Prev: RE: [FT] Kra'Vak Changes Next: RE: [GZG] New Bavaria--Very Long

RE: [FT] Kra'Vak Changes

From: "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@d...>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 14:22:52 +1100
Subject: RE: [FT] Kra'Vak Changes

I wasn't worried about the beam composition, my answer was to whether KV
armour should reduce damage from PT & missiles.   The point I was trying
to make is that KV hulls are strong enough to reduce damage from direct
fire weapons, but not strong enough to assist against proximity
detonation due to the massive energy difference between the weapon
types.

'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*****
T'was brillig, & the slithy toves,
Did gyre & gimle in the wabe.
All mimsy were the borogroves,
And mome raths outgrabe.
		       - Lewis Carroll "Through the Looking Glass".

-----Original Message-----
From:	Steven Arrowsmith [SMTP:arrowjr@usit.net]

On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Robertson, Brendan wrote:

> It mostly depends on how you view the actual attack technology.
Correct me if I am mistaken, but Human Beam batteries are a development
or
offshoot of particle accelerators? Regardless of what you call them -
Phaser, lasers, particle project cannons, fusion cannons - they are all
energy weapons designed to eat armour, hull and anything eles that gets
in
their way. If Kra'Vak armour acts like energy shields, when hit by Human
beams, whos to say, that they don't also act like nuclear dampers, or
have
other special features..

Steven

Prev: RE: [FT] Kra'Vak Changes Next: RE: [GZG] New Bavaria--Very Long