Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXVIII

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Lucky shots on battleships can't have been too common in their heyday, or they would have been completely replaced by weapon systems maximizing the chance at lucky/lethal hits without all the armor costs, like light cruisers, pt-boats/mtb's, subs, coastal batteries, rockets and airplanes.

Given the prevalence of several of those systems today and the noticable lack of battleships, the odds of lucky/lethal single hits has quite possibly gone up, despite the rise of active countermeasures. The US navy approach of using aircraft carriers to fight from as long a distance as possible and then surround those expensive ships with a whole swarm of support against anything that slips through in particular doesn't show a lot of faith in ship armor.

[Vinyadan]

Battleships had three advantages: armour, range, and striking power. I think that a time where planes could arrive from beyond range and drop guided and armour-piercing bombs didn't leave much room for battleships.

[Blackhawk748]

So I've been watching a bunch of old Post Apoc B movies and I've realized something. They never seem to run out of smokeless powder. Oh they keep calling it gunpowder, but it's smokeless, which brought a question to kind.

Let's say it all goes to crap and a few years go by, no more smokeless powder. Now, what guns still work with black powder? Revolvers, shotguns and bolt actions should be fine, and I would assume simplistic recoil operated ones, but gas would be right out.

What do you all think?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

One of the problems with musket era gunpowder was that soot would build up in the barrel with every shot. To prevent bullets from getting stuck and blowing the gun up they used a smaller caliber round than what the barrel was made for. That's one of the main reasons muskets were so inaccurate. A marksman could fire off one or two bullets of the right caliber from a clean gun and get some pretty good accuracy out of them, but they'd have to clean the barrel thoroughly ro be able to repeat that act. So for continued fire under battlefield conditions this was not an option.

I think that might become the main problem in this scenario. Depending on exactly what kind of gunpowder they're using basically all bullets may now be unsuitable for use with their own guns.

Revolvers, shotguns, bolt action rifles and metal cartridges all existed before smokeless powder, or at least somewhat independent of it, so this problem can't have been a complete showstopper, but what the impact of this in a fictional scenario is might depend heavily on exactly how much technology they lose.

[Storm Bringer]

So I've been watching a bunch of old Post Apoc B movies and I've realized something. They never seem to run out of smokeless powder. Oh they keep calling it gunpowder, but it's smokeless, which brought a question to kind.

Let's say it all goes to crap and a few years go by, no more smokeless powder. Now, what guns still work with black powder? Revolvers, shotguns and bolt actions should be fine, and I would assume simplistic recoil operated ones, but gas would be right out.

What do you all think?

the big problem with back powder is that its much more fouling than smokeless powders. this means that a modern bolt action (by which I mean almost every bolt action you can think of, like the Mauser, the Lee-Enfield, the Mosin, etc.) will work for about 10-15 shots before the rifle is so gunked up that it needs stripping and cleaning (Or at least a pull though to clear the barrel. this was one of the major technical hurdles that slowed the adoption of bolt action weaponry before the 1886 invention of smokeless powder.

it's possible to make a working bolt action using blackpowder (and was done historically), but it generally requires a larger calibre round to ensure the fouling issue is manageable (most historical black powder bolt action weapons were around 11mil/ .45 calibre, much larger than modern 7-8mm rounds)

i'd write more but I need to go.

[halfeye]

Lucky shots on battleships can't have been too common in their heyday, or they would have been completely replaced by weapon systems maximizing the chance at lucky/lethal hits without all the armor costs, like light cruisers, pt-boats/mtb's, subs, coastal batteries, rockets and airplanes.

One would think that, but actually, big battles involving battleships were really rare. There was Jutland, which was kind of a mess and a lot of British battlecruisers went "kerblooey", and the British were apparently firing shells that might as well have been fireworks, but the Germans didn't realise so ran away because they were out numbered.

