balance Small vessels underpowered.

[RAMJB]

Your proof is not such. Sources giving information about some chunks of shrapnel on a bilge keel are not proof of a hit. Proof of a hit is either an undetonated projectile lodged within the hull, and entry and an exit hole (and the devastation inside) of a passthrough hit, the huge crater a detonating 3200lbs shell would create inside a merchant hulled CVE, or the sinking of the CVE altogether.

You have presented none of that.

The evidence of near miss damage is not proof of a hit. Is proof of a near miss. And I hate to insist on it, but if you ***miss*** you haven't hit.
 

Edited December 2, 2019 by RAMJB

[ThatZenoGuy]

>Snaps a carrier nearly in two

>A miss

I guess all those guys in Hiroshima were lucky the nuke 'missed' them.

[RAMJB]

"Snaps a carrier nearly in two"

No, she didn't. That to begin with. 

And as a result of a near miss. Sorry, bud, you can keep on insisting as much as you want that a near **MISS** is a hit. Nobody will ever take you seriously. So I'm done running in circles, as long as you keep up insisting misses are now to be thought of as hits there's nothing more to say.

[ThatZenoGuy]

16 minutes ago, RAMJB said:

"Snaps a carrier nearly in two"

No, she didn't. That to begin with. 

And as a result of a near miss. Sorry, bud, you can keep on insisting as much as you want that a near **MISS** is a hit. Nobody will ever take you seriously. So I'm done running in circles, as long as you keep up insisting misses are now to be thought of as hits there's nothing more to say.

She had severe keel cracks and countless other problems to the point that she was never a viable warship again.

Its a hit.

[RAMJB]

Ok debate settled then. For you it was a hit. You're welcome to set your own personal standards to qualify whatever stuff as you want to.

You can't do the same for the rest of the people however. Because everyone else's standards are theirs to choose too. And given that the vast majority of people who are interested in topics like this use the standards that are globally accepted as valid, and where misses aren't counted as hits, whatever your personal opinion is doesn't affect the globally established facts.

So, for all of those concerned with recording the longest hit ever achieved, it was not a hit. For those concerned with naval history, it was not a hit. Heck, for the rest of the world, it was not a hit.
Guess whose opinion prevails in the global scale of things, and which ships are in the history books as the achievers of the longest ranged hit ever achieved with naval gunnery. Neither is Yamato.

Said that, as I already stated, you're welcome to hold whatever personal standards of achievements and measuring you desire. Doesn't mean anyone else has to accept them. And for the record...nobody else does.

Debate's over for what concerns to me

Edited December 2, 2019 by RAMJB

[ThatZenoGuy]

Literally argument from authority and argumentum ad populum. Kek.

[Steeltrap]

It certainly seems clear that Yamato would win in the category of "greatest range at which naval gunfire from a moving ship damaged another moving ship".

My own memory was that the damage was caused by a near miss that detonated underwater close alongside. That's only my memory, however.

Other than that, it appears to come down to the question of how credible the source is about there being an indent in the keel that is in keeping with an underwater glancing blow of a shell that subsequently exploded.

IF there's sufficient evidence to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt (criminal standard of proof), or possibly even balance of probability (civil standard), that an 18.1" projectile did strike a glancing blow underwater then we'd have to conclude Yamato did in fact score a hit at that range and suggest the records be updated.

It's easy to see why it was not regarded as a hit as it would certainly have appeared as a very close miss. We all know that close hits from bombs could do significant damage, and indeed from shellfire as well.

I don't know the evidence, however, so am in no position to judge either way.

@RAMJB is correct to say that as the records stand Yamato didn't score a hit.

@ThatZenoGuy is perfectly entitled to allege otherwise, but as someone with no involvement in this argument I can say you can't expect everyone to choose to throw out the existing records without providing us the evidence in the form of citations to publications and specific pages, or cut and paste from those sources if possible.

I for one would certainly love to see the evidence simply because it's an inherently interesting topic.

Either way, however, it's evident Yamato's gunnery against White Plains was impressively accurate at such a long range.

Cheers

[ThatZenoGuy]

14 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

I for one would certainly love to see the evidence simply because it's an inherently interesting topic.

Either way, however, it's evident Yamato's gunnery against White Plains was impressively accurate at such a long range.

Cheers

Funnily enough Yamato's accuracy against targets is possibly better than Iowa. Yamato scored said hit somewhere with her third salvo (anywhere from 5-10% accuracy), then at closer range she scored 3 more hits on Johnson at 20000 yards, with unknown amounts of salvos fired.

Her total accuracy being four hits out of a total of 100 AP shells fired, 4% accuracy.

Not bad for a ship firing at a tiny Destroyer and a relatively small CVE, in a frantic scenario, in sub-optimal conditions.

For perspective, at 30000 yards, in perfect conditions for training, Iowa scored 'only' a 3% chance to hit at 30000 yards against an Iowa sized target (A target longer than Yamato herself), and 10% at 20000 yards against the same target.

As a book for reading, I'd suggest "The World Wonder'd: What Really Happened Off Samar"

Edited December 6, 2019 by ThatZenoGuy