Fire weapons in Japan

>>1860657
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7wg0OQAa2A

>>1860657
Before Nobunaga they were generally used sporadically and used during sieges.

Nobunaga got the bright idea of using volley fire and rank rotations en masse. The battle of Nagashino was a bit of a showcase on firearm tactics and they became very popular after that.

Nobunaga was smart enough to take both of the manufacturing cities very early so he controlled the production of firearms until Satsuma got into it.

Thousands and thousands were used in the battle of Sekigahara

There's a great book on the subject OP:
Olof G. Lidin: Tanegashima: The Arrival of Europe in Japan

But to anwser your questions

First they weren't able to make their own, but after a year or two, sources vary, japanese swordsmiths were able to make firearms, but they never tried to improve on the design, and they regarded the arquebus as a dishonorable weapon, as it faded out of popular use durning the Edo-Period

But as this anon said >>1860698 Nobunaga figured it out, that one gun is shity, inaccurate, and takes a long time to reload, but a whole ton of them are great, he figured out volley fire on his own, as he had no european reference.
But the guns weren't the main reason he won Nagashino, he outnumbered the Takeda forces, but it was a great showcase.

>>1860713
>It faded out of popular use during the Edo period

It had nothing to do with being considered dishonorable but because there was nowhere to use them. There weren't any conflicts large enough to utilize guns.

Firearms were still being made but the government limited production and availability. To be found with a gun would result in severe punishment.

>>1860798
Being found with any weapons durning the Edo-period meant severe punishment. I think Samurais could carry a sword on them, it being a badge of office, but I'm unsure about that. I haven't read up on the whole katanagari thing in edo times

As for being dishonorable, I recall that Musashi in the book of five rings calls them one, and says that he thinks that guns are only good for defending a fortified position, and giving them to peasants because it requires no training or discipline. Or maybe it was in the Olof book, I don't recall. Basically, it had the same rep as the crossbow had in Medieval Europe, that it's too powerful, and too easy to use, so even an unskilled peasant could cause trouble with one.

>>1860829
scratch the dishonorable part, I can't find anything on that, maybe i remembered wrong. But they really didn't use it much in the Edo Period, so the gusn themselves and the technique didn't improve a whole lot.

Also keep in mind, that while Musashi is regarded as a legendary swordsman, we don't really know how good he was as a soldier. One source even says that he got knocked off from his horse by a peasant with a rock.

>>1860829
guns were basically kept in castles untill the local peasents rebelled. However there were schools of firearm use, and there was even limited use for hunting

>>1860713
Actually they greatly improved on the first designs they got from Europe, even inventing rifling.

While there might have been some grumbles about dishonor, they were widely widely used

>>1860909
>rifling
Yeah no. Got any sources for that ? As I recall, they used infantry with volley-fire, and had a few mounted gunners, and Ieyasu imported a few canons later to kill off the Osaka rebellion. While guns did have a huge impact on japanese warfare, such as prompting the daimyo to build castles with stone walls, they did not invent rifling, even though they had an entire school for stuying the westerners, Rakugo iirc, they didn't make any improvements on firearms. I think the same guy who made the first japanese telescope in the 1800's made an air rifle, based on dutch designs.
I mean, even in the book of five rings, musashi calls gun shit, because you can't adjust your aim , like you can with bows.
Regardless, they were fucking crazy about guns in the beginnig, they made tons of them, but in the edo period, they just didn't need that amount of guns, they were mostly used by samurai for hunting in that period

>>1860941
"Weapons and fighting techniques of the Samurai Warrior 1200-1877 AD"

>>1860956
>not referencing page number

Are you sure about this anon? I mean I know rifling was invented around 1520 by some german armorer, but they didn't become mainstream till the 18th century. The Japanese based off their design from the Portugese arquebus, which did not have rifling

>>1860973
>Are you sure about this anon?

As sure as I am in any citation by an acreddited, respected academic historian.

He doesn't say how wide spread it was, simply that smiths in a certain region developed a fairly advanced method for their time, of rifling.

>>1860941
>>1860829
>I mean, even in the book of five rings, musashi calls gun shit, because you can't adjust your aim , like you can with bows.
He doesn't call guns shit, or say that they're only useful for castle defense. He says that they're the best weapons for castle defense.
>>1860713
Nobunaga figured out that if one gun is good a thousand is better. Firearms were a big improvent over archery even as singular weapons.

>>1861673
Except they weren't

>reload time on a gun took as much time as an archer would fire off 15 arrows
>could only be used in dry weather
>inaccurate, cannot adjust aim, like you can with a bow, after firing once
>not strong yet, bullets could even bounce off armor at more than a 100 yards

It had the same upside as the crossbow. Even untrained peasants could use one and do damage with them.

"From inside fortifications, the gun has no equal among weapons. It is the supreme weapon on the field before
the ranks clash, but once swords are crossed the gun becomes useless.
One of the virtues of the bow is that you can see the arrows in flight and correct your aim accordingly,
whereas gunshot cannot be seen. You must appreciate the importance of this."

