I guess I should be glad that the two of you provide an excellent opportunity for me to talk about perspective and a comprehensive understanding of an issue. Because both 上原亜衣 and Χρήσιμος Ηλίθιος are completely lost when it comes to the actual point - the answering of the question that Kentucky James made.
上原亜衣 said:
I have no idea if there is real combat footage or not and I don't care
Then why the **** are you posting in here? Because that was the exact question.
上原亜衣 said:
but your claim that cameras were too bulky to carry onto a battlefield is completely wrong. Absolutely and phenomenally wrong.
Except it isn't. Yes, there were some portable cameras, yet they weren't in widespread use. They had plentiful technical issues - some were really expensive, others were really bad quality, most were not suited for battlefield conditions and broke down, and so on. That you Googled a few camera types that existed does not actually make an argument.
上原亜衣 said:
There were 256 Soviet cameramen in total on the frontlines during that war
And this quote is the perfect proof of that. You're claiming that 256 Soviet cameramen prove that portable cameras were commonly in use, and that proves that there are thousands of hours of recorded, authentic ground combat footage. Except it does not prove anything. Because you have no clue of the big picture. The Great Patriotic War lasted for four years and had 26.6 million lives lost. The front line was over 1,500 km long and involved several millions of troops on both sides - and you're claiming that 256 cameramen made a significant contribution? Oh, my ****ing gawd. Well then, please provide us with the hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of authentic close combat footage these 256 cameramen filmed. Because if you can't do that, you're nothing but a ****poster.
Χρήσιμος Ηλίθιος said:
Google is your friend. 100% fake cameras, I suppose.
How about you -snip- because google says:
"The large dimensions of the Moy & Bastie when mounted on its associated tripod, made it very cumbersome. Those operating the camera became easy targets for enemy snipers."
"The AFPU filmed in every British theatre of operations"
"However, the camera was not widely used and only came into service late in the war"
"However, it was also cumbersome. Both the camera and the film rolls it used were heavy and, in order to shoot steady footage, a tripod was needed"
"camera was used by Royal Navy"
and the last camera is a modern model used in Afghanistan since 2000. Jesus ****ing Christ, the standards around here have definitely dropped.
So yes, I still stand by my first post - cameras, IN GENERAL, were too cumbersome to be used in battlefield conditions. The few cameras that were portable enough, didn't really make that much of a difference in the GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS and combined with wartime censorship, we can safely conclude that any film of ground combat, bayonet charges, and other similar close combat stuff, are 100% staged.