https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBxdTkddHaE
too much awesomeness in one video!

Really fascinating and some proper science being done. I think it makes the good point that the armour was doing it's job, protecting the user from the weapons of the time. They wouldn't have used them if arrows went through them like a hot knife through butter so it shouldn't really be surprising they're tough as hell :D

It's a kind of paradoxical thing, that even beastly longbows won't get through plate yet the longbow was still extremely good in it's day.

I lean towards it being a volume thing. To take Agincourt as an example- if you have 5,000 or so archers and each can loose 12 arrows per minute, then you have 60,000 arrows per minute flying into the armoured mass. The French here had about 10,000 knights, so you're looking at 6 arrows per knight for every minute of the battle. The french were very densely packed so it's safe to assume most of these would have hit a target. Imagine taking one of those 160lb longbow shots every 10 seconds whilst you are trying to trudge through deep mud. That's just an average too, I imagine the front row would be getting peppered at a far faster rate. The blunt trauma and exhaustion of the physical battering would be bad enough, and after 10 or so arrows the chances are one has probably found a gap or weakpoint and put you out of action.

I watch that archer with awe , lifetime of practice and pulling 160#.
80g (2.8oz) arrows at 55ms (180fps) at 10m  123J (91ftlbs), (they should have done the same measurements @ "muzzle" so we can compare with future results more easily)
but if we compare it with the sling, the sling is probably superior. A hurled stone can have more kinetic energy and momentum and since the arrow doesn't penetrate then it can't do more damage than a stone.
One day they should compare all the projectile weapons against the plate armor and not only the penetrative results but also the blunt damage results which is what really counts unless you got ballista or maybe arballest , the sling seems to be the queen of blunt trauma and might win not with high velocity but just high mass.
the bow would have the highest shot per minute but I don't know how important it is because archers might restrain from raining expensive arrows when stones and lead are not .

I imagine sling can achieve higher KE because the bow uses a fair bit of energy in snapping the limbs back, which must have a fair bit higher mass than the projectile. With a sling the only loss is in air resistance and swinging the weight of the sling.

Also just being a vastly different motion might be better for getting KE into it. The bow is a growing force applied over 30 inches or so- the sling only uses one hand but a much longer stroke, and potentially a more consistent rather than growing force, in such a way that the area under the curve (so to speak) is greater.

JudoP wrote on Aug 29^th, 2019 at 8:01pm:

It's a kind of paradoxical thing, that even beastly longbows won't get through plate yet the longbow was still extremely good in it's day. I lean towards it being a volume thing. To take Agincourt as an example- if you have 5,000 or so archers and each can loose 12 arrows per minute, then you have 60,000 arrows per minute flying into the armoured mass. The French here had about 10,000 knights, so you're looking at 6 arrows per knight for every minute of the battle. The french were very densely packed so it's safe to assume most of these would have hit a target. Imagine taking one of those 160lb longbow shots every 10 seconds whilst you are trying to trudge through deep mud. That's just an average too, I imagine the front row would be getting peppered at a far faster rate. The blunt trauma and exhaustion of the physical battering would be bad enough, and after 10 or so arrows the chances are one has probably found a gap or weakpoint and put you out of action.

Just all those bits of wood and arrow heads flying around. If there's even a tiny gap in your helmet you could end up spitting splinters. War really is, and has always been, hell.

Bring Luis on the show and have him sling at it

@ Jauke
that's what I was thinking
@ Kick
depending on the circumstances stones can rebound hitting you from below(in this case mud doesn't allow for that to happen), break and ricochet with more energy than an arrow does. On impact the arrow kinetic energy recoils back to the arrow and the shaft vibrates(too much of it) , breaks and heats up at the point. Energy can't be recoiled back to the stone in the same way only as sound and heat .Stone would mostly be redirected transfering energy to initial target and then less energy to the next , wood chips and randomly flying shafts dont even compare to that.

because there are a lot of variables it would be nice to see an experiment on it.


JudoP wrote on Aug 30^th, 2019 at 4:55am:

the sling only uses one hand but a much longer stroke

The sling doesn't only use the arm but the whole body legs torso and arms
but there is no reason to compare how the projectiles are accelerated if the "muzzle" energy , momentum and ballistics of the projectile is what matters.

