Not a historian, but an engineer who deals in camera based stereoscopic photogrammetry systems, and hanging out in the warship subs so I can at least talk to a bit on some of the technical challenges involved. My point is: calling for a head shot to the castle/bridge of a WW1 or WWII capital ship in this case is extremely hard, at the typical distances these engagements were fought at.
Your primary challenge is determining your targets range. If you know this, you can plug that into your Mrk X analogue computer and it tells your gun crews what elevation to use and how many bags of gunpowder to use since - for example - on the Iowa class 16" guns, you could use 1-3 charges of powder.
So assuming you don't have radar (and that was a huge bonus to the Allies in WWII), you have to use a coincidence rangefinder. Now, the accuracy - depth perception - of any optical range finding device (or in my field a photogrammetry device) depends a lot on the separation of your stereoscopic views. If you have two well calibrated high fidelity high megapixel video cameras separated by a few feet, the acuity of your depth perception can be down to sub-inch, or even a few thousandths of an inch when you're "ranging" a target that is within say 10-20 feet.
In the case of a WWII optical range finder, your camera/prism separation is maybe 13 to 15'. Great... you can determine how far something is to within a dozen feet if its 2 miles away. But naval engagements start at dozens of miles. A 14" gun has an effective range of up to 7 miles or ~13k yards. A 16" gun is 22 miles. While most naval engagements don't start at those maximum distances, just speculating on the accuracy of a 15' range finder at those distances I'd say your accuracy might be +/- a few hundred feet.
(I'd love to hear from someone who can actually comment on WWII naval range finder accuracy, that would be fascinating.) So you'd fire your first volley and see where your shot landed, over or under. To help keep track in the thick of battle of whose shot is whose, different ships and sometimes even different turretts would use dye markers in their shells which would colour the splash in the case of a miss.
Ok, so now you've dialed in your range. Good. Now throw on top of that:
Now you have analogue computers that can mostly take care of all this computation but they rely on accurate inputs, which is all being provided by humans under stressful battle conditions. Oh and there's clouds and fog that the enemy keeps dodging in an out of. Captain is zigging because someone saw a torpedo trace. A near miss from one of the enemy just took out one of your range finders. And this battle is happening at a distance of 17 miles. Travel time of your shells (to see the splash and adjust) is 30 seconds, a reload takes 90. (not accurate historical numbers :)
Hitting the baddies under these circumstances is hard enough. Calling your shot for the bridge or the enemy rangefinders would be impossible. It would be like using a small catapult to sling water balloons at the neighbour kids. Who are 200 yards down the street. Who are moving around on their bicycles. And you're bouncing on a trampoline and your wife is yelling at you to stop messing around the with the neighborhood kids and take out the trash already.
edit: And just taking out the enemy bridge or range finders will not render the enemy toothless. no no... cruisers and battleships would have multiple fore and aft range finders. If the turrets are still operational and at least one range finder can bring its optics to bear on you, your day is ruined. Bridge gone? Yeah, good, but well run naval ships plan for that. The ship can be steered from an auxillary deck or even from below decks assuming someone is willing to go topside and feed direction through the coms. The radio room is below decks already so you have communication, and the lookups and signal men on the wings can still talk to other ships with semaphores... no taking out the bridge may cause a hiccup, but on a well run naval ship its not a worthwhile target. No, you want to knock out turrets or otherwise cause explosive damage or put holes in her side. A sinking ship is no longer a fighting ship.
You are lucky enough even with Radar based fire control and rather advanced early computers like the late war USN and RN to just hit a ship!
Even 'good' performance by one of these ships would be maybe a 10% hit rate with easily a smaller number of hits. At the longer ranges that the USN planned to fight at compared to other fleets it made pinpoint accuracy even more difficult, just hitting another ship sized area that was moving along with you 25k yards away was tough enough.
For an example of how few hits even good shooting could get you we can look to the Washington and the Kirishima in late 1942 off Guadalcanal. Undetected while the South Dakota took abeating the Washington opened up at just under 8k yards, and for 120 rounds or so fired off maybe got15 hits, some sources suggest as few as 9 some as high as 18. And about a dozen secondary hits, thats it. While this being a night action and the first close range gunnery duel for any USN battleship is to be noted, that also is borderline great results for the period. And doesnt give you much chance to aim for specific spots or be picky. Even in training there isnt much better results seen. In early 1945 for instance the Indiana conducted drills against a target sled at 29k yards with each turret firing 3 times for 27 rounds total at a known range and known speed. For her effort she scored just 5 hits, a 19% hit for a target about as easy as possible to hit. With ranges so great and often visibility so poor it just wasnt practical in many cases to do more than try to hit the ship itself and figure the rest out later for the big guns.
That isnt to say that didnt happen though. On numerous occasions destroyers and cruisers when up against heavier opposition would aim for the exposed bridge areas, or spotting platforms, just any super structure they could. By making a mess of them, keeping the crews heads down, and maybe lighting a few fires they could do much more damage than uselessly pinging against their armored belts. But for a big gun battleship wither fewer shells to waste and a much longer reload cycle, and generally enraging at longer ranges the options are more limited.
Above we are also talking about the BEST that naval gunnery technology got for battleships. A generation previous it was nothing but optical range finding, and the most primitive or manual computers to track ship course and speed and range to target. WW1 also began before the Royal navy at least had even fully adopted what is known as Director Control. Where a single centrally located Director with his team and aids takes the input from the main range finders, and gives the firing solutions to the turrets and adjusts as the shots fall, as opposed to the previous method of each turret doing the best it could on its own. For WW1 even 5-6% hit rates were plenty common. And training and realities of the war could impact that as well. the British battlecruisers lacked the ability to conduct full scale gunnery drills at their base in the Firth of Forth. Hence their shooting was absolutely dreadful, not much chance to even hit the enemy let alone pick a spot. This also contributed to a conscious decision by Beatty's staff to drill rate of fire over everything else figuring more shells in the air would make up for it, but that also led to ships cutting safety corners with the storage of cordite, something very ill advised on the glass jawed battlecruisers.