Slings

[Swadius 2.0]

I get the impression that slings fell out of military use before or in the middle ages, but if what I have read in a few places is right, I don't see why. Wikipedia states the advantages of range, effectiveness against armour, light weight, and ease of ammunition supply. So what was it's disadvantages? Inaccuracy? Hard to use?

Even when bows began to out range slings, not many people need to shoot that far anyways. It wasn't until the reawakening of structured field battles did anyone need to shoot that far a distance. And ammunition for the sling isn't necessarily easier to find than arrows, there is a very good reason why most military institutions that did use slings went for lead balls instead of rocks you picked up off the ground. For one, rocks aren't always going to be everywhere you go, and the size, shape, and weight have to meet a very strict requirement for any sort of accuracy to take place. As for effectiveness against armor, it depends on what armor and type of projectile it is.

 

[kweassa]

Another small but important factor is that the weapon itself was relatively inefficent in terms of mass deployment, concenctrated fire, and fatigue management.

 

[Alexandru_cel_Mare]

The eficiency of the sling depends on some things like the size of the projectile (stone), and the skill of the slingers.

Yes, slingers are kind of funny to speak about them, but they where efective in historicall times. During the Roman Era, many armies employed the Balearic Slingers, as farr as i know the Romans used them even in the era of Trajan.

Against armour, the slingers could be more effective than arrow. Arrow is about piercing, rock is about blunt damage. If an arrow can pass trough the armour, it can kill the enemy, if not, the enemy will have no problem continuing to fight. The rock does not break the armor,  but the impact it makes with it can easyly stun, even kill the enemy.

The major disadvantage of sling is not its lower eficacity compared to the bow, but its much lower range and much lower accuracy. Also, a slinger needs to always have projectiles with him, and the sling projectiles are much heavier to carry than arrows.

 

[kweassa]

Not to knit-pick, but shorter range, lower accuracy, heavy weight would probably all constitute "lower efficacy" IMO.

 

[Kvedulf]

Erm...an archer also needs to always have their ammo with them too, so that's a bit of a silly argument.

I've done slinging, and the greatest weakness of the sling is the same as the longbow: it takes a lot of time and practice to make a good slinger.  The sling, in the hands of someone who is skilled with one, like a farmer, is deadly accurate.  Unfortunately, unlike a bow, a person with little training can't even predict which direction the missile will go in.

Another problem is space.  It takes more space to use a sling than a bow, so groupings of slingers are less dense than a group of archers, which means less missile capability per square metre.

But the sling generally does out range contemporary bows and tends to ignore armour.

Cheers
Kvedulf

 

[Swadius 2.0]

Not to knit-pick, but shorter range, lower accuracy, heavy weight...

The range of the sling during the Europe's ancient era was quite good, the field battles at the time didn't necessitate the extreme ranges that bows got at the end of the middle ages. Compared with the bows of the time, they can out range quite a few of them.
As for accuracy, a slings can be as accurate as bows. I don't know why people think that slings are inaccurate, it might possibly have something to do with their ignorance on the subject maybe?
As for weight, you might have a point. I don't know if the sling ammunition are significantly heavier than arrows though.

Another problem is space.  It takes more space to use a sling than a bow, so groupings of slingers are less dense than a group of archers, which means less missile capability per square metre.

I don't know about that. Archers can't exactly stand shoulder to shoulder either, they need space almost as much as the slingers. Not that it mattered much anyway if the slingers are mainly for skirmishing or primarily for firing missiles. Usually, the purpose of having tight formations was to engage in close combat.

 

[hruza]

Yes, in places from which famous slingers originated, like Balearic Isles, slings were used for hunting. That mean individual target shooting, often very small and fast targets like birds (in case of Balearic Isles). Of course those people got grown with sling in their hand so were highly trained. Balearic singers were famous for caring several different slings with them, each for different range as well as specially made projectiles. Sometime projectiles made of lead were used and such a projectile must have had effect of slower muzzle velocity, high calibre handgun.

I would say it was the same with native people of America (with exception of lead of course).

 

[inox_ionizer]

I don't know about that. Archers can't exactly stand shoulder to shoulder either, they need space almost as much as the slingers. Not that it mattered much anyway if the slingers are mainly for skirmishing or primarily for firing missiles. Usually, the purpose of having tight formations was to engage in close combat.

Hmm, maybe bows are more handy for defending walls?

 

[Archonsod]

I get the impression that slings fell out of military use before or in the middle ages, but if what I have read in a few places is right, I don't see why. Wikipedia states the advantages of range, effectiveness against armour, light weight, and ease of ammunition supply. So what was it's disadvantages? Inaccuracy? Hard to use?

