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

>> Beam 1s still do damage to human armour and given time will destroy
any
>> other human ship.  Class1 RGs with the armour level rules you have
above
>> can never do any damage to an armoured ships no matter how much time
they
>> have.  I don't think making an armoured ship totally impervious to
Class1
>> railguns is a good idea.
>
> ==============================
>
> However, if a wet navy analogy is appropriate, the 5 inch guns on a DD
> won't even scratch the hide of an Iowa class BB.

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 ;).

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.

> Perhaps armor is able
> to absorb the damage from the smaller kinetic projectiles, while
giving
> way (vaporizing away? though maybe slowly) to energy weapons fire?

I do see your point but I think escort ships (class1 railguns) should be
able to do some damage to cruisers (level 1 armor) if we follow the
designs
from MT.

Dean