Rorke's Drift Diorama

[answer_is_42]

...these were a minority during the war.

But do you mean that as a general statement covering the (whole Zulu) war, or specifically to the 2nd Btn/24th Foot at Rorkes Drift & Isandlwhana at the start? As noted I'm working on modelling a representation of part of the latter specifically, and was working under that impression (from the book you quote among others) until comments as noted above regarding preponderance of white helmets, etc... To me it's not a 'minor' issue in that it has a significant impact on the appearance of my troops and I would like to at least be confident whether I should just stain a handful for variety, or the majority (barring Officers & Senior NCOs)... so appreciate any further clarification on whether we are talking general or specifc or direction to definitive sources (if there are such things)...
 

Cheers!

Yes, the vast majority of troops during the war had stained helmets, baring Officers and senior NCO's. I'm not too sure on the irregulars and axillaries (Natal mounted Police etc), however. I'd stain almost all of them if I was you, and (if you're up to it) change some of the helmets in 1st bttn to straw hats etc, as they had been campaigning for some time and were in quite a state (there are historical drawings to back this up).

Quoting an Osprey puts one on very shaky ground, particularly when it contradicts a regimental museum and photographs from the time  

The book is written by Ian Knight, who is one of the most respected Anglo-Zulu war historians. I've many other books on the conflict which can quote similar lines, as well as photographs showing stained etc helmets. All the evidence I can gather shows that most troops during the war did indeed stain their helmets, along with other camoflage techniques (such as covering uniforms in dust etc).  

Edit: That's 10 posts commenting on the colour of hats...and some people say I waste my time on the internet 

[Bungle]

The archeaological evidence from the battle grounds turns up lots of helmet plates.

So they were either often worn on the helmets despite regulations, or the guys carried them on their person after they removed them from the helmets.

anyway.. keeper... well done - good job- again 

[Gluteus Maximus]

All the evidence I can gather shows that most troops during the war did indeed stain their helmets, along with other camoflage techniques (such as covering uniforms in dust etc).  

Edit: That's 10 posts commenting on the colour of hats...and some people say I waste my time on the internet 

11 now, well not so much the colour as the "why".

I don't believe they would stain their helmets  [and apply dust] as camouflage.

A] the British army were always proud of their red coats and many believed [erroneously] that "savages" were scared of it, which was certainly true during the Sudan wars from 1884, when the vast majority were in some form of khaki.

B] the vast majority of British troops fought in close order lines, or more frequently squares. It was believed by the Victorians that the African peoples in the 19thC had better eyesight than Europeans and AFAIK, this was true, so why bother to camouflage large formations of slow-moving troops.

I don't think it's a waste of time if incorrect info is believed to have been posted and people are only trying to get things right. That's why we love history, isn't it, because facts are so interesting 

[edited for spelling mistakes  ]

[answer_is_42]

All the evidence I can gather shows that most troops during the war did indeed stain their helmets, along with other camoflage techniques (such as covering uniforms in dust etc).  

Edit: That's 10 posts commenting on the colour of hats...and some people say I waste my time on the internet 

11 now, well not so much the colour as the "why".

I don't believe they would stain their helmets  [and apply dust] as camouflage.

A] the British army were always proud of their red coats and many believed [erroneously] that "savages" were scared of it, which was certainly true during the Sudan wars from 1884, when the vast majority were in some form of khaki.

B] the vast majority of British troops fought in close order lines, or more frequently squares. It was believed by the Victorians that the African peoples in the 19thC had better eyesight than Europeans and AFAIK, this was true, so why bother to camouflage large formations of slow-moving troops.

I don't think it's a waste of time if incorrect info is believed to have been posted and people are only trying to get things right. That's why we love history, isn't it, because facts are so interesting 

[edited for spelling mistakes  ]

Firstly, the average soldier probably cared more about his life than his coat - hence, camoflage. I've also read some where (but don't quote me on this) that the red in the troopers uniforms often ran to pink in the rains. And plus, as I have already stated, almost every source I can find points to this. For example:


- Taken some months after the battle, but does show members of the 2nd/24th. Note the helmets...


sketch of two 1st bttn privates, just before the war. Note the straw hat and state of uniforms.

And on the subject of fighting in formations, the troops at Isandalwana fought in open order, with as much as 2 feet between each man (surveys of the site have backed this up), which was one of the main contrubutions to the defeat there.

