Interwar advocates argued that Britain should build monitors because they were better than battleships. The comparison confuses a specialist with a fleet capital ship. Monitors could bring heavy guns close to shore for amphibious operations and army support in both world wars. Giving one more speed demanded extra power and a longer hull, and the added length then invited more guns and wider arcs of fire. Repeating those changes eventually produced the size, cost, and complexity of a battleship. The monitor remained useful because it concentrated on coastal fire support.
Notable Point · 33:33-35:34
Why monitors did not replace battleships
A monitor excels at close coastal fire support, but adding the speed, hull length, and gun arcs needed for fleet combat gradually recreates a battleship.