D&D 5E Why do guns do so much damage?

[Samloyal23]

Versatility it is a necessity in warfare. When you run out of bullets or your gun jams, it is, has been said, a very expensive club. But there are lots of circumstances where you want a mêlée weapon instead of a ranged weapon. If you are near flammable chemicals, the spark from a gun can be as lethal to you as to your enemy, so you pull out that bayonet or draw your dirk and have at it. If stealth is important, even a gun with a silencer is not as quiet as a blade or garotte. If you want to capture an enemy for interrogation, a sap or club may be a better choice than an AK-47. If your enemy is concealed in brush, a flamethrower can drive them out of hiding faster than a gun. Keep your options open and find the right tool for the job.

 

[Fenris-77]

Many bayonets were also perfectly usable weapons just held in the hand. The technical term is 'knife'. Even a socket bayonet is still a long pointy metal thing. I tend to agree with @Ixal though, the desired end result is more guns.

 

[Steampunkette]

Citing academic articles about modern weaponry is apparently fine for someone else, but me mentioning larger caliber modern weapons isn't? Maybe pick one and we'll roll with it.

You're the one that brought up pushing a 50cal round through someone, Fenris. Though to be clear: The weaponry used in the Fish study in 1898 was traveling in excess of 450m/s to be classified as "High Velocity". Your use of the 50cal example is over 900m/s. And the pistol in question is going 253m/s.

Even if hydrostatic shock weren't a controversial topic of debate, it can hardly be applied to the weapon in question as any evidence for hydrostatic shock requires -much- higher muzzle velocities.

Drawing a side arm didn't really work for archers. Especially as the main threat for them comes from cavalry and a sidearm is rather bad when fighting against them.
Thats why you had mixed spear and ranged troops for centuries and in the times before that stationed them way behind and hoped that your cavalry can keep their cavalry away.
The invention of the bayonet, especially the ring bayonet, meant you could do away with the troops stationed there for protection and have more guns instead.

Huh... Y'know. That's -really- strange. Here's a period illustration of the battle of Agincourt.

It's SO WEIRD that those archers appear to have swords floating near their hips for no apparent reason 'cause sidearms didn't work for archers...

I'm not saying that mixed units weren't important. Or that spearmen/pikemen near archers weren't a thing. They're -very- clearly present in the above illustration.

But saying archers didn't have sidearms is just wrong. Archers kept side-arms for when combat went from nice pretty rank and file defense covering them to a pell-mell scrum of chaos and death when longbows went from weapons of death to a useless burden and a sword was the more important weapon in the moment.

If turning a Gun into a melee weapon wasn't the point behind bayonets, soldiers could've just kept right on carrying sidearms like those archers at Agincourt.

 

[DammitVictor]

And yet someone took the time to invent the bayonet, which turns your rifle into a more effective mêlée weapon by adding a short sword-like blade to it.

The bayonet was needed so you could ditch the spearmen next to you who was only there to intimidate enemies into not coming too close. And don't forget that before them you had literal gun swords (-axes, -shields, etc.). But the more firearms advanced the less useful melee weapons became.

The standard-issue service rifles for the US military (except SOCOM) all have bayonet mounts. The last time that the standard-issue bayonet design for those rifles was upgraded to reflect changing usage conditions was 1984. While it's generally true that better rifles have subsumed the need for melee weapons on the battlefield, they haven't obsoleted melee weapons yet any more than drones have obsoleted flesh-and-blood infantry.

Maybe some day, but not some day soon.

 

[Fenris-77]

Flintlocks can range up to 550 or 600m/s. Just curious, but is there a reason for the 250m/s cutoff here? If we're talking black powder fantasy I don't see why that should be the break.

I'll happily elide modern guns if no one's talking about them.

 

[billd91]

It's SO WEIRD that those archers appear to have swords floating near their hips for no apparent reason 'cause sidearms didn't work for archers...

I'm not saying that mixed units weren't important. Or that spearmen/pikemen near archers weren't a thing. They're -very- clearly present in the above illustration.

But saying archers didn't have sidearms is just wrong. Archers kept side-arms for when combat went from nice pretty rank and file defense covering them to a pell-mell scrum of chaos and death when longbows went from weapons of death to a useless burden and a sword was the more important weapon in the moment.

