Thearos wrote on Dec 16
th, 2010 at 6:38am:
I'm not sure-- but can't really say why-- I can imagine slinging with 2-3 bullets in the pouch. But maybe it's a good way of fighting with a sling. has anyone tried ?
In the American Revolutionary war the American infantry troops used "ball and shot" which was a musket ball paced in with an equal weight of small pellets. The accuracy of muskets was low, so a direct hit from the musket ball would kill whomever it hit, but if the musket ball missed the pellets would spread out and a glancing blow from them would still temporarily incapacitate the British soldiers. It doesn't directly relate to slinging, but it is anecdotal evidence that a similar system of multiple projectiles would work.
Thearos wrote on Dec 16
th, 2010 at 6:38am:
I like jlasud's idea that the heavy slugs are special ammo, which ancient slingers might have carried for heavy-duty work" cracking armour (killing elephants), breaking shields...
Ditto, but would it be practical to carry multiple types of ammo? I'd want to split the difference so that I could be more flexible with how I use my glandes.
Thearos wrote on Dec 16
th, 2010 at 6:38am:
I'm still aghast: 450-500m range ? I mean that's further than a lot of modern firefights; it's in the range of bolt action rifles or MGs or even WWII-vintage tank fights. Really far for a muscle-propelled projectile. I'd love to see it.
Modern firefights aren't done with phalanxes that can be seen from a long way off. I imagine that visiblity has a lot to do with shrinking engagement distances.