▲ 344 ▼ Another classic meme (lemmy.world) submitted 3 years ago by blake24964@lemmy.world to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] vicfic@iusearchlinux.fyi 1 point 3 years ago (2 children) tbh, I can't tell the difference. permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 years ago* (4 children) Catapult = energy comes from tension. Trebuchet = energy comes from gravity pulling on a counterweight You can only build up so much tension in ropes and wood so the weight of what can be thrown is limited. With a trebuchet you can throw heavier objects by increasing the weight of the counterweight and length of the throwing arm permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] ghostcookies@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 3 years ago the problem is that both of these on the picture work with counterweights, the left ome just looks more like a traditional catapult permalink fedilink source parent [–] Murdified@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 years ago I'm pretty sure the images are both trebuchets. The one on the left is still using only counterweights to provide energy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] vicfic@iusearchlinux.fyi 2 points 3 years ago Ooh, thanks for the info! 🤗 permalink fedilink source parent [–] HeckGazer@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) These are both examples of catapults, broadly, siege engines that use stored energy to make big projectile go over there real good. What people tend to refer to when they say "catapult" is a mangonel or onager, and go on to imply that the trebuchet is not a catapult. It is a catapult, just a different kind. Much like we have cars, which are vehicles, but we also have trucks, which are also vehicles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catapult#Medieval_catapults permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] blake24964@lemmy.world [S] 2 points 3 years ago That is really informative, I never knew there were so many types of catapults (and they were classed as catapults). permalink fedilink source parent [–] Jikiya@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago I think it's due to them both being the same thing. But one is bigger, quite a bit more girthy. The other appears to be quite mobile though, and can respond to needs much quicker. Hardcore pounding, vs hitting right where you need it. (giggity) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 years ago* (4 children) Catapult = energy comes from tension. Trebuchet = energy comes from gravity pulling on a counterweight You can only build up so much tension in ropes and wood so the weight of what can be thrown is limited. With a trebuchet you can throw heavier objects by increasing the weight of the counterweight and length of the throwing arm permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] ghostcookies@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 3 years ago the problem is that both of these on the picture work with counterweights, the left ome just looks more like a traditional catapult permalink fedilink source parent [–] Murdified@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 years ago I'm pretty sure the images are both trebuchets. The one on the left is still using only counterweights to provide energy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] vicfic@iusearchlinux.fyi 2 points 3 years ago Ooh, thanks for the info! 🤗 permalink fedilink source parent [–] HeckGazer@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) These are both examples of catapults, broadly, siege engines that use stored energy to make big projectile go over there real good. What people tend to refer to when they say "catapult" is a mangonel or onager, and go on to imply that the trebuchet is not a catapult. It is a catapult, just a different kind. Much like we have cars, which are vehicles, but we also have trucks, which are also vehicles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catapult#Medieval_catapults permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] blake24964@lemmy.world [S] 2 points 3 years ago That is really informative, I never knew there were so many types of catapults (and they were classed as catapults). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ghostcookies@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 3 years ago the problem is that both of these on the picture work with counterweights, the left ome just looks more like a traditional catapult permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Murdified@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 years ago I'm pretty sure the images are both trebuchets. The one on the left is still using only counterweights to provide energy. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] vicfic@iusearchlinux.fyi 2 points 3 years ago Ooh, thanks for the info! 🤗 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HeckGazer@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) These are both examples of catapults, broadly, siege engines that use stored energy to make big projectile go over there real good. What people tend to refer to when they say "catapult" is a mangonel or onager, and go on to imply that the trebuchet is not a catapult. It is a catapult, just a different kind. Much like we have cars, which are vehicles, but we also have trucks, which are also vehicles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catapult#Medieval_catapults permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] blake24964@lemmy.world [S] 2 points 3 years ago That is really informative, I never knew there were so many types of catapults (and they were classed as catapults). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] blake24964@lemmy.world [S] 2 points 3 years ago That is really informative, I never knew there were so many types of catapults (and they were classed as catapults). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Jikiya@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago I think it's due to them both being the same thing. But one is bigger, quite a bit more girthy. The other appears to be quite mobile though, and can respond to needs much quicker. Hardcore pounding, vs hitting right where you need it. (giggity) permalink fedilink source parent
