enjoy!
Mizaru, Kikazaru, Iwazaru...
-----------------------------------------------------
Dowsun Unregistered User (10/12/00 3:57:11 pm)
Shot or arrow?
I tend to agree with Tomu's statement. If you consider the American civil war, or Napoleonic era,
look at the distance they would form up against each other. It was terribly short, and these are muskets made several hundreds of years later.
Also, I would think elevation benefits an arrow much more so than a slug or shot ball, in terms of range and velocity. This doesn't seem to be mentioned in anyone's comparison. A steel or lead shot will only loose velocity from the muzzle, even if fired downward 45 degrees.
-----------------------------------------------------
barocca Registered User (10/14/00 3:11:36 pm)
About Guns
In keeping with my theme of trying to present all sides of an argument,
your response's are invited on the following excerpt's.
From Samurai Warfare by Brian Bradford.
Anthony Bryant, Samurai 1550-1600
(London: Osprey Publishing, 1994), 49.
Another reason for the popularity (of the arquebus) was the superior range it had over the bow. While the Japanese bow had a maximum range of 380 meters, the arquebus had a range out to 500 meters, though hitting a target was slim to none.
Effective killing range for the bow was only 80 meters, whereas the gun had a range of 200 meters.
Turnbull, Samurai Warfare, 144.
Stephen Turnbull, "Slaughter of the Samurai,"
Military Illustrated, July. 1996, 47-50.
Nagashino, fought on June 29, 1575, is recognized as a turning point in samurai warfare.
In the battle Nobunaga would introduce two new tactical innovations.
The first of these was volley fire.
The universal problem (with the arquebus) was that the reloading time of an arquebus was too slow; generals wished a way to increase the rate-of-fire.
While this problem had not been solved in Europe it had already been solved in Japan in 1570.
On one of Nobunaga's campaigns against the warrior monk sect at Ishiyana Hongan-ji, the defenders counter-attacked his fortresses of Kawaguchi and Takadono.
The attack was sudden and included 3,000 musketeers. The monks used a primitive form of volley fire which forced the Oda to retreat.
Nobunaga remembered the lesson and perfected it.
(at the battle of Nagashino some 12,700 Takeda cavalry charged 3,000 Oda muskets
and were cut to shreds!)
Griess, The Dawn of Modern Warfare, 45.
The greatest achievement of samurai warfare was the introduction and use of volley fire(1570), which would not reach Europe until its introduction by Maurice of Nassau in the late 1580's.
!!!
Interesting???
From Brittanica
Harquebus - also spelled Arquebus, also called HACKBUT, first gun fired from the shoulder, a smoothbore matchlock with a stock resembling that of a rifle. The harquebus was invented in Spain in the mid-15th century. It was often fired from a support, against which the recoil was transferred from a hook on the gun. Its name seems to derive from German words meaning "hooked gun." The bore varied, and its effective range was less than 650 feet (200 m).
The harquebus was superseded by the larger musket in the mid-16th century.
as mentioned before the muskets range is claimed to be shorter by Brittanica!
I repeatedly find references to the Arquebus range being 200 metres seaching the web,
Muzzle Loading Firearms:- "beyond 75 yards even trained infantrymen found it difficult to hit an individual adversary. Volley fire against massed troops delivered effective projectiles out to 200 yards, but at 300 yards balls from muzzle-loaders lost most of their lethality."
I also find articles about English Longbows which give Longbow range as 180 to 245 yards, The Japanese bows are short to medium bows.
I have not found the range of these bows yet.
Arquebus avaialable in many calibres from .5inch to 1 inch
Muzzle Velocities
Arquebus 800 to 1500 fps - depending on powder load vs calibre.
Longbow 150 - 200 fps.
- NO examples of true LongBows survive to this day,
we can safely double this figure and still be in the ballpark.
Now I can't find the manual for my old .22, for muzzle velocity,
(in the supersonic range >1000fps given 1225 kph=supersonic-very roughly)
but I do know the bullet is still lethal at 2000 meters.
Although where the bullet will be when it gets there is anyones guess...
From what I can find on japanese military history none of the Clans 'preferred' bows over muskets/arquebus's, although Takeda preferred his cavalry above all else - and we all know what happened at Nagashino, on June 29, 1575.
What does this all mean?
Muskets are not as powerful in the game as in real life.
Why?
Playability, else we would all simply be using as many muskets as we could get.
As a counter weight (to lowering the range and firepower) the developers have given us much more ammunition than realistically possible.
Mizaru, Kikazaru, Iwazaru...
-----------------------------------------------------
Nagano Tomu Unregistered User (10/14/00 10:21:57 pm)
Some thoughts
Barroca did some excellent research. Nice job! I agree with just about everything he says.
The only point I disagree with is his last one that says arquebus are more powerful in real life than in the game. Arquebus were the first widespread firearms and as such were very primitive. Their main drawbacks were their low rate of fire and their terrible inaccuracy.
Both of these disadvantages could be somewhat alleviated through the use of volley fire.
But the arquebus was not the flintlock musket or the rifle of later ages, it was not a weapon system that could survive on the battlefield on its own. It needed support.
