Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Rorke's Drift.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Wednesday, 27th January 2010
I've been thinking about heroic conflicts involving British/English Forces when fighting against huge odds; actions like those at Kohima, Agincourt, the Battle of Britain. My choice would be the action at Rorke's Drift (recently celebrating its 131st. anniversary.) Any other suggestions?
-
Message 2
Posted by WeeJemmy (U14316099) on Wednesday, 27th January 2010
They did not have a lot of choice at Rorke's Drift - fight and hope for a miracle, or lie down and get massacred.
The courage was the desperation of condemned men, (but none the less admirable for that!) and the award of 11 VCs was more the reaction of the country to a glorious victory, after Isandlwana.
I doubt if many would have got the VC by the standards applied today.
Kohima must be well up there, and the SAS at Mirbat. -
Message 3
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 27th January 2010
Not a British one, but the Alamo has to stand as one of the best. They held the line thus allowing the army of Texas to regroup.
-
Message 4
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Wednesday, 27th January 2010
was rorkes drift a fight against the odds ??
i saw Zulu the first time it was out - amazed by it all and went on to see it 17 times (one time - 3 times in one day lol) - loved our heroic stand
it pans out to 100 trained soldiers with breech loading rifles (10 rounds per minute - killing distance up to xxx yds) fighting an enemy armed with a spear - effective from 2 yards
maybe we should think - how could we lose !!
battles we won such as Malplaquet and Bunkers hill should be considered as against all odds -the courage of the common british soldier defied all odds - slaughtered but they kept going
isandhlwana comes into this - when the redcoats ran out of ammunition they fought to the death
st -
Message 5
Posted by Tom from Oz (U4555677) on Wednesday, 27th January 2010
My Gt Grangfather fought in the Boer War and my Wife and I are going to South Africa in 2 weeks for a holiday. I have arranged for a guided tour of both battle sites at Rorkes Drift and Isandlwana, apparently the historian who runs the trips is excellent. Looking forward to it no end.
-
Message 6
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
Should add Spion Kop and the battlefields around that area on the way to Ladysmith to that list. Have a good time, although I'm sure the mission station was moved. I'm reading a new novel by a historian called Saul David. It's his first work of fiction and is called Zulu Hart, and is about a British Officer of Irish Zulu blood who takes part in both the above battles. Not bad so far.
GF -
Message 7
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
Hi stalti/
The post at Rorke's Drift was in fact a Swedish missionary's house which had been commandeered by the British and used as a hospital/depot on the route into Zululand. It was essentially indefensible, and only by barricading it with stores was it turned into a defenible area. The Zulu impi which attacked consisted of 4,000 men, many of whom were armed with rifles - the Zulu had many more than the defenders and were able to keep up a fire from the Oscaburg mountain which overlooked the Depot. The fighting lasted some 12 hours and much was done at close quarters - many believed it was the deadly use of the bayonet by the British which was decisive! At the end the British lost 17 dead and Zulu losses were estimated at between 500 (the number of casualties counted) and 800 - many were carried away or died in the bush. It was a remarkable victory and in no way a can't lose situation. As to the 11 VC's; well fighting in those conditions it is, to me, amazing there weren't more! -
Message 8
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
Grumpyfred
They held the line thus allowing the army of Texas to regroup.
Ìý
The history is rather different to the propaganda in this aspect. The tragedy of the Alamo was most of the rebel Texan army sat around doing nothing while the Alamo was being defended.
Even worse the part of the Texas army that was sent as reinforcements to the Alamo never reached there but instead remained at the small town of Goliad. Through sheer incompetence they were later rounded up after a brief fight and 340 were later shoot as rebels.
The Alamo achieved nothing at the time but became a huge rallying cry afterwards. Much like Rorkes Drift the Alamo served as a propaganda tool that far outweighed its importance as a battle.
I would add the battle of Imjin River during the Korean War as an example of heroic fighting by British forces. -
Message 9
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
Englishvote I would agree with the famous Glorious Glosters stand. Oh I though we had debunked the running out of bullets theory at Isandlwana. It was part of the British Governments cover up report to explain the defeat of a British led column by a bunch of natives to the British public. The ammuntion boxes could and were broken open by using the brass butt of the Henry Martini.
