How misjudged are these guns?
I keep hearing conflicting reports about early blackpowder weapons. Some say that they had short range while others argue they had a more effective range than the longbow.
Also heard that they're not as inaccurate as many think and that they're pretty accurate in the hands of a skilled shooter.
I've always been weary of people saying that these guns only replaced archery because of training and cost reason when an arquebus during the 16th century was much more expensive than a longbow and gunners were professional troops trained extensively in drill, they weren't peasants with guns.
Many military writers of the 16th century paint the arquebus as a vastly different weapon than what most people nowadays think of it. I mean, there's gotta be a reason why cultures with a strong archery traditions like the Japs and Ottomans dropped their bows for these guns. So who the f*ck is right
>>30531587
IIRC a lot of the 16th century was very professional armies facing off, and wasn't so much two sides throwing peasants at each other. Of course they'd be trained.
And the Japanese didn't drop bows until breech loading rifles.
>>30531587
Effective war-archery also required extensive training as well, even in fitness - to effectively draw a longbow you needed significant physical strength.
>>30531587
Without going into the whole economic development thing that goes hand in hand with BP:
After the development of corned BP, shit like effective range, velocity, and accuracy would remain more or less the same until conical projectiles and rifled bores became the norm.
The only thing that really changed was how mobile the weapons were, and the tactics used to deploy them.
>>30531629
This goes for both artillery and small arms btw.
>>30531601
Kinda funny how in vidya it is archers who need agility stats and fencers who need strength, while it is the exact opposite. Tha teing said, having both is best.
>>30531601
Not to mention shooting bows is fucking tiring. After a while you end up putting less and less energy behind each shot.
Guns and crossbows didn't have this problem.
>>30531587
>Some say that they had short range while others argue they had a more effective range than the longbow
Both are kinda true. Long bows had a longer effective range but keep in mind that they were loosed in volley as much as muskets were. The goal wasn't to accurately split a hair at so or so many hundred meters, but to blanket an enemy formation. Preferably from a downward arc to cause as much disarray as possible.
>because of training and cost reason when an arquebus during the 16th century was much more expensive than a longbow
Longbows already were largely phased out by the 16th century. Keep in mind that it was pretty much only the English who kept using them in large numbers around these times.
Most Western European militaries had switched to the Tercio model and crossbowmen had become the most popular ranged troops alongside arquebusiers. But crossbows are are very intricate to build, expensive and hard to maintain.
>and gunners were professional troops trained extensively in drill, they weren't peasants with guns.
True in most cases, but training a soldier with an arquebus didn't require that much hassle. Training a longbowman effectively definitely required far more time. Years of quite intense physical training, which the English achieved thanks to what basically amounted to conscription at an early age.
You have to remember that a massive percentage of soldiers were mercenaries, especially ranged ones. They would've preferred low-cost weapons which gave the most bang for their buck. Wallonian arquebusiers played a decisive role in the Dutch victory at Heiligerlee for example.
>>30531674
To expand on this, it was really during the Eighty Years' War that arquebusiers began to steadily become the main body of troops and tactics radically changed.
The Dutch rebels were forced to rely on a disproportionate percentage of arquebusiers (for the standards of contemporary Tercio warfare) due to supply and demand. So they had to adapt their tactics. Maurice of Nassau helped to revolutionize this by using Roman drill, small unit tactics, volley fire and standardized training to create something resembling the later line infantry. This maximized the effectiveness of the arquebusiers as an independent force, who had before mainly been used as skirmishers screening and retreating within the pike blocks.
Meanwhile, their Spanish enemies also had to gradually accept more arquebusiers. This was simply because of costs as well. The Spanish army was poor, units were decimated and recruitment was naturally biased towards hiring more arquebusiers. Simply because they were cheaper to outfit, cheaper to train and most mercs willing to join up fought in that manner.
>>30531674
>>30531710
Dutchfag pls
What portion of the 80 years war did the tactical shift to more musketeers occur? Before or after Gustav Adolf did his thing, I mean.
>>30531587
These are major reasons why there was transition from bows (and crossbows) to guns:
1.(Europe only): By the time early guns were introduced yew (main componet of wooden bow) was getting slowly extinct in Europe.
2. Both bows and crossbows can be screwed (pernamently) by humidity, much more then guns can.
3. Bow is weapon of "oppurtunity", if you draw it, you have to take shot within second or two. Crossbows and guns can be holded ready to fire. With crossbows string will still suffer if it is held for to long.
4. Combat archery requires lifetime of trening.
5. Combat archery is tiring and requries enormous strength. Crossbows require strength or elaborate mechanisms.
6. Shock of voley of guns vs shock voley of arrows/bolts.
>>30531595
Before isolation period Japanese were introduced to matchlock, which while useful have significant limitations. During Boshin war, everything ranging from flintlock muskets, minie ball rifles, dreyse needle guns and even some repeaters were used.
>>30531674
>Long bows had a longer effective range
No they don't. Bows and croosbows has minuscule 50-60 m/s initial velocity. It means that their battle-sight range is around 50-60 meters. Guns had 250-400 m/s initial velocity and their battle-sight range is 5-8 times greater. Le longbows range is meme made up by Victorian britfags who were spurting total bullshit about pretty much everything.
