| |
| | Post 11 | |
| Centurion | Quote:
__________________ Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. Herman Goering | |
| |
| | Post 12 | |
| Tribunus Laticlavius | Quote:
__________________ "My center is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent. I shall attack." -Foch I get this question a lot. I am from NYC. I fly a French flag because I work for the Paris Office of a International company. | |
| |
| | Post 13 | |
| Forum Digger | Quote:
The range of a musket was reduced in comparison to a long bow, therefore it dictated the tactics used. It would be a case of moving to close the distance as quick as possible. Once the distance was closed to approx 60 yards the rate of effective musket fire from a well trained unit (eg. British line infantry) would have overwhelmed archery easily. Plus you need to also account for the accuracy and range of riflemen (eg. 95th Rifles). Cavalry could not break an ancient "phalanx".... Horses won't charge into an obstacle like that. Just as 1800's cavalry would not charge an infantry square. Simple Cannon would still work in the rain, and muskets could be used if they had percussion caps. Look at it this way, technology would not have evolved unless it was an improvement. Something worse does not replace something better. Note: I've addressed my answer towards the British Army of the Napoleonic era as I'm not a great devotee of the Napoleonic army, but the issues remain the same.
__________________ Platoon Commander, 6 Platoon, B Company 10/27th Battalion Royal South Australia Regiment ![]() PRO PATRIA | |
| |
| | Post 14 | |
| Centurion | Quote:
Muskets would have a loading rate of around 3 shots per minute verses, an experienced military longbowman that was expected to shoot 20 aimed shots per minute. It is difficult to see the musket prevailing in this situation unless the arrow wounds were relatively insignificant. Perhaps more lines of 'infantry' could be set up as well in the case of the bow due to the plunging nature of the projectile. The percussion cap was only introduced around 1830, although I think damp also rendered the twine on bows less effective as well. I agree the use of shot from cannon would be devastating, but cannon could be rendered ineffective by a simple nail, or even towed away. If Ney had used cavalry correctly he could have charged and rendered the Allied canon useless whilst the infantry were congregated in squares. I am surprised that a mobile directional fragmentation device wasn't used in the Napoleonic era (like a Claymore mine that could be moved). My understanding is that bows were replaced by muskets in view of the improvement in armour in the 15th century. However, then armour is rendered redundant, so bows become effective again. I think this is an interesting situation analogous to natural selection in nature where a population can oscillate. Perhaps the optimum weaponry is a mixture of muskets and bows, at least until the fast breech loading weapons became available? | |
| |