@ bo_sox48
And I'd take a 102-year-old 1911 over a brand-new Glock. God, you really don't know anything about guns, do you?
@ Invictus
"That happened because the battleship itself is an obsolete warship"
I dispute that. They were used as recently as the First Gulf War with outstanding combat effectiveness. We can all agree that the First Gulf War falls into the category of "modern" war. If something was combat-effective in the First Gulf War, it stands to reason that it would still be combat-effective now.
"Every country besides the United States got rid of their decades before we did."
Great Britain was the only significant country whose battleships weren't at the bottom of the ocean at the conclusion of WWII. Even then, the only reason they got rid of them is because they gutted their entire military. But clearly the Brits have no problem with old hardware; they used the old Centurion tank for decades.
I reiterate that if they were so obsolete and old-fashioned, how come we used them with devastating effectiveness in the First Gulf War?
Just because IJN Yamato and Bismarck are at the bottom doesn't mean that the Iowas don't have a role. Granted, they can't really slug it out in a surface fight these days, but they're still the best in the world for sustained shore bombardment and low-intensity conflict.
It's comparable to the Air Force's continued use of the B-52. Sure, they can't penetrate Russian airspace at high altitude and rain hydrogen bombs these days, but that doesn't make them obsolete. They're useful because they're ridiculously OP for low-intensity conflicts. Hell, a group of 50 B-52Hs can dump 3.5 million pounds of ordinance in ONE mission. The Chinese might not blink at that, but the Iranians and the North Koreans sure as hell do.
)
In the Year 2525...If Man is Still Alive...If Woman Can Survive...They Will Find...?
)
)
)
)
)