>>30532632
if a longbow has a range of 50 m/s, then its maximum range would have to be ~250 meters. plus, battle-sight range is irrelevant when you consider how these weapons were used. longbows were fired in volleys at targets which would most likely be just masses of men in the distance. you wouldn't really need to get anything in your sights, just fire in the general direction of the enemy. i agree that the whole "longbows have longer range than muskets" thing is a meme but if anything the range was equivalent to muskets.
in addition, when considering the effectiveness of muskets vs. longbows you need to consider that a musket ball would lose much of its velocity at those ranges, whereas an arrow not only has a sharpened edge/point, but would have gravity to replace some of the velocity lost over time.
>>30532471
>Longbows can be made of other things than yew
>If archery were that important they'd probably have planted groves of yew to ensure a steady supply.
So far no one seems to have mentioned the fact that one area where firearms absolutely demolish bows is in armour penetration, which seems likely to have been a consideration in the 1500s.
>>30533203
Correct me if I'm wrong, but by the 15th century, wasn't heavy armor still capable of blocking Shotas from penetrating?
I know in Japan with the Tanegashimas that was true.
>>30531601
>to effectively draw a longbow you needed significant physical strength.
I cannot imagine myself walking under the falling arrows:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDOG_DdhlX8
>>30533742
>tfw a bunch of crazy welsh and English long bow men retake their own country and make it great again
>>30533691
They had to up-armor to do that. In the process they ditched everything but the cuirass, which is a worthy enough result.
>>30531587
The key advantage of guns was the almost guaranteed kill they’d provide regardless of the opponent’s armor.
>>30531629
>The only thing that really changed was how mobile the weapons were, and the tactics used to deploy them.
I have the suspicion gunfire scared horses much more than we are usually told.
Also, and despite bows having a very high ROF, arquebusiers could exploit volley tactics to increase it even more:
>"I have discovered evolutionibus [a term that would eventually be translated as "drill"] a method of getting the musketeers and others with guns not only to practice firing but to keep on doing so in a very effective battle order (that is to say, they do not fire at will or from behind a barrier....). Just as soon as the first rank has fired, then by the drill [they have learned] they will march to the back. The second rank either marching forward or standing still, will then fire just like the first. After that the third and following ranks will do the same. When the last rank has fired, the first will have reloaded, as the following diagram shows.
>>30531587
Battle of Pavia. Shooting from the side:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gt4AonwWNk
They say:
>lead bullet
>is smaller than the bore
>2 mm iron/steel armour
>comparison with crossbow
Video is unfortunately bogus.
The dude says that he has to shoot from the side because during the battle you shoot into the crowd.
But later he does shoulder aim -- because the target is individual. He just doesn't explain it, so it looks like contradictory.
>>30533742
>those whistling shots
fuck that noise
Here's the writings of Humfrey Warwick, an English mercenary, written in the late 16th century if anyone is curious
http://the-norseman.livejournal.com/13230.html?nojs=1
>>30532471
What limitations?
The Japanese made extensive use of their muskets during the sengoku era and their invasion of Korea to great success
>>30534013
I'm not sure how much of that could be attributed to the Korean military at the time being a miserable pile of failure though. The Koreans just weren't ready for a ground war of that caliber, Tanegashima or not.
>>30533691
>blocking Shotas from penetrating
Hey anon, you wanna /ss/?
>>30534111
I have no clue why that autocorrected to shota.
It's not like I ever use that word.
I swear.
Pls don't judge I just want to talk about arquebuses.
Who here matchloc/k/?
>BOW
>Weight: ??? (possibly negligible)
>Size: 1.98 m (6 ft 6 in)
>Encumbrance of weapon: Medium
>Encumbrance of ammo bundle: High
>Mobility: High
>Learning curve: high
>Level of fitness required: High
>Calories intake per level of fitness: High
>Arrow weight: 18 gr
>Number of arrows carried: 25-50 (450-500 grams). More in wagons.
>Number of arrows shot in a battle: 60-72
>Level of craftsmanship required to produce ammo: high (fletchery)
>Re-usability of ammunition: close to none.
>Draw weight: 105 lbf (470-490 N at 250 yards)
>ROF: 6 / min
>Issues: bowman fatigues with use
>Armour piercing? Theoertically possible, but needs to exert at least 710 N in some tests. Still hazardous because body will be hit with more than 80 joules of force
>Kinetic energy = y (e.g. 50 lbs-ft)
>ARQUEBUS
>Weight: 9 lb (4 kg)
>Size: 1.117 m (44 in) [may require support stick]
>Encumbrance of weapon: very high
>Encumbrance of ammo: very low
>Mobility: average (ambush from the woods during battle of Pavia 1525)
>Learning curve: medium
>Level of fitness required: Low
>Calories intake per fitness required: Medium-Low
>Ball weight: 15 gr
>Ball calibre: .66 (also .68 etc.)
>Powder weight per shot: 125 grains (8 grams)
>Total weight per shot: 23 grams
>Number of balls carried: 18-36 (414-828 grams) for mobility [but can carry more, see encumbrance]
>Level of craftmanship required to produce ammo: low
>Re-usability of ammunition: high (lead balls can be recycled and those deformed by hitting the target can be fused into new balls)
>Muzzle velocity at 100 m: 392-449 m/sec (data is for Musket; couldn't find arquebus)
>ROF: 3 / min (higher if volley tactic is used) [sauce: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-lGCtbg580 ]
>Issues: smoke, misfires, no wet weather
>Armour piercing? Yes.
