Skyviper 1,101 Posted February 18, 2015 Hey I'm watching the movie Fury as I type this and I know there is a lot of war movie buffs on this site and maybe even a tanker or two (*cough* Crazyhorse cough*) I'm curious to know: How would this have really played out in real life if there is a member of the crew like Norman or a member that didn't want to kill? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+RAVEN 414 Posted February 18, 2015 I was in the 2bn 37 armor (1973-1976) and the one thing in the film that made me laugh was you don't go into a gunfight and leave most of your ammo outside the tank. Also, the TigerI could have just stayed where it was and dusted the Shermans. I could be wrong, but I don't think the Tiger would have gone into the field and exposed it's ass-end, Personal thought, bad remake of To Hell and Back. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stick 773 Posted February 18, 2015 Tactically speaking you have to make a mistake for the enemy to kill you... I thought it was a good movie-with some excellent acting-such as when the tank crew foisted themselves onto the fair Fraulein's; what struck me how frail the concept of civility and justice is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyviper 1,101 Posted February 18, 2015 Just finished it. I don't know much about tanks to formulate an educated opinion on the technical aspects of the movie. It wasn't bad but I don't see me watching it again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,545 Posted February 18, 2015 The movie was interesting, from the technical aspect, they have used original material, even the last moving Tiger. But from the tactical aspect it was bad. The scene as the Shermans attacked a Pak position, it was nearly impossible to miss the shermans. How can stationary pack, with german optics, optimised to find targets at any range, miss incoming targets? On the other hand .. how can a moving Sherman, hit with while moving over an open rough field? I will not start about the Tiger vs Sherman battle scene .. the rest of the movie was "ok" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Stary 2,426 Posted February 18, 2015 it's a good movie, of course weak in some aspects (those forementioned Paks with lower accuracy than speeding Tiger!) and excellent in others acting- and suspense-wise (visit in the town PLUS how this particular subplot ends) but overall -when was the last time we had good tank crew-oriented movie? Israeli "Lebanon"? Ohh that one was powerful too. As Fury goes I really like how Pitt evolved as an actor, he played very good, so did Shia as Bible IMO. And Shane from Walking Dead guy, forgot his name. There are some brilliant scenes and ideas there, as I watched this with my dad I said to him at certain point they should put one dead German "there" for effect (those who watched know what I refer to) and so they did, but why ohh why one key part goes from late afternoon to night in span of several minutes?? My cousin was making fun the battles look like they're firing lasers at each others, had to point him to several real war clips to convince him the tracers more or less look that way, I think left him unconvinced. Overall very good war movie for me, a bit old school as far as general story arc goes but done with XXI way of portraing war. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tirak 4 Posted February 18, 2015 Lots of people give the Tiger scene flak, but for the wrong reason. 1. Tiger should have just stayed there and murdered all the shermans Well in the movie they pop off smoke rounds to blind the Tiger, then move in on its position. Staying there would have been suicide. Maybe back up, but staying still falls under the category of a Bad Idea. 2. Sherman stands no chance against Tiger. Actually in this case, it's untrue. The Shermans on display here are upgunned with a 76mm high velocity gun (Not Firefly's, which is the other thing a lot of people like to say), minus the one which is still sporting its original dual purpose cannon. While original American reports indicated it would be insufficient against heavy German tanks, later testing revealed that with certain ammo types, this was not the case. In this battle, the error isn't that the Sherman stands no chance, it's that at the range being fought at, the Sherman would have been able to hole the Tiger I from the front, let alone the rear. And with 3 to one odds to boot, this is a dead Tiger we're looking at. 3. Fury takes a side hit and doesn't pop off immediately. Those wooden logs would have done absolutely nothing to stop the Tiger's shell. The angle of the hit on the side of Fury was quite oblique, making chance of a ricochet reasonable. The wooden logs didn't do a thing except fall off. All in all, the Tiger scene is pretty good, but it wouldn't have been as cool to have 3 Sherman's in the final fight after handily dealing with a Tiger. Lots of people seem to forget that while the Sherman was never a fantastic tank, it was nearly always a Good Tank. While I agree the scene with the Pak site seems a bit far fetched, the accurate fire by the Sherman's on the move is not, as the main gun had a vertical stabilizer, specifically so it could fire on the move. The final battle though is pretty much all Hollywood. It's a decent war movie, I wasn't a fan of some of the more "traumatic" scenes, but over all as far as war movies go, it's not bad. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Stary 2,426 Posted February 18, 2015 watching I got the impression that was an almost certain ricochet angle when Tiger hit the logs, popping them off from the hull Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrGoTime 20 Posted February 18, 2015 I really enjoyed the movie, but the brutality was a bit difficult to watch. I definitely thought it was worth watching once, but don't see that I'll watch it again. I thought the acting was superb, and that the tactics were "real enough" to be convincing for me. I mean, the Tiger commander might have just made a bad call, right? I think we've all probably had or seen officers who've made bad decisions. To me, the Sherman just capitalized on the Tiger's bad move. Either way...it was a good film. I didn't think Shia could act until I saw him in this movie. As for Norman...I don't know if soldiers ever forced a guy like that to kill, but I do know first hand that soldiers like him exist and do not want to kill. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Milktrout 9 Posted February 18, 2015 The movie was interesting, from the technical aspect, they have used original material, even the last moving Tiger. But from the tactical aspect it was bad. The scene as the Shermans attacked a Pak position, it was nearly impossible to miss the shermans. How can stationary pack, with german optics, optimised to find targets at any range, miss incoming targets? On the other hand .. how can a moving Sherman, hit with while moving over an open rough field? I will not start about the Tiger vs Sherman battle scene .. the rest of the movie was "ok" Adrenaline. You'd be astounded how hard it is to hit anything when someone is shooting back at you. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,545 Posted February 18, 2015 Lots of people give the Tiger scene flak, but for the wrong reason. 1. Tiger should have just stayed there and murdered all the shermans Who said that? I have talked to a frend who is an actual Leo2 A5 tankcommander in our Bundeswehr, he said the only move should be to drive reverse and get some distance between you and the enemy. And!!!!! Never shoot while driving without a stabilised gun 2. Sherman stands no chance against Tiger. Only the first version with the small calibre guns with shorter barrels had some problems. The later version were equiped to destroy tigers and panther and it worked. So back to point one .. get some distance between you and the enemy 3. Fury takes a side hit and doesn't pop off immediately. Those wooden logs would have done absolutely nothing to stop the Tiger's shell. If you looks at battle harden armor plates on "tigers" you can see that even T34 left some scarves on angled tiger armor ... if the loggs are enough to hold up a heavy 88 shel .. I dont think so ... the result I see in this scene should be not a direct penetration but cluster effect insde the tank. All in all, the Tiger scene is pretty good, but it wouldn't have been as cool to have 3 Sherman's in the final fight after handily dealing with a Tiger. Lots of people seem to forget that while the Sherman was never a fantastic tank, it was nearly always a Good Tank. While I agree the scene with the Pak site seems a bit far fetched, the accurate fire by the Sherman's on the move is not, as the main gun had a vertical stabilizer, specifically so it could fire on the move. Yeah but the paks had an advantage, they were hidden and had time to aim on the shermans ... and how can a movng sherman be more accurate than a stationary pak... sorry makes no sense The final battle though is pretty much all Hollywood. It's a decent war movie, I wasn't a fan of some of the more "traumatic" scenes, but over all as far as war movies go, it's not bad. I agree its ok, but not a movie I would watch again .. Tigers were equiped by battle hardened crews of the special Schwere Panzer Abteilung, and a Tiger never shoot while driving. You need the full RPM of the engine for the turret mechanism, so it makes no sense to shoot and aim while drivng over rough ground. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Brain32 265 Posted February 18, 2015 I think it was quite ok, the moral of the story simply is what it really is - war is hell 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyviper 1,101 Posted February 19, 2015 I really enjoyed the movie, but the brutality was a bit difficult to watch. I definitely thought it was worth watching once, but don't see that I'll watch it again. I thought the acting was superb, and that the tactics were "real enough" to be convincing for me. I mean, the Tiger commander might have just made a bad call, right? I think we've all probably had or seen officers who've made bad decisions. To me, the Sherman just capitalized on the Tiger's bad move. Either way...it was a good film. I didn't think Shia could act until I saw him in this movie. As for Norman...I don't know if soldiers ever forced a guy like that to kill, but I do know first hand that soldiers like him exist and do not want to kill. That's about how I feel about the movie. The acting was great, and me being oblivious to most of the technical aspects certainly helped (although there have been some points made about said aspects which are by the way very good points). I feel the same as you do about Norman I wasn't too sure about him. I think they had him there so we could connect to him because we the viewers were new to the crew like he was. It was interesting to watch him make that change from being passive to agressive. And the chow scene was a bit off for me; it was funny just a little and then just off. I think they could've did that better but I'm not going to be that guy who makes a great movie horrible because of one thing. It's just my opinion and even I don't care about it I do agree with Brain32 about it made war look like hell. It didn't glorify anything too much (like a video game would) I wonder though do they have movies about support roles that were in war. Cargo, troop transport, why not? I think it says a lot to take a unarmed vehicle into the heart of hell and try to make it back in one piece. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tirak 4 Posted February 19, 2015 Stuff Mate, do me the favor of actually reading what I wrote, instead of just the first line of each post and making an assumption about what the rest of it said mkay? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ironroad 218 Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) I liked it, really liked it. One of the first good war movies (besides Lone Survivor)...really movie period....that I had seen in a long time. Yes, "tactically" and "technically" the movie had some flaws (as did Platoon, Patton, insert favorite war movie here), but I was willing to reconcile that with the fact that: It was the end of the war and the Germans were out of fuel, spare parts, and ammo. During most of the war in Europe Germany had most of its best units in the East to fight the Russians (not saying that the US and British did not tangle with some crack and fanatical units). A lot of German units got "mixed" during the time-frame of the movie, so conscripts were thrown in with the remnants of elite Panzer/SS squads. Shermans were known as "zippo lighters" and early on in the European/African theater allied armor crews would get slaughtered, but they did dramatically improve their tactics, training, and equipment (field upgrades) later on. *Side note, one of my old professors was a retired Army Lt Col. and tank commander from the 1970s-80s. He told me that US armor did not stand a chance against ANYTHING until the Abramas came on the scene. Also said that everything field before hand was basically an up-build of the Sherman/Patton tank. Edited February 23, 2015 by ironroad Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyviper 1,101 Posted February 20, 2015 It would be cool see a movie about an Abrams crew. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrGoTime 20 Posted February 20, 2015 It would be cool see a movie about an Abrams crew. You get to see a tiny little bit of Abrams action in the Denzel Washington movie "Courage under Fire". Pretty good movie too, but the tank combat is limited to just a few minutes in the beginning of the movie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyviper 1,101 Posted February 20, 2015 You're right that is a good movie and I forgot about that scene until you mentioned it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
