3 ms·
The science fiction that more correctly envisions the effects of technological development on warfare is less popular. It's particularly uncommon in TV and film
by stcredzero 7y ago
The science fiction that more correctly envisions the effects of technological development on warfare is less popular. It's particularly uncommon in TV and films
Here's the big difference between actual combat footage and movies/tv. In movies/tv you have to have the actors in well-framed shots, well-lit, recognizable, and distinguishable against the background. On actual battlefields in recent times, doing this sort of thing often gets you dead in about 3 seconds.
Contrast this with my impression of watching some actual outdoor combat helmet-cam footage: People start yelling they're taking fire, then take cover. The enemy is something like 150 yards away or more, and would only appear as a tiny figure or a speck on a TV screen, but only if you actually spotted them and you don't even get to poke your head up to look for too long, if at all. You might be able to distinguish smoke or flashes in the distance, though. A few minutes later, air support is called in, and there's an even bigger puff of smoke out there.
- philipkglass 7y agoI have watched a ridiculous number of combat footage videos from recent conflicts. I agree with your take on the helmet-cam perspective. There are times where you can clearly see everybody and they're well lit, not moving chaotically. That's when you watch a team operating anti-tank guided missiles against tanks or other targets. There's a lot of distance separating the attackers from their targets. You hear the missile launch and watch it close the distance to the target over a period of several seconds. The targets might start to scatter a couple of seconds before the missile arrives if they can hear it, or remain completely unawares until the explosion. It's very easy to see what is happening but it also looks very "unheroic."