Isn't what he described pretty much the conceived role for a battlecruiser?
No. In Britain battlecruisers were developed as scouts capable for the fleet. That means they had to be able to be able to cruise at high speeds even in bad weather, hence their size. They were fitted with heavy guns so they'd be able to outshoot the opposing fleet's scouting force. They were never intended to be part of the line of battle.
In the US they were supposed to do much the same. However, once battle was joined they would form their own line and try to intersect the enemy battle line in order to disrupt it. (At least that's how I understand it)
And that's also why the Alaska wasn't a Battle Cruiser in USN terms but a Large Cruiser, were as in any other fleet she would have been considered a battle cruiser.
Anyway, the problem with stalking Battleships is that they're all but impossible to sink with one salvo (Magazine hits notwithstanding)
Even if Raxars ship was fast enough to outrun a battleship it won't be able to reliably kill one before the battleship can fire back, and since he can't shoot further he won't really be able to do much.
No, if you want to stalk a battleship there's really only one possibility and that's a submarine.
A full spread of torpedoes will incapacitate, if not outright sink, any battleship, and unlike Raxars ship a battleship doesn't really have any means to counter it with.
_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error
Worklist
Source Materiel is always welcome.