‘Christian Resistance’ leader arrested for alleged terrorism plot

thechamp

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,883
Amazing what they can do.

They have managed to prevent a terrorism plot, they have all these guys that haven't even managed to pull off anything yet.

but haven't seemed to catch the currently active terrorists ?
Cash in transit, cable theft, train sabotage, looting, open threats to government and democracy...

Quite amazing.
Yeah, they should have allowed them to pull off something first, would have made their capture more epic.
 

Pitbull

Verboten
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
62,567
They had guns and a high position. Its good but not divine intervention.
single shot front loading muskets, vs charging Zulus in their thousands. At best, 600 single shots at a time with a charge of more than a 1000 per charge...

Like I said, you are welcome to see it the way you see it. That is entrenched in Afrikaans heritage, and the reason they will ALWAYS pray for anything. Working or not, it's irrelevant.
 

buka001

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
4,925
single shot front loading muskets, vs charging Zulus in their thousands. At best, 600 single shots at a time with a charge of more than a 1000 per charge...

Like I said, you are welcome to see it the way you see it. That is entrenched in Afrikaans heritage, and the reason they will ALWAYS pray for anything. Working or not, it's irrelevant.
Single shot muskets, loaded with buckshot. Big difference and critical. The canons were loaded with grapeshot.

The Zulus had to be within 2m of their opponent to inflict damage.
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
13,657
Are folk just going to carry on talking about the Battle of *Blood River* like the river and it's big-ass banks had nothing to do with slowing the Impi down?

Yeah...?

As you were then...

 

buka001

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
4,925
Are folk just going to carry on talking about the Battle of *Blood River* like the river and it's big-ass banks had nothing to do with slowing the Impi down?

Yeah...?

As you were then...

And the fact that they had 2 canons and circa 200 rifles.

Plus the Zulu' mounted only 4 attacks in 2 hours, giving more than a substantial time for adequate reloading.
 

MidnightWizard

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Messages
5,165
Zulu were really stupid
Should have attacked on a RAINY day !
In which case G D would have been -- ASLEEP !
 

Excalibur

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
2,789
Oh please ,
All this is is -- Panem Et Circenses

Crazy white racists planning terrible evil -- captured -- HOORAY --
and
Hooray indeed, minus one criminal.

Diverts attention from the current government and THEIR acts of Looting / economic sabotage / "terrorism"
The crime in the country has never taken away the spotlight from government weaknesses. What do you suggest? Suspend crime fighting and focus on government?
What it also does is place the REAL concerns of minorities in an unfavourable light distorted by the antics of these PATHETIC TOY revolutionaries.
What are the "REAL" concerns of the minorities? Whatever they are I bet they are not concerns that the majority of South Africans do not have.
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
13,657
And the fact that they had 2 canons and circa 200 rifles.

Plus the Zulu' mounted only 4 attacks in 2 hours, giving more than a substantial time for adequate reloading.
We're way, way off topic here and I'mma keep going.

I rewatched Gettysburg a while back. Pretty good movie except for the kindly General Lee BS... Robert Edward was treasonous garbage, but that's not the point I want to make here.

The Union and Confederate armies spent ages *not* engaging while they danced around looking for advantages like high-ground. The first skirmish should have stayed just that, a skirmish 'cos John Buford held the high ground for the Union... But treasonous garbage Lee engaged anyway. Two days before Pickett lead his charge, the battle was lost. Treasonous garbage Lee just didn't know it yet.

In the movie Jeff Daniel plays Joshua Chamberlain who's defence of Little Round Top is specifically relevant to this Blood River discussion... A small Union force in a secure, defensive position defended that hill all day from Alabama infantry charges... until they ran out of ammunition.

The 'Bama folk had taken huge losses but they figured one last push 'cos that high-ground would swing the whole battle; and as they charged up the hill, Chamberlain's Maine boys who had empty muskets, did the only logical thing they could... No, not surrender... A bayonet charge down the hill.

The 'Bama boys broke or surrendered and the Union's left flank held.


Never underestimate the slightest advantage. You lose when you do.
 
