Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXVII

[TheYell]

One very important thing to note about flamethrowers is that their effective range is far shorter than most people think.

I understand the Soviets had some sort of gel bomb thrower that didn't ignite until it burst on target, so that had a range of several hundred meters.

[Pauly]

I understand the Soviets had some sort of gel bomb thrower that didn't ignite until it burst on target, so that had a range of several hundred meters.

I don’t do modern stuff, but I’ve never read about that being used in WW2. They did use molotov cocktails extensively but the ones I’m aware of were hand thrown, so hand grenade range.

Edit:
You learn something new every day
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampulomet

[Brother Oni]

Edit:
You learn something new every day
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampulomet

For reference to the earlier burn times, the ampulomet fired a 125mm calibre spherical glass ball weighing 1.5kg.

Assuming regular soda lime glass bottle wall thickness of 2.8mm thickness, you end up with ~1.2kg charge of 80/20 phosphorus/sulphur* which burns for up to 3 minutes.

*There's a liquid carrier agent somewhere in that mixture as the article references the burning liquid seeping through grills and visions slots - both sulphur and phosphorus are solids at standard RTP, so there's some shenanigans going on.

Found some more information on the weapon and its variants while I was trying to look up the details for the KS charge: link.
There was some WW2 footage of it in action around Stalingrad, but those particular videos are missing from youtube.

[Pauly]

For reference to the earlier burn times, the ampulomet fired a 125mm calibre spherical glass ball weighing 1.5kg.

Assuming regular soda lime glass bottle wall thickness of 2.8mm thickness, you end up with ~1.2kg charge of 80/20 phosphorus/sulphur* which burns for up to 3 minutes.

*There's a liquid carrier agent somewhere in that mixture as the article references the burning liquid seeping through grills and visions slots - both sulphur and phosphorus are solids at standard RTP, so there's some shenanigans going on.

Found some more information on the weapon and its variants while I was trying to look up the details for the KS charge: link.
There was some WW2 footage of it in action around Stalingrad, but those particular videos are missing from youtube.

I’m not convinced by Wikipedia’s claim of seeping through grills and vision slots.
I’ve read the British reports evaluating combat effectiveness of flamethrowers after WW2. Their evaluation was that for an incendiary to have effect on an enclosed AFVnyou needed to land the incendiary device/flamethrower jet on the back deck of the tank and it was oxygen starvation that killed the mobility and then allowed the fire to affect the engine. Hitting vertical surfaces with an incendiary did no good, and a crew trained to know what was happening wouldn’t panic and abandon the tank if the fire wasn’t on the engine deck. The British army’s conclusion was that using incendiary devices was a technically possible but practically very improbable way of defeating AFVs.

Having said that Wikipedia’s claim sounds plausible enough to be used by Hollywood or Commando Comics.

[jayem]

*There's a liquid carrier agent somewhere in that mixture as the article references the burning liquid seeping through grills and visions slots - both sulphur and phosphorus are solids at standard RTP, so there's some shenanigans going on.

The burning liquid probably isn't at RTP (phosphorus melts at 45 and sulphur at 115). So it could be that the shenanigans is to do with the reaction involved.

(Alternatively the article could confuse two varieties-maybe there was also a more classic molotov style varient, we have the carrier agent theory, given the weather perhaps just ambient water could be an external carrier agent, or the whole thing could be a translation/misunderstanding for powder by soldiers having enough on their plate)

[Pauly]

The burning liquid probably isn't at RTP (phosphorus melts at 45 and sulphur at 115). So it could be that the shenanigans is to do with the reaction involved.

(Alternatively the article could confuse two varieties-maybe there was also a more classic molotov style varient, we have the carrier agent theory, given the weather perhaps just ambient water could be an external carrier agent, or the whole thing could be a translation/misunderstanding for powder by soldiers having enough on their plate)

I suspect it comes from a translation of the field manual. The intent is to give your troops a much faith in their weapon as possible, not a realistic assessment of the weapon.

[The Jack]

Wouldnt shield+sword be really good against alongsword? I was reading a historical on mongol invasions of japan and i noticed the mongols were bigger on shields.

[gkathellar]

Wouldnt shield+sword be really good against alongsword? I was reading a historical on mongol invasions of japan and i noticed the mongols were bigger on shields.

Sword-and-shield is pretty good against a lot of things, but exactly how good depends on the type of shield. It's not particularly effective or ineffective against longsword, generally speaking, although the two tended to occupy different battlefields because of evolutions in armor technology.

If the Mongols particularly favored the shield, it's probably because they also favored the lance and cavalry saber. I've never been entirely clear on why the Japanese did not use the shield, but they pretty much didn't.

[Brother Oni]

I was reading a historical on mongol invasions of japan and i noticed the mongols were bigger on shields.

The Mongols were bigger on shields mainly because the Chinese used a significantly larger variety of missile weapons, from fire lances, exploding arrows and incendiary weapons - the Huolongjing (Fire Dragon Manual) includes documentation of gunpowder weapons which pre-dates the Yuan Dynasty, even though the text itself is from the early Ming Dynasty.

