I certainly wouldn't say they were the most powerful battleships in the world at the time of their commissioning. Instead, I would argue that while more capable than any older battleship, they were among the weaker of their contemporaries.

The North Carolinas were both commissioned in 1941; North Carolina on the 9th April, and Washington on the 15th May. This makes their contemporaries the British King George Vs, French Richelieu, Italian Littorios, and the German Bismarcks - the Japanese Yamato would not be commissioned until December 1941. The simplest way to compare battleships is to compare their speeds, armour, and firepower.

The North Carolinas had nine 16in guns, in three triple turrets. This gave them a total broadside weight of 24,300 lb, firing AP. This compares well to the European ships, which generally had smaller guns. The British KGVs had ten 14in guns (two quadruples and a double turret), giving a broadside weight of 16,000 lbs - two thirds of that of the North Carolinas. Both the Bismarcks and Richelieu had eight 15in guns. On the Bismarcks, these were in four double turrets, while on the Richelieu they were in two quadruple turrets. The Bismarck had a broadside weight of 14,000 lbs, while the Richelieu, firing a heavier shell, had a broadside of 16,000 lbs. The Italians also used 15in guns, but had nine in three triple turrets, giving a broadside of 17,500 lbs. It should be clear that the larger American guns, firing heavy shells, gave heavier broadsides. The American shells had better armour penetration at long range than most European shells - the heavy shells were more likely to penetrate the deck of an opponent. However, at typical battle ranges, some European guns could do better. At 20,000 yards, the 16in on the North Carolinas could penetrate 17.6in of armour; at the same range, the Littorio's 15in could pierce 20.06in, while the French gun could penetrate 15.5in at 24,000 yards.

While the North Carolinas were well armed, they were underarmoured compared to their contemporaries. They had a 12in belt, and a deck thickness of 4.1in at most. This was thinner than on any other battleship launched at a similar time. The least armoured of these was the Bismarck, with a 12.5in belt and 4.7in deck. The Richelieu had a 13.5in belt, but her deck armour was thicker than any other European battleship, at 6.8in at its thickest point. The Littorios had a 13.8in belt, and a deck that varied between 4-6in. The KGVs were the most heavily armoured, with a 15in belt and 6in deck. American armour steel was also relatively unimpressive in the thicknesses used for battleship armour, thanks to an overly thick face-hardened layer. Similarly, the North Carolinas were slow, with a top speed of 27 knots. The European ships were faster, ranging from the KGV's 28.5 knots to the Richelieu's 31.5 knots.

There are, of course, other criteria for judging battleships. The secondary armament on the North Carolinas, twenty 5in guns, compares well to those on the European ships, especially since the 5in/38 used was an excellent dual purpose gun. Most European ships had a two-part secondary battery, with one set of guns (5.9-6.1in) for engaging surface targets, and another smaller set for anti-aircraft work. This reduced the efficiency of the battery, and wasted weight and space. The British were the only others to use a DP secondary battery, using sixteen 5.25in guns. These were reasonably effective guns, but were less effective than the 5in/38. The North Carolinas had a good fire-control system, but the same was true of their European counterparts. Other operational factors, like range, are harder to compare, as these are influenced highly by strategic situations.