>Kinetic energy = 10y+ (eg. 660 lbs-ft)
>>30534207
so you're saying bullets can be recovered from bodies and the ground but arrows can't?
>>30533842
Except at extreme distances, and at certain points in the relationship, if someone had pretty good armor. Very, very expensive armor mind.
At some point guns made it uneconomical, although various forms of armor have on and off, been somewhat effective against sidearms to this day, and remain so.
A lot of the armor you see today is generally fairly effective against a lot of handguns, but won't help you against a long gun.
And in the period illustrated a buffcoat and decent breastplate could make you hard to hurt for a pistol, and at least somewhat durable against even a musket. (Although not totally safe. You could still easily bleed out anyways since it wasn't totally proof. Still, at extreme ranges they might as well have been throwing rocks at you.)
>>30531639
You loose accuracy before you do power-the arms start to shake. Bad. You don't notice it at first, either.
>>30532471
>Combat archery requires lifetime of training.
This is myth. the English did what they did because it was FREE.
The Byzantines had no issue training grown men to shoot powerful composite bows, and we actually have recordings of some of their training methods.
The Chinese, as well, could and did raise archers out of normal men.
The English lacked the central organization and money needed to have the state actively raise troops in this way, so they made the yeomen do it for them.
>>30532632
Stop.
Bows have massively variable initial velocity-and drop-based on what they're shooting. They're not guns, the projectile used can vary wildly. Trying to state absolute numbers is ridiculous.
>>30533742
It becomes less intimidating when you watch Jacques dance under it and come out fine. Men in good armor tend to be less intimidated by arrows.
>>30534029
Rain, for one.
Anyway, I did this >>30534207 before reading this:
>So lets begin from studying the theoretical limits of arquebuses and muskets. The best recently controlled study of early modern firearms was carried out in 1988-1989 by the staff of the Steiermärkisches Landeszeughaus in Graz, Austria. Thirteen muskets and pistols, dating from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century were chosen to be fired under rigorous test conditions in a research program conducted jointly with the Austrian armed forces. The guns were mounted on rigid frames, sighted on target, ignited electrically, and measured electronically.
Sauce: https://sellsword.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/firearms/
This article's gonna be good.
>be Austrian sniper grunt
>hey Fritz, we need some of your unit to participate a research program
>whynot.jog
>army life is boring if you're Austrian
>tfw you got recruited to work on an academic study on the effectiveness of ancient firearms
>>30534207
Dear god. All these made up numbers.
>>30534230
>so you're saying bullets can be recovered from bodies and the ground but arrows can't?
I said more than that.
I also considered the possibility that shooting an arrow into a marching crowd and shooting a bullet into a marching crowd will have different results.
Balls deform with impact. If they penetrate, it is a good hit. Otherwise you can always recover some. Also, you can melt them back into shape very easily (low fusion point. Can be done while having a snack around the fire).
Arrows from the ground: yes, they can be recovered -- I do it myself. But in the heat of a battle a lot of shit gets lost and broken. Fletching needs to be re-done from scratch...
Basically the assumption is that if you send some boys to scavenge the battlefield in the aftermath, it is more likely they will return with re-usable metal rather than re-usable wooden sticks (namely, arrows).
Anyway, that was a minor point in my list.
>>30531587
The Rifleman were extremely well-trained. those were some hard men. imagine keeping your line when everyone drops dead arround you. imagine holding your ground when cavalry Charges you.
>>30534266
>Dear god. All these made up numbers.
Post better ones if you know better.
I opened some 5-7 Internet tabs... I can post all sources.
They are not fucking perfect, but they are good samples.
Like, the size of the English longbow is established, even if it varied. I took 1.98 m because it is the figure that recurs the most.
Same goes for the size of arquebus rounds: cal .67, .68, etc. was typical.
Also, please notice "standardization" was not a thing in those days... not at the level we are aware now.
Also, all the English longbow shit is taken from Wikipedia.
It is also known arquebus weight was usually lower than 10 pounds.
ROF for bows can be higher than 6 / min, but 6 / min is assumed average during heated battle exchanges.
So if you have fucking objections, you can basically go and edit Wikipedia, or propose better figures. Mine can be wrong in some details, but are overall okay and give a clear idea of the situation.
>A wild anon (possibly a NEET) shows up
>Says it's all wrong
>Doesn't say why
>Doesn't fix the figures he thinks are wrong
>Basically just another troll
>>30534293
that scavengers would be able to find enough small pebble shaped objects in a muddy/grassy/rocky/snowy battlefield at a higher rate than they would find usable arrows cast doubt on your entire post.
>>30534328
>cast doubt on your entire post
Your cherry picking does not hinder the high quality of my contribution.
I might have made a mistake, but this doesn't diminish the quality of the rest.
An idiot here questioned me without proposing better figures: >>30534266
Because, you know, it is very easy to come here an criticize people at random, etc. That's the typical autistic scheme. But finding actual contributors who can propel a serious discussion... well, if you're aim is just to stand up and say:
>muh duh you made a mistake here. Overthinking. So since x is wrong, all set containing x is wrong
Well, you're welcome getting out of this board.