If the Mongols particularly favored the shield, it's probably because they also favored the lance and cavalry saber. I've never been entirely clear on why the Japanese did not use the shield, but they pretty much didn't.

They did use the shield, both hand held ones (tedate) and larger ones (tate). Annoyingly, they don't differentiate between pavise type shields and the larger static field defence types (tate is used for both types).

Spoiler: Tedate

Show

There's another famous picture of a Japanese shield, but the link is getting nuked by the profanity filter:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Illustrated_Story_of_Night_Attack_on_Yoshitsune%27s_Residence_At_Horikawa%2C_16th_Century_2. jpg

Spoiler: Tate

Show

Note that the shields on the left are being worn by some poor conscript as they retreat.

However the samurai were initially horse archers, which makes the use of a large shield difficult. The western solution was to use smaller shields - the samurai moved them up to their shoulders instead:

Spoiler: Sode (Pauldrons)

Show

That said, hand shields still persisted as seen in this Edo era text:

Spoiler: Defence against a pistol

Show

[Pauly]

Wouldnt shield+sword be really good against alongsword? I was reading a historical on mongol invasions of japan and i noticed the mongols were bigger on shields.

Matt Easton (Scholagladiatoria), Lindybeige, Shadiversity and Metatron all cover this from different angles on youtube.

The first thing is that swords historically were sidearms. The backup weapon you use after your prinary weapon is no longer useful.

Both the Mongols and the Samurai of this time were mounted archers, so the important historical point of comparison is recurve bows -v- long bows.
I have heard that for the Samurai of this era being called a great swordsman was actually an insult, because it implied you were bad at archery.

[The Jack]

Not just samurai, the other warriors too favoured two handed swords.
And yes, i know swords are sidearms, but polearms are terrible against shields and two handers in general probably arent ideal. shields are also very effective versus arrows...
It just seems favourable to a society with many shields to fight society with few, at least before armour got good.

[Pauly]

Not just samurai, the other warriors too favoured two handed swords.
And yes, i know swords are sidearms, but polearms are terrible against shields and two handers in general probably arent ideal. shields are also very effective versus arrows...
It just seems favourable to a society with many shields to fight society with few, at least before armour got good.

OK let’s try to unpack some assumptions.

Generally speaking in the pre-gunpowder era shields were used by almost everybody because:
- they protected against missile fire and melee weapons
- they were cheaper and easier to make than armor

In this case your sidearm will be a one handed weapon. Swords were probably the most common sidearm. I believe this was because they have a better ability to parry than say a mace, axe or warhammer

If shields weren’t used it was almost always because of one or two of 3 things applied.
1- The warrior was expendable. Poorly trained levies for example.
2- The warrior’s main weapon requires 2 free hands to use. Archers are the most common example, but medieval halberdiers pikemen and billmen are other examples. Dacian falxmen are another example from the classical era. However there are examples of warriors using two handed weapons with a shield such as Macedonian pikemen or Anglo Saxon Huscarls.
3- The warrior’s level of armor had developed to a point where handheld shields were superfluous (late medieval plate armour, samurai armor for example).

In these cases it was quite common for the sidearm to either be a two handed sword or something very simple like a dagger.

As to the original question about which option gives the advantage. Firstly it is your main weapon that gives the advantage, so arguing about who has the best sword is like evaluating WW1 rifles on the basis of which one has the best bayonet. Secondly it depends on the technology level and availability of armor. Thirdly it depends on sword design and it’s ability to defeat armor.

For most of history sword and shield would beat 2 handed swords, but the most iconic swords from history are probably the European longsword and Japanese katana.

[Willie the Duck]

In this case your sidearm will be a one handed weapon. Swords were probably the most common sidearm. I believe this was because they have a better ability to parry than say a mace, axe or warhammer

If you have a shield, parrying is a lessor concern (one will not how basket hilts and the like came to prominence after shields started to fade). I would guess that the main reason for the prominence of swords as sidearms is due to their ease of being carried and drawn, along with shield and primary armament (how those maul-wielding archers ever moved around with both maul and bow, I'll never know).

[gkathellar]

The Mongols were bigger on shields mainly because the Chinese used a significantly larger variety of missile weapons, from fire lances, exploding arrows and incendiary weapons - the Huolongjing (Fire Dragon Manual) includes documentation of gunpowder weapons which pre-dates the Yuan Dynasty, even though the text itself is from the early Ming Dynasty.



They did use the shield, both hand held ones (tedate) and larger ones (tate). Annoyingly, they don't differentiate between pavise type shields and the larger static field defence types (tate is used for both types).

Spoiler: Tedate

Show

There's another famous picture of a Japanese shield, but the link is getting nuked by the profanity filter:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Illustrated_Story_of_Night_Attack_on_Yoshitsune%27s_Residence_At_Horikawa%2C_16th_Century_2. jpg

Spoiler: Tate

Show

Note that the shields on the left are being worn by some poor conscript as they retreat.