If turning a Gun into a melee weapon wasn't the point behind bayonets, soldiers could've just kept right on carrying sidearms like those archers at Agincourt.

He didn't say they didn't have them. But the archers at Agincourt were also chronicled as fighting (once they had run out of ammunition) with axes and mallets used to set up their defensive stakes, not just swords. So I'm guessing the presence of swords as sidearms in the art is a certain amount of artistic license and not necessarily a faithful representation.

Bayonets have the benefit of not just turning your rifle into a spear (better reach than a melee sidearm), but they also mean you keep your rifle close at hand and not lost on the battlefield or swinging around on a sling. And that's better than toting yet another separate thing around on the battlefield.

 

[Ixal]

Huh... Y'know. That's -really- strange. Here's a period illustration of the battle of Agincourt.

It's SO WEIRD that those archers appear to have swords floating near their hips for no apparent reason 'cause sidearms didn't work for archers...

I'm not saying that mixed units weren't important. Or that spearmen/pikemen near archers weren't a thing. They're -very- clearly present in the above illustration.

But saying archers didn't have sidearms is just wrong. Archers kept side-arms for when combat went from nice pretty rank and file defense covering them to a pell-mell scrum of chaos and death when longbows went from weapons of death to a useless burden and a sword was the more important weapon in the moment.

If turning a Gun into a melee weapon wasn't the point behind bayonets, soldiers could've just kept right on carrying sidearms like those archers at Agincourt.

Only that at Agincourt the archer famously didn't need their sidearms except maybe to casually kill the wounded knights after the battle. And when the enemies reached the archers the side arms did not help them much. You will find hardly any example where archers have managed to fight off a melee attack until you got bayonets.

 

[Steampunkette]

Flintlocks can range up to 550 or 600m/s. Just curious, but is there a reason for the 250m/s cutoff here? If we're talking black powder fantasy I don't see why that should be the break.

I'll happily elide modern guns if no one's talking about them.

I based the 253m/s off a study of a period-accurate early lead-ball flintlock pistol. Where the early flintlock musket in the study, also period-accurate, attained 414m/s. So definitely closer to that hydrostatic shock marker minimum for the fish-periment.

Though, honestly, I should probably have gone in on Matchlock for earlier time-periods, I think it's safe to say the speed was within a reasonable area because of the minimum speeds required for lethality and the inherent force of gunpowder not being insanely different between the 1300s and 1600s. Y'know, as compared to modern gunpowder which is higher quality in the exclusion of impurities and much more precisely measured in it's chemical composition than an early Renaissance alchemist might have had.

Only that at Agincourt the archer famously didn't need their sidearms except maybe to casually kill the wounded knights after the battle. And when the enemies reached the archers the side arms did not help them much. You will find hardly any example where archers have managed to fight off a melee attack until you got bayonets.

Whether they "Needed" them or not, they had side-arms for a reason. And had them in previous battles, and battles before those, and battles before those. Feudal Lords didn't hand their well trained archers a bow and say "If the pike men fall, you'll just have to die, I suppose. No additional weapons!"

He didn't say they didn't have them. But the archers at Agincourt were also chronicled as fighting (once they had run out of ammunition) with axes and mallets used to set up their defensive stakes, not just swords. So I'm guessing the presence of swords as sidearms in the art is a certain amount of artistic license and not necessarily a faithful representation.

Bayonets have the benefit of not just turning your rifle into a spear (better reach than a melee sidearm), but they also mean you keep your rifle close at hand and not lost on the battlefield or swinging around on a sling. And that's better than toting yet another separate thing around on the battlefield.

Very possible on the artistic license. Could also be that some of those archers figured dual-wielding was worth the Feat.

I wrote the following before you posted, but you posted before I hit post. <3

Honestly... Carrying a bayonet in a leather sleeve then dropping down and taking the time to install it on the end of your rifle is just... dumb.

It would make -way- more sense to just carry a proper melee weapon on your side in the space that bayonet is using.

I'm starting to think maybe the "Real Reason" for the bayonet rather than a side-sword is simply "The damned fools keep dropping their expensive muskets into the mud and ruining them when they draw their side-sword. How do we stop them from doing that?!" and that became "What if we made the side-arm only half as useful on it's own but make it -very- useful if you affix it to the musket so they'll hold onto their musket when melee is joined?"

"You're a genius, Jenkins!"

