Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Derren" data-source="post: 6474054" data-attributes="member: 2518">I think 2 shots per minute with muzzle loaders were considered a rather good rate of fire.I have to agree with Krakenspire's post. Longbows were for the most part superior, except that this did not last until the machine gun, but until rifled breech loader were common (about 1850).Fun fact, the plate armor we know from shining knights was partially invented to deal with firearms and the term "bulletproof" comes from shooting a pistol at a suit of armor to show that it could withstand such an attack. But don't think that longbows were that superior either in penetration power. They too would struggle to penetrate plate armor at anything than close range. What they have is rate of fire.The advantages of muskets is logistics. Smoothbore muskets were easy to make and once you figured out how to mass produce gunpowder the ammunition was also easy to supply. A longbow on the other hand took years to dry before it was ready and mass producing arrows was also much more complicated and it would have been impossible to supply armies as seen during the Napoleonic wars with enough arrows to keep fighting.And as he said, there is the "training" issue. I put it in quotations because it was not that much harder to learn to aim with a bow, especially volley firing, but it took a very long time to build up the strength to use a longbow effectively and not to tire our during the battle.Anyway, be sure that you differentiate between smoothbore muskets (bad accuracy) and rifles (good accuracy and long range). The rifling technology was available early on, but only in the 19th century did the industrialization allow for widespread use. But they were available much early as sort of masterwork weapon.</blockquote>

Verification