PDA

View Full Version : Skirmish chains and reload times



Les The Lionheart
18th Apr 2005, 15:57
All light infantary should have skirmish chains . They worked in two's one shot one looked out for the other. In one big formation they are just normal infantary. Can you change the reload times on rifle men because they fire to quick by half. Thanks :D

mob
18th Apr 2005, 16:52
wouldnt it be nice to have scouts and skirmishers and stuff it would be good you know? 2 or 3 in a unit extremly hard to see mightint be noticed and have bows also restricted camera option would be great option

Les The Lionheart
18th Apr 2005, 16:58
Bows what the friggin hell.

mob
18th Apr 2005, 17:00
hehehe too much rtw in my blood but still they would be dangerus no one in thier right mind would bring a nice loud rifle would they?

Les The Lionheart
18th Apr 2005, 17:02
Actually if the English army still had Longbowmen they would of won the wars alot faster. Faster to reload more accurate and fire further. Silly really. But no bows were used only by Tribal soldiers.

Irish2
18th Apr 2005, 17:07
According to a book I'm reading, The Art of War in the Age of Napoleon", the Russians had some light calvary bow regiments that fought with the Cossacks.

Les The Lionheart
18th Apr 2005, 17:08
Really never heard of them. O yea the steppes.

Anakin Skywalker
18th Apr 2005, 17:13
Actually if the English army still had Longbowmen they would of won the wars alot faster. Faster to reload more accurate and fire further. Silly really. But no bows were used only by Tribal soldiers.

No way! First off all: Those stupid bows weren't more accurate than muskets!
Second: Not everybody was able to fire with such a weapon, so the british army would have been much smaller then.
Third: The French soldiers wouldn't have been very impressed by Longbowmen, which would have caused a improvement of their morale! :)

But maybe you're right. Perhaps the French would have died of laughing!

Les The Lionheart
18th Apr 2005, 17:25
English longbowmen were more accurate than muskets. And having a rain for steel tipped arrows ripping through your ranks is no laughing matter.

mob
18th Apr 2005, 17:27
less is a prick for this stuff just agree with him (much easier)

Irish2
18th Apr 2005, 17:47
less is a prick for this stuff just agree with him (much easier)

I know for a cfact that Ben Franklin pushed very hard for the continental army to be armed with bows instead of muskets to fight the british in the war of independence and he almost succeeded. The rate of fire was well above 6 arrows per minute and were much more accurate from beyond 100 yards than muskets. Also given the tight ranks, it made alot of sense. You don't need to worry about flint getting wet on a bow string. Also, the lack of smoke would greater visibilty to the troops.

Anakin Skywalker
18th Apr 2005, 18:00
Well, I can't think of an infantry-square firing with bows. And you have to see that muskets (with their bayonetts on top) were handy weapons, compared with longbows.
Maybe theoratically longbows were more accurate than muskets, but just theoratically. Only a very few men could draw a longbow, and even of them a very few were able to hit an aim with it. Maybe one man of 1.000! And, I mean, every child could fire with a musket and more or less hit anything. A few months ago I shot with a Brown Bess on an 1,80 metres high aim, 100 metres away. And believe me, it really was possible to hit it! There was a semi-professional guy there as well, and he was awesome! I'm sure, that if Wellington used Longbowmen instead of musketeers, he would have lost the battle with terrible casualties. In Napoleonic wars, muskets were the most important weapons! I love muskets! Have you guys ever fired a musket?

mob
18th Apr 2005, 18:10
Only a very few men could draw a longbow

mmmmm maybe english people but two in every 3 irish men could have

Les The Lionheart
18th Apr 2005, 18:38
Lol excuse me. In the 100yr war the English beat the irish and the scots and the French with the longbow. And at one point the English army had 25,000 long bows. When it was a popular past time most common folk who practiced it could do it. It was a law that all men had to be able to do it. Football was banned and people had to practice with a longbow at least once a week.

mob
18th Apr 2005, 19:04
how many thousands of english geeks died?

Les The Lionheart
18th Apr 2005, 19:27
None they were shooting barbaric irish and scottish people. O and destorying the armies of France.

Cro_Knight
18th Apr 2005, 19:58
i side with the catholic irish any day

Irish2
18th Apr 2005, 20:00
i side with the catholic irish any day

me also, I mean me too:D

Les The Lionheart
18th Apr 2005, 20:23
Lol okay you side with them. I side with English protestants.

mob
18th Apr 2005, 20:25
im glad to say im irish and catholic and would not be english ever nor be in their "united kingdom"
i hate the way yanks think we are in that piece of ****. so many died to make sure we werent

Les The Lionheart
18th Apr 2005, 20:31
Speak your own language then. And stop ruining our beautiful language with your foul tounge.

mob
18th Apr 2005, 20:34
dun do bhaile ta tu danna agus pog mo phon

feckin ejet

Les The Lionheart
18th Apr 2005, 20:36
OO very impressive. If you hate Englishmen so much never speak English again.

mob
18th Apr 2005, 20:37
lol na mar ta gaelge leadranach

Les The Lionheart
18th Apr 2005, 20:38
lol is English, naughty naughty.

