Welcome, Guest. Please Login
SLINGING.ORG
 
Home Help Search Login


Poll Poll
Question: sling or bow?



« Created by: paracordslinger on: Jun 30th, 2011 at 6:54pm »

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 12
Send Topic Print
Sling vs. Bow (Read 47525 times)
Sons of benjamin
Descens
***
Offline



Posts: 190
Gender: male
Sling vs. Bow
Jun 30th, 2011 at 5:35pm
 
I watched an episode of Deadliest warrior today (apache vs gladiator), and they were discussing whether the sling or the bow was more effective.  They settled on the bow.  Which do you think is the better weapon?

The bow is generally more accurate, although a skilled slinger can have the accuracy of an archer.  The sling has a longer range (generally) and more force per projectile.  Both weapons cause terrific wounds, although the sling doesn't rely as much on accuracy to achieve a mortal or at least incapacitating wound.  For instance, an arrow through the arm is painful, but a trained warrior can continue to fight (unless the arrow hits an artery).  A stone from a sling to the arm will render the arm useless, and may incapacitate the warrior from the pain.  This sort of wound will likely call for an amputation.  The arrow wound is more likely to cause an infection, though, unless the bone fragments from the sling wound penetrate the skin.  Also, an arrow is not going to penetrate armor or a shield, unless the arrow somehow hits a weak spot in the armor (point of overlap in the plates).  A stone from a sling can penetrate nearly all types of armor, depending on whether or not it is a direct hit, and is known to go through shields. Furthermore, when an archer is out of arrows, he's out.  His bow is essentially useless, unless he can somehow scavenge more.  If a slinger runs out of prepared ammunition, he can always pick up a rock.  

I would say the sling is the superior weapon on the battlefield, although it is far closer in a one on one situation.  Overall, I am going to have to go with the sling.
Back to top
 

Judges 20:16 "Out of all this people there were seven hundred chosen men left handed.  Every one of these was a slinger of stones to a hairbreadth and would not miss."
 
IP Logged
 
me2
Descens
***
Offline


Slinging Rocks!

Posts: 161
Re: Sling vs. Bow
Reply #1 - Jun 30th, 2011 at 6:53pm
 
Depends on the type of bow.  The bow in the show was pretty crappy, getting very low penetration on the dummy they used.  The sling even had a higher velocity that the bow they used (yet somehow deadliest warrior still gave the bow greater range Roll Eyes).  The thing about the bow is advances are still being made.  If you compare ancient slings to their contemporary bows, the sling is the winner, just like the bow is superior to early firearms.

In modern times, for a weapon vs. weapon discussion, I'd have to side with the bow.  It is the more accurate weapon.  It can penetrate armor, depending on type and range, up to and including plate.  I'd disagree with the assertion that a sling stone to the arm will always and without fail incapacitate the arm, while an arm with a hole through it will continue working.  Arrows are capable of breaking bones as well, though they'd work more like a pick than a hammer.  Both require a great deal of training to become skilled.  The sling is much cheaper and ammo is much easier to come by, so that is a huge advantage.  You can equip an entire unit of soldiers for the same cost as a single bow.  Basically, as the bow continued to advance, it eventually overtakes the sling.  

I will say I believe that every weapon has it's place, and for some uses, a sling is still superior, but your question appears to put the choice in the context of a military battle.  For that I'll side with the bow, especially if your talking about armies advanced enough and wealthy enough to produce full plate armor.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
paracordslinger
Senior Member
****
Offline


Paid by the hour, Older
by the minute

Posts: 445
kansas
Gender: male
Re: Sling vs. Bow
Reply #2 - Jun 30th, 2011 at 7:00pm
 
i would go with the bow too, because it can be used in a tight group, and actually, me2, the english longbows, and even roman bows could easily go through a head, and plains indians bows went clear through buffalo from 10 yards, so , actually, the modern bow just has more bells and whistles to make them seem amazing, it is just ike fishing. i can happily catch a cooer ful of fish with worms, and the guy next to me is fiddling with his powerbait and super strike fancy shmancy lures, ike the od saying goes, peope design fishing lures to catch fishermen, not fish.
Back to top
 

Life is hard, it's harder if you're stupid.
 
