Archery Question

[Occhidiangela]

Basically, there are two quantities of importance, the center of mass and the center of pressure.  In the case of something like an arrow or a spear (i.e., long thin objects) the center of mass is just the point where the object balances.  So, for instance, the center of mass of a naked arrow shaft is just the center of the shaft. When the head and the feathers (fletching) have been added, the center of mass is closer to the head of the arrow since the head now weighs more.

The center of pressure is a little more complicated, but essential it is just where the object would 'balance' in the wind.  Think of suspending the item so that it is free to pivot horizontally.  Now let a wind blow on the item.  Move the point at which the item is suspended back and forth until the item has no tendency to line up with the wind.  The place where the pivot is located when this happens is the center of pressure.  In model rocketry, a simple trick is used to determine the center of pressure.  The two dimensional outline of the rocket is cut from uniform carboard.  Where the outline balances is the center of pressure of the three dimensional rocket.  In the case of an arrow, the center of pressure is towards the tail because the feathers have a greater cross section than the arrowhead does, so there's more there for the wind to catch.

Now, once these two quantities are found, 'straight' flight is simple to figure.  An object wants to fly with the center of mass ahead of the center of pressure.  A naked arrow shaft is right on the border.  If launched without a twist, it might go straight.  Firing an arrow, however, always introduces a twist.  To achieve true stability, the center of mass has to be well ahead of the center of pressure.  Normally this is true.

The conclusions from this simple analysis is that at the front of the arrow we want dense stuff and at the back we want fluffy stuff.  Taking a normal arrow, wrapping a bunch of cloth (or grass, or whatever) around the front of the arrow, and soaking it with oil or pitch puts a lot of low density stuff at the wrong end.  So, in addition to putting the fire a little further from the archer, this gives another reason why longer than usual arrows would be needed.  Add to that the fact that a lot more fluffy stuff will be need to be at the back end to regain stability, and the drag on the arrow becomes monstrous.

Were fire arrows occasionally used?  Probably.  But they sure don't sound like a Good Idea for general warfare.

--Pete
[right][snapback]64456[/snapback][/right]

More brain waves working, in re the mixture of art and science. Achery is a "feel" skill, and requires developing muscle memory for different loads.

A couple of ways my brain sees around a few of the technical challenges you mention:

Replace the metal/stone arrowhead completely with a flammable substance. Wicked wax perhaps? You are now handcrafting each arrow, but then, weren't most arrows hand made anyway? Second process needed to be mastered by the fletchers and archers. The risk is no penetrating/piercing/sticking properties with no pointy tip. Solution: slide the tip of flammable goop down the shaft slightly and then, on each arrow, file/sand/whittle the wood a conical point at the business end of the arrow. Perhaps a good way to make them stick in soft wood or thatched rooves. Rebalance of the flights again a must, though the center of mass vs center of pressure should remain in general harmony as before.

Soaking the entire arrow over night in pitch/naptha so that the entire arrow is flammable. Practical application of this sort of technique requires significant training: light-pull-loose, or set your bow on fire, per Doc's comments. One torch per archer, or section. Logisticallly much harder to support than standard archer units. Rags wrapped around the tip of an arrowhead strikes me as a way to bugger the weight and balance problem, or accuracy suffers greatly. COncur with your observation on the significant drag penalty for non aerodynamic rag wraps at the pointy end. Poor accuracy results in generally undirected fire, which is hardly the solution to the problem of setting particular targets alight. As a purely visual/psychological ploy, maybe not so important. Range is still important, as archers are not good melee troops in a general, combined arms engagement.

Check, thanks to all, on the longer arrow and larger feathers at the back, larger control surfaces for a different load. That should also allow for, I think, more stable flight, even in conditions of high wind, again at the cost of increased drag, and thus shorter range expectations on the standard XX pound pull bow the archers are using.

