Missle Fire Rate:

Just did some quick tests cause I saw someone complaining about archers vs. crossbowmen.
Did all tests on grassy plain in clear weather against Papal Guard. Always placed missle units 3 rows deep (don't know if that matters).

1. Retinue Longbowmen(90) - missle 8
1 minute = 5 volleys and 17 kills
1 minute = 5 volleys and 16 kills

2. Aventurier(90) - missle 14
1 minute = 3 volleys and 12 kills
1 minute = 3 volleys and 13 kills

3. Janissary Musketeers - missle 17
1 minute = 4 volleys and 38 kills
1 minute = 4 volleys and 37 kills


I don't know if I missed anything on the test.

3. Janissary Musketeers are only firing with one third of the unit each time because of the reload by ranks thing. Their actual RoF is much slower.

Sorry for necroing a 5-month old topic but it's about time someone posted something more complete and accurate.

Notes:
- The following states the average time in seconds between the start of the firing animation of an individual soldier or artillery piece
- Gunpowder infantry are assumed to be in a two-rank dense line formation and in fire-by-rank mode
- Flaming, exploding or rotting ammo have no effect on artillery firing rate
- The larger the unit size, the more the firing rate may vary
- In some cases an individual may skip a volley even though there is a target in range and in clear line-of-sight

Infantry

Javelin 19
Bow 11/22
Crossbow 17
Naphtha Bomb 9
Gun 32

Cavalry

Javelin 9
Bow 11.5
Crossbow 14
Jezail 13.5
Pistol 14
Elephant Gun 11
Elephant Artillery 13.3

Artillery

Ballista 17.75
Catapult 22
Trebuchet 29
Bombard 30
Grand Bombard 30
Cannon 20
Culverin 20
Basilisk 20
Monster Bombard 26
Mortar 23
Serpentine 21.5
Ribault 25.5
Monster Ribault 30.5/88
Rocket Launcher 41.5

Most cannons have faster ROF than catapults and trebuchet... How monsterously inappropriate.

Interesting info!

It's not inappropriate. Catapults and trebuchets are huge wooden machines in which you have to add the potential energy by hand.
For cannons, the potential energy is prepackaged in the gun powder. Also, the barrel is at a convenient height for reloading.

It's always bugged bugged me how slow to fire javelinmen are. "Reloading" ? What the frick do they have to reload ?! It's a THROWN STICK !

Thus they spend like 3 minutes with their arms raised between volleys, defiantly staring down anyone who would defy their mighty twigs (that is, unless said anyone actually gets in range of the twigs. Then it's skirmish time :grin:)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philbert

It's not inappropriate. Catapults and trebuchets are huge wooden machines in which you have to add the potential energy by hand.
For cannons, the potential energy is prepackaged in the gun powder. Also, the barrel is at a convenient height for reloading.

---

Sounds logical, but that's certainly not the fact of the matter.

Honestly, I've always wondered why some medieval cannons could only achieve fire rates of like, four shots per hour, but it's still true.

Heck, some that would be classified as "great bombards" in the game were reported to fire three or four times a day.

Sure, it takes a good long time to crank down a trebuchet and load it, but oddly enough, not nearly as long as it takes to load a medieval cannon.

They sure weren't dropping a shell in the breach and firing away, like you see in WWII footage!

Oh, and Kobal, I think the "reloading" delay with javelins comes from them having to pull yet another spear out of their bums, as if by magic. That's gotta take some time. ^_^

Cannon 20
Culverin 20
Basilisk 20
Monster Bombard 26
Mortar 23
Serpentine 21.5

I thought Serpentine was small caliber cannon, should it not reload faster? SadCat :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhedd

Honestly, I've always wondered why some medieval cannons could only achieve fire rates of like, four shots per hour, but it's still true.

Heck, some that would be classified as "great bombards" in the game were reported to fire three or four times a day.

Sure, it takes a good long time to crank down a trebuchet and load it, but oddly enough, not nearly as long as it takes to load a medieval cannon.

---

You need to be a bit careful about these sort of figures.