-
Message 10
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
battles we won such as Malplaquet...the courage of the common british soldier defied all odds Ìý
And also the courage of the common Dutch soldiers. (And German, and Danish....)
How about Solway Moss, 3000 English surprised 30,000 Scots and thoroughly routed them. -
Message 11
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
Bashful, I think you are wide of the mark on Rourke's Drify on a few points :
"...It was essentially indefensible.."
Demonstrably un-true.
"...armed with rifles - the Zulu had many more than the defenders and were able to keep up a fire from the Oscaburg mountain which overlooked the Depot..."
Very old, worn rifles. And the mountain was well outside the normal operating range for rifles of the day. Additionally, I doubt that the Zulus were properly trained in their use anyway.
"...many believed it was the deadly use of the bayonet by the British which was decisive!..."
If many believe this, they shouldn't. For the most part, the British were able to hold the Zulu forces off with volley fire. When the Zulu did get close, the British rifle and bayonet was the equal of the Zulu stabbing spear. The Zulu would have had to run a fair distance to the barricades, arriving exhaisted. The defenders were in prepared positions.
In fact, the Zulu leadership has been heavily criticised for attacking a fortified military base at all. Much of the celebratory nature of the British reaction is explicable as a cover for the massacre the day before. -
Message 12
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
Hi TimTrack/
"...It was essentially indefensible.."
Demonstrably un-true.Ìý
As I said, the post most certainly was indefensible until Dalton arranged the barricades, which made all the difference.
"...armed with rifles - the Zulu had many more than the defenders and were able to keep up a fire from the Oscaburg mountain which overlooked the Depot..."
Very old, worn rifles. And the mountain was well outside the normal operating range for rifles of the day. Additionally, I doubt that the Zulus were properly trained in their use anywayÌý
Yet almost all the British casualties were the result of gunshot wounds.
If many believe this, they shouldn'tÌý The fixed bayonet gave the trooper a minimum six feet in reach - more than the zulu, with their short stabbing weapons could deal with. How else were the Britias able to be so successfiul in the frequent hand to-hand combats?
Much of the celebratory nature of the British reaction is explicable as a cover for the massacre the day before.Ìý
Agreed, but that does not gainsay the amazing gallantry and effectiveness of the British defence. Imagine standing face to face with thousands of Zulu, with nowhere to go. Wow! -
Message 13
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
"...Yet almost all the British casualties were the result of gunshot wounds..."
Only because the British volley fire was so effective. It was volley fire that kept the Zulus out of range for most of the battle, not the bayonet. The stabbing asegai is a close quarter weapon only. Most of the Zulus were shot, I believe, not bayoneted.
I am not disputing the effectiveness of the use of the bayonet when it became necessary, simply saying it was not the decisive weapon. The rifle with bayonet was, think, superior to the asegai, which would have been laughed at if a European army had proposed using it. It was a stone age weapon in an industrial era. -
Message 14
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
Imagine standing face to face with thousands of Zulu, with nowhere to go.Ìý
Isn't that more of an incentive than a hinderance?
Years ago I remember reading about Hannibal and the Battle of Cannae where he delibrately didn't surround the Romans - the theory being if the enemy has to fight to the death he does so, one partially surrounded with the hope of escape more often tries to flee when things go wrong. -
Message 15
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
If the stories are to be believed, so many soldiers rushed past the Drift to carry the news of the disaster, they could have doubled the size of the garrison. We have that famous scene in the film of Stanley Baker pleading with a cavalry unit to stand and fight, and the answer being "Your the bloody professional, you stay. T
-
Message 16
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
We're not really at odds here,Tim.
British volley fire was devastating, but when it did come to close-quarters fighting the odds in favour of the Zulu were so enormous that to withstand their attacks was amazing skill and bravery. -
Message 17
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
<quote>Isn't that more of an incentive than a hinderance?<quote>
Depends how brave you are! Originally Chard and Bromhead wanted to make a rush for it, but Dalton - the real hero of the day - persuaded them to dig in. -
Message 18
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
Grumpyfred/
"Zulu" isn't all accuracy; but that bit appears to have been true! -
Message 19
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
"...the odds in favour of the Zulu were so enormous..."
