Talk:Warwolf

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / British / European / Medieval

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

300–400 feet?

Hi, I have a question: "the weapon would fill 30 wagons (current measurements put it at about 300–400 feet)" what does it mean? wagons are, I suppose the amount/volume and foot is a unit of length... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel1935 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable as it may seem, 300+ feet is the estimate of the machine's height when assembled. I've reworded the sentence to make that clear. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was it "300-400 feet" tall or "six stories tall"? Text in article describes almost two different orders of magnitude for the height. Speedeep (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are the sources for supposed height and other specifications of the machine? Contemporary documents only mentioned people being paid for construction/ guarding machine, and have no mentions of it’s size or capacity. 2A02:C7C:CB54:3C00:59EA:37DA:FDCD:7F47 (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like nonsense. 300-400 feet tall. Ridiculous! 2603:3004:620:F100:6C39:1DF8:324A:E9B6 (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that is ridiculous, then so is it's mention in history and the description of amount of work needed to build it. Masts of ships of that period could be reaching 20 m in height, 18m tall recreated trebuchet at Warwick castle uses 36 kg stones ie 100 kg short of what was used by Warwolf and so on. So yes, almost 100 m tall trebuchet isn't something out of the realm of fantasy, if it's outright called impractical, biggest ever build and taken so much time and resources to construct. And you vandalized an article because it seemed ridiculous to YOU, not because you found(or even cared to search for) any evidence that it's wrong estimation. 93.84.9.180 (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claim that any catapult/trebuchet would be capable of launching 130kg stone is ridiculous. And should be seen as exaggeration, that historical texts are full

of. And since there’s no reliable sources mentioned, like actual remains if that engine, anything mentioned in this wiki entry is at least speculative. 2A02:C7C:CB54:3C00:59EA:37DA:FDCD:7F47 (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the two 'scale models' look massively different

Which one is correct? Also how high was the machine? how many people did it take to operate? Was it only used for the siege of stirling or also on other occasions? Would be useful information for this article if anyone has it.--2A03:1B20:3:F011:0:0:0:7D (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable reference

“The largest trebuchet ever built: Warwolf in the Siege of Stirling Castle” Linked article has no further references to any actual sources. Please review! 2A02:C7C:CB54:3C00:59EA:37DA:FDCD:7F47 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]