Training. Archers must train with the different sized/shaped arrow to get a feel of proper launch angle for the target geometry that will be applied tactically. Longbowmen did considerable practice to be able to guage distance by eye, laser range finders being scarce during the battle of Poiters, for example. <_<

Some armies have and had better training systems than others. Good training and familiarity with the equipment would go a long way to ensuring tactical utility of the flaming arrow as an option. Not a good ad hoc weapon/tactic.

Since the OSHA madness of modern times was probably not the norm in ancient days, a few guys gooning it up and setting themselves alight was probably considered the cost of doing business in a real battle, by the average aristocratic general, though possibly less so by a merc company captain.

Occhi

[Doc]

Hi,

After reading some of the posts on this topic, I did a little thinking.&nbsp; It occured to me that arrows *are* rocket science.&nbsp; Or at least ballistic missile science :)

Now most of this, a pilot (and even an aviator) would know -- so this is really a general reply to the thread ;)

Any object that is going to fly through the air is either going to fly 'straight' or tumble.&nbsp; If an object tumbles, it doesn't make a good weapon since (without a lot of practice by the thrower, as in knife throwing) it is more likely that it will hit blunt end/side first rather than point first.&nbsp; To ensure that the object will fly straight is a simple exercise in aerodynamics.

Basically, there are two quantities of importance, the center of mass and the center of pressure.&nbsp; In the case of something like an arrow or a spear (i.e., long thin objects) the center of mass is just the point where the object balances.&nbsp; So, for instance, the center of mass of a naked arrow shaft is just the center of the shaft. When the head and the feathers (fletching) have been added, the center of mass is closer to the head of the arrow since the head now weighs more.

The center of pressure is a little more complicated, but essential it is just where the object would 'balance' in the wind.&nbsp; Think of suspending the item so that it is free to pivot horizontally.&nbsp; Now let a wind blow on the item.&nbsp; Move the point at which the item is suspended back and forth until the item has no tendency to line up with the wind.&nbsp; The place where the pivot is located when this happens is the center of pressure.&nbsp; In model rocketry, a simple trick is used to determine the center of pressure.&nbsp; The two dimensional outline of the rocket is cut from uniform carboard.&nbsp; Where the outline balances is the center of pressure of the three dimensional rocket.&nbsp; In the case of an arrow, the center of pressure is towards the tail because the feathers have a greater cross section than the arrowhead does, so there's more there for the wind to catch.

Now, once these two quantities are found, 'straight' flight is simple to figure.&nbsp; An object wants to fly with the center of mass ahead of the center of pressure.&nbsp; A naked arrow shaft is right on the border.&nbsp; If launched without a twist, it might go straight.&nbsp; Firing an arrow, however, always introduces a twist.&nbsp; To achieve true stability, the center of mass has to be well ahead of the center of pressure.&nbsp; Normally this is true.

The conclusions from this simple analysis is that at the front of the arrow we want dense stuff and at the back we want fluffy stuff.&nbsp; Taking a normal arrow, wrapping a bunch of cloth (or grass, or whatever) around the front of the arrow, and soaking it with oil or pitch puts a lot of low density stuff at the wrong end.&nbsp; So, in addition to putting the fire a little further from the archer, this gives another reason why longer than usual arrows would be needed.&nbsp; Add to that the fact that a lot more fluffy stuff will be need to be at the back end to regain stability, and the drag on the arrow becomes monstrous.

Were fire arrows occasionally used?&nbsp; Probably.&nbsp; But they sure don't sound like a Good Idea for general warfare.

--Pete
[right][snapback]64456[/snapback][/right]

Adding to what Pete said, flaming arrows were also fired practically straight upwards, because they really didn't fly. They would come straight down from above. Pointing said arrow upward was what was dangerous, all that fuel dribbling down.