But what odds were those ?
The British had the better weapon (I think we agree).
The British had prepared defencive positions.
The Zulus were decimated before they arrived at the defences.
They would be exhausted.
The physical constraints meant that any temporary numerical advantage would be mitigated by lack of space. It would come down to a one to one fight.
Most military experts (and, OK, I am not an expert) will tell you the attacker needs a large majority, something like 4:1, over the defenders at the point of attack. That means, in this case, when they arrive at the walls.
So, the only advantage the Zulus had was numbers. But this is mitigated against by a series of factors. -
Message 20
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
TimTrack/
The British had the better weapon (I think we agree)Ìý
Largely, though the Zulu were in possession of some of the latest Martini-Henry rifles.
The British had prepared defencive positions.Ìý
But they had only a couple of hours to prepare a defence for the whole site!
The Zulus were decimated before they arrived at the defences.Ìý
Not so. The impi which attacked Rorke's Drift (against the orders of King Cetshwayo, incidentally) was that of Prince Dabulamanzi, which had not been in the action at Isandlwana.
They would be exhaustedÌý
Not so, for the above reason.
The physical constraints meant that any temporary numerical advantage would be mitigated by lack of space. It would come down to a one to one fight.Ìý
That's correct, up to a point. But the Zulu were able to attack in considerable numbers, and from more than one direction. Plus the fire from the mountain, which cost most of the lost lives.
So, the only advantage the Zulus had was numbers. But this is mitigated against by a series of factors.Ìý
The numbers factor was the most significant, and considering the way Chard had to dispose his 100 or so men around the entire perimeter, the factor of 4:1 was almost always exceeded. -
Message 21
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
"...Largely, though the Zulu were in possession of some of the latest Martini-Henry rifles..."
But were un-trained in their use.
"...Not so. The impi which attacked Rorke's Drift (against the orders of King Cetshwayo, incidentally) was that of Prince Dabulamanzi, which had not been in the action at Isandlwana..."
No, I mean they were decimated during the charge at Rorke's Drift, not previously. Perhaps this is why you were missing my point. The rifle fire, on that day, cut down huge swathes of Zulus. The 200 yards or so before the walls were covered in dead Zulus. This removed the impetus of the attack.
Covering this distance, under fire, would also be why they were exhausted.
"...The numbers factor was the most significant, and considering the way Chard had to dispose his 100 or so men around the entire perimeter, the factor of 4:1 was almost always exceeded..."
The 4:1 was exceeded in total, but not in detail. By the time the Zulu arrived at the point of attack, I seriously doubt that this ratio was in favour of the Zulus. -
Message 22
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Thursday, 28th January 2010
Tim, I have to go now, but you might read Chard's report on the action; in particular try and access reports of the fierceness of the hand-to-hand fighting which, to me, beggars belief that they could have survived for 12 hours, on and off.
-
Message 23
Posted by WeeJemmy (U14316099) on Friday, 29th January 2010
The 4:1, or 3:1 superiority figure refers to a general conflict, with armies of roughly equal training/equipment. I do not think it is relevant where a horde of spearmen (however large) is charging a line of riflemen on a narrow front, and can be shot down with volley fire.
In the open field, at Islandalwana, the spearmen overwhelmed the riflemen, (probably) by a subtle combination of huge numbers and British stupidity. Rorke's Drift was only defensible because it was a small area, and massive firepower could be concentrated on the lines of approach. -
Message 24
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Friday, 29th January 2010
Rorke's Drift was only defensible because it was a small area, and massive firepower could be concentrated on the lines of approach.
Ìý
Massive fire power? What from 100 men armed with breach loaders who were over stretched along a make shift wall?
There were also approaches to the defences that were covered and protected from defensive fire until very near to the wall.
The truth is that the fire power of the defences was not enough to keep the Zulu’s away from the walls and only hand to hand fighting kept he Zulu’s out of the compound.
The Zulu forces were badly led at Rorke’s Drift and their attacks were poorly co-ordinated. If the regiments could have attacked on different fronts at the same time then the defenders would have been unable to hold them back.