Khornish
18th Apr 2005, 20:51
So much for European "enlightenment". How far are you two going to go before you get banned for carrying on over something not even related to the game?

At least if you're going to get yourselves banned for something here, do it over the game... sheesh.

FWIW, my wife's side of the family is Irish-catholic, and my side is English-protestant. If we can get over petty squabbles that started hundreds of years ago, I'm sure you can too. Of course, my wife is better lookin than the both of ya, so that might have something to do with it.

Les The Lionheart
18th Apr 2005, 21:04
When was I sqaubbeling he started it with the whole irelands archers were better. Lol your wife i bet is better looking than me unless she is a whale lol.

Khornish
18th Apr 2005, 22:46
A Siren, perhaps, but definately not a whale.

mob
19th Apr 2005, 15:56
very funny you dum half breed

me and les get on just fine but as for 100s of years i supose it was about late 900 and ended only a few years ago by comparision 1921 isnt very long ago your wife may have forrgivin you english *c*m but irish in general loath you like we did 80 years ago

Anakin Skywalker
19th Apr 2005, 17:07
God: "Lord Ratzinger!"
Ratzinger:"Yes, master?"
God:"Riiiise!"

Finally we have a German pope. The first since 482 years. :)

By the way. I feel hate between some members here. Hate is the path to the dark side!

PS: All bowmen are useless compared with musketeers, especially Prussian musketeers! Muskets are elegant weapons. From more civilizated times!

mob
19th Apr 2005, 17:13
what ratzinger is pope i should watch the news more hes a bloody nazy or was sry was

Les The Lionheart
19th Apr 2005, 17:31
Bowmen can fire faster, are more accurate , less expensive for materials needed , more scary , harder to hit.Why should a German be a nazi. Hitler was Austrian and he was biggest Nazi , does that mean all Austrians are nazi's? no it don't so why do people think of Germans like that.

Khornish
19th Apr 2005, 18:45
very funny you dum half breed

Actually, there's more diversity in my families ethnicity than just English-protestant; my mother's side of the family is French and German.


me and les get on just fine but as for 100s of years i supose it was about late 900 and ended only a few years ago by comparision 1921 isnt very long ago your wife may have forrgivin you english *c*m but irish in general loath you like we did 80 years ago

Ah, but _I_ am not English, nor am I protestant or catholic.

As it is, I tire of conversing with someone who cannot overcome ethnic prejudices.

Les The Lionheart
19th Apr 2005, 18:55
He has ,I am protestant and we been mates for ages. My family is pure English blood back to the Norman invasion were one of my family was a nobleman fighting for the Normans. And he was given land for his part in the battle. He is racist because of the way some Englishmen treat him. Same as I am with people who treat me bad.

mob
19th Apr 2005, 21:15
As it is, I tire of conversing with someone who cannot overcome ethnic prejudices.
never will my friend never will

Commisar Adam
19th Apr 2005, 22:10
Both the rifle and longbow had advantages, however the musket was more prefered.
Firstly, the bow had to be fired at a somewhat curved trajectory, making aiming difficult for even the most trained of soldiers.
Muskets could be mass produced, and there was no need for specialist craftsmen, especially after the use of interchangable parts.
And also, the musket could tear through several sodiers and cut through columns of enemy. The inaccuracy was compensated for sheer density of fire, as a single volley could wipe out the first, if not second row. Accuracy was also fixed with the invention of breech loading rifles, which featured grooved barrels enabling high accuracy.
The musket was also a fearsom weapon, and the sheer eruption when fired was absolutely incredible, which hurt morale.
Bows were only effective en masse, and it was difficult to form these hordes when musket rounds were tearing through the ranks. The musket could also use a bayonet, and was therefore used in most situations. If you were an archer, you would have to carry a short sword, which often weighed more than the standard issue bayonet.
The musket did have longer theoretical ranges, and it would take an expert archer to match the muskets accuracy at such ranges. And these archers were in short supply. Although many knew how to use the bow, their skill was questionable unless in large numbers. And, as stated above, it was hard to form these large ranks when musket fire tore through the ranks.
So in perspective, the invention of the musket left the bow obsolete, and never again would it be adopted. :D

Khornish
20th Apr 2005, 00:41
Firstly, the bow had to be fired at a somewhat curved trajectory, making aiming difficult for even the most trained of soldiers. [/QUOTE}

Muskets, on the battlefield, weren't aimed either. They were pointed in the general direction of the enemy and raised or lower. Until rifled muskets came into general use, there wasn't much expectation of hitting what you aimed at for most of your effective range.

