Gunsmith here. The rifle did gain velocity on smoothbore muskets, that is due to the expansion gasses being pressurized behind the shot. The Minie Ball gave the musket the ability to gain velocity and pressure, hence why rifled slug is supperior to ball shot from a shot gun in velocity and pressure. Smooth bore balls tend to wobble and take on setback, like a modern shot shell, they require reinforcement or they tend to lose energy in the barrel as they bounce in the internal surface. You can get pressure and velocity out of smoothbore muskets close to minie balls but it requires alot of pathwork and grease to bind the round, you will need the grease to kep it from siezing the bore and blowing the lock/plug/chamber. Hope this helps clear some of that up. On a rifle, since the internal dimensions are within .001 +/-5 of the caliber, the pressure cannot escape once the base of the bullet has contacted the lands, the soft metal expands into the grooves creating a soft plug, pressure propels the bullet down the barrel and the lands and grooves stabilize it as it spins. This allows for a more stable trajectory, more pressure increasing velocity, and higher transfer potential.
@meisteckhart people forget that pressure is what generates velocity and energy potential. The arsenal guide book for the time has muskets at about 1kfps and rifles about 1.5k to 1.75kfps respectively. It was about production, reloading speed, and efficiency. Otherwise they would not have made a rifled slug to boost chamber pressures and apply twist. Best way to prove this point, would be to take two period firearms and test them side by side. Breach loading firearms produce higher pressure since the bullen is contained. That being said, a rifled slug from a 20ga (.50 caliber, roughly 473.5gr) has the same rough velocity as a 500 s&w (500gr) of 1600-1800 depending on charge. This of course does not translate to historical weapons. Point being that a 500 is a much smaller cartridge by comparrison, the 20ga simply cannot efficiently handle all the pressure arpund the base of the slug.
11:43 well yes and no. In order to engage the rifling the bullet has to be pretty tightly fit. This means that while yes, you do loose a bit of energy to the spin and extra friction, It's more than made up for by the higher efficiency of the better gas seal. Musket ball tends to be just slightly smaller than the bore of the barrel, which makes realoading faster and easier. On average a musket could fire roughly 2-3 times quicker than a muzzle-loading rifle, a big reason why they stuck around for so long (the other being they were quicker and simpler to produce). Muskets would usually have a patch of cloth or paper to help seat the ball so it doesn't just slide out of the barrel when you're aiming even a little downwards, but the patches were burned up and or blasted apart during firing, and the imperfect gas seal would cause the ball to rattle down the barrel and throw off accuracy. With the advent of the industrial revolution we do get ultra-precise machining techniques that can make a perfect gas seal with smoothbore weapons, but generally extra accuracy is preferred over extra velocity, except in certain applications (mostly with shotguns and tank cannons).
And in the case of many tank or naval rounds in the modern era, they have their own guidance systems and/or spin stabilization separate from barrel rifling. Small arms, particularly rifles and standard infantry weapons, have a near zero prevalence of these options (excluding something like a rocket launcher such as Javelin, Stinger, LAW) and so rifling is the practical way to achieve that improved accuracy.
@@pyronuke4768 what energy you lose in friction is made up for in the amount of pressure behind the projectile (Gas seal), and it is not mitigatable. Since it increases pressures far beyond that of the musket. The success of the Sharps as a falling block was due to pressurized rear-loading and only improved with the advent of cases, I would argue case development in both the Sharps and the Martini-Henry created the divergence for contained cartridges (wax cases to shot guns, and brass patch cases/coiled cases for modern rifles). As for small arms, the rifled slug is what gave smooth bores their increased accuracy and pressure for a short period, but they were outpaced by the dynamic pressures of the tight seat of a rifle. The period where they were the closest was during the time of flintlocks where pressure could be forced laterally out of the chamber, percussion caps changed that by sealing the nipple.
11:40 With a rifle the bullet has to have a very tight fit. Which should in theory increase the velocity, but I don't really know. In order to make reloading faster, musket balls would often be quite a bit smaller than the barrel, and sometimes the balls would be wrapped in cloth to prevent them from falling out.
Guns had quite a hard time going through premium steel plate unless they were 20-30 meters from the target. Arrows mostly bounce and annoy knights if you hit them in the front. But sides, helmets and gaps were still dangerous. It's not until fire arms became better that armies started to move away from heavy armor for speed and endurance.
Yes, it’s a misconception/oversimplification that guns made armour obsolete overnight. Plate armour was just super expensive and at some point not economical any more against mass produced guns.
It's amazing how quick Japan went from being feudal shogun isolationists using swords and smoothbore single shot weapons to being equal to most modern military powers.
The Ferguson rifle was also pretty great. It was a breach loading rifle used by the British in the American Revolution. It debuted at Brandywine where Captain Ferguson himself was wounded. In fact, there is good evidence that Captain Ferguson had an easy shot at George Washington himself but Washington's back was turned and Ferguson decided not to take the shot because it would be dishonorable to shoot an officer in the back with a rifle. Even after the war, Ferguson did not regret his decision to shoot George Washington believing that it was against the rules of war. P.S. CallMeEzekiel has two good videos on the Taiping Rebellion. The first one is "Hong Xiuquan & The Taiping Rebellion: The Chinese Christian Rebels who got 30 Million People Killed" The second video is called "China's Christian Civil War: Hong Rengan, Zeng Goufan & The Taiping Civil War | Countryball History" There is a third video on the western mercenaries called "The Insane Mercenaries of the Taiping Rebellion | Polandball History"
This is a pretty nice comprehensive look at the history of the military application of firearms for this period, but I’d like to focus on just how fast things got in the 19th Century in terms of advancements. Imagine a man fought in the Prussian Army at the battle of Waterloo in 1815 with a flintlock musket. That man in 1875 would then watch his grandsons marching in the German Imperial Army with bolt action rifles. In the space of 60 years, we went through flintlock muskets, the percussion cap, needle-fire rifles (see Prussia and France), and finally the bolt-action rifle with metallic cartridges, all in a single lifetime. And if you think all that is insane, the French will blow it all away in 1886.