[Blackhawk748]

One of the problems with musket era gunpowder was that soot would build up in the barrel with every shot. To prevent bullets from getting stuck and blowing the gun up they used a smaller caliber round than what the barrel was made for. That's one of the main reasons muskets were so inaccurate. A marksman could fire off one or two bullets of the right caliber from a clean gun and get some pretty good accuracy out of them, but they'd have to clean the barrel thoroughly ro be able to repeat that act. So for continued fire under battlefield conditions this was not an option.

I think that might become the main problem in this scenario. Depending on exactly what kind of gunpowder they're using basically all bullets may now be unsuitable for use with their own guns.

Revolvers, shotguns, bolt action rifles and metal cartridges all existed before smokeless powder, or at least somewhat independent of it, so this problem can't have been a complete showstopper, but what the impact of this in a fictional scenario is might depend heavily on exactly how much technology they lose.

I thought the Minie ball helped to alleviate this somewhat? Or was that just making rifling easier to engage? I forget honestly.

Either way the Trapdoor rifles of the US and the Henry Lever Guns didn't seem to have massive fouling issues and now I'm curious how they circumvented this problem.

the big problem with back powder is that its much more fouling than smokeless powders. this means that a modern bolt action (by which I mean almost every bolt action you can think of, like the Mauser, the Lee-Enfield, the Mosin, etc.) will work for about 10-15 shots before the rifle is so gunked up that it needs stripping and cleaning (Or at least a pull though to clear the barrel. this was one of the major technical hurdles that slowed the adoption of bolt action weaponry before the 1886 invention of smokeless powder.

it's possible to make a working bolt action using blackpowder (and was done historically), but it generally requires a larger calibre round to ensure the fouling issue is manageable (most historical black powder bolt action weapons were around 11mil/ .45 calibre, much larger than modern 7-8mm rounds)

i'd write more but I need to go.

Now I'm curious why Lever Guns didn't seem to have this same issue considering their round capacity you'd have the barrel gunked to hell and back from your first reload nevermind loading it up again

[Storm Bringer]

I thought the Minie ball helped to alleviate this somewhat? Or was that just making rifling easier to engage? I forget honestly.

Either way the Trapdoor rifles of the US and the Henry Lever Guns didn't seem to have massive fouling issues and now I'm curious how they circumvented this problem.



Now I'm curious why Lever Guns didn't seem to have this same issue considering their round capacity you'd have the barrel gunked to hell and back from your first reload nevermind loading it up again

two reasons, namely smaller powder load and high calibre. the "classic" 1873 Winchester lever gun ("the gun that won the west") shot a .45 calibre pistol cartridge , which are both bigger and less powerful than, say, .303 Enfield.

the "full power" trapdoor rifles also had a larger bore (in that 10-11mil range), and this larger bore and lack of working parts to get gunked up (Compared to a bolt action) meant they took much longer to reach unshootably dirty.

the minie helped mainly with muzzle loaders, by giving them a bullet that slid down easy but still engaged with the rifling.

[jayem]

Lucky shots on battleships can't have been too common in their heyday, or they would have been completely replaced by weapon systems maximizing the chance at lucky/lethal hits without all the armor costs, like light cruisers, pt-boats/mtb's, subs, coastal batteries, rockets and airplanes.

Given the prevalence of several of those systems today and the noticable lack of battleships, the odds of lucky/lethal single hits has quite possibly gone up, despite the rise of active countermeasures. The US navy approach of using aircraft carriers to fight from as long a distance as possible and then surround those expensive ships with a whole swarm of support against anything that slips through in particular doesn't show a lot of faith in ship armor.

That's what you have (Torpedo-Boat)-Destroyers for. At least until you try and use them as ((Torpedo-Boat)-Destroyer)-Destroyers at which point they get too big,

I'd contend that in the late heyday (WW1) the shift you were expecting had kind of occured with the focusing on the gun (to get the lucky shot first) and speed (including to run away) being a partial example. The planes, and (partial-submerged) torpedo boats being lucky to deliver a lethal load against the armour that they did have*.