However the samurai were initially horse archers, which makes the use of a large shield difficult. The western solution was to use smaller shields - the samurai moved them up to their shoulders instead:

Spoiler: Sode (Pauldrons)

Show

That said, hand shields still persisted as seen in this Edo era text:

Spoiler: Defence against a pistol

Show

That's surprising! Do you know if any of the extant schools of samurai martial arts (koryu, I mean) preserve shield-fighting traditions or techniques?

[Brother Oni]

That's surprising! Do you know if any of the extant schools of samurai martial arts (koryu, I mean) preserve shield-fighting traditions or techniques?

From what I can dig up, there are some schools which still teach tedate techniques - Tenshin Ryu (天心流) is a style that keeps being mentioned, but there are several schools which claim the name, some are not authentic to put it mildly (Tenshin Ryu Hyouho apparently is a big offender, although my Japanese isn't very good and google translate only gets so far).

However their shields are basically buckler size:

Spoiler: Katana and tedate

Show

[The Jack]

Aside from the throwing knives, ultra incompetent and expendable redcoats typical of the genre, and of course specific people and other narrative contrivances, how well does Frontier work as a historical?



and

Are there any examples of the Japanese using wheellocks or other contemporary designs during the sengoku period? They were obviously very fond of matchlocks, and It'd seem strange that there wasn't at least one wealthy samurai who acquired a more elite firearm mechanism.

[Brother Oni]

Are there any examples of the Japanese using wheellocks or other contemporary designs during the sengoku period? They were obviously very fond of matchlocks, and It'd seem strange that there wasn't at least one wealthy samurai who acquired a more elite firearm mechanism.

I can't find any information on other domestically produced firing mechanisms during the Sengoku era. That isn't to say that an individual samurai could have purchased a wheellock from the Dutch or Portugese, just that I can't any information on any domestically produced wheellocks from the Sengoku period.

It's worth noting that after the first initial years of their introduction, nearly all matchlocks (tanegashima) were domestically produced; some sources claim that the Japanese produced more matchlocks (in absolute numbers) than any European country. It was only the things that smiths couldn't produce or were not cost effective to produce (eg cuirass formed from a single steel plate for nanban gusoku) that were imported.

Flintlocks and other mechanisms started appearing during the tail end of the Edo period, but it wasn't until Admiral Perry showed up that contemporary weapons showed up. The Last Samurai reflects the rapid modernisation fairly well - Government troops were initially equipped with either antiquated tanegashima or flintlocks derived from a German design (lumped under the catch all term Gewehr), and gatling guns and Minie rifles showed up during the Boshin War.

[Pauly]

Aside from the throwing knives, ultra incompetent and expendable redcoats typical of the genre, and of course specific people and other narrative contrivances, how well does Frontier work as a historical?



and

Are there any examples of the Japanese using wheellocks or other contemporary designs during the sengoku period? They were obviously very fond of matchlocks, and It'd seem strange that there wasn't at least one wealthy samurai who acquired a more elite firearm mechanism.

I haven’t had “Frontier” come up in any comments from any of my friends, which is kind of worrying snce that is an era we are all interested in. It isn’t necessarily an indication of poor quality, but I would have expected one of us to have heard about it if it was good. I will see if I can find an episode or two to watch on line.

I’ve been through a lot of Japanese museums and antique arms dealer’s shops. For the Sengoku period it’s matchlocks all the way down. I do not recall seeing any wheel locks, and there are only a very few flintlocks.

[Clistenes]

About Tanegashima (japanese firearms), for what I have read:

During the Edo period there weren't any wars, either external or internal, save some very small acts of rebellion, police forces didn't use firearms at all, nor were they used for hunting... so firearms basically weren't used at all from the middle of the XVII century to the middle of the XIX century...

The Tokugawa, however, wanted to keep a force of gunmen just in case they needed to repel a foreign invasion, so they kept a large number of artisans and low-level samurai families who were paid to keep producing firearms and training with them...

The problem is, these people never actually used these weapons in combat. They were paid to look like they were skilled in the use of firearms... Hence the crafting of firearms became sort of like the forging of swords in today's Japan... a tradition and art that is passed unchanged from father to son; they endeavored to make badass-looking, beautiful, big ass matchlock muskets rather than efficient firearms, because they were never intended to be used, but rather to be eye-pleasing to keep a daimyo or shogun or high ranking officer happy...

As for the families of hereditary gunmen, they focused on training to fire quickly, accurately and elegantly heavy big bore tripod-supported matchlock muskets as a sort of exhibition art. Their aim was to show off in front of their superiors, who would say: "wow! look at that guy, he is able to fire a musket the size of a cannon! and look how fast he loads it!..." (something like this, but trying to look badass while doing it...) The gunmen didn't want more efficient, cheaper to produce, easier to use firearms, because, if you could just recruit some peasant, train him to use a gun for several weeks and send him to the battlefield, then their gunner families who spent generations training their whole lives in the use of antiquated firearms where useless and out of their job...

