Longbows v muskets

Shut the fuck up, with that shit

Ballistics:

Accuracy:

How is it a advantage that it takes a big strong man and that it is no equalizer?

found a blog about it
bowvsmusket.com/category/modern-test/

As with many firearms, the muskets effectiveness was largely dependent on what it was loaded with. Some few of them were accurate, but as a general rule at over 50 yards they were not very accurate. However, that was compensated for by loading them with multiple smaller projectiles (i.e. "shot") rather than a single ball. An infantry line full of muskets so loaded would be far deadlier at 100 yards than an equal number of longbows. In addition, at that distance, the musketeers would be able to see the arrows coming and have a few moments to seek cover or at least "get small". The bowmen would not have that advantage.
The issue of reloading time is inconsequential. Infantrymen were extremely well trained in this particular aspect, and could reload and be ready to fire in less than 30 seconds. Since the infantry lines were two men deep, they always had a line firing while the other was reloading, meaning that muskets were being fired every 15 seconds or so. Slower than bows, to be sure, but given the other factors mentioned above the advantage remains with the muskets by a wide margin…at least in field combat.

For the purposes of sniping, a better case could be made for the longbow. A much better case.

Muskets were loud and new. Many enemies had never been shot at before so this was terrifying. It was worth it for the psychological effect alone.

Technology got too OP for Bows & Crossbows
Ask yourself why swords stopped being used, same applies
You also gotta remember that the transition wasn't instant; Bows, Crossbows, and Muskets were all used at the same time for hundreds of years
Muskets outclass the bow, armor, range, wounds, and psychological

Anons above me explained it better than me

Another thing with muskets, to compare power with bows
Ask yourself, which weapon kills a 400lb bear running at you

for an army of elves, bows. For everyone else, muskets

How about
every single troop present at the Battle of Agincourt
vs
1 fire team of US Marines

What are Navy Seals

...

You're forgetting one thing: armor.
Longbows COULD penetrate some armor, particularly leather (even when embedded with steel plates as they often were) and mail. What they couldn't penetrate, though, was thick plate armor. As this became more popular, longbows became less effective in the modern battlefield. Muskets arose mostly as a means of penetrating this armor which even melee weapons had a hard time with. Before the musket, the best you could usually do is whack the armor with a blunt weapon and hope this disorients them enough for you to strike an open region (if there was one). Muskets could punch through the shit like butter though. This made for a ranged weapon even more effective than a weapon you had to be up close and personal with the enemy to use.

So let's assume the longbow was better than the musket in all other means: that ONE ability (to penetrate the best armor of the day) made it absolutely indispensable in the battlefield. The musket rendered knights obsolete.
So yeah, put a hundred well armored musketmen against a thousand longbowmen (hell, give them plate armor too, not that it will do them any good) and the musketmen would probably win.

it's also worth noting, though, that the musket arrived pretty late on the gunpowder scene. As early as 1402 we had weapons like these used to blow the sides off castle walls.

I remember seeing a thing about people freaking out about why there was a skeleton with an rpg in an old painting ( it was just an old musket type that wasn't very practical at the time )

...

I guess its not possible for guns to pierce armor, guys
Nope, this user has proved that there has never been a recorded case in all of history of a musket piercing armor at all ever

not at all. all i wish to call out is the absurd assertion that musket balls penetrated armor easily. that is simply false, much like the assertion that war arrows bounced off. at 100 yds, a heavy arrow was more likely to penetrate armor than a musket ball

Bodkin arrow head was designed to pierce armor

Long bow was better. The problem is the training involved in using one. A retard can be taught to use a musket in a day. A longbow takes years of training.

You do remember that muskets have a verity of gauges, right?
You also remember that they can be used with different powder loads too?
You're cherrypicking images to fit an argument for the wrong side

Image familiar tells you what cannonballs do to armor; during the battle muskets were also used, metal armor was still used against guns, but it still wasn't very useful; just like bows, armor is clunky, takes up too much space, and can be hard to wield
You can give everybody a musket, but you can't give everybody a bow
Imagine what a full firing line would have done to the armor in your images, there wouldn't even be a point of wearing the armor against that

bows are not that hard

-to learn, but are hard too master, and most conscripts are too dumb to learn the bow in a months time, but typically are just dumb enough to learn the musket in a week maximum

...

Bow can still do a lot, especially in the right hands bow trickshot videos
But once the musket finally came in full, armor was just too powerful for the bow, and the musket too powerful for the armor

I've just realized that the Bow vs Musket argument parallels Sniper vs Rifle argument perfectly

Did someone say musketta man?

I see you are also a concessioner of finer things, like raping elves, user.

