Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!cbnews!maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
From: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George W. Herbert)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Update on USS Iowa
Summary: Armour Info
Message-ID: <6064@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 29 Apr 89 01:23:51 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 18
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George W. Herbert)

In article <5851@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Armor fell out of fashion after WWII, since it wasn't useful against
>nuclear weapons.  Ship designers were happy to have the extra weight
>for other things, and haven't been enthusiastic about reintroducing armor.

That's not the only reason armour fell out of fashon.  There were two more
that mattered, perhaps much more:
1.  Armour proved more or less ineffective against aircraft bombs and
2.  Ship design is always a tradeoff.  If you dedicate weight to armour,
	there is less for fuel, weapons, etc.   They needed more weapons
	and fuel.

george william herbert
maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu