THE MARTINI HENRY.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

At Omdurman. The Martini Henry was there although not with the 8,000 British contingent though a few may have still carried it perhaps in the cavalry carbine role etc but the 16,000 plus Sudanese and Egyptian contingent had them... and the artist has clearly captured the huge powder cloud building up in front of the firing line obscuring the target somewhat.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

One excellent reference sits at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martini%E2%80%93Henry covering the technical and practical data of the Martini Henry.

Another reference covers the battle at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana

One of the darkest days for the British Army was the battle of Isandlwana against the Zulu. Much of the blame was initially rumoured upon malfunctions or getting the MH ammunition boxes opened. This was untrue and although a number of weapons went unserviceable due to soft case ammunition separating in the breach; this would have been manageable under normal battle conditions.

Essentially the sacred maxim of absolute solid all round defense at all halts was disobeyed at their peril and in particular an uncontrolled mish mash of troops all over the battle field surprised by a huge fast moving tribal infantry ...which essentially over ran the British before they were able to regroup. All they needed to do was form a defensive square and laager up the wagons in it perimeter. Such was the lethality of the Martini Henry that such action would probably have saved the day...

Later some distance away at Rourkes Drift another group of 140 British armed with the same weapon were to beat off 4,000 Zulu by being organised into just that...a solid all round organised and well led defence... if not a little Welsh singing by the Sergeant Major...

[kronckew]

unlike the movie, they were not really a welsh regiment yet - that came later.

there are some who say the two officers, bromhead and chard were fairly incompetent (bromhead was quite deaf and chard was just thick) and most of the defence was set up by one of the other officers & the sargent major.

i've seen adiscussion video on yootoobe that showed the cartridge boxes could easily be opened with a sharp blow from a rifle butt. they were designed that way.

lord chelmsford was even thicker, and blamed everybody but himself for the fiasco at islandwhana, his great friend victoria whitewashed him. the zulu king also warned his brother commanding the zulus at rorkes drift to never attack a dug in british position, which was ignored with the expected result, most of the zulu dead occurred at300-600 yards, the fierce hand to hand melee combat of the movie did not happen. the martini henry was just too much. it was the real hero.

islandhwana was played down and the great victory -really a minor skirmish at best - at rouke's drift got all the media attention and the medals to cover up chelmsford's negligence and stupidity.

[Pukka Bundook]

The last couple of posts are a fair overview of the battles at Isandlwana and Rourk's Drift.

Best books on the subject are;
"Like Wolves on the Fold", and "How can men die Better" By Mike Snook.

There was quite a bit of hand-to hand at Rourk's drift, but not of course as much as in the film.
The bayonet was used, but the Zulu appear to have had a very healthy respect for it, and tried to keep their distance!
The long thin "Lunger" bayonet was the best for the M-H, even if some bent in use.

[kronckew]

yes, there was some. most of the zulu's 800 odd dead were at long range tho. three of the brit dead were from the zulus appallingly bad gunfire, 14 brits were killed by their iklwa and iwisa.

i wonder what would have happened if there had been a detachment of gurkhas there instead of the 24th foot. probably a lot more dead zulus.

the brits at omdurman apparently had troubles with bent bayonets, there was quite a scandal in the UK about bad batches of blades being issued that had not been heat treated. some of these were apparently at omdurman, the soldiers straightened them over their knee and carried on, the kink not affecting their use. some picked up a fallen comrade's weapon with a straight one and carried on. again, most of the charging enemy was killed at long range, in the main charge against the british ranks, only one old man with a flag got to within 50 yards of their lines, staggering on most had been killed or wounded or fled at 100. they of course were amazed at this, then shot him. they had enfields, the egyptians had m-h's tho. they also had machine guns and artillery and the dervishes did not. there was again, a fair amount of hand to hand on various parts of the field, winston churchill in particular had some close calls in a charge there.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by kronckew

yes, there was some. most of the zulu's 800 odd dead were at long range tho. three of the brit dead were from the zulus appallingly bad gunfire, 14 brits were killed by their iklwa and iwisa.

