"Arquebus vs. Japanese Teppo" Topic

I am working on a fictional campaign taking place in Japan about 1614 to 1620 pitting Christian samurai vs. the rest of Japan (!) but with the aid of some Europeans. My question -- was the European matchlock arquebus superior to the Japanese teppo? The rules used will be home-grown and I'm tempted to give the arquebus a little better attack factor than the Japanese knock-offs. Whatcha think?

I don't think there was really that much differance.

IIRC the Teppo was marginally superior because it had a rain guard for the match. Otherwise, there should be very little difference between the two.

Damon.

The teppo was a Japanese produced copy of European arquebuses (arquebi? ). Given the metallurgical skills of the Japanese I don't think there would be much difference.

Besides

The rules used will be home-grown and I'm tempted to give the arquebus a little better attack factor than the Japanese knock-offs.

'Attack factor'? It's a gun, it either fires or it doesn't. The bullet either hits it's target or it misses. There are many layers to drill through to get to the outcome – operator skill, powder quality, match quality, weight of shot. Must be dozens of others. Is it really worth bothering factoring in 'shoddy Far Eastern knock off' into the equation? That's a very 60s attitude :)

I don't have my sources with me, but I've read that early teppo were not as superior to Portuguese arquebusiers. However, if you're talking 17th century arms, there was probably little difference.

For the time period you're suggesting I'd put my money on the Teppo if it was an even matchup. I don't have my sources here at work, but I believe the Japanese standardized bore sizes and mass production so that ammunition could be used in multiple weapons, and they were very well made. I wouldn't call them knock-offs, I thought I'd read that they were just as good, if not better, not long after they first showed up in Japan.

I'm not an expert but didn't Europeans take quite a while longer to come up with the concept of standardizing barrels?

The Japanese also took to teppo very heavily and massed them in huge numbers compared to contemporary European battles. See "Giving up the Gun" by Noel Perrin for more information on how fast and how far the teppo development went in japan.

That the Japanese used more and superior firearms is a tired old myth spread by authors like Perrin who does not have the most basic clue about European armies or arms production.

Take the vaunted use of Teppo at Nagashino in 1575, there the supposedly superior Japanese massed 1000 firearms in an army of 38000. 5 years before this 50% of the Imperial infantry raised in Germany was armed with firearms.

Some 15 years before Nagashino the backwards and poorly funded Swedish army had some 4600 firearms as well as 2100 pieces of artillery. and that's not counting the privately owned firearms.

Danzig, a single city, had some 6500 firearms in storage for use by it's milita.

The town of Suhl had a yearly production rate of 20.000 firearms and that's just one of several European arms manufacturing centers.

and we're off…

Hey! I was born in '60….so I guess I have a 60's attitude…LOL. So, then, not really enough of a difference to bother complicating things. I like that. Easier is always (ok, nearly always) better. Thanks.

I stand corrected.

I don't have my sources here at work, but I believe the Japanese standardized bore sizes and mass production so that ammunition could be used in multiple weapons, and they were very well made.

Yes, military purchases were normally in quantity from a particular gunmaking "school" that made standardized weapons, making them more serviceable for repair and ammunition supply (and accuracy, which depends on windage). Few in 1550, they were the decisive weapon of war within 40 years and there were about 200,000 guns in circulation not long after. They had superior range and effectiveness compared with the Ming arquebus, which was not of uniform quality – very effective fire given the equipment plus training plus experienced troops. This raises an interesting classification question, as you are finding. For your purposes, I'd expect good quality veteran mercs would have picked up reliable guns in their own self interest. Since the teppo relied on a cheekpiece rather than a shoulder stock, Europeans might prefer to avoid using them.

, which was a knock-off. Whether they were Their quality and range was superior to the Ming , and the manufacturing quality I wouldn't call them knock-offs, I thought I'd read that they were just as good, if not better, not long after they first showed up in Japan.

I think the only 'knock-off' part on the teppo is the trigger mechanism itself!

Everything else is built to a different design theory (shoot, the Japanese even turned the match-arm around compared to European designs).

The problem with researching this stuff is that even the names were wrong/misused in the accounts. Names for fire arm types changed/merged etc. I would say, call them all awful and untrustworthy.

I would say that well trained Europeans would have better fire discipline and more ability to deliver a rolling mass fire.

Having said that, how that unit would react to a Nagae-Yari unit piling into them is another matter…

I would say that well trained Europeans would have better fire discipline and more ability to deliver a rolling mass fire.

The Japanese ashigaru would still have better fire discipline, and they used volley fire by ranks as well as circulating fire by 1575. By 1620 Europeans might well have more battle experience, but a lot would depend on their level of drill and cohesion – are they an expeditionary force or parties of enterprising adventurers?

I feel the original question was about the inherent qualities of the Japanese teppo and the European arquebus?
If that is still the case I can safely tell you that – on average- the Japanese teppo was a superior weapon to the arquebus.

I've had the privilege of handling quite a few of them, even firing two of the priceless artifacts.

The accuracy of the teppo- remember it's a smoothbore- is way better than your average imported arquebus.

With a relatively mild load of some 45-50 grain fffg we were able to consistently hit a 15cm disk at 50 meters.
I wouldn't even try to do that with a common arquebus or musket.

Ignition also seemed a lot faster than with an arquebus or even much later flintlocks.

On what basis would one decide that one weapon is better than another? On what basis would one decide that one soldier will perform better than another?

Actual experience with the weapon would seem to be most useful. WillieB and others indicate that the weapon was in fact different, improved, and standardized. So the history and actual experience would seem to indicate that the Japanese weapon was marginally superior.

The Japanese are disciplined, dedicated, and skilled warriors with massive experience in war. It would take a few weeks to train soldiers to be useful with the weapon and the Japanese had years. There is no basis to indicate that the white guy would in any way be any better with the weapon.

May I suggest that the weapon be treated the same and the soldiers depending on who commands them. But, just assuming that the white guy is better based on what? That would be hard to buy. Few white guys will stick around as long as the class/clan/honor bound Japanese

Given the original point of the question,

about 1614 to 1620 pitting Christian samurai vs. the rest of Japan (!) but with the aid of some Europeans

the Europeans would be either professional adventurers in small numbers (and largely inconsequential), or a full-blown professional ARMY.

The interesting thing about Japanese warfare is that the Japanese would include 25-33% Archers in their musket units, to provide arcing volley-fire while the musketeers reloaded. This number decreased over time, but still saw use into about 1640.

'Since the teppo relied on a cheekpiece rather than a shoulder stock, Europeans might prefer to avoid using them.'

Yeap, I wouldn't fancy that. Did the Teppo have a lower charge?

Not that I know of. ~100g of black powder or equivalent is about a max load for any ~.54cal weapon with modern steel barrels.

The Teppo uses a different grip method than classical european weapons, so part of the recoil gets absorbed by the left arm (which is already pulling forward). A review of a replica .54cal weapon by a regular black powder shooter said that recoil was comparable to any other .54cal matchlock, and that the replica was certainly accurate enough for squirrel hunting.

Check out the Dixie Gun Works website for more details, they make the kit that was reviewed.

correction: 100 grains, not 100 grams. BIG difference!

100 Grains FFg of FFFg would really be a hefty load for any .54 cal gun and I certainly would NOT recommend it for an authentic piece that has a much less stronger barrel.

In fact I wouldn't recommend it for a modern gun either.
There's almost no possibility of burning that much powder efficiently in a smoothbore gun with a normal barrel length. You'd only get more recoil, more noise and probably decreased accuracy.
60-65 grains seems to me an ideal starting load for a modern replica.