[QUOTE=Commisar Adam]Muskets could be mass produced, and there was no need for specialist craftsmen, especially after the use of interchangable parts.

Actually, it did take specialists, but the time to train them was much less than that for training a good bowyer.


And also, the musket could tear through several sodiers and cut through columns of enemy. The inaccuracy was compensated for sheer density of fire, as a single volley could wipe out the first, if not second row.

So could arrows. Honestly, well trained bowmen could outshoot and out range well trained musket armed infantry until improvements in gunpowder and cannon appeared.


Accuracy was also fixed with the invention of breech loading rifles, which featured grooved barrels enabling high accuracy.

A breechloading rifle is not a musket.


The musket was also a fearsom weapon, and the sheer eruption when fired was absolutely incredible, which hurt morale.

This is more true than you might realize. Many studies of battlefield conditions and stimuli have shown that the concussion, noise, and smoke were quite "scary" to even trained men on the field of battle. All your senses would be assaulted and overpowered and this would cause a lot of problems mentally and emotionally for the average soldier.


Bows were only effective en masse...

This was also true of musket armed infantry.


and it was difficult to form these hordes when musket rounds were tearing through the ranks.

I'm not familiar with massed units of bowmen facing massed units of musket armed infantry. I suppose it could have happened in some of the African campaigns or in some European county's campaign in Asia. If you can give me a campaign to reference, I'd like to read about this.


The musket could also use a bayonet, and was therefore used in most situations. If you were an archer, you would have to carry a short sword, which often weighed more than the standard issue bayonet.

The bayonet was a relatively late innovation for the musket. This is why you saw pikes mixed with muskets in infantry regiments for a long period of time. The plug bayonet prevented the musket from being fired, and later the socket bayonet would become a true friend of the infantryman.


The musket did have longer theoretical ranges, and it would take an expert archer to match the muskets accuracy at such ranges.

Most archers would easily outshoot someone with a musket at their respective extreme ranges. For an archer it would come down to skill with the bow, being able to judge distance, elevation, wind, etc. For the musket armed infantry, it would depend purely upon luck. Now if you want to take the considerations of a battlefield out of the equation, and allow the musket armed man to cast his own shot, measure his own powder, and patch the ball, you might have a case.


And these archers were in short supply.

For the most part, true. It takes years to make a good archer whereas any moron can be taught how to fire a gun within a matter of weeks.


Although many knew how to use the bow, their skill was questionable unless in large numbers.

A whole lot of Englishmen would disagree after having faced the Welsh bowmen.


And, as stated above, it was hard to form these large ranks when musket fire tore through the ranks.

Read "The Lost Regiment" series of sci-fi books. A great, but bloody, read with massed arrows vs massed muskets.


So in perspective, the invention of the musket left the bow obsolete, and never again would it be adopted.

Rather it was the evolution of tactics using the musket, the morale problems that firearms caused, the shorter training required, and the relative costs involved that caused the bow to become obselete.

Except, now in the modern age of Special Operations and Special Forces, the bow is making a comeback, via a type of crossbow, as it is a silent killer when compared to a firearm. Not in general use, but it has its moments.

Commisar Adam
20th Apr 2005, 03:07
Firstly, I'd like to thank you for a constructive argument, which is rare in these forums.


Muskets, on the battlefield, weren't aimed either. They were pointed in the general direction of the enemy and raised or lower. Until rifled muskets came into general use, there wasn't much expectation of hitting what you aimed at for most of your effective range.

Even if both used similar tactics, the musket still maintained a more ideal outcome, especially in terms of morale.


Actually, it did take specialists, but the time to train them was much less than that for training a good bowyer.

I believe the transition to interchangable parts was made late in Nepoleon's campeigns, however I'm unsure. And by specialists, I meant manufacturers, not actual soldiers.


So could arrows. Honestly, well trained bowmen could outshoot and out range well trained musket armed infantry until improvements in gunpowder and cannon appeared.

Yes, WELL TRAINED bowmen could outshoot, however even as you pointed out these experts were in short supply. So considering most Bowmen at the time would be novices, I'd assume the musket would have a distinct advantage.


A breechloading rifle is not a musket.

True, however the Rifle was used during the Nepoleanic Era, especially by Wellington's Riflemen and sharpshooters. Refer to the book Wellington's Rifles for further reading.