>>1863853
"In the 1592 invasion, everything was swept away. Within a fortnight or a month the cities and fortresses were lost, and everything in the eight directions had crumbled. Although it was [partly] due to there having been a century of peace and the people not being familiar with warfare that this happened, it was really because the Japanese had the use of muskets that could reach beyond several hundred paces, that always pierced what they struck, that came like the wind and the hail, and with which bows and arrows could not compare." -Yu Song-nyong

"Today, the Japanese exclusively use muskets to attack fortifications. They can reach [the target] from several hundred paces away. Our country’s bows and arrows cannot reach them. At any flat spot outside the walls, the Japanese will build earthen mounds and “flying towers.” They look down into the fortifications and fire their bullets so that the people inside the fortifications cannot conceal themselves. In the end the fortifications are taken. One cannot blame [the defenders] for their situation." -Yu Song-nyong

"When the troops come [to Korea] from the province of Kai, have them bring as many guns as possible, for no other equipment is needed. Give strict orders that all men, even the samurai, carry guns." -Asano Yukinaga

"Muskets are five times more effective than bows and arrows." - King Sonjo

>>1863901
But Japanese artillery was crap compared to Chinese and especially Korean models. I never understood why 16th century Japanese never fielded cannon effectively. And for an island nation, how was their navy so piss-poor?

File: 1476861611055.jpg (45KB, 800x599px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 800x599px

>>1863901
>"Muskets are five times more effective than bows and arrows." - King Sonjo

I'm fucking dead

>>1863901
>Koreans

Also, only 25% of the invaison force were gunners, according to Noel Perrin.

That's also a great book on the subject, op, Giving up the gun: Japan's reversion to the sword, 1543-1879, by Noel Perrin

>>1863926
The pacific "ring of fire" passes through Japan and skips Korea. Japan never had to deal with heavy fortifications.

>>1864024
Doesn't matter. Korean ground forces were stuck in the Medieval Ages.
>Japanese navy barely changed since the 1100s.

File: Saddle Folangqi and Static Folangqi Ming Cannons.png (292KB, 1104x1600px)

292KB, 1104x1600px

>>1863926
Koreans didn't use artillery as effectively as the Chinese did.

For one thing, Koreans are mortarfaggots. Compare this to China and their plethora of heavy siege guns, European-style breech loaders used on ships and on land, and Safavid-style flying artillery pieces mounted on oxen/horses/camels or in easily transportable wooden frames (see pic). They even have Taqiangs, which were halfway between a musket and a breech loading cannon, which is basically a very long musket firing a larger caliber round intended for use as a long range musket to fuck up enemy musketeers before getting into range.

China knew it will never match Japan musket for musket -since they didn't produce as much muskets relative to the size of their armies as the Nips did during the late 16th century. But Chinks made up for it in using field artillery.

>>1863926
>I never understood why 16th century Japanese never fielded cannon effectively.
Logistics. The allied Ming already had a hard enough time moving their own artillery.

>China knew it will never match Japan musket for musket -since they didn't produce as much muskets relative to the size of their armies as the Nips did during the late 16th century.
Arqubuses were adopted en masse after the Imjin though heavy cavalry was able to plow right through them(Manchus).

Prior to this arqubuses were viewed as inferior as northern Chinese winds often extinguished the match.

>>1864024
Giving up the gun is a little questionable.

File: Mandarin_Duck_Squad.jpg (349KB, 1600x737px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 1600x737px

>>1866164
>Prior to this arqubuses were viewed as inferior as northern Chinese winds often extinguished the match.
Really?

I don't think Northerners viewed Muskets as inferior. The only guy who did was- of all people- the great Qi Jiguang, who did so because he was operating in the south where 1) Wet weather extinguished matches and made powder wet, 2) He was given a shit budget to fight non-priority enemies and so he had to make do with near 0 firearms usage and, 3) Southern Chinese gun-manufacturers were shit.

File: 安土城.jpg (507KB, 1520x1093px) Image search: [Google]

507KB, 1520x1093px

>>1863926
Because Japanese have very few walls. Most of their fortifications were earthworks and dug into mountains. What appears to be wall is actually just a stone front for earth to make it hard to climb. There weren't really any walls to topple. The little white walls on top of the earthworks were essentially just battlements, you wouldn't really be bringing down a wall, just the defender's cover. Not to mention you would have to carry these cannons up a mountain and aim them upwards.

>>1866579
Qi Jiguang was the one that expanded the usage of the arquebus during his tenure.

The arquebus never supplanted light artillery and handguns in the north.

>Qi Jiguang's soldiers
Noted for their bravery,discipline and their superior melee combat skills.

Though they were too few in number to make a difference on the battlefield(Only 3,600 were sent in the first expeditionary force during the Imjin War).

>>1867354
How come he never made a meme manual about the use of firearms. Much of his fighting down South did not involve their use.

>>1867360
>How come he never made a meme manual about the use of firearms.
http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2015/03/mandarin-duck-formation-p3.html

That's not even bringing up the list armaments in Lianbing Shiji(even if the ideas within are largely theoretical).

>Much of his fighting down South did not involve their use.
Who do you think introduced the arquebus? The Mongols?