Really, because it seem to me like he got quite a bit wrong. Not saying that makes him a bad youtuber necessarily, but as a history youtuber, shouldn't he try and validate his information, seeing as people WILL watch it, and take it at face value. ( obviously not everybody, but you know. )
5:57 While it is true that battlecruisers typically had less armor and greater speed than contemporary battleships, they usually did not have any greater firepower, and often had less.
I find it fascinating that reports suggest Henry V actually had primitive gunpowder-based weapons in his army during his invasion of France - though accounts suggest he didn't have them at the Battle of Agincourt, I'm sure I read somewhere that there were early cannons in his invasion force.
Hey Chris, I have a sugestion: Look up to the video "What if the North seceded in 1860?", from Possible History. It's an alternate American Civil War in which the Northern states are the rebels and the South representes the Federal Government. It should be a pretty interesting alternate history focusing on a topic you're very familiar with. Happy New Year to you and your family! 🎉🎉
he has two (or one) episodes about the Spanish civil war which speaks about two journals written by volunteers of both sides one which George Orwell, he has similar video about WW1 which in that compare All Quiet on the Western Front with storm of steel both incredible.
@@ronmaximilian6953 smokeless powder was not a mainstay until the late 1880s-90s, even then blackpowder proofing ran until WWII. He mentioned intermediate cartridges but should have said centerfire cartridges instead.
The spinning motion reduces friction between the projectile and the barrel, helping to increase velocity and imparting a more consistent trajectory. Rifling can also have a significant impact on the terminal performance of a projectile.
@@NathanAdams-v4c it does not reduce friction, it adds friction, but it does generate higher chamber pressures. It reduces bullet deformation and promotes a uniform flight pattern.
@@InfoDumpsYT this is only true if the pressures behind the bullet are identical. Which would mean the rifle charge would be significantly lower. Tighter to the side wall the higher the pressure, which translates to higher velocity regardless of friction generated by the spin, otherwise they would not have made the minie ball to expand at the base to contact the internal wall of the barrel.
11:32 Correct me if I'm wrong (in a nice way please), but it's my understanding that while a rifled barrel might slow a bullet down when still inside the barrel, once it leaves the barrel it maintains it's velocity for a much longer time. So it's faster over time or in other words: A rifled barrel gives a bullet enough speed to travel a lot further than a smoothbore barrel. I think this is what he meant, though he didn't use enough words to convey this.
I would like to mention that the Gatlin Gun (a form of rapid fire) was developed before 1875. Even though it was multi-barrel it was rapid fire. Was part of the Civil War for the US.
A few pedantic nits. The first use of gunpowder weaponry might not even have been a projectile. The Song Dynasty used fire lances. Basically tubes of gunpowder at the end of a long spear or stick that would be ignited and explode on impact. The portrayal of China having little to no innovation on gunpowder weaponry is a big generalization. Its true that handheld gunpowder weapons wouldnt develop much past handcannons before the introduction of matchlocks by the Portugese into the region. Though special shoutout to the Three Eyed Handcannon and early flamethrowers. The Ming Dynasty was heavily invested in other gunpowder weapons, most notably artillery. From light portable mortars to heavy bronze cannons to multi barreled organ guns. Gunpowder weapons were a central component of Ming Dynasty defense doctrine, especially against nomadic horseman from the steppes. Things really kicked into the bizarre after contact with the Portuguese and Dutch. After the Ming defeated a small fleet of Portuguese ships in the Battle of Simcouwaan, they managed to reverse engineer cannons and matchlocks. They then started to wildly innovate. The "Rapid Thunder Bolt Gun" is just a bizarre combination of a multi barreled match lock, spear, small war axe, and shield. Each part was detachable too, so firing squads of two could convert into a spearman and axe and shield man at close range.... in theory. As you can imagine, it was unwieldy to use without proper training. The Imjin War, or Great East Asian War of 1592-98, saw the conflagration of all these independently evolved gunpowder technologies when Japan invades Korea. Japan matchlocks were no doubt superior, and they inflicted crushing defeats on the Korean army. These weapons were also phenomenal at defending strongholds. Recognizing this, the Japanese built several Japanese styled castles in the south coast of Korea during the second invasion. However, the Japanese did not have the resources to develop heavy artillery like the Ming. The Ming brought a staggering 2000 artillery pieces of various sizes to the Siege of Pyongyang. There is an orientalist sheen to arguments that Asian countries didn't develop their gunpowder technology. Its true it may have developed slower due to government bureaucracy. But firearms did develop, just along a different vertical. With the Ming's main threat being steppe nomads, they focused on light and portable artillery over firearm doctrine like the west. Huge walled cities with walls of packed earth (all of which were Chinese cities) also meant no serious investment was made into heavy artillery in the same vein as western armies. The real reason for any gap in the 19th century was more simply, industrialization. China with its large population stayed an agrarian society. East Asian countries, such as Japan, proved that they could quickly adopt and adapt western technology. But China didn't have the means to mass produce or precisely manufacture the weapons of the 19th and 20th centuries.
i would recommend his recent ww2 videos, his look at "Storm of steel" vs All quiet on the western front or his 'ordinary men" and "the gulag archipelago"
Hi, longtime viewer from Southern Indiana. As a fellow WW1 history buff who's been truly inspired by your interest in it and plans to take myself to the Somme or the Marne as a 22nd birthday present; I wondered if you've heard the Scottish WW1 song "Waltzing Matilda," and if so you would surely love the modern "The Band Played Waltzing Matilda," by Eric Bogle (best version by the Pogues) It tells the story of Gallipoli and the aftermath from an ANZAC perspective.
I didn't know about this channel before, I'll check out more of his videos. But I also have a suggestion for when you want to react to something that's outside your area of expertise: there's the Extra History series about the Empire of Brazil, with Napoleon at the beginning and Ulysses S. Grant at the end. I think it has 5 parts. There's also the Armchair Historian video about the Paraguayan War, which takes place during Brazil's monarchical period.
There is a great video about the history of small arms throughout history that Id think you’d find really interesting . It’s a lecture by Richard S. Faulkner, a WWI professor at the Command and General Staff College
I wouldn't say guns eliminated the need for troop formation because they are still being used today by armies and police forces. It just had to be modified to suit the new technology. And that's probably why you see modern armies fighting in small spread squads on any battlefield. It is interesting that shields as well may never be eliminated by firearms. Unless someone invents special shields like the ones you see on Star Wars.
it's crazy really how firearms developed in the 19th century. the basics of modern firearms haven't changed much over the past 100 years. armies use auto rifles as standard but they haven't changed that much in basic design since the AK-47 and the first Nazi WW2 models. hunters today use bolt-action rifles which were common in both world wars. but in the 19th century they went from muskets in the napoleonic wars to breach-loading single-shot rifles and bolt-action rifles by the Boer War and Spanish-American war.
There's a video called 'Did the British stop for tea at Nijmegen bridge? | The Nijmegen Controversy | September 1944' by a channel called 'Liveth For Evermore'. I've been wanting you to react to it for a while but kept forgetting to bring it up xD
I realy like Ezekiels videos. Would love if you either checked out the gulag vs ordinary men, the two part how to take down a monopoly or any aincent greek wars/philosoper videos. Although another youtube channel i would love to see more of is jack rackam i realy love all of his videos especialy the life of belisarius and french revolution trilogy.
I want to recommend a channel I recently came across. It's called the Fat Electrician. He does original content about unique individuals or groups who fought in the major conflicts in history. The two I watched were Eugene Bullard - ".the Black Swallow of Death" - and History's Deadliest Sniper - Simo Haya, "The White Death." The first one is about a young black man who runs away from home when he is 13 yrs old and ends up in France when WWI breaks out. He enlisted and went on to become a highly decorated soldier and hero of France. That is just the tip of the iceberg. The sniper one is about a guy in the Finnish military who nearly single-handedly decimated the Soviet army in pre-WWII. His life's story is equally fascinating as Mr. Bullard's. His content is funny at times, but his language is colorful, and I mean off the charts colorful.
Have you seen Arrows VS Armor by Tod's Workshop? It might interest you, as it's a collaboration between him (professional blacksmith and crossbow maker), Tobias Capwell (renowned historian and reenactor), and Joe Gibbs (medieval-style archer who can draw very heavy bows and shoot accurately).
It's not true that early gunpowder weapon could pierce armor with ease, atleast not plate armor. During the pike & Shotte era you can still see quite a bit of full body plate armor around and they were tested with firearms at point-blank range and it had no issue stopping the bullet. Main problem of course was that these armor was very expensive to get and the horse didn't wear armor so they could easily taken down. So the full-plate armor went away since it just wasn't worth the cost hence they went with a chestplate, helmet and a heavy jacket. A much cheaper option but still offered good protection even against firearms. There are chestplates here at my museum from the Scania wars and alot of them have several dents in them from bullets that never got through.
People often think WWI was the 1st "modern war" when in reality it was the US Civil War. We figured out very quickly that the old formation tactics had become outclassed by the improvement in firearm technology. Miles of trenches were built in the Battle of St. Petersburg (and in other battles as well). Usage of machine guns and more modern mortor/artillery systems. Truly not a good time to be a soldier...
Slight loophole, by the time the late 1870's arrive, things like the Winchester repeater, Henry 1860 or the Sharps Carbine exist. Couple that with the right shooter and I'll bet it's possible to get a dozen plus rounds a minute. That being said the average soldier....yeah I doubt it 😅
Rifles were not used that much because they were rather annoying to reload. Light infantry were used as skirmishers, some of these were armed with rifles. In battles the musket would be superior until 1830 or something like that.
A bit of useless information, in Norfolk in England a town called Aylsham still has a good proportion of its Buttlands (practice area for longbow training). Erpingham is just up the road where Thomas Erpingham, who led the Archers was from, at Agincourt. Its now a car park. Looking at it , not only were they strong to loose the arrows at the target, they must have had good eyesight. There is also remains of Buttlands in Wells next the Sea, also Norfolk. Firearms were also used at the Battle of Bosworth, as shot was found, when they identified the correct location of the Battle. (1485)
Ezekiel wasn't quite right about China. They did in fact fire round projectiles from metal cannons before their technology spread out. I don't know why, but a lot of people are under the impression that metal cannons and firearms were a European or Middle Eastern invention. The oldest surviving firearm in the world is the Heilongjiang hand cannon made of bronze (1288 AD), while Chinese texts attest to earlier metal guns (1230 AD).
