"A rant about slings" Topic

I'd like to bring up a topic that might not seem important: Slings

I'm an avid slinger. I use my slings all the time. I use them for hunting, target practice, distance etc.

Why in wargames are slings largely discounted?

They (almost) always have less range than bows, and are much less effective.. why is this?

I use a sling that measures 25 inches folded, with it I can launch a 3000gr (baseball sized) rock 200 meters. I have used this same sling to kill many rabbits and squirrels (in their respective seasons) at a short range. It measures at about 150 feet per second, which means at close range it is causing 149 foot pounds of damage to the target… that is comparable to damage caused by early black powder weapons.

It is also a versatile weapon. I can throw overhand, underhand, sideways, and a variety of loops and still shots as well.
Each stance and throwing style has a different effect.
Do I want to hit that rabbit? overhand from the back.
Do I want to launch the projectile super far? Underhand from the back of the head.
Do I want it to fly straight at my target? Sideways from the waist.

It can achieve some amazing ranges and be incredibly accurate, especially with regular tennisball/baseball sized projectiles (I cast my own out of cement mix in a mold)

So I ask you this: why is the sling seen as inferior to the bow in the majority of ancient and medieval rules when it is such a deadly weapon?

Thanks
Austin

Lack of familiarity?

It has also been pointed out that the "David and Goliath" story is not really the lopsided battle it is portrayed as being.

David wasn't trying to defeat Goliath in a stand up fight. He was smaller, lighter and quicker and trying to hit Goliath with a sling bullet from a distance while staying out of his reach.

All the advantages were with David.

Possibly a lack of familiarity. Also possibly a bias towards the bow since its projectile is made for penetration of the target.

I believe there's a Persian relief (from the time of Cyrus,IIRC) showing singers firing from BEHIND the archers.

Where the hell did you learn to use a sling like that?

mwindsorfw: Self taught. Been doing it for around 8 years now. Also, hitting a rabbit from 15 meters with something the size of a baseball isn't a big deal. It just takes practice
Check out slinging.org
a lot of those guys just amaze me.

I believe the assyrians used slings as siege weapons

Thanks
Austin

Slings in Impetus are superior to bow and javelins in my opinion although each has its own unique advantages and disadvantages.

Slings must be a hell of a lot harder to learn to use effectively, is my perception. Otherwise, wouldn't they have stayed around a lot longer and been more widespread as a weapon of choice? Bows are easier to learn and use en masse, I figure. So convenience and simplicity of use trumps other considerations -- just like when crossbows and early firearms soon made bows obsolete for all but specialists.

And you would pack 2000 guys into a compact formation and perform volleys with sling bullets precisely how?…

Can't beat bows for massed volley fire, is my guess.

@piper: training isn't a factor in wargaming. It isn't in the real world either. If you know how to use a weapon then you get to use it. The amount of practice, the years, are all behind you. The only time that the replacement of a dead slinger would be an issue is if a population of them was effectively destroyed. That never happened as far as I know.

Now, as to why a sling isn't as effective on the battlefield: no matter how you swing it, a sling takes a lot more room than a bow or javelin. Therefore density of shot is lacking. Shooting from dense ranks would also pose a problem; too much depth to the rear for a given equality of ranks deep. Individually a weapon can compare to others favorably. The sling is unique in its requirements for room to function.

And warhorse beat me to it! :)

How easy is it to find and carry around a suitable amount of rocks? I would imagine that for skirmishers it would be easy enough for them to find their own ammunition, but for larger formations it would be a very difficult task.

OP does have a point.

Rhodian and Balearic slingers were well known in the Ancient world,slingers featured in Ancient Britain as well.

Slings must be a hell of a lot harder to learn to use effectively, is my perception. Otherwise, wouldn't they have stayed around a lot longer and been more widespread as a weapon of choice?

You would expect to see a slinger in 'David & Goliath' but there are many illustrations of medieval slingers such as:

Anglo-Saxon slinger in 'God's Covenant with Abram' from Ælfric's Hexateuch, 2nd quarter of the 11th century
Spanish staff-slingers in 'Fighting around Bethulia' from the Roda Bible, c.1050-1100AD
Spanish staff-slingers in 'Army of Antiochus V' from the Roda Bible, c.1050-1100AD
French slinger in 'David and Goliath' from the Bible of Saint Stephen Harding, 1109-1111AD
'David and Goliath' from the Melisende Psalter, Jerusalem, 1131-1143AD
Spanish slinger in 'David and Goliath' from the Biblia Segunde de San Isidoro de Leon, 1162AD
English slinger in the 'Life of David' from the Winchester Bible, c.1160–1180AD
Spanish slinger in the Rylands Beatus, Commentary on the Apocalypse by Beatus of Liébana, c.1175
From Liber ad honorem Augusti by Pietro da Eboli, c.1197
..Sicilian staff-slinger in 'Fighting at Salerno'
..Sicilian slinger in 'The people of Salerno attack the palace'
..Sicilian slinger in 'Assault by the Salerni on the Terracina Palace'
..Sicilian slinger in 'Salerno attacked by the imperial troops'

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

Lots of evidence too of how effective the sling was against the Spanish in Peru and Mexico. Stones falling like hail is a regular description.

The rules I wrote gave slings an advantage over bows.

WRG 6th edition made slings as effective as longbows, just with a shorter range.

…why is the sling seen as inferior to the bow in the majority of ancient and medieval rules when it is such a deadly weapon?

It's a conspiracy by the military-industrial complex. The profit margins on bows & arrows is much higher.

I am a figure painter and war-gamer…. bows just look cooler.

I think slings would be more effective for skirmishers, as you're able to get more penetration than a bow, especially at closer range. I suspect it is also easier to run with a sling while winding up, before releasing, whereas with a bow you may have issues with footing? Not really sure. That said in most ancients games, it is hard to capture the subtle differences in skill and missile weaponry, and still be able to play out a large battle. I would guess you could reflect slings as missile troops with a slight edge in quality, like Longbows vs other bows in DBx, say.

In game terms, are a sling and bow that different?

ROF: roughly the same, not counting for the density of the firing unit. A good archer and slinger can likely fire the same number of projectiles per minute. However, you can pack more archers into a smaller space. If the stands of archers and slingers are the same size, the archers will have a higher ROF due to their density.

Damage: roughly the same until the invention of the crossbow and longbow. But see the note on density above.

Disruption caused: roughly the same (this may be the biggest benefit of both weapons -- slowing down and disrupting the enemy).

Ammo: some advantage to the sling, but maybe not as much as you might imagine. I've been to a lot of places where it was tough to just look down and find a good size rock (not even trying to find the perfect sling stone).

The unit as a target: due to the density issue, the slingers get the advantage because they are more spread out.

How do you portray slingers in a game? Archers are easier, since they could be seen as taking up the same room as some of the tightly-packed infantry units of the era. I could see making a stand of archers about the same as a stand of infantry. But in that construct, what happens to slingers? If we keep the same base size, they ought to be weaker in some regard than archers, although harder to hit and with more ammo. One alternative is to make the base size of archers smaller; that would make one base of archers more equal to one (larger) base of slingers, but raises the whole issue of people who want the base sizes the same. Slingers could be treated the way gunpowder-era games treat skirmishers. I could even see abstracting slingers -- an infantry unit gets one or two ranged attacks to attempt a disruption -- this might reflect the idea that the slingers would "melt away" before the armies came into contact.

In the Die is Cast rules, slings are slightly superior to bows (better against some armoured targets and longer short range than bows). I am going to say its because a sling needs more skill to use.

Of course military slingers would get issued with lead shot.

Formation, well slings would be a loose formation. No close order slingers.

So what does squirrel taste like?

Skirmishers is what slingers are. I've never read of any slingers being also hand combat troops. If they get caught, they fight and run. Yeomen, on the other hand, expect to finish the battle in hand to hand combat. They are armed for it.

Density: skirmishers of all types never close up to melee, so as slingers start out spread apart they never get any closer together.

Ammo: Using rocks, they must be big, "baseball" sized, or else their impact is negligible. Dedicated sling ammo is precast lead. So with proper preparation, at least as pricey and logistically demanding as arrows. If the slingers are "irregular", i.e. impressed peasants, they find their own ammo, and as already noted, properly sized rocks are not just lying about but must be collected prior to battle.

Wargaming base sizes: I prefer all troops to be on the same size bases reflecting the same number of men per base. But "skirmishers" have their bases spaced a whole base width apart, or even more….

Sling ammo of all sorts of sizes has been found but when it has been purpose made from lead it is more like 1 ounce and the size of a thumb than your 3000 gr (grain?) baseball shot.
How many of those can you carry?

Squirrel tastes like chicken.

Swampster:

I can carry about 9 of them in a waist pouch. Pretty heavy though.

Gr is grains.

The lead shot you mention is about 500gr, and generates about 60 foot pounds of damage. It is still a nice kind of shot, and I have fired many lead "bullets" from my slings, they are excellent at close range.

I modeled my current shot after Assyrian sling ammo. The lead shot was too flighty at long range.

Thanks
Austin

IIRC the Assyrians employedarmoured slingers in a closer order. In addition, most Roman Auxillia (hand to hand combat troops)carried slings and were capable of using them

In Armati 2 slingers are just as effective as bow, just 6 inches shorter in range. Bow 24", slings 18".

I appreciate the info as to which rules treat slings well, so thank all of you for that.

I've thought about writing my own rules, but I always get too worried about the minutia of the rules

Thanks
Austin

I've always respected the sling as a weapon. I suspect part of the low opinion comes from a confusion with the children's toy I called a catapult growing up in the UK, but my American wife calls a slingshot. She always assumed David freakishly killed Goliath with a toy rather than, essentially, shot him dead with a serious weapon.

My general thought? If you live in a rocky place, you'll grow up using a sling. If you live in a forested land, you'll take to the wooden bow. If you live on plains you'll have to develop a super-weapon of horn and glue and leather.

