Talk:Sling (weapon)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Links

Hello, I'd like to see added to this page the following links: http://funditor.110mb.com/sling2.html as How To Make Your Own Sling and http://funditor.110mb.com/KeyChain_Sling.html as Keychain Sling, a How-to

Both of these sites provide further information on slings and have been embraced by many in the slinging community (As moderator on slinging.org, I know this well!). They will, in many cases, be celebrated by the Wikipedia reader who finds them. Therefore, I ask: Does anyone object to their inclusion in the external links section? CanDo 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The site has Google ads (and you've canvassed numerous other pages petitioning it's inclusion). Please do not add it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ellipsoidal projectiles

Re: "The reason why the almond shape was favoured is not clear: it is possible that there is some aerodynamic advantage, but it seems equally likely that there is some more prosaic reason such as the shape being easy to extract from a mould or that it will rest in a sling cradle with little danger of rolling out."

An ellipsoidal projectile will 'roll out' of the sling in much the same way an American football is thrown by a competent quarterback - the sling spins the bullet, enhancing range and accuracy. As a side-benefit, the bullet would hit point-first, maximizing the force of the striking surface. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ochre24 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 2006 October 18 (UTC)

The problem of rolling out refers to a bullet that is resting in a sling cradle. A cradle is typically diamond shaped and will wrap around a bullet such that a long elipsoid is unlikely to come out but a sphere could roll out of one of the open ends.
Just what happens when an ellipsoidal projectile is thrown has been much discussed on the slinging.org forum. Some experimenters certainly reported spinning, but could not confirm that it spins in the way you suggest -- ie point first. Personally, I find it hard to see how that would happen. Gaius Cornelius 13:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
From personal experience, the spin imparted to a projectile is determined by the orientation of the sling, which in turn is (mostly) controlled by the slinger. Proper technique allows one to impart a football spin to a projectile with good repeatability; improper technique allows the sling to twist and the projectile may spin any which way. --Swwright 20:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armour penetration

RE: "Ancient authors seemed to believe, incorrectly, that sling-bullets could penetrate armour... ... it seems likely that the authors were indicating that slings could cause injury through armour by a percussive effect rather than by penetration."

Citation needed, indeed.

A lead projectile, shaped like an American football (spinning - using the same physics), hurled with great force (multiplied by the action of the sling), hitting a bronze helmet or breastplate, *would* penetrate said armor, and easily. I believe that there was confirmation of this on a cable television program (on either the Military Channel or History Channel). Early firearms, using round shot with only slightly-higher flight speeds, could penetrate iron and steel aromor.

Discussion? Confirmation? Mythbusting? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ochre24 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 2006 October 18 (UTC)

The ancients certainly did belive those things about lead sling-bullets although I don't have a citation to hand. I don't know of any ancient evidence that sling bullets actually did go through armour. Sling wounds are rarely mentioned, Julius Ceasar tells of a badly wounded centurion hit in the face although that was not through armour. I have seen lead sling-bullets failing to make much impact on reproduction shields, although I appreciate that that is a bit different to armour. If there has been some experimental archeology, then I would be very interested to hear about it although that is unlikely to settle the issue - compare with the argument that rage over the longbow! There are some figures for velocities of comparable weapons in "The Balistics of the Sling", I don't have my copy to hand, but from what I can recall even the earliest firearms achived much higher velocities than the sling. Gaius Cornelius 13:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Found the reference I had in mind: Thom Richardson, Ballistic Testing of Historical Weapons Royal Armouries Yearbook, Volume 3 1998, p50-52. Various sling and bullet combinations achieved about 30 m/s and were completely resisted by a 2mm plate. A medieval handgun with a 50gr charge which produced a velocity of 180 m/s and was the least effective of all the guns tried. An arquebus with a 50gr charge produced a velocity of 378 m/s and easily penetrated two 2mm plates clamped together, the same weapon with a 90gr charge achieved 520 m/s and just failed to penetrate a 6mm steel plate. Gaius Cornelius 20:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe we should move "Kestros" info to its own page

The section on the "Kestros" here has more info than on the actual Kestros page. All we really need is a brief mention of it, and "Kestros" needs a lot of the info that can only be found here. If somebody's better at cutting and pasting than I am . . .

[edit] Melting projectiles

A citation has been called for, concerning this sentence: "In the latter case we may imagine that they were impressed by the degree of deformation suffered by lead sling-bullet after hitting a hard target." I have found several sources of information concerning this, two of antiquity and one modern. I will give the citations and then ask how best to add them, because I am rather new here...

Lucretius, in his "On the Nature of Things", says (in William Ellery Leonard's translation): "A leaden ball, hurtling through length of space, / Even melts." Virgil also says something about this in the Aeneid (John Dryden's translation): "Him when he spied from far, the Tuscan king / Laid by the lance, and took him to the sling, / Thrice whirl'd the thong around his head, and threw: / The heated lead half melted as it flew; / It pierc'd his hollow temples and his brain; / The youth came tumbling down, and spurn'd the plain." These two translations are available at The Internet Classics Archive (http://classics.mit.edu/index.html).

The modern source is a member of an internet forum devoted to slinging. I know him only as "AjlouniBoy" which is his username at Slinging.org. He has himself slung an lead fishing weight against a concrete block; the impact seriously deformed the projectile and generated enough heat to be noticeable. His message on this subject is at http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1130967387.

So, how do I get this information into the article? Just start writing? Add footnotes? Thanks in advance for your advice and assistance! --Swwright 01:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Swwright: Thanks for your contribution. Wikipedia encourages users to be bold. So, do please go ahead and have a go. Experienced editors will be pleased to help out with any problems you may have. Footnotes can be a bit complex, you probably will need some help with that. Gaius Cornelius 18:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement, Gaius Cornelius. Bold it is, then! I added three footnotes about lead glandes melting in flight, citing Lucretius and Virgil and a modern slinger of my acquaintance, and a new "Footnotes" section. I also removed the {{fact}} tag. --Swwright 23:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing image: David_gegen_Goliath.jpg

Well, here we go again. This is the second time I have tried to deal with this. A brief recounting of the first time: I could not see the image, so I linked in a different image. Gaius Cornelius reverted my edit, and we eventually determined that the image was still there (in the Commons) but for some unknown reason my PC would not display it. Gaius Cornelius was right to revert my change.

Now, I see a red link Image:David gegen Goliath.jpg where the picture ought to be. I looked in the Commons, and did not find the image. A Google search of the Commons turned up a page that stated the image does not exist, but might once have existed, and gave a link to the deletion log: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Image:David_gegen_Goliath.jpg

I have placed a message about this in the talk page of Scriberius, who uploaded that image to the Commons.

There is another copy of the image, located here at the English Wikipedia. It is Image:DavidAndGoliath.jpg and I think it looks about the same as David_gegen_Goliath.jpg (I compared the two back when David_gegen_Goliath.jpg still existed):

Image:DavidAndGoliath.jpg

Should the above image be linked into the article, to replace the now-deleted image? Or should we wait until Scriberius tells us whether he can restore the old image? — SWWrightTalk 07:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have admin rights. Also, there is no souce given on en so it will not live too long here. Someone needs to scan a picture which is old enough for pd-old... Scriberius 11:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The image I linked to, above, has been on the English Wikipedia site for three years, so I figure it will stay.
It would be nice to know where the image came from, however. Scriberius, you originally uploaded this image, if I recall. Do you know the original source? Did you scan it from a book, or did you find it already in digital form? Thanks! — SWWrightTalk 20:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
For the record: Scriberius responded in his talk page, and (if I understood him correctly) he uploaded the image from the English Wikipedia to the Commons. So the one shown above is the original digital form. I guess I need to find out who uploaded it and ask them where they got it... — SWWrightTalk 19:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting Information

In the section on construction, the text says that braided cords improve the design of a sling because they resist twisting, while later in that section, it mentions that braided cords improve the design by not stretching.

Theoretically, a braided cord would be more likely to stretch than a twisted cord simply by the nature of how a braid is made.

Can anybody take a look over that (the entire section could use a good reworking, really, as it seems very informal and conversational)? ~ Caejis (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re-write

This passage sounds like a dialogue and needs a knowledgeable re-write: An archer can easily shoot from behind protection or fortification — including downwards from the top of a wall — whereas a slinger must expose his person to the missiles of the enemy - not true, an experienced slinger could easily arc his stone over any intervening object. An arrow is more likely to penetrate armours or shields due to its sharp point, but a sling could do damage to relatively soft armor (such as quilted cloth) by percussive force without the need to break the surface of the armor itself. It has been said that to achieve range and accuracy with a sling required a long period of training. However, this is probably no more the case than for the bow, and when the target was a mass formation great accuracy was probably not so essential. This is incorrect - accuracy with a sling is usually only acquired after several years of use - accuracy with a bow can be achieved in a matter of days. — Robert Greer

I certainly agree that some expert input, not to mention some cited sources would be very welcome here. I guess that the point about fortification is that a slinger needs to move his entire body to sling - at least this is true if the sling is to be used to maximum effect. As a re-enactor, I have had a go at slinging; I am certainly no expert, but would think that it is difficult to sling out of a narrow window or between crenelations and very difficult to aim for a particular target under some circumstances. Also, while it is faily easy to imagine an archer to lean out to take a downward shot from a window or crenelation, it is difficult to imagine how a slinger would shoot effectively at such an angle. In any case, there are certainly plenty of ancient illustrations of archers shooting from fortifications, but I don't recall seeing any of slingers. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ditto

Ditto this caption, "A Tibetan girl slings a small rock towards a herd of goats." Why would what appears to be a shepherdess be stonging her own goats? — Robert Greer (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think this highlights something that is missing from the article: the sling as a tool. The reason why a stone would be thrown towards - but not actually at - goats is to heard them. It is my understanding that this is main reason why communities of herders produce famously good slingers. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)