I don't understand why people used the first guns, and quickly replaced swords, and bows with it. From what I learned in books and school, muskets(revolution war), and handcannons (medival?) were increadibly inaccurate, slow, (takes over a minute to reload) and if you add too much powder, the gun explodes, and add too little, the gun won't work, and they were useless in rain. Crossbows seemed better, as they took little to no training to use, and they are accurate, and more reliable. I don't know much about guns, but I do know that early guns were very crappy. Modern Day guns are better than bows in almost every way, and they are very advanced, but seeing how horrible early guns were, what made people so trigger happy? Maybe I am missing something. (I am no gun expert.)
Why did people use early guns?
- Thread starter BeserkWraithlor
- Start date
Handcannons were a rarity in the late middle ages to be certain. They were expensive and innacurate but also a sign of status and had the benifit of being able to punch through the armor of the day.
Move forward now to the 18th century. The Musket became THE WEAPON of the day. It was both missile weapon and pike in one package thanks to the bayonette. It may have taken time to reload but so did the Crossbow, especially one which could punch through armor. You could carry far more powder and shot than you could bolts (simple size comparison). The range of the musket quickly exceeded that of the crossbow of the day. The reason armor went away was becasue of gunpowder.
The gunpowder weapons also offerred far more room for improvement that the traditional bow and string weapons of the day. Big biceps and lever action loading devices could only go so far but gunpowder advances allowed the smallest soldier to drop the largest with ease. Compared to the traditional bow and arrow the musket was also far easier to train troops to be proficient on.
Move forward now to the 18th century. The Musket became THE WEAPON of the day. It was both missile weapon and pike in one package thanks to the bayonette. It may have taken time to reload but so did the Crossbow, especially one which could punch through armor. You could carry far more powder and shot than you could bolts (simple size comparison). The range of the musket quickly exceeded that of the crossbow of the day. The reason armor went away was becasue of gunpowder.
The gunpowder weapons also offerred far more room for improvement that the traditional bow and string weapons of the day. Big biceps and lever action loading devices could only go so far but gunpowder advances allowed the smallest soldier to drop the largest with ease. Compared to the traditional bow and arrow the musket was also far easier to train troops to be proficient on.
Upvote
0
Yes, and imagine a line of about 200 hundred men kneeling then another line of 200 standing behind them, and then then the kneelers firing a volley and while theyre reloading the people standing up firing .
You just eliminated almost 400 of the enemy with or without armour.
You just eliminated almost 400 of the enemy with or without armour.
Upvote
0
When the Lee Metford rifle was issued to the British army in the late 19thC,they regained a weapon that was as accurate as the longbow.
Thats not to say muskets or early rifled muzzle loaders were crap - but basically the effective killing range of a musket i'snt that far.
As Jono brushes upon -muskets come into their own when used in volley fire at quite close quarters.
Tactics and training enabled the British forces to beat Napoleaons troops ,line versus column the tactic (all muskets can be fired when in line),and not wanting to sound like Richard Sharpe but the ability to fire 2/3 rounds a minute was the training that won the day.
The British had live munition training back then with higher quality gunpowder (all that lovely Indian Saltpetre).
Why did guns take off in warfare?.
Possibly the industrial revolution plays its part-but with a standardised musket and cartridge system-in effect everyone has the same hitting/stopping power , something what would differ with the use of bows.
The nature of the kind of warfare being fought would also have nessecitated the use and development of firearms.
Blocks of men v's other blocks of men-technically a musketball could do more damage in that aspect.An arrow would just stay in the target but the musket ball could wound /kill more than one man.
@the topic starter -Don't be disheartened a chap called 'Mad' Jack Churchill was still using a sword and Longbow effectively in WW2.
Thats not to say muskets or early rifled muzzle loaders were crap - but basically the effective killing range of a musket i'snt that far.
As Jono brushes upon -muskets come into their own when used in volley fire at quite close quarters.
Tactics and training enabled the British forces to beat Napoleaons troops ,line versus column the tactic (all muskets can be fired when in line),and not wanting to sound like Richard Sharpe but the ability to fire 2/3 rounds a minute was the training that won the day.
