Industrial Graphics Showcase

[Palaiologos]

At Isandhlwana the British lost 800 whites and 400 negroes to the Zulus' 1.000. Amazingly the zulus lost less than their european opponents. After the british ranks had broken slaughter ensued.

At Rorke's drift the less than a hundred anglos (initial force was indeed 140 but the forty or so conscripted negroes ALONG with their BRITISH officers deserted) faced up 4000 zulus from the reserve. All these blacks were in their 50s ad 60s and arrived too late(cause of old age) to take part at the battle at Isandhlwana. Not wishing to get home empty handed they attacked the british troops at Kwa jim(Jim Rorke was an irishman the place was named after).

And the Impi was a military unit of 2.000 men. Not the zulu army itself.

P.S i personally think that the Maxim graphic looks fine. Why imrove it?.

[fairline]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
At Isandhlwana the British lost 800 whites and 400 negroes to the Zulus' 1.000. Amazingly the zulus lost less than their european opponents. After the british ranks had broken slaughter ensued.

You've obviously got the Osprey Zulu book, and it's wrong in quoting 1000 Zulu losses. Actual losses were 1,774 British/African forces fighting for the British and around 2,200 Zulus

At Rorke's drift the less than a hundred anglos (initial force was indeed 140 but the forty or so conscripted negroes ALONG with their BRITISH officers deserted) faced up 4000 zulus from the reserve.

Wrong again pal. There were 140 men left at Rorke's Drift after the Natal Native Contingent and their South African white NCOs deserted (who can blame 'em!). Many of these 140 were unfit for duty and the main force of effectives was 81 men of the 24th Regiment.

All these blacks were in their 50s ad 60s and arrived too late(cause of old age) to take part at the battle at
Isandhlwana.

Well, at least you being consistent. Wrong though. Zulu Regiments were generally raised from a single age group. There were elements of 4 regiments at Rorke's Drift who had formed the reserve of the main Impi at Isandhlwana. Some had been involved in the pursuit of the fugitives from the battle, and some had arrived too late. The age range of the Regiments at Rorke's Drift was 30-40s.

And the Impi was a military unit of 2.000 men. Not the zulu army itself.

Guess what? you got it. 'Impi' was the generic term for a Zulu army. The main Impi was the collective name for the entire Zulu army, while a collection of 2 or 3 'Ibuthu' or regiments of 500 - 2000 men was also termed an 'impi'. I guess the direct translation into English is 'army'.

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by fairline
You've obviously got the Osprey Zulu book, and it's wrong in quoting 1000 Zulu losses. Actual losses were 1,774 British/African forces fighting for the British and around 2,200 Zulus

No i don't have the Osprey book.The numbers were from a Greek history magazine(one of its sources is the Osprey book though).
Looses are not synonymous with dead. However i doubt the negroes took any prisoners and propably executed any wounded so in this case they are synonymous.

In the movie "zulu" the looses of british are quoted
as 800 brits and 400 "cowardly blacks".
But movies are not to be trusted anyway.

Wrong again pal. There were 140 men left at Rorke's Drift after the Natal Native Contingent and their South African white NCOs deserted (who can blame 'em!). Many of these 140 were unfit for duty and the main force of effectives was 81 men of the 24th Regiment.

Actually 152(Reverend Smith included).

The sick were about 30 but according to Osprey "only a handful were so incapacitated that they could not defend theselves".
So i guess you are more or less correct.

Well, at least you being consistent. Wrong though. Zulu Regiments were generally raised from a single age group. There were elements of 4 regiments at Rorke's Drift who had formed the reserve of the main Impi at Isandhlwana. Some had been involved in the pursuit of the fugitives from the battle, and some had arrived too late. The age range of the Regiments at Rorke's Drift was 30-40s.

Now this Osprey book i got. In campaign No41 "Rorkes Drift" page 32 gives a full description of the Zulu forces. There are also titbits of information on the previous pages. Zulus were seldom allowed to marry before they reached the age of forty. After that they served in the reserve. According to Osprey many men had seen action in the 1850s(29 years before Rorke's drift-so being in their 30s is a bit "unnatural" ), two regiments were in their late forties, and "most were of similar age to this man" says a quote under the photo of a 50+ year old zulu.
So late forties to late fifties is the most accurate age range.So i guess I am correct.

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by fairline
There were 140 men left at Rorke's Drift after the Natal Native Contingent and their South African white NCOs deserted (who can blame 'em!).

The NCOs were south African? Now that would explain a lot.
But what do you mean who can blame them?
Cowardice in face the enemy is the most serious offense next to treason you know.
And they were serving in the Imperial British army, not some partizan group or something.

[fairline]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
However i doubt the negroes took any prisoners and propably executed any wounded so in this case they are synonymous.

Worked both ways. The 'civillised' white Imperialist armies very rarely took African prisoners; the wounded left on the field after Omdurman were bayonetted...

Now this Osprey book i got. In campaign No41 "Rorkes Drift" page 32 gives a full description of the Zulu forces. There are also titbits of information on the previous pages. Zulus were seldom allowed to marry before they reached the age of forty. After that they served in the reserve. According to Osprey many men had seen action in the 1850s(29 years before Rorke's drift-so being in their 30s is a bit "unnatural" ), two regiments were in their late forties, and "most were of similar age to this man" says a quote under the photo of a 50+ year old zulu.
So late forties to late fifties is the most accurate age range.So i guess I am correct.