Taking this into account, the reality is on the battlefield, you didn't fire these at oncoming armies. You waited till they were literally right at the walls in most cases, as these missiles had little to no flight capability, and firing them skyward didn't allow for much distance. Tar and pitch arrows were, relatively speaking, the safest, but also the heaviest. And they dropped like lawn darts. Tar arrows had no heads or tips usually. A blob of tar or pitch was far to much wieght on the front end to begin with. Tar arrows also burned up the wood. They didn't stay long in the air, but the intense heat would burn down quite a bit of the shaft. They were kind of like flying matchsticks. Often the tarball would burn off, dropping in one place, while the remainder of the burnt shaft would land elsewhere. Rag arrows had greater flight abilities, contrary to what you might think. I can't explain why, they just do. Wrap the rag tightly around the shaft, and form a knot at the tip. Rag arrows usually didn't have arrowheads, they had stone or lead or some sort of scrap bob on the tip for wieght. When lighting a rag arrow, you only light the knot at the end. The flight causes the flames to spread backward along the length.

The real revolution in warfare with missile launchers was the crossbow. You could launch a flaming bolt with quite a bit of distance, fired forward, with some small degree of acuracy. In what can only be described as cruelty, you could stick a ball of burning tar about 3 inches behind the tip of a metal bolt, fire it into somebody's armor, where it would punch clean through. With a barbed tip, it was nearly impossible to pull out, and the burning ball of tar would be right at the surface of the skin and armor, heating it, burning it, with flames that could not be extinguished. There was plenty of damn good reasons that crossbows were outlawed as cruel uncivilized weapons. There were crossbows made for the express purpose of firing flaming missiles, with elaborate metal guards and shields to protect the wielder from the dangerous flyback. I am not sure that any of these worked as well as their creator hoped. The fact that it never became standard practice to fire flaming bolts tells me that to many mishaps happened for it to become commonplace.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Longbowmen did considerable practice to be able to guage distance by eye, laser range finders being scarce during the battle of Poiters, for example.&nbsp; <_<
[right][snapback]64483[/snapback][/right]

Yes, indeed they were. I think that I have the only surviving example, which I keep in my collection with Alexander's pearl handled revolvers and Arthur's stirrup ;)

--Pete

[jahcs]

Hi,
Yes, indeed they were.  I think that I have the only surviving example, which I keep in my collection with Alexander's pearl handled revolvers and Arthur's stirrup ;)

--Pete
[right][snapback]64487[/snapback][/right]

Sounds like "World History According to Terry Pratchett." :P

And all this talk of flaming arrows reminds me of the first soldiers to use gunpowder firearms. Yikes! :o

[Rhydderch Hael]

Hi,

After reading some of the posts on this topic, I did a little thinking.&nbsp; It occured to me that arrows *are* rocket science.&nbsp; Or at least ballistic missile science :) ... [right][snapback]64456[/snapback][/right]

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.

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.

[--Pete]

Hi,

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.

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]

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.

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

[--Pete]

And if he does live in that commune, does he buy vitamin E by the barrel?&nbsp; :D
[right][snapback]64480[/snapback][/right]

Naw, they just bring in oysters by the truckload ;)

--Pete

[LochnarITB]

Naw, they just bring in oysters by the truckload ;)

--Pete
[right][snapback]64502[/snapback][/right]

You are both focusing on the wrong issue. Where is this commune, how long is the waiting list to get in and where do I sign up?! :lol:

[--Pete]

Hi,

And all this talk of flaming arrows reminds me of the first soldiers to use gunpowder firearms.&nbsp; Yikes! :o
[right][snapback]64492[/snapback][/right]

Recently read a book on that. The early 'hand cannons' were amazing things. The user had to look away from his target to fire since that was done by lighting the touchhole with a slow match (actually a piece of hemp rope waxed so that it would burn slowly). *If* they fired, the poor fit of the rough cast ball in the equally rough cast barrel could cause the projectile to go pretty near anywhere in the forward hemisphere. If the loaded cannon were pointed down, there was a very real possibility that the ball (and a lot of the powder) would fall out. Every now and again, just for the hell of it, one of those cannons would explode, killing or maiming the operator. And, with a rate of fire more suited to an ice age than a firearm, the wielder was effectively defensless for most of the battle. Truely a fearsom weapon, except maybe to one's enemies. It's amazing that firearms ever caught on ;)

