Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Testshooting results please Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 
Author Message
Peter G.




Location: Bad Kreuznach/Germany
Joined: 16 Nov 2007

Posts: 78

PostPosted: Sun 20 Jan, 2008 10:28 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Peter G. wrote:
They considered it because of the far superior firerate and the far superior effective range-nothing mythical about that.

As discussed in the other thread-the firearms were NOT superior "to the longbow in every way that counts on the battlefield"-they were just far cheaper to make and far faster to manage to a usefull degree.


Longbows are useful only in a defensive position if the men have a chance to prepare the ground. As soon as you dislodge an archer from his position he becomes a poorly armed skirmisher. In a Napoleonic battle where manoeuvre is key they would be an unmitigated disaster. Massed longbows could be very effective at slowing or halting a cavalry charge (the whole reason why they were introduced in the first place) but only if they lucked out and guessed the direction of the attack beforehand. The so called rate of fire advantage would be worthless after they ran out of arrows in the first five minutes and artillery outranged longbows by a considerable margin.


Most battles Wellington did win were defensive battles-whenever he could he placed his men behind a ridge to shield them against artilleryfire-the same works very well for bowmen. Artillery outranges muskets as well-so there is no difference in that point.
Against cavalry the same tactics that were used with muskets works for bowmen-form square-first line with pikes instead muskets+bayonet to stop the horses out of sabrerange, second and third line bowmen that kill anybody that forces the attack. absolutly no need to guess the direction of the attack-a square can face any attack wherever it comes from.

There would be one difference-instead starting the fire when the charge is about 50y away (any sooner would be worthless) the bowmen could start ballistic fire at a range of 350-300m and continue firing all the way.
The timing when repelling a cavalrycharge in a square is very very important-to early, you waste your volley and need about 20sec to reload-in that time a squad of cavalry covers 250m-your are dead meat when unloaded.
When firing to late you risk that a dying horse smashes in your square and formes a gap-in which the next cavalryline pushes-you are dead (happend at Garcia-Hernandez where the german legion broke 3!! french squares)
The risc of beeing attacked unloaded is no issue for bowmen.

Donīt get me wrong-i donīt assume that any politic/military leaders were fools-but the reason why muskets replaced bows were more logistic reaons.
When the armies changed from small feudal armies to mass armies you needed thousands of recruits
as said above:
-you can train every numbnut to stand in line and fire a musket-takes 2 days to master the loading/firing and about 2 months of formation drill.

-bowmen were not available in thousands (not even in england)

-muskets are faster to make and according my source cheaper (engl document-[1353] 3s for a small "musket", 66s for a crossbow)

-the ammunition for muskets is fast and easily made-all you need is lead, a bullet mould and a fire to melt the lead.

-arrows are expensive and very slowly made and take much more place when transported.

-any soldier can easily carry 60-80 cartridges for muskets-but not 60-80 arrows.

As Jean said above-logistics wins a war-and logistics for bowmen as a mass army are close to impossible to master.


Last edited by Peter G. on Sun 20 Jan, 2008 11:03 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Peter G.




Location: Bad Kreuznach/Germany
Joined: 16 Nov 2007

Posts: 78

PostPosted: Sun 20 Jan, 2008 10:55 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Hand wrote:
. Muskets are far, far more accurate than bows. I have seen a lot of musketry and a lot of archery and I have always been surprised by how much more accurate any sort of firearm is to a bow at any range, even when comparing people who barely shoot muskets vs archers who train all the time. The advent of the musket led to more training, not less. The myth of the poorly trained conscript musketeer is just that, a myth.


Sorry-but you are wrong.
If you check shootingtest made in 1800-1830 you may be surprised how unaccurate muskets were.

<In 1841 the British army tested the brown bess: the range was between 100 and 700y(acc to elevation)-at EVERY elevation there was between 100 and 300y variance.

Shootingtest at a target representing a LINE of cavalry(slightly taller then a single human):

100y : 53%hits(trained men) 40%(ordinary soldiers)
200y. 30% """ 18% """
300y : 23% """ 15% """ >


You canīt compare modern people firing muzzleloaders/bows with bowmen form 15th or soldiers form the 18th.
Bowmen started training in their childhooddays and trained their whole life to an extend that the upperarms and the vertebrae were deformed by the huge muscles the developed-i donīt think that any modern bowman trains to that extend.

In 18th armies the usual soldier DID not really aim in a battle-he never had any training in aiming and no musket had ANY aiming device-absolutly nothing!
The doctrin was to close the gap between formations to about 50y or less and then try and outshoot the enemy-the key was to fire as fast as possible in the general direction, not to aim-after 2-3 volleys the fog of war was so dense that you could barely see the opposite.

About the training of conscripts:
Marmont recounts when he met 2 conscripts in the battle at Champaubert, one was not using his musket at all. When asked why he answered "i can shoot as well as the next man, if i have someone to load my musket"!!!.

The 2. conscript handed his musket to his lieutenant, who DID know how to fire and he shot while the conscript handed him the cartridges ("memoires" Marmont).

About how accurate muskets are:

"A soldiers musket, ... will strike the figure of a man at 80y, it MAY even at 100, but a soldier must be very unfortunate indeed who shall be wounded by a common musket at 150y, provided his antagonist aims at him. And as to firing at a man at 200y you may as well fire at the moon and have the same hope of hitting your target. I do maintain and will prove..that NO man was ever killed at 200y by a common musket by the the person who aimed at him" (Col George Hanger-1814)


Looks like the myth about badly trained conscript musketeers is not a myth after all-as you said :Get over it...

PS: i would like to keep the discussion civilized-trying to bash somebody down just because you donīt agree is not my taste..
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Sun 20 Jan, 2008 12:07 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

So where is the evidence that the longbow is any more effective? All I have seen so far is the same old romanticism. Hanger's statement could be applied to all weapons of the time : "I do maintain and will prove..that NO man was ever killed at 200y by a longbow by the the person who aimed at him"
View user's profile Send private message
Peter G.




Location: Bad Kreuznach/Germany
Joined: 16 Nov 2007

Posts: 78

PostPosted: Sun 20 Jan, 2008 2:18 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
So where is the evidence that the longbow is any more effective? All I have seen so far is the same old romanticism. Hanger's statement could be applied to all weapons of the time : "I do maintain and will prove..that NO man was ever killed at 200y by a longbow by the the person who aimed at him"


Your theorie--any quotes to prove??
If you check my posts-youīll find that i tend to look for sources-it would be helpful doing the same in your case.

How about looking for sources that prove you really couldnīt hit anything with a longbow?

I did prove that muskets were NOT as effective as stated and i tried to bring some reality in the "i know somebody that can hit a mark blindfolded at 200m at night with a really very close to good replica of a muzzleloader-or at least i know somebody that has heard of somebody whos grannies heard about it"-posts.


Last edited by Peter G. on Sun 20 Jan, 2008 2:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Stephen Hand




Location: Hobart, Australia
Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 226

PostPosted: Sun 20 Jan, 2008 2:23 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Peter G. wrote:
Sorry-but you are wrong.
If you check shootingtest made in 1800-1830 you may be surprised how unaccurate muskets were.


I'm not at all surprised. I'd read almost all of this before and it fits very well with my anecdotal experience with modern musketry. However, it completely misses the point. I didn't say that muskets were accurate compared to some theoretical benchmark, I said that they were accurate compared to bows. You have provided no evidence that bows were more accurate than muskets because you can't, because they aren't. Your argument is based on the logical fallacy that saying that A wasn't perfect somehow proves that B was.

Stephen Hand
Editor, Spada, Spada II
Author of English Swordsmanship, Medieval Sword and Shield

Stoccata School of Defence
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Stephen Hand




Location: Hobart, Australia
Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 226

PostPosted: Sun 20 Jan, 2008 2:28 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Peter G. wrote:
-muskets are faster to make and according my source cheaper (engl document-[1353] 3s for a small "musket", 66s for a crossbow)


Well apart from the fact that you're using a document referring to a crossbow to illustrate a point about longbows, you're using a quote from 1353 referring to a musket, a word that wasn't coined until the 16th century to refer to a weapon first used at the battle of Muhlberg in 1547....right.

Stephen Hand
Editor, Spada, Spada II
Author of English Swordsmanship, Medieval Sword and Shield

Stoccata School of Defence
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Peter G.




Location: Bad Kreuznach/Germany
Joined: 16 Nov 2007

Posts: 78

PostPosted: Sun 20 Jan, 2008 2:33 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Hand wrote:
Peter G. wrote:
Sorry-but you are wrong.
If you check shootingtest made in 1800-1830 you may be surprised how unaccurate muskets were.


I'm not at all surprised. I'd read almost all of this before and it fits very well with my anecdotal experience with modern musketry. However, it completely misses the point. I didn't say that muskets were accurate compared to some theoretical benchmark, I said that they were accurate compared to bows. You have provided no evidence that bows were more accurate than muskets because you can't, because they aren't. Your argument is based on the logical fallacy that saying that A wasn't perfect somehow proves that B was.


Ehm--do you ever read what you are writing??

Stephen Hand wrote:
Muskets are far, far more accurate than bows. I have seen a lot of musketry and a lot of archery and I have always been surprised by how much more accurate any sort of firearm is to a bow at any range, even when comparing people who barely shoot muskets vs archers who train all the time..


Is there anything apart your post that undermines your position?? Apart yourself repeating "it was like that because i say so"??
Your argument is based on the logical fallacy that saying A wasnīt perfect because you say so.

Where is your prove, your quote of contemporary sources that prove your point??
View user's profile Send private message
Peter G.




Location: Bad Kreuznach/Germany
Joined: 16 Nov 2007

Posts: 78

PostPosted: Sun 20 Jan, 2008 2:37 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Hand wrote:
Peter G. wrote:
-muskets are faster to make and according my source cheaper (engl document-[1353] 3s for a small "musket", 66s for a crossbow)


Well apart from the fact that you're using a document referring to a crossbow to illustrate a point about longbows, you're using a quote from 1353 referring to a musket, a word that wasn't coined until the 16th century to refer to a weapon first used at the battle of Muhlberg in 1547....right.


sorry that i used the wrong words-but as i am NOT a native english speaker i didnīt find the wright word-if you like we can go on in german, french, spanish or latin
I try to do my best in a foreign language-if this is not good enough for you-lets try my motherlanguage-iīll try not to be as rude when you use a wrong terminology

thats why i used musket in """" to show that i know the terminology is incorrcet, the german word is Handbuechse or kleines Rohr-try and translate yourself
View user's profile Send private message
Daniel Staberg




Location: Gothenburg/Sweden
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Likes: 2 pages
Reading list: 2 books

Posts: 570

PostPosted: Sun 20 Jan, 2008 3:24 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Considering that a handbüchse or handcannon/handgonne from the 14th century is a rather diffrent weapon than a 16th century or 19th century musket I wonder why you used it as an example. The 14th century gun is little more than a short tube fixed to a stick and not in any way similar to the far more complex musket which requires far more time and resoruces to make.

A 14th century handgonne


A late16th C/Early17th Century musket
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Testshooting results please
Page 3 of 3 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum