THE MARTINI HENRY.

[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.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

In terms of different ammunition the Martini was trialed with various improvements to the thin paper like crinkly brass case variant that was infamous for jamming in the breach. See http://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/201...ritish-empire/ for an interesting page of detail on the rounds.

Below a belt of my own ammo for the Martini Henry, A british Infantryman with the weapon, a 3 d Image of the system and the evolving ammunition ending with the 303 on the right..

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

There is a good publication on The Martini Henry.

Its states Quote" The breech-loading, single-shot .458in Martini-Henry rifle has become a symbol of both the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879 and the numerous battles in Egypt and the Sudan in 1884-85, but continued to be used by both British and colonial troops well into the 20th century. Its invention and introduction into British service were in direct response to the success of the Prussian Dreyse needle gun, which demonstrated that the breech-loading rifle offered faster loading, improved accuracy and superior range; significantly, the weapon could be loaded and fired from a prone position, thus offering the rifleman greater security on the battlefield. Due to the longevity of service, many Martini-Henry rifles survive today, both in museums and in private collections, and the weapon is highly prized by shooting enthusiasts. Featuring specially commissioned full-colour artwork and an array of arresting first-hand accounts and written by an authority on warfare in the Victorian era, this engaging study tells the story of the powerful Martini-Henry and its impact on the battlefield, from the Anglo-Zulu War to the opening months of World War I."Unquote.

There is a very substantial preview at https://books.google.com.om/books?id...0hENRY&f=false

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

When it came out...The Martini rifle was actually defective. The ejection mechanism was weak. The ammo was paper thin crinkly brass that had a habit of jamming in the breach and the barrel, though reasonable, was not a patch on the Metford that could drop a man at 1000 yards ... Metford himself showed that by using his own weapon in a shooting competition that he won at that very range.

The Martini Henry weapon development can be viewed at~ https://books.google.com.om/books?id...0works&f=false

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

When it came out...The Martini rifle was actually defective. The ejection mechanism was weak. The ammo was paper thin crinkly brass that had a habit of jamming in the breach and the barrel, though reasonable, was not a patch on the Metford that could drop a man at 1000 yards ... Metford himself showed that by using his own weapon in a shooting competition that he won at that very range.

The Martini Henry weapon development can be viewed at~ https://books.google.com.om/books?id...0works&f=false

Yes....and that is the reason that the lever is so long, so that it gives strong leverage on the cartridge head to extract stuck rounds.
Stu