Also, since when /k/ people become whiner fucks? There used to be good shit on this board.
>>30534266
>Muzzle velocities for the early modern weapons from the Graz collection were surprisingly high. Ten of thirteen average muzzle velocities were between 400 and 500 m/sec. By comparison, the two modern assault rifles tested had muzzle velocities of 835 m/sec and 990 m/sec respectively, and the 9mm pistol tested at 360 m/sec, Smith and Wesson police .38 revolver at 290 m/sec, Colt .357 Magnum at 400 m/sec. Of course, the drag of the ball causes a rapid loss of momentum with distance.
Source: https://sellsword.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/firearms/
>>30534029
Okay what about the janissaries?
They were elite Ottoman troops with a strong archery tradition and had access to some of the best bows. Yet they quickly embraced the musket and dropped the bow.
I mean even in history any army with bows rarely won over an army with black powder weapons.
>>30534362
>[In the study] Muskets were targeted at 100 meters, pistols at 30 meters. Weapons were fired against a rectangular wooden target 167 cm high by 30 cm wide, essentially the frontal area of a standing human being. The probability of scoring any hit at 100 meters (30 meters for pistols) was calculated. For smoothbore muskets the probability of any given shot to hit a man-sized target at 100 meters was little more than 50%. The two pistols were far more accurate at 30 meters, scoring 83% and 99%. The latter figure is comparable to the score of the modern pistol (99.5%). Muskets targeted at 30 meters had almost 100% probability to hit. There was almost no improvement in accuracy of guns from 16th to 18th century.
>These numbers are really good, better than many expect from a smoothbore musket. They get even better if you remember that here the target was man-sized, while in 16th century infantry usually marched into battle in big formations. That would make such weapon an overkill! But that is a ballistic test, and no human being can hold the gun so steady. Also, note that the Graz test was conducted with standardized modern gunpowder made for gun collectors, which is a more powerful and stable substance than it’s 16th century predecessor.
>>30534390
That's actually fairly accurate.
At least much more accurate than you're led to believe
>>30534410
Yeah... but testers found that the hit ratio and the kill per hit ration in modern times was significantly lower. The article goes on:
>In 18th century the problem of musket accuracy was studied in many trials. Unlike modern tests, shooting was made by humans and the target usually represented an enemy battalion instead of a single man. Moritz Thierbach, writing in 1886, summarized them. Taking an average of Prussian, Bavarian and French trials, he standardized the test to one involving 60 shots at a board-and-canvas target, roughly equal in size to the frontal area presented by an enemy battalion, approximately 30.5 meters long, by 2 meters high. From a distance of 75 meters only 60% of the bullets penetrated the target; from 150 meters – 40%; from 225 meters – 25%; and from 300 meters – only 20%.
>Hanoverian experiments in 1790 showed that when fired at various ranges against a representative target (a placard 1.8 m high and up to 45 m long for infantry, 2.6 m high for cavalry) the following results were achieved: at 100 meters – 75% bullets hit infantry target, 83.3% cavalry, at 200 m – 37.5% and 50%, at 300 m – 33.3% and 37.5% respectively.
>Moreover the hits by no means corresponded to kills, for the Prince de Ligne once conducted a test against a comparable target which was painted with figures of Prussian soldiers, and he discovered that nearly one-quarter of the rounds that struck the target would have passed between heads and legs, leaving the soldiers totally unscathed.
>Another experiment described by Mueller (1811) involved the use of aiming versus no aiming. Infantrymen in the aiming group were encouraged to aim their muskets as hunters would instead of just pointing it roughly ahead and pulling the trigger. Each group fired 1,000 rounds against a cavalry target. The results of this experiment:
>range (yd.) aimed shots unaimed shots
>100 53.4% 40.3%
>200 31.8% 18.3%
>300 23.4% 14.9%
>400 13.0% 6.5%
>>30534455
>40.3% accuracy at 100 yards
That's still way more than we're led to believe. Thank you for sharing this with us, anon.
How did they do at penetrating armor back in the 1500s though at 100 yards?
>>30534504
>How did they do at penetrating armor back in the 1500s though at 100 yards?
11 metres.
Kill ratio of a volley at 100 m was still 2% (consider that 53.4% aimed hits did not result in sufficient stopping power at such distance).
So the best distance was below 30 m.
>Experience prompted to commanders that in the real battle the most effective use of arquebuses and later muskets is to advance forward and shoot from 30 meters. That could give as much as 20-30% hits in a volley. Volleys from 100 meters could score only about 2% hits. The early “Spanish heavy musket” was used at 60-80 meters but there are accounts of its effective use at 100, 150 and even 200 meters (the latter is quite doubtful, but that’s the real episode of the battle of Muehlberg, where the Spanish musketeers inflicted heavy damage to the enemy on the other side of river Elbe). In 16th century many soldiers on the battlefield wore armour, so a commander had to think not only of hitting the enemy, but also of penetrating the enemy’s shell. The Duke of Alba recommended to his harquebusiers an effective distance “of a little more than two pike lengths” – around 11 meters. In 17th century during the English Civil War armour was no longer a problem, but many infantry regiments were composed of such rabble, that officers suggested a distance of two pike length – less than 10 meters (pikes became shorter at the time).
