Quote Originally Posted by mad cat mech
they have a high rate of fire which boils down to more projectiles per minute. i mean even today a soldier prefers the lighter less recoiling m16 over a bolt action or 10 rd semi automatic .50 cal because of the rate of fire and fire superiority which is what keeps the enemies head down so i can understand why some preferred the bow over the gun even after it was obsolete.

but as i said one time when you are shooting at an approaching army of units in close order in a .com thread when shooting a longbow at range the arrow plummets and does generate a good bit of power coming down but it only has one chance to hit someone and then its in the ground and when it does it may richochet of a rounded or conical helmet or rounded shoulder plates or even raised shield will stop the projectile.

with an arquebus or musket fires get shoots a flatter trajectory which carries it into the ranks and if it fails to hit the first men in the ranks it has good chances of hitting someone else further back if the enemy unit is in close order.now one will argue that the balls do not just fly horizontally but many go over or below the target formation. but if it goes low it richochets of the ground and therefore has a chance to hit someone. if it flies high it may shoot over that formation but will drop in trajectory further away and have a chance of hitting formations further back.

the longbow would have a similiar effect if you fired at an enemy at close range. in this you could call when the projectile is firing flat enough that you wouldnt have to raise the weapon to compensate for drop point blank range. therefore an arquebus or musket has a greater point blank range than a longbow. so this may explain why the firearm superseded the bow.

with the crossbow if you overshot you might have the same effect as a musket ball when it drops but when a bolt or arrows hits the ground when it is shot at close range instead of richochet it tends to slide along the ground like a torpedo making it wothless plus the firearm generated more power behind the projectile and even if it didnt penetrate the armor it would cause significant trauma.

just recently i read an article where they are wanting to improve body armor so that when a soldier gets hit there will be a casemate construction in the armor that will give and absorb the shock of the impact. it appears that even if body armor stops a bullet the situation for someone can still be life threatening.
What do you think is the effective range of a flintlock musket?

Accuracy is lost over 50 metres and if you are hit at anything over 100 metres it might not even take a solider out of the fight.

How flat do you think a 160lb bow trajectory is at 50 or 100 metres? It's pretty damn flat. Maybe 10 to 15 degrees. If you don't hit the guy you aimed at then based on your own admission it's going to hit someone else when fired at mass formations.

On the bows behalf, you can start your high trajectory fire at 250 to 300 yards, while your muskets are going to wait a hell of a long time before firing themselves.

I'm not sure what the point is at this moment. But still, I'm just talking away.