This is more true than you might realize. Many studies of battlefield conditions and stimuli have shown that the concussion, noise, and smoke were quite "scary" to even trained men on the field of battle. All your senses would be assaulted and overpowered and this would cause a lot of problems mentally and emotionally for the average soldier.

Well put, I clearly underestimated the effect on morale. But the mental strain would be shortlived, as regiments didn't tend to stay in combat very long due to the incredible casualties caused by musket barrages. Muskets eliminated the huge premptive vollies common pre-musket, so actual combat was far shorter and therefore the stress shortlived.


I'm not familiar with massed units of bowmen facing massed units of musket armed infantry. I suppose it could have happened in some of the African campaigns or in some European county's campaign in Asia. If you can give me a campaign to reference, I'd like to read about this.
I apoligize for the lack of clarity, but I meant the statement in hipothetical context, merely stating that bowmen would have difficulty maintaining organization amidst the hot lead.


The bayonet was a relatively late innovation for the musket. This is why you saw pikes mixed with muskets in infantry regiments for a long period of time. The plug bayonet prevented the musket from being fired, and later the socket bayonet would become a true friend of the infantryman.

When was the socket bayonet officially adopted? I could have sworn it was in the 1830s, but I'm usually wrong with specific dates.


Most archers would easily outshoot someone with a musket at their respective extreme ranges. For an archer it would come down to skill with the bow, being able to judge distance, elevation, wind, etc. For the musket armed infantry, it would depend purely upon luck. Now if you want to take the considerations of a battlefield out of the equation, and allow the musket armed man to cast his own shot, measure his own powder, and patch the ball, you might have a case.

But you see, musket regiments, companies, etc. would be far larger than a longbow regiment, since there was no need to train extensively and therefore enabling the ability of mass consciption. With larger bodies of men, the numerical advantage would overpower the innacuracies. After all, isn't brute force over skill the reason the U.S.S.R won WWII? More men=higher % of hitting the enemy. And, once again, the lack of available longbow experts meant that they most likely wouldn't posses the knowledge of wind speed and what not, eliminating their accuracy advantage.


A whole lot of Englishmen would disagree after having faced the Welsh bowmen.

Sorry to sound stupid, but could you explain this or put it in context?




Read "The Lost Regiment" series of sci-fi books. A great, but bloody, read with massed arrows vs massed muskets.

Thanks, I will. :D


Rather it was the evolution of tactics using the musket, the morale problems that firearms caused, the shorter training required, and the relative costs involved that caused the bow to become obselete.
Great point. I agree.


Except, now in the modern age of Special Operations and Special Forces, the bow is making a comeback, via a type of crossbow, as it is a silent killer when compared to a firearm. Not in general use, but it has its moments.
The bow is used in completely different situations though. Rather than being used in mass, it is used for assassination and indivdual kills. But I guess the bow isn't completely dead...

Black-Adder
20th Apr 2005, 09:12
mmmmm maybe english people but two in every 3 irish men could have
If the english recruited suitable invdividuals only, and trained them in it it could be a special unit like the black watch, and i could serve as a support unit. The rifles at that time werent to accurate so a shower of arrows on a far away advancing enemy would have quite an effect as armour was abandoned by core infantery in those days. when the enemy got close the rifle-armed infantery would take over.

colmde
20th Apr 2005, 14:07
The length of time it took to train an archer is probably what made the musket popular... Well after they started playing football anyway (seemingly)


And stop ruining our beautiful language with your foul tounge.

Is iad na Éirinigh na daoine amháin a bhfuil in ann an teanga monghraill sin a leabhairt ceart! Teanga álainn mo thón!

mob
20th Apr 2005, 14:18
Is iad na Éirinigh na daoine amháin a bhfuil in ann an teanga monghraill sin a leabhairt ceart! Teanga álainn mo thón!

god i gota improve my irish


oh ya ad me to your msn irish man
we irish gota stick together most of these english are ***s

Redcoat
20th Apr 2005, 14:36
Hey,
just joined and have been reading the discussion on the longbow and musket.


Originally posted by Commisar Adam
When was the socket bayonet officially adopted? I could have sworn it was in the 1830s, but I'm usually wrong with specific dates.

If it helps the socket Bayonet was adopted by the French army in 1690ish. Once everyone else realised how good the idea was it was adopted by all the other european countries pretty quickly!

Cro_Knight
20th Apr 2005, 14:54
yea well i aint irish but as u can tell in my name im Croatian so im roman catholic and my aunt married a irish man and they live in dublin and i got two cousins from there so its pretty cool do u like soccer

mob
20th Apr 2005, 14:55
yep but your dub friends might be better cause dubs seem to be brilliant at it

Anakin Skywalker
20th Apr 2005, 15:33
@ Commissar Adam:
Thank you for supporting the musket! You're absoltutely right in every point!

