingindlovu.htm - go to the bottom of the page and it shows "British" mounted troops in action with swords. Are these 2nd MI?

The Colonial Mounted units were indeed largely scouts but there still weren't anywhere near enough mounted units (the 1st Dragoon Guards and 17th Lancers weren't shipped out until post Isandlwana) hence the decision to convert some members of the infantry (presumably those with experience of horse riding) into a couple of small squadrons of Mounted Infantry. They swapped their blue infantry trousers for something more hard wearing, the delightfully fashionable buff corduroy (to stop it shredding with the constant rubbing motion), so that illustration is off on that count too.

No, they didn't have swords, they didn't wear their original unit badges (although most infantry seem to have removed theirs anyway) but they did have bandoliers slung across their left shoulder, which you've just gotta love, which also means they didn't have the ammo pouches across their waist of course. I think they retained the MH rifle rather than swapping for a carbine, but I'm not sure, and I don't know where we stand on bayonets. I can't find a piccy of them carrying one, possibly because they didn't have the waist belt to hang it off. The reason I ponder that is the WW1 Australian Light Horse didn't have swords, but they did have sword bayonets which they sometimes wielded at the charge ... for some reason.

[Invisible officer]

Well, the 1907 "sword" bayonet is nothing like a sword, but a good knife. Using it as a mounted arm is more for moral reasons.

The Revolver of the NCO and the Lancer trooper was the .450 standard army arm . The 1878 crisis with Russia resulted in worries that there are not enough of them in store. The sole produver Adams could not suply enough for the replacement of the old single shot pistols. So the ordnance choose some contractors with non regulation arms like Tranter or Colt for test contracts. For the Zulu war they bought the Tranter. A six shot .450 arm named in LOC : Pistol, Revolver, B.L. Tranter , interchangeable.

The Tranter is a sturdy arm, this maker build the first centre fire revolvers made in UK. Obviously a great improvement over the one shot ML pistols the horse used before.

The Zulu war Revolvers are the last before Enfield took over. 1880 the RASF started production of a new service revolver.

Officers had to purchase the arms themselves, only the .450 calibre was given to ensure amo supply. Many in Zulu war used Tranters. Loading was via a "door" at the right of the arm, before every spent cartridge has to be extracted singly. For a one armed man like Durnford the extracting and loading was very difficult.

[Cubster]

So did the MI have revolvers then? Or just the officers?

[Invisible officer]

The MI troopers had no Revolvers, just the rifle / carbine.
The regular cavalry trooper too had no revolver. He had a sword and a carbine. Only the NCO / Officer had the revolver instead of a long arm. The exception was the Lancer. He got no carbine, but a pistol / revolver in addition to sword and lance.

It's just a question of doctrine. the cavalry still dreamed of the mounted charge with the sword or lance. MI was for the modern cavalry role, scouting, dismounted firefight, horse for fast transport.
Better suited to most colonial wars.

It was not before 1940 that the British cavalry did his last mounted attack. For that old tactic fittingly a Yeomanry unit against the old enemy, the French, not the Nazis. Vichy Trans Jordan troops....