bow VS musket

I read that best shooter can reload and shoot only 3 times/minute but good archer can shoot 20 arrows/minute!!! First muskets was precise only at first
50m. It is easier to make bow than to make musket. Gun powder is very sensitive to moisture. You can use waxed strings when raining but shoot musket ... it is inposible. So why everybody start to use musket? Maybe because it is easier to make bullet than arrow? :?

Up until Lee Enfield, firearms suffered all the problems mentioned by Rapsod, and they were heavy. However, in Xinjiang and Tibet (very dry climates) they were frequently carried on horseback. However, these muskets were very heavy and normally were fired resting on two prongs on the ground.

Muskets replaced the crossbow on the battlefield early on; but did not replace the bow and arrow on horseback until the 1900s in China.

there are some point of view,these arhcer need 3 years training,at that time the Europe and Latin America busying for the war,perhaps bow wood and craftsman can not made enough bow and arrows for the war, make a musket is very easy/fast, also training the soldier cheap, right?

the arrows supply in the war real is a big trouble, but i am not take it is a perfect reason that the bow full end his action before the Lee Enfield ,why they are not add a few archer to army? if a army 1/4 soldier is archer,then these arrows under-supply is not a trouble,these archer useing for keep the fire during the musket shooted and busy for add powder/bullet . so , it has no resting in the war,

Jiao, the short answer is that not every military problem can be reduced to rate of fire -- even "volume of fire" for well-trained musketmen is a different analysis having more to do with training than technology.

In areas where ROF *was* decisive, like west Texas before repeating firearms, the Comanche and their bows held the day.

According to the views of Kang Youwei when writing his submission to the Emperor, it was artillery, not musketry, that was making archers obsolete.

this topic will end of the artillery, or talking about all the case of the military(tactics,purvey......) history,politics,economics,

add some of them , the sclence and the technology, a lot topic......

Good Morning

Rapid fire firearms only came about circa 1860 when the cartidge loading firearm became commonly used.

A continuous volume of fire is possible using muzzle loading arms by the use of ranks firing in sequence.

If volume of fire is what is required then you are better off having some people acting a shooters and others as loaders.

Note: Percussion cap ignition is much faster to reload than flintlock.

On a more practical point musketry became popular on the Europen battlefield as it was easier to train the troops plus it was more effective against the increasing quality of plate armour.

Once you had a musket then the armour was relatively ineffective against such. Note the rapid change in armour with the introduction development of the musket.

Accuracy is not an issue. All you need do is have a large number of muskets pointed in the right direction. It does not matter if you hit the target you were aimimg at or the man next to him the result is the same.

Same as with masssed archers . Shoot in the approximate direction - chances are you will hit something.

Payne Galloway said in his book, Crossbows, that it was really this weapon fitted with a steel spring bow which made armor obsolete. Before that time, 1400, knights were used to wading through footsoldiers mowing them down, trampling underfoot.

Though a good archer took almost of a lifetime to train, most any peasant could be turned into a crossbowman is a couple of weeks. As we know, this upsetting of the balance sent the royalty scurring to the pope for protection in the form of an edict prohibiting christians from using this weapon against eachother. ha!

This happened just slightly before firearms became a serious danger to those other than the shooter. The lower classes were trained also into this service; and like the crossbow, the arquibuses were collected after the campaigns so the populace was not itself a threat. Though its firing was an easy skill to attain, almost no one is familiar with a firearm's manufacture.

Unlike the bow and arrow making which was a home based industry, firearms manufacture was more industrial based.

Fast forward to the Texas frontier and some of the last Nomad archers, the Comanche, "Lords of the Southern Plains", were so fast moving and arrogantly protective of their immense territory that until 1840, with the invention of the Patterson Colt 5-shot revolver pistol, their reign proved unstoppable. Thirty five more years would pass, several smallpox epidemics,and the annilation of their bison foodsource would occur, together with the improvements of firearms before these proud people would be brought to submission.

Don't worry y'all, there are more Comanches today than there ever were. And 450 other tribes, out of what was once probably thousands. They had the land and we wanted it.

That's what my ancestors did, and probably yours too, yes and Chinese!

i has search Comanche and there war and has no more detail about how many comanch and how many American in the war (http://www.texasindians.com/comanche.htm)

perhaps they are useing traditional Nomad tactic ,they has no city/town move here and there, often suddenly incursion and fast evacuate, the army difficult find them got a decisive battle, when the comanche attack is they are useing a wide and straggling procession so the dense musket can not get the advantage

who know the detail of comache war?

Jiao; LOS COMANCHES, Stanley Noyes.

Comanches were guerilla fighters and avoided presenting any target to an enemy.

Jack,
I think you will find most crossbowmen were recruited from towns where the general health and strength of the population was lower than in the country. Crossbows were expensive, but were effective against armoured men as you said. Behind a wall, a crossbowman was very effective. In the open field they carried pavises to protect themselves and the reassessment in The Great Warbow implies that they were more effective that some of the nineteenth century historians believed.

The lower level of training necessary coupled with the reduced requirement of physical fitness were very attractive to commanders. I think that we all agree with you on that.

