im going to see it if i have to go alone
It’s definitely not a chick flick, solo may be your best bet.
Another American wwII EGO movie.
Really? One Sherman tank took out a tiger? America wins, germans look like fools. Spoken to many europeans, are sick of it really, so am I.
Next, in 50 years time they will say it took 5 tigers too take out a Sherman tank: thats how the Americans role.
I used to post here under vonss but i can no longer remember my password and my old email address is gone.
When the one (remaining) Sherman Easy 8 which had the much higher velocity 76.2 mm gun engages a Tiger I as portrayed in the movie, it can knock the Tiger out, that’s a simple truth. As is the fact that the Allies did win. (just to refresh your memory) Agreeing that it’s not by any means a perfect documentary of the times, and actions depicted, it is still well worth the time to see.
Should you wish to communicate your critique to the Film’s Production Company, please utilize the following Link. INFO@QEDINTL.COM
When three out of four shermans are knocked out immedaility, and one sherman survives the whole battle against a tiger and a whole SS unit, its pure hollywood american EGO fantacy!
No sittin’ on the fence now, how do you really feel? As to Third Reich military looking like fools, from the movies I have seen concerning them, Fool could be considered kind of a warm, and fuzzy description compared with those of most all Topical movies not produced by the Reich itself. Just curious, what are they getting for a ticket these days in Oz ? Here in the Tennessee Mountains, it’s 8 usd.
It happened several times, most notably with Firefly Shermans mounting 17-pdr’s. They sent good old Wittman to Valhalla…
And the truth is the actual kill ratio of Allied tanks to German panzers was about 2:1 in Normandy, not 5:1. There weren’t enough Shermans to fill that sort of mythical ratio and many tanks on both sides were lost to much lesser sexy means such as antitank mines, infantry with antitank weapons, antitank guns, etc. I wonder if you have problem with the American, Hollywood myth that it took aircraft to knock out Tigers, as in the end of Saving Private Ryan? In fact, only 6% of German tanks were knocked out by Western Allied air power…
The thing I found difficult to believe in the Tiger Vs. Fury scene, was that a second shot was needed to finish the Tiger, and that it had to be from the back. According to a work by R.P. Hunnicutt 1978, the 76.2 mm gun of the Easy 8 could at 500 yards penetrate 146mm of armor, and at 1,000 yards 127 mm (30 degrees off vertical) At the distance indicated in the dueling scene, 10-15 yards maybe? the Fury could have engaged from any side successfully. One further thought, the way the story played out, it bore a passing resemblance to the western film Magnificent 7 .
Wittmann destroyed so much before the brits got lucky… Very lucky!
No, why would I have a problem with that? That actually happened in WWII ie… Tigers being knocked out by air support.
Nearly all american wwii movies is not based on facts but for american egos! Fury is no exception!
Please guide me to the thread of “What army/ soldiers were best in WWII”…I know this forum has one, all wwii forums have this thread. The search isn’t finding certain thread?
American wishful thinking.
Only air-strikes could take out the tigers…Unless an allied tank got very lucky!
That is your opinion,(to which you are certainly entitled) and as Nick said, History does not share it. Though it doubtless does not please your misplaced awe of the Reich to point this out, the easy 8’s main gun had enough power to hole a Tiger with one hit, particularly from the flank, and especially from the back. At the initial engagement distance of 800 yds, a hit penetrating the frontal armor would not have been impossible, just not as likely. From the side, one hit would have ended the game for the Tiger, efficient, but not very spectacular. As far as watching a movie wherein the Germans do not lose, it’ll have to be a movie about a war which they did not start, or participate in. I would recommend “Iron Sky” but it seems that they lose in that one as well. (but it’s funny in spots, so you might like it anyway).
I know that this topic hasn’t been used in a while, but…
Actually much more interesting than Fury, and just a tad more accurate, and believable. And as always, the Germans lose. :mrgreen: Very enjoyable Churchill…
That guy’s videos are pretty good, a nice mix of stop motion and real-time video.
Old and banned but don’t you just love these wehberoo’s
Who needs the 76mm -
The first Tigers to be knocked out by the Western allies were with humble 6 pdrs - penetrations starting at 800yds to turret in Tunisia Jan 1943, later others fell to Churchills with 6 pdrs of 48 RTR and NiH with more knocked out by med and heavy artillery (In Tunisia). The 6 pdrs only had the standard APCBC as well, 48 RTR went on to knock out the first Panthers by the Western allies in May 1944 in Italy - still with those same 6pdr gunned Churchies and no fancy APDS.