@ Les the Lionheart:
Are all Irish that stupid as mob? If yes, please say your premier he shall take the southern part of Ireland as well and include it to your great Empire. :)

@ mob:
I'm a German, but no nazi! You should remember who helped these Irish terrorist during WW2, by sending weapons: The nazis! So be calm! :mad: By the way, my dear mob; from now on you are an enemy of the republic!!!

mob
20th Apr 2005, 15:45
good point about the guns part i never forget that
but then im like what what what rebublic you mean?

mob
20th Apr 2005, 15:46
oh you're a star***(edit) wars geek whatever go learn how to play sport

Anakin Skywalker
20th Apr 2005, 15:50
Pardon? ..........

mob
20th Apr 2005, 15:55
read again

Anakin Skywalker
20th Apr 2005, 15:58
Du verdammtes Arschloch!

Mike_B
20th Apr 2005, 16:11
Knock it off, this is a games forum let's keep it that way.

Gonzodave
20th Apr 2005, 16:12
me and les get on just fine but as for 100s of years i supose it was about late 900 and ended only a few years ago by comparision 1921 isnt very long ago your wife may have forrgivin you english *c*m but irish in general loath you like we did 80 years ago

Great, does this mean all you self pitying bogtrotters are going to quit whining and leave England? I hear they've even got potatoes back in Eire now, so no worries feeding your 67 children that came about because you were too stupid to wear a condom.

:D :D :D

re bows:
a)Bows can't mount a bayonet, so need pikemen to protect them, who are in turn slow and vulnerable to artillery and musketry.
b)Bows are aimed at an area, not a target, so are ineffective against skirmishers and fast moving cavalry.
c)Longbowmen can carry about 30-40 arrows max. A musketeer or rifleman can carry a vastly greater amount of ammunition
d)Bows require longer preparation times pre battle - they have to be stringed, and strings can snap easily in poor weather, meaning longbowmen are crap at reacting to ambushes and meeting engagements.
e)Bows take more training to prepare - effectively, bows require free men, not serfdom, and thus were never adopted by the vast majority of European states.

Khornish
20th Apr 2005, 19:25
Firstly, I'd like to thank you for a constructive argument, which is rare in these forums.

Actually, I'm not arguing a side in this, just providing information. I'd have rather had a bow in the early history of firearms and a firearm once the flintlock became the mechanism for discharging the weapon.



Even if both used similar tactics, the musket still maintained a more ideal outcome, especially in terms of morale.

Hard to say really, for the period where the bow and firearm overlapped. There's gotta be something to seeing a hail storm of incoming sharp bits all whistling "death to ye" on their way in.


I believe the transition to interchangable parts was made late in Nepoleon's campeigns, however I'm unsure. And by specialists, I meant manufacturers, not actual soldiers.

It still took a fairly skilled craftsman to make the delicate lock and several other parts. It's not as though you could have handed any blacksmith a musket and have had him copy it.


Yes, WELL TRAINED bowmen could outshoot, however even as you pointed out these experts were in short supply. So considering most Bowmen at the time would be novices, I'd assume the musket would have a distinct advantage.

It's not that they were in short supply, it's that it took longer to get em well trained. You'd have to definate a specific period of time, poll the bowmen in the region, and make a comparison.



True, however the Rifle was used during the Nepoleanic Era, especially by Wellington's Riflemen and sharpshooters. Refer to the book Wellington's Rifles for further reading.

A rifled musket is still a musket and although it had a slightly longer effective range, it still had similar problems, not to mention a slower rate of fire if attempting to use the advantage of more accuracy (the patched ball took a bit of effort to force down the barrel).


Well put, I clearly underestimated the effect on morale.

Well, I was only paraphrasing the results of the work of other scholars.


But the mental strain would be shortlived, as regiments didn't tend to stay in combat very long due to the incredible casualties caused by musket barrages.

I'm not sure the casualty returns for most battalions would back that up. Some units, caught in especially bad circumstances would take a very high percentage of casualties, but the vast majority didn't.

It's been a while since I read a particular study on morale, but I believe a unit's cohesion broke down slightly after taking about 8% casualties, and the rate of breakdown increased very significantly, if not exponentially, at about 15% casualties. Units with especially high morale and/or training may be able to endure a higher percentage of loss, but this was not always the case.

At any rate, units could, and did, stick around in the front line for hours.


Muskets eliminated the huge premptive vollies common pre-musket, so actual combat was far shorter and therefore the stress shortlived.

I really don't know what you're talking about here. You mean a volley of arrows? If so, artillery replaced this and added its own element of stress and terror. I think it was a brigade of belgians or hanoverians that had to endure the french bombardment at the beginning of Waterloo. Those lads stuck it out for a long time.


