Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-17-2012, 04:01 PM
 
Location: Sinking in the Great Salt Lake
13,139 posts, read 22,742,546 times
Reputation: 14116

Advertisements

This is completely arbitrary, mostly random and even a bit fruity but has anyone given any thought to the aesthetics of weapons?

For example, to me WW2 German warships are truly beautiful despite everything else they represent. From Battleships to U-Boats, they have a certain sleek and balanced aesthetic to them that makes them attractive to look at.

American warships from WW2 on the other hand are all business with little thought to aesthetics and Japanese Warships look overwhelming and brutal to me.

When it comes to WW2 aircraft the opposite is true to me; American planes seem like sleek works of art while German planes are ugly and severe and Japanese planes have a little bit of both going on.

The observation can go for virtually any military object from canteens to small arms to uniforms to vehicles and warships. Every country and time has it's own aesthetic.

I like to build models (especially of WW2 subjects) so I spend a lot of time thinking about the looks of various weapons, wondering why they look the way they do. As symbols of a nation's prowess in battle, weapons are rarely just purely practical tools. I guess it's a carryover from earier times when war was just as much about show and pomp as it was about actual fighting.

What weapons of war do you find "beautiful", if any?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-17-2012, 04:53 PM
 
Location: The Woods
18,337 posts, read 26,404,089 times
Reputation: 11335
Going back a ways, the longrifles of the American Revolution were rather beautiful. Some of them were rather fancy for something dragged through the mud and the woods, whether in battle with the British or the Native Americans, or while hunting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2012, 05:03 PM
 
18,881 posts, read 27,342,285 times
Reputation: 20220
I see the point. I am big fan of BIG machines. Always admired them. Same goes for large military machinery. Tanks. Anything that is brutally powerful.
So, to me, Yamato is hell of beautiful vessel.
But then, truly, looks are very much so determined by functionality, protection, and application. You can't make a square sea cruiser and expect it to do 30 knots. Or have shells ricochet from a vertical wall. Inevitably, it draws to specific designs that are guided by laws of physics, and everything that follows the laws, has tendency to be beautiful.
Sancta simplicitas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2012, 05:09 PM
 
Location: Texas
5,717 posts, read 18,824,280 times
Reputation: 11223
I always thought the Tennessee Class battleships were the best looking in the water. There were only 2 as I recall ever made- the California and the Tennessee. Obviously outdated by the end of WWII but beautiful ships.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 10:04 AM
 
14,780 posts, read 43,547,485 times
Reputation: 14621
I agree that certain ships, weapons, etc. have beautiful aesthetics to them. It's hard to fault the aesthetics of most battleships, especially the German ones in WW2. On the other hand, while I admire carriers, I find their aesthetic to be lacking and totally "form follows function". Everytime I see a Navy commercial with a carrier steaming by, I can't help but think the marketing boys really wished there was still at least one battleship to use, lol. WW2 American aircraft, which were already mentioned, also have a beautiful aesthetic. P51's are works of art that look like they are going 400mph just sitting still.

I've always had an interest in tanks from WW2 and aesthetics are present there, but a little harder to find. Tanks like the German Panther and Tiger I are rather aesthetically pleasing. The German Pz III and IV are also good looking in certain derivatives. The British Comet, Firefly and even Crusader are "good looking" tanks as well. The US M18 Hellcat is another good looking tank.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 10:38 AM
 
Location: SW OK (AZ Native)
24,209 posts, read 13,065,931 times
Reputation: 10558
War is an ugly thing, and it seems incongruous to write of war machines as beautiful, yet there are a number of weapons that are just that. In many cases, form follows function, and high-speed aircraft have clean lines and flowing curves that are driven by "the need for speed". Examples include B-1 and F-111 aircraft, look like they're going supersonic just sitting on the ramp. However, my personal favorite is an aircraft that was a handful to fly, but looks like it's going Mach 2 no matter what it's doing, the Convair B-58 depicted below.

On the flip side, I flew A-10s for three years in the 1980s and it's always been considered an ugly aircraft. I don't think so myself, and most ground troops don't either.


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 10:57 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,014,227 times
Reputation: 21237
I understand the idea here. I got interested in WW I aviation when I was a kid and x percentage of that impulse was finding the aircraft really cool looking. I bought and built all of the Aurora and Revel models that were available, and did it in the order of how fascinating I thought the various planes looked. It was far from the war's best fighter, but I was really taken with the sleek design of the French Nieuport 28.


And I absolutely loved the primitive, open aired look of the war's first dedicated fighter, the Fokker Eindekker 1.


On the other hand I thought the German Pfalz was clunky looking and I hated how narrow the pilot's view was because the top wing was so low.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 01:52 PM
 
Location: SW OK (AZ Native)
24,209 posts, read 13,065,931 times
Reputation: 10558
While not a weapon itself, sometimes the effects of a weapon can be equally intriguing, almost artistic. The following link is to the Rapatronic photography of early nuclear weapons tests; especially interesting is the "rope trick" where the guy wires to some towers caused weird effects from the nuclear fireball.

Rapatronic 2 - from Herb Yeates
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 01:52 PM
 
18,881 posts, read 27,342,285 times
Reputation: 20220
Personally, I always enjoyed look of IS-3. Turret is very slick, and entire tank has very little "junk" on it, is licked out.

Soviet heavy tank Josif Stalin IS-3 - YouTube
That was the last in series, and thereafter, T-54, 55, 56 etc, just look like big blobs.
I guess, nothing is more utilitarian than USS Monitor. Once again, sancta simplicitas.
And in the sky birds realm, SR-71 Blackbird is beautiful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 04:48 PM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,606 posts, read 55,868,160 times
Reputation: 11862


Would it be wrong to find this image aesthetically pleasing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:31 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top