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

It's amazing that firearms ever caught on ;)

--Pete
[right][snapback]64507[/snapback][/right]

I'd say it was a case of someone seeing the potential, and trying to polish that turd until it finally shone, or got blued, as the case may be.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'd say it was a case of someone seeing the potential, and trying to polish that turd until it finally shone, or got blued, as the case may be.
[right][snapback]64513[/snapback][/right]

Maybe a little more pragmatic. Long bows and cross bows largely nullified the advantage of the heavy cavalry (AKA, knights). 'Firepower' was becoming king, even if the term itself was not invented. Large peasant armies replaced the charge of the king and his drinking buddies. Crossbows were expensive items requiring good materials and at least reasonable workmanship. Longbows were much cheaper, but took a great degree of effort to master. On the other hand, cannon were becoming common, especially as siege weapons. Gunpowder was becoming cheap, lead had been cheap for a long time, and a cast bronze hand cannon was a simple enough item that it could be made in quantity. The efficiency of the individual soldier didn't much matter as long as you had more of them than your opponent (pretty much true until the end of the Brown Bess era).

After that, it was always just a question of having your side armed with something a little bit better than what your opponets had. Getting that edge drove the development of that puppy, but not too much. Rifling, breech loading, precussion caps, magazine feed, etc., etc., etc. all showed up in sporting and hunting guns long before they showed up in military weapons.

--Pete

[Doc]

Actually, Pete, and a couple of other folks are missing the point. Fire arrows were not intended to deal with well armored targets. Most of the time, they are never intended to pierce anything at all. Well, some are, like xbow bolts, but those are an exception rather than the standard. I can finally get to talk shop... This is my field. This is my love.

Dumdum rounds, with flaming abilities, were used to mop up common infantry. Most infantry back then was peasant militia. They wore little to no armor. Quilted armor, batting, rags, scraps of leather. This might sound stupid to us, but many of them stuffed their armor (If one could call it that) with straw. It cushioned the blow. All these peasants, because of their rags, and because of piecemeal armor, and straw, were highly flamable. Drop a spot of buring pitch on them, and watch them go. As they run around in panic, they ignite others around them. Add to the fact that there were pitch ditches hidden underfoot, or oil splashed down below, boiling or not, you had one very flamable battlefield, and burning arrows were a means to an end. Dumdum arrows with pitch or tar knobs didn't need a metal head to pierce a siege engine, the burning tar or pitch was more than sticky enough to stick and burn a bit. Sooner or later, something would do more than smoulder, it would ignite. There was also a strong psychological factor to flaming arrows, as they enemy would know they were facing a well prepared foe. They were a means to end. By themselves, only so useful, but as part of a whole defense engine, with pitch ditches, trenches, and oil in whatever form, they were formidable.

Against somewhat armored foes, you could break down the armored ranks a bit. Wooden shields can be ignited and rendered useless. And dropping flaming dumdums down from above, a soldier is bound to raise his shield to defend himself. Seems like a good idea at the time. Tougher armor, like leather jacks, jerkins, studded leathers, quilted leathers, etc, especially ones that were just manufactured, could be ignited. They boiled leather in wax to make it hard. Depending on how long ago that armor was made, and the type of tallow wax that was used, that leather could be quite combustable. Men that insisted on decorative helms, helms with tassles, horsehair fringe, etc, all the things that gave them rank and station, could, with a lucky hit, be ignited, causing quite a panic.

Against heavily armored foes, like knights, they were not much good. But the horses... Nothing spooks a horse like fire, and the horses themselves were flamable, all the various bits of cloth and armor. The tabards, while pretty to look at, and bearing a knight's coat of arms, would often be the horse's doom in a battle. A heavily armored knight, so heavily armored that he could barely move with out his horse, was a sitting duck. A dead duck.

For an attacking force, flaming arrows allowed much destruction to a fortress or castle. Internal structures could be ignited, and burned down. Mills, stables, barracks, etc, all the wooden structures inside could be burninated.

In short, flaming arrows, while highly unpredictable and dangerous for archers to use, were a deciding factor in the course of a battle. And while the risks were high, many decided it was worth it.

[whyBish]

[right][snapback]64484[/snapback][/right]

Wow, interesting stuff.
One question though, why not use a solid fuel for the arrows; or no fuel and heat the tip hot enough to ignite whatever was flammable on the target?

[Hammerskjold]

[quote=Occhidiangela,Jan 5 2005, 10:51 PM]
I'd say it was a case of someone seeing the potential, and trying to polish that turd until it finally shone, or got blued, as the case may be.

This looks like the final stages of that polishing, http://www.metalstorm.com/. Although I still wonder how easy and reliable it is to reload the handgun version.

But it's still doesn't hold the same charm to me like one of these, http://www.freedomarms.com/. Pricey, but charming.

[Occhidiangela]

[quote=Occhidiangela,Jan 5 2005, 10:51 PM]
I'd say it was a case of someone seeing the potential, and trying to polish that turd until it finally shone, or got blued, as the case may be.

This looks like the final stages of that polishing, http://www.metalstorm.com/. Although I still wonder how easy and reliable it is to reload the handgun version.

But it's still doesn't hold the same charm to me like one of these, http://www.freedomarms.com/. Pricey, but charming.
[right][snapback]64545[/snapback][/right]

Your first link took me to an article with pictures of some Aegis class cruisers and destroyers, and commentary about "torpedo defense system" tryout. And the company's head being ill. Wonder at the relationship!

Irony, though, for me. I wrote a paper back in 1994 that addressed a few of the problems of the antitorpedo torpedo, lack of money for ASW in general, and the orders of magnitude in difficulty increase of anti torpedo versus anti missile systems.

Wonder if anyone read it in the process. Doubt it, it was not that brilliant a piece of work. Glad to see it is getting some attention.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

Wow, interesting stuff.
One question though, why not use a solid fuel for the arrows; or no fuel and heat the tip hot enough to ignite whatever was flammable on the target?
[right][snapback]64544[/snapback][/right]

Heating the tip enough to do any good is pretty well impossible. Consider that all you've got is the mass at the tip and its heat capacity to carry that thermal energy. After heating it, it is going to go through the air at a pretty good clip. Just like blowing on a cup of coffee, that will cool things down. And the temperature you can heat the tip to is pretty well limited to what the shaft (usually wood) can stand. Not to mention bindings and or glue, both probably of well beaten horse origin. Nope, while I haven't run the numbers, my gut tells me that you just can't get enough heat into a tip to do much of anything.

Solid fuel is a good idea, and from various posts is seems that it had been used. Pitch, in particular, would make a pretty good fuel and would (probably) stay pretty well solid if lit and fired promptly. It does liquify if heated long enough. Another good fuel would be *tightly* wrapped cloth impregnated with tallow or oil.

A problem with fire arrows is that the flames would tend to be extinguished by the airflow. The ideal case, I would guess, is something that would hold a spark while in flight and then reignite when it hit and became stationary. The tallow or wax impregnated cloth would probably do that, since cloth tends to char and smolder (thus being the preffered material to 'catch the spark' when using flint and steel.

An interesting problem overall, with ramifications not obvious to the casual glance. Given the nature of warfare and the development that has gone into weapons since the first flint head was attached to a wooden shaft to make a 'knife' longer, I'd guess that it has had many solutions, each representing the height of the technology available at the time.

--Pete

[Doc]

For a time, objects called "alchemist's bulbs" were experimented with. They were glass globes filled with flamable liquid, like oil. These were placed on the tip of the arrow. One or two were nothing, but having the sky filled with dozens, or even hundreds, there could be quite a bit of oil dispersed on the battlefield. The second volley loosed would be flaming arrows. I do not know the particulars completely, but this system failed, evidenced by lack of common practice.