AncientCraftwork wrote on Aug 30^th, 2019 at 5:30am:

Bring Luis on the show and have him sling at it

I have the feeling that Tod would be reluctant to pay for the airfare.

But in a pinch I'm sure CuriousAardvark or any other English, Scottish or Welsh slinger would be happy to perform!

Actually, I might go ask Todd if he would be interested in doing 'anachronistic' weapons tests with his crossbows too.

I'd be up for that - I throw harder than anyone else in the uk, that I know of.

I imagine a heavy sling stone hitting someone straight in the face would have a good chance of killing or paralysis. Head, neck and legs would all be brutal places to be hit with a large sling stone even with plate on. Especially if it's multiple stones hitting you a minute.

Sarosh wrote on Aug 30^th, 2019 at 6:09am:

JudoP wrote on Aug 30th, 2019 at 4:55am: the sling only uses one hand but a much longer stroke The sling doesn't only use the arm but the whole body legs torso and arms but there is no reason to compare how the projectiles are accelerated if the "muzzle" energy , momentum and ballistics of the projectile is what matters.

I'm speculating on how the muzzle energy is produced, not on possible impact- since energy into the system is integral force over displacement, the stroke length and force applied might offer some answers.

Sure both actions use a lot of the body, but I'm guessing 2h actions have the potential to produce more. I could hit 2h with a hammer much harder than with one hand etc.

JudoP wrote on Aug 30^th, 2019 at 4:16pm:

Sure both actions use a lot of the body, but I'm guessing 2h actions have the potential to produce more. I could hit 2h with a hammer much harder than with one hand etc.

try to hit w/ 1 hand and then try to hit w/ 2 hands without the use of the legs or abs.

It's not as simple as that. in archery one arm applies force in a concentric and isometric contraction and the other mostly concentric while slinging or throwing (the right way) the muscles of one leg does concentric contraction , the torso does eccentric then concentric then follows the arm which does eccentric then concentric . stored energy in the non throwing arm is also used to rotate the other side.

the eccentric contraction of a muscle produces more force than the concentric, thus I find it difficult to make a comparison like that.

the F-d curves are as you said but you can't make an F-d curve in slinging the same way you do to a bow.
I don't know which one is more efficient (output/input) slinging might have lower efficiency but have input high enough that the output surpasses that of the bow making it more effective...
and don't forget in archery you first put energy in the bow and then the bow makes it kinetic. it's chemical->dynamic->kinetic
slinging is chemical->kinetic one less energy transfer.
but again it's more complicated than that .

I would also like to see what sort of blunt-force trauma arrows (and other projectiles) would inflict through armor. What would be an effective way to measure the impact force on the ballistics gel? Would Shockwatch labels work, or would he need something more sophisticated?

Sarosh wrote on Aug 30^th, 2019 at 5:36pm:

JudoP wrote on Aug 30th, 2019 at 4:16pm: Sure both actions use a lot of the body, but I'm guessing 2h actions have the potential to produce more. I could hit 2h with a hammer much harder than with one hand etc. try to hit w/ 1 hand and then try to hit w/ 2 hands without the use of the legs or abs. It's not as simple as that. in archery one arm applies force in a concentric and isometric contraction and the other mostly concentric while slinging or throwing (the right way) the muscles of one leg does concentric contraction , the torso does eccentric then concentric then follows the arm which does eccentric then concentric . stored energy in the non throwing arm is also used to rotate the other side. the eccentric contraction of a muscle produces more force than the concentric, thus I find it difficult to make a comparison like that. the F-d curves are as you said but you can't make an F-d curve in slinging the same way you do to a bow. I don't know which one is more efficient (output/input) slinging might have lower efficiency but have input high enough that the output surpasses that of the bow making it more effective... and don't forget in archery you first put energy in the bow and then the bow makes it kinetic. it's chemical->dynamic->kinetic slinging is chemical->kinetic one less energy transfer. but again it's more complicated than that .

I don't doubt it's complicated- like I said I'm speculating-broad strokes, not calculating. You could calculate a bow by just looking at draw weight integrated over draw length and forget all about muscles, a sling is probably very difficult, but the principle is the same. Longer stroke = more energy in, likewise more force = more energy in, minus losses.