Of course Nagoshima is famous for the Takeda Cavalry being shot to pieces by Oda arquebusiers but it must be realized that the Takeda troops had unwisely ridden into what was in effect a swamp and had become bogged down in the mire. Hence it was like shooting fish in a barrel. And of course behind stout defenses, like walls or trenches arquebusiers were very effective. But in an open field battle it was often the case that arquebusiers could be overrun, especially by fast moving cavalry.
That was why in Europe all the way up until about 1700 gunners were always accompanied by pikemen (ie yari) to protect them while they reloaded. I think Shogun models this very well. Arquebusiers pack a punch (especially the more advanced arquebusiers represented by muskets) but if not supported by spearmen they can be over run especially by cavalry.
It was only with the advent of the flintlock musket a firearm vastly superior to the arquebus and the socket bayonet which when put on the end of a musket turned it into a pike (spear) that we finally see the decline and disappearance of the spearmen. The gunners could now defend themselves even if caught with their weapons unloaded.
So my point after this long winded discussion is I think Shogun does a wonderful job of showing the strengths and vulnerabilities of the weapons of the 16th century.
-----------------------------------------------------
One Hand Clap Registered User (10/15/00 7:16:19 pm)
Reply Why the Firearm?
A good topic, and well discussed. Here are my thoughts.
Why did the firearm replace the bow? Here are several very good reasons.
The firearm was cheaper to produce (assuming one had iron working)
and more durable than a bow.
The ammunition for a firearm was considerably cheaper to produce,
as well as being lighter and easier to carry.
The Arquebusier or Musketeer was considerably easier to train than the Bowman, and the more negligible cost of his weapon and ammunition fed back favorably into this equation.
Due to higher velocity and density, the ball carried more energy and penetrating power over a further distance than an arrow. Think about a .75" lead sphere at several hundred fps vs a wooden shaft at a couple hundred fps. The sphere will be less affected by crosswind and will retain more of it's initial velocity the further it travels in comparison to the arrow due to it's very high density and higher initial velocity.
Energy = Mass * Velocity^2. Velocity is the key ingredient.
Thus the firearm is cheaper in every way, and has a greater range and penetrating power than the bow. The bows advantages are less overwhelming.
The bow was a good deal more accurate when used by an expert than a firearm was in the hands of an expert. It's one thing to be able to kill at 400 meters,
and quite another to hit at that range.
The bow had a considerable rate of fire advantage, though this was limited to some extent by the limited ammunition available to most troops in the field to what they could carry.
Bows could use plunging or even indirect fire. This type of fire was made even easier to contol because it is possible to watch the entire trajectory of an arrow. While this is an advantage, it could not realistically be brought to bear in most situations.
Thus the firearm pushed out the long dominance of the bow in a couple of hundred years throughout the 'civilized' world. Further improvements included the switch from the lighter and chancier matchlock to the heavier and more likely to fire flintlock, which also enabled the light infantrymen to crowd closer together and increase the amount of firepower they were able to generate for the same amount of frontage. (Matchlocks required a lit match which had to be kept away from other arquebusiers to prevent accidents!)
Maurice of Nassua was the first westerner to systematize volley fire, but not the first to use it. Prior to his time men firing matchlocks used the countermarch to keep a steady fire on their opponents. (In the countermarch men line up in files, where the first man fires, then marches to the rear of his file and begins to reload.) This steady fire made the most firepower for the frontage, but lacked the crushing morale blow of a complete volley, and obscured the target by smoke of the constant discharge at the front of the firing formation.
Volley fire allowed several advantages. Firstly, it was never systematized until the musket had pretty well replaced the matchlock arquebus, thus giving the firing formation greater density. Secondly, it allowed the commander some measure of control, which he would never have had utilizing the rolling countermarch fire. Thus, a commander could spot some enemy spearmen advancing dangerously close, and order half of his men to turn and fire a horrendous volley on them. When the smoke cleared, the other half of his men could deliver a coup de grace.
All of this could be done in less than a minute.
This ability to defend oneself with directed fire from melee units, combined with the bayonnette (which signalled the end of Cavalry) brought Europe into the era of 'The Line of Bayonnetted Muskets', an era which lasted from the late 1600s until the middle of the 1800s.
-----------------------------------------------------
Clan Dragon Registered User (10/15/00 9:01:28 pm)
Re: Why the Firearm?
Ummm. I beg to differ, the bayonet did not signify the end of cavalry,
it was the automatic machine gun with the help of trenches.
Cavalry was in extensive use right up to the beginning of WWI, after the intro of trenches and the vickers machinegun the cavalry became pilots, well most of them.
The aussies used mounted infantry during the war in arabia and mounted a cav charge against a turkish held stronghold and helped turn the war for the brits in the desert.
I think it was also (one of) the last cav charge ever conducted.
The Charge of the Light Horse at BeerSheba.
31st October 1917
The 4th and 12th Australian Light Horse Regiments
conducted the actual charge.
With the 3rd, 9th, 10th and 11th Australian Light Horse Regiment in support.
A wise man once said "RUN!!!"
-----------------------------------------------------
after a few more comments about great cavalry charges this thread petered out,
and dropped off the board late in december 2000
-----------------------------------------------------
Fire...
