Early Asiatic "Gunpowder Empires" (such as the Ottoman Turks, Ming Chinese, Safavid Persians and Mughal Indian empires) were innovators in the use of gunpowder weapons on the battlefield - especially the use of field artillery. Their tactics relied on the combination of infantry armed with matchlock guns (like the Ottoman Janissaries) which were protected against cavalry charges by a fortified line of cannons in the front of the infantry formation. These cannons were often chained together and further protected by carts and mantels to form a nearly impregnable front line. However this combined artillery/infantry formation was essentially immobile. In effect, they built field fortifications armed with artillery at the center of their battle lines which then served as a fixed base of maneuver for their cavalry operating on the wings.

In contrast to Asian tactics, European armies of the Renaissance utilized field guns operating independently from infantry formations while combining their musket armed infantry with blocks of pike armed infantry to form combined "pike and shock" units (Spanish tercios, Gustavus Adolphus' Swedish brigades, Cromwell's New Model Army, Maurice of Nassau's Dutch battalions, etc.) of various sizes and arrangements. The use of pikemen provided protection for the muskets against cavalry charges, added a shock/melee capability to a primarily gunpowder weapons formation and was decisively mobile on the battlefield (unlike the immobile artillery/infantry formations of Asia).

So why the differences in the development of gunpowder weapons tactics between Europe and Asia?

Aside from Hussite war wagons, why didn't Europeans utilized artillery field fortifications?

Were Asian gunpowder tactics essentially Hussite tactics only on a much larger scale?

Why did Asia not use pike infantry as a means of protecting musket troops while allowing for mobility and providing shock capability?

Did either tactical method ever meet on the battlefield?

Which tactical system proved superior?