I don't think not using abs or legs for 2h vs 1h really proves much. Maybe just that using two hands is optimal for recruiting the maximal amount of force from the rest of the body. If I wanted to output maximal force from any action- most of the time I'd be doing something using two hands (or two legs), whether that be deadlift, bench, hitting something with a sledge hammer etc. All the highest force actions I can think of use two hands (if upper body related) and attempting these one handed is not effective.
Now clearly other actions which don't maximise force are sometimes better suited to 1h, eg throwing of medium-light objects. Here 2h is clearly not suited to the action... but when higher force is required (for heavier objects)- people start to throw with both hands.

sling:  uses a large chain of the biggest muscles to the smallest

bow: mainly upper back muscles put the work all other muscles stabilise.

one hand pulls the other pushes so to have 700N pull you need a 700N push it's not split between the two arms like 350N+350N. I can pull 35kg w/ right hand and push 35(and more) with my left arm but I cannot pull a 700N bow (160# 73kg) just a 77# 35kg one
so it seems as 2 arms work but it's more like one puts in the work.

Sarosh wrote on Aug 31^st, 2019 at 3:46am:

sling:  uses a large chain of the biggest muscles to the smallest bow: mainly upper back muscles put the work all other muscles stabilise. one hand pulls the other pushes so to have 700N pull you need a 700N push it's not split between the two arms like 350N+350N. I can pull 35kg w/ right hand and push 35(and more) with my left arm but I cannot pull a 700N bow (160# 73kg) just a 77# 35kg one so it seems as 2 arms work but it's more like one puts in the work.

Yes I know- the force on both arms is equal/opposite and equals the draw weight. I'm not saying that it is definitely easier because it's two hands, I really am just speculating about 2h actions vs 1h actions and the kind of force output they tend to generate. It may be that drawing a bow is more comparable to 1h action as one arm braces against and the other does the work, but maybe the use of two hands allows very good recruitment of large back muscles which is hard to do one handed. At any rate I'd be surprised if the tension in a sling at any point reaches anything like 700N, hence this high force/low stroke vs lower force/high stroke comparison.

Balearic slinger vs plate armor= Battle of Najera?

The conquests of South America would be interesting to look at too.

It would be great to get a video of someone like Louis Pons Livermore slinging at a human analog wearing legitimate plate armor. Both straight on shots and clout type shooting where it's falling from the sky. I imagine it would do some serious damage to the human spine.

@Morphy, there is actually quite a bit of information about damage to the spine already out there... just not specific to slinging. There’s a lot of science and data behind hard hat and helmet designs, and the performance standards and regulations for safety helmets will be very informative about what a rock or glande could do.  I’ll see if I can drum up some links in the next few days.

Much appreciated.

What I would love to see is what kind of damage a straight on shot to a head wearing a plate helm would do. If you can find anything out there about that you will be a legend.  ;D

Links to come when I have a chance to look into proper references... I’m definitely not an expert, but here’s my novice summary:
The literature tends to separate damage into penetration injuries (punctures) and blunt force trauma.  Blunt force trauma with an uncompromised helmet can be simplified as an acceleration of the neck, because the helmet prevents surface damage and localized crushing. Neck acceleration is a function of the speed, direction, and mass of the object that impacts the head, as well as whether the impact is more elastic or inelastic (purely inelastic would be the maximum transfer of kinetic energy to the head).
The military also adds an in-between category called (and this is the technical term) “chunky penetration” that’s somewhere between blunt force trauma and punctures. That’s probably how you would categorize a rock or glande impact without a helmet.

Here’s a good start for modeling “chunky penetration”:
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a063525.pdf

... there’s also possible traumatic brain injury from sudden acceleration. I forgot to mention that mode of injury.

A lot of these articles aren’t free, but here’s a good starting list of academic studies that are relevant to slings vs helmets on the battlefield:

https://tinyurl.com/y2mdxbun

Here’s a free one that analyzes the effect of extra mass on the head and it’s relevances in acceleration-induced neck injuries:

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a446621.pdf

All you need now is to compare the mass of a kevlar helmet plus night vision goggles to the mass of a plate helmet, and you might have a reasonable analog from modern data sources.  Next, you have to estimate the acceleration from a glande impact to determine whether a neck injury or brain trauma would be realistic. One final factor that might also matter is battle fatigue. If a warrior’s neck grows tired from wearing a plate helmet, then they may be more susceptible to injury over time.