Then during really late heyday WW2 when lucky/lethal hits could easily be obtained by planes. The battleship was replaced fairly quickly. Between the wars, battleships were not tested.
Also during WW2, there was a clear expectation of a heirachy of engagements ending with the mighty Hood to see off the opposing Battlecruisers.

In the early Ironclad days, lucky shots clearly were not common (consider Monitor and the other one).

*Even a WW2 torpedo, you're looking at a range of something like a 300kg warhead delivered from 8km. While the 5" guns have been shooting 10*60kg rounds at you every minute for the last 12km.

[Blackhawk748]

two reasons, namely smaller powder load and high calibre. the "classic" 1873 Winchester lever gun ("the gun that won the west") shot a .45 calibre pistol cartridge , which are both bigger and less powerful than, say, .303 Enfield.

the "full power" trapdoor rifles also had a larger bore (in that 10-11mil range), and this larger bore and lack of working parts to get gunked up (Compared to a bolt action) meant they took much longer to reach unshootably dirty.

the minie helped mainly with muzzle loaders, by giving them a bullet that slid down easy but still engaged with the rifling.

While at work this was sort of the conclusion I came to. The .45 is a short fat round and I forgot that when I typed that up. So basically if Blackpowder had to be the propellant we used we
d have to use large caliber guns with lower powder amounts, correct?

[Mike_G]

While at work this was sort of the conclusion I came to. The .45 is a short fat round and I forgot that when I typed that up. So basically if Blackpowder had to be the propellant we used we
d have to use large caliber guns with lower powder amounts, correct?

Yes, but also the gas systems on most semi automatic rifles are carefully calibrated for the pressure of the round for which they were intended. Timing the whole process of the bolt unlocking, moving backward, extracting and ejecting the case, then coming forward just as the magazine spring has pushed another round up into position so the bolt can chamber it and lock before firing is not something you can really mess with all that much. Change the pressure curve and throw off the timing and you have bolts tearing cartridges, stovepiping rounds, closing on an empty chamber, and lot of other issues. All this independent of fouling in the gas system.

In short, you cant just load your empty .223 cases with black powder and expect the rifle to function as a semi automatic. I don't know if you could even design a gas operated semi automatic rifle for black powder. Blowback operated, maybe, but that would still need a carefully calibrated powder load for consistent burn time and chamber pressure.

[fusilier]

I thought the Minie ball helped to alleviate this somewhat? Or was that just making rifling easier to engage? I forget honestly.

The Minie ball helped with fouling, as, after expanding, the ball would remove a lot of the fouling that the previous shot had deposited, thus preventing too much fouling from building up, making the gun easier to load. Nevertheless, the blackpowder still generates a lot more fouling than smokeless, and that can start to gum up the mechanism. That said, the metallic cartridge black-powder repeaters could be fired for more than "10-15 shots" before getting gunked up (I think it was more of a problem for those that used paper cartridges).

Early Mausers, Vetterli rifles (Swiss and Italian), even the first Lee-Metford rifles, used blackpowder metallic cartridges.

Aside on Minie balls:

I've been reading a lot about them lately. The United States adopted a minie ball (the Burton Ball) that expanded very slowly; to work correctly in their .58 caliber weapons it had to have a very tight fit (.5775). When the Civil War broke out, and large numbers of .577 Enfield muskets were being imported, they changed the caliber to something smaller (.565?), so that one round would work in both weapons. The bullet would expand enough to catch the rifling and be accurate, but, now that happened a little later after being fired: the bullet would travel 6 or so inches before catching the rifling. So the fouling at base of the barrel would start to build up, and after around 15 shots or so it could become difficult to seat the ball all the way on top of the powder (which was necessary). The British version was more undersized, but expanded very quickly.