But for the rest of the war the British firepower was enough to keep the Zulu’s at bay at every major engagement. -
Message 25
Posted by Sixtus Beckmesser (U9635927) on Friday, 29th January 2010
"it pans out to 100 trained soldiers with breech loading rifles (10 rounds per minute - killing distance up to xxx yds) fighting an enemy armed with a spear - effective from 2 yards "
But one must remember, stalti, that all sides of the perimeter had to be manned, meaning that never more than half of the available firepower could be brought to bear on any Zulu charge.
I hope you will forgive my "back-of-a-fag-packet" calculations but 50 rifles, firing at the trained rate of rapid fire (10 shots a minute) as the Zulus charged from the effective range of 600 yards, would allow for *very, very roughly* 750 shots before the Zulus reached the barricades. Even if every shot told, that would still leave a few thousand zulus at the barricades, and it is here that the bayonet, combined with the useful height provided by Dalton's barricades was to deadly. This was particularly so at the "front" of the post, where the barricade followed the line of a low rocky ridge which gave the defenders an invaluable extra couple of feet over their opponents. -
Message 26
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Friday, 29th January 2010
Sixtus_Beckmesser/
I think it unlikely that the defenders could have kept up a rate of 10 shots a minute, if only because of the Matin-Henry's tendency to overheat and quite frequently jam. Which, of course, illustrates your point the more, that the British were faced with frequent hand-to-hand combat, at which they were proved so able and courageous. -
Message 27
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Saturday, 30th January 2010
Isn't it now suggested that the breaking up of rolled-foil Boxer cartridges (jamming the breech of the rifle) was at least partly the cause of the defeat at Isandhlwana? Why didn't that happen at Rorke's Drift?
-
Message 28
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Saturday, 30th January 2010
All guns overheat, and black powder weapons clogged up. The Springfield did it, and indeed the Henry Martini. The Brown Bess needed to be cleaned out with boiling water. Some British troops used to carry a number of French bullets, thus allowing them to keep firing slighty longer.
One of the alterations (Our US members will be able to give better details) of the Winchester from the Henry repeating rifle was a wooden grip because the gun became to hot to hold. The Vickers machine gun was fitted with a wooden sleeve to stop it overheating. Oh the story goes that if you couldn't use boiling water, Pg down the barrel did the trick, only you had to be very careful how you did that. LOL -
Message 29
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Saturday, 30th January 2010
Black powder fouling the barrel was not so much of a problem after the introduction of breech loading. The jamming factor of the MH with foiled cartridges was the steel base of the cartridge tearing off - and it is suggested that troops used a piece of leather wrapped aroung the exposed steel of the MH. Perhaps the "episodic" nature of Rorke's Drift reduced the periods of prolonged firing which tended to cause jams and "cooking off" in the breech?
-
Message 30
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Saturday, 30th January 2010
Hi Umungal/
I don't think the issue of jamming played any significant part in either conflict. -
Message 31
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Saturday, 30th January 2010
i really didnt mean to decry the bravery of the british troops at rorkes drift - it was awesome
in their situation i would have pretended to be dead - except for the nasty zulu habit of slitting the bellies of the dead to release their spirits - oops
the zulus had mostly old flintlocks - very few modern rifles - 17 dead supports this
500 zulu dead (plus the badly wounded) were decimated by volley fire - they charged from 100 yards plus - hussein bolt takes 10 secs to do that - and at 10 rpm thats a lot of fire
rorkes drift was not indefensible when the attack came high walls and the redoubt were in place
if the zulus had actually got into hand to hand combat with the british it was game over - there was no way a bayonet could compete with an assegai and shield - its only a spear after all
BUT - how about goose green - lightly armed paras attacking over open ground against a deeply entrenched enemy armed with modern automatic weapons
st -
Message 32
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 31st January 2010
An interesting thought. What would have happened if Chelmsford had not split his force. Would Isandlwana have been a victory or a bigger defeat for the British. Indeed would the Zulu army have attacked at all?
-
Message 33
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Sunday, 31st January 2010
stalti, hi/
if the zulus had actually got into hand to hand combat with the british it was game overÌý
They did and it wasn't!