 

[Ovinomancer]

I based the 253m/s off a study of a period-accurate early lead-ball flintlock pistol. Where the early flintlock musket in the study, also period-accurate, attained 414m/s. So definitely closer to that hydrostatic shock marker minimum for the fish-periment.

Though, honestly, I should probably have gone in on Matchlock for earlier time-periods, I think it's safe to say the speed was within a reasonable area because of the minimum speeds required for lethality and the inherent force of gunpowder not being insanely different between the 1300s and 1600s. Y'know, as compared to modern gunpowder which is higher quality in the exclusion of impurities and much more precisely measured in it's chemical composition than an early Renaissance alchemist might have had.

Whether they "Needed" them or not, they had side-arms for a reason. And had them in previous battles, and battles before those, and battles before those. Feudal Lords didn't hand their well trained archers a bow and say "If the pike men fall, you'll just have to die, I suppose. No additional weapons!"

Very possible on the artistic license. Could also be that some of those archers figured dual-wielding was worth the Feat.

I wrote the following before you posted, but you posted before I hit post. <3

Honestly... Carrying a bayonet in a leather sleeve then dropping down and taking the time to install it on the end of your rifle is just... dumb.

It would make -way- more sense to just carry a proper melee weapon on your side in the space that bayonet is using.

I'm starting to think maybe the "Real Reason" for the bayonet rather than a side-sword is simply "The damned fools keep dropping their expensive muskets into the mud and ruining them when they draw their side-sword. How do we stop them from doing that?!" and that became "What if we made the side-arm only half as useful on it's own but make it -very- useful if you affix it to the musket so they'll hold onto their musket when melee is joined?"

"You're a genius, Jenkins!"

Good grief, no. The spear was the premiere weapon for general troops throughout history. It's versatile, easy to use/train, and effective. Spears have a longer reach than side blades and work in formations (which are critical if you're being charged, especially by cavalry). When they used to station guards with archers, they didn't arm the guards with side swords, they armed them with spears. Giving your ranged troops a spear lets them double as light foot when needed -- meaning you get effective melee troops that can also deliver a devastating volley of fire.

Also, you're back of the napkin guesstimate for flintlock muzzle velocity isn't controlling, especially when @Doug McCrae provided actual research references that list a flintlock pistol at 385 m/s.

 

[Ixal]

I based the 253m/s off a study of a period-accurate early lead-ball flintlock pistol. Where the early flintlock musket in the study, also period-accurate, attained 414m/s. So definitely closer to that hydrostatic shock marker minimum for the fish-periment.

Though, honestly, I should probably have gone in on Matchlock for earlier time-periods, I think it's safe to say the speed was within a reasonable area because of the minimum speeds required for lethality and the inherent force of gunpowder not being insanely different between the 1300s and 1600s. Y'know, as compared to modern gunpowder which is higher quality in the exclusion of impurities and much more precisely measured in it's chemical composition than an early Renaissance alchemist might have had.

Whether they "Needed" them or not, they had side-arms for a reason. And had them in previous battles, and battles before those, and battles before those. Feudal Lords didn't hand their well trained archers a bow and say "If the pike men fall, you'll just have to die, I suppose. No additional weapons!"

Very possible on the artistic license. Could also be that some of those archers figured dual-wielding was worth the Feat.

I wrote the following before you posted, but you posted before I hit post. <3

Honestly... Carrying a bayonet in a leather sleeve then dropping down and taking the time to install it on the end of your rifle is just... dumb.

It would make -way- more sense to just carry a proper melee weapon on your side in the space that bayonet is using.

I'm starting to think maybe the "Real Reason" for the bayonet rather than a side-sword is simply "The damned fools keep dropping their expensive muskets into the mud and ruining them when they draw their side-sword. How do we stop them from doing that?!" and that became "What if we made the side-arm only half as useful on it's own but make it -very- useful if you affix it to the musket so they'll hold onto their musket when melee is joined?"

"You're a genius, Jenkins!"

No, the order was "If the pike men fall surrender or run", but that wasn't really needed, the archers did that on their own.
Also, they were not given their weapons, over most part of history they had to bring them themselves.

You also fall into the trap of thinking that the sword is a good weapon. Especially against cavalry, the main danger for archers as they can otherwise simply run, a spear is a thousand times more valuable than a sword.