Considering infantry abandoned bows in favor of muskets because muskets could pierce armor what would happen if a line infanftry formation showed up equipped with bows? Would they be able to defeat ones armed with muskets?
>>18280812Maybe, but>Much harder to train>More expensive/harder to equip them all (england exhausted most of europe for yew)>Arrows are more expensive than bullets and powder>No bayonet>Many arrows won't hit because lines are thin and bows shoot in a curve
>>18280812No. Despite the memes bows don't have a longer effective range than muskets and the potential to kill and wound is far greater with musket balls. And this doesn't factor in the devastating morale effect a musket volley might bring about.And if push really came to shove: just armor up your musketeers or have pavese carriers to cover them.
What would you do as Austrian general during the Turkish war of 1739, seven years war, and French revolutionary war?
>>18280812They abandoned bows because guns were easier to produce and maintain. bow and crossbow strings would break all the time, even during battle, a skilled archer would have to replace the string on the moment. With a gun it's literally just an iron tube.
>>18280812arrows don't kill immediately, bullets are far worse
>>18280812didnt this happen when japan invaded korea 600 years ago or whenever? Korea showed up with bows and Japan had muskets. Japan wrecked their shit anon.
>>18280945gib link, I'm interested
>>18280812The biggest advantage of a musket isn't even the armour piercing property of it. It's the damage it inflicts on a target. An arrow can try to get more damaging but it does so by sacrificing armour piercing capability. Bows also have lower range adding to the issue.>>18280829>Much harder to trainThat was not the opinion of the 16th century English. In their minds archers and billmen were a kind of easy to raise and easy to train militia while musketeers and pikemen were the elite.
>>18281001The 16th century english had a populace still trained on longbows, while muskets were still of the matchlock kind.
>>18281001And Japs used bows up into the 1860’s. What's your point fag?
>>18281003this
>>18280812Read Marbot's account about Russia's BashkirsThe world's least dangerous troops
>>18281001id say it was more the fire rate people dont understand during line warfare there was somebody constantly shooting none stop that was the whole idea behind it
>>18281001>>18281003>That was not the opinion of the 16th century English. In their minds archers and billmen were a kind of easy to raise and easy to train militia while musketeers and pikemen were the elite.>The 16th century english had a populace still trained on longbows, while muskets were still of the matchlock kind.The 16th century professional English soldier and mercenary, Humfrey of Barwick, points out two main reasons why this was the case:-English hyper-conservatism prevented quick adoption of new technology and is often the cause as to why England in general was always behind trends occurring on the continent.-The English are overly attached to the longbow due to their history and culture. >>18281434Marbot is not to be taken seriously. He trashed talked the Bashkir horse archers and their bows, but was badly injured by an arrow to the hip and had to be dragged from the battlefield on a stretcher.
>>18280948https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imjin_War
>>18281515>but was badly injured by an arrow to the hip and had to be dragged from the battlefield on a stretcherNot quite:> I had several men and horses hit, and was myself wounded by this ridiculous weapon.>I had the sabre in my hand; I was giving orders to an officer and extending my arm to indicate the point towards which he should proceed, when I felt my sabre stopped by a strange resistance, and experienced a slight pain in my right thigh, in which was implanted an inch into the flesh a four-foot-long arrow whose blow had been prevented from me by the heat of the fight. >I had it extracted by Doctor Parot and placed in one of the crates of the regimental ambulance, because I wanted to preserve it as a curious monument; I regret that it was lost.
>>18281529thanks!
>>18281617>The King asked him [Yi Siŏn], "You have already told me about the low accuracy of Japanese muskets. Why, then, are Korean armies having great problem with defeating them?" [Yi Siŏn] then answered, "The Korean soldiers cower before the enemy and flee for their lives even before they have engaged the enemy. As for the commanders, they seldom leave their positions because they fear that they might be executed for deserting. However, there is a limit to executing deserting soldiers since there are so many of them. Truly, the Japanese aren't good musketeers, but they advance so rapidly that they appear right in front of the Koreans in the time Koreans can shoot only two arrows. It is said that Koreans are good archers, but they seldom hit the targets when the enemy is too far away, and are too scared to shoot when the enemy is near because they fear Japanese swords. Archery often becomes useless because Koreans, fearing the Japanese arme blanche, can barely shoot. The Japanese are reputed to be good swordsmen, but it is possible for Koreans to draw swords and hold their ground. However, the Koreans seldom do this and merely run for their lives."
>>18281515>The guy who recounts it took a stray shot>Therefore his opinion is invalidWhat manner of retardation is this?
>>18281624ooooooh very enlightening. they should have put heavy infantry in front of the archers, but easy to say now, also that infantry might have been fodder for the muskets
>>18280945Cannons, handgonnes and early arquebuses were already integral to the Korean infantry division. The Japanese would have rolled up to Seoul even without arquebusiers during the start of the war because they were facing chicken shit soldiers with literally zero experience. I mean your excerpt even says they aren't such good musketeers. I would say the premise isn't the same but i do agree that a proper squadron would annihilate archers in a pitched battle. In a guerilla scenario, Imjin showed something quite a bit more complex.
>>18280840also at 100m distance musket balls still have a much flatter trajectory than arrows. a near missed arrow maybe hits the guy behind you in the leg but that's about it. a musket miss threatens all the rows behind you making deep formations a bad idea. musket volley fire has a much greater effect on morale than bows.
>>18281655>I mean your excerpt even says they aren't such good musketeers.>In the 1592 invasion, everything was swept away. Within a fortnight or a month the cities and fortresses were lost, and everything in the eight directions had crumbled. Although it was [partly] due to there having been a century of peace and the people not being familiar with warfare that this happened, it was really because the Japanese had the use of muskets that could reach beyond several hundred paces, that always pierced what they struck, that came like the wind and the hail, and with which bows and arrows could not compare.>Today, the Japanese exclusively use muskets to attack fortifications. They can reach [the target] from several hundred paces away. Our country's bows and arrows cannot reach them. At any flat spot outside the walls, the Japanese will build earthen mounds and "flying towers." They look down into the fortifications and fire their bullets so that the people inside the fortifications cannot conceal themselves. In the end the fortifications are taken. One cannot blame [the defenders] for their situation.The Japanese also saw arquebuses as crucial. A Japanese commander wrote home in 1592:>Please arrange to send us guns and ammunition. There is absolutely no use for spears. It is vital that you arrange somehow to obtain a number of guns. Furthermore, you should certainly see to it that those person departing [for Korea] understand this situation. The arrangements for guns should receive your closest attention.Ming forces brought plenty of artillery that outranged Japanese muskets so situation changed later>Li admitted that the Japanese infantry were better equipped with guns, but assured his officers: "Japanese weapons have a range of a few hundred paces, while my great cannon have a range of five to six li [2.4 km]. How can we not be victorious?"
>>18281670There are just as many statements from Joseon Mandarins stating that Japanese swordplay were what broke down Korean defences not guns, and mandarins saying both were important in a great level of hyperbole. You need to look at some of these reports with a level of objectivity. If you compare Imjin to 1605 or 1619 suddenly all these quotes about wonder weapons turn to shit and the generals of the time start grasping more objective value in general state of the army instead of specific arms.For example of other exaggerations: Ministry of war report recallling Imjin and Jeongmyo: >"In any battle, victory or defeat is ultimately decided in close-quarters combat with sidearms. Observing the Japanese soldiers and the northern barbarian [Jurchen/Manchu] soldiers, one sees that they are all versed in swordsmanship. When it comes to engaging in close-quarters combat, the four martial skills (spear, bow, gun, horsemanship) all become useless, and soldiers must inevitably draw the swords they carry and throw themselves into a life-or-death struggle."Quoting Ryu from his apologetic: They had already drawn their swords and closed in for melee combat, so we suddenly had no way to extricate ourselves.At that time, the troops led by Ming's Li Rusong were all cavalry from the north; They had no artillery and carried short, blunt swords.The enemy infantry all held long swords (estimated to be nodachi) of three or four cheok (approx. 3-4 feet / 90-120 cm),and their sharpness was beyond compare.When clashing and fighting with them, (the enemy) swept their swords left and right, so that all men and horse felt, and no one could withstand them.
>>18281529>>18281624>>18281670>>18281714Japan should had won.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAoinrFMgQ0
It that chung spammer again
>>18281624>but they advance so rapidly that they appear right in front of the Koreans in the time Koreans can shoot only two arrows.this completely blows away the rapid shooting archery meme, at least when both power and accuracy are needed, barely faster than a crossbow it would seem
>>18280812>Considering infantry abandoned bows in favor of muskets because muskets could pierce armordogshit bait thread
>>18281641They are invalid. His account is a big cope. Ironically, as Europeans stripped armor from their soldiers due to firearms, bows became even more effective against soldiers equipped in the European fashion. By most accounts, these steppe irregulars caused troublesome for the French and the Kalmyk horse archers in particular inflicted heavy casualties on the French during their retreat from Russia.
>>18280812>Considering infantry abandoned bows in favor of muskets because muskets could pierce armorThat is not at all the reason. Muskets replaced bows because it became very easy to quickly raise a large number of musketeers for an army, and muskets made bows fairly redundant so there was no longer any special need for archery as a skill, and it fell out of military use. Early industrialization in Europe meant they could mass produce firearms and their associated materials of war, and centralization of government with bigger bureaucracies meant governments were rich enough to equip standing armies, then add to this that you could train a conscript army to use muskets effectively in a fairly short time frame and it makes sense why the weapon predominated in early modern European armies. A better comparison is to the crossbow, which is similar to the musket in a lot of ways, and also saw widespread adoption in favor of the bow (at least in continental Europe) during the late medieval period. But even the crossbow was out-competed by the musket despite sharing a few of its advantages over the bow. This was purely due to a difference in power. To get the same range and stopping power as a musket, a very heavy crossbow was required, which placed constraints on how it could be used. Muskets were, pound for pound, more efficient use of limited carrying capacity for a soldier.
>>18281001>That was not the opinion of the 16th century English.They literally had a law mandating the entire male population train with longbows in order to have enough available archers for any given military campaign. That is not required for armies of musketeers because you don't have to spend your entire life training to be effective.
>>18281837dunno about that
>>18281781TRVKE NVKE!