It didn't help that the Japanese weren't keenly aware of the evolution of foreign technologies... they mostly copied Chinese and European technologies, but Chinese technology evolved at such a glacial pace that the Japanese weren't even able to perceive such evolution... as far as they were concerned, the Chinese always had cool stuff. As for Europeans, they copied and adopted their technologies during a very short span of time, so they hadn't lived through the development of such technologies, they weren't aware of it... so as far as they were concerned, the Namban (Europeans) always had those technologies and would never develop anything new...

Of course, there were people in Japan who were aware of foreign scientific and technological advancement, but they were a tiny elite minority. And there were Japanese who were trying to improve their own crafts and techniques, but even those weren't aware of the pace the world outside of Japan was changing... they were aware of concrete technological advancements within Japan, but not of the world as a whole becoming more technologically sophisticated over time...

[Kiero]

Aside from the throwing knives, ultra incompetent and expendable redcoats typical of the genre, and of course specific people and other narrative contrivances, how well does Frontier work as a historical?

It's a reasonable TV facsimile of the tensions involved in Canada at the time, from what I understand. The Hudson's Bay Company was a real entity, which as a company operating under royal charter (like the Honourable East India Company) had broad powers. It still exists to this day, and alongside the Post Office must be one of the oldest companies in the world.

[rrgg]

and

Are there any examples of the Japanese using wheellocks or other contemporary designs during the sengoku period? They were obviously very fond of matchlocks, and It'd seem strange that there wasn't at least one wealthy samurai who acquired a more elite firearm mechanism.

It's probably worth noting that even in europe matchlocks were generally considered more reliable than flintlocks and wheellocks up until around 1700 or so. During this period you primarily see flintlocks showing up only on smaller caliber weapons like pistols, carbines, and half-muskets that are meant to be used on horseback or meant to provide a lot of mobility to light skirmishers, while full-bore infantry muskets continued to be preferred with matchlocks. For example flintlocks soon became extremely popular in the americas during the 1600s among both colonists and natives, but this seems to be mainly because they didn't require large amounts of matchcord to be continually supplied from europe and because you didn't have to worry about the sight or smell of a burnt match giving you away during hunting or ambush warfare.

Wheellocks are sort of another oddity and don't seem to have gained popularity outside of europe. They were considered more reliable than snaphaunces at the time but were also pretty expensive and delicate. To supply wheellock pistols and carbines to cavalry in large numbers then you'll need a very large and efficient industry set up that can produce them cheaply enough, and you'll likely even need to have specialists following the army around at all times in order to provide replacement parts and make repairs as needed. The thinking is that since europe already had a pretty large mechanical clock-making industry that had a lot of experience making coiled springs and fairly high-precision metal components it was the only place where wheellocks were really feasible as a military weapon. I think Bert Hall notes that in addition during the 1530s-40s a new technique was developed for making the high-precision steel wheels needed for wheellocks much cheaper, which is part of what influenced their rapidly growing popularity.

One other possible factor is the fact that europeans didn't really have much of a strong horse archery tradition, and one of the main driving forces behind the development and growing popularity of improved wheellocks and snaphaunces seems to have been figuring out a way to make guns more effective from horseback. By the second half of the 16th century, Sir John Smythe claimed that many turkish horsemen in eastern europe would carry both a bow and an arquebus at the same time so that they could switch back and forth as needed. However ottoman cavalry don't seem to have started carrying pistols and carbines in large numbers like western cavalry until the late 17th century when much cheaper and more reliable flintlocks were available. By this time however Japan and China were already entering a long period of relative peace and isolation.

[fusilier]

It's probably worth noting that even in europe matchlocks were generally considered more reliable than flintlocks and wheellocks up until around 1700 or so. During this period you primarily see flintlocks showing up only on smaller caliber weapons like pistols, carbines, and half-muskets that are meant to be used on horseback or meant to provide a lot of mobility to light skirmishers, while full-bore infantry muskets continued to be preferred with matchlocks. For example flintlocks soon became extremely popular in the americas during the 1600s among both colonists and natives, but this seems to be mainly because they didn't require large amounts of matchcord to be continually supplied from europe and because you didn't have to worry about the sight or smell of a burnt match giving you away during hunting or ambush warfare.

I would like to point out two additional factors. Matchlocks were simple and inexpensive. I suspect that was one reason why they held on for so long in European armies.

Firelocks (wheellocks and flintlocks) were preferred for use at sea, as matchlocks were more susceptible to the spray. That's not to say that matchlocks were useless at sea, they were used quite widely for a long time. I suspect that the increased use of firelocks at sea, was part of the reason you see a greater proportion of them in the colonies than in Europe, as those were the kinds of weapons that were transported. Interestingly, the Spanish authorized the use of crossbows on Galleons traveling to the Americas, for long after they were no longer acceptable for those operating in Europe. I suspect this was because, while considered an inferior weapon, they were more reliable at sea than a matchlock, and were thought to be "sufficient" protection in the Americas (at least in the mid 1500s when there was little other European competition).

[Pauly]

I would like to point out two additional factors. Matchlocks were simple and inexpensive. I suspect that was one reason why they held on for so long in European armies.

