Low-Tech Missile Weapon Range and Accuracy

[Polydamas]

We should remember that English longbowmen do not seem to have been typical expert archers. Many other military cultures emphasized accuracy, or sustained rate of fire, or other factors which required a bow well under 100 lbs draw. When the English began to colonize Virginia and New England, they noted that the natives were good shots but only used light bows (around 50 lbs based on the few extant examples).

Originally Posted by Icelander

A #1500 draw crossbow should be much more expensive to make than a musket. It should be about as expensive as a good sword.

This is a side point, but according to the only figures I've seen, guns were much more expensive than serviceable swords (although the sky was the limit for a fine sword). A sword appropriate for a militiaman cost around 40d in Elizabeth's reign, when you couldn't buy a caliver for less than 150d.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

We should remember that English longbowmen do not seem to have been typical expert archers. Many other military cultures emphasized accuracy, or sustained rate of fire, or other factors which required a bow well under 100 lbs draw. When the English began to colonize Virginia and New England, they noted that the natives were good shots but only used light bows (around 50 lbs based on the few extant examples).

Of course English archers aren't typical. They are, however, good models for the kind of extreme ST scores PCs often have.

Originally Posted by Polydamas

This is a side point, but according to the only figures I've seen, guns were much more expensive than serviceable swords (although the sky was the limit for a fine sword). A sword appropriate for a militiaman cost around 40d in Elizabeth's reign, when you couldn't buy a caliver for less than 150d.

In GURPS, you can easily buy a Cheap sword for a militiaman. And during the early states of any technology, it is always more expensive.

We only have good GURPS stats for muskets during the mature stage of the technology and during mass production.

[Gudiomen]

I'm sure someone probably mentioned this, but the posts are pretty long, so in case anyone hasn't...

I was under the impression that early gunpowder weapons weren't very accurate. Most historical info I could get about the brown bess, particularly the ones used in the Farrapo War here in my region, were that their accuracy sucked geometrically with distance. Hitting anything beyond 100m was nearly sheer luck.
Bows were used in targeting competitions, so I assume they were optimize for precision. And although the medieval period brought massed archers into the possible uses for the bow, the bow existed before that as a precision weapon for hunting and sport. While massed long range fire, which didn't need lots of accuracy was the breeding ground for early firearms. You fired them in formation, at formations.
Also, from what I understand bullets rely on the muzzle to stabilize them, while arrows are gyro stabilized, so they stay true for longer ranges. They're also pointy and more massive than bullets (although speed probably imparted a good deal of mass to bullets).

To me, a bow being more accurate than a brown bess is perfectly believable, even a given. I'm not sure about crossbows though, they came into existance in the massed-fire setting, and the main point was penetration (like Icelander said, bulky and potent, not necessarily accurate), but they were easy to use for the same reasons firearms are.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

I'm sure someone probably mentioned this, but the posts are pretty long, so in case anyone hasn't...

I was under the impression that early gunpowder weapons weren't very accurate. Most historical info I could get about the brown bess, particularly the ones used in the Farrapo War here in my region, were that their accuracy sucked geometrically with distance. Hitting anything beyond 100m was nearly sheer luck.
Bows were used in targeting competitions, so I assume they were optimize for precision. And although the medieval period brought massed archers into the possible uses for the bow, the bow existed before that as a precision weapon for hunting and sport. While massed long range fire, which didn't need lots of accuracy was the breeding ground for early firearms. You fired them in formation, at formations.
Also, from what I understand bullets rely on the muzzle to stabilize them, while arrows are gyro stabilized, so they stay true for longer ranges. They're also pointy and more massive than bullets (although speed probably imparted a good deal of mass to bullets).

To me, a bow being more accurate than a brown bess is perfectly believable, even a given. I'm not sure about crossbows though, they came into existance in the massed-fire setting, and the main point was penetration (like Icelander said, bulky and potent, not necessarily accurate), but they were easy to use for the same reasons firearms are.

