RE: [FT] K'V Armour Vs. Weapons

Tim Jones <Tim.Jones@Smallworld.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

>Firstly Integral Armor is fundamental to all
>KV ships, those without it are IMO a misnomer.

I disagree. That Integral Armour costs money and takes up space.
Economics
would indicate that they'd only include it in hulls that needed it. I
don't
see armour as fundamental to the K'V any more than Screens are to the
humans.

If we go with a minimum mass as I suggested, this becomes more true. If
it's not cost-effective to build it that way, they won't.

>I don't believe they would mount weapons that aren't
>effective except againt a class of ships they probably
>wouldn't build.

If we assign MASS 4 and MASS 8 minimums, respectively, then it doesn't
make
a whole lot of sense to build it into a MASS 30 Destroyer.

Besides, if the Itegral Armour was inherent in EVERY K'V ship, then we
should have included it in the hull cost and downed the number of boxes
to
compensate.

Schoon