Right, what Leccy said. I would add that after extensive study only about I think 6% of German armor knocked out could be attributed to air attack. It’s just simply not easy to rocket a tank flying several hundred knots per hour despite enthusiastic pilot claims to the contrary. What should have been shown in Fury is the Shermans firing white phosphorous rounds blinding the Tiger before a grand flanking…
Finally caught up with “Fury” on video a week ago. Interesting experience. I intend to watch it again soon. This movie is quite the “Curate’s Egg” - good in parts. The scenario is a very familiar one - rookie joins hard-boiled crew, who eventually accept him. This scenario has featured in many war-type movies in the past. However, in my humble opinion, this was a superior version, connected with the great effort made by the producers at achieving a certain level of authenticity. This ran from the much-commented on good standard of accuracy in relation to equipment, vehicles, uniforms, weapons and so on to their effort to present the gritty, dirty, disgusting reality of the war for those fighting it. The amount of attention played to internal scenes in the lead tank is very unusual, and to a great extent revealing - although, nonetheless, it appeared slightly sanitized. As regards the acting - very good in my humble opinion, bearing in mind the obvious intention of showing soldiers who had spent a substantial period being battered, brutalized and reduced as broadly-focused human beings, relying for support on their small band of comrades. Brad Pitt’s performance was particularly strong in this respect; this is one of his best performances for me.
Now for the weaknesses. I mentioned “scenario” earlier, because this movie has no coherent plot. It is hard to say at any given time what the crew are doing, beyond the fact that they are fighting. I have to say that I am not wholly sure that this is really a “weakness”. The lack of any broad picture to place their activities in context seems to have been very common for soldiers at this level in WW2. Was presenting this also an intentional aim of the producers ? I would need to think about this further.
One very definite problem is the final section of the movie. Here, something resembling a plot kicks in from nowhere - not a good start. Worse, the whole situation presented is profoundly improbable - single tank sent off to protect non-combatant troops (who never appear) from nasty “elite” Waffen-SS unit threatening them. Where can I start ? So many improbabilities. The final battle is, in the manner of such things, entertaining, but is in itself riddled with improbabilities. One thing I would say - the matter of the crew’s decision to hold on in their disabled tank is not wholly ridiculous. There are plenty examples of tank crew who held on in highly dangerous situations where they perceived that the situation required it. The problem here is that, within the ludicrous plot line guiding this part of the movie, this decision itself seems at least odd. But again, perhaps I misunderstand. The producers may have intended to present, not a rational decision to stand for a particular, rational reason, but rather a “last stand” scenario by soldiers so … condensed by their experience of war that their only way our was collective self-immolation, even if this did not really make much sense at a time at which the war was about to end. Need to think further about this, also. Whatever is the case, it does not really excuse the generally ridiculous scenario/plot carrying this part of the movie.
This no “Longest Day”, no “Cross of Iron”, no “Saving Private Ryan”, at least in dramatic terms. However, it is still a very interesting movie on a number of levels. It is quite possible to argue that from a psychological viewpoint, it is at least as interesting, and more realistic, than “Private Ryan” which leaves itself open to accusation of trite “Middle Mind” thinking. The technical merits of the movie are obvious and, as a general presentation of war from the viewpoint of the “grunt” level of soldier that did the actual fighting, I do find it definitely thought-provoking.
I shall certainly watch “Fury” again, soon. That, for me, is a compliment in itself. Best regards, JR.
Free to air TV just showed Fury here, so it’s not necroposting but just an update.
FFS!
Where do I start with criticism?
At the end, to keep it short.
Supposed SS column marching to the tank position, with several panzerfausts evident. None fired, presumably because German infantry using its anti-tank weapons at the earliest opportunity would have deprived American cinema of the farcical small arms battle waged from and to the immobilised tank.
US tank doesn’t have locking hatches, or at least crew who know how to use them, resulting in dramatic but entirely avoidable moments when various people open the hatch from outside.
And so on.
It would have been a relief if the Brad Pitt character had died from the sniper’s first shot, but magically he managed to survive several, including a clear lung shot which generally discourages the victim from further activity. This agony just prolonged the film’s agony.
What a piece of cinematic rubbish!
That sequence was the greatest concentration of silliness that particular film had to offer. While Hatches could be combat locked, this was suspended in order to allow the Bad Guys means of advancing the story. While the Germans did fire several Panzer fausts at Fury, they only hit with a couple of them, one of which killed the loader, but did little else that is normally associated with a shaped charge hit. Had the Germans just fired several at each side, it would have been over in moments. The one thing I thought to be funny was that the Thompson Sub gun was left behind when the Americans came through the following morning. Those were considered solid gold, and no one would leave one sitting if it were serviceable. If one just decides to view it as a live action comic book, then it’s at least entertaining. The one good thing for you in that movie, is that it was free to watch. But trust me RS* it’s much harder to watch when you know how they are supposed to operate, and what should have been done. Makes one wish to throw things at the screen.