How about the sling versus the bow for indirect fire? (same as for a crossbow versus a regular bow) Not being able to generate indirect fire that drops from overhead could be a reason slings were less common or popular. Is this so? Can you produce indirect sling fire or vary the "pull" strength or aim the way you can for a drawn bow?

I also wonder if being hit by an arrow is often significantly more disabling than for a slingshot hit. When you think about it, a shot is a simple strike hit and does its damage immediately. An arrow is a penetrating weapon that might easily remain in the body and do further damage or incapacitate the sufferer in a more substantial or immediate way (would you rather take a sling shot to the shoulder, perhaps breaking a bone on impact, or have an arrow transfixing your shoulder or lodged in a joint?) Arrows might produce more bleeding, even when striking a less critical part of the body. Arrows might lodge in clothing or shields and create encumbrances.

These could all be related factors.

Arrows win not only for mass but blood loss.

You forget that slingstones are heavy and break bones

Thanks
Austin

link

This video shows five people firing 10 arrows. The slowest guy is 35 seconds and the fastest is about 5 seconds. How many big rocks can a slinger carry and how many arrows can an archer carry?

35 seconds worth of ammo makes for a rather short work day.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

I wonder about the effect of shields, as I understand it an arrow from a reasonably powerful bow would penetrate most shields and often skewer the chap holding the shield. Would slingshots be so damaging to shielded troops?

Read accounts by people who were there.

You can also pair a sling with a light shield.
In Saga, slings are exactly like bows In Hail Caesar they give up 6" of range in exchange for a -1 to their opponent's armor at close range. The arm space necessary to use a sling is not a factor in either game.

Thought you might appreciate this from another practicing singer – an article dated 1996:
link

That was a good article. The nice thing is that it refers to accounts by writers during ancient times. For what it's worth, I recall in some WRG writings that slings were superior to bows against heavily armed troops, as the arrows would not penetrate the armor, but the slings would still cause concussions and bad bruising. The article supports that in its discussion of the use of slings by the Aztecs against the Spaniards.

360 yards??? Never heard such an assertion before.

In our game, slings are c. equivalent to a 40 lb draw weight "self bow", but with slightly longer range against unarmored targets. Max range therefore is 200 yards. Slingers always must operate in "open order". But then, so do most bows, not because "close order" isn't possible, but because the drill to shoot from dense formations is lacking for most armies.

I always treat bows and slings the same in my games, though slingers are usually skirmishers…

I suspect its simply the status of the weapon- it was very common, used around the world by nearly everyone, still in use today , but its never considered the weapon of the warrior- its the weapon of a goatherd. HArly anyone ever got buried with their sling. That perception is still very much in effect.

I keep meaning to make one and have a go…

Lets face it, one of the biggest draws for the sling is the amusement factor for nonparticipants. When a bow malfunctions, the archer loses his balance, and the arrow tumbles to the ground or maybe hits a compadre in the butt. A sling though…. you can hit yourself in the face, your friend in the back of the head, even the guy behind you. And never forget that if confronted with a giant penguin on the beach, you can strip down to your jock strap, and use it as a sling to kill the beast -- much to the amusement of others.

:) Ewoks, you forgot to mention the humor factor in watching Ewoks hit themselves in the head.

>bows just look cooler

Probably that one for wargamers. I recently realized that I am building the second unit of archers for SAGA (where bows and slings are identical in function) rather then a unit of slingers – just because an archer looks more business then a mini with a sling.

I believe that it's a combination of ammo supply, rate of fire, and density.

Archers can carry more ammo and pack in tight.

Slingers not so much. And bows don't require you to spin up to effective RPMs. Draw and loose.

Ease of use is probably another factor. A bow or crossbow is easier to learn and, more importantly, easier to use under pressure.

It's one thing to time your release while hunting a rabbit who doesn't shoot back. It's entirely different on the two way shooting range. Being off by a split second produces a big error.

Throughout history, the march of missile weapon development for the average soldier has been one driven by ease of use, ammo supply, and volume of fire. The sling is beaten by the bow in all three areas.

I want to clear something up: you d not "wind up" a sling. There is no spinning. It's just a throw.

The last point was very well made by the way

Thanks
Austin

Skirmishers is what slingers are. I've never read of any slingers being also hand combat troops.

The Inca in South America and the Matlatzinca in Meso-America. But your point is a good one. These may be the exceptions that prove the rule.

The article supports that in its discussion of the use of slings by the Aztecs against the Spaniards.

Perhaps, but the Aztecs made good use of archery also. The Tlaxcaltecs even more so.

@aapch45: I seem to recall slingers whirling their weapons over their heads then releasing in the early parts of "King of Kings". Those were Barabas' men, who come to a gruesome end inside Jerusalem: truly one of the more cool "Roman legionaries vs barbarians" scenes in film, ever (minus the "R" rated blood and gore, of course; this was supposed to be a family film). But I digressed: the slingers were whirling several times, iirc. It's been many years….