As for the Boers, let's see what Wiki says:
So, the Boers were weak in hand-to-hand combat and instead relied on their superior range and accuracy to defeat their enemies. But this is exactly what you claimed couldn't happen. If what you said about "parade ground vs. battlefield" were correct, the Boers' line of sight should have been obscured by their own smoke, they should have been too terrified of the prospect of fighting men rather than eggs to hit anything over 100 yards away, and the British should have easily been able to close and defeat them in hand-to-hand combat.
Basically, you've been arguing that marksmanship training was unimportant because the British, who trained in marksmanship, lost a few battles... to an enemy who were better-trained in marksmanship than they were. I've no doubt you'll keep refusing to understand the point, but hopefully other posters should be able to spot the flaw in the argument easily enough.
The average Boer citizens who made up their commandos were farmers who had spent almost all their working lives in the saddle, and, because they had to depend on both their horses and their rifles for almost all of their meat, they were skilled hunters and expert marksmen. Most of the Boers had single-shot breech-loading rifles such as the Westley Richards, the Martini-Henry, or the Snider-Enfield. Only a few had repeaters like the Winchester or the Swiss Vetterli. As hunters they had learned to fire from cover, from a prone position and to make the first shot count, knowing that if they missed, in the time it took to reload, the game would be long gone. At community gatherings, they often held target shooting competitions using targets such as hens' eggs perched on posts over 100 yards away. The Boer commandos made for expert light cavalry, able to use every scrap of cover from which they could pour accurate and destructive fire at the British.
[...]
The Boer marksmen could easily snipe at British troops from a distance. The Boers carried no bayonets, leaving them at a substantial disadvantage in close combat, which they avoided as often as possible. Drawing on years of experience of fighting frontier skirmishes with numerous and indigenous African tribes, they relied more on mobility, stealth, marksmanship and initiative while the British emphasised the traditional military values of command, discipline, formation and synchronised firepower.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Boer_War
So, the Boers were weak in hand-to-hand combat and instead relied on their superior range and accuracy to defeat their enemies. But this is exactly what you claimed couldn't happen. If what you said about "parade ground vs. battlefield" were correct, the Boers' line of sight should have been obscured by their own smoke, they should have been too terrified of the prospect of fighting men rather than eggs to hit anything over 100 yards away, and the British should have easily been able to close and defeat them in hand-to-hand combat.
Basically, you've been arguing that marksmanship training was unimportant because the British, who trained in marksmanship, lost a few battles... to an enemy who were better-trained in marksmanship than they were. I've no doubt you'll keep refusing to understand the point, but hopefully other posters should be able to spot the flaw in the argument easily enough.