The following regiments were at Rorke's Drift:

uThulwana - raised in 1854-56
uDloko - raised in 1858
iNdluyengwe - 1866
Ndhlundhlo - 1857

I think regiments were formed from 20-year olds, so that would make the age range 33-45.

BTW, do people still use the term 'negro' in Greece

PS Didn't I see a thread ages ago from someone who was making a Zulu War scenario?

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by fairline
Worked both ways. The 'civillised' white Imperialist armies very rarely took African prisoners; the wounded left on the field after Omdurman were bayonetted...

Yeah.... don't doubt that either.
Same happened at Rorke's drift......

The following regiments were at Rorke's Drift:

uThulwana - raised in 1854-56
uDloko - raised in 1858
iNdluyengwe - 1866
Ndhlundhlo - 1857

I think regiments were formed from 20-year olds, so that would make the age range 33-45.

What is your source? certainly not Osprey.
They don't have the regimental founding dates, and if these numbers are accurate then i take your point and stand corrected.

BTW, do people still use the term 'negro' in Greece

To tell you the blatant truth gareth, the term "******" or "dog ******" is more commonly used. Sometimes we refer to them as "blackies" like they are little annimals or something.
I was trying to be more polite. How do you call them in Britain?

[Faboba]

Originally posted by Palaiologos


Yeah.... don't doubt that either.
Same happened at Rorke's drift......

What is your source? certainly not Osprey.
They don't have the regimental founding dates, and if these numbers are accurate then i take your point and stand corrected.

To tell you the blatant truth gareth, the term "******" or "dog ******" is more commonly used. Sometimes we refer to them as "blackies" like they are little annimals or something.
I was trying to be more polite. How do you call them in Britain?

No one's sure. I think black is the currently acceptable term but it varies irritatingly often. ( e.g; five years ago 'black' was frowned upon and 'coloured' being encouraged. Now the reverse is true. Perhaps 'Homo Sapiens sporting highly melanic epidermi' is the order of the day.... )

Really, the bottom line is - if you're not trying to offend anyone, it really shouldn't matter.

[fairline]

Originally posted by Palaiologos

to tell you the blatant truth gareth, the term "******" or "dog ******" is more commonly used. Sometimes we refer to them as "blackies" like they are little annimals or something.
I was trying to be more polite. How do you call them in Britain?

Jesus ****ing Christ, this discussion ends here

[Palaiologos]

Sorry people i was not trying to offend anybody.

As for Greece i think you might have gotten the wrong picture. There is no word equivelant for ****** in our language. The word we use "arapes", derives from the word "Arab" (araps). The Saracens(Arabs) and Turks were called like that up to the 1920-30s and generally all dark skinned people(Egyptians too). It was not considered a demeaning word. Even in official byzantine documents and literature the word was used.In modern literature too.


You see there are hardly any of these people in our country and there is not much sensitivity for these matters. When one speaks of them as ******s (or arapades) he doesn't do so because he hates them but simply because that is the first word that comes to his mind.

Most Greeks are actually fond of negroes, they are considered gay people and funny. They are perhaps the only immigrant group that causes no friction among the local communities(not that any would marry his daughter to one of them though). That is in contrast to the Albanians that most Greeks hate.

[techumseh]

Palaiologos: You have offended people. Your racist name calling is completely unacceptable. Cease immediately.

[Ming]

Yes Palaiologos... enough of the racist crap. I would advise you to check your Private Messages as well...

Added later... your PM box seems to be full, and my message bounced. Needless to say, if you wish to continue posting on this site, I would suggest you contact me via PM asap... or your rights to post will be restricted until you do.

[Palaiologos]

I have sent you a PM Mr.Ming

I repeat that i did not want to offend anybody.

[WarVoid]

Seems i'm a little late in getting a notice of this.

And not to defend the racist remarks, but in English, i'm sure we would'nt pay much attention to the use of foreign slang, such as untermensch. Judging by Palailogos' posts, I presume he truely didn't mean to be inflammatory with his remarks.

Just as for me, arapes is considered foul language in Arabic. But for 99% of the people here, it's just another word.

Regardless, the use of racial slangs is not to be tolerated. And that goes as a warning to anyone. No matter what language you speak.

Ming - If you happen to have a chance, please CC me that PM so I can remain abreast of any responding actions you are/will be taking. If it's too private, then just CC me what actions you're taking, if any. Thanks.

[curtsibling]

Ok...!

Let's get back to posting units, guys!

[Boco]

Indian Mtn Gun

Okay this pic's from "Indian Army: 1914-1947" by Sumner.

Mountain artillery on exercise on the NW Frontier.

My guess is that it's the Jointed Breech Loading 10 pdr. Mk.1 Gun with a shield.

In "Armies in East Africa: 1914-1918" by Abbott there's another related caption

The Kashmiri Mountain Battery at Mahiwa in October 1917, in one of its last actions....The gunners were equipped with the 10-pdr 2.5in (69mm) mountain howitzer. This was the last of the 'Screw Guns'....

I think that's an older gun only used by poorly equipped colonial units.

Does that sound right Fairline? Any arty whizzes have more info?

Edit: Fairline do you ever sleep?