i wonder what would have happened if there had been a detachment of gurkhas there instead of the 24th foot. probably a lot more dead zulus.

the brits at omdurman apparently had troubles with bent bayonets, there was quite a scandal in the UK about bad batches of blades being issued that had not been heat treated. some of these were apparently at omdurman, the soldiers straightened them over their knee and carried on, the kink not affecting their use. some picked up a fallen comrade's weapon with a straight one and carried on. again, most of the charging enemy was killed at long range, in the main charge against the british ranks, only one old man with a flag got to within 50 yards of their lines, staggering on most had been killed or wounded or fled at 100. they of course were amazed at this, then shot him. they had enfields, the egyptians had m-h's tho. they also had machine guns and artillery and the dervishes did not. there was again, a fair amount of hand to hand on various parts of the field, winston churchill in particular had some close calls in a charge there.

That is not quite the case at Omdurman~ see http://www.historytoday.com/david-sh...attle-omdurman

The British position proved unassailable being not only in depth but included gunships to the immediate rear in direct support and covering the gaps. It included recce groups forward as well as various squadrons of lancers capable of offensive action and covered by artillery and machine guns. This was a heavily fortified dug in position and to boot the weapons they had were the most modern of the day. Viz;

Quote"Kitchener’s army of 17,600 Egyptian and Sudanese troops and 8,200 British regulars, was heavily outnumbered, but had at its disposal fifty pieces of artillery, ten gunboats and five auxiliary steamers on the Nile. It also possessed forty single-barrelled, water-cooled Maxim machine-guns, each capable of firing six hundred rounds a minute. The British infantry was equipped with Lee Metford rifles, or its successor, the .303 Lee Enfield. They both had a range of 2,800 yards, and a skilled rifleman could fire up to ten rounds a minute.

The Khalifa’s army consisted of about 60,000 tribesmen, mainly ansars or servants of Allah, referred to as Dervishes by the British. According to the young war correspondent, Winston Churchill, it resembled nothings so much as a ‘twelfth-century Crusader army’ armed with spears, swords, and with hundreds of banners embroided with Koranic texts.

In terms of weaponry, however, the Khalifa’s army was not quite as primitive as it looked. The Dervishes possessed some 15,000 captured shoulder arms, even though they were poorly maintained. Their riflemen were dispersed among the spearmen and swordbearers in the hopes of giving the latter a better opportunity of getting to grips with the enemy. They also possessed some captured pieces of artillery and machine guns but hardly any appropriate ammunition.''Unquote.

Where the enemy went wrong ~and I disagree with the outnumbered situation since when attacking an adversary the number of troops to task should be three to one...The factor here was less than 2 to one...but it was the fact that this was a no surprise, frontal, daylight attack on well trained, prepared troops with support weapons which commenced continuous firing at a range of about 2 miles...If one factor was to play an important part in this battle it was the nonsense of a daylight strike when a night attack would have probably halved the casualty rate and could have been decisive if done with covering fire... They simply weren't trained to do this.

What I find amazing is that many British were left almost out of ammo... and had the enemy brought in reserves at the critical moment the situation could have been different.. Men were down to two rounds... The enemy however were by then shot to bits and still held at range...totally out gunned.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Outgunned indeed. The daylight attack was met with a hail of bullets at 600 rounds a minute from the machine guns both on the frontal position and flanking gunships floating just to the rear and in the gaps. Rifle fire from Enfields and Martini Henry would have been pouring into the massed tribal infantry and in those days before the Geneva convention the British all had dum dum bullets which particularly at 100 to 200 metres would have been devastating..As in fact, was Martini Henry.. You can see rifles being exchanged because they were probably cooking off... too hot... and the reserves in rear with extra resupply of ammo and casualties being recovered... all very modern stuff and in addition British artillery with its new explosive shells was having literally a field day.