In article , "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

I'd advise a quick review of 1940s and 1950s naval weapon testing. The
reason ships lost their armour plate, was because the threat moved from
gun-armed Sverdlov-class cruisers (lobbing ninety-pound shells to a
dozen miles, with maybe one shot in fifty hitting) to Kynda-class
cruisers (lobbing five-ton missiles to three hundred miles, with most of
them hitting). You can't wear enough armour to ignore hits from post-WW2
weapons: to be confident of remaining capable, you have to "not be hit"
for long enough to take out the enemy's ability to fight. WW2-style
armour plate can actually make things _worse_ on weapon impact...


Paul, armour capabilities is not one of my strong points. Can you elucidate
on why WWII armour might make things worse?
thx

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur