Serious question: How a shielded musketeer have could worked in the battlefields of XV-XVII centuries? A sloped shield could stop volleys while giving the user some protection while firing/reloading.
Serious question: How a shielded musketeer have could worked in the battlefields of XV-XVII centuries? A sloped shield could stop volleys while giving the user some protection while firing/reloading.
Weight, mass production, training, etc, and most commanders don't really care about soldier lives.
Well, she has fluffy twintails and gradient hair and is covered in blood, so yeah, that's a pretty strong resemblance.
Pronak said:
Serious question: How a shielded musketeer have could worked in the battlefields of XV-XVII centuries? A sloped shield could stop volleys while giving the user some protection while firing/reloading.
The basic answer is there were countries that tried making a sort of (then-)modern phalanx, and it didn't work. Any armor/shield made of then-available materials a human could carry was generally not thick enough to stop a bullet fired from muskets unless it was fired from the sort of range they generally weren't firing from, anyway.
Also, the only commonly mass-produced shields to even be mostly made of metal were bucklers. Most shields people think about when thinking of shields were made of wood and maybe had a steel rim because steel is expensive and heavy. Carrying enough wood around to stop a bullet and grant full-body coverage is basically asking people to carry a fairly large tree trunk strapped to their forearms wherever they go.
Weight, mass production, training, etc, and most commanders don't really care about soldier lives.
Actually keeping your troopers alive is one of the most important things to consider in war. This is very much true considering the fact that this was before the industrial revolution and farms required far more people in order to produce enough food in order to sustain an entire state.
Actually keeping your troopers alive is one of the most important things to consider in war. This is very much true considering the fact that this was before the industrial revolution and farms required far more people in order to produce enough food in order to sustain an entire state.
Wasn't there also the oft-quoted statistic/claim that army morale (or perhaps communication) breaks down once casualties exceed 30% of total forces?