No mention that the Japanese, in the 16th century, were the ones who standardized bore size in all their guns. Guns and ammunition were interchangeable between soldiers. The last major Japanese civil war brought an end to those wars because one side embrased the use of guns while the other side not so much. The Japanese didn't only use guns in their civil wars, but also in the Imjin War against the Koreans in 1592-1598. On land, the Japanese were invincible. On the seas, the Koreans had the advantage with their superior ships and cannons. The Japanese weren't able to resupply the land forces by sea. No ammunition; no ability to maintain what you've gained.
Jeremy Clarkson did a great documentary on the history of the gun that I would highly recommend you watch, it is an hour long and is on TH-cam for free.
You should do a reaction to something about Jimmy Carter's Humanitarian work Post-Presidency or maybe a look back at presidential state funerals with his coming up next week.
Okay so arrows did not pierce good plate armor, it's a historical inaccuracy passed down mostly by the English for propaganda, they pierced places where the armor came together or were open (joints, eye slits, etc.). Agincourt resulted in thousands of prisoners who were taken by the English who had their throats slit, not killed by arrows.
Crossbows were not generally capable of piercing plate armor and killing the wearer, nor were early guns capable of doing so. Even if the projectile did pierce the steel plate, it would be very slight, and the knight would have additional layers of protection under the plate that would protect them from the projectile piercing their flesh. I really wish these myths would die off. There are recorded examples of men wearing plate helmets being shot point blank in the head with flintlock pistols and being completely unharmed. Steel plate armor was still seen in combat LONG after the gun had been introduced. It was used in the American Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, it could be found occasionally throughout the World Wars, and, even today, steel plate armor is mass manufactured specifically for the purpose of protecting the wearer from bullets. A few of the bigger factors of guns becoming the dominant weapon of the battlefield were that the blast and smoke often scared horses and demoralized infantry, it was easier to train on a gun than a bow, it was less physically strenuous to use and reload than a bow or crossbow, guns often had fewer parts than crossbows (especially the stronger crossbows), projectiles for guns were far easier to produce in large quantities, and more ammunition could be carried as it was lighter and more compact. I appreciate the original video creator tackling the topic, not enough people know the history of the gun, I just wish there was more accuracy in the information presented and that certain myths and misconceptions would have been debunked rather than perpetuated.
Disageee with the videos conclusion regarding heavy crossbows capable of piercing heavy armour in the late medieval period. The rate of fire of these were far to low, to be an open battlefield weapon - however they are excellent weapons for siege warfare where rate of fire was less important
Gunsmith here. The rifle did gain velocity on smoothbore muskets, that is due to the expansion gasses being pressurized behind the shot. The Minie Ball gave the musket the ability to gain velocity and pressure, hence why rifled slug is supperior to ball shot from a shot gun in velocity and pressure. Smooth bore balls tend to wobble and take on setback, like a modern shot shell, they require reinforcement or they tend to lose energy in the barrel as they bounce in the internal surface. You can get pressure and velocity out of smoothbore muskets close to minie balls but it requires alot of pathwork and grease to bind the round, you will need the grease to kep it from siezing the bore and blowing the lock/plug/chamber. Hope this helps clear some of that up.
On a rifle, since the internal dimensions are within .001 +/-5 of the caliber, the pressure cannot escape once the base of the bullet has contacted the lands, the soft metal expands into the grooves creating a soft plug, pressure propels the bullet down the barrel and the lands and grooves stabilize it as it spins. This allows for a more stable trajectory, more pressure increasing velocity, and higher transfer potential.
Came to comments to say this, but you put it much better than I could have.
Good comment
@meisteckhart people forget that pressure is what generates velocity and energy potential. The arsenal guide book for the time has muskets at about 1kfps and rifles about 1.5k to 1.75kfps respectively. It was about production, reloading speed, and efficiency. Otherwise they would not have made a rifled slug to boost chamber pressures and apply twist. Best way to prove this point, would be to take two period firearms and test them side by side. Breach loading firearms produce higher pressure since the bullen is contained. That being said, a rifled slug from a 20ga (.50 caliber, roughly 473.5gr) has the same rough velocity as a 500 s&w (500gr) of 1600-1800 depending on charge. This of course does not translate to historical weapons. Point being that a 500 is a much smaller cartridge by comparrison, the 20ga simply cannot efficiently handle all the pressure arpund the base of the slug.
Awesome explanation.
Did they figure out rifling by accident or did someone smart and clever suggest that spinning the shell would make it fly more truly?
Ezekiel’s videos are so awesome. Very well detailed. Like the Russo-Japanese War, the Boxer Rebellion and Italy’s participation in World War II
6:32 man come on I can’t keep doing this drinking game with your videos 😂
You said that before I did, and on new years eve!
I was really thinking about recommending you to watch Callmeezekiel videos today. What a coincidence!😅
BTW he's not racist (as far as I'm aware) thats how countryballs are done since they come from the early 2000s they are just a bit unrefined
11:43 well yes and no. In order to engage the rifling the bullet has to be pretty tightly fit. This means that while yes, you do loose a bit of energy to the spin and extra friction, It's more than made up for by the higher efficiency of the better gas seal.
