Is Bannon right about this one thing?

[*michaelsean*]

(02-23-2017, 12:50 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: About 4 shots per minute would be sustainable.





As you can see from the video, you had to do a lot to prep those things to fire. Particularly pulling out the ramrod, ramming the charge and ball round into the chamber, and then replacing the ramrod to its place. Perhaps someone could shave a handful of seconds off of each shot time by just having the ramrod out already. That might get you to 5 shots per minute. But that wasn't prescribed by the manual of arms at the time as it was thought (rightfully so) that more troops would damage or lose the ramrods over time, especially if the troops had to advance or retreat (which they usually did at some point).

But increasing the individual rate of fire wasn't the name of the game at the time. It was more important to produce a volley, or wall of fire, due to the inaccuracy of the weapons. Rate of fire was was increased by having multiple ranks alternate between firing and reloading. This was a system the West had already been using for hundreds of years before with crossbowmen, and it was effective.

BTW - If you've ever gone to see an orchestra concert, you may notice that there are like 40 violin players but only a handful of each wind instrument. That is because stringed instruments like violins, acoustic guitars, etc. generally only play at one volume level. Therefore, if you want the to play something louder, you increase the number of violins playing that line. And vice versa if you want them to play something softer.

What was up with that last shot?  

And yes the archer was the real machine of death. You get 1000 of those, and you could be facing 25,000 arrows over a 2 minute span.