[fastolfrus]

Appropriate hat colour or not, very impressive figures.
At first glance I thought they were 15mm

[Gluteus Maximus]

Firstly, the average soldier probably cared more about his life than his coat - hence, camoflage. I've also read some where (but don't quote me on this) that the red in the troopers uniforms often ran to pink in the rains. And plus, as I have already stated, almost every source I can find points to this. For example:



And on the subject of fighting in formations, the troops at Isandalwana fought in open order, with as much as 2 feet between each man (surveys of the site have backed this up), which was one of the main contrubutions to the defeat there.

I really don't want to get into an argument here, but suffice to say that as I stated earlier, a large formation of men - ie battalion of approx 600 men would not be able to camouflage itself in the conditions found in Zululand. It would be particularly pointless, as the Zulus would have sent out scouts, whose fieldcraft was vastly superior to the average Tommy's. The Zulus could and did use the local topography to their advantage, but this never happened with regular British infantry units.

The infantry had  to stay in close order or they would be destroyed by the faster-moving and much more deadly Zulus. Two feet between each man is not open order. Maybe you meant 2 metres, which is nearer to "open order". In the modern British army, each man marches in line or column at 1 arm's distance between his neighbours - usually maintained by each man thrusting his right arm out, with fist clenched to touch the man on his right on the shoulder. Indeed, you probably need about two feet to perform small-arms drill safely.

At Isandhlwana, the British army found itself out-manouvered over-stretched and forced to fight in a defensive position not of it's choosing, hence any unusually large gaps between files. It was certainly not typical of battles against the Zulus. Ordinarily they would be in close order.

Either way, 600 men is a very large formation and extraordinarily difficult to camouflage - even with today's technology.

I am not arguing against their uniforms becoming shabby very rapidly and obviously field modifications would become increasingly necessary when many miles away from supply depots. Even in the modern [or relatively modern] British army of the 1980s, most of us would have a large number of non-regulation items when on exercise or operationally. It's what soldiers do and indeed, have always done, to make life more comfortable and soldiering more efficient.

so, like I said, I've no wish to argue, but practical experience of life in the army, allied with extensive reading of history tends to make me think you have mis-interpreted the evidence.

Sorry, no offence intended here and I'm trying to keep to the rules and spirit of the LAF 

[answer_is_42]

Firstly, the average soldier probably cared more about his life than his coat - hence, camoflage. I've also read some where (but don't quote me on this) that the red in the troopers uniforms often ran to pink in the rains. And plus, as I have already stated, almost every source I can find points to this. For example:



And on the subject of fighting in formations, the troops at Isandalwana fought in open order, with as much as 2 feet between each man (surveys of the site have backed this up), which was one of the main contrubutions to the defeat there.

I really don't want to get into an argument here, but suffice to say that as I stated earlier, a large formation of men - ie battalion of approx 600 men would not be able to camouflage itself in the conditions found in Zululand. It would be particularly pointless, as the Zulus would have sent out scouts, whose fieldcraft was vastly superior to the average Tommy's. The Zulus could and did use the local topography to their advantage, but this never happened with regular British infantry units.

The infantry had  to stay in close order or they would be destroyed by the faster-moving and much more deadly Zulus. Two feet between each man is not open order. Maybe you meant 2 metres, which is nearer to "open order". In the modern British army, each man marches in line or column at 1 arm's distance between his neighbours - usually maintained by each man thrusting his right arm out, with fist clenched to touch the man on his right on the shoulder. Indeed, you probably need about two feet to perform small-arms drill safely.

At Isandhlwana, the British army found itself out-manouvered over-stretched and forced to fight in a defensive position not of it's choosing, hence any unusually large gaps between files. It was certainly not typical of battles against the Zulus. Ordinarily they would be in close order.

Either way, 600 men is a very large formation and extraordinarily difficult to camouflage - even with today's technology.

I am not arguing against their uniforms becoming shabby very rapidly and obviously field modifications would become increasingly necessary when many miles away from supply depots. Even in the modern [or relatively modern] British army of the 1980s, most of us would have a large number of non-regulation items when on exercise or operationally. It's what soldiers do and indeed, have always done, to make life more comfortable and soldiering more efficient.

so, like I said, I've no wish to argue, but practical experience of life in the army, allied with extensive reading of history tends to make me think you have mis-interpreted the evidence.

Sorry, no offence intended here and I'm trying to keep to the rules and spirit of the LAF 

 No offence taken at all old thing.
Now firstly, yes I did indeed mean 2 meters, although I'm quoting from memory here so it may be different from this (possibly larger, but I can't remember, I'll check later).  I believe this large distance is due to the uselessness of the senior officers and the intelligence present at Isandlwana (Pulleine, commanding, was not a combat officer). Anyhow, I digress.

