The Battle of Blood River is possibly the most embarrassing BTFOing in human history. A force of only a few hundred Dutch settlers faced off against tens of thousands of Zulu warriors. The result: 3000 Zulus killed, while only 3 Boers were injured, with no fatalities recorded.Battles like this continued to take place throughout Europe colonization of Africa, although to a lesser extent. In the Battle of Rorke's drift during the Anglo Zulu war of 1879, less than 300 British soldiers defeated 3-4,000 Zulu warriors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blood_Riverhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rorke%27s_Drift
Now, these battles happened at a time were the Europeans had guns and the Africans were armed with only spears and leather shields, so it's easy to see why the casualty differences were so massive. However, battles like this happened well into the 20th, even when the Africans themselves were armed with guns. In Operation Dingo during the Rhodesian Bush War, Rhodesian forces managed to kill over 1000 Africans, suffering only two deaths during the operation.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dingo
>>533943998>2 artillery pieces vs bunch of niggers with spearsYeah pat yourself on the back you retarded cunt.
>>533944041I do respect the Zulu's. They were ridiculously brave and fearless when facing enemies with vastly superior weapons. Still, a 0-3000 K/D ratio is pretty embarrassing.
Can't remember the name right now but the one where the yanks lost 100 men invading an island the Japanese had already left was more embarrassing.
>>533944027What if all the Zulus had had the Alucard shield?
>>533943998Were the African fighting with sharpened mangoes?
>>533947010>yanks lost 100 men invading an islandThe US/Canadian "invasion" — Operation Cottage (August 15, 1943):Allies expected another tough fight like Attu, so they landed a massive force: ~34,000 US Army and Canadian troops, supported by heavy naval bombardment and air strikes.Landings were unopposed — no enemy fire at all.But the island was booby-trapped with mines and traps left behind, visibility was terrible due to fog, and troops were on high alert expecting ambushes.Result: No Japanese killed (zero combat deaths from enemy action).US/Allied casualties came from:Friendly fire incidents (troops mistaking each other for Japanese in the fog).Landmines/booby traps.Accidents, vehicle mishaps, and the harsh weather/terrain.Total: Around 92 killed and 221 wounded (some sources break it down with landing forces 32 killed/100 wounded, plus Navy losses including a destroyer damaged by a mine that killed ~70). Overall operation casualties exceeded 500 when including non-battle issues.
>>533944027At the Battle of Rorke's Drift, Zulu's did have some guns.
White Power.
"Europeans have better technology"Okay but with 30,000 it should not be hard to beat 664 men. The only think they were lacking was bravery. They could have overwhelmed the Boers. Guns were not machine just back than but flint and steel not really much stronger than a throwing spear or a bow and arrow. The advantage that flint and steel had was that it allowed to train an army quickly
