Which had an advantage early guns (matchlocks, flintlocks, muskets etc.) Or bows (longbows, crossbows etc.) In warfare?
>>62917969Longbow:+good range+decent accuracy+rapid fire-requires archers to be trained from childhood-terrible armor penetrationCrossbow:+good range+good accuracy+decent armor penetration+quick and easy to train on-slow rate of fire-pope says they're evilMusket:+quick and easy to train on+MONSTROUS armor penetration+pack like 10 times the punch of a longbow-shit accuracy-shit range-slow rate of fire-doesn't really work in the rain
Henry VIII., who was erratic in legislation, granted a charter to the Guild of St, George in 1537 authorising its members to practise with every kind of artillery — bows, cross-bows, and hand-guns alike — almost the same year that he forbade guns entirely, and made the possession of a cross-bow a finable offence. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth Sir John Smith, a general of much experience, stated that the bow was the superior of the hand-gun, and although he was taken up sharply by Mr. W. Barwick, Gent, he stuck to his contention.> " I will never doubt to adventure my life," he writes, " or many lives (if I had them), amongst 8,000 archers, complete, well chosen and appointed, and therewithal provided and furnished with great store of sheaves of arrows, as also a good overplus of bows and bow-strings, against 20,000 of the best harquebusiers and musketeers there are in Christendom."
>>62917987Crossbows and warbows had about the same armor penetration capability. And they were very effective against most kinds of armor, the only thing that stopped them was plate. Gambeson, maille, etc? Either one could easily get through. Tod Cutler has many videos up on YT demonstrating this.Mustkets had better armor penetration capability, but it wasn't night and day. The term "bulletproof" dates back to the 15th century when armor was "proofed" by testing it against musket fire.>In 1524, Francis I, was shot several times at the battle of Pavia and was unharmed. There is even an account of the siege of Rochelle, 1627, where a certain Captain St. Martin remained uninjured after having been struck by musket balls no less than thirty times.
I heard during the pike and shot days of the 15 and 1600s, the English would instead have longbowmen and billmenBattle of Flodden I think
>>62917987>Longbow:>+good rangeNot really.With heavy war arrows you don't get that much range and need to get pretty close to have a chance even against medium armor.>+rapid fireNo.It takes a shit ton of effort to draw and shot war bows.>Musket:>-shit rangeNot really.>doesn't really work in the rainYou never used a bow with a wet string.
>>62918158>The term "bulletproof" dates back to the 15th century when armor was "proofed" by testing it against musket fire.This was never a real thing. It was a marketing gimmick where armor smiths would fake the proofing to then charge extra for armor that didn't really protect against musket fire.This involved using undersized balls and tiny charges of powder to make sure that the bullets didn't punch through the armor.Japanese nanban cuirasses in particular are notorious for often having blatantly faked proofing where the armor smiths would just hammer dents into the armor and then lie about the dents being from proofing.
>>62918221>fake proofs existYes. However, that doesn't disprove the existence of real bulletproof armor. There are countless examples in the historical record of people having survived being shot in battle due to their armor.
>>62918290Yeah, and the vast majority of such incidents are from the early modern period and onward when bows were no longer in use, and armor was radically different from medieval armor, generally just being a helmet and a cuirass, both of with were made of much thicker steel than their medieval counterparts.
https://bowvsmusket.com/
>>62918199>You never used a bow with a wet string.nta but I did and you are retarded if you think a wet bowstring somehow makes you unable to shoot.
>>62918199>With heavy war arrows you don't get that much range and need to get pretty close to have a chance even against medium armor.ok why are you spewing stupid nonsense like this when you have no Idea what you are talking about?
>>62917969The heaviest warbows might be able to compete against muskets man-for-man in a situation with no armor, because the effective range of a heavy warbow against unarmored infantry is substantially higher than against even the lightest armor. Most of the time, bows were fired almost flat against troops that were well within the maximum range of a bow, so called "plunging fire" that is firing at an extreme angle like in the movies, was done, but doesn't appear to have been very effective for anything other than harassment. Bows against even light armor like layered Gambesons struggle to inflict casualties, even the biggest and strongest bows, though a heavy arrow can still spear through an unarmored man from a very long range. You never get one 15 year experience bowman with a barrel of arrows against every single musket infantryman, definitionally one of the great advantages of the Musket is that it is more logistically simple.Best case scenario the best archers have a MARGINAL man per man advantage against unarmored musket men in an exchange of fire starting at the maximum range of both parties, but no ability to protect themselves from cavalry charges or to quickly replace their losses when they take casualties. A novelty in other words.