The British had live munition training back then with higher quality gunpowder (all that lovely Indian Saltpetre).
Why did guns take off in warfare?.
Possibly the industrial revolution plays its part-but with a standardised musket and cartridge system-in effect everyone has the same hitting/stopping power , something what would differ with the use of bows.
The nature of the kind of warfare being fought would also have nessecitated the use and development of firearms.
Blocks of men v's other blocks of men-technically a musketball could do more damage in that aspect.An arrow would just stay in the target but the musket ball could wound /kill more than one man.
@the topic starter -Don't be disheartened a chap called 'Mad' Jack Churchill was still using a sword and Longbow effectively in WW2.
Upvote
0
But what about the longbow?
What I have read/heard is that it could penetrate most armours it had a greater range then both muskets and crossbows reloaded faster then both muskets and crossbows.
But the downside as I understand it compared to crossbows(and muskets) is that it required extensive training
What I have read/heard is that it could penetrate most armours it had a greater range then both muskets and crossbows reloaded faster then both muskets and crossbows.
But the downside as I understand it compared to crossbows(and muskets) is that it required extensive training
Upvote
0
That's exactly it. Long bows took a lifetime of training. Large armies could be raised quickly, and with much less training when armed with muskets.
Accuracy isn't a concern once you have your men in a firing line formation. Put that many lead balls in the air at once and your bound to hit someone.
Upvote
0
They were load. Shot out fire and smoke. You didn't see the little lead ball fly through the air and straight through your buddies chest.
They may have been slow to load. They may have been highly inaccurate. They still gave the owner a psychological edge on the battlefield. That can be more important than actual combat effectiveness.
Upvote
0
I have my own longbow and am fairly reasonable with it tbh. Mine is fairly powerful (for these days) with a 40lb draw. The longbows used in those times were 100lb draw and sometimes more. People used to have to train on the village green every Sunday as part of Henry VIII law. People trained almost their whole lives to the point where they could fire a 100lb bow, to the extent that it caused significant deformaties in the arms of the bowmen (very thick, dense bones IIRC). This is probably the critical factor in changing to guns because as previously stated, it makes it easier to raise an army.
A good bowman can aim and fire 8-12 arrows per minute. My 40lb bow with pretty standard tips can penetrate solid oak up to 6inches. The armour of those days could not withstand it, never mind a 100lb bow. Crossbows have similar rate of fire and power but required less training to use.
Longbows have excellent range but are not ammazingly accurate for several reasons.
First, ideally an arrow needs to be 'matched' to a bow in terms of stiffness and shaft thickness, all based on the power of the bow and the draw length of the bowman. It's complicated enough to calculate in modern times and then manufacture countless identical arrow shafts.
Secondly, when fired the arrow has to travel around the edge of the bow (modern recurve bows are oddly shaped to allow the arrow to travel dead centre) combined with the flexibility of the shaft the arrow tends to bend when released. This results in a corkscrew like path for the arrow.
However this is all more noticeable in target shooting, I could easily hit a man in the torso at 100m, I just couldn't guarantee hitting his heart.
A little trivia for you. The V sign (the other way round from the one Churchill used) was originally an insult to the French. The French really, really hated our longbowmen and so if captured they would remove the index and middle fingers to prevent them using a bow any more (though tbf middle and fourth fingers would have been more effective) so bowmen who still had them used to raise these fingers to the French as a sign of defiance and to insult and goad them.
A good bowman can aim and fire 8-12 arrows per minute. My 40lb bow with pretty standard tips can penetrate solid oak up to 6inches. The armour of those days could not withstand it, never mind a 100lb bow. Crossbows have similar rate of fire and power but required less training to use.
Longbows have excellent range but are not ammazingly accurate for several reasons.
First, ideally an arrow needs to be 'matched' to a bow in terms of stiffness and shaft thickness, all based on the power of the bow and the draw length of the bowman. It's complicated enough to calculate in modern times and then manufacture countless identical arrow shafts.
Secondly, when fired the arrow has to travel around the edge of the bow (modern recurve bows are oddly shaped to allow the arrow to travel dead centre) combined with the flexibility of the shaft the arrow tends to bend when released. This results in a corkscrew like path for the arrow.
