it's pretty efficient if you think about it, parking one of those off shore to hurl shells that cost a fraction of what a missile does seems to make sense (of course keeping one of those at sea costs an ungodly amount of money)
For a minute I was thinking about the efficiency of parking in downtown DC if the ship fired your car downtown from 20 miles away. Tough to stick the landing but beats the damned gridlock.
And to be on point, I know with computer assisted aiming, they were actually pretty ridiculously accurate. But a C130 Gunship provided far more precise targeting at a much cheaper cost to operate and a much smaller cost to pride/morale/national sense of whatever if it was taken down. Given the engagements they had, losing a battleship at any time after 1945 would have been seen as an unbelievable and completely unnecessary cost in human life and specie.
The big boat appeals to the same mindset that loved guys on horses charging in. The Light Brigade should have made it clear to every military commander with a pulse that when you send horses against grapeshot, you get strawberry jam. But the cavalry held on. Eventually, just having armored cav as an option was enough to let some commanders think 'Hey, these things would be great in the jungle.' They saw when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. The problem with the military is when you spend decades training to use equipment and you fight mock scenario after mock battle with air burst M80's to mark casualties, there comes a point where you -really- want to see what the sweet new hammer you got from the tool store can really do.
