+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: How effective were slings against armored infantry????? (/showthread.php?tid=10654)
Pages:
1
2
How effective were slings against armored infantry????? - NeoSpartan - 10-06-2007
HI fellas, I am another forum lurker who rerely posts due to my lack of knowledge
) )Anyways... as the title explains, I am interested in finding out how effective slingers were against Roman (or whomever) soldiers. I know they encountered a lot slingers in Britain, used them (along with other skirmishers) agaisnt Antiachos (sp)., and probably in many other occasions. However, I don't know how effective slingers really are against armored men.
Do you guys know anything about this??? Or a reliable place where I can read about slings and thier effectivness?????
Thanks a lot guys/gals
p.s In case you are wondering... I am asking because me and a few friends play a modification of RTW called Europa Barbarorum. This mod very historically accurate, but it still a bata. Now we are trying to decide wheather to let slinger keep the Armor Piercing capability they currently enjoy in the current version. At the moment slinger can be very deadly when hitting troops on thier backside, BUT they are more deadly than Toxotai Kretikoi (Cretan Archers) against armored troops.
Re: How effective were slings against armored infantry????? - Aetius Helvius Merula - 10-07-2007
To judge by their frequency in ancient armies, and Roman armies, still effective enough to be used by the thousands. I can't give you numbers and formations but I know that they were used as much as archers were.
There's another related subject-that of blunt trauma. Basically, that's when you're hit with something that doesn't cut through clothes or armor but still transmits enough kinetic energy to really hurt you. It's why mail had to be used with padding underneath. And for modern body armor to really be effective against bullets, you need to put various kinds of trauma packs under it. You can have the best body armor in the world, but a barrel of 00 buckshot will still hurt like hell.
Now applying that knowledge to a bunch of guys slinging lead at another of bunch of guys in metal armor.....discounting the marksmanship of individual slingers, put enough lead in the air and some of it will hit flesh, especially if it's standing in convenient groups. Some more will hit the shields, which would be smashed and splintered as the range gets shorter. Then, more lead hits helmets and armor. I don't have ballistic data on this but I'd think that bullets would only 'rattle' off helmets and lorica at extreme ranges. Closer in, I can imagine skullpieces and segmentata plates getting caved in, hamatas and squamatas being hit with what feels like an Estwing framing hammer....
Yeah, when I put my mind to it, I think slingers would be pretty useful no matter what they were slinging against. Lucky for us we just get to theorize about it, not live it
Re: How effective were slings against armored infantry????? - ARudling - 10-07-2007
actually at 30 yards I still cant get a sling stone to penetrate a 4mm bit of plywood & thats half the thickness of a roman scutum. I havent tried a lead bullet against a target yet as they are kinda expensive & I'm not that super accurate yet .....
Adam
Re: How effective were slings against armored infantry????? - TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS - 10-07-2007
In the slingers forum, you'll find an interesting point about the psychological impact of of slinging on the enemy: that's really could be one of the reasons of the mass use by the ancients of a rain of sling lead bullets or stones (cheaper than arrows) even on armoured targets. And we know how the Romans considered the psychological impact in battle.
http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1191158963/0
Valete,
Re: How effective were slings against armored infantry????? - M. Demetrius - 10-07-2007
IN some ways, being closer isn't the advantage with sling bullets. They were not generally slung in a flat trajectory, but in a high arc. Since ancient slingers evidently could send a lead bullet 300-400 meters, it stands to reason that they would be a hundred meters or so UP, and falling at terminal velocity. Add to it that they were pointed, and weighed up to 30 or 40 grams, and you have a recipe for doing more than rattling off helmets. Denting helmets would not be unusual. And if a helmet dents far enough, and the chin strap is tight, well, the head gets a pretty good wallop. (Before anyone says they didn't weigh that much, remember that a .69 Charleville musket ball weighs 30g, and is only a sphere about 1.8cm diameter, 16 gauge for us Americans)
Bare flesh would easily be penetrated by the pointed lead bullets. And a hit on top of the foot, for example, would take a soldier out of the fight, most likely, breaking bones as it lodged in the top of the shoe sole. Slings were effective. Ask Goliath.
Re: How effective were slings against armored infantry????? - hoplite14gr - 10-07-2007
How about the psychological of thousands of damned thing making helish noise on shields and armor? Not all troops are seasoned veterans.
What brave soul will easily break a tight formation considered safe to pursue unarmored troops over broken terrain?
Slings also through specialist projectiles (Polybios description of kestros.)
There is also the staff sling the extends range.
Kind regards
Re: How effective were slings against armored infantry????? - M. Demetrius - 10-07-2007
Quote:What brave soul will easily break a tight formation considered safe to pursue unarmored troops over broken terrainHopefully none! But when the battle is over, and one side takes flight, a slinger caught by an infantryman wouldn't be considered a friend, would he?? :?