Musket ball tends to be just slightly smaller than the bore of the barrel, which makes realoading faster and easier. On average a musket could fire roughly 2-3 times quicker than a muzzle-loading rifle, a big reason why they stuck around for so long (the other being they were quicker and simpler to produce). Muskets would usually have a patch of cloth or paper to help seat the ball so it doesn't just slide out of the barrel when you're aiming even a little downwards, but the patches were burned up and or blasted apart during firing, and the imperfect gas seal would cause the ball to rattle down the barrel and throw off accuracy.
With the advent of the industrial revolution we do get ultra-precise machining techniques that can make a perfect gas seal with smoothbore weapons, but generally extra accuracy is preferred over extra velocity, except in certain applications (mostly with shotguns and tank cannons).
And in the case of many tank or naval rounds in the modern era, they have their own guidance systems and/or spin stabilization separate from barrel rifling. Small arms, particularly rifles and standard infantry weapons, have a near zero prevalence of these options (excluding something like a rocket launcher such as Javelin, Stinger, LAW) and so rifling is the practical way to achieve that improved accuracy.
@@pyronuke4768 what energy you lose in friction is made up for in the amount of pressure behind the projectile (Gas seal), and it is not mitigatable. Since it increases pressures far beyond that of the musket. The success of the Sharps as a falling block was due to pressurized rear-loading and only improved with the advent of cases, I would argue case development in both the Sharps and the Martini-Henry created the divergence for contained cartridges (wax cases to shot guns, and brass patch cases/coiled cases for modern rifles).
As for small arms, the rifled slug is what gave smooth bores their increased accuracy and pressure for a short period, but they were outpaced by the dynamic pressures of the tight seat of a rifle. The period where they were the closest was during the time of flintlocks where pressure could be forced laterally out of the chamber, percussion caps changed that by sealing the nipple.
11:40 With a rifle the bullet has to have a very tight fit. Which should in theory increase the velocity, but I don't really know. In order to make reloading faster, musket balls would often be quite a bit smaller than the barrel, and sometimes the balls would be wrapped in cloth to prevent them from falling out.
The Ezekiel's videos I recommend are about the Boxer Rebellion and the Russo-Japanese War. These are my favourite ones.
9:56 The allegations man 😂
Guns had quite a hard time going through premium steel plate unless they were 20-30 meters from the target. Arrows mostly bounce and annoy knights if you hit them in the front. But sides, helmets and gaps were still dangerous. It's not until fire arms became better that armies started to move away from heavy armor for speed and endurance.
Yes, it’s a misconception/oversimplification that guns made armour obsolete overnight. Plate armour was just super expensive and at some point not economical any more against mass produced guns.
A great channel to check out to end the year with.
You shoud do his Japan Modernization video
It's amazing how quick Japan went from being feudal shogun isolationists using swords and smoothbore single shot weapons to being equal to most modern military powers.
Been a fan since the ol’ ERB reactions, happy new year Chris
Happy New Year, Chris! 🎉
The Ferguson rifle was also pretty great. It was a breach loading rifle used by the British in the American Revolution. It debuted at Brandywine where Captain Ferguson himself was wounded. In fact, there is good evidence that Captain Ferguson had an easy shot at George Washington himself but Washington's back was turned and Ferguson decided not to take the shot because it would be dishonorable to shoot an officer in the back with a rifle.
Even after the war, Ferguson did not regret his decision to shoot George Washington believing that it was against the rules of war.
P.S. CallMeEzekiel has two good videos on the Taiping Rebellion. The first one is "Hong Xiuquan & The Taiping Rebellion: The Chinese Christian Rebels who got 30 Million People Killed"
The second video is called "China's Christian Civil War: Hong Rengan, Zeng Goufan & The Taiping Civil War | Countryball History"
There is a third video on the western mercenaries called "The Insane Mercenaries of the Taiping Rebellion | Polandball History"
Happy new year Chris, I love both your and Ezekiel’s content, and would love for you to check them out further!
This is a pretty nice comprehensive look at the history of the military application of firearms for this period, but I’d like to focus on just how fast things got in the 19th Century in terms of advancements. Imagine a man fought in the Prussian Army at the battle of Waterloo in 1815 with a flintlock musket. That man in 1875 would then watch his grandsons marching in the German Imperial Army with bolt action rifles. In the space of 60 years, we went through flintlock muskets, the percussion cap, needle-fire rifles (see Prussia and France), and finally the bolt-action rifle with metallic cartridges, all in a single lifetime. And if you think all that is insane, the French will blow it all away in 1886.
Hell yeah! Thans i was asking for this for a long time.
One of the biggest advantages of the Minie Ball, was that it eliminated the biggest issue with muzzle loading rifles, the slow loading time.
Call me Ezekiel is one of THE best history channels he is way more knowledgeable than most of guys out there
I like how he covers topics that are not covered by anyone else.
Really, because it seem to me like he got quite a bit wrong. Not saying that makes him a bad youtuber necessarily, but as a history youtuber, shouldn't he try and validate his information, seeing as people WILL watch it, and take it at face value. ( obviously not everybody, but you know. )
@@britishmexico2372 I compared him to others, so much others make mistakes it is incredible I say this as an PhD archaeologist including extra history
5:57 While it is true that battlecruisers typically had less armor and greater speed than contemporary battleships, they usually did not have any greater firepower, and often had less.
