Watched Zulu Dawn and Zulu again. Listened to a few historical podcasts about the battles of the Anglo-Zulu wars, discussions on tactics and period military doctrine. It's all fascinating to me.

One thing that always occurred to me while watching these British cinematic recreations of these 1879 battles was that the Martini-Henry, though a reliable and robust rifle with powerful cartridge, was still a single shot rifle. Lots has been written on the British Army's thinking on limiting ammunition use and sustainable and effective rates of fire. But one has to wonder, if the capacity of the rifle had been increased significantly, could the outcome at Isandlwana have been improved.

It may be that the elements of the 1st Battalion, 24th Foot encamped in the shade of Isandlwana Mountain were too disorganized and unprepared, or that the 24,000 Zulus were an irresistible force for such a small contingent of 800-1300 men, but if the British had been armed with Winchester 1873 repeating rifles in 44-40 as had been used in some European wars of the period such as the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, with its much higher 7 round capacity, could the attacks have been repelled long enough to withdraw or reorganize? The soldiers were typically firing from the standing or kneeling position in most cases to the lever action should not have been a detriment. They could have carried many more of the smaller 44-40 cartridges in a basic load. The 44-40 as loaded in the 1870s would take a man down with a single center mass shot.

Rate of fire would have clearly been much higher and the 44-40 with less recoil that the Martini's .577-450 massive cartridge' would have allowed for less fatigue and rapid close quarters shooting, as would the lighter weight of the Winchester.

But would it have been enough, all other things being the same? Or would the different rifle have resulted in different and superior tactics?







For those not familiar with the Martini-Henry:


Winchester 1873

I thought the problem was lack of available ammo at the front line. A faster firing rifle would just exacerbate that, wouldn't it?

FPNI.

The terrain masked the center of the British position from seeing the situation.  British ammunition was packed in tin covered crates that were screwed shut (couldn't be opened by hand).

The terrain also masked the greater Zulu numbers from British fire / observation.

As front line troops exhausted their ready ammunition in their cartridge boxes / knapsacks resupply was slow (the QM Sergeants not realizing the situation) and when it did come up it was apparently impossible to get to.

And bayonet against assagi with overwhelming Zulu numbers...

Apparently that was a myth perpetrated by the movie where the quartermaster on site was rationing ammo even as they were overrun. The historical accounts (there were 50 survivors) say there was plenty of ammo. The biggest factor in a decisive victory for the Zulus seemed to be the Bull- Horns-Chest-Loins battle formation and tactic. Once encircled, the 1st Battalion would have been hard pressed to defend for long without massively superior firepower.

I saw the ammo crate issue in the Zulu Dawn movie, but is that historically correct?

In this battle were they using the coiled cases that sometimes came apart when you attempted to extract them from a fouled rifle?

Military policy of the day called for a cartridge powerful enough to get disabling hits at long range, 300, 500 yards.  Not going to do that with a .44/40.

Policy persisted until the middle of WWII, when the Germans realized that most encounters were at much closer range and a less powerful rifle had its advantages.

Foil (left center) vs solid brass (right center)? Not sure about that.

Absolutely. That's why were equipped with the Martini-Henry (Mk 1?).
But if they had had the Winchester 1873, would it have changed the outcome at all. That is my question.

They had plenty of ammo, and more than enough troops.  Their disposition outside the camp, and failure to follow their own SOP of fortifying a position doomed them  The LTC in charge was not a combat officer, the Commander was off looking for the main Zulu  body and expected his trains to move up that day.
Durnford should have taken over command of the camp instead he moved forward, engaged, depleted his ammo, retreated, and line companies were exposed.  Their flank was turned as they fell back to the camp and were overrun.

Awesome book on isandlwana is "How can man die better" can't remember author.

company volley fire was an awesome weapon.

lever action would have improved things - but their tactical disposition lost the day.

I first read it in The Washing of The Spears.  And it was also the opinion of General Sir Horace Lockwood Smith-Dorrien (a survivor as a young subaltern).

Recent scholarship disagrees.   But...

The question is somewhat akin to:  Had Custer had repeating rifles at the Little Big Horn, would he have survived?  In both cases, given ample ammunition, there would have been a lot more dead Zulus or Sioux but the savages would still have overwhelmed the troops due to sheer numbers.  Adding Gatlings to the mix might make a difference.

They were holding up quite well until the ammo ran out.  Opps.

When I was cleaning up the Mark IV from the Nepalese cache in my avatar I had to knock out the remnant of a ruptured foil case stuck in the chamber.

They were holding up until the troops on the left flank(native still armed with spears) collapsed.

Yes, the more I read and listen the more I have to agree. Had they fortified and consolidated under Durnford, they migt have had a chance to repulse the impis.

Notwithstanding better cartridge/rifle combinations that could be discussed for this particular topic.....

