The format is usually that the first is right, just for the wrong reasons, while the second is wrong for the right (or at least more well-informed) reasons. In this case, its that the bow performs better than a firearm on an individual level making it seem better at first glance, but in a war that isn’t as important as logistics so the gun is still a better weapon.
Right, that’s what I’m asking: if the second (middle) is wrong, (i.e., logistics was not the influential factor) then what is the real reason that earlier guns were superior?
The reasoning is correct in that bow has much better range, better accuracy, and more lethality. Its the oversight or dismissal of logistics as a factor in the power of a weapon that is the mistake, and results in the incorrect conclusion. Basically, knowning enough to know that an archer is more dangerous than an early firearm user, but not enough to factor in logistics in the value of a weapon.
…but that’s not what OP’s meme implies?
The format is usually that the first is right, just for the wrong reasons, while the second is wrong for the right (or at least more well-informed) reasons. In this case, its that the bow performs better than a firearm on an individual level making it seem better at first glance, but in a war that isn’t as important as logistics so the gun is still a better weapon.
Right, that’s what I’m asking: if the second (middle) is wrong, (i.e., logistics was not the influential factor) then what is the real reason that earlier guns were superior?
The reasoning is correct in that bow has much better range, better accuracy, and more lethality. Its the oversight or dismissal of logistics as a factor in the power of a weapon that is the mistake, and results in the incorrect conclusion. Basically, knowning enough to know that an archer is more dangerous than an early firearm user, but not enough to factor in logistics in the value of a weapon.