Comments by "bob barclay" (@bobbarclay316) on "Drachinifel" channel.

Its a common misperception that battleships were intended to fight other ships. No, they are mobile artillery platforms designed to support landings and attack shore facilities. They did of necessity fight each other, but all navies preferred to use torpedoes launched from beyond gun range to defend against battleships.
2
@bkjeong4302 Wrong. There is no reason to build a huge platform to fight other huge platforms. Thinking battleship were intended to fight other battleships was a mistake that many navies made. Its a mistake that caused them to put vast amounts of national capital into weapons systems that didn't pay for themselves before being sunk. Think of where they were actually useful. IJN battleships at Surigao Strait were destined as shore batteries, for use in Leyte. Effectively engaged by destroyers and pt boats FIRST. At San Bernadino Musashi intended as shore batteries. Or USS TEXAS at Normandy, or Yamato on its way to becoming a shore battery at Okinawa. Read 18th century sailing; Nelson at Egypt and Trafalgar used his ships against enemy battleships which were intended as shore batteries. Battleships did fight other battleships "of necessity" not necessarily of choice. But ever since First Rates had big guns, their most effective use was as mobile artillery platforms. For the ships raised at Pearl Harbor, they fired the vast majority of their rounds at shore installations.
1
US Navy treated Truk the way two 5 year old boys treat an anthill.
1