Is spaceship armor useless?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

This is unavoidable given realistic assumptions. Very high velocity missiles (even if small) would destroy even very large ships. evena t abse 1 mile per second you're looking at a regime where solid matter doesn't really stay solid. At 10 miles per second you're looking at solid matter exploding with a force of many times (c. 40x) its' own weight in TNT.

I remember hearing that such attacks are defeated by something called 'whipple shield principle'.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

If want to duplicate the battles seen in some fiction you need unrealsitic assumptions and rules because those battles are unrealistic. This means looking for high TLs and most especially the ^ sign and optional/cinematic rules.

Well sure, okay, but why do I have to invent systems and modifications from scratch to do it? Why is the TL11^ force shield totally wonderful compared to TL11 armour, but TL^ beams totally pointless compared to TL missiles? (There also isn't much of a serious reason to ever bother with bombs.)

Right now, anything short of an invulnerability field or indestructible armour is worse than having:
1. At least 11% as many missiles in a salvo as the target has PD guns and
2. The willingness to press 'Proximity Detonation'.
(Note: even if we postulated automated gunners that automagically hit with every shot for PD, then same has to apply to missiles.)