Exactly, battlecruisers typically put that armor(english) or gun(german)weight into the engines for more speed.
I find it fascinating that reports suggest Henry V actually had primitive gunpowder-based weapons in his army during his invasion of France - though accounts suggest he didn't have them at the Battle of Agincourt, I'm sure I read somewhere that there were early cannons in his invasion force.
Hey Chris, I have a sugestion:
Look up to the video "What if the North seceded in 1860?", from Possible History. It's an alternate American Civil War in which the Northern states are the rebels and the South representes the Federal Government. It should be a pretty interesting alternate history focusing on a topic you're very familiar with. Happy New Year to you and your family! 🎉🎉
Happy New Years Chris! I wish nothing but the best for you and your family from the Great White North. Keep up the good work!
he has two (or one) episodes about the Spanish civil war which speaks about two journals written by volunteers of both sides one which George Orwell, he has similar video about WW1 which in that compare All Quiet on the Western Front with storm of steel both incredible.
happy new year evry one
You should watch his video on how Finland defeated Soviet Russia (almost)
Ezekiel did not mention minnie ball, So I'm happy that you did. He's also glossed over the smokeless powder revolution.
Smokeless powder was post 1875. The minie ball though is an oversight.
@@ronmaximilian6953 smokeless powder was not a mainstay until the late 1880s-90s, even then blackpowder proofing ran until WWII. He mentioned intermediate cartridges but should have said centerfire cartridges instead.
The spinning motion reduces friction between the projectile and the barrel, helping to increase velocity and imparting a more consistent trajectory. Rifling can also have a significant impact on the terminal performance of a projectile.
@@NathanAdams-v4c it does not reduce friction, it adds friction, but it does generate higher chamber pressures. It reduces bullet deformation and promotes a uniform flight pattern.
You are absolutely correct about rounds converting linear momentum into angular momentum and therefore lower linear velocity.
@@InfoDumpsYT this is only true if the pressures behind the bullet are identical. Which would mean the rifle charge would be significantly lower. Tighter to the side wall the higher the pressure, which translates to higher velocity regardless of friction generated by the spin, otherwise they would not have made the minie ball to expand at the base to contact the internal wall of the barrel.
11:32 Correct me if I'm wrong (in a nice way please), but it's my understanding that while a rifled barrel might slow a bullet down when still inside the barrel, once it leaves the barrel it maintains it's velocity for a much longer time. So it's faster over time or in other words: A rifled barrel gives a bullet enough speed to travel a lot further than a smoothbore barrel. I think this is what he meant, though he didn't use enough words to convey this.
I would like to mention that the Gatlin Gun (a form of rapid fire) was developed before 1875. Even though it was multi-barrel it was rapid fire. Was part of the Civil War for the US.
A few pedantic nits.
The first use of gunpowder weaponry might not even have been a projectile. The Song Dynasty used fire lances. Basically tubes of gunpowder at the end of a long spear or stick that would be ignited and explode on impact.
The portrayal of China having little to no innovation on gunpowder weaponry is a big generalization. Its true that handheld gunpowder weapons wouldnt develop much past handcannons before the introduction of matchlocks by the Portugese into the region. Though special shoutout to the Three Eyed Handcannon and early flamethrowers. The Ming Dynasty was heavily invested in other gunpowder weapons, most notably artillery. From light portable mortars to heavy bronze cannons to multi barreled organ guns. Gunpowder weapons were a central component of Ming Dynasty defense doctrine, especially against nomadic horseman from the steppes.
Things really kicked into the bizarre after contact with the Portuguese and Dutch. After the Ming defeated a small fleet of Portuguese ships in the Battle of Simcouwaan, they managed to reverse engineer cannons and matchlocks. They then started to wildly innovate. The "Rapid Thunder Bolt Gun" is just a bizarre combination of a multi barreled match lock, spear, small war axe, and shield. Each part was detachable too, so firing squads of two could convert into a spearman and axe and shield man at close range.... in theory. As you can imagine, it was unwieldy to use without proper training.
The Imjin War, or Great East Asian War of 1592-98, saw the conflagration of all these independently evolved gunpowder technologies when Japan invades Korea.
Japan matchlocks were no doubt superior, and they inflicted crushing defeats on the Korean army. These weapons were also phenomenal at defending strongholds. Recognizing this, the Japanese built several Japanese styled castles in the south coast of Korea during the second invasion. However, the Japanese did not have the resources to develop heavy artillery like the Ming. The Ming brought a staggering 2000 artillery pieces of various sizes to the Siege of Pyongyang.
There is an orientalist sheen to arguments that Asian countries didn't develop their gunpowder technology. Its true it may have developed slower due to government bureaucracy. But firearms did develop, just along a different vertical.
With the Ming's main threat being steppe nomads, they focused on light and portable artillery over firearm doctrine like the west. Huge walled cities with walls of packed earth (all of which were Chinese cities) also meant no serious investment was made into heavy artillery in the same vein as western armies.
The real reason for any gap in the 19th century was more simply, industrialization. China with its large population stayed an agrarian society. East Asian countries, such as Japan, proved that they could quickly adopt and adapt western technology. But China didn't have the means to mass produce or precisely manufacture the weapons of the 19th and 20th centuries.
i would recommend his recent ww2 videos, his look at "Storm of steel" vs All quiet on the western front or his 'ordinary men" and "the gulag archipelago"
You were out to get us seriously drunk today. ;)
hope things are going well chris happy new year
Hi, longtime viewer from Southern Indiana. As a fellow WW1 history buff who's been truly inspired by your interest in it and plans to take myself to the Somme or the Marne as a 22nd birthday present; I wondered if you've heard the Scottish WW1 song "Waltzing Matilda," and if so you would surely love the modern "The Band Played Waltzing Matilda," by Eric Bogle (best version by the Pogues) It tells the story of Gallipoli and the aftermath from an ANZAC perspective.
