As television engineering science stormed into American house during the former 1950s , more and more people commence to expect , why do n’t we apply this stuff on the field of battle ? They imagined a creation where commanders could remotely supervise the activity of troops on the dry land — maybe even from halfway around the world .
The January 1952 issue ofMechanix Illustratedmagazine featured an clause write byColonel Robert Hertzbergand instance by Frank Tinsley that envisioned just such a future . The always fantasticModern Mechanixblog has a copy of the article .
The piece was title “ Why Do n’t We Have Battlevision ? ” and presented a future tense that was for the prison term , still pretty sci - fi . “ Tomorrow ’s generals may be able to tune in on the battlefield good manners of television , relayed to headquarters by battle - going TV Seeing Eyes . ”
It seemed only natural that military - tending people of the fifties would take a looking at at this comparatively new technology and inquire why it was n’t being used more efficaciously for military purposes . If it was good enough for football , why not warfare ?
From the January 1952 egress ofMechanix Illustrated :
This is no rattling rambling of scientific discipline - fiction !
If there is another warfare , it will provide definite opportunity for the usage of mod television miracle .
TV curing owners now enjoy well views of athletic contest than do most mass right on the setting . Powerful telephoto lenses attain across act fields and give dramatic tight - ups of a smuggler dashing for the end line or of a fieldsman abduct a high fly . Wide - slant lenses diversify the view and bring forth panoramic effects of great sweep .
“ Why , ” military people inquire , “ ca n’t we do exactly the same thing on battleground that the commercial television receiver station are doing on football game fields ? Our plot is rougher and is played for keeps but that ’s just why the head train the commander of an ground forces in combat should be capable to follow the moves of the phallus of his team . If he can see what ’s pass on while it ’s run on , he wo n’t have to wait for account from his dependent commanders . Why ca n’t mobile TV vehicle be assigned to fight units just as established communicating trucks are , so that the commandant can instantly see the fighting in any particular area ? ”
In other give-and-take , why do n’t we have battlevision ?
It was all perfectly logical , even from ( and perhaps particularly from ) the layman ’s perspective . By 1952 , video was invading American homes at an incredibly rapid pace . Just 8 percent of American households had a TV in 1950 . By 1952 that routine would blossom to 32 percentage of U.S. home . In 1954 it was60 pct .
But this was far from the first time that people were wondering about potential uses for television in struggle . As early as 1924 , visionaries like Hugo Gernsback were imaginingTV - equipped drones . During World War II , the U.S. even try out ( with limited potency ) to useunmanned aircraft fitted with TV technologyfor surveillance .
https://gizmodo.com/the-tv-guided-drones-of-world-war-ii-1560130671
Below , we see Tinsley ’s illustration of what a futuristic tank might look like — complete with TV photographic camera periscope capable of 360 level rotation . It was quite the leap from the crude yet futuristicflame tanks of the 1930sto the post - WWII mellow - tech tanks of tomorrow . But it was the natural progression of American war in the popular futurist ’s imaging : the innovation of high - tech convenience to help us win on the ground .
mental image : Illustrations by Frank Tinsley appearing in the January 1952 issuing ofMechanix IllustratedviaModern Mechanix
Daily Newsletter
Get the salutary tech , science , and culture news in your inbox daily .
intelligence from the future , delivered to your present tense .
