>all modern military equipment looks shit compared to WW2
>even airplanes which were still cool in the early 80s are now looking fugly (F35, Berkut)
>no more battleships
>aircraft carriers are more and more blocky
>firearms are not made of wood any more, and they have fucking handles
>uniforms are either kaki or bland, even generals have to wear fucking ties
Will it ever stop?
>>30000410
Not until you kill yourself.
Do it faggot.
>>30000410
Top one looks fucking ugly to shit.
Bottom is rad as fuck. Shut your mouth
Bottom ship looks badass, if you compared infantry uniforms you might've had a point, but then again only the US Army has terrible uniforms.
>>30000410
The bottom one is literally commanded by Captain James Kirk. OP is a fag.
>>30000410
>Berkut
>Ugly
Holy fuck kill your self my man.
Old stuff does look nice, but I love me some future alien star brigade shit.
>>30000410
Guided missiles happened.
Battleships were obsolete in WW2.
Aircraft carriers had too little decks space for even ww2 era planes. The diagonal design allows aircraft to be launched and landed simultaneously while being able to use a traditional hull design.
Wood is heavy, significantly harder to manufacture, and less durable than modern composites, plastics, and metals.
Not sure what your complaint is about the uniforms. Dress or battle fatigues?
>>30000589
Summer /k/ is real.
>have jagged edges and shit that reflect radar
>webm related happens
I miss Viking longships more than dreadnoughts honestly.
>>30000410
Its called technology anon
>>30000410
I wonder if in the early 1900s there were wrong generation fags who thought those unsightly 'dreadnoughts' looked like shit compared to wooden ships of the line.
>>30000410
I'm willing to bet that a fully loaded and decked out Zumwalt (with its railguns) can solo quite a bit of the Pacific fleet from WW2. The relatively primitive radar back then would have a very hard time picking it up, combined with advanced fire control for the guns and over-the-horizon missiles, running out of ammunition would be more of a problem than incoming fire. The only thing I can think of that would defeat it would be if several carriers spammed planes at it, though how they find it would be pure luck.
>>30000745
Probably. There's a bit of a rivalry between people who own sailboats and people who own motorboats even today.
>>30000745
That kind of rivalry was also between tanks vs cavalry
>>30000914
I'm sure Patton whipping Rommel's ass only prolonged the rivalry, since Patton was trained as a cavalry officer.
>>30000797
Is the Zumwalt actually going to be equipped with railguns? And once it attacks, everyone will have a rough idea of where it is, stealth or not. And ammunition is definitely going to be an issue. It's got 80 launch cells, each capable of holding 1 ASM or 4 SAMs. So in practice it's only going to be able to take out a few ships and a couple hundred aircraft before being out of ammunition. And once they realize how powerful it's anti-air defenses are, they might start using radio-controlled decoys (which were entirely possible with WWII tech). Eventually it is going to run out of ammunition though.
>implying that Dreadnoughts were ever as beautiful as this.
>>30001266
It only needs a sailor running back and forth across the bridge with a big red searchlight to become a cylon.
>>30001228
>It's only going to be able to take out a few ships and a couple hundred aircraft
>only
>couple hundred aircraft
I think /k/ sometimes forgets what the real world is
>>30000914
>>30000958
>implying tanks aren't cavalry
Modern-day cataphracts they are
>>30000410
next
>>30001266
go be a faggot somewhere else
>>30000709
what the fuck is happening in that webm?
>>30001414
AShM test
>>30001414
This is what happens when the other ship gets radar lock before you do.
>>30001280
Seriously though.
OP here, I didn't think so much of you would spit on me for saying that I find military equipment rather dull compared to WW2
I know modern equipment is more efficient, but it still looks like shit, compared to majestic machines of the past
And that's not just, like, my opinion, visually speaking modern military is all smoothy and not at all fearsome as it used to be
>>30001524
Listerine pls go
>>30001266
Why is going backwards?
And this is a pre-Dreadnought warship. Your point, OP? Form follow function, and function is dictated by the requirements of the time. Aesthetics have little to do with it.
>>30000708
yeah you should take your summer with you and get out
>>30001278
underrated post
>>30000410
will your autism ever stop?
>>30001524
But that is exactly it: your opinion. Visual appeal is subjective.
What's the point of stealth destroyers when SSGNs carry as many missiles and are completely invisible to radar?
Threads like this make it way easier for me to make peopke think i was a marine i just memorize shit like this and say it fast and bam im a staff sgt
>>30002922
Railguns, high speed strike weapon, MQ-8...
>>30001363
As we're finding out, less gribbles and nurnies.
Tough, SW had FTL sensors and the like, which somehow, effectively put them back to WWII
>>30000410
radars happened. back in the day the appearance of stuff werent as important as it is now.
you have to have all these edges and flat surfaces.
additionally modern shit are made much more effeciant, with more standarised parts and faster assembly and production, compared to old shit, where most things were made by hand by craftsmen.
but its mostly muh nostalgia. I bet people in the 30s thought the spitfire was ugly as shit compared to the glorious sophwith.
and in 50 years people are gonna look at the zumwalt as the sexiest ship
>>30000638
You can say that again.
Getting rid of M81 woodland camo was the biggest mistake we've made as a nation.
>>30003240
Does anyone still make woodland camo BDUs for the civilian market? It would be fucking perfect for this place I'm moving with woods nearby.
>>30001414
that's what happens why you shoot a unarmored fiberglass cruise ship with an ashm. Vatniks think this is representative of armored ships with reinforced bulkheads. they never really got past tsushima in terms of naval understanding or compitence tbqh
>>30002704
Because it ain't care a shit about physics.
>>30002704
sea trials
>>30003431
Propper still makes them.
>>30003524
>unarmored fiberglass
>armored ships with reinforced bulkheads
This is some incredible nonsense being spewed by the BDF
>>30001524
> rather dull
Okay, yeah, I can understand that. "Rather dull" is kind of the point, after all...
> looks like shit
Now you're just being a dick.
> visually speaking modern military is all smoothy and not at all fearsome as it used to be
Visually speaking, you're an idiot, anon. All that smoothyness speaks of a nature far more fearsome than any clusterfuck of aerials and guy wires.
You want a ship that's ten times more fearsome than a WWII battleship? That's what ten times more fearsome looks like. Figure it out, anon.
>>30002922
SSGNs are way more expensive to operate. Way, waaay more expensive.
>>30000410
Fuck off John
>>30001266
n e a t
>>30000709
Jesus Christ is that a Cruise Ship??
>>30003524
>Passenger cruise ship
>fiberglass
This is some next level retardation right here.
OP is a fag but that goes without saying.
The Zum is in that special place where it's both futuristic and retro, with that tumblehome hull.
>>30000410
never thought id see a post on 4chins by the guy that made this stupid piece of shit https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=604163285&searchtext=
>>30001278
I would pay good money for this to happen
>>30003087
FTL sensors don't work via EM so light bouncing stealth doesn't work. Larger ships do have cloaking devices, and in the absence of contradictory canon I'm going to say they work pretty much like Trek ones.
>>30002737
Oh god thats adorable. Look how cute the forward turret is.
But really, don't worry about how a warship looks, just at how it works.
