The article seems pretty stubby. HistoryManiac 14:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The arbalest is no siege engine, but soon some wonderful Chinese siege engines will come + images Wandalstouring 11:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the edits for a number of reasons. One was some of the edits came straight from the worldnet site. Others had no cite in them. --statsone 05:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The intro line to this page is wrong. Only some siege engines were made for breaking or overcoming walls. The most popular forms (mangonel, onager, ballista, etc) were used as to kill enemies, not fortifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
What type of catapult is it?
The word catapult confuses me slightly; in the sketched picture in the section about Roman siege engines, there is a machine called 'catapult'. But according to the article catapult, a catapult seem to be a general, non-handheld, projectile propeling siege weapon. The catapult shown in the picture in this article is classical though. Does anyone know if that model is called anything else than just 'catapult'? --Kri (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The term sow is on the disambiguation page, which directs one to this page, siege engine. But the word sow is not on the page anywhere. Any chance of someone who knows what it means, and could add it? I read the term in a historical fiction book, Brother Cadfael's Penance by Ellis Peters, last in her Cadfael series set in the 12th century, in the Anarchy. Lots of maps as part of the book, but no drawings of the weapons for the siege included in the plot. Prairieplant (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC) I found the term sow in the siege tower entry, but no sketch or photo. So I added siege tower to the disambiguation page. Does the battering ram in the first photo have a sow covering it, or is that all one device? Other sites indicate sow and cat might be synonyms -- meant to shelter attackers from the fire of the defenders. Prairieplant (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- This page is no longer on the sow disambiguation page. Solely to the siege tower entry, for military usage. Does that suffice for proper explanation of the term? --Prairieplant (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
From the article:
Siege weapons are considered obsolete, owing to the effectiveness of aircraft-delivered munitions and cruise missiles which have made defensive area fortifications obsolete. The only cost-effective static defensive structures are now deep bunkers used for military command and control. Even these fixed assets are of questionable value, as it appears that the most survivable command and control of mobile defensive forces (such as modern tactical and strategic aircraft, mechanized cavalry and mechanized infantry) are through decentralized command and the use of mobile command centers.
This looks like OR, as since before World War II it is cities and not defensive area fortifications that have been besieged. Defensive area fortifications were largely obsolete by the end of the Napoleonic wars and of course that had nothing to do with "aircraft-delivered munitions and cruise missiles".
While specialised siege guns as not being built in large numbers (there of course the odd super gun that has been constructed), the use of artillery in sieges is not redundant as was shown in the Battle of Grozny (1999–2000) and for many armed forces, the availability of artillery is an important constituent of any siege and assault on a city, because apart from the effectiveness of artillery they may not have vast quantities of aeroplanes or cruise missiles. Also if it is a matter delivering tonnage as was pointed out by Nikolai Bersarin about the Battle of Berlin: "the Western Allies had dropped 65,000 tons of explosives on the city in the course of more than two years; whereas the Red Army had expended 40,000 tons in merely two weeks". -- PBS (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)