Sling ammo versus armour is a tricky one.

Distance - over 100 metres - impacts would generally be with small lead glandes, whils short range (100 metres and under) would generally be with larger spherical rocks.

If you look at the uk hillforts, pretty much all the ammo caches (over 10,000 sling stones found at danebury alone) are round and on the heavier side.

It's doubtful you would ever get armour penetration from a lead glande. The bow tests show clearly that even hard steel arrow heads don't penetrate good armour.

So you are looking more at incidental impacts: legs, arms, face&neck (would be very rare).
Which is where the larger spherical ammo would come into play.
A broken ankle on a battlefield, would probably prove to be  just as fatal as a broken neck.

You would probably not get the internal injuries that an unarmoured person would suffer, as the armour would not transfer energy efficiently to the internal organs.

The widespread availability of armour, probably contributed as much to the death of the sling as a serious batlefield weapon, as the rise of mass produced bows and arrows.

Personally, I'd feel that concerning the transferal of 'Blunt' force into a target, slingstones ought to beat arrows in that case.

As to whether it could kill a knight through a strike to his chest, I would likely say 'No', because the globose shape practically ensures that you have a several centimetre gap between the armour and the person. That said, you'd probably see much larger dents then you see from the arrows in the video, especially if someone like Luis was throwing these stones.

The Spanish mention that their iron cuirasses were being heavily dented by fist-sized slingstones thrown by Aztec slingers, and I can believe that.

However I bet you that a Jupon, such as in the video, would probably be a very, very great defensive garment against slingstones.

Now, a fist-sized slingstone against limb protection or the helmet... I'm not exactly sure. What I can say, however, is that slingstones will probably ruin a knights day, given that slingstones aren't as reliant on impact angles to glance off. Limb armour is well shaped and quite compact so arrows would have a high likelihood of glancing... but a fist-sized slingstone... I'd say probably not, and given that limb armour tends to be close to the body, an impact there would probably be pretty devastating.

@ Curious Aardvark
if the slinger is within the range they are shooting the bows (25m) then I believe the archer can shoot the face and the slinger can shoot the neck face area, the enemies' head & necks would be like a horizontal target at 25m.
the momentum of the arrow is around 4- 4.5 kg*m/s the momentum of a hurled heavy stone would be double that, similar to a shotgun recoil, it would be at least annoying. "concentrated fire" would be devastating.
I wouldn't expect penetration from a lead glande , but you never know, light lead projectiles can reach high velocities and it would be nice to see if and how they melt on impact.
at longer ranges i think the arrow will be useless but heavy stones not.

death by blunt force , death of Pyrrhus of Epirus :

Quote:

During the confused battle in the narrow city streets, Pyrrhus was trapped. While he was fighting an Argive soldier, the soldier's old mother, who was watching from a rooftop, threw a tile which knocked him from his horse and broke part of his spine, paralyzing him. Whether he was alive or not after the blow is unknown, but his death was assured when a Macedonian soldier named Zopyrus, though frightened by the look on the face of the unconscious king, hesitantly and ineptly beheaded his motionless body.

death by blunt force aren't that heroic they sound like a tragic stupid joke. death by arrow doesn't sound like a joke .
I can't find a description of the death of Lucius Aurunculeius Cotta if you can find one post here.

NooneOfConsequence wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2019 at 9:44pm:

Here’s a good start for modeling “chunky penetration”: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a063525.pdf

Good stuff. Chunky penetration huh? And.... I'm just going to stop while I'm ahead with that one.

I don't have any doubt it would kill the guy it does surprise me that you found so much relevant material so quickly. Almost like human beings favorite pastime is finding new ways to kill each other. Definitely a large rock against a plate helm would kill the guy. At least until we have definitive proof that's what I'm sticking with.

@Morphy... It’s not that it’s that common. It’s just that I knew what terminology to search for because I’ve looked before. I participated in a research project several years ago for the FAA where we were trying to understand what the real danger was from falling drones. Congress told the FAA to come up with rules to regulate hobby drones, but nobody knew what the actual risks were to flying one over a crowded area, so we did a bunch of drop tests onto various targets representing a human head and tried to put some numbers behind the question so they could try to come up with reasonable safety rules. Did my work make a difference? I don’t know, but I learned what chunky penetration was :)