[Gnoman]

Black powder and nitro propellants ("smokeless" "powder") are extremely different. Not simply in "one is less powerful" terms, either. Simplifying a bit, putting nitro propellants in a gun designed for black powder will probably result in the gun exploding. Putting black powder in a gun designed for nitro will send a bullet out the muzzle, but will not work well in autoloaders. Depending on the system used, you'll either get a few shots off before needing to start manually actuating it, or else you'll break the gun. This means that the only truly practical guns to convert to black powder would be manually-actuated ones - revolvers for pistols, bolt/lever/pump/break action for longarms.


This is problem #2 for maintaining an ammunition supply without an industrial base.


Problem #1 is a much nastier one. Black powder is easy to make if you know the recipe, while you can load most guns (Glocks being the most prominent exception - they'll explode) with cast lead bullets. Casings are harder to make, but are reusable. That's 3 out of the 4 essential parts for a cartridge gun. The last one's a doozy.

See, to make the cartridge go off, you need something that will explode when struck by the firing pin - in cartridges this is called a "primer", while loose examples are "percussion caps". These are not easy to make. Fulminate of mercury requires toxic (and generally difficult to find) ingredients, a fairly involved process, and not detonating it can be difficult. Potassium Chlorate is safer, but still not easy to produce. If you can't manage that, you'll have to revert to loose-powder flintlocks.

Once you've solved that, you can decide what your best options are. Black powder can't attain the same velocities as nitro can, so big, heavy bullets are the way to go. This means that your post-apoc setting will have a very "Old West" fell to the weaponry.

[fusilier]

In short, you cant just load your empty .223 cases with black powder and expect the rifle to function as a semi automatic. I don't know if you could even design a gas operated semi automatic rifle for black powder. Blowback operated, maybe, but that would still need a carefully calibrated powder load for consistent burn time and chamber pressure.

The earliest Maxim machine guns used blackpowder ammunition, and Maxim patented several devices to filter particulate residue from the guns. Which were rendered moot by the introduction of smokeless powders a couple years later -- but it is possible to design an automatic weapon that works well enough with blackpowder. However, as you pointed out, you can't simply take an existing weapon and expect it to work without fouling becoming a serious problem.

I believe most of these weapons do have the ability to be adjusted for different pressures, but that may require an armorer, and the consistency of the ammunition is still important.

See, to make the cartridge go off, you need something that will explode when struck by the firing pin - in cartridges this is called a "primer"

Yup. If you can't make primers, you're back to flintlocks.

[Blackhawk748]

Yes, but also the gas systems on most semi automatic rifles are carefully calibrated for the pressure of the round for which they were intended. Timing the whole process of the bolt unlocking, moving backward, extracting and ejecting the case, then coming forward just as the magazine spring has pushed another round up into position so the bolt can chamber it and lock before firing is not something you can really mess with all that much. Change the pressure curve and throw off the timing and you have bolts tearing cartridges, stovepiping rounds, closing on an empty chamber, and lot of other issues. All this independent of fouling in the gas system.

In short, you cant just load your empty .223 cases with black powder and expect the rifle to function as a semi automatic. I don't know if you could even design a gas operated semi automatic rifle for black powder. Blowback operated, maybe, but that would still need a carefully calibrated powder load for consistent burn time and chamber pressure.

I wrote Gas-Operated off on the fouling issue alone. Everything else just hammers that fact home. Blowback? Maybe, but I kinda doubt it. Gas? Hell no.

The Minie ball helped with fouling, as, after expanding, the ball would remove a lot of the fouling that the previous shot had deposited, thus preventing too much fouling from building up, making the gun easier to load. Nevertheless, the blackpowder still generates a lot more fouling than smokeless, and that can start to gum up the mechanism. That said, the metallic cartridge black-powder repeaters could be fired for more than "10-15 shots" before getting gunked up (I think it was more of a problem for those that used paper cartridges).

Early Mausers, Vetterli rifles (Swiss and Italian), even the first Lee-Metford rifles, used blackpowder metallic cartridges.

Glad to see my memory is still on point.

Problem #1 is a much nastier one. Black powder is easy to make if you know the recipe, while you can load most guns (Glocks being the most prominent exception - they'll explode) with cast lead bullets. Casings are harder to make, but are reusable. That's 3 out of the 4 essential parts for a cartridge gun. The last one's a doozy.

See, to make the cartridge go off, you need something that will explode when struck by the firing pin - in cartridges this is called a "primer", while loose examples are "percussion caps". These are not easy to make. Fulminate of mercury requires toxic (and generally difficult to find) ingredients, a fairly involved process, and not detonating it can be difficult. Potassium Chlorate is safer, but still not easy to produce. If you can't manage that, you'll have to revert to loose-powder flintlocks.

Once you've solved that, you can decide what your best options are. Black powder can't attain the same velocities as nitro can, so big, heavy bullets are the way to go. This means that your post-apoc setting will have a very "Old West" fell to the weaponry.

Funnily enough, I had a similar situation in a different post apoc setting I had made, this one I wanted America to be using Hall Rifles primarily and as it tutrned out the two Mercury Mines in America happened to stuck in very hostile areas. A rather amusing happenstance for me.

As for the primers, I remember reading (God knows where) that there was a lead based primer or something like that and they didn't like it because the thing was less stable than the Mercury one.

And I am very fine with Old West Post Apoc.

The earliest Maxim machine guns used blackpowder ammunition, and Maxim patented several devices to filter particulate residue from the guns. Which were rendered moot by the introduction of smokeless powders a couple years later -- but it is possible to design an automatic weapon that works well enough with blackpowder. However, as you pointed out, you can't simply take an existing weapon and expect it to work without fouling becoming a serious problem.

I believe most of these weapons do have the ability to be adjusted for different pressures, but that may require an armorer, and the consistency of the ammunition is still important.

I recall Ian talking about this on... InRange I think, and while it seemed like it would sort of help with the fouling problem (it wasn't really well tested) there would still be this obnoxious cloud of smoke in the way and I think that will always be an issue for Full Auto Blackpowder, that damn smoke is always gonna make quite the wall in front of you.

[Storm Bringer]

The Minie ball helped with fouling, as, after expanding, the ball would remove a lot of the fouling that the previous shot had deposited, thus preventing too much fouling from building up, making the gun easier to load. Nevertheless, the blackpowder still generates a lot more fouling than smokeless, and that can start to gum up the mechanism. That said, the metallic cartridge black-powder repeaters could be fired for more than "10-15 shots" before getting gunked up (I think it was more of a problem for those that used paper cartridges).

Early Mausers, Vetterli rifles (Swiss and Italian), even the first Lee-Metford rifles, used blackpowder metallic cartridges.

ok, i stand somewhat corrected. I was under the impression that those rifles were all around .40-.45 calibre, not .30 calibre which i thought didn't work well with black powder due to fouling, but the lee metford is .303. Most of the others are .40 ish, though, at least until after 1886 and the smokeless revolution.

[Mike_G]

See, to make the cartridge go off, you need something that will explode when struck by the firing pin - in cartridges this is called a "primer", while loose examples are "percussion caps". These are not easy to make. Fulminate of mercury requires toxic (and generally difficult to find) ingredients, a fairly involved process, and not detonating it can be difficult. Potassium Chlorate is safer, but still not easy to produce. If you can't manage that, you'll have to revert to loose-powder flintlocks.

OK, I have a question, because I truly have no idea, but what are those paper rolls for cap pistols made of? I can't imagine they'd be mercury because they are for kid's toys, and even back in the 70s I think that wouldn't have flown.

Because you can get a bang with just impact, so I could see finding a way to get them to ignite a powder charge, with a bit of tinkering.

A final point about post apocalyptic settings. There are a ton of guns out there, and a lot of ammo stockpiled. Plus the munitions factories and stockpiles of materials. So I can see the first few years after the disaster as being pretty easy to find guns and ammo.

[fusilier]

ok, i stand somewhat corrected. I was under the impression that those rifles were all around .40-.45 calibre, not .30 calibre which i thought didn't work well with black powder due to fouling, but the lee metford is .303. Most of the others are .40 ish, though, at least until after 1886 and the smokeless revolution.

My understanding is that it has to do with efficiency -- that smokeless powders are more efficient, for some reason, with smaller caliber ammo. Not to do with fouling. I could be wrong though. The Lee-Metford (the immediate predecessor of the Lee-Enfield), was originally intended to be used with smokeless powder, but the British were having developmental problems with cordite and so it was designed for a .303 black powder round. Then it turned out that the barrel was ill suited for smokeless powders. :-/

EDIT --

Blackpowder weapons may have used looser fittings to allow for fouling to build up -- but I'm not sure about that.

[fusilier]

I recall Ian talking about this on... InRange I think, and while it seemed like it would sort of help with the fouling problem (it wasn't really well tested) there would still be this obnoxious cloud of smoke in the way and I think that will always be an issue for Full Auto Blackpowder, that damn smoke is always gonna make quite the wall in front of you.

The various mechanical machine guns that used blackpowder (Gatling guns, Mitrailleuses, Gardner Guns, etc.), always had that problem with smoke. However, they were crew served weapons and could at least attempt to place a spotter at a slightly better position. (If the air was still there wasn't much that could be done).

[fusilier]

OK, I have a question, because I truly have no idea, but what are those paper rolls for cap pistols made of? I can't imagine they'd be mercury because they are for kid's toys, and even back in the 70s I think that wouldn't have flown.

Apparently something called "Armstrong's Mixture", which can include Potassium Chlorate (which I think is used in modern percussion caps):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong%27s_mixture

[Blackhawk748]

My understanding is that it has to do with efficiency -- that smokeless powders are more efficient, for some reason, with smaller caliber ammo. Not to do with fouling. I could be wrong though. The Lee-Metford (the immediate predecessor of the Lee-Enfield), was originally intended to be used with smokeless powder, but the British were having developmental problems with cordite and so it was designed for a .303 black powder round. Then it turned out that the barrel was ill suited for smokeless powders. :-/

Smokeless Powder has more bang than Black Powder so you need less for a similar punch, so they work better for intermediate cartridges because you get get a whole lot of bang for smaller space.

[Gnoman]

My understanding is that it has to do with efficiency -- that smokeless powders are more efficient, for some reason, with smaller caliber ammo. Not to do with fouling. I could be wrong though. The Lee-Metford (the immediate predecessor of the Lee-Enfield), was originally intended to be used with smokeless powder, but the British were having developmental problems with cordite and so it was designed for a .303 black powder round. Then it turned out that the barrel was ill suited for smokeless powders. :-/

EDIT --

Blackpowder weapons may have used looser fittings to allow for fouling to build up -- but I'm not sure about that.

Smokeless Powder has more bang than Black Powder so you need less for a similar punch, so they work better for intermediate cartridges because you get get a whole lot of bang for smaller space.

It isn't just a matter of "more bang". You can't throw a bullet faster than the speed of the propellant itself. The fastest black powder cartridges I can find (there's some examples of loose powder guns with very fine powder that go higher) were in the 1500 FPS range - decent, but not on par with smokeless. For example, the smokeless .30-06 Springfield can easily hit the 2900 FPS range, depending on loading. This is because smokeless has higher speed, and burns faster - allowing you to use a shorter barrel for a given charge.

This maximum speed doesn't translate into maximum power, because you can still add mass and use more powder to get the same speed. This is why black powder guns tended to be very large bore - to get that extra energy. Small bore guns have a lot of ballistic advantages, and smokeless can push a bullet faster - allowing you to get the extra energy with speed instead of mass.

[Sapphire Guard]

Re country defence, what's the geography like? The UK defends itself very differently from the USSR or France.

WW2 Belgium has very little to work with in defending itself, except canals. Eben Emael turned out not to work, but I'm not sure there were many better options.

[Storm Bringer]

Re country defence, what's the geography like? The UK defends itself very differently from the USSR or France.

WW2 Belgium has very little to work with in defending itself, except canals. Eben Emael turned out not to work, but I'm not sure there were many better options.

well, your right, geography is often one of the most important factors in planning a defence, and the Belgians didn't have many options (Eben Emeal is sat behind the albert canal, explicitly to control the bridges over it).

their actual, main plan wasn't to hold to the Albert canal, but along the river Dyle further into Belgium, with the forces on the Canal there to fight a delaying action for several days before withdrawing (even the strongest fort in the world wasn't expected to hold out forever against modern artillery for very long)

[Lemmy]

Is there any way longbows and crossbows have stayed relevant in warfare, say, around the early 17th century?

For example, if producing and learning how to use them were much easier?

[Mike_G]

Is there any way longbows and crossbows have stayed relevant in warfare, say, around the early 17th century?

For example, if producing and learning how to use them were much easier?

You would think so, but they don't seem to have been used much that late.

On paper, as far as accuracy, range and rate of shot (I refuse to say "fire" when discussing bows) they should be able to compete with early firearms.

That said, most armies pretty much fielded all firearms by that point, so there must be a good reason.

[Grim Portent]

Probably not. Guns outclassed man portable bows and crossbows in the mid to late 1500s as I recall. Everything short of the bigger crossbows that needed to be mounted in some fashion couldn't match the range and penetration of firearms once muskets became a thing.

The only real advantage of bows and crossbows that guns can't match was the ability to fire in arcs over friendly formations and into the further parts of enemy formations. Guns can't do that, but they got so much better at just blowing holes through the front ranks it didn't really matter. Once the penetration and range of a gun outpaces that of the crossbow and bow it easily makes them obsolete.


From a game/story design perspective I'd say the best time for bow/crossbow/gun to be a meaningful choice was the 1500s, a longbow, heavy crossbow or matchlock arquebus all had their selling points, though the crossbow was the general winner for mass use.

[Blackhawk748]

Probably not. Guns outclassed man portable bows and crossbows in the mid to late 1500s as I recall. Everything short of the bigger crossbows that needed to be mounted in some fashion couldn't match the range and penetration of firearms once muskets became a thing.

The only real advantage of bows and crossbows that guns can't match was the ability to fire in arcs over friendly formations and into the further parts of enemy formations. Guns can't do that, but they got so much better at just blowing holes through the front ranks it didn't really matter. Once the penetration and range of a gun outpaces that of the crossbow and bow it easily makes them obsolete.


From a game/story design perspective I'd say the best time for bow/crossbow/gun to be a meaningful choice was the 1500s, a longbow, heavy crossbow or matchlock arquebus all had their selling points, though the crossbow was the general winner for mass use.

Well Bows blow guns out in Rate of Fire but thats about it. Once people stop wearing armor bows could be useful, but then they'd just start wearing armor again thus invalidating it.

So ya, the 1500s maybe the early 1600s would be when they overlapped meaningfully

[ExLibrisMortis]

How do the costs of firing bows, crossbows, and guns compare? I imagine that casting lead bullets en masse is somewhat easier than fletching arrows (and you shoot arrows more quickly, too), but I have no idea how difficult/expensive it is to make gunpowder.

[Blackhawk748]

How do the costs of firing bows, crossbows, and guns compare? I imagine that casting lead bullets en masse is somewhat easier than fletching arrows (and you shoot arrows more quickly, too), but I have no idea how difficult/expensive it is to make gunpowder.

It's not, it's just sulfur, saltpeter, and charcoal. These are reasonably easy to get and you can make a ton in one sitting, unlike arrows.

So gunpowder is easy