Skip to main content
edited title
Link
user1095108
  • 807
  • 1
  • 7
  • 16

Why was there never a tachanka-style cannon or crossbow?

added 13 characters in body
Source Link
MCW
  • 34.1k
  • 12
  • 109
  • 164

There seems to be a clear line of progression for many weapons. For example, in the west, crossbows were mounted on carts by the Roman empire, while in the east, they were mounted on camels. The ZamburakZamburak is a clear improvement on the "crossbow camel", as a cannon in steadinstead of the crossbow is used, giving more firepower. But a similar improvement in the west is missing, at least until the advent of the tachanka. Why? The obvious answer seems to be recoil, but why were then the ZamburaksZamburaks feasible? Maybe the possibility was simply overlooked?

There seems to be a clear line of progression for many weapons. For example, in the west, crossbows were mounted on carts by the Roman empire, while in the east, they were mounted on camels. The Zamburak is a clear improvement on the "crossbow camel", as a cannon in stead of the crossbow is used, giving more firepower. But a similar improvement in the west is missing, at least until the advent of the tachanka. Why? The obvious answer seems to be recoil, but why were then the Zamburaks feasible? Maybe the possibility was simply overlooked?

There seems to be a clear line of progression for many weapons. For example, in the west, crossbows were mounted on carts by the Roman empire, while in the east, they were mounted on camels. The Zamburak is a clear improvement on the "crossbow camel", as a cannon instead of the crossbow is used, giving more firepower. But a similar improvement in the west is missing, at least until the advent of the tachanka. Why? The obvious answer seems to be recoil, but why were then the Zamburaks feasible? Maybe the possibility was simply overlooked?

added 1 character in body
Source Link
user1095108
  • 807
  • 1
  • 7
  • 16

There seems to be a clear line of progression for many weapons. For example, in the west, crossbows were mounted on carts by the Roman empire, while in the east, they were mounted on camels. The Zamburak is a clear improvement on the "crossbow camel", as a cannon in stead of the crossbow is used, giving more firepower. But a similar improvement in the west is missing, at least until the advent of the tachanka. Why? The obvious answer seems to be recoil, but why were then the Zamburaks feasible? Maybe the possibility was simply overlooked?

There seems to be a clear line of progression for many weapons. For example, in the west crossbows were mounted on carts by the Roman empire, while in the east, they were mounted on camels. The Zamburak is a clear improvement on the "crossbow camel", as a cannon in stead of the crossbow is used, giving more firepower. But a similar improvement in the west is missing, at least until the advent of the tachanka. Why? The obvious answer seems to be recoil, but why were then the Zamburaks feasible? Maybe the possibility was simply overlooked?

There seems to be a clear line of progression for many weapons. For example, in the west, crossbows were mounted on carts by the Roman empire, while in the east, they were mounted on camels. The Zamburak is a clear improvement on the "crossbow camel", as a cannon in stead of the crossbow is used, giving more firepower. But a similar improvement in the west is missing, at least until the advent of the tachanka. Why? The obvious answer seems to be recoil, but why were then the Zamburaks feasible? Maybe the possibility was simply overlooked?

added 465 characters in body
Source Link
user1095108
  • 807
  • 1
  • 7
  • 16
Loading
added 92 characters in body; edited title
Source Link
MCW
  • 34.1k
  • 12
  • 109
  • 164
Loading
Source Link
user1095108
  • 807
  • 1
  • 7
  • 16
Loading