With the kind of effort you're putting into these videos I'd really encourage you to keep monetization on! The intro is not worth taking away your hard work's compensation Godspeed :D

Fantastic video. very refreshing to see good content from a small creator. I would honestly consider removing the intro to keep monetization. I enjoyed it a lot, but this kind of work deserves recognition and reward. It's up to you though, of course.

Like kraut the small youtuber with 1 hour countryball animation like brain4breakfast

what can Penetrate armor or not ,there can be extremely many factors . And Cuirassiers have often wearing armor deep in to the 19 century .

and arrows , where that not more bolts ? i think Relativ thin arrows would likely just shatter by the shot .

"Basically just a small cannon" - People who invented muskets

@@thewelcomer5698 basically a Long stick that shoots powder and can kill people

"Angry tube"

More like, "Imagine if we can give everyone a small cannon" - Some madlad who had too much to drink

@@fluent4530 long unnecessary detail stick with metal that kills people

Thats fucking awesome lmao

"Like dude religious gun ninjas" " How much crack have you been smoking" -Japanese general to noble

Just imagine modern priests trained to use modern rifles

@@tanksinatra3968 And the Lord said let there be light *Cue muzzle flashes from their guns.*

There's also a group of people in China called the Miao guntribes. They're the only people in China allowed to own firearms since guns are literally part of their culture

Goddammit it was a trap! How is it that we didn't see it coming...

If you play Paradox game, it is about time to fall in love to history tbh

@@Razgriz032 and then lose that love after taking a highschool history course

@@Razgriz032 My love of history lead to me paradox

@@MrAaaaazzzzz00009999 They don't teach real history only state approve propaganda. Youll never see a history class be critical of its own nation.

well almost every nation ever had civilian gun rights at some point in time, but with better policing and urbanization this became more of a liability then a benefit to most governments. most of them still do but it is heavily monitored.

@@jornzwaagstra1150 Its more round communism that gun rights went the way of the dodo We can thank them for totalitarian regimes

​@@commisaryarreck3974 Wasn't Marx pro-gun tho? It was only the later totalitarian regimes that throw it out of the window(for obvious reason)

@@potatobutroasted4308 You can argue that Marx was pro-gun right until the end of the coveted revolution, where since everything became owned by the state, so did the weapons they used to install communism itself, but there wouldn't be a need for everyone to still have them. But he doesn't specifically state what weapons should be done with after Communism was installed, like most things with Marx's doctrines and sayings.

@@potatobutroasted4308 It had several meanings Gun rights in many nations disappeared after the Soviet atrocities in fear of more uprisings from these genocidal maniacs Communism requires a totalitarian state to first of all better the situation and then voluntarily give up absolute power. It will never result in something else. It simply cannot result in anything but a totalitarian regime and crimes against humanity Oh and allow me to ask you, what was Marx's answer to the Jewish question. Wouldn't be the only time commies conveniently cherry pick his writings

Yes, rifles were for hunting, and their reload time was not good for line infantry, where rate of fire as a formation was more important. Of course in case of a guerilla fight rifles were better, and skirmish units in armies did use rifles and not smoothbore muskets.

The main reason rifles weren't widely used until the breech loaded rifle was that a muzzle loaded rifle is very difficult (and slow) to reload.

@@1EthanCC the union used them in mass due to the minne ball making it easier to load rifled guns as the Minnie ball could expand in the barrel and put a good spin

I also heard that newer ones were made with thicker barrels than usual. This was because they could just make the caliber a little bigger overtime instead of just having to completely replace it once the rifling was worn out.

@@bluemobster0023 also manufacturing tools enabled rifled barrels to be made much faster and cheaper during the mid 19th century

I'm happy to hear you liked the video! In regard to the omission of smokeless powder... I was not aware that smokeless powder had such an effect. Was it the smokeless powder alone that caused such massive improvements, or were other factors involved as well? For example, it's my understanding that, at around the same time as the adoption of smokeless powder, pressurization became more efficient - leading to greater range/velocity/etc. Thanks for the info - and once again, I'm happy you enjoyed the video!

@@CallMeEzekiel It was 100% smokeless powder alone. Smokeless powder was much more efficient than traditional black powder that it allowed one to fire a bullet roughly twice as far and roughly twice as fast. The pressurization became more efficient because of that powder change. Nations scrambled to meet the new standard that 8mm lebel set for firearms and would either rush adoptions of new rifles or attempt to rework black powder rifles to smokeless powder. Some notable examples would be the German Gewehr 1888, the British Lee-Enfield (Long lee not SMLE) , the American Krag Jorgensen, the Italian 1891 carcano, and South American Remington rolling blocks converted to smokeless to only name a few. Most of these rifles would be replaced by better less rushed designs, but the lebel's cartridge was the reason for this rush. I would highly recommend C&Rsenal's 1st video that they ever released about the lebel. The video is unlisted as they replaced the episode with a much more thorough longer video, but that video is over an hour long and if you are simply looking for the basics of the lebel and its effect on firearms history you cannot beat C&Rsenal. This should clear up any questions you have, if not ill try to answer them as best as I can. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rrOabJd22tG6gZc.html

