In my mind, a long bow is equal to a musket. And if everyone used bows in the US civil war...

In my mind, a long bow is equal to a musket. And if everyone used bows in the US civil war, the outcomes would be the same.

Can someone confirm or reject this with some evidence?

Attached: 4-5-1024x588.jpg (1024x588, 92K)

Using a long bow requires a lot of muscle compared to a rifle though.

Takes a whole lot more time to train on a bow than it does a rifle.

Until firearms evolved enough to have higher rate of fire, accuracy, and range you're technically correct. The longbows and arbalests of the era were more lethal. However, lines of musketeers firing (loud as fuck and smoke) at the same time were so intimidating that it would cause units to break and flee, whereas archers didn't have that effect. Armies used them to get units to flee and then cleaned them up with lancers.

look out your window about 200 yards away and imagine trying to hit an individual target with a musket that has sights vs a fucking longbow. the civil war wasnt line formation retardation where arrow volleys would be useful. you need weapons that can hit individuals.

civil war era rifles were extremely accurate you trog do you think they were smoothbore?

He's talking about the late medieval world you fuck

Maybe that's the case, too bad the standard issue weapons of the Civil War were muzzle loading, percussion cap rifles.

Hand gonnes didnt require the skill or training that the english longbow did, therefore you could outfit many more people with it. They where extremely effective in the wars of the roses any other early conflicts involving firearms. But im no history buff so i might be talking out my ass.

Can't hand a bunch of malnourished farmers who've never touched a bow before a longbow and expect them to be able to do literally anything other than use the arrows as really tiny spears.

The real advantage of the musket was that it was cheaper than the crossbow.

During the US civil war they had RIFLES not only muzzle loaders but single action revolvers and a few lever action rifles.

Muskets require factories, and supplies can be disrupted.
Bows can be a cottage industry.

Breaks even?

>us civil war
>late medieval
About a 400 year gap there hombre.

lol at mutts meanwhile master race prussians using dreyse rifle for decades before the US civil war

No. The guns of the time were more accurate in terms of point targets. Arrows are much less lethal, life isn't videogames where a single arrow anywhere in the body instantly kills someone. Due to the nature of bullet wounds they tended to cause injuries that got infected more often. Arrows take up a lot of space, but powder and your ammo can be kept much more compact. Bows do have a rate of fire advantage, that's why natives used them in hit and run tactics, but the gun was still a more effective weapon. Often with the indian tribes, if they were going to war, only the leader would have a bow and only use it as a sentry removal tool, or during night raids to kill a few men before anyone notices. If they found that bows were more effective, they would stick to them.

Attached: 1516446821755.jpg (960x540, 136K)

The reason that guns were rapidly adopted over bows and crossbows is that guns can penetrate steel armor at long range, while crossbows usually need to be much closer and bows virtually never can, even at point blank.
By the late middle ages virtually all professional soldiers were able to afford a breast plate at minimum, so conventional bows became virtually obsolete and were replaced by crossbows and then guns.

Attached: Test%2B16.jpg (1000x750, 721K)

Bows are less powerful and less accurate than muskets and especially rifles. Also easier to train someone to use a gun than a bow.

> us civil war
Yeah they had rifles then brainlet, which were far more accurate than any bow could ever be. Also much more stopping power. Even old revolvers are more accurate and powerful than bows.

Nope. Muskets were mostly made by gunsmiths, and at the time could be run at just about any small town. What was a big operation was actually artillery.

Nigger where does he mention the civil war? "Lines of musketeers" still predate the civil war by 200 years.

That's actually one of the main disadvantages of bows compared to early firearms. Every arrow is hand made from multiple separate components whilst black powder and lead balls are ideal to be made industrially en masse.
Even back then, it all went down to logistics.

>Nigger where does he mention the civil war?
From the OP
>if everyone used bows in the US civil war, the outcomes would be the same.
Please learn how to read.

Attached: 1511532327055.jpg (447x406, 53K)

>In my mind, a long bow is equal to a musket. And if everyone used bows in the US civil war, the outcomes would be the same.
The original post, you turbosperg.
I'll give you the fact that Gustavus infantry could be defined as "lines of musketeers," but they were revolutionary compared to the contemporary norm of the tercio, or Spanish square, which is a mixed order of musketeers, pikemen, and swordsmen and which would persist well into the 18th century.

OP did you not learn what weapons were used in the civil war in school?

People started preferring muskets to bows because people wore armor to counter bows. People eventually stopped wearing armor because everyone was using muskets. They could've started using bows again which were arguably more accurate and most definitely quicker to fire, but they were all too retarded or prideful to do it.

Also trained musketeers could probably load a musket a lot faster than we think, especially when they're getting shot at. Still I think arrow volleys would have been extremely useful in the line combat structure of the civil war. Multiple lines could fire, some upwards, some straight on, and they'd be quicker than the enemy to get more shots downrange.

This, it's rather why flintlocks took over from matchlocks. Making all the slow match for muskets (which would burn away whilst not even shooting) was just a pain in the arse compared to knapping some flint (which would only deteriorate when striking the frizzen).

user please, you're also forgetting about the union's usage of early repeating rifles like Spencers and Henrys, plus carbines like the sharps and smith were also not only present but widely distributed.

