The basic train of thought that made me create this thread is based around a thought I had while watching the movie Apocalypse Now.
For those who haven't seen it, it's about an Army special ops captain who is tasked with assassinating a rogue colonel who has become the leader of a violent tribe in Cambodia during the Vietnam war. (Check it out if you haven't, it's a good movie)
Anyways, the main character wears a classic Seiko diver 6105. I've read that watch choice is a true to life one and that Seiko divers were a popular choice among U.S. soldiers in Vietnam.
What's interesting to me is that, as time has moved on and on, and technology has advanced, watches such as that classic Seiko became seen as less of a tool watch and more of a relic. Nowadays, military personel generally wear a G Shock or Ironman in the field.
I've seen topics on this and different forums where a person will ask "What watch should I take on my deployment/basic training, ect." and more often than not people will post something along the lines of "You need a G shock or some other digital. An analog with get destroyed out there fast."
It's just interesting to me that as technology has advanced, the appraisal of the tool from yesterday has gone down, rather than the new tool's appraisal just being higher than the predecessor. Almost as if to say, "You need a nail gun. That hammer just will not do the job well enough."
For instance, just because this
exists, does that make this
From what I've read, a simple, stainless steel diver worked for the soldiers of Vietnam.
I know this comes across as more of a ramble than a conversation piece, but it's just something that crossed my mind haha.