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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steampunkette" data-source="post: 8294834" data-attributes="member: 6796468">No. I'm REALLY naughty word not.But you're underestimating three big things:1) Time. I showed you a video of how long it takes a wheel lock pistol to fire. You've gotta hold your aim for about 1.5 seconds between pulling the trigger and the gun firing. YOU are the one who picked Wheel Lock. Not that flintlocks were -drastically- better. After the flash in the pan (if the flint ignited anything) there was a delay before the weapon went off.2) The comparative kinetic force between the weapons. A Flintlock Pistol has around 434 Joules of force. The Longsword has about 330. The difference is not super duper significant, especially because the sword's psi on a strike is only gonna be around 10 while the Flintlock balls hits with around 60. Both of which easily overcome the 4psi to break skin, the 6psi to cut through muscle, and the 8psi to cut tendons. Meaning the ball will continue through the body much faster than the sword and retain kinetic energy as it leaves the exit wound. Meaning it's "Stopping Power" isn't what you imagine.3) The size of a wheellock pistol. Assuming you're holding it from 3 feet away, and aiming, the barrel is pretty much touching your target. And with that 1.5 seconds before it goes off, there's no way you'll be able to keep him from deflecting your aim. Even if he just grabs the barrel and shoves it off to the side, holds it 'til it fires, and gets a burn on his hand from the barrel heat, your shot is still going to be wasted.But you're obsessed with the absolute superiority of firearms in all situations and their perfect lethality, regardless of level of technology. It's why you're quick to shout about 5.56 ammo and the "Football Sized" internal cavity it creates (If you use a bullet designed to fragment and transfer more of it's kinetic force) when people are discussing much earlier firearms using simple lead balls.That's why you're suggesting "Trained Users" as fighters and then comparing a skilled swordsman to the lethality of any rando who uses any kind of edged weapon, which these days is mostly knives, as your evidence rather than actually looking at the damage that a sword can do and comparing the visibly clear lethality of the weapon to "Most victims of edged weapons"Anywho. This'll be the last post in this thread I make in response to you on this topic. 'Cause we're not gonna get anywhere.This one's for you two! The first video actually involves months of work by museum workers and weapons experts to put together actually appropriate weapons and armor to test a smooth-bore musket against the armor of the time. The second one is just a period fan doing his own thing. And so is the third.Also, the Renaissance started in 1300, not 1500. And there were píšťala in the hands of Hussars by the early 1400s. And it wouldn't be until the 16th century that infantrymen would begin wearing "Reduced Plate". Which is to say a breastplate, helm, and gauntlets. What we think of as "Conquistador Armor". Before that infantrymen mostly wore whatever they could personally cobble together, usually thick padding and maybe leather armor over it. (Though even then it was mostly "Elite" military infantry and mercenaries who could afford their own arms and armor!) which fell out of favor as the size of the armies grew ever larger, of course.Heck! What we think of as "Plate Armor" for the age of Chivalry? Didn't -exist- until the 1300s and the Renaissance was in swing! And reached it's height of popularity while pistols and cannons were going off on the battlefield because while it might not protect you from the cannonball, it could keep you safe from shrapnel. <img src="https://cdn.britannica.com/11/91511-050-6B4D60DA/development-body-armour-Western.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />(If you could afford it, of course!)</blockquote>

Verification