Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Arquebus vs musket

  1. #1
    Senior Member Senior Member Cheetah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    2,085

    Default

    What is the supposed difference between the arquebus and the musket? What is the innovation that sets them apart? Is not it the case that there were only matchlock weapons during the Sengoku Jidai period?
    Lional of Cornwall
    proud member of the Round Table Knights
    ___________________________________
    Death before dishonour.

    "If you wish to weaken the enemy's sword, move first, fly in and cut!" - Ueshiba Morihei O-Sensei

  2. #2
    Guest 's Avatar

    Default

    The actual "musket" never arrived in Japan.
    The musketeer we play with is equipped with an improved version of the arquebusier.

    If I remember correctly it is ligher and with a higher rate of fire (reload time)

    ------------------
    Proud member of Clan Kenchikuka.
    evil is within us...

  3. #3
    Senior Member Senior Member Vanya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    3,151

    Default

    The Arquebus.

    Its much heavier and bulky. This added weight increases its moment. Thus, when used in hand-to-hand combat, by swinging the weapon at the same speed as a musket onto your enemy's head will result in a greater force applied to his skull; the greater inertia of the heavier object due to its increased weight will mean you have to land fewer blows on average per soldier faced to score a kill.

    And that is a good thing when you are surrounded by a bunch of hoodlums with pointy sticks that want to shove that powder horn where the sun don't shine!

    [Sips sake, eats popcorn]

  4. #4
    Senior Member Senior Member Dionysus9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Mount Olympus
    Posts
    1,507

    Default

    If I remember correctly, an Arquebus did not have a stock--It was basically like a very light mortar on the end of a stick.

    The "barrel" was just a long bell attached to a stick. To fire, you would have to pack the "barrel" w/ powder and add the bullet. Then you would have to light a fuse coming out the "barrel" and point it in the right direction (without using your shoulder, because there was not stock).

    Muskets added at least two important innovations-- a stock (to allow the firer to shoulder and steady the weapon as it was aimed) and a trigger mechanism (flintlock/matchlock, etc.) which would allow for more exact timing [i.e. better aim], and more consistent ignition ("fire" was close to the ignition chamber and could be protected or re-lit from a tinder box).

    This explains why the arqubues are basically worthless in the rain. They would have a long exposed fuse and the "barrell" would be exposed to water while preparing the weapon to fire.

    Early musks were basically worthless in the rain, and that is truthfully depicted in STW.

    Hunter_Bachus

  5. #5
    Senior Member Senior Member Cheetah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    2,085

    Default

    Well, here is my understanding of the problem.

    1, "bare-barrel" vs "stock-barrel-trigger" arquebus. The Portuguese arquebus was a quite advanced form, it had stock, barrel, trigger. Since the musket is assumed to be an improvement compared to the Portuguese arquebus, thus the arquebus vs musket distinction cannot refer to the bare-barrel vs stock-barrel-trigger distinction.

    2, Chinese vs Portuguese arquebus. The Chinese arquebus was introduced in 1510 into Japan. It was an inferior quality compared to the later Portuguese ones. Since the musket is assumed to be an improvement compared to the Portuguese arquebus, thus the arquebus vs musket distinction cannot refer to the Chinese vs Portuguese distinction.

    3, Early vs standard arquebus. The unique Japanese innovation was the standardization of the barrel and thus the bullet. It could lead to increased rate of fire, however, it should not affect the ability (or rather inability) of the weapon to work in rain, and neither it should affect the range of the weapon. Thus, again the arquebus vs musket distinction cannot refer to this case.

    4, Matchlock vs flintlock weapons. The major advance compared to matchlock weapons (where you had a burning match) was the innovation of the flintlock (where you made spark with a flint). This took place in the early 17th century Europe. However, the flintlock was rare up to the middle 17th century, and matchlocks were used until late 17th century in Europe. This means that flintlocks had no effect whatsoever on the Sengoku Jidai period wars in Japan. IMO this is the only innovation that could serve as a base for the arquebus (i.e. matchlock) vs musket (i.e. flintlock) distinction. However, if this is the case, then the introduction of the musket into STW was a very, very, very big mistake.


