+- Eternity RPC Board (http://board.eternityrpc.com)
+-- Forum: Oblivion Compound (http://board.eternityrpc.com/forum-16.html)
+--- Forum: Library of Eternity (http://board.eternityrpc.com/forum-20.html)
+---- Forum: Siora MTRP Archive (http://board.eternityrpc.com/forum-54.html)
+----- Forum: The Directorate (http://board.eternityrpc.com/forum-55.html)
+------ Forum: Technology Department (http://board.eternityrpc.com/forum-60.html)
+------ Thread: Dismissed Discussion on Autofortifications (/thread-317.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Technology Discussion on Autofortifications - DeSchaine - 02-12-2017
Let me be more clear: Nuclear weapons are not allowed in this RP forum (last time I checked, anyways). And the devices you reference are not capable of doing what you want them to do without a massive scale increase, which (to get the results you desire) in effect creates a low yield nuclear weapon and would therefore be prohibited.
The rapid deployment technique you reference is one I am very familiar with, having been trained in it by the US Army. It is possible to low-pass multi deploy but not in the fashion you desire. In the example you give, the cargo units are not actually tethered together, but rather the deployment of the first unit pulls the chute of the next out into the airstream and results in the second unit being pulled out. However, the strap between the first cargo unit and the chute of the second utilizes attachment points with a VERY low tensile strength, and by design breaks on full extension of the chute cords. Air dropping AT hedgehogs in such a fashion would actually result in a larger spread than is required to be effective unless you use multiple aircraft (probably ten or more in a single run considering a normal hedgehog takes up about 25 cubic feet of cargo space). The other option would be to permanently attach them to each other and drop them, which would result in the issues I mentioned above.
It also occurs to me, given the mobility of modern mechanized forces as well as the capability of anti-air units, it would seem that it is impractical and almost certainly fatal for the air crews to employ this tactic.
RE: Technology Discussion on Autofortifications - STRATCOM - 02-13-2017
Esteemed technologist DeSchaine, thank you for your input.
RE: Technology Discussion on Autofortifications - Ayzek - 02-15-2017
Um...yes. Nuclear weapons are still prohibited.
That aside, taking into account DeS's advice, do you still wish to pursue deploying tank traps via airdrop? Deploying razor wire via air is also pretty inefficient, FYI. You can get a truck to do it, after all; it'd save you jet fuel.
Also, there is no "classified" before the Directorate, so I'd like a more comprehensive list of objects deployed via airdrop if such a list exists. You can send it to me via PM if you'd really like to keep it low key.
RE: Technology Discussion on Autofortifications - Ayzek - 03-02-2017
As no updates have been provided, the Directorate will now process this submission. With the information submitted and advice provided above, the Directorate:
- clarifies that it has interpreted this submission as over "tactical airlifting capability",
- dismisses this submission,
- affirms that TAC is available to any sufficiently trained and equipped force,
- advises STRATCOM that viable weapons-grade "neutral radiation" gernators definitely requires their own submission (and is otherwise unavailable for use in role play),
- advises STRATCOM that is generally inefficient to deploy tank traps, razor wire, or other objects that require accurate placement via aircraft.
RE: Technology Discussion on Autofortifications - STRATCOM - 03-02-2017
Esteemed technologist Ayzek, thank you for your input and confirmation.