@Bobjoezonehill that's what the Germans and French thought about tanks and armor thickness in the 1960'. Since missiles can defeat any thick armor then why have armor at all? Thus the Leopard 1 and AMX 30 was born, two tanks with no more than 3 inches of armor in the front and even thinner on the sides. But then, the British came up with the chobham armor concept which proves to be effective even to this day. So, why not use spaced armor with ceramic fillers in between just like the French used on some cruisers and destroyers in WW2? You can have the equivalent of thick armor while saving weight without sacrificing speed. All modern navies are codependent on missile tech which is pulled out of us taxpayers wallets. A single naval artillery shell costs a couple thousand dollars? If that's the case then use naval artillery as the primary and missiles for long range secondary/self defense.
@Bobjoezonehill that's what the Germans and French thought about tanks and armor thickness in the 1960'. Since missiles can defeat any thick armor then why have armor at all? Thus the Leopard 1 and AMX 30 was born, two tanks with no more than 3 inches of armor in the front and even thinner on the sides. But then, the British came up with the chobham armor concept which proves to be effective even to this day. So, why not use spaced armor with ceramic fillers in between just like the French used on some cruisers and destroyers in WW2? You can have the equivalent of thick armor while saving weight without sacrificing speed. All modern navies are codependent on missile tech which is pulled out of us taxpayers wallets. A single naval artillery shell costs a couple thousand dollars? If that's the case then use naval artillery as the primary and missiles for long range secondary/self defense.
+1