The fact is that it can't possibility take that long and so we need to look elsewhere for an explanation. My guess is that the figures your quoting are based upon shots fired during a seige, which means that the first important factor is that there was no real pressure to maintain a high rate of fire in the first place. The second possible factor is that the seige guns were being paced to maintain a steady rate of fire which conformed to the speed at which their local ammunition supply could be replenished.

For example: if you have enough powder and shot to fire 30 rounds and your next powder train is not due for a week you can only fire 4 rounds a day without running out of ammunition.

I suspect in truth that trebuchet were similarly constrained, but they obviously had a wider range of potential missiles.

Its worth noting that black powder was an extremely rare commodity over the period depeicted in MTW2. Even in later periods there were problems producing and acquiring enough. In London for example there was a city ordinance banning anyone who kept stables or pigeon lofts from clearing the floors because animal and avian dung was a valuable source of saltpetre and a vital supplement to the supplies being purchased from India. 'Saltpetre' men would periodically call at your stable or pigeon loft and carefully scrape off the top layer of dung soaked earth for processing into powder. That was still going on as late as 1656.

Good work, Miracle. I'm quoting you in the FAQ.

I assume the 11/22 entry for bows refers to normal/flaming ammo?

Is Jezail the rifle of those Moorish camel gunners?

So why did medieval cannons fire at such a slow rate?

To say they fired 4 rounds a day because they took so long to reload is obviously ridiculous. I'd grant a monster bombard 10 minutes to reload. If its barrel has to cool down, you could shorten time by cooling down with water. This would damage the metal if done very often, so let's say we wait. Anyway it would be ready to fire after 30 minutes.

The reason for the low RoF must be looked for in the task cannons had in renaissance battles:
With the exception of serpentines and the like, cannons were used to bombard enemy strongpoints and demoralize the defenders. They were not intended to inflict many casualties by themselves but they should work out a small advantage that could be exploited by other troops. So although actions on the battlefield are dominated by tactics the cannon's task was mainly strategic such as: blow up the enemy ammo depot, take down that watchtower, destroy that ballista and the like.

One must bear in mind that cannons and their ammo were very expensive. Generals were more willing to sacrifice some peasants than that precious ammo. Cannons were only fired when an opportunity occurred or when "it was worth it". Furthermore, these large old cannons like bombards and basilisks had restricted mobility. They were only used when it was safe, for example in sieges.

So late medieval use of cannons is very different from later eras like the napoleonic wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flavius Merobaudes

So why did medieval cannons fire at such a slow rate?

---

I thought I just suggested the answer to that in my last post.:dizzy2:

As you say the 4 rounds a day is obviously ridiculous and is probably based upon the actual shots fired in a day during a specific seige somewhere.

Even during the Napoleonic wars guns were not fired as rapidly as they could be fired continuously. Firstly to do so would cause the barrels to overheat, secondly it would completely knacker the gunners, and thirdly they would run out of ammunition before the battle had hardly started. Like their medieval forebears they paced themselves and varied their rate of fire according to the situation they were in.

When under extreme pressure they were able to increase their rate of fire significantly for what they called 'a mad minute' where shot or cannister was shovelled into the gun and fired at an extremely rapid rate without relaying the gun or even sighting. However, they could only keep that up for very short periods and then took quite a while to recover.

Sorry Didz! It must be the occasional neglect I get when not sleeping enough and playing all night. That's why I kinda over-read your post.~:cheers:

Nevertheless, medieval and napoleonic artillery strategy differed quite a lot. In the timespan we're talking about, cannons were fielded as single pieces of equipment. A considerable army had perhaps 10 cannons hardly deserving to be called artillery.

Napoleonic armies fielded artillery in large numbers, from 50 up to 200 or even more - forming huge batteries with devastating firepower. In many battles these batteries were use to support your own attack or disrupt the enemies advancing forces. They were intended to inflict massive casualties, not just gain some marginal advantage that had to be exploited.

More on topic, it IS rather weird that serpentines actually fire slower than all other cannons when they're supposed to be anti-infantry pieces and even their flavour text insists that they could be fired faster...
Any idea if there's a variable somewhere that controls this ? A way to speed up the loaders' animations maybe ?

