I would like to apologize in advance if this seems like a stupid question as im a big greenie regarding history.
So when guns rolled around from what I know armour became obselete and was instead substituted for just casual clothes (for example english red coats, american civil war clothes), fights were now a battle of guns and swordfights (might be wrong please correct if true).
What I never see in movies/tv shows or general that era history sources is the use of bows/crossbows.
From what I get bows were not that great at dealing with big ol dudes wearing plates of metal, but when guns were introduced and shields/armour went poof would it not make sense to start utilising bows again?
In my opinion an arrow would do alot more damage to a person wearing no protection from it then a gumball of steel that could go straight through you.
I googled how many shots a skilled musketeer could fire every minute and it was around 3. I feel like if you had a 3-5 person thick line peppering down the oposing firing line (that was standing still probably reloading) with arrows it would of been much more effective and cheaper to dispose of them.
When semi auto and fully auto guns were introduced, yes it would be stupid to try and counter them with arrows. But I still think it would of been a good idea to atleast have a supporting line of archers behind your musketeers.
Again feel free to correct any mistakes I have made.
From what I get bows were not that great at dealing with big ol dudes wearing plates of metal, but when guns were introduced and shields/armour went poof would it not make sense to start utilising bows again?
A major advantage of the musket and arquebus vs the bow was better penetration of armour, and when armour disappears, that advantage is lost. However, that isn't the only advantage of firearms. Guns are also:
Easier to use, and in the hands of most soldiers, more accurate with less training.
Longer ranged.
More damaging. While you comment that "an arrow would do alot more damage to a person wearing no protection from it then a gumball of steel that could go straight through you", note that an arrow will cut a neat 1.5cm wide hole into (or through) the target, which is certainly something one wants to avoid being on the receiving end of, while a musket ball will rip (i.e., violently tear, rather than neatly cut) a 1.5cm wide hole through the target, shattering bones that are in the way. A musket ball is more damaging, more likely to be fatal, and much more immediately incapacitating. A musket hit to an arm or leg is more likely to stop a soldier from fighting than an arrow to the arm or leg.
Easier to use from cover (e.g., from firing pits, lying down behind walls). This makes guns relatively better in sieges and ambushes.
Earlier guns are also less likely to be damaged by weather, by accidents, etc.
The bow has the advantage of a higher rate of shooting, and also:
Can be better for night fighting (no lit match, no ignition/muzzle flash, and quieter).
Easier to reload on horseback. This is a major reason why the bow persisted as a cavalry weapon for centuries after the gun displaced the bow and crossbow for infantry. Sometimes, it was used a back-up to a musket (as, e.g., carried by these Mongolian cavalry); the musket would be used first, and if further shooting was required, then the bow.
Thus, the bow remained common as a cavalry weapon, and could still be useful as an infantry weapon alongside the muzzle-loading smoothbore musket/arquebus. However, there was little reason to prefer bows over muskets. Note that use of volley fire by ranks in formation largely makes up for any lack of rate of fire of the musket compared to the bow. While you suggest
I feel like if you had a 3-5 person thick line peppering down the oposing firing line (that was standing still probably reloading) with arrows it would of been much more effective and cheaper to dispose of them.
it should be noted that the rear ranks of archers would not be able to shoot directly at their targets. Chinese experience was that crossbowmen and musketeers could shoot quickly enough compared to archers by using volley fire by ranks (Andrade 2016).
The late Ming Chinese general Qi Jiguang wrote about the gun vs the bow:
In strength it can pierce armor. In accuracy it can strike the center of targets, even to the point of hitting the eye of a coin, and not just for exceptional shooters. ... The arquebus is such a powerful weapon and is so accurate that even bow and arrow cannot match it, and ... nothing is so strong as to be able to defend against it. (quoted in Andrade (2016))
Where the bow remained in use alongside the gun as an infantry weapon, it was usually due to a shortage of guns. This was the case for many indigenous peoples in North America (and this is one case for which you'll find plentiful archery in movies and TV). Generally, the gun was preferred, but not enough were available for all warriors to have one, and sometimes ammunition was short, so many continued to use bows. The bow was useful for night fighting and use on horseback, and while the gun was considered better, the bow was still useful and usable on the battlefield for a long time. The widespread use of rifled muskets, which significantly increased the effective range of guns, tipped the balance further in favour of the gun, the breech loading rifle even more so. The repeating rifle made the bow a weapon of desperation, used only when guns were not available (one can add that it did the same for muzzle-loading firearms too). North American use of the gun is covered in detail by Bohr (2104).
References:
Andrade, Tonio. The Gunpowder Age: China, Military Innovation, and the Rise of the West in World History, Princeton University Press, 2016.
Bohr, Roland. Gifts from the Thunder Beings: Indigenous Archery and European Firearms in the Northern Plains and Central Subarctic, 1670-1870, UNP - Nebraska, 2014.
Responding to: " In my opinion an arrow would do alot more damage to a person wearing no protection from it then a gumball of steel that could go straight through you."
I believe you are thinking about this incorrectly. Early bullets were made of a very soft metal (lead) which did not "just put a small hole" in whatever it hit. They imparted a massive amount of kinetic energy upon impact, and expanded while moving through the victim.
If you think of an arrow moving through a body, it is the equivalent of being stabbed with a small, (under 1" normally) blade that would slice veins, organs, and could possibly break bones. The lethal area of impact for an arrow relied upon it either hitting arteries or organs, and the victim bleeding out. This means there is a very large area of the body where an arrow would be able to impact, or pass through, without causing immediate death, or even long term death.
A bullet is much different. the impact force is enough to destroy bones, not break them, leave a very large wound channel, which is extremely difficult to close, and cause catastropic damage to organs. Think of the difference between sticking a knife through an orange, vs smashing that orange with a sledgehammer. It was easier to remove limbs then it was to correct the damage done from a bullet
If we look at the late 1700's musket (Brown Bess) it could manage to fire a projectile at 500+ Feet per Second.
(http://modernheritage.net/Scott_etal_2017.pdf) - there are images of the rounds going through ballistic gel in the document,
So basically, yes arrows could (rarely) cause immediate death or remove a soldier from the battlefield. However, for this to be the case a person with LOT of skill, training, and strength to shoot accurately over long distances was needed, as was a person skilled in making bows, arrows, strings, arrow heads, etc.
