how to use advance and fire?

[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.

[DisruptorX]

My wording might have been a little bad, but yeah, that's what I meant. They were overconfident, and didn't bother with basic tactics at all. Not an uncommon source of defeat for a superior force.