@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.

sure. The hull isnt gonna bounce much more than pistol shots, but question: how many bullets do you think the crew is gonna let you shoot at them?

@Bobjoezonehill Understandable, I'm aware of the systems of counter-attacks, But don't you think you'd want to make it a little more than 1/8 of an inch? Just think... that's thinner than most body armor. As well as most cruise ships.

The idea is that nearly everything can pen a hull. No matter the thickness. So why waste money and ship speed for armor when you can have radar that sees beyond gun range, plane that explode other heavily armored ships, missiles that destroy planes and other missiles, and guns that shoot so many bullets that they too destroy missiles. Throw on 5 inch guns and .50 cals and you’re good to go.

@Lahoski107 literally, in woodshop i used like .5 inch neck pockets and stuff because i was concerned that flurocarbon fishing line would snap the neck of the instrument while the navy uses 1/8 steel while i have .5 hard maple

Yeah @Lahoski107

@randomusername @Strikefighter04 nonetheless, they should probably make it more than 1/8 inch of armor.

@randomusername yeah, thus making it easy to penetrate the hull. Ik I don’t make sense

@WhyAreWeHere but I’d like to say it’s harder than it

@randomusername aircraft can be countered with missiles as well

@Lahoski107
LineX is not sponsored by Phil Swift is it?
Thus making it obsolete

@Strikefighter04 ... or can they??? (Vsauce)

@WhyAreWeHere or just add lineX to the hull

The enemy won’t get close enough to attack it. @Lahoski107

thats a thicc hole, better patch it up with some thicc flex seal

@Strikefighter04 the fact that possibly a pistol round can breach the hull... let alone a missile, it just slightly angers me.

Nobody knows

Building on what @randomusername said, modern weapon systems are so good nowadays there is no need for super thick hulls, as anti-ship missiles can be destroyed before reaching the ship.

@randomusername the thing is... they do.