Didn't they use these arrows mostly to cause multiple fires in enemy strongholds\towns\camps, so the penetration effect and accuracy were not such a big deal?
[QUOTE=antianan;50489957]Didn't they use these arrows mostly to cause multiple fires in enemy strongholds\towns\camps, so the penetration effect and accuracy were not such a big deal?[/QUOTE]
Those fire arrows will do a lot of damage when they hit a thatched roof.
[QUOTE=antianan;50489957]Didn't they use these arrows mostly to cause multiple fires in enemy strongholds\towns\camps, so the penetration effect and accuracy were not such a big deal?[/QUOTE]
He addresses that in the video. Apparently they still have a 98% fail rate, even if they hit.
[QUOTE=MrGreed;50489963]He addresses that in the video. Apparently they still have a 98% fail rate, even if they hit.[/QUOTE]
Oh right, should have watched the video to the end before commenting. Sorry guys.
[QUOTE=MrGreed;50489963]He addresses that in the video. Apparently they still have a 98% fail rate, even if they hit.[/QUOTE]
Well, yeah, but as he said, you're really supposed to saturate a place with them to the point that the enemy is too distracted with the fear of a big blaze breaking out behind them while the fight is going on.
Love this guy.
I thought flaming arrows were used for night time, almost like tracers for bullets?
[QUOTE=Glitchman;50490088]I thought flaming arrows were used for night time, almost like tracers for bullets?[/QUOTE]
I don't see why they would be, a tracer wouldn't do you much good with a bow since you have to completely reset your aim every time you load it. The idea is just to start things on fire. They may have a poor success rate but 10 archers can fire 120 arrows in the space of a minute and if only 5 of those arrows start a fire, you've still started 5 fires that will be difficult to put out and distract manpower from fighting you.
Siege equipment exists for a reason.
But they would be probably able to set houses or fortifications alight, provided they didn't snuff out in-flight and the the constructions had straw or wood roofing.
In short, fire arrows are useful in very specialized situations. Using fire arrows against people is mostly a waste of time.
[QUOTE=Glitchman;50490088]I thought flaming arrows were used for night time, almost like tracers for bullets?[/QUOTE]
The only time flaming arrows would be used at night would be when someone is shooting a movie and wants the flaming arrows to stand out.
[QUOTE=MILKE;50489871][video=youtube_share;zTd_0FRAwOQ]http://youtu.be/zTd_0FRAwOQ[/video][/QUOTE]
yah maybe if u arent lvl 99 range
But but but, wasn't there a type of arrow where the head exploded on impact spreading flammable oil further causing it to ignite?
[QUOTE=Source;50495706]But but but, wasn't there a type of arrow where the head exploded on impact spreading flammable oil further causing it to ignite?[/QUOTE]
What on earth would do that? porcelain? on an arrow head? It would weigh, [Sp]not literally, of course[/Sp] a ton!
Imagine if Nitroglycerin was available back in ye olde' times.
The arrow would impact, the vial containing the nitro mix would explode from the physical shock and boom no more soldier.
I mean the little firecage he had on that arrow is about ~20mL of volume, compared to a [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJqaVQjRbQo"]12mL nitro explosion[/URL].
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;50497787]Imagine if Nitroglycerin was available back in ye olde' times.
The arrow would impact, the vial containing the nitro mix would explode from the physical shock and boom no more soldier.
I mean the little firecage he had on that arrow is about ~20mL of volume, compared to a [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJqaVQjRbQo"]12mL nitro explosion[/URL].[/QUOTE]
I would be at least marginally concerned transporting and eventually loosing such an arrow.
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;50497787]Imagine if Nitroglycerin was available back in ye olde' times.
The arrow would impact, the vial containing the nitro mix would explode from the physical shock and boom no more soldier.
I mean the little firecage he had on that arrow is about ~20mL of volume, compared to a [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJqaVQjRbQo"]12mL nitro explosion[/URL].[/QUOTE]
That'd be assuming the force of the arrow being fired wouldn't trigger the nitroglycerin immediately.