A trained archer will outshoot a typical soldier, yes. But that's not because of the innate properties of the bow (which is notoriously difficult to aim), but rather because the trained archer has years of experience shooting his weapon whereas soldiers of the period often had no opportunity practising with their weapons.

French conscripts could easily be sent into battle having only fired their weapons once or twice during training. Most of the few weeks of training was spent on teaching them formation drill and the mechanics of loading quickly. Individual accuracy was utterly irrelevant for the kind of massed fire that was required on a Napoleonic battlefield.

In those rare cases where someone might have practised accuracy with a musket, hitting a target at 100 yards or beyond is far from impossible. Modern reenactors are able to do it consistently and easily.

[SimonAce]

Originally Posted by Icelander

SNIP

In those rare cases where someone might have practised accuracy with a musket, hitting a target at 100 yards or beyond is far from impossible. Modern reenactors are able to do it consistently and easily.

With a decent grade of powder and a carefully loaded musket such weapons can be quite accurate -- heck they were in use (in the form of a shotgun with a round ball load) well into the 20th century.

Most soldiers back in the day though were conscripts often badly trained ,armed with poor weapons and lousy powder trained to fire in mass formations.

hence bad accuracy

[SuedodeuS]

Originally Posted by SimonAce

With a decent grade of powder and a carefully loaded musket such weapons can be quite accurate -- heck they were in use (in the form of a shotgun with a round ball load) well into the 20th century.

Most soldiers back in the day though were conscripts often badly trained ,armed with poor weapons and lousy powder trained to fire in mass formations.

hence bad accuracy

Hmmm... do the rules from High-Tech for handloading match-grade ammunition apply to multi-part ammo weapons like muskets? If so, well-trained individuals could up the Acc of the Brown Bess to 3... which is still below the crossbow. Personally, I don't have a problem with muzzle-loading smoothbore weapons firing non-saboted rounds having lower Acc than the crossbow. Rifled muzzle-loaders should probably have the same base Acc as a crossbow, thus being able to have better Acc with a match-grade load. Simply dropping the Acc of most bows (excluding Short Bow) and the crossbow (only the crossbow, not the other two) by 1 strikes me as a decent fix, since the arrow itself can generally act as a mediocre sight.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by SuedodeuS

Hmmm... do the rules from High-Tech for handloading match-grade ammunition apply to multi-part ammo weapons like muskets? If so, well-trained individuals could up the Acc of the Brown Bess to 3... which is still below the crossbow.

The rules do so allow.

Originally Posted by SuedodeuS

Personally, I don't have a problem with muzzle-loading smoothbore weapons firing non-saboted rounds having lower Acc than the crossbow. Rifled muzzle-loaders should probably have the same base Acc as a crossbow, thus being able to have better Acc with a match-grade load. Simply dropping the Acc of most bows (excluding Short Bow) and the crossbow (only the crossbow, not the other two) by 1 strikes me as a decent fix, since the arrow itself can generally act as a mediocre sight.

If the crossbow has proper sights it might rate a similar Acc. OTOH, this was not true of many historical crossbows.

[SuedodeuS]

Originally Posted by Icelander

If the crossbow has proper sights it might rate a similar Acc. OTOH, this was not true of many historical crossbows.

Probably so, but since presence/absence of iron sights appears to have no bearing on Acc in High-Tech, such sighting systems are probably below the level of GURPS resolution. Using the tip and fletchings of the arrow/bolt could approximate sights closely enough that the effect can be effectively hand-waived, and any type of sights that would increase base Acc for a crossbow would likely be available for muskets/rifles as well. All else being equal, I suspect crossbows and early rifles would have the same accuracy - rifles just shoot further and pack a bigger punch.
Or at least they should.

[nik1979]

Originally Posted by Icelander

The problem that I have is that the GURPS stats are... somewhat optimistic.
<SNIP>

I retract my argument points, because when I talked to my reference again he had an entirely different opinion and it was parallel to yours. Although I did get the arrow volley right.

[nik1979]

Isn't the 1/2 range modifier based on Yards/M per Second?

edit. didnt see it was already up
edit 2. it seems everything has been concluded. Will we see a summary of stats?