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

At 04:40 PM 12/2/98 -0600, you wrote:
[snip]
This is the only post i read on this thread, so I may be off base but...

>Well IIRC, the Iowas, like most later BBs, used an 'all or nothing'
armor
>layout of lots of armor where critical and nothing everywhere else.  So
the
>5 inchers on the DD would not be able to penetrate the armored areas
like
>the armor belt along the water line, the turrets, the barbettes, or the
>deck.	Unfortunately the superstructure, and the hull other then the
armor
>belt could be pentrated by the 5 inch rounds (I think).  Hits in these
>un-armored areas would not do massive damage to the Iowas but
eventually
>they would be rendered a kill due to fires, flooding, and damage (if
the
>Iowa did not fire back ;).

I notice a key concept here. Namely, you mention waterline armour being 
a heavily armoured belt. On a spaceship, you would be very hard pressed 
to find an external part of the hull that would not be considered 
the equivalent of "below waterline".

>Yeah I'm splitting hairs but gamers are used to the single armor class
>system that is supposed to represent the whole ship but reality is a
bit
>different.

Since a spaceship is akin to a submarine, armour may in fact be 
equal all around.

Just a thought,

       Tony Christney
       acc@questercorp.com

  "If the end user has to worry about how the program was 
   written then there is something wrong with that program"
				  -Bjarne Stroustrup