could someone explain to me why battleships are way inferior to air craft carriers? and what importance did it have during world war 2(pacific war, pearl harbor).
Your average Battleship in 1941- lets say the US South Dakota designed just before the war and in service just before Pearl Harbor.
They could throw 9, 16 inch shells weighing a combined 24,300 pounds, a distance of 18 nautical miles twice a minute, certainly impressive! With a top speed of 27 knots and a range at cruise of 15k nautical miles.
But then let us look at the Yorktown Class Aircraft Carrier also built in the years before the war. She could carry 90ish planes broken down into 2 dozen fighters which could escort strike groups and protect friendly ships.
20ish Torpedo bombers which could drop 2,000 pound aerial torpedoes, any one of which could sink or cripple a ship.
And 40 or so Dive Bombers which could carry a 1,000 pound bomb. So a full strike would have almost 80,000lbs of ordnance.
And could strike out to about 400 miles from the ship!
So starting at that distance a plane could launch, hit a BB cruising towards the CV at 20 knots, return to the ship, rearm, and hit the ship again before the BB even had the chance to see the CV.
So it was about utility, range of hitting power, and speed of strike. The Air Groups just had a much longer reach then the ships, and could do damage at range.
It depends what you want to do with them really.
At Taranto the British first used an all aircraft carrier attack on a heavily defended port. Battleships were incapable of closing range as they'd fall in range of the naval defence guns, and submarine nets prevented an underwater attack. Whereas torpedo planes could fly in low drop their munitions and fly out, avoiding the main defences, although they still came under heavy anti air fire. The attack was considered an overwhelming success as it neutered the Italian navy allowing the Royal Navy to continue operating in the Mediterranean.
At Pearl Harbour you see a similar situation, but you see the Japanese using vastly more carriers and thus planes and achieving far more destruction. But the US was a more capable force than Italy and rallied from the attack far better. The lack of damage to their aircraft carriers also meant US naval doctrine shifted to putting the emphasis on them.
So for precise attacks of this nature aircraft carriers range and deployable strength are great benefits.
For ship to ship battles a major problem is keeping the target in site while keeping your own vessels out of range, it really becomes a slug match once battleships engage though. The Bismark sank the Hood with a salvo from about 9 miles away, but it really was an event of terrible misfortune for the British, the round just hit the perfect spot for the most damage. If you then look at the sinking of the Bismark, the British spent over an hour firing thousands of rounds from multiple ships at her, hitting her only hundreds of times before she started to list, and even then the Germans claimed to have scuttled her. Battleships were well designed with armour to suppress the amount of damage a direct shell hit could do.
Aircraft carriers on the other hand could launch multiple munitions on target, in quick succession, from a great range, which made them far more effective. They also became the vessels that could engage a moving target quickly and could do so without endangering the fleet or losing the enemy.
Battleships are big and expensive to build, they take over a thousand men to crew, and they are fuel hungry to operate. Depending on their crews, equipment, the weather, and god given luck, they are also terribly inaccurate at times. They are also devastatingly bad to a navy if lost.
Aircraft carriers have the same problems but they function at a greater range, have more uses, and theoretically more accurate, they also have far less risk of sinking at that greater range or if they get it wrong can withdraw more easily.
At Midway you see the American and Japanese navies fighting each other at a longer range then battleships could ever manage, with the Japanese coming off worse for wear for a number or reasons.
What came out of this battle is the sheer capability of aircraft, they are small, inexpensive, easily replaceable, and they're crewed by only 1-2 men, but they can punch holes in enemy ships to great affect.
After Midway you see Battleships being used as close support for the fleet and for sustained naval bombardments in support of land operations. When it comes to close support and continued heavy fire Battleships are great, a good crew can fire the main guns continually until the stores run out.
So really it's a case of what you're doing.
Fighting ship to ship range and strength always won, it's why Battleships were king they shot longer and harder than smaller vessels, carriers merely surpassed that range and strength.
For attacking heavily defended targets aircraft are just easier to lose making them a less risky option.
For shelling the hell out of an island in the middle of the Pacific though the Battleships crews and guns rule.
It is important to think of warships less as weapons themselves, but as platforms for weapons
Prior to the aircraft carrier, battleships were the largest warships thus capable of carrying the largest guns, and correspondingly, the most armor to protect those guns. As thus, the battleship's importance was in its capabilities: the ability to strike targets near the shore - and other ships - with the most deadly guns around.
The aircraft carrier became important in WW2 because it was a platform for a new and superior weapon to the guns of a battleship: the aircraft.
The aircraft itself could carry a mix of bombs or torpedoes or even plain old guns to attack a variety of targets at sea, on land, or in air. The range of aircraft too could mean striking targets hundreds of miles inland or hundreds of miles away, far outside the range of a battleship's guns.
This is why aircraft carriers came to eclipse battleships as the primary warships of navies - they became the superior weapons platform.
Note that this is why the line between cruisers and destroyers has been blurred in recent decades with guided missile destroyers, like the Arleigh Burke-class, being the same size as a light cruiser of WW2 and carrying nearly the same load of weapons as a Ticonderoga-class cruiser. This even more true with the Zumwalt-class of destroyers. Again, it is about the weapons the warship acts as a platform for.