>ITT: past predictions on the future of war
ITT: past predictions on the future of war
Other urls found in this thread:
well they got this one mostly right
Why don't we tho. I'd sign up the second they announce this.
>why yes, giving seawater direct access to the boilers in the event of a torpedo strike is a good idea
Based and kamikaze-pilled
#5 should've been, and is "Excellent natural night vision".
AFAIK, horses have no problem moving around even on the darkest nights. Note their BIG black eyes.
what they need is one hand on joy-stick and a ball mounted battle-rifle or LMG, or at least a submachine gun with big drum
not an issue, just a couple layers of one-way flappers.
What might be needed is emergency vents, and scheme to seal off rooms, in case exhaust gets holed and leaks into ship.
daily reminder these are the
>muh HAARP
>muh rods of gods
poster of the 40s
Based as fuck
thats silly by 1940s standards. they stopped putting a main armament turret midship decades earlier because they knew it was dumb.
This looks fairly on the mark for missile cruisers
the funniest part is that they thought battleships would be relevant ever again after the pacific war
Now this is some creative thinking
That's from 1940, pre war. But you're right battleship proponents lived on, hell I'm sure they are still around with their arsenal ships
>Throwing a grenade boys!
>Instantly lifts arm up to throw
>Get your hand chopped off.
Doggy style atomic warfare
>let's give our enemy machine guns
Lol
>reaching bottom, it detonates a self-destruction charge
.. but if it falls over, it doesn't go boom.
...
battleships are just waiting for the magic rock to make a comeback
>exhaust funnel acts as a torpedo bulge
How would this have worked? if it got hit the explosion and concussion of the blast would still open the blister and sea water would flow in. Now you have sea water rushing into your engines killing your propulsion.
Am I missing something?
or a flamethrower
There's literally nothing wrong with this design other than that the US Navy already has more VLS cells than missiles
If America needed am arsenal ship in a hurry this is basically what it would look like, they even made a reasonable engine choice
>right idea
>wrong country
Those are fucking Elysians Drop Troops
I mean, it technically wasn't wrong...
Was this from the 90s? How long did Popular Mechanics hold onto its trademark 50s Raygun-Gothic attitude?
>launching a tactical nuke
>doggy style
Imagine getting the timing just right
>knights
>late 1940's / 1950's military hardware tech
>fantasy realm Game Of Thrones like battle shit
I would unironically be excited to see this, until HBO unavoidably SJWs up the writing and fucks it up
>Was this from the 90s?
It literally says July 1988 on the bottom of the page.
Air cav wat?
Convince me right now why carrier groups shouldn't have a destroyer-sized arsenal ship packed purely with SM-3 and ESSM for massive point defense fire
based and heinleinpilled
Three of them.
You is small time. future am belong to metabolist architecture and it's great arcology walkers.
Who let the Jap in here?
no, the funniest part is that people thought america would ever be in a position to fight, when in reality they just gave up when a rising power challenged them.
I'm pretty sure the future of warfare is just what we have now plus more "creative" uses for nukes
that one will happen though, if it haven't already
>taking three days to ship an invasion force to the moon and three days to send it back to earth
>not to mention all the cost associated with housing this force on the moon or assembling the lunar base to begin with
>not just shooting it in 30 minutes from any point on earth to any other point on earth
for what purpose
not a invasion base, but as a missile silo
but what is the point of putting it on the moon instead of the earth? the moon is really far away. you can already hit anything on earth with a missile fired from earth.
and that's exactly why, most nuclear weapons and missiles are all aimed to take down one another today, having a base in the moon literally grants a unreachable position for strike
hmmm
that's an interesting point that I had not considered
this looks fucking awesome and practical
I like it how those are T-70 tanks.
That's the arsenal ship concept. They dropped it after they figured the cost of the ordnance on it would be more expensive than the goddam ship IIRC. Also the Cold War was over.
steampunk as fuck
It takes three days for a ship to go from the Earth to the Moon or back. A rocket will be faster, but you're still giving tens of hours of launch alert from a position visible to everyone. By the time your moon nukes land, MAD has already happened.
>you see comrade if you put nuclear plant in tenk enemy will be to afraid to shoot
Perfect, because then the surviors will be crawling out of their holes when the second wave of nukes hit, all the better to wipe humanity out with
complexity, that many launchers packed like sardines would be a bitch to maintain in situ. and probably impossible to reload and service at sea.
>join the army, they said
>british
The moon is very important, from a military standpoint. If you were to drop a rock onto the earth from the moon, you would do incredible damage.
at this point in a nuclear exchange both have already unleashed and received the first waves, the whole detection system will be gone by the first nukes, this will reach with no one capable of detecting it, sateletis can be taken down in the first hours, moon missiles won't even be seen after the first wave destroys detection systems
It might make a return as one of the Ticonderoga class replacement designs.
>A fucking ramp
Why have jetpack+parachute when you could have jetpack only?
forgot how much i used to love this stuff. authentic americana, reminds me of being 10 years old again, reading ancient magazines on the couch at my grandparents'
t. Mike
>YFW this was what some admiral said when pitched this idea
I'm surprised they don't highlight the 9 reverse gears
I like how they're bombing africa
some weird soviet ones