Vth trying to get everyone trashed before the New Year’s parties 😂😂
I didn't know about this channel before, I'll check out more of his videos.
But I also have a suggestion for when you want to react to something that's outside your area of expertise: there's the Extra History series about the Empire of Brazil, with Napoleon at the beginning and Ulysses S. Grant at the end. I think it has 5 parts.
There's also the Armchair Historian video about the Paraguayan War, which takes place during Brazil's monarchical period.
They have tested longvows against armour and the arrows did not penetrate the front. On the side and certain parts. It could
There is a great video about the history of small arms throughout history that Id think you’d find really interesting . It’s a lecture by Richard S. Faulkner, a WWI professor at the Command and General Staff College
You need to watch his videos on the Boxer Rebellion & Russo Japanese War!
Happy new year 🎉
Please do more of ezekiel’s videos!! His series on japan and chine are good ones to watch.
13:00 still have yet to see anything about smokeless powder. That was huge for commanding troops
Smokeless powder enters the stage in 1886, which is beyond the ending of this video.
I wouldn't say guns eliminated the need for troop formation because they are still being used today by armies and police forces. It just had to be modified to suit the new technology. And that's probably why you see modern armies fighting in small spread squads on any battlefield. It is interesting that shields as well may never be eliminated by firearms. Unless someone invents special shields like the ones you see on Star Wars.
YES! More call me Ezekiel! He’s such a cool dude and awesome history channel!
it's crazy really how firearms developed in the 19th century. the basics of modern firearms haven't changed much over the past 100 years. armies use auto rifles as standard but they haven't changed that much in basic design since the AK-47 and the first Nazi WW2 models. hunters today use bolt-action rifles which were common in both world wars. but in the 19th century they went from muskets in the napoleonic wars to breach-loading single-shot rifles and bolt-action rifles by the Boer War and Spanish-American war.
Ezekiel's video on the Spanish Civil War is awesome!!!!!
There's a video called 'Did the British stop for tea at Nijmegen bridge? | The Nijmegen Controversy | September 1944' by a channel called 'Liveth For Evermore'. I've been wanting you to react to it for a while but kept forgetting to bring it up xD
You could fire quickly until the needle broke and you had to replace it under fire. Huge leap forward but easy to see why its lifespan was so short
All this talk about Weapons and Close Combat reminds me of the Gears of War Chainsaw 😂
Ezekiel’s awesome I can barely keep up so Idm watching it the 3rd time
The Boxer Rebellion video is amazing.
yey i want more from this channel
My only gripe is the Exclusion of Lever Action and early revolvers and bolt actions
I think you should watch his videos about asian history or the spanish civil war btw i am honestly really happy that you reacted to this channel.
He forgot to mention the Henry reaping rifle
I'd love you to do a reaction to his (CallMeEzekiel's) video on the boxer rebellion, it's really great
Can't wait fore history of Prussia
I realy like Ezekiels videos. Would love if you either checked out the gulag vs ordinary men, the two part how to take down a monopoly or any aincent greek wars/philosoper videos. Although another youtube channel i would love to see more of is jack rackam i realy love all of his videos especialy the life of belisarius and french revolution trilogy.
I want to recommend a channel I recently came across. It's called the Fat Electrician. He does original content about unique individuals or groups who fought in the major conflicts in history. The two I watched were Eugene Bullard - ".the Black Swallow of Death" - and History's Deadliest Sniper - Simo Haya, "The White Death."
The first one is about a young black man who runs away from home when he is 13 yrs old and ends up in France when WWI breaks out. He enlisted and went on to become a highly decorated soldier and hero of France. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
The sniper one is about a guy in the Finnish military who nearly single-handedly decimated the Soviet army in pre-WWII. His life's story is equally fascinating as Mr. Bullard's.
His content is funny at times, but his language is colorful, and I mean off the charts colorful.
Have you seen Arrows VS Armor by Tod's Workshop? It might interest you, as it's a collaboration between him (professional blacksmith and crossbow maker), Tobias Capwell (renowned historian and reenactor), and Joe Gibbs (medieval-style archer who can draw very heavy bows and shoot accurately).
Things I care aboot uploaded a video on the opium wars I really enjoyed it and think it would make a great reaction Mr Chris
It's not true that early gunpowder weapon could pierce armor with ease, atleast not plate armor.
During the pike & Shotte era you can still see quite a bit of full body plate armor around and they were tested with firearms at point-blank range and it had no issue stopping the bullet.
Main problem of course was that these armor was very expensive to get and the horse didn't wear armor so they could easily taken down.
So the full-plate armor went away since it just wasn't worth the cost hence they went with a chestplate, helmet and a heavy jacket. A much cheaper option but still offered good protection even against firearms.
There are chestplates here at my museum from the Scania wars and alot of them have several dents in them from bullets that never got through.
Noooooo, they missed the lever action
Unrelated to this video, would love to hear you talk about the late Jimmy Carter and his legacy post being in office
I want more for this channel
Surprised we haven’t gotten a Jimmy Carter video yet.