I apoligize for the lack of clarity, but I meant the statement in hipothetical context, merely stating that bowmen would have difficulty maintaining organization amidst the hot lead.

Ah. The validity of your point would depend upon the context of the time period.


When was the socket bayonet officially adopted? I could have sworn it was in the 1830s, but I'm usually wrong with specific dates.

Someone already answered before I could.


But you see, musket regiments, companies, etc. would be far larger than a longbow regiment, since there was no need to train extensively and therefore enabling the ability of mass consciption.

Again, it would depend on the context of the time period. Also, I believe the argument,to which I added a bit of information in the midst of it, was about the utility of the bow as a weapon.


With larger bodies of men, the numerical advantage would overpower the innacuracies.

It's still not an issue of numbers, it's the utility of the bow as a weapon on the battlefield. Face of equal numbers of troops using muskets vs bows and go from there. Change the type of musket used, keeping in line with each advance in the technology. Start with the firelock and end with percussion caps.

At the end you'd have results indicating the bow would start with an advantage that would slowly dissappear at first and then would rapidly end and swing to an advantage to the firearm.

You can safely leave cavalry and artillery out of the test as both would have roughly the same effect on both infantry units (bow armed and musket armed).


After all, isn't brute force over skill the reason the U.S.S.R won WWII? More men=higher % of hitting the enemy.

I believe the Soviets went more for an attritional victory than anything else. Their ability to absorb the casualties and still be able to come back and continue the fight is what wore down the Germans.


And, once again, the lack of available longbow experts meant that they most likely wouldn't posses the knowledge of wind speed and what not, eliminating their accuracy advantage.

Once again, you're contending and I am not. I was and have been poking holes in a flawed analysis, but not arguing for the opposite side.

To argue that the bow became obsolete due to advances in firearms is correct, but some of your reasoning and observations backing up your argument was flawed.



Sorry to sound stupid, but could you explain this or put it in context?

The longbow of military lore and tradition originated in Wales and was used against the English on many occassions.

To help you with the series of books I recommended to you, here's some info.


"The Lost Regiment" By William Forstchen

#1 Rally Cry
#2 Union fever
#3 Terrible Swift Sword
#4 Fateful Lightning
#5 Battle Hymn
#6 Never Sound Retreat
#7 A Band of Brothers
#8 Men of War
#9 Down to the Sea

FWIW, my old wargaming club wargamed out one of the battles portrayed in this series. My own force were the boys in blue and I ultimately lost the battle in the final turn... but I was robbed as they gimped my ranges. :)

Khornish
20th Apr 2005, 20:06
a)Bows can't mount a bayonet, so need pikemen to protect them, who are in turn slow and vulnerable to artillery and musketry.

Not entirely correct. Agincourt 1415 is but one example.


b)Bows are aimed at an area, not a target, so are ineffective against skirmishers and fast moving cavalry.

After Falkirk 1298 the English longbowmen went to area fire. At Falkirk they shot directly into the scots. However, we can't immediately assume this area fire would have been of any worse accuracy than had they been leveling muskets. In fact, with a rate of fire about 3-4 times that of a musket, the bow would have been more effective.


c)Longbowmen can carry about 30-40 arrows max. A musketeer or rifleman can carry a vastly greater amount of ammunition

You might get a musketeer to carry as many as 60 rounds, but most armies didn't. If a regiment/battalion of musketeers ran out of ammo, they'd have to get it from their designated supply train.

Additionally, the English longbowman was thought to have a rate of fire of 10-12 flights a minute. So, using your 30-40 arrows, that means an archer would be out of arrows in about 4 minutes of sustained fire. It stands to reason the English would have known about this before going into battle and would have prepared for such an eventuality. Unless, of course, you wish to assume that battles would last not much longer than 4 minutes.


d)Bows require longer preparation times pre battle - they have to be stringed, and strings can snap easily in poor weather, meaning longbowmen are crap at reacting to ambushes and meeting engagements.

It doesn't take all that long to string a bow. I'd expect a trained bowman could string his bow and loose off a few arrows before a trained musketeer could load and fire his flintlock.

Bows and muskets would be similarly effected by the same weather.

Replacement strings would have been carried and easily so.


e)Bows take more training to prepare - effectively, bows require free men, not serfdom, and thus were never adopted by the vast majority of European states.

Yes, training bowmen takes more time, something I've said more than once here.

No, units of bowmen didn't need to be free men. It was the rulers of the bowmen that didn't want to arm slaves or serfs as they didn't want to train and equip people that would potentially use that knowledge to stage a successful rebellion..."and thus were never adopted by the vast majority of European states."


FYI, I'm not even arguing that bows are better than muskets for warfare. Someone else brought that up and some of you jumped in on it. However, instead of letting you get by with using wrong information or analysis, I provided some correct information and better logic.

Les The Lionheart
20th Apr 2005, 20:31
But if the bow had stayed a tradition training would not of been hard because it was everyones hobbie.Yes rifles were better but they reloaded slower. Due to the patch and the rifling in the barrel. Would you be more scared of a group of men say 500 strong say firing 2 rounds a minute or 250 bowmen losening with more accuracy and firing maybe 7 times a minute or alot more than that. Bowmen did not need to be in mass formations but could be in a skirmish chain which would mean artillery would have a harder job hitting them. Arrows could be retrived from the ground or dead bodies. Like at Crecy and that was out of armour that bent the arrows. Cavary would not get to the archers because your cavalry and your archers would hold them off.Archers were armed with swords or knives , sometimes maces and sheilds and axes.SO they could be better in melee. Sorry to go on but there is my 15 pounds.

Commisar Adam
20th Apr 2005, 21:28
Ammunition for a musket would be produced much faster, considering advancments in forging and handeling metal. I'd estimate that 20 musket balls, if not more, could be produced in the same time it took to make a single quality bow by a skilled craftsmen. So in compensation for half the accuracy, the musketeers had at leat twice the ammo at their disposal. However, in most combat situations both musketeer and bowmen carried roughly the same amount of projectiles, considering the vast supply of musket balls would have to be distributed to a greater amount of men, so overall both bowmen and musketeer would have equal ammunition. And, once again, there would be greater amounts of riflemen at disposal, considering they needed little training.
I think I proposed two contrasting ideas, so I hope my paragraph is clear.

Lt.Phoenix
20th Apr 2005, 22:36
so you're saying multiple bullets can be made by many people and machines in the same time one person can make an actual weapon? It might just be me, but that doesn't seem so incredible.

Khornish
20th Apr 2005, 23:22
Ammunition for a musket would be produced much faster, considering advancments in forging and handeling metal. I'd estimate that 20 musket balls, if not more, could be produced in the same time it took to make a single quality bow by a skilled craftsmen.

Did you mean to say arrows here instead of "bow"? You could make hundreds of musketballs for the same time it took to make an arrow.

However if you want to discuss the ammunition, it's wasn't the musketballs, but the gunpowder that was the sticking point in the manufacturing of ammunition.

Honestly, you could probably have supplied both types of units with enough ammunition that it wouldn't have made much of a difference.

Weather, again, would have affected arrows and cartridges similarly, in that exposure to moisture would degrade and eventually ruin both.



So in compensation for half the accuracy, the musketeers had at leat twice the ammo at their disposal.

You really, really, need to examine the various studies with regards to accuracy and ammunition expenditure for firearms pre-1850ish. A musketeer simply could not hit what he aimed at 50 yards away (without a miracle).

Today, in Scotland, bowmen using bows less powerful than an English longbow can accurately hit relatively small targets 190-220 yards away. It is thought that the English longbow would have a slightly longer accurate range.

Now, let's call it all a wash.. let's just say they have the same accuracy once we factor in respective effective ranges, training of the troops, weather conditions, etc. Bowmen would have a rate of fire about 3-4 times greater than the musketeers. The bowman would expend all their ammunition (assuming again that we equip both sides with the same amount) within a matter of minutes, let's say 10 minutes of sustained fire allowing them to expend 100 arrows each. Now, in that same 10 minutes, the musketeers at best effort could be expected to expend no more than perhaps 30 rounds each (remember English units, considered the best drilled at musketry, worked hard to achieve 3 rounds a minute).

Now, factoring in the rate of fire at the same level of accuracy, at what point do you think a one unit would gain the upper hand over the other? Which unit armed with which weapon would hold the field in this example?



However, in most combat situations both musketeer and bowmen carried roughly the same amount of projectiles, considering the vast supply of musket balls would have to be distributed to a greater amount of men, so overall both bowmen and musketeer would have equal ammunition. And, once again, there would be greater amounts of riflemen at disposal, considering they needed little training.

Okay, again, the argument (and I am now arguing a point) is not numbers of troops, it's the utility of the bow as a battlefield weapon.

One must also consider that the bow became obsolete due to the overall dynamic of the battlefield and the evolution of artillery and cavalry which forced the infantry arm to evolve as well.

The bow was a great weapon for its time, but the environment in which it was used changed just as what happened to horse cavalry later in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Without the bow, Wallace may have won, or at least forced a draw, at Falkirk. Henry V would have lost at Agincourt. However, the bow wouldn't have saved the English (and allies) at Waterloo. The whole dynamic had changed long before then.

