Fire Arrows
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
So is lindybeige right and fire arrows are just Hollywood magic? Also since mainstream news sources are citing him in articles is he a legitimate historian now?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3636014/Medieval-armies-DIDN-T-use-fire-arrows-Researchers-claims-not-practical-open-battle.html
>>30240938
>So is lindybeige right
> is lindybeige right
> lindybeige right
> lindybeige
No, the answer is no.
No.
>>30240938
the MG42 videos showed that he is a fucking idiot
>Spandau
>muh books
>>30240973
>>30241006
nice madposting ;^]
>>30241021
asshurt bongfag detected.
>Of course he's right about the Bren! It has to be better! Why Because it's British and we single handily won WWII with it!
>>30241039
lol
try to calm down there champ
>>30240938
fire arrows weren't used in a robing hood men in tights way, they were mostly a naval weapon. you'd take a cage arrow head, have a ball of fabric in it soaked in pitch and shoot it into the mainsail and watch that shit catch alight.
you could also wrap a piece of pitch soaked fabric around the shank of an arrowhead, but that doesn't pay dem arrowhead guilds who make the gucci cage arrowheads.
They were used but were very, very, uncommon.
After reading about Russians and Vikings using birds to set fire to towns, I'll believe anything at this point.
>>30240938
He is right, fire arrows would have been front heavy and would have a shit range.
"Flaming arrows and crossbow bolts were used throughout the period. Fifteenth-century writer Gutierre Diaz de Gamez witnessed a Spanish attack on the Moorish town of Oran in 1404 and later described how "During the most part of the night, the galleys did not cease from firing bolts and quarrells dipped in tar into the town, which is near the sea. The noise and the cries which came from the town were very great by reason of the havoc that was wrought."
"During the British Civil Wars (mid-17th century in Great Britain), both the Parliamentarian and Royalist armies used various incendiary devices to attack enemies and destroy property that might be used for military purposes, according to historian Stephen Porter in Destruction in the English Civil Wars. The flaming arrow attack was used to set fire to buildings at a distance.[62] An arrow with a flammable substance attached to the shaft, close to the tip, was shot from a bow or short-muzzled musket. Such arrows shot from a musket had their feathers removed, to fit inside the muzzle, and were called fire-darts. These devices were cheap to make and easy to prepare. Although used infrequently during the wars, the flaming arrows and darts proved to be destructive. The Royalists shot flaming arrows into the thatched homes in the suburbs of Chester causing extensive damage. Lyme Regis was partly razed using flaming arrows."
More so the former than the latter.
>>30241006
Obligatory
>>30241039
>comparing guns designed for two different roles
Should've been an MG38 instead, the father to modern machine gun doctrine
Once again demonstrating zero insight into anything beyond his video game-tier book knowledge. Of course fire arrows were of little use in open battle, they were the period equivalent of incendiary grenades. You don't attack people with them, you use them tactically to set things on fire. But this is the same guy who got his whole understanding of machine gun tactics from that holdout level in CoD1, so I don't know why anyone give his material any credence at all.
>>30240938
fire arrows are really quite difficult to employ, firing one often extinguishes it, you need a very resilient flame
>>30240938
>So is lindybeige right
No.
Ok, a stopped clock might be right once every 12 hours, but that's about it. if he is right, its lucky accident 99% of the time.
> Also since mainstream news sources are citing him in articles is he a legitimate historian now?
Ha.
Haha.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaaaaaaaah.
Please provide one example of a peer-reviewed paper by Nikolas Lloyd in an academic journal, research paper, symposium, or publication.
Good luck.
Just because one article mentioned his name does not make him a historian. yet alone a legitimate one.
The man is an idiot, with the rare talent for appearing extremely confident when he talks. that confidences comes over as sounding like he knows what he's talking about, to those who know less... like daily mail journalists.
And I'm not even clicking a Daily Heil link.
>Also since mainstream news sources are citing him in articles is he a legitimate historian now?
Ever see a witness interview on your local news?
>>30240938
>lindybeige
He's a fucking moron
>>30241118
I am sceptical about this fire dart crap.
