Just like the title, I am curious about how gunpowder armies fare against traditional swords, spears and shield armies in battle throughout history. What tactics or formation was used against their traditional counterpart? I know that Pike and shot was dominant for quite a while but aside from that, how do they maximize the firepower while keeping their opponent away?
By gunpowder armies, I meant armies equipped with firearms from 16th century onward.
A lot of ink has been spilt in /r/AskHistorians over the question of muskets v.s. bows, many of them ridiculously well-sourced. It's not a direct answer to your question, but I think it's pretty easy to infer: in general, gunpowder armies destroy traditional armies, which is why there are none of the latter left. Here are some I picked out:
/u/hborrgg answers Why was the musket used instead of the bow and arrow during colonial times?
And him again on Bow and Arrow vs. Musket in the Revolutionary War
And this thread: the bow is better than the musket - why did Napoleon not use archers? which turned into a massive row.