Pete, rag arrows, were just as you describe. Tightly wound around the shaft, with a heavy knot at the tip. On occasion, a lump of tar or pitch was inside the knot. The rags were soaked in liquid of some kind, whatever was available, and as they were being wound around the shaft, bits of straw were placed between the layers of cloth. These acted like wicks, keeping the rag arrows alight while in flight. Rag arrows were the most dangerous though to the archer. Burning blobs of oil or tallow would shimmy off the arrow as it launched, and on occasion, the vapours from the arrow would ignite before it reached the brazier, causing quite a flash fry for all those near.

The Chinese had very nearly turned the flaming arrow into an artform. They would make special arrows, and the payload was specially dried crap, horse crap, bat crap, cow crap, whatever was handy, dried in a special way after pickling it in alcohol. This clump of crap was then tightly wound in rags, soaked in oil, and affixed to the end of the arrow shaft. These arrows were nearly 5 feet in length, and could achieve some degree of distance. These arrows BURNED. And they smelled, well, like burning pickled crap. They stunk to high heaven. Not only were the flames dangerous, but the fumes caused severe difficulty breathing, watery eyes, loss of vision, loss of stamina due to shortness of breath. I like to think of them as early versions of tear gas launchers. All these preparations took entirely to much time though, and it was not practical to make these arrows in large batches. As an added extra danger, these arrows were known to spontaineously combust, and storing them was quite dangerous in masse. I have always wanted to try and make a couple of these my self, but never quite got up the courage to do so.

[Armin]

A problem with fire arrows is that the flames would tend to be extinguished by the airflow.&nbsp; The ideal case, I would guess, is something that would hold a spark while in flight and then reignite when it hit and became stationary.&nbsp; The tallow or wax impregnated cloth would probably do that, since cloth tends to char and smolder (thus being the preffered material to 'catch the spark' when using flint and steel.
[right][snapback]64551[/snapback][/right]

That was actually the biggest problem in my (extremely diletantic :whistling: ) attempts at firing flaming arrows as a kid...
(Oh, those scout camp days... it's a miracle that I'm alive with all limbs attached, considering the things I used to blow up with firecrackers, gunpowder and gasolene-soaked cotton wool :P )

Any arrow fired at halfway sufficient speeds (you need at least *some* range, and even a thatched roof needs a bit of penetrating power) creates *so* much airflow, that it simply blows out the candle.

And that's why my guess is still that an actual working flame arrow needs three things:
- a longer, thus heavier arrowhead (You sometimes see such heads in a museum, with not only the classical arrowhead, but a few inches of metal shaft) and a longer shaft
- a kind of "core" made from flammable glue that holds the cloth strips in place (probably pitch)
- cloth (preferably rough wool) soaked in something volatile thats easily reignitable by the smoldering (probably wax or oil, wax perhaps being a good idea as it would be a waterproof mantle that makes the thing transportable before ignition) wrapped around the glue

And all that effort still does not create an all too efficient weapon, as igniting a solid piece of wood (like a shield, a door or even a support beam) is extremely difficult with a small, superficial flame. You'd need a pretty solid "splash" of hotly burning, sticky liquid for that (that's why a working molotov cocktail needs a mix of oil and kerosene). This AND an extremely easy countermeasure - unless there has been a draught simply soak all exposed wooden or straw surfaces in water and you're prepared for the siege :P

So unless used to ignite a previously prepared trap (like the oil-soaked battlefield or extremely dry grasslands), my guess would be that the military usefulness of flame arrows (especially in siege warfare) was pretty much close to nil. Still make a nice terror weapon, to quickly bring down an unprepared village with thatched roofs though... :shuriken:

[Zarathustra]

I don't think her face could launch a rowboat, let alone a ship.
[right][snapback]64449[/snapback][/right]

Depends on how fast you can swing her around before striking the stern.