-
Message 34
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Sunday, 31st January 2010
Hi grumpyfred/
An interesting thought. What would have happened if Chelmsford had not split his forceÌý
It's one of those "what-if's." It would have been one heck of an encounter - up to 30,000 Zulu against some 1,800 well-trained and armed infantry. I personally don't think the Zulu would have risked it. -
Message 35
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 31st January 2010
Just finishing Zulu Hart by Saul David (Cheap from Tesco's) A fictionized version of Isandlwana and Rorkes Drift. Well wortn the money,and digs deep into the polictics of the invasion.
-
Message 36
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Sunday, 31st January 2010
Grumpyfred/
Saul David is not at all popular with Zulu War enthusiasts because of some of his past writings! I have his novel but haven't got round to reading it yet. -
Message 37
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 31st January 2010
Bashful, it was on offer. What mare can I say?
-
Message 38
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 31st January 2010
That of course should read more, not mare.
GF -
Message 39
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Sunday, 31st January 2010
Grumpyfred. Please don't think I'm criticising you. As I said, I have the book, and as long as I remember it's fiction, I'm okay! -
Message 40
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Monday, 1st February 2010
"...They did [come to hand to hand fighting] and it wasn't!..."
Then how do you explain the defeat at Isandlwana ?
They also had the, allegedly, fearsome bayonet to hand, but were still over run.
The difference is a prepared, however hastily, defencive position. -
Message 41
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Monday, 1st February 2010
The defeat at Isandlwana was due to a number of reasons: poor intelligence, poor preparations, poor tactics, division of the force, massive odds agaoinst in numbers, poor deployment, over-confidence, and so on. The two engagements cannot effectively be compared. -
Message 42
Posted by Sixtus Beckmesser (U9635927) on Monday, 1st February 2010
"poor intelligence, poor preparations, poor tactics, division of the force, massive odds agaoinst in numbers, poor deployment, over-confidence"
on the British side, and an astonishing level of tactical sophistication on the part of Tshingwayo and the Zulu command. -
Message 43
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Monday, 1st February 2010
Yes, Bashful. All of those things mattered. And yet, at Rourke's Drift, you are only interested in the bayonet. That is sort of my point.
Almost all engagements are settled because a variety of factors come together. Firepower, defencive positions, plus tactical ineptitude on the part of the Zulus were all more important than the one you seem to focus on. -
Message 44
Posted by Sixtus Beckmesser (U9635927) on Monday, 1st February 2010
For fans of epic imperial campaigns against near-impossible odds, I refer you to the Jhansi-Gwalior campaign of Sir Hugh Rose in the latter stages of the Indian Mutiny in Spring 1858. An astonishing feat of endurance, guts and sheer tactical brilliance. My research subject for my postgrad degree, it deserves to be as famous as Rorke's Drift, but even in most histories of the Mutiny, it gets little more than a single chapter.
-
Message 45
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Monday, 1st February 2010
than the one you seem to focus on.Ìý
I don't wish to overestimate the part played by the bayonet, but the fact is that without it in the hand-to-hand engagements, the British would have been hard pressed indeed. -
Message 46
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Monday, 1st February 2010
Sixtus_Beckmesser/
An engagement I'm not familiar with. I'll look it up. -
Message 47
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 1st February 2010
So we know that Zulu was a good film but stretched the truth,but how close was Zulu Dawn to the truth.
-
Message 48
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Monday, 1st February 2010
Grumyfred/
A fellow enthusiat of mine listed more than 150 errors in Zulu Dawn; ranging from historical inaccuracy to incorrect uniforms. But it was a good watch (except for Burt Lancaster's shocking Irish accent!) -
Message 49
Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Monday, 1st February 2010
Grumpyfred/
A fellow enthusiast of mine listed more than 150 errors in Zulu Dawn; ranging from historical inaccuracy to incorrect uniforms. But it was a good watch (except for Burt Lancaster's shocking Irish accent!) -
Message 50
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Monday, 1st February 2010
A fellow enthusiast of mine listed more than 150 errors in Zulu Dawn; ranging from historical inaccuracy to incorrect uniforms. But it was a good watch (except for Burt Lancaster's shocking Irish accent!)Ìý
Just serves as a reminder (if you needed one) that films are entertainment, not fact.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.