The question I have is what if they used a molotov-like wick tied around the front of a long arrow and light it before firing. Wouldn't that help keep it lit and convenient?
Also if someone was impaled by a flaming arrow, I don't think getting rid of it would be as easy as just pulling it out... That'd lead to a lot more bleeding and more than likely death since they often just broke off the body of the arrow so the wound would still stay plugged.
[QUOTE=Szraneraxtq;50498254]
Also if someone was impaled by a flaming arrow, I don't think getting rid of it would be as easy as just pulling it out... That'd lead to a lot more bleeding and more than likely death since they often just broke off the body of the arrow so the wound would still stay plugged.[/QUOTE]
If the arrow goes deep enough, it won't burn for long and will only cauterize the wound. If it's not deep enough, it will fall out anyway. Fire arrows against human targets are just as effective as normal ones. They'd be more useful if they could ignitethem but they can't so kinda useless.
Lindybeige is the same person who thinks that the progenitors of all modern machine guns and machine gun doctrine (which he can't name properly) are inferior to the nearly obsolete-on-adoption bren gun because the british were on the side that won the war.
Then he outright ignored the existence of the MG3 (still in active use by a few dozen different countries) to claim the bren was better because a few converted brens stuck around on top of tanks until the 90s.
He basically has a reddit history board tier understanding of most of the things he talks about but believes himself the voice of God, presumably because he's been deafened by Big Ben's bongs and his stereo system blasting [I]Rule, Britannia[/I] on repeat 24/7.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;50499083]Lindybeige is the same person who thinks that the progenitors of all modern machine guns and machine gun doctrine (which he can't name properly) are inferior to the nearly obsolete-on-adoption bren gun because the british were on the side that won the war.
Then he outright ignored the existence of the MG3 (still in active use by a few dozen different countries) to claim the bren was better because a few converted brens stuck around on top of tanks until the 90s.
He basically has a reddit history board tier understanding of most of the things he talks about but believes himself the voice of God, [B]presumably because he's been deafened by Big Ben's bongs and his stereo system blasting [I]Rule, Britannia[/I] on repeat 24/7.[/B][/QUOTE]
Nice, attributing a negative aspect to his patriotism, a little bit of casual racism. It's a very condescending attitude you seem to have, no doubt you're an expert on this topic.
But more to the point, I don't think Lindy believes he is the voice of God, he's just an enthusiast with a camera making videos about the subjects he finds interesting. If you're so outraged by someone making informative and funny videos to the best of their ability/knowledge, I guess you never watch any science/history documentaries - because what we believe to be true about the world and its history is constantly shifting.
[QUOTE=heyitsdan;50499197]Nice, attributing a negative aspect to his patriotism, a little bit of casual racism. It's a very condescending attitude you seem to have, no doubt you're an expert on this topic.
But more to the point, I don't think Lindy believes he is the voice of God, he's just an enthusiast with a camera making videos about the subjects he finds interesting. If you're so outraged by someone making informative and funny videos to the best of their ability/knowledge, I guess you never watch any science/history documentaries - because what we believe to be true about the world and its history is constantly shifting.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I had this big post typed up to respond to you, but I think i've had a lapse of judgement and made a needlessly hostile post in a peaceful thread and seem to be on the fast tract towards inciting shit where no one was asking for it. So, sorry!
[QUOTE=mastermaul;50499083]Lindybeige is the same person who thinks that the progenitors of all modern machine guns and machine gun doctrine (which he can't name properly) are inferior to the nearly obsolete-on-adoption bren gun because the british were on the side that won the war.
[B]Then he outright ignored the existence of the MG3 (still in active use by a few dozen different countries) to claim the bren was better because a few converted brens stuck around on top of tanks until the 90s.