However this is all more noticeable in target shooting, I could easily hit a man in the torso at 100m, I just couldn't guarantee hitting his heart.
A little trivia for you. The V sign (the other way round from the one Churchill used) was originally an insult to the French. The French really, really hated our longbowmen and so if captured they would remove the index and middle fingers to prevent them using a bow any more (though tbf middle and fourth fingers would have been more effective) so bowmen who still had them used to raise these fingers to the French as a sign of defiance and to insult and goad them.
Upvote
0
That's also where the term "pluck yew" and other later modifications (I'll leave you to guess what that is
) came from.
Upvote
0
This has also been related as the origin of the middle finger. Who knows if either is true but as was once said:
When legend becomes reality, print the legend. (50 points if you can name the movie that was from.)
Upvote
0
they were also the "highest tech" on the battlefield at the time, so they used them. They seemed so much better to them at the time. Now we wonder why, but they didn't know that some of the rifles we have today could even be made.
Upvote
0
well about the crossbow not used that much
it was the first weapon ever to be forbidden on a battlefiled through a declaration by all parties at that time
it was the first weapon ever to be forbidden on a battlefiled through a declaration by all parties at that time
Upvote
0
You got a great point that Guns provide a huge psychological advantage, because guns are loud, and there is smoke everywhere. Also the fact that you cannot see what hit the person next to you. The Aztecs thought Guns were magical weapons that shot fire that came from the sky!
Upvote
0
You've got to remember that guns didn't replace other weapons for a good long time, when practical firearms first started emerging (about the 1500's iirc) only a few people in an entire army would be armed with them, as time wore on say another 200 years the Musket/Pike combination ruled the battlefield with pike or halberdiers standing infront of Musketeers whilst they fired over there head.
Come the late 18th Century with the mass produced flintlock weapons becoming greatly available (the flintlock being far better than earlier matchlock or wheelock muskets) and the invention of the bayonet the rifle/musket finally became used by armies in large quantities superceeding other weapons. Even then cavalry mostly retained there lances and sabres.
Come the late 18th Century with the mass produced flintlock weapons becoming greatly available (the flintlock being far better than earlier matchlock or wheelock muskets) and the invention of the bayonet the rifle/musket finally became used by armies in large quantities superceeding other weapons. Even then cavalry mostly retained there lances and sabres.
Upvote
0
"The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence"
Nope, I didn't have to look it up. I'm a fan of The Duke.
I agree with most of the reasons why the firearm became popular. They certainly weren't accurate. They weren't very reliable. They were a cheap replacement for bows and crossbows. Bows and crossbows may have been accurate but they were usually used as artillery on massed targets and not for sniping individual targets. That's one thing the movies got right. Hundreds of archers would launch arrows at an enemy army. If the enemy closed to short range I'm sure an archer would pick and choose his targets but usually it was volley fire.
Upvote
0
I've heard that with the earliest firearms, all it took was a volley or two against opponents who'd never seen them before (most hadn't) and they'd break and run. Funny thing was, they were so inaccurate that they were pretty much just there for the noise and smoke, and so unrealiable, they were more likely to wound and kill the troops using them than the enemy.
Later, with muskets, you would fire volley after volley to soften the enemy up, like a miniature artillery barrage (and for the psychological effect), then charge into melee. Muskets were better melee weapons than ranged weapons. They typically lacked sights, and were pointed at the enemy. Firearms weren't terribly accurate until the rifle came along. Sharpshooters were even pretty rare until then.
IIRC, a sharpshooter with a musket could hit a man at 100 yards. Even the early rifles pushed that out to 200-300.
Upvote
0
Ease of training. Penetration vs. armor. It's firearms that made armor obsolete (until the 20th century when anti-bullet technology could catch up again). Where it was retained it was generally for use against melee weapons.
Upvote
0
It's still catching up. A rifle-caliber (especially a "full" rifle caliber, like .308 or 7.62x54R) bullet with a tungsten or hardened steel penetrator will still defeat most body armor.
The most common soft armor (no plates) can be defeated by the vast majority of centerfire rifle calibers, even when loaded with FMJ, soft-nose or even hollowpoint.
Upvote
0