@@CallMeEzekiel Can confirm and offer some more insight; smokeless powder (really a catch all term for many _different_ propellants) even enabled all the other improvements which could not have been done without it. Also being entirely different and almost unrelated chemically, it removed the 'velocity' problem; black powder can only propel things so fast nomatter how much of it you pack behind a bullet. Before this, the tradeoffs to get a smaller bullet were generally not considered worthwhile, but afterwards became the only thing that made sense. You also got the english longbow correct in a very good way. Though I think the talk of early firearm penetration is a bit overstated, along with early firearms being somehow inexpensive; they were expensive by comparison, but lasted a long time and could be practically owned by the state, and reduced manpower costs by allowing for conscripts to use them. An outright mistake is that rifling imparts greater velocity; it imparts a spin which allows for greater accuracy. The tighter fit needed for rifling to work might however cause an incidental increase in velocity over the more common smoothbores, but if they made those with a similar fit it would have the same velocity; the loss in velocity/ accuracy was seen as a good thing because a smaller bullet relative to barrel size allowed for it to be loaded noticeably faster. As pre minie ball and similar improved projectiles (where the bullet was loaded small, but on firing the base would flare out and engage the rifling) the rifling had to be effectively manually engraved onto the ball by pushing it down the barrel and manually deforming the bullet to twist it past said rifling. Because these were muzzleloaders, and there was exactly one way to get the bullet down there. This also raised problems with fouling (from the black powder) making it increasingly difficult to shove the ball in a tight fitted barrel as more shots were fired. This is another reason why the big militaries leaned towards smoothbores for a long time, it effectively increased reliability. Also, the increase in firepower was negligible from rifling itself; it is incorrect to say this allowed the return of open order. Simply the advantages of riflemen skirmishing became worth the risk of dealing with cavalry (who themselves had transitioned to mainly being firearm and sword based rather than carrying lances), with the increased amount of damage a small unit of more accurate gunmen could do in such a fashion. To be pedantic I'd say the early experiments with different firearms weren't all that wacky and were often just ahead of their time (or rather, ahead of the machining technology necessary to mass produce them and make them usefully widespread), and mostly unrelated to the percussion cap. There were for instance a variety of breechloading attempts mostly stymied by manufacturing, expense, blackpowder fouling, or a combination. Really the percussion cap enabled breechloading in the long run, by enabling something which could create a gas-seal around the cartridge. If you don't have that, the fast moving gas quickly wears at the nice machined surfaces in the back of your firearm. And you did kind of skip a few decades with stuff like the revolver and metallic cartridges (rather important given the above; they are themselves a critical step that goes unmentioned, and you can't have a paper gas seal with those pressures). I could be even more pedantic about things in the last few seconds like the internal or integral magazines versus interchangeable magazines, automatic _loading_ being a rather critical step, etc, but beyond those specifically it gets relatively unimportant for the broad view. Then we start talking about things like accessories, materials, and ergonomics being major progress enabling developments.

Another thing to note on smokeless powder was that it was known about earlier; however, it was too strong for most barrels at that time. I believe most barrels back then were steel rolled over a rod to create the tube; thus there was a structural weakness where the rolling welded together. When barrels were being bored via machines (which also allowed easier rifling) then the stronger barrels could withstand the smokeless powder. In WWI I believe the austrian-hungarian rifles were using a mix of black and smokeless powder in part to reduce cost and I also think to prevent damage/straight pull being blown back? Mannlicher M1895 was said rifle.

phat

Those guns were from malacca

Shouldn't it be Nobunaga because the guy was a huge gun wanker

@@marseldagistani1989 as soon as nobunaga had huge success other clans started to adopt it, if i remember correctly by the time of the first "unification" (under nobunaga) it was pretty common to have riflemen (matchlockmen ?)

Beautiful song

Yes

Step 3: get into positions.

the guns were from malacca

Should make it cross shaped to deal holy damage

the based gun

Civil bullets for civil people, uncivil bullets for uncivil people

"Defending your King, your country, and laws, Is defending yourself, and the Protestant cause."

yah my dad told me about this, its to increase the pain of death

It increases velocity by allowing a tighter fit between the barrel and the bullet, which is also the reason why muzzle-loading rifles take longer to reload than muskets.

It does also mean it loses velocity slower.

they're an Irish beer company?

lol your a guinness **drinks him up**

sounds about right

@@ARP_1956 You know like crisis wars over occupied cores you know. Big deal cause the japan player put all their canned food over there in South Africa. No way china's gonna get it without UK or maybe US or France siding with them in the crisis though. Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about?

Let’s have a world war over 10 Km of the Sahara desert

As a Californian.... I do the same

Man how can you F up as bad as the left California government?

@@benivinson3693 the worst part is they’re actually trying not to suck. But they still do

I am Czech and I never even heard of Hussites having guns or creating definition of pistol. Jsem Čech a nikdy jsem neslyšel ohledně toho, že by Hussité měli pušky nebo že by vytvořili definice pistole.

@@yeboxxxchannel2505 Hussites had handheld firearms called píšťala, which is the origin of pistol. It did not look anything like todays pistol. Howitzer comes from the word houfnice, which was an early anti infantry canon.

Your country probably have some of the best gun laws and carry laws in europe.