Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!uxc!iuvax!rutgers!att!cbnews!jmberkley@watnext.waterloo.edu
From: jmberkley@watnext.waterloo.edu (J. Michael Berkley)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: USS Iowa explosion
Message-ID: <5931@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 26 Apr 89 04:09:50 GMT
References: <5789@cbnews.ATT.COM> <5883@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 24
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: jmberkley@watnext.waterloo.edu (J. Michael Berkley)

In article <5883@cbnews.ATT.COM> marsh@mbunix.mitre.org (Ralph Marshall) writes:
>From: marsh@mbunix.mitre.org (Ralph Marshall)
>In article <5789@cbnews.ATT.COM> military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) writes:
>>From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
>>Further, you must understand that, shortly after WWII, they stopped
>>putting armor on ships, for a variety of reasons.
>>
>	While none of this comes as news to me, I've never understood
>*why* they've stopped putting armor on ships.

I believe there is a theory that with heavy armour, a big explosion
may not breach the armour, but the vibrations destroy equipment
throughout the entire ship.  If you have light armour, then a big
explosion makes a big hole, but it only affects one part of the ship.

******************************************
* Mike Berkley, University of Waterloo   *
* jmberkley@watnext.waterloo.edu         *
* {utai,uunet}!watmath!watnext!jmberkley *
******************************************