By camouflage I did not mean trying to cover up a whole battalion. Rather, the average trooper was trying to make himself (and most importantly his head) less conspicuous in a firefight. A white helmet is a lot easier to see than a Khaki one when one takes a quick glance, especially in a landscape that consisted of brown and green.
 
I don't think I've misinterpreted the sources here. The point I am making is this; the vast majority of British troopers dyed their helmets brown using tea or coffee, in order to make themselves less conspicuous on the battlefield. In previous campaigns the British were forced into running battles with natives, often skirmishes in dense foliage ( the Xhosa wars were much like this), and the soldiers were taking the experience of these fights into the Zulu campaign with them, expecting more of the same. When they fought in combats such as this they wanted to be as inconspicuous as possible, and so dyed their helmets, not knowing that the Zulu fought so differently from what they had experienced. And most of what I can dig up seems to agree with me here.

here's an intersting site I recently found;
http://www.kwazulu.co.uk/fact-fiction.html
Doesn't mention hats, though...

On a side note, have you seen Zulu Dawn? It springs to mind as I was watching it only the other day. They're all wearing dyed hats... (although the film also tells us that the British fought in ranks, they couldn't open ammo boxes and Pulliene ordered the flag to be saved, unsheathed, so I'm not using that as an example here...)

Edit; I'm off on an Xmas spree tommorow, so this'll be my last post for a week or so.

[Mycenius]

On a side note, have you seen Zulu Dawn? It springs to mind as I was watching it only the other day. They're all wearing dyed hats... (although the film also tells us that the British fought in ranks...

FWIW - I wonder if it actually possibly shows both - there are scenes which seem to clearly imply the troops are in some form of open order and/or have a skirmisher line out in front... If you allow for the 'cinematic' condensing of the scene and so on it may well be that some sub-units are depicted in open order?

[keeper]

Firstly, thanks to everyone for the positive feedback - makes me feel a lot better after spending the weekend made up with cold!

I'd better get the hat issue out of the way.  My apologies for sparking a debate on hat colour - at least people stay civil on the LAF!  The last similar discussion I read elsewhere on the colour of the uniform buttons of minor German states of the Napoleonic era was not nearly as polite!!

When I was looking into the colour of the hats, I found some evidence they were white and some evidence that they were routinely stained with tea - but nothing specific for Rorke's Drift, so I compromised and shaded them with tea colour and highlighted them with white, so that they could be seen either way   But there are some other compromises I had to make too - the British collars don't have any facing colour on them, and the sheilds of the zulus would not be quite so mixed up in design.  Just some of the adjustments you have to make at this scale.

@JollyBob: Thanks for the spot on the rifle!  I'm going be cutting a custom foam insert for the piece, so I'll check everything like that before I finally box it up!

@answer_is_42: The mealie bags are just rolls of ProCreate marked with a craft knife.  Not exactly high-art, but I like the effect.  Took me two days to find evidence of the size of mealie bags, so that I knew approximately how big to make them!

[answer_is_42]

Firstly, thanks to everyone for the positive feedback - makes me feel a lot better after spending the weekend made up with cold!

I'd better get the hat issue out of the way.  My apologies for sparking a debate on hat colour - at least people stay civil on the LAF!  The last similar discussion I read elsewhere on the colour of the uniform buttons of minor German states of the Napoleonic era was not nearly as polite!!

When I was looking into the colour of the hats, I found some evidence they were white and some evidence that they were routinely stained with tea - but nothing specific for Rorke's Drift, so I compromised and shaded them with tea colour and highlighted them with white, so that they could be seen either way   But there are some other compromises I had to make too - the British collars don't have any facing colour on them, and the sheilds of the zulus would not be quite so mixed up in design.  Just some of the adjustments you have to make at this scale.

@JollyBob: Thanks for the spot on the rifle!  I'm going be cutting a custom foam insert for the piece, so I'll check everything like that before I finally box it up!

@answer_is_42: The mealie bags are just rolls of ProCreate marked with a craft knife.  Not exactly high-art, but I like the effect.  Took me two days to find evidence of the size of mealie bags, so that I knew approximately how big to make them!

Haha! you could of posted this a couple of weeks ago and saved us all alot of typing...

Did he like it?

[keeper]

Yeah, I'll remember to include more of my research next time

My wife's uncle loves it!   I might have to do something "Navaho" (sp?) related for next Christmas, though!