>>30534535
I guess that proves the myth of the arquebus and musket completely tearing through armor wrong. That's an absurdly short distance to be dumping fire into a line of pikes
>>30534563
I agree.
But writer says that all those short distance field suggestions were made to compensate poor training, which didn't match the effective accuracy of the weapons as per tests: >>30534455
>As you can see, the real cause of inaccuracy was the inadequate quality of soldiers. I can make a long list of reasons, but lets just note that many soldiers of the early modern era received no training at all. State resources were limited and most governments only hired mercenaries and drill was rare, especially in 16th century. Spain initially had the advantage of sending raw recruits to garrisons in Italy for two years. Soon the 80 Years’ War urged the Spanish government to abandon this practice, and newly hired men were send directly into the maelstrom of battles.
>That’s why every army cherished grizzled veterans. Early modern armies were mercenary only in part, because not everyone entered service voluntarily. Even if we forget about impression, which was relatively rare, many men enlisted simply because they’ve lost all other way to earn their bread. They were far from true dogs of war. In spite of the claim of longbow enthusiasts, sufficient training of an harquebusier took much time. Not so many years as a longbowman’s training, but still a lot. Combat effectiveness of raw troops was often pitiful. They broke and ran easily, they didn’t perform manoeuvres fast enough, but more important that they didn’t shoot good enough.
(cont.)
>>30534343
your post did seem researched, the nature of these conversations are fast though, mistakes are weeded out through attacks. there are other boards where people research for days before a post like that, they have reputations and things function differently. here though things need to be accepted at their own quality. i'd be pretty pleased if that was the only thing someone took issue with on a post that length.
>>30534580
>Most inexperienced soldiers tended to forget about recoil. As a result, they tended to fire too high. Once an English captain came under fire from raw Scots levies in the enemy army and declared that ‘they shot at the skies’. This tendency to fire high led Robert Munro, a Scottish veteran of the Thirty Years’ War, to counsel that soldiers should aim ‘never higher or lower than level with the enemies’ middle’. As a result the following adjustments in aim were recommended for different ranges: at 150 paces aim at the knees, at 225–300 — at the waist or chest, at 375 — at the head, at 450 — at the hat or 1 foot above the head. Frederick the Great recommended that at usual 30-50 meters the barrels must be pointed at the ground eight or ten paces (7 meters) away, to compensate for the kick of the weapon.
>And that was just the soldiers’ part. Very often they received guns of a very low quality. Gunpowder was especially prone to bad production and storage and when on campaign it could deteriorate completely. Some authors even assume that pistols were in fact more accurate than most arquebuses, because pistols were a noblemen’ weapon, usually of good quality.
>>30534591
>To sum it all, the problem of inaccuracy was connected primarily with soldiers than with limited capabilities of their weapons. If soldiers on the battlefield could match accuracy of the testing range, that would be a quite different picture. Assuming in average two shots per minute and even 10% probability of hitting the enemy line at 300 meters, 1000 soldiers could kill 200 enemies a minute. That’s good enough but at lesser range we would see a real slaughter. But that potential was never reached. There was simply no real possibility to reach it because of many different objective factors.
>So we can say that in fact it was the early modern soldier who was inaccurate, not his musket, even taking all imperfection of contemporary weapons. The real problem with early firearms was not incaccuracy but a tremendous level of care and diligence that they required to reload properly. Even bolt action rifles significantly reduced the gap between the weapon’s performance characteristics and drawbacks of the real soldiers. AK-47 for example has a special fame of being a simple and reliable weapon of choice for the untrained riffraff.
>But the soldier is not to blame too. He received inadequate training and equipment, so it would be foolish to expect more of him. We are dealing here with reality of warfare which always has certain impassable limits. Even a genius from our time with all possible knowledge of history, should he be sent to 16th century, wouldn’t be able to change the inaccuracy and other problems, no matter what could say some writers of fiction books.
>>30534563
To sum this up:
>>30534580
>>30534591
>>30534597
Spaniards and Imperials kept using crappy soldiers well into the 30 years war.
Comparatively, English longbowmen had been drilling every Sundays of their lives.
On the opposite side, many enlisted for random reasons and had no training whatsoever... so that recruits were sent to slaughter and veterans expected to emerge out of the butchery because nobody wanted to waste cash and bullets. They preferred to waste flesh instead. It was cheaper.
>>30534597
>>30534608
Where there any nations in the time that put heavy emphasis on well trained rifleman? It seems like there isn't a faction that really used them to their full potential.
>>30531595
The Japanese were a very primitive people before Europeans introduced the Industrial Revolution to Nippon.
>>30533691
No no no you're supposed to penetrate the shota not vice versa
Unless of course you're ara ara~~
>>30534626
Averrones writes about the Dutch army dedicating winter to drills and writing manuals for commanders:
>That was too expensive, because tax system in 16th century Europe was essentially medieval, while the costs of war escalated tenfold. So even initial hiring of an army usually required borrowing a sum equaling to about 10 annual incomes of the state. Additional subsidies were to be bought in parliaments in exchange for rights and privileges for parliaments and citizens. However, a large proportion of mercenaries for hire were already trained veterans. They were more expensive but came in formed regiments with everything they need. Also, towards the end of 16th century many states began to keep mercenaries in pay during winter months instead of disbanding them. Dutch army is especially famous for devoting winter to the drill. In fact, images in this post are from Dutch book that was maid around 1600 to help officers in drilling soldiers. It included everything one should know about using pike, arquebus and musket.