People often think WWI was the 1st "modern war" when in reality it was the US Civil War. We figured out very quickly that the old formation tactics had become outclassed by the improvement in firearm technology. Miles of trenches were built in the Battle of St. Petersburg (and in other battles as well). Usage of machine guns and more modern mortor/artillery systems. Truly not a good time to be a soldier...
Well many generals of course were still stuck in Napoleonic era tactics, certainly took time to adapt to new circumstances.
i thought thirty years war was the first modern war
I'm kinda sad he didn't mention in the video Hussite gun units in the medieval Bohemia in 1410s and 1420s
Great stuff
Fun fact about me. I was raised in the military family, and I used to be in law-enforcement…… with that said I do not like guns. Terrified around.Them
Slight loophole, by the time the late 1870's arrive, things like the Winchester repeater, Henry 1860 or the Sharps Carbine exist. Couple that with the right shooter and I'll bet it's possible to get a dozen plus rounds a minute. That being said the average soldier....yeah I doubt it 😅
First projectile: Rock
Rifles were not used that much because they were rather annoying to reload. Light infantry were used as skirmishers, some of these were armed with rifles. In battles the musket would be superior until 1830 or something like that.
I'd love to see more CallMeEzekiel reations
Honestly one topic you may know about is his freikorps video but it might get taken down but I think it would be a good video
I hope you get back to mystery scoops channel one day. I'd love to see your reaction to the historical AI videos
A bit of useless information, in Norfolk in England a town called Aylsham still has a good proportion of its Buttlands (practice area for longbow training). Erpingham is just up the road where Thomas Erpingham, who led the Archers was from, at Agincourt. Its now a car park. Looking at it , not only were they strong to loose the arrows at the target, they must have had good eyesight. There is also remains of Buttlands in Wells next the Sea, also Norfolk. Firearms were also used at the Battle of Bosworth, as shot was found, when they identified the correct location of the Battle. (1485)
Ezekiel wasn't quite right about China. They did in fact fire round projectiles from metal cannons before their technology spread out. I don't know why, but a lot of people are under the impression that metal cannons and firearms were a European or Middle Eastern invention. The oldest surviving firearm in the world is the Heilongjiang hand cannon made of bronze (1288 AD), while Chinese texts attest to earlier metal guns (1230 AD).
No mention that the Japanese, in the 16th century, were the ones who standardized bore size in all their guns. Guns and ammunition were interchangeable between soldiers.
The last major Japanese civil war brought an end to those wars because one side embrased the use of guns while the other side not so much.
The Japanese didn't only use guns in their civil wars, but also in the Imjin War against the Koreans in 1592-1598. On land, the Japanese were invincible. On the seas, the Koreans had the advantage with their superior ships and cannons. The Japanese weren't able to resupply the land forces by sea. No ammunition; no ability to maintain what you've gained.
Jeremy Clarkson did a great documentary on the history of the gun that I would highly recommend you watch, it is an hour long and is on TH-cam for free.
You should watch Ezekiels ww2 series
Would be nice if the video gave some approximate years the changes came about
I'm surprised the video didn't mention the Gatling gun
i loved this!
You should do a reaction to something about Jimmy Carter's Humanitarian work Post-Presidency or maybe a look back at presidential state funerals with his coming up next week.
2:54 you need to watch Todd's Workshop Arrow vs Amor (Part 2, and Part 1 is also good) you'll be amazed
Okay so arrows did not pierce good plate armor, it's a historical inaccuracy passed down mostly by the English for propaganda, they pierced places where the armor came together or were open (joints, eye slits, etc.). Agincourt resulted in thousands of prisoners who were taken by the English who had their throats slit, not killed by arrows.
Smooth bore muskets are not as inaccurate as people think.
Crossbows were not generally capable of piercing plate armor and killing the wearer, nor were early guns capable of doing so. Even if the projectile did pierce the steel plate, it would be very slight, and the knight would have additional layers of protection under the plate that would protect them from the projectile piercing their flesh. I really wish these myths would die off. There are recorded examples of men wearing plate helmets being shot point blank in the head with flintlock pistols and being completely unharmed. Steel plate armor was still seen in combat LONG after the gun had been introduced. It was used in the American Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, it could be found occasionally throughout the World Wars, and, even today, steel plate armor is mass manufactured specifically for the purpose of protecting the wearer from bullets. A few of the bigger factors of guns becoming the dominant weapon of the battlefield were that the blast and smoke often scared horses and demoralized infantry, it was easier to train on a gun than a bow, it was less physically strenuous to use and reload than a bow or crossbow, guns often had fewer parts than crossbows (especially the stronger crossbows), projectiles for guns were far easier to produce in large quantities, and more ammunition could be carried as it was lighter and more compact. I appreciate the original video creator tackling the topic, not enough people know the history of the gun, I just wish there was more accuracy in the information presented and that certain myths and misconceptions would have been debunked rather than perpetuated.
Disageee with the videos conclusion regarding heavy crossbows capable of piercing heavy armour in the late medieval period.
The rate of fire of these were far to low, to be an open battlefield weapon - however they are excellent weapons for siege warfare where rate of fire was less important
Please don't call me Ezekiel, because that's not my name.
Interesting video
It sucks how he didn’t explore Chinese firearms
Will you do a video on Jimmy Carter?
Hey Chris, you should react to Epic History’s videos on the Battle of the Wabash. They’re great, American history oriented, and located in Ohio!
Happy New Year. ( Swedish ) Gott Nytt År