The main point of firearms in the early stages was psychology. Gunpowder is loud as fuck when it blows out of a gun barrel. Muskets were used in volley fire too. So, the psychological effect is what made them useful in large scale warfare than bows.
Pros and cons to both, but in war back then and war today, the main effect of firearms in war is psychological. They can kill you pretty good too. Military firearms physical effects have basically been playing catch up their psychological effects. A good example of this psychological aspect of warfare and firearms in the machine gun. The main purpose of machine guns since WWII has been suppression and AoE fire.

Is he fucking around with a musket while there's a perfectly good sword strapped to his body?

...

...

muskets are easy to train compared to bows

musket is easier to aim for someone untrained in its use. also, it has a lot more power meaning armor is useless against it

How does one train a musket?

one trains their musket on a target, no?

It's only hard to hit a target at long range and that isn't really a issue if you have hundred of archers firing in a single barrage. The main problem for me with a bow and arrow is that it is surprisingly difficult to draw the bow,you have to be strong and even then your arm will get tired out quickly after repeated shots. I've not really read into it but I would assume this is why the crossbow became more popular despite inferior range, anybody can pick it up and keep shooting it whether they are strong or not.

you need years of training, superior strength and coordination to be proficient with a longbow
once you've learned to align the metal thingies on the top of the musket with the thing you want to put holes into, any peasant can be proficient in a few days with a musket
and when your whole village goes bang, it doesn't matter if you take half a minute to reload

I've tested this with my own bow and you'd be surprised how much they can actually pierce. The draw strength on my bow is only 40lbs and it can pierce thin metal and can go cleanly through multiple stacks of thin wood at mid range, when you look at the weight that more antiquated bows can reach I wouldn't be surprised if they could pierce well made armour. It's like says, the switch was about making it easier to have a large effective ranged unit in your army.

Crossbows are shit compared to longbows but they still switched to them just for ease.

you could train almost anyone to shoot musket or crossbow in no time but it took practically your life to become longbowman

Artillery replaced longbowmen

Musketmen basically replace pikemen, although not entirely as you still need a few pikes to keep the enemy cavalry off. Still, a musket is essentially a spear with a little cannon strapped to it.. it's for closing and stabbing.

You don't advance your longbowmen, they should never see close combat.

Also, a reminder that at waterloo we marched into battle with our allies proudly wearing the totenkopf

it doesnt require years of practice to gain strength to pull the bow and inventing a musket led to inventing assault rifles

musketeers

...

Lel.. Sees German soldier wearing skull hat

gets triggered that he is referred to as a man

seemingly innocuous datamining thread

Early muskets were shit when it came to range and accuracy though.

pictures dont make grammar errors

I don't understand how anyone can be so dismissive of crossbows when their appearance pretty much pushed longbows off of the battlefield everywhere in Europe apart from places too poor to buy/produce them
Also, before the technology for producing guns and gunpowder became mature, they were about the only man-portable ranged weapon that could reliably penetrate plate armor.

Using the wrong word is a lexical error, not a grammatical error YEAH IN YO FACE

its not a wrod

word*

...

Long bows might have been the better weapons in the hand of well trained users, but muskets required less training and their loud noise, the flash, and the smoke were more effective at scaring enemy troops.

They aren't a skill weapon. I'm not dismissive of the fact that they changed the battlefield,I'm just dismissive of them because anybody can pick one up and use it.

When compared with a musket, yes. I can see that.

Yeah pretty much

i hate how "3 musketeers" is about 4 men, who fight with swords

Tbf it was written by a nigger.

Apparently it was written by a Dumbass: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Dumas

>>>/reddit/

Lol. Here's a pic, it's funny because at my local Library theres a picture of a full blooded congo tier african with his name under it when he was actually like 75% white. I don't like his books though, they are pure escapist fiction and fit the bill for what I refer to as trash literature. He was a skilled writer but there's just no real substance to what he wrote.

Random question weapon knowledgeable anons. Could deer horn knives really stop spears, knifes, and swords?

...

probably. try hacking into a large bone with a sword. even if you fracture it enough for the sword to pass through it wont have any velocity after that

Well…damn that's cool. In the film, the master disarmed each fighter. I thought it was BS.

I'm surprised this weapon isn't used more in films and in video.

...

improvements in armour and lower costs made the longbow obsolete, once the musket appeared armour slowly died away again as it would rarely stop a musket ball at close range

Wellington actually asked if a company of archers could be raised to use against Napoleon, he thought that longbow men would be devastating against the un armoured french columns, unfortunately the days of being able to lay your hands on hundreds of well trained archers had long passed

??

the rest of your explanation for the longbow's obsolecence is spot on