Last edited:

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
5,451
It amazes me that supposedly intelligent people think that a battle is foregone conclusion in favour of the defenders just because of a generational weapons advantage..... The Zulu could have easily overwhelmed the Boers all they had to do was not break momentum or set the wagons on fire or whatever.

Isn't there a degree of racism involved here? The assumption that blacks cant fight or something? Especially when they gave the British such a harder time in comparison where there were better trained troops in larger numbers with superior supplies.
 

lsheed_cn

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
2,887
Amazing what they can do.

They have managed to prevent a terrorism plot, they have all these guys that haven't even managed to pull off anything yet.

but haven't seemed to catch the currently active terrorists ?
Cash in transit, cable theft, train sabotage, looting, open threats to government and democracy...

Quite amazing.
Its far easier to catch 'fictitious* criminals' than actual real ones.


*I have my doubts at them being actual 'terrorists'
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
13,657
It amazes me that supposedly intelligent people think that a battle is foregone conclusion in favour of the defenders just because of a generational weapons advantage..... The Zulu could have easily overwhelmed the Boers all they had to do was not break momentum or set the wagons on fire or whatever.

Isn't there a degree of racism involved here? The assumption that blacks cant fight or something? Especially when they gave the British such a harder time in comparison where there were better trained troops in larger numbers with superior supplies.
The Impi at Isandlwana just gave you a nod for that last bit.

The Brits at Rorke's Drift say 'hi'.

Also, I just typed a whole wall of text about the Civil War... Last I checked, no Impi were hurt in the making of that battle.
 

buka001

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
4,925
It amazes me that supposedly intelligent people think that a battle is foregone conclusion in favour of the defenders just because of a generational weapons advantage..... The Zulu could have easily overwhelmed the Boers all they had to do was not break momentum or set the wagons on fire or whatever.

Isn't there a degree of racism involved here? The assumption that blacks cant fight or something? Especially when they gave the British such a harder time in comparison where there were better trained troops in larger numbers with superior supplies.
As long as the Vorrtrekkers were able to fire their canons and muskets, it was a forgone conclusion.

Look at the map of the battle. The voortrekkers had vast fields of fire. The Zulus had to cross a large open plain, then a river, with long marshy grass along its banks, plus heavy rains from the 12th of December had softened the terrain. The Zulus then had to get through a deepish donga and then amass in their formation just outside the lagaar, all the while well within musket range. This led to a much slower moving mass of infantry. Easy pickings for canon fire. So even before the Zulus could come into range they were being decimated.

The Zulus were raked with canon fire way before they could even get close. This disrupted their movements and strategy. Follow on forces could not move as efficiently as they were use to.

tgcmape.jpg
 

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
5,451
No cannon can be everywhere at once, reloading takes a long time, Impi's could travel exceptionally fast over bad terain. If they had not broken off so much or had more patience and splitting off a part of their force which could have crossed at another point they could have easily overwhelmed the position a day later.

It's not a difficult puzzle to solve if you do a minimum of thinking.
 

buka001

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
4,925
No cannon can be everywhere at once, reloading takes a long time, Impi's could travel exceptionally fast over bad terain. If they had not broken off so much or had more patience and splitting off a part of their force which could have crossed at another point they could have easily overwhelmed the position a day later.

It's not a difficult puzzle to solve if you do a minimum of thinking.
The cannons engaged the impi well beyond the range at which the impi could attack. They had run over large flat, lower lying plain, under attack from the canon the whole time. The range of these canon was between 300-400m. The canon fired grapeshot, so for every one shot fired, 11 projectiles would be fired. The voortrekkers had 3 cannons. The cannons were on wheels and easily manoeuvrable and they were placed to cover the areas where the impi advanced from. As they were using grapeshot, accuracy was not a major factor, they just had to aim it at the central mass of the invading force. Cannons of this era could typically be reloaded in 15 seconds, so 3-4 shots per minute.

It was estimated that each voortrekker had two rifles. Fire one, while the other was reloaded. Range of these rifles were around 150-250m. When they used buckshot ammunition, the range was 60-90m. The weather was dry, which made it ideal for firing these weapons.
 

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
5,451
All good and well BUT the stream of enemy actually reached the wagons at points, if you had multiple streams or even sustained streams the cannons could have been spread too thinly to be as effective. Also if the focus of the cannon shifted with the head of the stream the rest could have bulged and broken through in between even if all three cannons had one focus.

I think you over-estimate the capability of grapeshot from ONLY three cannon in the face of thousands of melee troops especially since these were not particularly fast loading cannon unless I am mistaken. They would have delayed but not not stopped a determined push as long as the push remained scattered and loose enough.

People have this idea that it was a tightly massed formation but that likely was not the case.

You also under-estimate the speed at which Impi's could move as well as their maneuverability, they could at short distances easily outpace hoses sometimes.

Even considering the actual casualties, the Zulu gave up before they technically had to. The only real problem they faced was their will to fight being broken, partly apparently because of supposed supernatural activity. There are accounts of the Impi's becoming terrified of "white beings" moving behind the wagons if I remember correctly and this alone made them start to rout at least a few times when they managed to get up to the wagons..... not something you will find in most history books...... I have something about this somewhere at home I think.
 

Nerfherder

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
24,690
It amazes me that supposedly intelligent people think that a battle is foregone conclusion in favour of the defenders just because of a generational weapons advantage..... The Zulu could have easily overwhelmed the Boers all they had to do was not break momentum or set the wagons on fire or whatever.

Isn't there a degree of racism involved here? The assumption that blacks cant fight or something? Especially when they gave the British such a harder time in comparison where there were better trained troops in larger numbers with superior supplies.
No its the opposite - that so called intelligent people conclude that it was an act of god because 600 people with cannons, guns and cover on the high ground were able to defeat 20 000 people armed with spears who had no cover and had to traverse a river to gain ground.

Sorry - its a long sentence but some stuff to cover.
 

buka001

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
4,925
All good and well BUT the stream of enemy actually reached the wagons at points, if you had multiple streams or even sustained streams the cannons could have been spread too thinly to be as effective. Also if the focus of the cannon shifted with the head of the stream the rest could have bulged and broken through in between even if all three cannons had one focus.

I think you over-estimate the capability of grapeshot from ONLY three cannon in the face of thousands of melee troops especially since these were not particularly fast loading cannon unless I am mistaken. They would have delayed but not not stopped a determined push as long as the push remained scattered and loose enough.

People have this idea that it was a tightly massed formation but that likely was not the case.

You also under-estimate the speed at which Impi's could move as well as their maneuverability, they could at short distances easily outpace hoses sometimes.

Even considering the actual casualties, the Zulu gave up before they technically had to. The only real problem they faced was their will to fight being broken, partly apparently because of supposed supernatural activity. There are accounts of the Impi's becoming terrified of "white beings" moving behind the wagons if I remember correctly and this alone made them start to rout at least a few times when they managed to get up to the wagons..... not something you will find in most history books...... I have something about this somewhere at home I think.
So what do you think happened? The hand of God wiped people out?
 

Urist

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2015
Messages
2,339
It amazes me that supposedly intelligent people think that a battle is foregone conclusion in favour of the defenders just because of a generational weapons advantage..... The Zulu could have easily overwhelmed the Boers all they had to do was not break momentum or set the wagons on fire or whatever.

Isn't there a degree of racism involved here? The assumption that blacks cant fight or something? Especially when they gave the British such a harder time in comparison where there were better trained troops in larger numbers with superior supplies.
751117751119

\:whistling:
 

buka001

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
4,925
Yip, the role terrain has on a battlefield perfectly displayed in the contrast between these two battles. At the Battle of Islandwana the impi did not get slowed down by a river and a donga, they were able to encircle the British. This was not acheivable against the Voortrekker due the landscape, gave the Voortrekkers a natural barrier to their rear, hence the impi could only attack on one front.

The role of the laager in blunting the attack as it provided a barrier from direct attack by the impi was also an important factor at Blood River. One of the findings by the British Army for the their defeat was that they did not set up a laager defensive position.
 
Top