Effects of Noise of Early Guns on Morale?

[LegateLivius]

Quote

 

My husband would tell me that when he enlisted in the British army during the 2000s, the first time he stepped into the firing range during Phase 1 it was the loudest day in his whole life. The sound of SA80s as he and other new recruits were learning how to shoot guns was so unbelievable he says even with the given hearing protection. In time as he completed Phase 1, he got used to the noise of guns that he no longer gets spooked as he did on the first day of rifles training.

So based on this it makes me wonder. A common thing mentioned in many older books and on multiple Wikipedia articles is that arquebus and other early gunpowder rifles may have lots and lots of flaws like very bad accuracy and risk of your rifle blowing n your face and so on. But one of the prime reasons they were so useful in their early days was because they were effective at breaking morale. Its frequently mentioned so much that the noise would un-nerve enemy troops and take a gradual toll on morale, eventually leading to the break. There are at a few Youtube videos even mentioning that some of the early gunpowder battles in Europe were won with very few casualties on the enemy side because the loud sound of early gunpowder rifles were so loud it shook the opposing army and caused a rout early on.

My question is. My husband adjusted to the sound of SA80 within 3 days.So I have to ask why even after a few battles upon their introduction, arquebus and other early gunpowder firearms still continued to have gigantic morale effect in the battlefield? Shouldn't after the first 4 or 5 battles, would soldiers who experienced it not get so fazed by the loud noise of sound of early rifle shots? I mean it should be obvious people would find out quickly that earliest guns had horrible inaccuracy so I'm surprised whole regiments would still be fazed by the sound of gunshots tot he point of decreased uni movement and even paralysis while the enemy arquebus would be so open to a direct attack because of the poor accuracy of their guns.

So why did early armies find the first generations of primitive rifles so intimidating as a morale changer even despite after over ten encounters? Was there something so different about early firearms? Why wouldn't soldiers adjust quickly the way my husband did with the sounds of SA80 at Phase 1 training?

 

Saw the above post and now I'm just as curious as the OP who created it. So can anyone give their take about  morale and early gunpowder loudness?

[caesar novus]

Wasn't gunfire quite infrequent due to slow loading time? Also weren't the gunners the least intimidating looking folks, since normal soldiers had conventional weapons which were more effective with skill. The guns were given to ragamuffins who might draw attention for being rushed when reloading, unlike ww2: