Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests
Re: Relative size of combatants | |
---|---|
by bkwormlisa » Tue Jul 21, 2015 8:13 am | |
bkwormlisa
Posts: 189
|
Jonathan:
When it comes to a ropeway down the cliff into Karys, I fully agree that they couldn't simply put a rope at the top and connect it to a tower at the bottom. But I think what Mil-tech Bard is suggesting is having the ropeway towers perpendicular to the cliff, not the ground. That is, there would be supports sticking out from the cliff every few hundred feet, so the ropeway would angle down much as the Cut eventually would, hugging the cliff all the way. That would give the cables the frequent support they need and allow an angle much shallower than 45 degrees. I agree with him that that is possible, though it's not a type of ropeway we tend to build on Earth. We avoid slopes that steep because we can. |
Top |
Re: Relative size of combatants | |
---|---|
by PeterZ » Tue Jul 21, 2015 1:20 pm | |
PeterZ
Posts: 6432
|
Change of subject.
I wonder if Sharona has rifle scopes? If so, are there enough even weak precognitives to provide enough long range snipers to threaten Arcanan camps or dragons? A .50 Cal bullet in the head will drop even a 60 ton dragon. A sniper with a scope and just enough precognitive ability to accurately lead a flying dragon or anticipate the movements of dragons and people in camp could be very effective. |
Top |
Re: Relative size of combatants | |
---|---|
by Mil-tech bard » Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:08 pm | |
Mil-tech bard
Posts: 256
|
Jonathan_S, bkwormlisa
Both of you seem to have a very...flawed...understanding of the tensile strength of steel cable and what that means in terms of ropeway vertical lift capability over distance. Please see -- Then this --
Then finally this with the ropeway specs --
Nine hundred fifty meters is 3116.8 feet. 2,300 meters is 7545.93 feet. The angle of the ropeway cable is a little more than 24 degrees. This is right in the middle of the range of 1911 ropeway capability that I laid out in my Wednesday Jul 15, 2015 30-60-90 TRIGONOMETRIC FUNCTION ANALYSIS. The ability to put a ropeway over the Traisum Cut is fundamentally a trivial exercise within the larger civil engineering project of making the Cut. |
Top |
Re: Relative size of combatants | |
---|---|
by Mil-tech bard » Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:13 pm | |
Mil-tech bard
Posts: 256
|
To have a .50 caliber rifle requires AFV's. The 19th Century Sharps rifle aside, the .50 caliber sniper rifle of today had its basis as a 1920's-1940's anti-tank weapon. Ternathia just got the Bison. I doubt that anti-tank rifle has showed up yet. |
Top |
Re: Relative size of combatants | |
---|---|
by Mil-tech bard » Tue Jul 21, 2015 4:00 pm | |
Mil-tech bard
Posts: 256
|
This is something RFC dropped in the #3 Snipette topic.
It is -way- important for the ropeway/railway argument up-thread.
NB: I think RFC's "various water gaps" comment means Howard's point about a short railway from a water gap port to Ft. Salby is spot-on. I cannot stress enough how important that TTE infrastructure transportation "pulse", before troop movements, is for a Sharonan Army war of movement against the Arcanians. |
Top |
Re: Relative size of combatants | |
---|---|
by PeterZ » Tue Jul 21, 2015 4:30 pm | |
PeterZ
Posts: 6432
|
They already have a .50 Cal machine gun. How difficult is to upgrade an existing sniper rifle to fire the same .50 Cal bullets? I don't think that is too difficult. Designing that rifle that doesn't beat the snott out of the shooter might be tougher.
|
Top |
Re: Relative size of combatants | |
---|---|
by Mil-tech bard » Tue Jul 21, 2015 4:38 pm | |
Mil-tech bard
Posts: 256
|
Alright, I finally got this downloaded and clipped.
See the Janaki-Kinlafia conversation involving the TTE railway construction to Ft Salby, especially the bold section -- Hells Gate Chapter 34
|
Top |
Re: Relative size of combatants | |
---|---|
by Castenea » Tue Jul 21, 2015 5:26 pm | |
Castenea
Posts: 671
|
Yes there are ropeways which drop more than the cliff face in the Triasum cut, but how many towers do those ropeways have? To bring a ropeway down from the top of the cut with acceptable unsupported span requires that the rope way travel across the face of the cliff, likely zig zaging. Building a tower that effectively has the cargo do a 180 degree turn is an engineering design problem for which I do not have a pat answer, but one which I am sure is solvable. |
Top |
Re: Relative size of combatants | |
---|---|
by brnicholas » Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:54 pm | |
brnicholas
Posts: 254
|
Yet my quotes from HHNF say explicitly that the sidings were put in to support the digging of the Traisum cut and Fort Salby's status as the end of the line. There are a number of ways to read these quotes together including Howard's suggesting that the rail head being referred to here bypasses a rail ferry the Sharonans had been using to move trains across the Red Sea. It seems far more probable to me Janaki is either in error (for Janaki's reliability note that the line was well past Fort Salby by the time Darcel arrived) or referring to something other then the first arrival of trains at Fort Salby. So there was a railroad available to bring supplies in for digging the Traisum cut.
Nicholas
|
Top |
Re: Relative size of combatants | |
---|---|
by Jonathan_S » Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:06 pm | |
Jonathan_S
Posts: 8791
|
And while tower information was surprisingly hard to find a youtube video of part of the ascent shows at least 2 intermediate support towers between the base and the summit. So it's marginally shorter elevation than the Karys cliff, but handles the load by using relatively shallow rope angle and support towers. Both of which are possibly if you run it parallel to the cliff face so you could cantilever towers out. But it hardly shows that that length can be hung unsupported perpendicular to the cliff face. |
Top |