Now, I am not an expert... but maybe, if you are looking for entertainment, you might want to check out the Alatriste Novels, which are basically the Dumas-style story of a 17th Century Spanish mercenary.
>>30534678
You're the best anon. I've been trying my best to learn about this period.
Any battles where the well trained dutch rifleman really shined?
>>30534236
>Except at extreme distances, and at certain points in the relationship, if someone had pretty good armor. Very, very expensive armor mind.
Ure, at extreme range but unlike bows, the firearm was going to get penetration on ANY available armor long before the armored knight got in range to attack the gunner.
Even a peripheral hit to a limb would more then likely stop the attacker due the large amount of damage the big ass lead ball caused.
Armor was still effective against bows but essentially useless against firearms, which is why most everybody stopped using armor.
>>30534702
>Any battles where the well trained dutch rifleman really shined?
Try everything happening after the army reform of 1589:
>Under the two stadtholders, Maurice and William Louis, the Dutch army was in a short time thoroughly reformed from an ill-disciplined, ill-paid rabble of mercenary companies from all over Protestant Europe, to a well-disciplined, well-paid professional army, with many soldiers, skilled in the use of modern fire-arms, like arquebuses, and soon the more modern muskets. The use of these fire-arms required tactical innovations like the counter-march of files of musketeers to enable rapid volley fire by ranks; such complicated manoevres had to be instilled by constant drilling. These reforms were later emulated by other European armies in the 17th century.[67]
>Besides these organisational and tactical reforms, the two stadtholders also developed a new approach to siege warfare. They appreciated the peculiar difficulties of the terrain for this type of warfare in most of the Netherlands, which necessitated much labour for the digging of investments. Previously, many soldiers disdained the manual work required and armies usually press-ganged hapless peasants. Maurice, however, required his soldiers to do the digging, which caused an appreciable improvement in the quality of the work. Maurice also assembled an impressive train of siege artillery, much larger than armies of the time usually had available, which enabled him to systematically pulverise enemy fortresses. He was to put this to good use, when the Republic went on the offensive in 1591.
SAUCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years%27_War_(1566%E2%80%931609)#Dutch_Army_reforms
Also:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Breda_%281590%29
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Knodsenburg
>>30534729
>Even a peripheral hit to a limb would more then likely stop the attacker due the large amount of damage the big ass lead ball caused.
Try this:
>Condottiere Bernardino Fortebraccio survived the battle of Fornovo (1495) with 12 wounds, some of them gunshot. According to some sources, doctors had to remove three broken pieces of skull from his head. Apparently, the complex operation was successful because few weeks later that condottiere was seen strolling in Venice, devouring juicy apples and blowing kisses to pretty ladies.
>Giovanantonio di Gattamelata could tell a more interesting story. In 1452 he was shot straight in the head but managed to survive. In contrary to popular jokes about martinets, his brain wasn’t unharmed. After that wound Giovanantonio became a pale shadow of his former self but lived on for another 4 years. That is an astonishing example because in that century even gunshot wounds of one’s arm could be lethal.
>This unique survival left citizens of Brecia in doubts: should they send congratulations or curses? That’s because they had already donated money for the most luxuriest funeral of their beloved condottiere. With di Gattamelata alive all costly preparations were seemingly as good as lost. However, before long, Giovanantonia’s uncle Gentile della Leonessa got hit by the bullet as well and luckily for people of Brecia he wasn’t so ungratefully enduring. The funeral was held with great splendour and in full accordance to the previous plan.
Top fucking kek.
Sauce: https://sellsword.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/bullets/
>>30531587
>weary
Idiot.
>>30534328
Not scavengers... but basically when you have something like a non-rifled gun (e.g. arquebus, musket, shotgun, blunderbuss) you can even fill it with buckshot, gravel or other metal balls if there is an emergency.
>The simplicity of the musket design allowed it to fire a variety of ammunition. The simplest ammunition for musket was the round ball, which was simply a round ball of lead. Round balls were intentionally loose fitting in the barrel so that they could quickly be loaded even after the barrel had been fouled by numerous previous shots. This loose fit, combined with the poor aerodynamics of the round ball led to the musket's inaccuracy beyond 50 to 75 yd (46 to 69 m) or so. Muskets could also fire smaller lead pellets called lead shot or buckshot, which struck a wider area but with less force than a single lead ball. Round balls could be combined with buckshot to produce buck and ball ammunition, which combined the wider area of attack of shot with the large mass of the round ball.
See wikipedia on Musket ammunition
You can produce ammo out of almost everything if you are clever... for the arrows you need wood, fletching, and shit. So even if the idea of scavenging is ridiculous... it is still true ammo is easier to make.
Not so easy the gunpowder stuff though... so imho it is an even match:
fletching vs. chemistry
wood and metal vs. round balls
I guess most shit breaks down to training drills for effectiveness... rate of fire and armour penetration.
