“Nine days later, while sailing with Wasp, Hornet, and ten other warships, North Carolina suffered a torpedo hit on her port side just forward of her number 1 gun turret, 20 ft (6m) below her waterline making a hole 32 ft by 18 ft, and killing five seamen. Torpedoes from the same salvo from I-19 sank Wasp and the destroyer O'Brien.[16][17] Skillful damage control by North Carolina's crew and the excellence of her construction prevented disaster; a 5.6° list was righted in as many minutes, and she maintained her station in a formation at 26 kn (30 mph; 48 km/h).[18]
After temporary repairs in New Caledonia, the ship proceeded to Pearl Harbor to be dry docked for a month for repairs to her hull and to receive more antiaircraft armament.[13] Following repairs, she returned to action, screening Enterprise and Saratoga and covering supply and troop movements in the Solomons for much of the next year. She was at Pearl Harbor in March and April 1943 to receive advanced fire control and radar gear, and again in September, to prepare for the Gilbert Islands operation.[19]”
Pennsylvania was a thirty year old ship by the end of the war and the battleships were being decommissioned at a time when military thinking predicted that the atomic bomb was going to make conventional warfare obsolete.
The topic of a new breed of battleship has been discussed on this forum before. Such a vessel would probably not look much like the Iowa class. It would likely be smaller, have plenty of missile systems, with the main armament a battery of rail guns.
Despite what Wikipedia says, North Carolina was heavily damaged by just one torpedo and had to immediately head for Noumea for emergency repairs
The North Carolina class underwater protection was inadequate. The torpedo hit just under the #1 turret and almost caused a magazine explosion.
The turret was knocked out and she spent considerable time under repair.
Other Pearl Harbor battleships other than the Pennsylvania that weren’t as heavily damaged were able to avoid being expended at the Bikini test and remained mothballed well into the 1950’s.
I would agree. The future of artillery is the rail gun.
When the technology is mature it may make reactive armor obsolete.