| Date | Original Topic |
| 28th June 2002 | zulu dawn
By g sheridan
in the film zulu dawn the quartermaster is seen as refusing to rush the handing out of ammunition due to having to unscrew the ammunition boxes.
this led to the myth used by the british establishment that the reason the zulu impis defeated the column was lack of ammunition.
i have recently seen a tv progam were the battle site was examined by forensic scientists ,who found loads of the ring pulls that uncovered the bullets
also found were bent screws which held down the box lids, a reconstruction of an ammunition box which was then then smashed open using the butt of a rifle produced screws bent in a similar way.
so destroying the belief that it was lack of ammunition that led to the defeat . |
| Date | Replies |
| 30th June 2002 | Julian Whybra
The myth is a long-standing one not brought about by Zulu Dawn and certainly not exploded by the TV programme Secrets of the Dead. The initial misconception arose from a misreading of Smith-Dorrien's account of Isandhlwana. 20th-century fuel was added to the fire by Morris's Washing of the Spears. The myth has systematically been taken apart first by David Jackson in his 1965 article and therefater by numerous writers up to and including Ian Knight based on the evidence of the survivors' accounts themselves and on regulation 1879 army practices. There is no evidence whatsoever that a failure of ammunition supply had anything to do with the defeat. |
| 13th July 2002 | Trev
Correct me if I am wrong. But is it fair to say that that any survivors of the battle were on horse back! So that being the case. These men would not have been on the front firing line, and would not be in a position to say if the forward defences were being supplied with ammunition,fast enough or not? Not saying lack of ammo was a problem. But dont see any real proof to dismiss the possibility? |
| 13th July 2002 | James Garland
There is no proof to dismiss the possibility however if anyone puts forward a theory to explain the British defeat it needs to be backed up with some credible evidence. The theory of ammunition deficiency is not backed up by any credible evidence.
To put it in a more exagerated way. There is no evidence to dismiss the possibility that the Zulus were helped by aliens and it therefore remains a possibility.
My point is this. Any theory explaining the Zulu victory should rely on supporting evidence rather than just suggesting a theory without evidence and then saying prove me wrong.
Although the ammunition deficiency theory is an old one there are increasingly more people who put forward theories about Isandhlwana and Rorkes drift that are based on flimsy evidence who rely on the " now prove me wrong" method. I suspect that publishers and film producers want "new angles". |
| 11th April 2005 | smarty
i was watching a documentory and that said that they had plenty of ammo cos they found the ring pulls but the reason for there defeat is that they used black powder in there cartriges which with just one person firing would block his vision with smoke, just think how that would have been with 1000 men firing at once. another reason they said was because that they had spread the lines thinly, with each man a couple of yards apart. unlike roukes drift were they were shoulder to shoulder and had consentrated fire. after around 20 shots being fired the rifles would more often than not get jammed because they were using black powder in there cartriges. |