What the hell is this about removing the feathers? The guy who made this up does know feathers compress right?
The Daily Mail fucking uses Lindybeige as a source?
Fuck me
> Also since mainstream news sources are citing him in articles is he a legitimate historian now?
The fact that doesn't register to you that the Daily Mail is worthless and rather you thought it means Lindy is legitimate means you're exactly the kind of retard they want reading it.
>>30242458
>feathers compress
>when pushed the wrong way
>by shoving a dart down a gun barrel
no
early hand gonnes fired wood or solid iron bolts. some had integral stabilizing fins and were ye olde medieval sabot rounds, most were a bore diameter wooden shaft with a iron point.
what is being described in the ECW is the 17th century equivalent of a guerrilla molotov mortar for volley fire into a town to burn down buildings. Not exactly a high accuracy weapon
>>30240938
>daily mail
>news source
I always thought it was mostly for ceremonies and naval combat.
>>30241378
This, and even Hollywood knows this.
The picture in the article shows Bronn using a flaming arrow to ignite something far away. That something is usually something pre-soaked in pitch (or wildfire, kek) or something otherwise flammable (like ship sails).
>>30241006
look at the mad werhaboo.
>being this mad because a grown man didn't suck a guns dick
>>30240938
no hes just a sperg
>BREN is better
>spandau is shit
>believing in anything this guy says
>>30240938
Get over it
>>30241039
>>30241021
>>30240938
why would anyone care about the opinion of an autistic brit (read any brit) who makes his own sweater shirts
>>30244979
>Everyone that disagrees with me is a mad fanboy
Lindy pls
The MG42 vs Bren video was dumb, but I could just shrug it off a patriotism and hubris.
The response video that followed it was, on the other hand, a complete embarrassment to see from a grown man. It was the kind of asshurt thing I would expect MAC to put out in the face of shilling accusations. Just shameful.
>>30240938
>spandaufuelcantmeltbrenbeams.jpg
>>30245519
>spandaucanthitaccurately.jpg
This man is a fucking nutcase
>>30241006
>still this fucking mad about his 100% citing of historical slang
>>30240938
Plenty old movies have proven this to be possible. Because back then it wasn't just CGI, they actually shot live arrows. And those were on fire. And those set shit on fire.
>>30246057
>historical slang
yeah, let's call it the same stupid designation 75 years later still
Having the ability to set fire to shit from a distance would be useful and I'm pretty sure medival people had the ability to do this.
I don't think they'd use it in a fight though thanks to how situational it'd be
>>30246057
historical slang while annoying isn't real problem.
real problem is that he treats mg34 and mg42 as one weapon.
Why all the hate? He actually does his research and he is right about the bren and the spandau
>>30246155
THE BREN IS STILL MADE IN INDIA !!!111111
meanwhile the fact that the MG42/53/74/3 are still in wide use by several armies around the globe is swept under the table
>>30246155
Because he fucks it all up with irrelevent points, weird claims backed up by anecdotal evidence, calls the mg-34 and mg-42 the spandau instead of being professional and treats them as if they are the same weapon, claims his video is intended for british people only since he is using the spandau, makes points that renders his earlier points irrelevent and so on.
I like how he implies that british infantry based tactics work if they call the enemy german MG "spandau" but will fail if they say MG-34 when it is a MG-42 and vice versa.
Look at this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH4t1j6rQBg
A video that is so much better and deliver the same end message.
Why he make video about gun.
Beigelindy always old weapon before
>>30240938
>Trusting a guy who unironically said that a mounted MG has more power than a unmounted MG because the gun recoils less
No.
>>30246103
yeah fuck m1911`s
>>30247036
Are you implying that calling the m1911, m1911 is a historical slang and we actually call it something else today?
Napalm doesn't stick to kids! want proof? Lindy blew off a candle! check mate hippies!
>>30245044
Pepebeige
>>30240938
>>30241006
>lindybeige
>>30246185
Would you comment to this guys face about his comb-over?
>>30247120
>Lloyd's original conclusions were basically correct
the rest is literally nitpicking
