Italo-ethiopian war 1935-36

What I said was this:

If you hold the advantages of morale, motivation, leadership, terrain, numbers, supply and so on, the enemy can have Abrams tanks for all you care because you will defeat them.

The Zulus had the advantages of terrain and numbers, while their enemy suffered from faulty leadership. Morale must have been pretty strong on the side defending its own lands, while British soldiers fighting a strange enemy in a strange land may have been less inspired. As far as I know the initial campaign that led to the battle at Isandhlwana (sp?) was a rushed advance, which means the Zulu also probably had a better supply situation.

 

Not really. The Zulu army tended to be a short-term force, carrying only enough food for a short campaign. The problem the British facved was an acute shortage of wagons. Many of the white colonials had no quarrel with the Zulus and refused to sell their wagons to Chelmsford for a war they did not support.

 

in viet nam ,the usa had tanks and guns ,jets and helcopters,and all manner of great advantage and firepower.the nva and viet cong had a rifle and a few pounds of rice.mabey a morter squad for support.we killed a zillion of em...at the end of the day they still won..no tanks or ships or planes,a bag of rice and rubber sandals on thier feet....

 

They lost the war on the battlefield, but kept fighting in the belief (correct, as it turned out), that the growing American antiwar movement would eventually give them victory in the war. This was recently admitted by the Hanoi government.