IP Logged
 
Bill Skinner
past-moderator
****
Offline


Slinging Rocks!

Posts: 3292
Re: Sling vs. Bow
Reply #3 - Jun 30th, 2011 at 8:27pm
 
For war fighting, on a large scale, given equally trained archers or slingers, I would pick slingers.  1.  They are cheaper to arm, very important when you are talking about a few thousand troops.  2.  Their ammo is lots cheaper, you can use rocks, clay or metal.  Archers must use arrows with a point, a shaft, and fletches and someone has to build the arrow after collecting the materials.  3.  Arrows kill by blood loss, slings kill by shock.  That means a hit from a slingstone will show quick results.  4.  Highly profficent slinger out range highly trained archers.  5.  You have to have seasoned wood of certain specific types to make a bow, all you need is some string to buld a sling. 

Slingers lasted over 2000 years on ancient battlefields, the bow didn't start to dominate until A. Hun and G. Khan started to use them from horseback.  Bill
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Past Moderator
*
Offline


Joined Nov. 1, 2006  Luke
14:14

Posts: 3265
Melbourne, Australia
Gender: male
Re: Sling vs. Bow
Reply #4 - Jun 30th, 2011 at 10:58pm
 
History is on the side of the archers. Generals tend to pick the weapons and tactics that win battles and archers survived as viable battlefield forces much lomnger than slingers.

Slingers may have outranged archers in ancient times but not in more recent history. Bows are easier to aim and are more accurate. Arrow wounds are more likely to be fatal than contusions from slingstones. Bows are easier to shoot from behind cover and companies of archers can generally stand closer together to provide more concentrated fire.

Slings have the big advantage that they are much easier and cheaper to produce. Hence in times when the average person's wealth was infinitesmal compared with what we have today a sling was an affordable weapon; easy to make, compact and using cheap expendible ammunition. Slings were the common man's weapon but armies are supplied by the wealthy.
Back to top
 

Cranks are little things that make revolutions.&&
 
IP Logged
 
Knaight
Interfector Viris Spurii
*****
Offline


Slinging Tennis Balls!

Posts: 1237
Colorado
Gender: male
Re: Sling vs. Bow
Reply #5 - Jun 30th, 2011 at 11:06pm
 
Aussie wrote on Jun 30th, 2011 at 10:58pm:
History is on the side of the archers. Generals tend to pick the weapons and tactics that win battles and archers survived as viable battlefield forces much lomnger than slingers.

Slingers may have outranged archers in ancient times but not in more recent history. Bows are easier to aim and are more accurate. Arrow wounds are more likely to be fatal than contusions from slingstones. Bows are easier to shoot from behind cover and companies of archers can generally stand closer together to provide more concentrated fire.

All of this is very true, and I agree entirely. However, training time was somewhat overlooked, and training time is probably the biggest influence on whether or not weapons are successful. Slings have a learning curve that is a massive obstacle to training large amounts of troops quickly, bows have a reduced learning curve, muskets had an even further reduced one, so on and so forth.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Morphy
Slinging.org Moderator
*****
Offline


Checkmate

Posts: 8102
Re: Sling vs. Bow
Reply #6 - Jun 30th, 2011 at 11:48pm
 
I agree with Aussie for all the reasons he stated.

Unlike questions such as, "Who would win in a fight X vs Y" This type of question already has a definitive answer. Progress and expansion favors the victor and the victor is always at least partially a result of having the best weaponry. History acts as something like a very long term controlled experiment.

If bows eventually replaced slings it is because they had a significant advantage. Simple as that. Had the advantages of sling been greater than those of a bow then we would be telling our kids bed time stories of Robin Hood and his merry slingers.

