01-05-2005, 10:16 PM
Hi,
Now, in attacking wooden fortifications, especially if those fortifications had shake or thatch roofs, fire would be useful if for no other reason than that it causes confusion and ties up some of the defenders who have to try to control it. And, of course, fire would be the optimal attack against tar and oil impregnated wooden ships. In all these cases, however, little more is required of the arrow than that it 'hang on' long enough to set some structure on fire. That would seem to be a much less stringent requirement than that it penetrate armor.
I would suspect that fire arrows are probably ineffective against stone fortifications. Had they been effective, I doubt that we would have had the history of long sieges (some lasting many months) that we have.
I suspect many more fire arrows have been used by Hollywood than were ever actually used in warfare.
--Pete
Rhydderch Hael,Jan 5 2005, 01:55 PM Wrote:Add into that the neccessity of the arrow to pierce whatever it is going to strike, which means its velocity vector has to be pretty much dead-on if it is going to allow the momentum of the shaft to supply the force needed to drive the head in.Yep. Just guessing since I have no actual experience with fire arrows, but I'd think they would be very inferior against personnel. There really doesn't appear to be that much advantage to them, since either the arrow wounds the target or not. If not, then the fire does nothing. If the target is wounded, then only in some marginal cases where the wound without the fire would permit the person to keep fighting but the addition of the fire takes him out of combat would there be any difference. My suspicion is that there would not be enough such marginal cases to offset all the drawbacks that have been pointed out.
Should that arrow strike with even a small amount of offset vector, the mass of the shaft isn't as likely to follow straight behind the penetrating arrowhead. The head hits one spot while the shaft's momentum tries to carry it to another spot on target. That might cause it to snag (decreasing its penetration depth) or tumble off the body completely. And any armor protecting the body makes the penetration force behind the impact all that more important a consideration.
[right][snapback]64495[/snapback][/right]
Now, in attacking wooden fortifications, especially if those fortifications had shake or thatch roofs, fire would be useful if for no other reason than that it causes confusion and ties up some of the defenders who have to try to control it. And, of course, fire would be the optimal attack against tar and oil impregnated wooden ships. In all these cases, however, little more is required of the arrow than that it 'hang on' long enough to set some structure on fire. That would seem to be a much less stringent requirement than that it penetrate armor.
I would suspect that fire arrows are probably ineffective against stone fortifications. Had they been effective, I doubt that we would have had the history of long sieges (some lasting many months) that we have.
I suspect many more fire arrows have been used by Hollywood than were ever actually used in warfare.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?