how to use advance and fire?

[Warhammer3025]

I think someone said before that the only reason this tech exists is so that we can recreate that scene in Zulu where the redcoats were advance and firing on the charging natives.

Otherwise yea, this tech is pretty much useless and will get you killed by anyone who can return missile fire.

[Fisherking]

Look, you want to close with the enemy a bit before a charge. Also it should keep up pretty much a steady fire with each rank advancing to fire. The steady fire is the thing.

Trouble is about the only guys who get it are the grenadiers. It doesn’t work so well with light troop you know.

[Husar]

Look, you want to close with the enemy a bit before a charge. Also it should keep up pretty much a steady fire with each rank advancing to fire. The steady fire is the thing.

Trouble is about the only guys who get it are the grenadiers. It doesn’t work so well with light troop you know.

No, the problem is if you lose some guys, after the last rank has moved to the front the game will make the formation reform and pull guys from behind to the new first line and make them start a completely new reload cycle which means once the last rank is in front the steady fire stops and you have to wait for a complete reload cycle before anyone will fire again.
That's a broken game mechanic that already somewhat ruined the musket fire in older games, when the games makes musket formations reform and refill their ranks it should put only men who have finished reloading into the rank that fires next but it doesn't, so the whole first rank has to wait for "new guy" to reload before they can fire.

[Fisherking]

No, the problem is if you lose some guys, after the last rank has moved to the front the game will make the formation reform and pull guys from behind to the new first line and make them start a completely new reload cycle which means once the last rank is in front the steady fire stops and you have to wait for a complete reload cycle before anyone will fire again.
That's a broken game mechanic that already somewhat ruined the musket fire in older games, when the games makes musket formations reform and refill their ranks it should put only men who have finished reloading into the rank that fires next but it doesn't, so the whole first rank has to wait for "new guy" to reload before they can fire.

That is a good point and something else that needs to be worked out I can see.

Who doesn’t take fire and I get a little tired of them always reforming and not shooting as it is.

Didn’t the Sergeants just shout to close up and the men kept fighting? Why loose a battle just so your ranks have perfect dress?

[DisruptorX]

I think someone said before that the only reason this tech exists is so that we can recreate that scene in Zulu where the redcoats were advance and firing on the charging natives.

Been a while since I last saw that one, didn't they have bolt actions?

[nafod]

Been a while since I last saw that one, didn't they have bolt actions?

Probably not, as the first bolt action used by the british was the Lee Enfield (Unless one considers the Martini a bolt action). Nice gun if you can get your hands on one. Not sure when the Zulu wars occured, but I believe the Lee Enfield made it's first war appearance in the Boer Wars. It's a fine rifle, especially considering a British soldier carrying it into war in North Africa or Farnce in WWII was essentially fighting with the same rifle his father faught with in WWI and his grandfather in the Boer Wars.

Mine came from the Longbranch Arsenal in 1943.

[Prussian to the Iron]

what do you mean probably not? its either bolt-action or it isnt. is it that hard to tell if hey are shoving a stick in the muzzel or pulling a bolt?

i am no weapons expert, but i believe the winchester was the first boltaction. though since it has a different bolt-action than others (pulling down the handle rather than lifting, pulling, pushing, and lowering the bolt) i dont know if t would be clasified under bolt-action.

ok, wikipedia says it can go either way, but is usually clasified under pump-action or lever-action. the Martini-Henry rifle was very similar to a winchester, wth the lever-action design and similar sized cartridge.

for more info on the weapons of the Anglo-Zulu war's, go to the zulu (movie) page in wikipedia and go to historical innacuracies. then down to weapons.

[nafod]

what do you mean probably not? its either bolt-action or it isnt. is it that hard to tell if hey are shoving a stick in the muzzel or pulling a bolt?

i am no weapons expert, but i believe the winchester was the first boltaction. though since it has a different bolt-action than others (pulling down the handle rather than lifting, pulling, pushing, and lowering the bolt) i dont know if t would be clasified under bolt-action.

ok, wikipedia says it can go either way, but is usually clasified under pump-action or lever-action. the Martini-Henry rifle was very similar to a winchester, wth the lever-action design and similar sized cartridge.

for more info on the weapons of the Anglo-Zulu war's, go to the zulu (movie) page in wikipedia and go to historical innacuracies. then down to weapons.

Easy trigger. There are many more actions than muzzle load or bolt. For instance the Martini very well may have been a breech-loader. Also consider the Mannlicher Steyr )Used by the Austro-Hungarians) which was a straight pull bolt. Additionally the lever actions remain very different in nature.

My primary interest in firearms starts from the variants used in WWII and works backwards. The martini does not fall into my area of interest because the Biritish developed such a fine rifle at such an early time.

[Didz]

Been a while since I last saw that one, didn't they have bolt actions?

No they were armed with the Martini-Henry Rifle. Which was notorious for jamming when it was fired too rapidly and became hot.

Whilst the writer of the following article dismisses this claim battlefield archeologists did find a significant number of discarded rifles on the battlefield of islandwana with cartridges jammed in their breechblocks.
http://www.martinihenry.com/zulu-wars.htm

[DisruptorX]

No they were armed with the Martini-Henry Rifle. Which was notorious for jamming when it was fired too rapidly and became hot.

Whilst the writer of the following article dismisses this claim battlefield archeologists did find a significant number of discarded rifles on the battlefield of islandwana with cartridges jammed in their breechblocks.
http://www.martinihenry.com/zulu-wars.htm

Yeah, as the other posts mentioned. I had forgotten about it. Pre-bolt action similar to a Winchester, no?

All this talk about 19th century weapons is having me hoping for an expansion. So much good material. Napoleon, Mexican-American War, Crimean War, American Civil War, Franco-Prussian War. Plus all the colonial conflicts and battles between the Russians and Turks.

[Prussian to the Iron]

Yeah, as the other posts mentioned. I had forgotten about it. Pre-bolt action similar to a Winchester, no?

yes, as i sad it was a lever-action very similar to a winchester. the british in the Anglo-Zulu wars also were mequipped with a single gatling gun.

[DisruptorX]

Now that I remember, the story I always heard was that the British were sure that they couldn't lose a battle due to their high tech guns and so performed very tactically poorly and were defeated.

Quick interwebs search seems to back that up. They were flanked and out maneuvered. Guns not performing as well as planned also played into it.

[Didz]

Now that I remember, the story I always heard was that the British were sure that they couldn't lose a battle due to their high tech guns and so performed very tactically poorly and were defeated.

Quick interwebs search seems to back that up. They were flanked and out maneuvered. Guns not performing as well as planned also played into it.

The battlefield archeology actually suggests that the official version of events was a fabrication. The dispersal of battlefield debris. spent cartidges, discarded weapons and a equipment etc. suggests that the British lost because they were complacent and over confident in their firepower superiority. The best assessment is that instead of forming a battle line close to their camp they advanced on the Zulu positions on the ridge in open skirmish order, without conductnig any scouting and were swamped by the huge number of warriors who suddenly emerged from behind it in much larger numbers than expected.

Panic then ensued, with jamming weapons and extended ranks not really helping. It seems from concentration of cartridges that some small rally squares were formed but the vast majority of the army simply ran for their lives discarding anything that might hamper their flight.

What they didn't consider was that the Zulu's always attack from three sides, and so in running away from one group the fugitives ran into another. Apparently, the final massacres took place in a waddi several miles from the camp where the Zulu's finally caught up with the last of the routers and finished them off. At this point those who still had weapons had fired most of their ready ammunition and the camp had been overrun so there were very few spent cartidges in this area just a lot of scattered equipment, left buried in the soil.

[dulsin]

No they were armed with the Martini-Henry Rifle. Which was notorious for jamming when it was fired too rapidly and became hot.

Whilst the writer of the following article dismisses this claim battlefield archeologists did find a significant number of discarded rifles on the battlefield of islandwana with cartridges jammed in their breechblocks.
http://www.martinihenry.com/zulu-wars.htm

The Martini-Henry rifle was a drop block design single shot design. Single shot rifles do not have feeding jams. At most the soft shell casing will expand against the chamber and not eject leaving you to dig it out with a knife. That is not a problem with the rifle design more a problem of the shells.

This can happen to revolvers also.

[Didz]

The Martini-Henry rifle was a drop block design single shot design. Single shot rifles do not have feeding jams. At most the soft shell casing will expand against the chamber and not eject leaving you to dig it out with a knife. That is not a problem with the rifle design more a problem of the shells.

This can happen to revolvers also.

Well whatever, it appears there was a problem with the rifles becoming jammed for whatever reason. The commonly held belief that the men had been overrun because of a shortage of ammunition proved to be false.