Firelocks (wheellocks and flintlocks) were preferred for use at sea, as matchlocks were more susceptible to the spray. That's not to say that matchlocks were useless at sea, they were used quite widely for a long time. I suspect that the increased use of firelocks at sea, was part of the reason you see a greater proportion of them in the colonies than in Europe, as those were the kinds of weapons that were transported. Interestingly, the Spanish authorized the use of crossbows on Galleons traveling to the Americas, for long after they were no longer acceptable for those operating in Europe. I suspect this was because, while considered an inferior weapon, they were more reliable at sea than a matchlock, and were thought to be "sufficient" protection in the Americas (at least in the mid 1500s when there was little other European competition).

With regards to Spain and colonial powers in general.
- Weapons systems sent to colonies needed to be self sustaining. In the early Spanish era all powder and shot had to be transported. Whereas crossbows strings and bolts could be manufactured locally.
- In later periods when manufacturing had increased significantly powder and shot were still shipped because if the colonists had a source of locally produced firearms they would be harder to control if they rebelled.
- In still later periods when the colonies did have their own arms industries the colonial powers only allowed previous generation technology to be made in the colony for use by colonial (i.e. non-European) troops. The colonial power was, theoretically at least, always one generation of technology ahead of the natives of the colony.

[rrgg]

I would like to point out two additional factors. Matchlocks were simple and inexpensive. I suspect that was one reason why they held on for so long in European armies.

Firelocks (wheellocks and flintlocks) were preferred for use at sea, as matchlocks were more susceptible to the spray. That's not to say that matchlocks were useless at sea, they were used quite widely for a long time. I suspect that the increased use of firelocks at sea, was part of the reason you see a greater proportion of them in the colonies than in Europe, as those were the kinds of weapons that were transported. Interestingly, the Spanish authorized the use of crossbows on Galleons traveling to the Americas, for long after they were no longer acceptable for those operating in Europe. I suspect this was because, while considered an inferior weapon, they were more reliable at sea than a matchlock, and were thought to be "sufficient" protection in the Americas (at least in the mid 1500s when there was little other European competition).

That's a good point. Firelocks do seem to have gained a reputation for being less hindered by wet weather. In 1594 you had Sutcliffe "In rainie weather they [muskets and calivers] cannot doe almost anie service. Yet some say, that at Rocheabeille firelockes did I know not what service in the raine." Another advantage sometimes mentioned later on was in very windy weather, since a flintlock was a bit more immediate it was usually a bit more likely to ignite the powder in the pan without it being blown away.

That said I've heard some reenactors claim to have had an opposite experience, which was that if you had a matchlock then even if the powder in the pan was slightly damp, if you held the match down for a couple of seconds the heat would sometimes still dry the powder out enough to let it ignite anyways. Period treatises do bring up a number of techniques for soldiers to use to keep their matches lit during rainy weather such as keeping the match under their coats or under their armpits or attaching little metal caps to each end of the matchcord that were supposed to keep it from going out. A lot of them also include instructions for how to make wet weather firestarters that you were supposed to seal in a very dry, airtight clay container that you could later open back up and then either splash water or spit on them to make them immediately ignite. Though those sound a little dangerous to me.

Another big advantage of flintlocks of course was that they were considered much safer. For instance you have soldiers armed with flintlocks start being assigned to guard the artillery or barrels of gunpowder.

Regarding firearms in the Americas. I'm a bit less familiar with the spanish than with the English colonies, but Peterson's Arms and Armor in Colonial America and Silverman's Thundersticks Do seem to indicate a pretty strong preference for flintlocks in north america throughout most of the 1600s. Native Americans definitely preferred to trade for flintlocks instead of matchlocks, but even among the settlers it seems that a lot of the matchlocks that were brought over started being converted into flintlocks of some sort pretty early on. The 1624-25 jamestown census counted a total of more than 1000 firearms among virginian colonists at the time but only about 50 were still labeled as matchlocks. The preference for flintlocks though may also have had to do with a preference for lighter, more portable firearms without rests that would have been easier to carry around and skirmish with in the dense forests of new england.

The list of arms planned for a 1626 voyage to Massachusetts included:

8o bastard musketts, with snaphances, 4 ffote in the barrill, without rests;

10 ffull musketts, 4 foote barrill, with matchlocks and rests;

06 longe ffowlinge peeces, with muskett boare, 6 ffoote long, 1/2;

4 longe ffowlinge peeces, with bastard muskett boare, 5 1/2 ffoote longe;

Anyways, there definitely some in europe who started suggesting a switch to firelocks entirely as the 17th century went on. For example Roger Boyle gave a pretty good list of what he thought the firelock's advantages were. The general assumption that matchlocks were much more reliable overall does seem to stuck around pretty strongly though, here's an even later source which again claims that flintlocks were more likely to misfire. Something curious about Sir James Turner's 1671 "Pallas Armata" is that he recommends soldiers be given muskets which can be converted into flintlocks for when they need to sneak around at night or carry out ambushes, then converted back to matchlocks the rest of the time. Though he doesn't actually get into an argument about matchlocks vs flintlocks, elsewhere he seems to assume that his audience will consider the idea that flintlocks can completely replace matchlocks ridiculous. In his responses to Master Lupton's book against the pike, one of the arguments was that many convoys now aren't accompanied by any pikemen at all, to which Turner retorts: "Many great Convoys are composed only of Firelocks, or Fusees, I hope Master Lupton will not thence infer that Musquets are useless."