    Lional of Cornwall
    proud member of the Round Table Knights
    ___________________________________
    Death before dishonour.

    "If you wish to weaken the enemy's sword, move first, fly in and cut!" - Ueshiba Morihei O-Sensei

  6. #6
    Nur-ad-Din Forum Administrator TosaInu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    12,326

    Default

    Konnichiwa,

    Japanese used special prepared fuses that allowed to fire in rain.

    ------------------
    Ja mata
    Toda MizuTosaInu
    Daimyo Takiyama Shi

    http://www.takiyama.cjb.net
    Ja mata

    TosaInu

  7. #7
    Senior Member Senior Member Cheetah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    2,085

    Default

    Thx Tosa. So, matchlock muskets with standard bullets, and with special fuses. This explains the rate of fire and the fact that it can work in rain. So far so good ... but what about the increased range?
    Lional of Cornwall
    proud member of the Round Table Knights
    ___________________________________
    Death before dishonour.

    "If you wish to weaken the enemy's sword, move first, fly in and cut!" - Ueshiba Morihei O-Sensei

  8. #8
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,670

    Default

    I think both sorts are arquebus. I remember somewhere a statement along the lines that the term 'advanced arquebus that fires faster and in the rain' was dropped in favour of musket for STW.

    ---- EDIT ----

    Found the quote it is on the pdf manual...

    'The term "musketeer" isnít strictly correct because these ashigaru arenít technically
    armed with muskets as such but with a lighter, improved type of arquebus. However,
    "Slimmed-Down-But-Improved Arquebus Ashigaru" is a bit of a mouthful for a unit
    title!'

    [This message has been edited by Papewaio (edited 05-19-2002).]
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  9. #9
    Nur-ad-Din Forum Administrator TosaInu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    12,326

    Default

    Konnichiwa,

    Missiles have 2 values for range, in real life guns have some ranges too: accurate range, max fire range and range were a stray bullet could cause a kill (I don't claim that this list is complete nor that I use the correct nomenclature).

    Accurate range: the distance at which a 'good' gunner has a reasonable chance to hit his target. This is bad for smoothbores. A longer 'tube' will enhance accuracy.

    Max fire range: I'ld say there are many types for this, one for each angle. Easy said it's the distance a fired bullet can travel (don't expect it to be accurate or have killing power at max fire range, STW bullets do have full killing power at max range).

    Stray bullet kill: the 'maximum' range where the bullet still has enough kinetic energy to kill (this depends on where it hits of course).

    Many possibilities here, two guns could have the same max fire range but very different accurate range, 1 gun could have great stray bullet kill while the other has more accuracy (Kraellin could tell you much more and better).

    The STW arq and musket have the same max fire range (both speed 230 and about the same stray bullet kill, though the arqbullet has more power for the entire max fire range than the musketbullet). The musket is more accurate than the musket and [/b]has been given[/b] a larger accurate range (open fire range). The arquebus could reach a target at 5,000 but 'knows' that the chance to hit it is about zero (other aspects could play a role in real life) and won't shoot. The musket is more accurate and thus has some change to hit at 5,000.

    While both are smoothbores, you could think of a longer tube for muskets making them more accurate.



    ------------------
    Ja mata
    Toda MizuTosaInu
    Daimyo Takiyama Shi

    http://www.takiyama.cjb.net
    Ja mata

    TosaInu

  10. #10
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,670

    Default

    Surely a longer barrel while increasing accuracy would increase the time it takes to load (pack the shot in with wads and powder), hence it should be a higher ROF.

    [This message has been edited by Papewaio (edited 05-21-2002).]
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Senior Member Dionysus9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Mount Olympus
    Posts
    1,507

    Default

    I'm not so sure a longer barrel would increase load time that much. Maybe a tiny bit because a longer barrel is more cumbersome, but really you are just ramming a stick down the barrell--it doesnt matter how far down you have to ram it...you just lean on it and it hits the bottom.
    Hunter_Bachus

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO