Early Firearms Thread

But user you don't NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED a handcannon, a dagger concealed incisde your cloak is more than enough to defend against brigands and bandits

Only the king's knights should be allowed to possess such a devastating weapon, it's not fit for a lowly serf

>he dost not useth a Hackbut
>he dost not useth a Wallgonne
>laughingwenches.papyrus

Attached: Hackbut.jpg (960x640, 61K)

dude that shit can blow up in your hand. and you're risking your head if you tried aiming it.

Well, that's my Saturday afternoon entertainment sorted. Cheers mate.

Attached: MFW5.png (520x488, 276K)

Attached: 11111111111111111-660x341.png (660x341, 504K)

Haquebute 1450

Attached: 9669952.jpg (380x285, 23K)

Look at that afg and raptor grip sweet tactigrug

youtu.be/qNS3NIcHEjw

ID the boomies in this 30yearboomer tier game?

Knights and archers actually complained about how the first firearms were like cheating and dishonorable to use. Sort of like how the brits reacted when the germans opted to spam uboat attacks.

Archers felt as if their decades worth of training had gone to waste and it had been like a lost art as any peasant could pick up a gun and fire it.

You were often chastised for using one so it never really took off. Europeans and their honor faggotry

I loved cheating in that game to give myself like 10 elephants with rifle dudes on the back.

Attached: 1485739705478.jpg (660x497, 89K)

Wasn't it basically the same situation when crossbows became popular? I'm not well versed in European history.

Personally, I always loved the way the samurai accepted and made use of rifles when they became available. It took a while to manufacture enough but they used them whenever they could. There was that one cool museum armor piece that had three large dents from rifle shots.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1800x1205, 457K)

SHALT

False.

>laughingwenches.papyrus
keketh

NE'ER

Great rebuttal

>Wasn't it basically the same situation when crossbows became popular?
pretty much

Attached: 34534.jpg (407x124, 5K)

Attached: 1410073285386.png (636x477, 371K)

Yes and no. Crossbows were originally seen as 'devilish', however armour eventually became strong enough to withstand them (well, possibly except for arbalests, but those were fuckheavy and took half of forever to reload). Crossbows still need a bit of strength to use, though admittedly less than bows. Whereas an arquebus could be used by a dysenteric peasant with relatively little difference in terms of efficiency (arquebuses were often used with forkrests).

youtube.com/watch?v=i6cAIFsJV_E

>turning black power into fire
That sounds a lot like alchemy, son. Sounds like the devils work.

Source?

thick

>Europeans and their honor faggotry
Since we're talking 15th century here, you're complaining entirely about your own ancestors, burger.

>You were often chastised for using one so it never really took off. Europeans and their honor faggotry
Three things:
1)People bitch about everything. Europeans weren't special in this regard
2)We are talking about people that would field firearms in such great numbers that they would effectively conquer the world outside of the ottoman empire a short 300 years after OP's handgonne
3)OP's handgonne wasn't as widely adopted as the later arquebuse largely due to a lack of knowledge on how to synthesize black powder.
In short, no, europeans thought guns were rad, and used them as often as possible.

Attached: 9a6.png (323x454, 232K)

Archers laughed at their low rate of fire only to slowly get erradicated because you can train riflemen faster than archers.

i'm curious how solid these were. like if after you took your shot could you just beat a guy upside the head with it like a sorta long mace since the "gun" was just a tube or wasn't it sturdy enough.

You’re talking out of your ass. “Oh wow, these knights and archers are getting jealous. I guess we shouldn’t outfit our armies with these incredible new weapons because we don’t want to hurt their feelings.” Retard

what was the general consensus on Greek fire? If a crossbow was seen as cheating then I can't imagine what a medieval flamethrower was like

Greek fire's composition was forgotten by 1200, IIRC.

Worth mentioning that the first handgonnes (the ones with the comically short barrels) weren't used with bullets, but rather heavy crossbow bolts. They were faster to load compared to the cranequin or windlass system of a heavy crossbow or arbalest.

From what I've understood they tended to err on the side of indestructibility when designing gun barrels in the 15th century. Some of the barrels made there would go on to have very long service lives, the gun here for example is a ca 1640 wall gun made using an up-bored hakenbusche barrel originally made in the 15th (IIRC) century.

Attached: HB Regensburg, ~1640. 1 kl.jpg (960x205, 166K)

The barrel was at some point painted minium red, now only the bit in contact with the stock retains it.

Attached: HB Regensburg, ~1640. 21 kl.jpg (960x446, 411K)

More paint, now it's the stock that's gotten some.

Attached: Arkeb.~1525. 2 kl.jpg (920x666, 59K)

I was under the impression that bullets (stone or metal) phased out bolts as the main combat projectile long before the handgonne was replaced by the arqeubus, maybe late 14th century or so? With incendiary bolts remaining in service considerably longer for siege use and such.

Attached: Büchsen-Brandpfeil, März 2011, ~1330. 1 kl.jpg (1200x174, 36K)

BEEST