[rrgg]

On a somewhat related note. Something I've been noticing lately is that a lot of 17th and even 16th century authors really didn't like the use of bandoliers (such as the hanging "twelve apostles" containing premeasured gunpowder charges). The preferred method of loading gunpowder in the late 16th century, particularly among those who had experience with the spanish army, seems to have instead been to use a double-action flask where the spout was the correct size to measure out one charge of gunpowder with two switches, so you'd press one switch to let the spout fill up with gunpowder and then press the other one to let the powder fall out the spout into the barrel of your gun.

The two biggest complaints about the use of bandoliers that seem to come up are that they were apparently harder to keep dry than a single flask or a leather box filled with paper cartridges, and it was apparently pretty easy for at least one of the many hanging charges have it's lid come loose while moving about and cover the wearer with loose powder, which could then be accidentally ignited by a lit match. They also tended to make a lot of noise while moving which could apparently be a problem for skirmishing or sneaking around.

William garrard in 1587 claimed that bandoliers tended to be more common among the dutch then the spanish, and while he personally preferred flasks, both were at least better than soldiers carrying loose powder around in their coat pockets, like some english troops tended to do at the time:

And therefore those Souldiers which in our time haue bene for the most part leuied in the lowe Countries, especiallie those of Artoyes and Henault, called by the generall name of Wallownes, haue vsed to hange about their neckes, vppon a Baudricke or bor∣der, or at their girdles certaine Pypes which they call Charges, of Copper and Tyn made with couers, which they thinke in skirmish to be the most readiest way. But the Spaniard dispising that order, doth altogether vse his flaske.

The French man, both charge and flaske. But some of our English nation, their pocket, which in respect of the danger of the sparkes of their Match, the vncertaine charge, the expence and spoile of Pouder, the dis∣commodity of wette, I account more apt for the show of a triumph and wanton skirmish before Ladyes and Gentlewomen, then fit for the field, in a day of seruice in the face of the Enemye: and in like sort the charge which either doth shed and loose his Pouder whilest a Souldier doth tra∣uerse hys ground, or else is so cloddered and rammed together, that he shall be forced sometimes to fayle of halfe his charge. Therefore I con∣clude with the Spaniard, that a good Flaske is that which is most warlike and ready in seruice without the curious helpe of any extraordi∣nary inuention.

So I'm not sure exactly why bandoliers stuck around for so long. I assume they were relatively inexpensive and easier to replace compared to a double action flask. It could also have to do with a lot of european armies copying things from the dutch during the early 17th century.

[fusilier]

On a somewhat related note. Something I've been noticing lately is that a lot of 17th and even 16th century authors really didn't like the use of bandoliers (such as the hanging "twelve apostles" containing premeasured gunpowder charges). The preferred method of loading gunpowder in the late 16th century, particularly among those who had experience with the spanish army, seems to have instead been to use a double-action flask where the spout was the correct size to measure out one charge of gunpowder with two switches, so you'd press one switch to let the spout fill up with gunpowder and then press the other one to let the powder fall out the spout into the barrel of your gun.

. . .

So I'm not sure exactly why bandoliers stuck around for so long. I assume they were relatively inexpensive and easier to replace compared to a double action flask. It could also have to do with a lot of european armies copying things from the dutch during the early 17th century.

I use a flask with a single valve at the base, and cover the top spout with my finger to get a "consistent" charge. I say "consistent" in quotes, because the valve action is not always perfect, and sometimes I have to try it a second time to get a full measure.

I suspect that the apostles were considered quicker, by those that used them. But I've always looked at it as a personal option. De Gheyn's manual depicts the Arquebusier with a flask, and the Musketeer with apostles. It could be that those equipped with a flask expected to do more shooting.

As for safety -- I can't really say. The apostles are carried across the body, and there may be a greater chance of a piece of hot ash finding one, and some powder dust, igniting it? On the other hand the powder flask is basically a grenade that you wear on your hip -- or when loading hold at about eye level. Some reenactment groups don't allow their members to load directly from a flask, for fear of the musket "cooking off" when loading, and blowing up the flask.

[fusilier]

That's a good point. Firelocks do seem to have gained a reputation for being less hindered by wet weather. In 1594 you had Sutcliffe "In rainie weather they [muskets and calivers] cannot doe almost anie service. Yet some say, that at Rocheabeille firelockes did I know not what service in the raine." Another advantage sometimes mentioned later on was in very windy weather, since a flintlock was a bit more immediate it was usually a bit more likely to ignite the powder in the pan without it being blown away.