That is,
>ROF
>Armour penetration
>Terminal velocity
>accuracy
If you want a historical rather than technical evaluation, you should add into the picture:
>drills (or absence thereof)
>training
>tactics for efficacy at best range
etc.
Of course many say longbow was more effective... because even assuming it was not armour piercing and shit... it is still true that 13th Century longbowmen were way better trained than most 15-17th Century arquebusers and musketeers.
>>30534322
That's nice. I know enough to know that there's no established rate of fire for long bowmen. None. We have no osurces on this from the period.
there's also no standard weight of arrow. Arrows vary in thickness and length, depending on the pull and draw length of the bow. Heads also vary in size, shape, weight, and even composition.
Draw weight is NOT established with any certainty, with examples ranging from 90-140lbs draws.
Trying ro claim it's a flat 105 is retarded.
>no reusability
any arrow that doesn't hit a bone, tree, rock, shield, or metla is going to be reusable. They're also much easier to find than fucking balls are.
>fletching arrows
>hard
You can literally teach children to do it.
I fully agree the gun is the better weapons.
The problem is a lot of the numbers you're citing for bows are wither out of context, or just outright wrong.
This thread has been very informative.
My thanks!
>>30535605
>>30535605
>complains about the 105 lbs average figure
>provides a range of 90-140 lbs (average is 115 lbs)
I see what you've done there.
Ladies and gentlemen... here's another dude who is trying to transform this discussion into a Katana vs. Longsword or AK47 vs M16 thing.
>we don't know the ROF
Try this:
>Most heavy bow archers agree that 6 or 7 aimed arrows a minute is all that you would keep up with. And even then I doubt it would be continual the English didn't carry that many arrows into France for them to be wasted. oh and no one knows where the 12 arrows a minute quote came from its just something historians who know no better like to bat around.
The 6 / min figure is an agreed max and, even if wrong, can be wrong by a unit... Nobody denies ROF can be lower according to the needs. But no fucking way you can go above 7 and maintain efficiency.
The 6 / min is a very good guess.
>>30534167
so just me i guess. oh well
>>30536156
I'd love to have one, but all of the proper historical replicas are expensive
>>30531587
>I keep hearing conflicting reports about early blackpowder weapons.
Lets get this out of the way, early blackpowder weapons covers ever thing to the 10th century fire lance and has a cut off point of the early 16th century caliver because it has a match lock (traditional the dividing line). That is a long period and a fair number of different weapons. The very early ones were mostly useful to make noise and not much else. Lets talk about the talk about early firearms becoming useful.
The first step to that is the hand gonne, likely invented in northern china in the time frame of 1189 to 1192. Fast foreword to about 1330 in Europe and gunsmith guild invent the powder, making the hand gonne markedly more powerful. For some details on why see http://www.musketeer.ch/blackpowder/handgonne.html.
In 1346 Nuremberg becomes the first city to have records of planning to use hand gonne to protect its gates, using 20 handgunners and 10 crossbowmen per gate. Moving into the 1350s a large number of mostly southern German and North Italian cities follow suit. Why use hand gonnes to guard gates? It has less range then a crossbow, about the same close range stopping power, was just under 40% percent of the cost of a crossbow made for war, and most importantly had a higher rate of fire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD6SbAzdvc8
Its the difference of a crossbow having 2 1/2 to 3 shots a minute ( we are talking about late medieval crossbows, not early weaker but faster firing ones) against 4 shots a minute. Hand gonnes are used mostly in defense of strong points till the Hussite wars in the 1420s. Moving into the end of the 14th century there is a number of small refinement to the design. Shaped stock start to become a thing, however stick stocks will only fall out of use in the 1480s.
How good is a late 14th century hand gonne? They had a muzzle energy of around 1280 to 1490 J, close to what is seen in 50 AE loads. con
>>30536775
The range statements on reconstructed hand gonnes hitting a man sized target goes from 45 yards to 49 meters ( 53.5 yards). This difference is likely do to using different hand gonnes to base the reconstruction off of. It is not like they were standardized. At around 75 yards the energy has fallen off to the point were it will ,barring hitting someone in the throat, only cause minor flesh wounds. Because people commonly used body armor in those days that makes 75 yards a cut off point in usefulness.
So how about against plate armor?
The best anyone has gotten against plate with a hand gonne is piercing munitions plate at 39 meters ( 42.6 yards).
In about 1420 hand gonnes started to be used in field battle to great effect. After about two years the gunsmith guild supporting the Hussites invented the Arquebus. A few years later the French and Hungarians started using them. After fighting the Hungarians in the mid 1430s the Ottoman Janissary core starts using the Arquebus in large numbers.
The fact that all of the heavy weights of the area started using the Arquebus in that short of the a time frame should speak of how effective it was.
>>30535605
>there's also no standard weight of arrow.
The livery arrow of England was 62.3grams, give or take up to 1.5 grams. That was the type of arrow that the crown would buy in mass and hand out to its archers. The other types of arrow was ever either purchased buy the archer himself (which could be anything he wanted) or his commander. If we are going to use the livery arrow as what longbow made for war are designed to shot that gives us a likely a draw range of 115 to 130 pounds.
