Replies

The cost of sinking an Iowa class BB is rather higher than the cost of sinking a light cruiser.

The benefit of dropping 16" shells on target is rather higher than the benefit of dropping 6" shells on target.

Now it may well be that dropping 16" shells on targets up to 20mi inland isn't something the USN needs to be able to do anymore. It may also be that the USN doesn't need heavily armoured big gun ships anymore. The point you miss is that USS Phoenix/General Belgrano was NOT capable of hitting targets with 16" shells, and she was NOT heavily armoured. "One torpedo sank the Belgrano" tells us precisely nothing about the vulnerability or the offensive utility of an actual battleship.

If you're worried about "too many souls in one hull", worry about CVNs, LHAs and LHDs. They carry larger crews and less armour.

If you look at my post as a whole rather than just a bunch of disparate sentences then the point is there. The benefit of lobbing 6" shells was not worth the risk of the loss of the large crew of the Belgano to a modern torpedo.....just as the risk of the loss of the larger crew of an Iowa class battleship is not worth the 16" firepower. In other words, its not worth putting that many souls in one hull when you could put them in a greater number of cheaper hulls that can put out the same firepower and thus spread the risk around.

As for a CVN, the firepower, range, and flexibility of that class of vessel add additional factors to the benefit side of the equation that a WWII era battleship does not possess. You also cannot spread a flight deck over many smaller vessels, so that option is out of the equation whereas it is not when considering guns and battleships which you CAN spread around easily. Its not the same calculation as to whether you need a large vessel or can perform the same task with several smaller ones. My point is the same.

just as the risk of the loss of the larger crew of an Iowa class battleship is not worth the 16" firepower.

Now that's the point in contention, isn't it? You've just assumed an answer (in the negative). If there really is a benefit to hitting targets with 16" artillery, you need BBs to do it. You can no more spread the big guns out among smaller ships than you can spread the big flight deck out among smaller ships.

"In other words, its not worth putting that many souls in one hull when you could put them in a greater number of cheaper hulls that can put out the same firepower and thus spread the risk around.

Replace "when" in that sentence with "if" ... and I (partly) agree with you. But multiple small caliber shells do not necessarily add up to one large caliber shell. And (again) the vulnerability of light cruisers doesn't tell us much about the vulnerability of capital ships.