That said I've heard some reenactors claim to have had an opposite experience, which was that if you had a matchlock then even if the powder in the pan was slightly damp, if you held the match down for a couple of seconds the heat would sometimes still dry the powder out enough to let it ignite anyways. Period treatises do bring up a number of techniques for soldiers to use to keep their matches lit during rainy weather such as keeping the match under their coats or under their armpits or attaching little metal caps to each end of the matchcord that were supposed to keep it from going out. A lot of them also include instructions for how to make wet weather firestarters that you were supposed to seal in a very dry, airtight clay container that you could later open back up and then either splash water or spit on them to make them immediately ignite. Though those sound a little dangerous to me.

Another big advantage of flintlocks of course was that they were considered much safer. For instance you have soldiers armed with flintlocks start being assigned to guard the artillery or barrels of gunpowder.

Regarding firearms in the Americas. I'm a bit less familiar with the spanish than with the English colonies, but Peterson's Arms and Armor in Colonial America and Silverman's Thundersticks Do seem to indicate a pretty strong preference for flintlocks in north america throughout most of the 1600s. Native Americans definitely preferred to trade for flintlocks instead of matchlocks, but even among the settlers it seems that a lot of the matchlocks that were brought over started being converted into flintlocks of some sort pretty early on. The 1624-25 jamestown census counted a total of more than 1000 firearms among virginian colonists at the time but only about 50 were still labeled as matchlocks. The preference for flintlocks though may also have had to do with a preference for lighter, more portable firearms without rests that would have been easier to carry around and skirmish with in the dense forests of new england.

The list of arms planned for a 1626 voyage to Massachusetts included:



Anyways, there definitely some in europe who started suggesting a switch to firelocks entirely as the 17th century went on. For example Roger Boyle gave a pretty good list of what he thought the firelock's advantages were. The general assumption that matchlocks were much more reliable overall does seem to stuck around pretty strongly though, here's an even later source which again claims that flintlocks were more likely to misfire. Something curious about Sir James Turner's 1671 "Pallas Armata" is that he recommends soldiers be given muskets which can be converted into flintlocks for when they need to sneak around at night or carry out ambushes, then converted back to matchlocks the rest of the time. Though he doesn't actually get into an argument about matchlocks vs flintlocks, elsewhere he seems to assume that his audience will consider the idea that flintlocks can completely replace matchlocks ridiculous. In his responses to Master Lupton's book against the pike, one of the arguments was that many convoys now aren't accompanied by any pikemen at all, to which Turner retorts: "Many great Convoys are composed only of Firelocks, or Fusees, I hope Master Lupton will not thence infer that Musquets are useless."

I believe that one of the reasons flintlocks took a while to replace matchlocks was that they were more complicated, and the technology needed to mature to the point where it was easy to mass produce reliable flintlocks.

That said, when something goes wrong with a flintlock, it can take some time to correct it. A flint might need to be re-knapped, or replaced, or sometimes simply adjusted in the jaws. Any of those can take some time. Which in the heat of battle, where a weapon is being fired frequently, could be a problem. I've also had strange problems with flintlocks, even with a weapon that is usually very reliable. One time, I think my frizzen had attracted some humidity and wasn't sparking correctly -- it was a very strange problem. (Frizzens have to be tempered just right, ideally made out of a high carbon material, and the striking surface needs a certain amount of roughness -- another technological factor that has to be mastered for reliability and consistency).

I have seen weapons that had a kind of double lock, with both flintlock and matchlock mechanism operating on the same priming pan.

Regarding holding the match against damp powder: I've never tried that myself, but it makes sense. But if your powder is getting wet the situation is already bad. For both a matchlock and a flintlock, getting wet powder while loading is a similar problem. However, the matchlock will suffer more if firing in the rain, because the pan is open and exposed to the weather for longer. There are techniques to try to shield the pan from the rain when loading, but they aren't really applicable when firing. (During the Siege of Malta, the knights kept crossbows on hand, to repel attacks in the rain)

In strong winds, I suspect a flintlock will have an advantage. Interestingly, the maker of my replica matchlock told me that in windy conditions, he uses coarser powder in the priming pan! This slows the ignition time, but makes it less likely for the powder to blow away. I could imagine for a soldier that could be difficult to plan for.

Having burning matchcords around powder wagons is an understandable danger! So it's not surprising that as firelocks became more available those guards were issued with such weapons.

Regarding Spanish colonies in the Americas, keep in mind the Spanish had a presence in the area a hundred years before the English, so many of the reports refer to an earlier time period. Nevertheless, most depictions of weapons used during King Phillips War show matchlocks, don't they? While there may have been an early preference for firelocks, it's possible that as numbers increased, it was cheaper to equip militia with matchlocks?

In New Mexico, Onate's expedition of 1598 included two miquelet lock weapons, which is a fairly early date for such a weapon (a miquelet lock is a kind of early flintlock). However, I believe even during De Vargas's reconquest a hundred years later, most were armed with matchlocks. Certainly old armor persisted in New Mexico (people still find bits of chainmail), although New Mexico's remoteness probably means that it was even more behind the times than other areas of New Spain.