Gonzodave
21st Apr 2005, 15:32
Agincourt 1415 is but one example.

A bad example. The sheer stupidity and individualistic nature of the French knights was a far greater factor than the longbowmen.

Khornish
21st Apr 2005, 18:12
A bad example. The sheer stupidity and individualistic nature of the French knights was a far greater factor than the longbowmen.

Not when it is an example of how the English army deployed and how the longbowmen were covered by the men at arms and other measures.

eddiemac0
22nd Apr 2005, 00:10
Kornish, you've got the right idea...

Take 1,000 line infantrymen and face them against 1,000 Agincourt longbowmen. The bowmen will win, no question... they have the range and rate of fire advantage. Both weapons rely on area/volley fire for striking power.

But, replace musketeers on a battlefied with longbowmen, and they will be in a world of hurt. You would be able to rout any number of longbowm men with Napoleonic cavalry. A line-smashing variety of cavalry is faster than your average knight, and success at Agincourt was mainly due to mud slowing the French horses anways. Dragoons or cuirassiers would be through the longbowmen before they could get many volleys off, and the higher speed would make it harder to hit the incoming cavalry. Also, the trajectorial nature of arrows make it difficult to repel a formation at close ranges. Screwed from a distance, and screwed up close, the longbowmen would not be able to form legitimate squares either, and would wind up on the wrong end of sabres.

PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM STUPID/AND/OR WRONG...

BANANAMAN
22nd Apr 2005, 00:28
You're absolutly right Eddie! Longbowmen are NO match to Napoleonic cavalrymen.

Longbowmen, LOL! :D

Isnt Imperial Glory about Napoleonic units not Medieval?

Khornish
22nd Apr 2005, 01:21
But, replace musketeers on a battlefied with longbowmen, and they will be in a world of hurt. You would be able to rout any number of longbowm men with Napoleonic cavalry.

<sigh>

I prefer to not quote my own posts, so I'll answer you in this manner.

I am not making the argument you evidently think I am. Please, read or reread the posts in this thread which deal with the issues in my own posts. Once you've done that, proceed to read the rest of my post here.


<insert recordings of your favorite elevator (lift) music here>









Now that you've reread the thread, do you still think I'm arguing in favor of the longbow as being a viable weapon on a Napoleonic battlefield?

If your answer is, "Yes", then you have failed to understand or otherwise grasp the concepts which I clearly pointed out. Continue to deceive yourself and enjoy life. Remember this time where you were absolutely right on and totally pwned me. Feel better about yourself.

If your answer is, "No", then you have understood, that I was correcting false assumptions or statements about why the bow/longbow became obsolete and was succeeded by the musket. Realize that you erred in your assumption and that you and I in fact agree on this subject and not disagree. Smile and feel better about yourself.


A line-smashing variety of cavalry is faster than your average knight, and success at Agincourt was mainly due to mud slowing the French horses anways.

Yes, Napoleonic cavalry, for the most part, was much faster than your average knight on his charger. Most especially the light cavalry, and less so the Cuirassiers, Carabiniers, etc.

Agincourt was hardly the only success the English had when using longbowmen. I used the example of Agincourt with regards to how the longbowmen were deployed, not as to their effectiveness. Perhaps I could have been more explicit about why I was using it as an example, but even then, some here would still willfully misunderstand.



PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM STUPID/AND/OR WRONG...

You are responding to an argument that I did not make nor do I support.

Khornish
22nd Apr 2005, 01:25
You're absolutly right Eddie! Longbowmen are NO match to Napoleonic cavalrymen.

Longbowmen, LOL! :D

Isnt Imperial Glory about Napoleonic units not Medieval?


You, too, could do with reading the posts previous. Otherwise, continue running in the wrong direction with the football.

saddletank
22nd Apr 2005, 12:08
PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM STUPID...

Tempting...very tempting.

But I'll be nice and keep out of this one :)

The Penitant Man
23rd Apr 2005, 01:21
i hate the way yanks think we are in that piece of ****. so many died to make sure we werent

What are you talking about? Most Yanks I've met try to claim they actually are Irish because their great great grandfather once drank a pint of Guiness.

At the English pub in Disney World they served Guiness, Harp (both Irish) and McEwans (Scottish). I think they probably think Enland is in the United Irish Republic of Blarney or something.

Gonzodave
23rd Apr 2005, 15:44
At the English pub in Disney World they served Guiness, Harp (both Irish) and McEwans (Scottish).

Stupid Yanks. Everyone knows English pubs serve Dutch and Australian beers.

The Penitant Man
23rd Apr 2005, 20:34
Stupid Yanks. Everyone knows English pubs serve Dutch and Australian beers.

More like Australian barmen serving Dutch beer, in London anyway.