The effect of multiple thinner plates vs 1 plate of the same total thickness is highly dependant on situation - eg projectile calibre, obliquity, etc - but the USA used to apply a rule of thumb that for large naval rounds you count 0.7 x thickness of 1st plate and 100% thickness of 2nd plate regarless of any other considerations.
Using that USN rule as Okun lays it out would make it worse than modeled in game. 160lbs is 4”, so multiplying 4 by 0.7 and then adding 1 gives a total value of 3.8”, worse than just the thickness of the top plate. Even if you were to credit it as adding half its effective thickness in RHA when laminated without any material quality considerations that’s still only 0.5”, only very slightly more than the 0.45” that 1” of structural steel gives in game, and not really worth the freak out here.
my figures are an illustration of why your “less then 0.25” RHA equivalent" are wrong - and even your own attempt to shift the goalposts agrees with that - your characterisation was wrong.
Your “assessment” of the request for accurate armour as “freak out” is also both rude and ignorant.
This thread is heading into an unproductive direction, and has been answered by HK Reporter and Magiaconatus. This discussion does not need to continue.