I think there are many good reasons why the flintlock replaced the matchlock, but, like any change in technology, there are situations and conditions where the matchlock might have an advantage.

[rs2excelsior]

So, I have something else I'd like to pick the thread's collective brain about: ancient Mesopotamian warfare. Most information that I've found readily available about the nitty-gritty of this era of warfare has been fairly sparse. I've picked up that the spear, bow, javelin, and chariot were common weapons, and that the Assyrians were the first to form a professional, year-round army instead of campaigning only in summer with (mostly) farmers as soldiers, and that the Assyrians were particularly adept at breaching and storming cities. But the details--how armies were raised and organized under either system, how they actually performed on the field, are lacking. Most useful information I've found has come from this site, which focuses on the professional Assyrian armies.

So, regarding the non-professional armies of the regions: you've got part-time soldiers who campaign in between planting and harvest. That strikes me as being quite similar to the Greek hoplites, or pre-Marian Republican Rome. Would it be reasonable to draw parallels between these systems? I.e. a citizen-soldiery, where certain rights were linked to being able to serve in the army on campaign and provide suitable equipment for yourself, with the equipment requirements depending on status and/or wealth. It certainly seems like that is a valid comparison, but I realize most people (myself included) have a tendency to make anachronistic assumptions about the past based on more familiar, more recent history. Regardless, I would assume these types of armies would be comparatively poorly-trained and led in most cases.

Regarding the later, professional, Assyrian armies, there seem to have been fairly well organized--not sure to what degree, however. How would an Assyrian army have compared in terms of standard organization and training to, say, a late Republican/early Imperial Roman legion? Along these lines, I've found this quote (sourced from the same site as I referenced earlier):

He would have seen, in the centre of the formation, the main body of infantry, compact phalanxes of spearmen, their weapon points glittering in the sun, each arranged in ten files of twenty ranks. He would have marvelled – and perhaps trembled – at the discipline and precision of their maneuvering, a contrast to the relatively freewheeling manner of previous armies, for the reforms had introduced a highly developed and effective command structure. Infantrymen fought in squads of ten, each headed by an NCO, and grouped into companies of five to twenty squads under the command of a Captain.

Aside from the anachronistic terminology this strikes me as being quite similar to the Roman system (contubernia and centuries). It also implies that the Assyrian armies were rather well disciplined, and other armies of the time were not. The phalanx depth seems quite deep--I was under the impression that six to ten was about standard for, say, Greek phalanxes and deeper formations were considered unusual when they were used.

Was the concept of a professional army taken up by other states of the area around the time? In between times of Assyrian ascendancy, did other Mesopotamian kingdoms such as Babylon begin to incorporate elements of this system? Did the later Assyrian empires revive the idea of a professional army?

Regarding siege warfare--short campaign seasons of no more than a few months seem to imply a city would be taken by storm or not at all. There really isn't time to invest in a long siege when you have to let the army go home in time for harvest. On the flip side, once you'd beaten the army you could negotiate terms based on the threat of burning the fields that would supply the city, or actually carry out the threat and watch them starve during the winter. Even Assyrian siege techniques seem to focus around storm rather than investing a city. Did the Assyrians make use of long-term sieges, even just as a mean to soften up the defenders before an assault?

More generally: was there a concept of warrior nobility (landed or not) at this time? If soldiers were expected to bring their own equipment, I can't imagine the person who brings a chariot with horses, a driver, and an assistant wouldn't be regarded as higher up than someone who brings a shield, spear, and helmet.

I realize these questions are reaching back to near the beginning of our recorded history, so there might not really be concrete answers to a lot of these. But any information you do have, or good sources I could look into myself, I'd appreciate. Thanks!

[jayem]

...
Regarding siege warfare--short campaign seasons of no more than a few months seem to imply a city would be taken by storm or not at all. There really isn't time to invest in a long siege when you have to let the army go home in time for harvest. On the flip side, once you'd beaten the army you could negotiate terms based on the threat of burning the fields that would supply the city, or actually carry out the threat and watch them starve during the winter. Even Assyrian siege techniques seem to focus around storm rather than investing a city. Did the Assyrians make use of long-term sieges, even just as a mean to soften up the defenders before an assault?

More generally: was there a concept of warrior nobility (landed or not) at this time? If soldiers were expected to bring their own equipment, I can't imagine the person who brings a chariot with horses, a driver, and an assistant wouldn't be regarded as higher up than someone who brings a shield, spear, and helmet.

I realize these questions are reaching back to near the beginning of our recorded history, so there might not really be concrete answers to a lot of these. But any information you do have, or good sources I could look into myself, I'd appreciate. Thanks!

The book of kings/chronicles [as in the biblical/torah, so any discussion (e.g. about normalcy and reliability) would get awkward quickly] does describe situations where they separately the Israeli's and Judean's capitals are surrounded by the Assyrians and have run out on food. Which suggests that it was at least a thing that they expected the Assyrian's to be able and willing to do. There's also at least some kind of (10s, 100s, etc...)/officer structure described at various for earlier points for said non-superpower.

[rogoxekos]

Best ever got