Have military kits become less aesthetic over time?

>>2678935
Bullpups look so fucking hideous

Also, wrong board

>>>/k/

>>2678953
it dont have to be wrong board, pic is a housecarl kit from hasting

File: article-2730922-20AFED9500000578-692_964x635.jpg (130KB, 964x635px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 964x635px

>>2678988
well fuck me sideways with a banana here is the pic

File: army-jerusalen_2994154k.jpg (164KB, 858x536px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 858x536px

>>2678990
Knight from Jerusalem

File: article-2730922-20AFEDA100000578-918_964x639.jpg (116KB, 964x639px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 964x639px

>>2678994
Archer from Agincourt

File: 1408632832096_wps_22_Use_Photographer_GS_credi.jpg (201KB, 962x642px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 962x642px

>>2678997
Yorkist man-at-arms 1485

Do you have more?

File: 1469327261699.jpg (383KB, 1563x1200px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 1563x1200px

>>2679107
the only i have left is some ilustration but i can post them too

File: 1484529954679.jpg (1MB, 1984x2628px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1984x2628px

>>2679138
ill have to sort my folder give me a few minutes

File: IMG_2780.jpg (181KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1000x667px

>>2679107
OP here, I have some more
1482

File: IMG_2781.jpg (168KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1024x682px

>>2679152
1588

>>2679152
lol man i have allredy posted that >>2679000

File: IMG_2782.jpg (81KB, 620x387px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 620x387px

>>2679155
1645

File: IMG_2783.jpg (161KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1024x682px

>>2679159
1709

File: IMG_2784.jpg (205KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1024x682px

>>2679161
1815

File: IMG_2785.jpg (143KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1024x682px

>>2679162
1854

File: 13c169180d3039d715a92b26227cf6c9d4928479.jpg (99KB, 576x760px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 576x760px

>>2679146
ok there we go some more ilustration, it may not be what you looking for but they are praetty good
Archer stuff

File: IMG_2786.jpg (211KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1024x682px

>>2679165
1916

File: 1384067164206.jpg (247KB, 750x950px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 750x950px

>>2679166

File: IMG_2787.jpg (236KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1024x682px

>>2679167
1944

File: 1485653940270.jpg (232KB, 728x1024px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 728x1024px

>>2679170

File: IMG_2788.jpg (197KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1024x682px

>>2679171
And finally 1982

My first pic was from 2014

File: 1487495628974.jpg (315KB, 776x959px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 776x959px

>>2679173
the last that showed eqipment, the rest is more arms and armour but if you want ill post that too

>>2679155
1588 is comfy as fuck

File: stone axe.jpg (13KB, 400x396px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 400x396px

12000 BC commando kit.

>>2679214
Once Nork uses this penis rock to cave your skull in he can use it to fuck your wife too!

Good thread. Bump

>>2678953
this is a historical discussion about the aesthetic progression of kits which include weaponry so it's far more appropriate here than there

>>2678935
The relalities of what is practical in the field and modern manufacturing methods have made military technology less "aesthetic" because the companies that modern militaries depend upon to build the arms their forces use don't want to waste any resources on making sure the coats represent the glorius tricolur of the republic or whatever, even in the first and second world war we can see this happening, the most notable difference in equipment were the types of arms used, in terms of armour the only real difference was the helmets, both of which were designed for different roles.
Changes in the way we conduct warfare have pushed the market into developing military outfits with camofluage and concealment as simply superior to bright reds and blues.

Military kits have become less appealing because of the spesific pressures of modern war disencentivising armour, which can and have been modified to take certain strikes better, leading to visual differences, armour from antquity has also been around longer and has cultural associations with the idea of knights and good people, meaning that we might find the cultural connotations surrounding the idea of heavy armour interesting.

File: IMG_2131.gif (50KB, 700x355px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 700x355px

/k/ommando here, first time on /his/. How y'all doing?
My answer is that aesthetic varies by the individual. I can mostly only speak for the 20th century period, but most folks on /k/ have a hard on for Vietnam or 1980s military aesthetic, or maybe transitional periods where old equipment was being phased out and new equipment introduced. Personally I'm partial to the 1970s-80s special operations aesthetic, and the early introduction of modern battle rifles (FAL, G3), where you see the Bundeswhehr holding FALs and wearing Stalhelms in 1955.

It's all personal preference largely. I think the old Lorica Segmentata armor is neat, for instance, but I also think armor as new as the Middle Ages is really cool particularly cause of my blacksmith experience, and the new information that's been discovered about the close combat techniques that were taught.

All personal preference. Though it's true we'll likely never see anything like the red Widow's Uniform or the French horse hair Cuirassier's helmets on the battlefield again, everything is more utilitarian now. Reminds me of pic related.

>>2679884
Hello, /k/.
Is it true the army still doesn't allow mustaches to leave the upper lip, even though tight gas masks are no longer an issue?
Also is it true you get disciplined for fingerless gloves or rolled up sleeves? Movie opperators always have those, plus the big facial hair. And they never have eye protection, but that one I get since the actor wants his eyes seen.

File: Marechal_Ney_à_Waterloo.jpg (3MB, 3088x2056px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3088x2056px

>>2678935
>>2678990
>>2678994
>>2678997
>>2679000
>>2679155
>>2679159
>>2679161
>>2679162
>>2679165
>>2679167
>>2679171
>>2679177
This is cool as fuck, ty for posting anon.

1815 a best

>>2679908
Hi. I'm not in the service but a buddy of mine is and I've asked him some of these things before. Yes, the mustache thing is still true. I don't know about fingerless gloves or rolling sleeves while in battle dress (fatigues), but I know there is a proper way to roll ones sleeves while in working dress. In battle dress, everyone wears eye protection, basically always. Mustaches and later beards were originally the signature of Army Special Forces, which have basically always had non standard dress regulations, but the beard in particular was because Arab Muslims don't usually take men without beards very seriously, and Army SF (Green Berets) have the role specifically of coordinating with and training indigenous forces. Other SOF adopted the beard later on.

>>2678990
Fug chainmail, that shit's so heavy. Rather wear plate all day then deal with that shit. Not even DYEL; chainmail's a legit pain.

>>2680003
Buy a gambeson you pussy. I could fight in chainmail with a brigandine over it all day.

>>2679921
we are two annon posting that, i stood for the medieval part so i cant take all the cred, but thanks

File: 1488150474043.png (587KB, 625x918px) Image search: [Google]

587KB, 625x918px

>>2680003
>Fug chainmail, that shit's so heavy. Rather wear plate all day then deal with that shit. Not even DYEL; chainmail's a legit pain.
>Not even DYEL