[ArrogantBustard]

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.

[Arkinsaw]

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.

Adding in the limited range and the capability of aircraft and missiles as well as the capability of smaller guns, the efficacy of the 16" is in a rather narrow range. The jobs that only it can do are rather limited. It can do those things exceedingly well, but they are limited in scope. I haven't seen the case made where that capability outweighs the other side of the equation and until I do I have to answer the question with a negative.

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.

The smaller vessels, and smaller guns, can accomplish some of the tasks that the 16" can. Not all, but some. Air power can accomplish some of the tasks that the 16" can. Not all, but some. Missiles can do the same. Not all, but some. The question is, do the narrow range of requirements left justify the cost, and risk, of the battleship. You are limiting the comparison to one between smaller guns and bigger guns but that is not the choice.

In the matter of vulnerability, there is a big difference between the vulnerability of an Iowa within a US battlegroup and a Belgrano out by itself. But, if a shot does get through, then an Iowa would be quite vulnerable to modern weapons. In the sense of losing a large crew, the Iowa would be harder to swallow than the Belgrano. In addition, there is an element of national and state pride invested in those ships that add to the cost of a potential loss (similar to the Belgrano). The two have their differences, but the impact of their loss on the owning country have similarities as a cost.