RamscoopRaider
Donor
Which was why when I suggested this I was also planning on delaying aircraft development so that there would not be a carrier aircraft capable of carrying one (think first gen carrier planes here).You don't need an example though - AA was underestimated (partly because radar wasn't taken into account, partly because flak is not the sort of thing to stand out, and partly because of Guernica). Keep in mind that the B-17 was thought (prewar) to be an excellent anti-ship bomber, and that the standard argument was that the Bomber Will Get Through on land, and that the USN was already treating its carriers as equally important (if not yet more so) as the battleships in the 1930s.
Earlier SAMs mean improvements in engines, in missiles, in guidance systems - the same sort of things that help the attacker out. So it's no longer SAMs v. torpedo-bombers or dive-bombers (or, initially, level bombers with shit accuracy) - it's SAMs v. anti-ship missiles (admittedly first-gen stuff, but the SAMs would be first-generation, too), along with (possibly rocket-assisted) level bombers with glide-bombs.
As for anti ship missiles, most OTL are designed to hit unarmored ships, save the heavy carrier killers. Battleships will be able to survive a few provided they are not nuclear. Still these would have to hit a ship maneuvering at 25-30 knots, probably throwing out chaff to confuse RADAR. That said missile boats will still be useful but a distant destroyer screen could be of use like against torpedo boats.
Of course this will not do more than prolong the battleship even in the best of cases
In any case my example was for the early 1920's and not spending money developing better carriers or planes