Muskets vs. Crossbows - Why do firearms exist?

[Smitty-48]

See, the thing is, the instinct was to do the DBTrek manuever, you shoot at standoff range and then charge for a melee, what Wolfe calculated was; if you wait until it's point blank, it's so devastating at that range, that it just pulps the other guy, and there's nobody coming over for a melee, because inside forty yards, the giant shotgun will simply blow them to pieces, and before they can replace that pulpy mess, you can reload and fire again.

Nonsense.
My instinct is to use damn crossbows, and shoot at crossbow range.
If those clowns start closing with you it's time to fill the air with crossbow bolts until the mounted cavalry can swoop in from the flank and ride them down.
?

Don't tunnel vision on the tactics, Wolfe had a strategic plan which was effected by operational manuever, with the tactical engagement being only the final phase.

Phase one; was to come down the St. Lawrence and hit the French in Quebec, which the French thought was impossible, but Wolfe had a naval offcer named James Cook who went on to become Captain Cook, but when he was Leftenant Cook, he worked out a way to navigate the St. Lawrence to the narrows at Quebec, allowing the British to achieve an amphibious surprise attack.

Phase two; the French are inside the Citadelle and there's no way to beat them if they just stay in there and refuse to come out, so Wolfe executed Operation Bait Them Out, by sending troops up and down the countryside burning the French colonists out of their homes and farms, which of course enraged Montcalm & Co, so when the British showed up on the Plains of Abraham, the French were itching for vengeance, the French wanted to come out of the Citiadelle, to put an end to the British bastards once and for all, teach them a lesson.

Which led to Phase three; once they have been provoked into coming charging out of their fortress like a enraged hornet's nest looking to close with and destroy, hold fire until they get to point blank, and thus pulp them with the giant shotgun.

[DBTrek]

Right, not bad.
Not bad.

Maybe just add Phase Four: Don't get too close to their muskets or some frog might shoot you in the junk.

[Smitty-48]

Thing is, you have to look at what the objective is, the British are on the clock, they need to get the French out of that Citadelle and into a battle of annihilation, and they need to do it before it starts to snow, so it's all or nothing, winter is coming, this has to be decisive and it has to happen now.

It doesn't matter what kind of weapons the French have, if they have muskets, or crossbows, or whatever, that's not the center of gravity. The British can pull back and move away from the Citadelle, so the range of fire wasn't the issue, the issue was; they needed to get the French into a close fight, so they could destroy them, so the provocation, the phase which enraged the French and baited them out into a battle of annihilation, that was the key.

The British were prepared to stand and deliver whether it be muskets, or crossbows or what have you, the trick was in getting the French to charge, the point blank giant shotgun was simply the means by which they annihilated the French, once the French were provoked into charging headlong at the British lines; because if that didn't happen, the British were screwed either way.

In the end, Wolfe outmanuevered Montcalm; psychologically. Montcalm was the bull, Wolfe was the matador, the giant shotgun was the sword behind the red cape, but was the red cape which won the day; by getting the bull to charge to the forty yard line in the first place, before the giant shotgun could be used at all.

[Smitty-48]

Even if you go back further, it's a similar dynamic, the gun being used as a close quarters only weapon rather than a standoff weapon, so for example, the way the Samurai used the gun was as a defensive weapon primarily in a siege.

Their fuedal war was mostly about their fortresses being put under seige, so they still used the bow in the fields, although they preferred Mongol style from horseback, but when it came to guns, that actually came into play when the opposing army went into the final phase, to assault the fortress, and the guns were employed from behind defensive works, very close range, as the opposing army tried to fight its way into the fortress, they would be encountering defensive wall after defensive wall, with guns being fired at them point blank through firing slits.

Each time they broke through, there would be a melee, but then they'd run into another defensive work with more guns, just wearing them down as they went. They had the giant shotgun, but from behind a stone wall, with rank after rank reloading and firing like an assembly line, from behind defensive works, where you couldn't get at them.

[ssu]

Interesting video of a test on exactly the subject at hand:



Tells quite clearly why a matchlock musket is so superior to the crossbow.

[Speaker to Animals]

Interesting video of a test on exactly the subject at hand:



Tells quite clearly why a matchlock musket is so superior to the crossbow.

A medieval longbowman would still be able to shoot you right in the face at that range no problem. Also, his longbow seemed laughably weak, though maybe he is super strong, not sure. An English longbow could have a draw weight in the 180 lbs range. The longbow he used seemed like a bloody toy to me. I have one like that. It's 50 lbs draw weight. That's not a war bow.

[DBTrek]

Interesting video of a test on exactly the subject at hand:



Tells quite clearly why a matchlock musket is so superior to the crossbow.

Excellent test.
Leaves me with two questions though:

• 1. What was the rate of fire? If a crossbow misses or dents armor at 60 yards can they get another shot on a charging opponent before they close the entire distance? Can the matchlock get a second shot in?
  
  2. Does the effective range of 60 yards actually matter in a battle, or is 40 yards good enough (either because the enemy is closing or retreating, and obviously not standing around at 60 yards while you leisurely shoot at them)?

Still, things begin to make sense. Economic stimulation. Better armor penetration. Higher casualty/kill count when struck. All good arguments for implementing firearms, even though they're far from kings of the battlefield in the early days.

[Smitty-48]

A medieval longbowman would still be able to shoot you right in the face at that range no problem.

Ah, he'd have a problem, as if the enemy infantry had closed to that range on your bowmen, the battle is lost and you are about to be overrun.

That's the thing about archers, they are effective at standoff ranges, but they're not effective in the phalanx, and that's where the gun came into its own.

The longbow was not replaced by the longarm, archers were replaced by field artillery and mortars.

[Speaker to Animals]

A medieval longbowman would still be able to shoot you right in the face at that range no problem.

Ah, he'd have a problem, as if the enemy infantry had closed to that range on your bowmen, the battle is lost and you are about to be overrun.

That's the thing about archers, they are effective at standoff ranges, but they're not effective in the phalanx, and that's where the gun came into its won.

That's why there was such thing as an archer-at-arms. If it got close, they'd have to fight like light infantry, though that might not be so useful against armored opponents.

[Smitty-48]

A medieval longbowman would still be able to shoot you right in the face at that range no problem.

Ah, he'd have a problem, as if the enemy infantry had closed to that range on your bowmen, the battle is lost and you are about to be overrun.

That's the thing about archers, they are effective at standoff ranges, but they're not effective in the phalanx, and that's where the gun came into its won.

That's why there was such thing as an archer-at-arms. If it got close, they'd have to fight like light infantry, though that might not be so useful against armored opponents.

Well the phalanx is heavy infantry, so if the heavy infantry is upon you, that's pretty much the final assault, and if you're not facing them with heavy infantry, then you're pretty much about to be overrun, whether it be archers or skirmishers in the path, nothing can stand against a phalanx except a phalanx.