>>62918302>Much thickerDo you actually know any specifics about the relative thickness or are you just throwing phrases around.
>>62917987Guns in the old days could shoot a man reliably up to 60 yards away. After that, it could shoot into a group of men reliably up to 100 yards away, with accuracy increasing if you're shooting from up on a hill or a tree or a castle
>>62917987Fake and gay.
>>62917969Since arquebus (invented around 1470, around 1525 all first tier military powers induing Ottomans rearmed to arquebus) guns had total overmatch against bow and crossbow in range, penetration and kill power.Before arquebus (long barreled gun with sights) militaries had hand cannons. Hand canons were some advantage in penetration and killing power but couldn't compete in range. >>62918860Bows and crossbows have actually pathetic effective range because of their slow initial velocity (45-60 m/s) and rainbow trajectory as result. They simply cant compete against 350-450m/s initial velocity arquebus. Fairy tales about bows range were made up by perfidious anglo to promote "English supremacy" and then mindlessly parroted by clueless boomers.
>>62919025>After that, it could shoot into a group of men reliably up to 100 yards away,Try 500 yards.
>>62919110>Bows and crossbows have actually pathetic effective range because of their slow initial velocity (45-60 m/s) and rainbow trajectory as result. They simply cant compete against 350-450m/s initial velocity arquebus. Fairy tales about bows range were made up by perfidious anglo to promote "English supremacy" and then mindlessly parroted by clueless boomers.If only bows still existed and we could fire them, but then again someone would have to invent a measurement system for distance across space, too.
>>62919176>i don't know what is the trajectory thee postOk.
>>62917969Guns
>>6291914213% is not exactly reliably hitting, notwithstanding the fact the target was 100 feet across
>>62918097>almost the same year that he forbade guns entirely, and made the possession of a cross-bow a finable offence.Is there any verifiable truth to this or this one of those misinterpreted or made up history factoids
>>62917969the thing people get wrong is in assuming that x has to be better than y to get adoptedno the early guns had their own niche uses. They got improved upon and became more and more usefulthe bow and crossbow had hit their limit given the materials at handso as time went on the guns kept becoming better, more useful in different situations and finally they left bows in the dust
>>62918176The Battle of Flodden was quite early in that range, 1513, well into the gunpowder era (both sides used field artillery) and while it's true that the English fielded archers, the Scots weren't opposing them with firearms. Bows remained in use in English armies through most of the 16th century, probably because archery was such a common skill at the time, but were increasingly replaced by guns. The Mary Rose was outfitted with a specially raised unit of elite archers to oppose the French invasion fleet at the Solent in 1545, and in the same campaign the English militia on the Isle of Wight used bows against Italian arquebusiers serving the King of France.
>>62917987Muskets actually had better range than longbows and crossbows. It helped that they didn't need fletching so no excess drag on a solid lead projectile.
>>62917969Guns. Anything else is false and cope.
>>62917987Fucking retard
>>62917969Matchlocks and bows would have been relatively even on the battlefield because matchlocks are such an ordeal to shoot.Once flintlocks came out, the days of the bow were over.
>>62920429With a lot of practice and training, matchlocks can be shot very quickly, there are videos on youtube of guys popping off shots with them, but they are fairly sensitive to conditions and can be dangerous if you rush. As a modern hobbyist, you couldn't safely get 3 shots a minute out of one but a 16th century arquebusier could in good weather.
>>62917969Guns win lmao has been an axiom of warfare since at least 1500
>>62920455In perfect conditions they are objectively superior. It's just that perfect conditions rarely exist.
>>62918158>15th century>musket fire
>>62918867NTA but medieval plates were thin so you could get full body coverage without losing too much mobility. Early modern pieces were meant for three quarter or half plate so could be much thicker. Eventually it was just a thick cuirass on its own.
>>62920473The Caroleans would like a word.