Tell all that to the Warriors that used the Henry's at the Battle Of The Little Bighorn (They also used a handful of 73's)

This video clip shows 44 Henry cartridge case recovery locations on the CBF of the BTBH that were discovered between 1984 and 2004. These 44 Henry artifacts alone represented 108 henry/66' rifles used during the battel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDitGqMlolM


After Custer's defeat, the Warriors moved to pin down ALL of Reno and Benteen's remaining troops at the Reno-Benteen Defense area. The following video shows more 44 Henry artifact locations and estimated yardage used, to include 44 cal. bullet artifact recovery locations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDitGqMlolM

In the USA video, there are a few inaccuracies. The 44-40 was and still is a rifle cartridge. Stop the cancel culture! Just because folks want to somehow put it in a millennial category now days doesn't make it's so. Both Winchester and SAAMI call it a rifle cartridge. Also in the video, they show the 1873 catalogue. Nit picky, but the 73 was not mentioned in Winchester's catalogue until 1875. Just examples of how the 44-40 is so misunderstood with what information has been published about it in the past 75 years.

The 44-40 was loaded with Rifle powder until the 1960's, when then it was loaded with pistol ball powder, greatly reducing accuracy at distances. Again the powder was changed in 1979 to a faster burning flake pistol powder, thus another performance reduction by the factory.

As far as the 1873 rifle and performance, black powder was superior than any powders available today.

Back to the topic......

Interesting to think about, as I never stopped to realize the Winchester 73 would have been "available".
Another option would seem to have been a few Gatling guns?

Check out information on the Second Battle of Adobe Walls. Civilians with Winchesters, Henry's and Colts versus American indians on horseback. The battle (or skirmish) ended with an impossibly long shot by a Buffalo hunter with a Sharps. Again, thus was a defensive battle like Rourkes Drift.

Mike Snook.  Now Col/Dr Snook, professional infantry officer.  Debunks many of the myths, especially those in "Washing of the Spears".  Also wrote a book on Rorke's Drift as well as the Sudan Campaigns.  The man has a brilliant grasp of terrain.  His books really get into the weeds.

They actually had plenty of ammo, and were getting resupplied.  In fact, for quite some time, the British volleys were keeping the Zulu's back.

The problem was that the British position was way too extended.  Too far out from the camp for the number of men that they had.

I watched a documentary a while back about how archeologists used metal detectors on the Isandlhwana battlefield, just like was done at LBH back in the 80s and 90s.   They actually determined that the British positions were even further out from the camp than had previously been thought.

The sliding lid of the ammo box was designed to be opened by hitting the lid with a rifle butt in combat.  To keep the lid from opening, they were held in place by one screw (either brass or copper, I can't remember which.)  The metal detectors found several bent screws from the ammo boxes out in the firing positions, showing that the boxes had been opened with rifle butts during the battle.  They actually built a repro ammo box and opened it up with a Martini-Henry rifle butt just to show how the screw would bend.  The presence of bent screws showed that instead of the packets being issued out by quartermasters as depicted in Zulu Dawn, cases of ammo were being sent out to the firing lines.

I've always wondered about that aspect of the battle. There's some old saw about "only the QM had the proper screwdriver," which I reject out of hand. It's not like the Tommies were dumb, or unmotivated. With certain death looming, those wooden boxes were going to get opened up one damn way or another. It makes sense to me that the boxes would open if butt-stroked by a healthy Tommy who was interested in the contents thereof.

I think they’d have been overrun either way.

2 loaders per shooter switching '73 rifles off could have been significant.

The 1876 Winchester was available in 45-75 Winchester which was considerably more powerful than the 44-40. Although it was no 450 Martini. As noted, the disposition of the British lines allowed the Zulu to close in with their edged weapons without taking undue casualties. Even though repeating rifles were available in those times, military arms are selected by generals whose battle  experience lags 20 years behind technology. Thus the British and American armies were equipped with single shot but reliable weapons often used far from any gunsmith (armourer).

It seems to me that the copious smoke from black powder weapons were already obscuring the field of fire to some extent.  Increasing the rate of fire would produce so much smoke the soldiers would essentially be shooting blind, even if the enemy moved to the side.

It's interesting that civilians operating in the American west had repeating rifles. Buffalo hunters would have powerful single shot weapons in addition to repeaters. In Africa, it seems everyone wanted the Zulu lands, so no one wanted them better armed.

Mike Snook's book How Can Men Die Better refutes most of the popular misconceptions about that battle, and several others.  He's written a number of books on the British Victorian Army.  He's a professional infantry officer and knows his stuff.

The average civilian in the American West had a cheap shotgun.   Winchesters were expensive.  As were Colts.

The Turks actually did this at Plevna against the Russians.  But they also had long rifles, Peabodys much like the British Martini.   They switched the the lever guns as the range closed.   Think of the Winchester 73 as the sub machine gun of its era.   Useful in certain limited circumstances but not a replacement for the long rifle.

I think it is overstated, because I've also read that the ammo cases could be buttstroked apart or pried open with a bayonet. Show me a guy who wouldn't find a way to breech those boxes when the ammo is needed RFN.

For about a century that was the thinking of most military higher ups. Don’t waste ammo.  Cost a bunch of lives.   Millions of rounds of metallic cartridges and the fastest shooting rifles should have been standard issue as soon as they were invented.

Same thing happened at Little Bighorn. Not too different than Isandlwana. Big caliber single shot longer range weapons vs higher numbers of natives. Arrogance played a big factor.

Average civilians didn't win battles against battalion sized indigenous warriors either. The Buffalo hunters were gun people and used them in everyday work.