Does anyone know when guns became cheaper than crossbows?

perhaps guns is industrialized production since steam engine invention,

A gun, even in the early stages of industrialisation, could be completely mass-produced, every single part almost exactly the same, especially if you consider that the guns in military use were smooth bores for a very long time (some 16th century guns were rifled, but this was very expensive and reserved for the rich for hunting.) A crossbow, especially one with a composite or steel prod (the only effective types in use from the 14th century onwards in Europe [although wooden prods are listed frequently in the 15th century]), has to be completely bespoke - a steel prod needs perfect tempering, very complex procedures, etc, and we know how difficult making a composite is. In any case, guns played the major roles in ending the Hundred Years War in favour of the French, and from about 1550 onwards, the vast majority of European armies had major handgunner contingents.
You've also got to remember that weapons like the longbow were highly dependant on outside sources for the wood - Spanish or Italian yew, and from other countries, imported to England for the purpose of bowmaking. The Anglo-Spanish war of the late 14th century was partly due to prices of yew. A gun, on the other hand, can be made using native timbers, iron, flint, and so on. It minimises cost, and dependance on foreign resources. I suppose the same could be said of the crossbow, but again, the construction problem is probably the issue at the heart of the matter.
And then, of course, there's the issue of noise: guns are very impressive in a regulated volley, and no doubt this influenced European tactics and amry structure. In the mid to late 19th century, in the South Pacific, islanders would trade any amount of labour in sugarcane fields for the chance to own even a simple Tower musket, a long obsolete weapon, simply for it's incredibly impressive noise. It didn't matter about accuracy - they shot from the hip, and frequently fell over from using large amounts of powder and getting blasted backwards. Their bows were probably the better weapons, but still they traded, because guns are impressive.

Just some thoughts.

You've also got to remember that weapons like the longbow were highly dependant on outside sources for the wood - Spanish or Italian yew, and from other countries, imported to England for the purpose of bowmaking. The Anglo-Spanish war of the late 14th century was partly due to prices of yew. A gun, on the other hand, can be made using native timbers, iron, flint, and so on. It minimises cost, and dependance on foreign resources. I suppose the same could be said of the crossbow, but again, the construction problem is probably the issue at the heart of the matter


WHY THEY ARE NOT USE OTHER WOOD FOR MAKE A BOW？

Europeans used Yew because they did not know about Osage. -j-

It was quite an issue in the Imjinwaeran, the "Hideyoshi Invasion" of Korea, by Japan, back in 1592-1598. Korean archers up until then used a distant, un-aimed shot, frequently using half-sized arrows launched from a bamboo overdraw. The problem being, Japanese armor was an improvement over what Koreans were used to and the matchlock musketeers the Japanese had could take shots from behind cover, whereas the Korean archer had to be in an exposed position, most of the time, when taking a shot. Another problem was an arrow shortage; Koreans adjusted for it by training for closer and closer shots--finally, only point-blank shots were allowed, with one arrow theoretically equalling one kill.


T

jack farrell wrote:

Europeans used Yew because they did not know about Osage. -j-

The problem is that when we European finally found out about osage, we had already made the switch to muskets :?

I was trying to get a conversation about the merits of Osage over Yew. I do agree that there is small comparison.

The nomads of the new World were quite capable of pitting bow against musket for centuries more, mostly by adapting strategy/tactics to their weapons.

Most think that the Colt won the west, but by sheer numbers, it would be more accurate to state that Smallpox won the fight. Some native tribes suffered 100% losses. -j-

The early firearms were heavier, slower and dirtier (the last one has been once a concern for Janissary) than bow n arrow. The soldiers were not familiar with the musket's mechanical parts that sometimes broke or got lost. In these early stages the technical support for repair and maintenance in the armies were not well organised neither. Failure in transfering the flame to the gunpowder was common. Because the barrel was not rifled the accuracy was insufficient. After the invention of the flintlock the firing failures were reduced and with the invention of faster percussion lock (and with developing metalurgical techniques) rifled barrels have been possible. They increased the accuracy and effective range remarkably. Some interesting innovations about projectiles have been made too. Although still muzzle loaded, bullets (round nose) with smaller diameters and parachute-like bottoms made it easy and faster to load the long, rifled barrels.

As mentioned, the main reason must have been the time needed to educate an archer vs. a musketeer. The same happened when the longbow was first replaced by the crossbow. I think the armies have turned to citizen-armies from professional warriors too. It may be another reason for introducing easy-to-learn weapons.

Ottoman army was one of the first that introduced firearms in the second half of 16th century. It's documented that the Janissaries did not like these new weapons because of the reasons mentioned above. But muskets did gain dominance very fast. But let me tell you that the Solak group -the elite bodyguards of Sultan- armed with the Ottoman composite bow did not leave their weapons until the first quarter of 18th century.

Additionally, armies changed not only their soldiers but also their fighting styles. Systematic and alternately gun shooting in groups resulted an amazing fire power. In mediaval Europe (in Ottomans till 18th century) the power of the armies was based on the personal fighting skills and motivations of individual professional warriors. Starting (if I'm not wrong) with English yeomans, citizen armies that were moving as one single unit began to dictate new fighting startegies. And firearms were probably more suitable in such strategies, even in their underdeveloped phases.

Jiao, they did use other woods for bows. But the only types of bows that medieval western Europeans knew how to make and use, viz, longbows, required the highest quality wood known at the time, that being yew. Ash, elm and other woods were used, and had to be used by law, to minimise reliance on imported yew, but the reliance remained anyway.
In any case, I agree primarily with Murat.

And even though the yeniceri hated the muskets, they were VERY effective with them.

One point-
The long bow require constant practice to keep up condition so the Archers had to keep the weapons at home.
Which made it rather easy to gather large bodies of armed and dangerous men very quickly.
The destructive Wars of the Roses no doubt tended to make leaders wary of an armed populace.
Muskets require far less training and zero conditioning.
So they can be stored in far more easily controlled armouries.