So we’ve gone from impact angle and direction of travel doesn’t matter to it does matter as long as it is a shallow angle. So we’ve made progress. You did actually understand my point. That’s good.This is what you claimed:
I'd suggest you don't seem to understand if you think that bringing a ship to a halt is going to be harder than deflecting it - that's basic physics, it will require more force to bring to a halt, you know the rough direction of travel too. I don't need to know if it's 5 degrees to 10 degrees or 15 degrees to point out that deflecting it via a side-on impact is going to require less force than say colliding head-on into an object that isn't designed to deflect the ship and trying to bring it fully to a halt.
I've provided examples because this stuff exists, there are barriers built specifically to deflect ships.
Think about what you're saying re: motorway barriers "Motorway barriers are designed with a max impact angle of 20 degrees " - what happens if you crash perpendicular to one (i.e. it's not going to deflect the vehicle rather it's either going to stop it or the vehicle will fly over or pass through... that's going to require a lot more force! Reduce the angle so you're closer to perpendicular to it and there is much less force to absorb and the vehicle is deflated.
In the case of these barriers look at the design of them, they have pointed ends facing up and down the channel ships use or are circular, they want ships to deflect off them, they're not aiming to absorb all the force required to halt a ship, the idea that deflecting a ship would be "just as hard if not harder" than bringing one to a complete halt is false.
You’ve also repeated what I wrote in post 158. So I’m glad that you were paying attention.