Some things to point out though. War bows were not necessarily chosen because they were easier to learn. In fact shooting a heavy war bow takes a ton of practice and muscle conditioning which is why every English man of a certain age was required to practice regularly with them. It is true that slings are far more difficult to gain pin point accuracy with but for battles pinpoint accuracy is not required. All you have to do is lob it in the general direction so in reality the war bow probably took more preparation and muscle conditioning to use than the sling if all we are talking about is firing en masse.

Bows and arrows took longer to craft, were much more expensive, were most subject to inclement weather conditions, took up more space and weighed more and arguably took longer to learn how to use proficiently in a battle situation (at least when speaking of heavy war bows.) Yet they still won out over slings. That, more than anything else, shows you just how much more the advantage must have been in real world conditions.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 1st, 2011 at 2:17am by Morphy »  
 
IP Logged
 
Knaight
Interfector Viris Spurii
*****
Offline


Slinging Tennis Balls!

Posts: 1237
Colorado
Gender: male
Re: Sling vs. Bow
Reply #7 - Jul 1st, 2011 at 2:15am
 
Morphy wrote on Jun 30th, 2011 at 11:48pm:
Some things to point out though. War bows were not necessarily chosen because they were easier to learn. In fact shooting a heavy war bow takes a ton of practice and muscle conditioning which is why every English man of a certain age was required to practice regularly with them. It is true that slings are far more difficult to gain pin point accuracy with but for battles pinpoint accuracy is not required. All you have to do is lob it in the general direction so in reality the war bow probably took more preparation and muscle conditioning to use than the sling if all we are talking about is firing en masse.

At this point though you are looking at the late middle ages, the bow was incredibly well established well before then, and for the most part it wasn't incredibly heavy war bows seeing the heaviest use. Look at two massive empires around for the decline of the sling, Rome and China. Both had highly developed infrastructures allowing the use of incredibly large armies, in Rome these were used for expansion, in China they saw use primarily in civil wars. Both kept the general citizenry relatively poorly armed, and both trained soldiers quickly when needed, though they also had veteran legions. These are the conditions we should be looking at when evaluating the bow, not late medieval Europe. By that point highly trained armies with martial training for the majority of citizens was the norm, largely because of the loss of infrastructure and the smaller armies that could be supplied better by individual nobles or mercenary commanders. England's* bow use is better compared to the Swiss pikes of the same era, or the Italian Condotteres, or Polish heavy cavalry.

There are other examples of heavy bows used, but those tend to be in highly martial, highly nomadic cultures which used horses heavily. The Mongol empire is perhaps the best example, but due to their tactics that merely proved that bows were better than slings on horse back, which is really rather obvious.

*Wales really, but that detail is largely irrelevant.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
jlasud
Interfector Viris Spurii
*****
Offline


Programming stones

Posts: 2358
Transilvania
Gender: male
Re: Sling vs. Bow
Reply #8 - Jul 1st, 2011 at 4:04am
 
As Knaight wrote,training time is overlooked,as bows usually require much less training for an absolute recruit than to get him to sling proficiently.Most factions,kingdoms etc. didn't have a full time army all the time,because it wasn't necessary,and would've been too expensive to keep thousands of soldiers,feed them ,while their farting at the garrison during peacetime.So instead they recruit most of the forces if they were attacked or the ruler was bored and decided to start a killing spree somewhere.So it was much more advantageous to order 2000 bows and 50.000 arrows and keep them in a shed,and when needed average folks or mercenaries recruited ,and after a few days,weeks of training,they could be sent to kill their brothers on the other side,than train 2000 slingers for a year,or two and keep them ready for maybe years.The wages,feeding costs for keeping units ready,would have been much more than the price of the bows and arrows issued to them.I'm sure that a 100 bowman would defeat a 100 musketeers no problem,but as a musketeer could be transformed from common folk even in a few hours of demonstration and training,the bowmen would need at least a few weeks to get to a level of proficiency.As we know it,during wartime,an afternoon or a week later is a BIG difference.Also let's not forget,that back in the days of slingers and bowmen the average peasant  plowing with a horse or ox could produce maybe 2-3 times the food he and his family needed unlike today when machines allow for one farmer to feed hundreds of people who can go to war for example.So feeding highly trained slingers at the ready would've been much expensive than giving peasants a bow to train today,and send them tomorrow and paying a few craftsmen to make bows and arrows during peacetime.I agree with the most things written above,but i strongly disagree with Sons of Benjamin's statement that slings could penetrate most armor.A slingstone to a helmet would still make you dizzy but no penetration...
Back to top
 