>>30531587
Sorry for my bad English. I think that they realized that gunfire effects on enemy morale harder than archery projectile fire. Rate of fire and accuracy with bows was superior compared to early guns. With a bow you can also adjust your aim, because you can see the trajectory of an arrow. Facing muzzle flashes and loud noises is just much scarier than valley of arrows.
>>30537595
You really can't visually track bows unless they're rather weak.
>>30531587
In many of the early battles of the Italian Wars (1500s) blackpowder weapons were shot from close range because both sides tended to entrench themselves.
Pic unrelated but relevant to thread.
>>30536238
real camel guns from the 1600-1700s like mine are around for $500ish, better if you find a deal. just make sure you don't get something made in the 1800s for tourists.
>>30533845
Muzzle loaders fire rounds smaller than the bore
>>30537595
Bows are shit weapons compared to matchlocks. The only thing bows had going was rate of fire and that could only be sustained for a short period of time before your archer became tired. The bow might had been slightly more accurate but the bow didn't have as good stopping power as the gun. The guns had better range and much better stopping power.
It was a superior weapon and that's why it came to replace both the bow and crossbow. It's also why cultures that were rooted in archery traditions wanted to get it badly like the Native Americans and the Japanese. It even replaced the bow in hinting.
This whole nonsense about longbows or whatever being superior is Anglo propaganda from nostalgic Victorian reactionaries and people who think Legolas is a realistic depiction of archery
>>30539077
Which makes sense, of course, but how bad is the effect of that on accuracy? Does the wadding help a little; does the lead expand during firing to better fit the bore, or does the ball just bounce around inside the barrel and come out at a hugely unpredictable angle?
>>30542955
You can wrap it in a piece of cloth. But the ball still swirls around when you fire.
See here:
>As muskets became the default weapon of armies, the slow reloading time became an increasing problem. The difficulty of reloading—and thus the time needed to do it—was diminished by making the musket ball much smaller than the internal diameter of the barrel, so as the interior of the barrel became dirty from soot from previously fired rounds, the musket ball from the next shot could still be easily rammed. In order to keep the ball in place once the weapon was loaded, it would be partially wrapped in a small piece of cloth.[23] However, the smaller ball could move within the barrel as the musket was fired, decreasing the accuracy of musket fire[24] (it was complained that it took a man's weight in lead musket balls to kill him).[25] The only way to make musket fire effective was to mass large numbers of musketmen and have them fire at the same time. The tradeoff between reloading speed and accuracy of fire continued until the invention of the Minié ball.
Sauce: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket
Everyone watches this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk1oWUjS3UQ
>>30542955
Also, pic related is not a battle hit on the armour.
Rather, it is the producers' warranty.
Basically, when you purchased the armour, the armoursmith made a test shot from an established distance, to demonstrate his armour was worth the price.
Nobody sane in his own mind would purchase an armour without conducting prior testing. Nowadays it is different because mass production allow you to test a sample from a batch and then generalize it to all the batch of body armours. Also, nowadays body armours are kinda disposable (e.g. some are ceramic so they break after impact).
Unfortunately, I am not aware of what the testing procedures were back at the time... if it was a 10 m shot, a 100 m shot or whatever.
Fact is that in every museum you go, it is very likely armours will indeed have those test bulges due to the craftsmen testing them for their customers.
>>30535678
is that a pistol grip on a 15th century musket?
>>30546082
I think it was meant to be mounted on the side of a wagon.
But I wouldn't be surprised if it was a pistol grip after all... late Renaissance is full of experimental shit.
Guys, watch musket vs. Spartan armour:
https://youtu.be/-sPPtp-iKLc?t=7m30s
Deadliness of cast lead bullets:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHbWL83fJAw
>>30546558
>forgot pic
>>30536156
I wouldn't mind having one, they're banproof and stylish.
I remember an old kid's book called "The Matchlock Gun" I read it back in elementary school but it's probably banned now. Basically a rural colonial household gets raided by Indians when the father was away. The son and mom somehow load this bigass matchlock and fire it through the front door, killing 3 Indians. Along with Home Alone, that book got me into home defense at a young age.
>>30534013
>What limitations?
gee, i don't know, maybe it could be one of these:
>chamber exposed
>relatively high chances of misfire
>you have to keep match or rope lit
>heavy
>slow to reload
>>30534238
>Byzantines had no issue training grown men to shoot powerful composite bows, and we actually have recordings of some of their training methods
>composite bows
>>30531595
>>And the Japanese didn't drop bows until breech loading rifles
Matchlocks were steadily surpassing bows from the moment they arrived in Japan. By the end of the Warring States period, bows were in a minority to muskets in Japanese armies. The only reason archery as a serious military skill continued to be practiced was because the Tokugawa Shogunate brought about centuries of peace, which gave the Samurai the luxury of indulging in frivolous things. A few more decades of war would have killed off the Samurai's archery tradition.
Battle hardened Samurai who fought actual wars idealized the pike and musket because they were dead killy. Pseudo philosopher bureaucrats idealized the bow and the sword because it was fashionable.
>>30546082
Yes. I took this at the Spanish naval museum in Madrid
>>30548936
>culatín desmontabile
This means you can remove the whatever it is called in English and transform it into a long pistol with just the pistol grip.
BAN ASSAULT MUSKETS NOW.