The slow rate of fire in siege for medieval cannon had to do with several factors besides how quickly you could pour powder and shot down the barrel.

First was the powder itself. Often this was mixed on site just before use. Very seldom was it transported as "Powder" due to the difficulties of keeping it dry and preventing it from separating. Both would cause it to be useless and require you to then unload the gun before use. Due to its expense and short "Shelf life", the poor fellow who's lot in life was to make this stuff (and risk blowing himself up in the process) often didn't start mixing up a batch until after the gun had fired.

Second is the problem of recoil. Medieval guns didn't have a recoil system, so they tended to move themselves when fired. This would require the gunner to relay the piece after each shot, a process that could take a minute or more for a smaller piece. To be effective the gun had to hit the same spot over and over again, so being accurate was much more important that being fast.

Third was the nature of siege warfare. If I were to fire my guns as quickly as possible at one spot on the walls, the enemy would have a good idea when and where I'd be coming through. If I lob a shell every hour at the same spot, the enemy tends to get lax in their guard. This is human nature. You can only stay on a high degree of alert for a limited time before you get tired, and much less efficient. This is the reason that guards should be rotated every two hours.

Fourth is morale. Reducing enemy morale takes days. As such a slow, continuous bombardment works better than a quick attack. During the time they didn't have the ability to truely mass fire the way we can today, so a quick "Shock" bombardment wasn't an option.

Outstanding stuff.

Yes, a jezail is the Moorish camel gunner's musket, though it's not a rifle.

Those Moorish camel gunners are pretty inaccurate at range. They fire really fast, though. And they love to skirmish through each other and shoot each other up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flavius Merobaudes

Nevertheless, medieval and napoleonic artillery strategy differed quite a lot. In the timespan we're talking about, cannons were fielded as single pieces of equipment. A considerable army had perhaps 10 cannons hardly deserving to be called artillery.

---

Agreed but that isn't the point being discussed. We were talking about rate of fire, and given the nature of the beast a cannon is a cannon and the rate it could have been loaded and fired would not have varied significantly over the period. Certainly, not to the tune of 6 hours difference. Likewise people don't change that much either, and nor does the issue of logistic's, the former would have got just a tired in 1315 as they did in 1815 and the latter were just just as much of a headache to manage.

My point being that actual rates of fire are unlikely to match potential rates of fire and so reading that a specific seige gun only fired four times a day at a specific seige probably bears no relationship to how fast it could have been fired had the circumstances required it.

Quote:

---

Certainly, not to the tune of 6 hours difference.

---

You have obviously not worked with either union or government employees before... :wall:

:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John_Longarrow

You have obviously not worked with either union or government employees before... :wall:

:cool:

---

So somebody I know called his insurance company yesterday:

Them: Can you please hold?

Him: Yes.

10 minutes pass, he gets disconnected.

He calls again.

Him: Hello?

Automated response: We are closed for the day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewt

So somebody I know called his insurance company yesterday:

Them: Can you please hold?

Him: Yes.

10 minutes pass, he gets disconnected.

He calls again.

Him: Hello?

Automated response: We are closed for the day.

---

Q: What is the difference between a capitalist country and a socialist country?

A: In a socialist country, you work work and work to pay your taxes. In a capitalist country, you work work and work to pay your taxes and your insurance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John_Longarrow

You have obviously not worked with either union or government employees before... :wall::cool:

---

Actually I do. But I think even they would have a hard time making the loading of a cannon take six hours. Assuming all the paperwork was in order before they started of course.

The process for loading and firing cannon did change during the middle Ages. Originally the chamber was filled with powder in the rear three fifths. The next fifth was empty and the final fifth filled with a soft wood plug. Then the cannonball was loaded and held in place with soft wooden wedges. Then, to get the best possible seal and reduce pressure loss due to windage it was all covered with a mixture of wet mud mixed with straw which then had to dry before it was fired. Furthermore, having fired the bombard it had to cool before it was reloaded. Now, for all I know there may well have been some sort of psychological advantage to an unpredictable bombardment but frankly I think it more likely that the slow rates of fire of early artillery was due simply to the reloading process taking so long.