Respect existance or expect resistance!
 
IP Logged
 
Rat Man
Slinging.org Administrator
*****
Offline


Slinging Rocks!

Posts: 13666
New Jersey, USA
Gender: male
Re: Sling vs. Bow
Reply #9 - Jul 1st, 2011 at 10:53am
 
  If we're talking just about using them as weapons of war then, though it makes me feel like a traitor, I'd have to go with the bow.  Even though it's been ages since I shot a bow and I practice with the sling twice a day, every day, I'm much more accurate with a bow.  Both weapons have their advantages and disadvantages, but the bottom line is that I'd like to hit my target.  Of course I'd have several slings in my back pocket for when I ran out of arrows.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mossdog427
Junior Member
**
Offline


thud

Posts: 53
Kentucky
Gender: male
Re: Sling vs. Bow
Reply #10 - Jul 1st, 2011 at 11:42am
 
the real answer is both. archers would be ideal for infantry support and slingers would be a perfect skirmish unit. a unit that never runs out of ammo and never lets you close the gap. that would be nightmarish. there's also the factor of economics which is obviously in favor of the sling. for the same money one could arm 5000 slingers that they could arm 200 archers. it's kind of like asking which is better a back hoe or a bull dozer. it depends on the situation and the better answer is both.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bill Skinner
past-moderator
****
Offline


Slinging Rocks!

Posts: 3292
Re: Sling vs. Bow
Reply #11 - Jul 1st, 2011 at 1:43pm
 
I think Mossdog427 nailed it.  Bill
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
kuggur slingdog
Ex Member


Re: Sling vs. Bow
Reply #12 - Jul 1st, 2011 at 2:27pm
 
I disagree, the practical use of the sling on the battlefield didn´t die out for nothing, given the choice between the two I´d vote bow. Also for non-battle function such as hunting.

Only for recreational use (and that´s the only use I have for either), making equipment and shooting for fun, I´d choose the sling.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
me2
Descens
***
Offline


Slinging Rocks!

Posts: 161
Re: Sling vs. Bow
Reply #13 - Jul 1st, 2011 at 8:07pm
 
paracordslinger wrote on Jun 30th, 2011 at 7:00pm:
i would go with the bow too, because it can be used in a tight group, and actually, me2, the english longbows, and even roman bows could easily go through a head, and plains indians bows went clear through buffalo from 10 yards, so , actually, the modern bow just has more bells and whistles to make them seem amazing, it is just ike fishing. i can happily catch a cooer ful of fish with worms, and the guy next to me is fiddling with his powerbait and super strike fancy shmancy lures, ike the od saying goes, peope design fishing lures to catch fishermen, not fish.


I know.  I'm just pointing out the issues with using Deadliest Warrior as a reference and that they chose a crappy bow.  I still think modern bows are amazing, though the old ones worked.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
bigkahuna
past-moderator
****
Offline



Posts: 3894
Delaware, USA
Gender: male
Re: Sling vs. Bow
Reply #14 - Jul 1st, 2011 at 8:16pm
 
I think the bow is just a better weapon.
Back to top
 

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day.
John Walker  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 12
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: Chris, Kick, Morphy, vetryan15, Curious Aardvark, Rat Man, joe_meadmaker)