Re: Armour

At 05:45 PM 5/8/97 -0400, you wrote:
>	 I have been following the armour thread on ships armour and had
some
>ideas and observations. There seem to be two aspects of armour that
people
>are trying to model for FT/MT. The first aspect which the Kra'Vak
armour
>represents very well is rigidity. You can either damage the ship after
>penetrating the armour or you scratch the paint and nothing else. No in
>between. This models Tank armour pretty well I think. If you can punch
a
>whole in an M1 then you can really screw it up. Punching a whole is
very
>difficult.
>	 The other aspect of armour that is being discussed is ablative
>armour. You hit something and damage it but it has plenty of stuffing
so
>that it can withstand that easily. Runways are often designed to be
>compressed dirt with steel reinforced concrete on top and finally
layered
>with armour plate. I may be wrong but I think that describes the runway
at
>Ke San in Vietnam fairly well. It survived heavy bombardment and was
>relatively easily fixed after each assault. These systems don't shrug
off a
>shot without noticeable change; a shell striking a concrete/steel/dirt
>runway will leave a crater. It will probably not penetrate though.

I have never really liked kravak (sp) armor, It seems to me that the
current rules prevent a HIT, the same a shields. shields prevent a hit,
armor should absorb damage before more vital systems. eventually, if you
fire enough shots, you will damage the M1, even if it is only to
immobilize
it.

marshall
 Marshall Grover

"A Jedi's greatest enemy is himself." - Obi-Wan Kenobi