Imagine getting a sling bullet coming down and hitting you on your nose or upper lip, smashing right through into your tongue. Or in the kneecap, or the ankle, wrist or bicep, side of the neck, or the eye. End of the day for you, off to the hospital.
I can't sling ONE hundred meters so far, but I can see how people could learn the right technique and be very deadly at considerable range.
Re: How effective were slings against armored infantry????? - NeoSpartan - 10-07-2007
thank you for your feedback fellas, and thanks for the link too. I'll pouring over it later today after work.
Re: How effective were slings against armored infantry????? - Hibernicus - 10-08-2007
Even the idea that a massed rain of missiles could pin a company of combatants in place, shields held in locked defense .. or slow an advance.
Or a continuous bombardment, slowly attriting an opponent... wounds and kills...
Or to keep cavalry at bay.... or prevent archers from massing...
Lofted volleys could possibly keep a wall rampart clear while a unit advanced on it.
Lots of uses.
Re: How effective were slings against armored infantry????? - NeoSpartan - 10-08-2007
thanks again fellas
I didn't know of the noise slings made and how it could impact the moral of soldiers. The good news is that in the game we can represent that.
now.... follow up question...
-- IS it safe to say that slingers were the cheap equivalentbof quality & expensive archers??? Or is there more (or less) to the slings?
Re: How effective were slings against armored infantry????? - Muzzaguchi - 10-08-2007
My favourite description of the effect of slings is from Onasander (The General 19.3):
"The sling is the most deadly weapon that is used by the light armed troops, because the lead slug is the same colour as air and is invisible in its course, so that it falls unexpectedly on the unprotected bodies of the enemy, and not only is the impact itself violent, but also the missile, heated by the friction of its rush through the air, penetrates the flesh very deeply, so that it even becomes invisible and the swelling quickly closes over it"
hock: Apparently there are several authors who attest to the heating of lead via its flight through the air (Lucretius 6.306f and Ovid Metamorphoses 2.72ff and 14.825) (translation and observations from the Loeb)
Cheers
Murray
Re: How effective were slings against armored infantry????? - Sean Manning - 10-08-2007
Quote:thanks again fellasWell, to be a slinger is cheaper than to be an archer (you need a bit of cloth or leather and some river rocks to learn, whereas a good self bow and quiver of arrows are reasonably expensive). In most areas, one or the other is common among herders, so which you recruit in bulk may be a forced choice. Each weapon has strengths and weaknesses, so much depends on the man using it.
I didn't know of the noise slings made and how it could impact the moral of soldiers. The good news is that in the game we can represent that.
now.... follow up question...
-- IS it safe to say that slingers were the cheap equivalentbof quality & expensive archers??? Or is there more (or less) to the slings?
Slinging eventually almost died out, so presumably it was either less effective or harder to learn than archery. Arrows are not especially good at armour penetration, so making slingers more effective against armour seems quite reasonable.
I definitely think the greatest effect of missile fire against troops with armour or good shields should be on morale and disordering enemy formations: one thing I dislike about vanilla RTW is that peltasts/velites are too ineffective and bowmen are too deadly. But I don't know much about combat in EB or RTR.
Re: How effective were slings against armored infantry????? - TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS - 10-09-2007
Murray, here is a topic you started about, with some interesting points:
http://www.romanarmy.nl/rat/viewtopic.p ... d7aea8fe7e
Interesting, just I've two doubts:
-casting the lead bullets in wet sand directly during the battle seems to be quite complicated to make, so probably the slingers used hot lead bullets just in the sieges...
-how did the ancients know that friction through the air generated heat?
Valete,
Re: How effective were slings against armored infantry????? - Sardaukar - 10-09-2007
One thing to note is that when Marcus Antonius had his failed Parthian campaign in 36 BCE, he took with him very large amount of slingers.
That was to prevent Parthian archers to close with his infantry..and in that role they were very successful. Slings apparently outranged Parthian cavalry bow, which was one good reason for them to avoid combat with main forces of Antonius.
While the campaign ended as failure, it was not because troops of Antonius could not handle Parthian cavalry. I have always wondered if he came up with the idea by himself (after all, he was quite competent commander mostly)...or maybe he got the idea from Caesar who was just embarking for his Parthian campaign but was assassinated.
Re: How effective were slings against armored infantry????? - Felix - 10-09-2007
He may have been (knowingly or not) following the lead of Xenophon. During the march of the Ten Thousand, Xenophon found it expedient to disarm the Rhodians among his hoplites and convert them to slingers, in order to keep the Persian archers at a safe distance.