Kinetic energy and the measurement of foot pounds of energy (FPE) is generally used by people who shoot firearms or hunt with a bow.  At it simplest FPE is a measurement of the weight of the projectile and the speed it's traveling expressed in feet per second (FPS).  In most cases FPE is measured at the muzzle of a firearm, or just after an arrow is released from a bow.  Kinetic energy is a measurement of how much energy is accumulated in the projectile and how much will make it to the target.

For us slingers it's just an interesting number with which to compare the power of our slings to that of modern day weaponry.  So, to get that comparison the first think we need to do is convert from ounces to grains (it's easiest this way as many online calculators use the "grains" measurement).  Here is a resource to help with that:

http://www.metric-conversions.org/weight/ounces-to-grains.htm

So, using this converter I know that my 5 oz projectile weighs 2187.496 "grains".  I then use that 2187.496 number, along with the FPS that I believe I'm slinging at, in this case 150 FPS, in this resource:

http://www.bowhuntinginfo.com/KineticEnergyNew.htm

To get an FPE of 109.32 FPE.

So, what does that compare to?  Well a .22 long rifle will shoot a 40 grain bullet at around 1100 FPS, that's 107 FPE...

Think about that for a second... Your sling throwing a 5 oz projectile at 150 feet per second is equivalent to a .22 long rifle!

So, if we could get that 5 oz projectile moving at 200 FPS we'd generate 194 FPE!  What is the equivalent to? Well, that's roughly equivalent to a .38 special round!

What about the ancient slingers?  All indications are that they could really throw a projectile.  let's play for second and say that an ancient professional slinger could sling a 3.5 oz projectile at 350 fps... does that seem reasonable?  I mean if they could throw a projectile 450 yards.... anyway, that slinger would have a weapon capable of producing 416 FPE, equivalent to a .45 ACP round!!!!

Now that is mind blowing and tells a completely different tale of ancient warfare.

Mhslinger

well yeah - all this has been pointed out several times before
with lots of maths and explanations etc.

umm, so yeah. slings are dangerous, this is why they were used in wars

Advances in armor did the sling in.  Arrows just have better penetration.

I was thinking along those lines as well, however, there is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that suggests ancient slingers were exceptionally accurate with their weapons.  Also, although armor did become more sophisticated the majority of soldiers still wore very little armor to protect legs, arms and faces.  All targets that would potentially disable an opponent if struck.  Has anyone here heard of penetration testing, using period materials and projectiles, being performed?

I think, looking at the numbers, that even an opponent wearing scale armor would be susceptible to the smashing damage of a 200 - 400 FPE missle.  Imagine donning armor and then having someone smash you in the chest with a narrow ended 5 lb sledge hammer.  Depending on where that hit you, you'd most probably go down.

I believe that, at distance, slings were weapons of both mass distraction as well as destruction.  As a distraction to the enemy, how the enemy soldiers were armored becomes less important.

It could be argued that the bows and arrow being used for ancient warfare were not made of very good materials and probably not much better at penetration.  Two exceptions to that may be the composite bow and the English long bow, the only two bows that I know of that were capable of penetrating solid metal armor (not scale armor) to the distance needed to cause a serious wound. 

One hypothesis for the decline of the sling is simply that it became a "peasant weapon".  That the slings very lack of sophistication and ease of production made it undesirable for the warrior of the day. 

So...

Mhslinger

A slingstone that misses has zero energy.

Actually as the only person on the forum (that I know of who's deliberately put themselves in harms way at the end of a 300 metre sling stone (slung by no less a personage than larry bray). I can tell you that psychologically sling stones are a major weapon. The noise they make is incredibly loud. You hear them coming seconds before they impact. And you cannot see them. Imagine being at the end of a 1000 angry, lethal, invisible hornets - and you have some idea of what a massed sling barrage would be like.

And they don't bounce. The richochet idea sounds nice but shaped sling glandes simply bury themselves into the ground. On rock you might get bounce, on earth if they miss they just miss.   

Nope I'm with the training side of the camp.

Bear in mind that as civilisation advanced the logistics of keeping an army in the field advanced as well. So it was feasible to field larger armies.
Given that you can train a man to use a bow effectively in a week or so and it takes years to get proficient with a sling. The sheer size of modern armies dictated that you went for the easier to train for weapons. YOu wanted bodies fast - lots of them. Archers can be churned out extremely quickly. Slingers can't.

Also slings are only seriously effective with the correct shape and density glande. It's easier to make a poor arrow than a good glande. You need 2-3 ounces of lead to make a good sling glande. You need about half an ounce of poor steel to make an effective arrow head.
A fletcher does not need a forge - a sling moulder would. Fletchers therefore, are logistically more effective.
All you need to transport are the arrow heads and feathers (both very light and can be moved in vast quantities). The wood for the shafts can be foraged for en route or while encamped. Compare this to lugging tons os lead or dense rock around.

Again logistics of scale come into play.

It's sad but true that modern warfare owes more to the logistics of fielding an army than the quality of the soldiers themselves. 

If you want to read about the logistics of battles until you're head hurts and you've got facts and figures leaking down your brain and out through your nose - then read harry turtledoves decalogy about the american civil war soldiers who get transported to an alien world. I kid you not, ten books with nine books worth of logistics info and one books worth of plot. I gave up about 6 books into the series.
But it's true Logistics killed the sling.

CA,

you are right. This is the main psychological advantage of a sling: when you hear it you know that is still on its way to you. When you hear a tanks granade flying you know that it has already passed your position.

funda iucunda

Quote:


Yep - the logistics of training a slinger are prohibitive against that of training an archer.
And we're not talking a few pounds of lead here that the individual soldiers can carry, bear in mind that once slung a glande that misses is lost for ever and those that hit are only recoverable if you win and get to scavenge the bodies of the enemy - we're talking thousands of projectiles weighing in at many compact tons. You need reinforced axles and expensive heavy duty carts to transport lead ingots, or significant masses of glandes. The same weight of arrows can be transported on several lighter, cheaper  and faster carts - logistics again. If you have ten oxen, you can pull ten light, cheap, fast carts loaded with arrow components. OR five heavy, slow, expensive carts loaded with sling glandes.
For any general who can 'enlist' any passing peasant and turn him into an archer on the march - it's really no contest. 

Seriously read the turtledove books. The man really knows what he's talking about. Even his videssos cycle (actually lots more plot than logistics and a darn good read) has sufficient logistical material to make anyone appreciate just how difficult it was to mount a campaign in an era without railroads or roads that didn't vanish into mud during winter.

All the other reasons given for the demise of the sling - are actually logistically accountable

Anyway it has to be right it's the first time in 3 years Techstuff has ever agreed with me without at least some small caveat