Medieval armies certainly had more than 10 cannon on hand. The French made 24 cannon for the siege of Augillion in 1345, and used at least 32 cannon against Saint-Saveur-le-Vicomte in 1375. About thirty years later one French chronicler wrote that any army trying to take a substantial place would need at least such a number of cannon firing shot of 200lb or heavier. The siege train with which the Spanish finally took Grenada had about 180 artillery pieces in it.

thanks for the info Zpartan
Is there any why to increas fire rate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

Actually I do. But I think even they would have a hard time making the loading of a cannon take six hours. Assuming all the paperwork was in order before they started of course.

---

- Do you have the regimental receipt for that cannonball, soldier ? In triplicate ? Countersigned by Lord Shoutsalot ? No ? Well we can't bloody well fire it, now can we ? I don't CARE if our boys are being butchered out there, the procedure is there for a reason. :clown:

There was actually one battle between the British and Zulus in which a British lieutenant smashed open an urgently needed box of ammunition only for a quartermaster to order him to hand it back because he didn't have the right requisition papers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

There was actually one battle between the British and Zulus in which a British lieutenant smashed open an urgently needed box of ammunition only for a quartermaster to order him to hand it back because he didn't have the right requisition papers.

---

That was the Battle of Isandlwana where five companies (approx 400 men) of the 1st battalion one company (150 men) of the 2nd battalion 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot, together with about 500 men from Natal Native Contingent and 200 mounted local irregulars plus two artillery pieces (approximately 1,300 men, altogether plus 2 guns), were left by Lord Chelmsford the Commander of the Army to guard the camp at Isandlwana, under the command of Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Henry Pulleine and were almost wiped out by a force of about 25,000 Zulu's .

However, recent analysis by battlefield archaeologists has shown that the official excuses and rumours which have circulated to explain this defeat are almost certainly false. The other common myth is that the ammunition boxes were screwed shut and that no-one could find a screw driver.

It is now beleived that the real reason for the disaster at Rorkes drift was two fold.

a) The Martini-Henry rifles recently issued to the troops were notoriously prone to jamming, particularly when hot due to prolonged use, and remains on the battlefield confirm that a large number of jammed rifles were discarded during the battle.

b) Pulliene seems to have chosen to deploy his entire force forward in skirmish order close to the top of a low ridge, such that when the Zulu's appeared they were already far too close and the British far to dispersed to stop them with concentrated fire.

Analysis of artifact distribution, particulary empty cartridge cases, belts and other battlefield relic's suggest that the British contingent routed almost immediately and that what followed was a confused fighting withdrawal of over a mile across the entire length of battlefield which ended up with the few survivors making a deperate last stand in a dry stream bed.

The distribution of cartridge cases suggests that no concerted stand was made at any point during this retreat and that overall only a portion of the soldiers ready ammunition would have been consumed. Discarded rifles, confirm that many men suffered from jammed rifles and merely threw them away rather than trying to clear them, possibly picking up another from a fallen comrade, though this would have been unlikely given the nature of the pursuit. Discarded belts and other equipment also suggest that right from the start large numbers of the men simply ran, and discarded anything likely to slow them down.

The conclusion being that the official excuses sought to distract the public attention away from behaviour of the troops and the quality of their commanders by blaming the defeat on something which was beyond their control and could be easily remedied. The ammunition theory itself probably stemmed from a desire to explain why so much ammunition was left untouched, when under normal circumstances it should have been fired, and this presumably after the Zulu's had already carried off any that they wanted to use at Rorkes Drift.

But basically it was an example of early spin which has been passed down through the years as fact.

Quote:

---

What is wrong with this forum today?

The posting process just seemed to hang and when it finally completed I had a dozen copies of the same post to deal with. I have edited them to remove the content but can't actually delete them.

---

All 11 posts removed, Didz :bow:

You may now return to your regular programming.