They didn't just fight with muskets, most did sure but there were also entire cavalry units that used some of the more weapons I just mentioned.
Just a few bluecoats with spencers or henrys were able to pump out the same amount of lead as a hillbilly horde using conventional muzzleloaders, handing everybody bows really negates the North's technological advantage that allowed them to stomp Johnny and his reb friends.

Honestly from what I've read regarding Arrow VS Bullet wounds it's sort of a toss up, round balls tend to drag more clothing into you than minie balls or other shaped rounds just because they have an overall larger profile, but most plains indian arrowheads I've seen are a bit larger than even large caliber musket balls, and also flint isn't the most resilient rock out there and if it comes into contact with anything denser than your kidneys it's liable to break and send shards of rough indian lovin' through your body, and each one of those chips of poorly sanitized rock could drag its own strip of your favorite shirt along with it deeper into your body.

In the end I guess it really just depends on circumstance whether an arrow's more likely to do you in than a bullet, on average I'd say a handful of lead is your best bet to meet Allah but when it comes to gangrene I'm really not sure

Attached: Bigass heads.jpg (607x1080, 91K)

People had to train for years to accurately shoot longbows. English longbowmen in the Middle Ages were physically deformed because they trained from around age 10 to be able to shoot arrows far and accurately. Firearms, even the most primitive ones, take a couple months at most to learn how to use. Faster training means more men sent to the battlefield, which means greater casualties. Gunpowder weapons enabled Europeans to raise far larger armies in the Renaissance than they raised in the Middle Ages, and Renaissance wars had far more casualties than Medieval wars in Europe. If the Union and the Confederacy did not have gunpowder, their armies would be smaller and casualties would be lower. If bows were equal to muskets in the North American context, the Iroquois would not have traded furs for muskets and would not have destroyed the Huron in 1649. So even Native Americans, who did not have a long experience using firearms like Europeans, found muskets far more lethal than bows. That was in the 17th century, fast-forward to the Civil War and muskets are caplocked and rifled making them far more reliable and accurate, bows don't stand a chance by the Civil War.

a recurve would be better

I always thought the better use for bows would be to start fires that would disrupt defensive lines and maybe immolate a few battalions that didn't gtfo rapidly enough

good thing nobody ever relied on you for military strategy

I use to ask this same question in high school...

It was logistics and cost.
In truth it doesn't cost that much to make an arrow straight, but it is time consuming.

Once you had enough led in supply you could have any average person melt down some bullets with a mold. Heat, melt, pour, cool down. You've got a bullet.

Arrows require more precision in harvesting the tree then twiddling down each arrow. That's not even taking into account the arrow head or the fetching (feathers).

>that damnyankee Instant Legolas you load on sunday and shoot all week
>cavalry with pic related
Truly the Joergest timeline.

Attached: LET ME SHOW YOU ITS FEATURES.jpg (1024x890, 75K)

Good thing you got GRIDS from rimming your stepdad every afternoon in middle school. Enjoy the terminal pneumonia :^)

civil war firearms where already starting to modernize

No. Muskets are equivalent more to crossbows, but even then they're better. Muskets have more power, are more accurate and can shoot several rounds at a time, whilst a crossbow can't. On longer ranges, crossbows are a lot harder to hit because of gravity and bows are extremely inaccurate for the average shooter. Muskets are easier to handle, more accurate, stronger and can shoot further than even a heavy crossbow. There is a reason they used muskets instead of crossbows or longbows. Longbows on longer ranges are more of a hit or miss, they were made not to hit someone accurately across a field, but to be able to in a small group fill an area with arrows hoping to hit someone, whilst muskets were made to hit someone on medium to long range, without having to do much. Musket ammo is also a lot more compact than arrows and is cheaper. Making a ball out of lead and getting some gunpowder is easy, whilst having to make an arrow out of wood, then the arrow tip and then fletching is more expensive and time consuming.

Fuck you’re retarded. Go suck start a shotgun.

This

Mabey the Confederate gorillas could of done better with cross bows silently fighting during missions inside of bursting out of woods yelling and raising skelter witch was effective but not for sabotage mission.

Fun fact: here in the Philippines, the Europeanized forces fighting in Western Drill were utterly miniscule during the 18th Century, so the Spanish were still reliant on local warriors as they have done so when they first arrived in the Philippines.

Since there wasn't enough guns to go around for thousands and thousands of local militia, tribal auxiliaries, and Asian immigrant fighters, older firearms like matchlocks and bows and arrows were pressed into service.

The interesting bit in all this is that archers were still made to fight in lines like their musketeer compatriots. So the SPanish colonial army in 1700s Philippines was this weird mix of 18th Century troops with flintlocks assisted by a ragtag militia of archers and matchlocks.

Worked well enough: the local warriors were excellent guerilla fighters and hampered the British during their invasion of the Philippines in the 7 Years War, halting their advance away from their beachheads in Manila.

Attached: uniformes_colegios_militaresG.jpg (2484x1483, 2.19M)

Painting related.

Attached: Basi-Revolt-Painting.jpg (992x1002, 62K)

>Civil war
>Muskets
Christ. This thread is full of retards. And OP is literally a giant faggot for not understanding why a rifle would be preferable to a bow and that the main killer in the was was artillery.