No, the Scots under Robert the Bruce employed slingers.

The important thing to note is that they're skirmishers rather than true ranged troops. The sling is not meant to be a killing weapon, it's primary aim is to distract and annoy. Slingers would usually be part of another regiment, like a spearmen regiment. During battle, they'd skirmish in front of their unit and hurl rocks at the approaching enemy, when the enemy gets close they retreat back into their regiment and take up their spears.
The intention is two fold. In the first case it stops your enemy ignoring the spear formations. The schiltrom or a wall of pikes is incredibly deadly to charging cavalry, but it's also a stationary formation. Unless you can force the cavalry to charge them then all you have is a bunch of incredibly bored men watching the enemy cavalry ride past them and into your hinterland. Give them a couple of javelineers or slingers however and any cavalry attempting to ride past gets shot in the arse. In the second they're a disruptive weapon. Similar to the Roman pilum; and regiment charging or being charged by the one containing the slingers is going to get peppered with slingshot which will hopefully disrupt their formation at the key moment.

They probably become obsolete thanks to the crossbow. There's nothing you can do with a sling that you can't manage with a light crossbow, and the crossbow has the added advantage of requiring far less skill to employ and being a little more dangerous against armour.

 

[Llew2]

They were also still in use on the Iberian Peninsula in the early years of the Hundred Years War, by the Spanish.

 

[Ferago]

Apart from lower accuracy, wouldn't it be much more tiring to use the sling for a long period of time compared to a bow? Because you have to swing it a few times to build up momentum, rather than just pulling the bow string once per shot.

 

[Captain Pyjama Shark]

In those videos i posted it says that one swing is optimal.

 

[AWdeV]

And they're good video's too. Very educational.

 

[Farmind]

I was searching for information about one Aztec throwing weapon which I saw in a museum (throwing staff, used to throw large pierced stone balls), while I ran into this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBa1G12KyTM

There is some interesting things about slings near the end of the video.

 

[Phalanx300]

I believe some Greek slingshots have been found made of iron. Surely wouldn't doubt armour-piercing damage with those... Though with rocks, not sure an helmet would be able to absorb the entire blow.

 

[hruza]

Ancient Greek helmets did not have padding so that blow would end up right in your skull Bye the way, Spartans used their long hairs as sort of padding. Probably one of the reasons why they did grow long hairs.

 

[Archonsod]

I believe some Greek slingshots have been found made of iron. Surely wouldn't doubt armour-piercing damage with those... Though with rocks, not sure an helmet would be able to absorb the entire blow.

The problem is that they're blunt, not the material they're made out of. It spreads the force out on impact, allowing the armour to absorb the blow. To punch through armour you need a pointed projectile to focus maximum power at the exact point of impact.
You could possibly hit them hard enough that the force of the blow caused sufficient trauma to kill or injure without breaking the armour, but given the size of the projectile I doubt it would be a realistic possibility with muscle power alone. Maybe if they'd invented the shotgun.

 

[Farmind]

In addition to stones and bullets, slings were used to launch darts which were roughly similar to crossbow bolts.

"This was a new kind of missile invented in that war. A two-palm (6-inch) metal spike was fixed to an finger-thick half-cubit (9-inch) shaft, around which wooden part three short feathers were bound, in a way typical for arrows. The central pouch had two unequal strings. When the slinger whirled the thing horizontally by the strap with quite a lot of force, the projectile would shoot out like a bullet."

There is still some disagreement among modern slingers how the Greek dart sling was constructed, but here is a small video of a dart sling which appears to be working in a similar way as described.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9SUw-DPW-8

 

[Phalanx300]

I believe some Greek slingshots have been found made of iron. Surely wouldn't doubt armour-piercing damage with those... Though with rocks, not sure an helmet would be able to absorb the entire blow.

The problem is that they're blunt, not the material they're made out of. It spreads the force out on impact, allowing the armour to absorb the blow. To punch through armour you need a pointed projectile to focus maximum power at the exact point of impact.
You could possibly hit them hard enough that the force of the blow caused sufficient trauma to kill or injure without breaking the armour, but given the size of the projectile I doubt it would be a realistic possibility with muscle power alone. Maybe if they'd invented the shotgun.

This picture shows the shape of the slingshot found: http://community.imaginefx.com/fxpose/johnny_shumates_portfolio/images/76672/321x425.aspx

Wouldn't want to be hit with one of those. 

 

[Archonsod]

In addition to stones and bullets, slings were used to launch darts which were roughly similar to crossbow bolts.

It's still not going to overcome the basic lack of power in the weapon. Even the crossbow struggles to punch through armour, and it's got the benefit of mechanical strength which is several times greater than can be achieved with muscle power alone.