>>Comparing the Yamato to the Iowas is a BAD way to try and make your point.
No, it isn't.
The point is that these ships were quite vulnerable to 40s-era aviation technology. I grant all your points; minor quibbles over relative technical minutia don't change the vulnerability of tube-based naval firepower, compared to the standoff capability of a carrier.
If you want to spend a carrier's worth of cash, spend it on a carrier, not a romantic hull from a bygone age.
No, I think you're wrong. If you put an Iowa up against the Yamato, the Iowa would have come off the champ. The Yamato was poorly constructed, it was slow, it had difficulties in seakeeping and was not an efficient use of resources. It was, in effect, merely a barge made to drag along big guns which never did any serious harm to anyone. It was a testament to Japanese pride and not so much a viable weapon of war.
That guy's contention was that because the biggest battleship in the world was vulnerable, all of them were. And perhaps they were, but to varying degrees. That vulnerability was subject to many different variables such as the proficiency of damage control parties, damage control equipment, spacing of machinery, armor belt, quality of steel, reserve bouyancy, etc.
The Yamato was not so much a batllehsip as a monument and that's why it was a non-factor in the war.