[/B]
He basically has a reddit history board tier understanding of most of the things he talks about but believes himself the voice of God, presumably because he's been deafened by Big Ben's bongs and his stereo system blasting [I]Rule, Britannia[/I] on repeat 24/7.[/QUOTE]
I love how he made a follow-up video where he addressed the existence of the MG3 and MG74 and also reiterated that he never said that the MG34/42 was completely inferior to the Bren, he just said they were both great in their own way.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;50499083]Lindybeige is the same person who thinks that the progenitors of all modern machine guns and machine gun doctrine (which he can't name properly) are inferior to the nearly obsolete-on-adoption bren gun because the british were on the side that won the war.
Then he outright ignored the existence of the MG3 (still in active use by a few dozen different countries) to claim the bren was better because a few converted brens stuck around on top of tanks until the 90s.
He basically has a reddit history board tier understanding of most of the things he talks about but believes himself the voice of God, presumably because he's been deafened by Big Ben's bongs and his stereo system blasting [I]Rule, Britannia[/I] on repeat 24/7.[/QUOTE]
That's one of the worst summaries I've ever seen of a video. He said that both had their uses and that neither were flat out better.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;50499083]Lindybeige is the same person who thinks that the progenitors of all modern machine guns and machine gun doctrine (which he can't name properly) are inferior to the nearly obsolete-on-adoption bren gun because the british were on the side that won the war.
Then he outright ignored the existence of the MG3 (still in active use by a few dozen different countries) to claim the bren was better because a few converted brens stuck around on top of tanks until the 90s.
He basically has a reddit history board tier understanding of most of the things he talks about but believes himself the voice of God, presumably because he's been deafened by Big Ben's bongs and his stereo system blasting [I]Rule, Britannia[/I] on repeat 24/7.[/QUOTE]
You could at least point out how he stated that all moorland in the united kingdom used to be forests, whereas in actuality it was just the pennine moors that used to be forested. Or one of many other slight mistakes.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50499758]That's one of the worst summaries I've ever seen of a video. He said that both had their uses and that neither were flat out better.[/QUOTE]
The biggest problem with that video was the title, it gave the impression he was saying the Bren was better when in fact what he was trying to do was give evidence to dispel one of the myths you get from a lot of WW2 Wehrmacht enthusasists who think that German engineering was so superior to anything else that everything else was shit, leading to people who can't hack the idea that any other machine gun was anywhere near as good as the MG42
[QUOTE=mastermaul;50499083]Lindybeige is the same person who thinks that the progenitors of all modern machine guns and machine gun doctrine (which he can't name properly) are inferior to the nearly obsolete-on-adoption bren gun because the british were on the side that won the war.
Then he outright ignored the existence of the MG3 (still in active use by a few dozen different countries) to claim the bren was better because a few converted brens stuck around on top of tanks until the 90s.
He basically has a reddit history board tier understanding of most of the things he talks about but believes himself the voice of God, presumably because he's been deafened by Big Ben's bongs and his stereo system blasting [I]Rule, Britannia[/I] on repeat 24/7.[/QUOTE]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgfBL1hz_zw[/media]
This was made for you, also top comment by Forgotten Weapons explains it well
[QUOTE=sgman91;50499758]That's one of the worst summaries I've ever seen of a video. He said that both had their uses and that neither were flat out better.[/QUOTE]
lindy has a record with being biased when it comes to history, he prefers ignoring things that dont suit his narrative making most of what he says half-truth at best.
take whatever he says with a grain of salt. his lovable personality and accent dont absolve him of his lack of academic knowledge and repeated parroting of misconceptions. don't forget that he is a british apologist and will defend britain at every turn given the chance - this alone should be enough reason to distrust whatever else he might claim.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50499758]That's one of the worst summaries I've ever seen of a video. He said that both had their uses and that neither were flat out better.[/QUOTE]
Beyond that, I don't see how his opinion on two WWII guns has anything to do with his knowledge about medieval fire arrows.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;50499463]Actually, I had this big post typed up to respond to you, but I think i've had a lapse of judgement and made a needlessly hostile post in a peaceful thread and seem to be on the fast tract towards inciting shit where no one was asking for it. So, sorry![/QUOTE]
I was also in the wrong, I could have made my point without being equally hostile back to you. Apology offered and apology accepted :smile:
As others have said, we just have to take what he says with a pinch of salt.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
