Fury: New WW2 film about U.S. tank crew coming in 2014
- BillHermann
- Member
- Posts: 742
- Joined: 04 Jan 2012, 16:35
- Location: Authie
Re: Fury (2014), WW2 Rambo ala Sherman Crew
This is getting painful, to the posters above except Mr Kenny, it's a movie, deal with it. Directors and writers always take artistic liberties to entertain.
The movie is good but not great, and it's not great because of the charcter development, some writing and the cliches. The historical elements were ok, not great but that is not what the movie was about. It is obviously fiction.
There were historical instances as Mr Kenny mentioned that were similar, I would like to bring up Audie Murphy's action in the Alsace near the end of the war and you can bet the Fury writers used that for inspiration. The attack on a tank in the case of Fury is plausible.
However bands of elite 500+ marching and singing SS into battle in Germany in 1945 is far less plausible. To make it more believable half and far more rag tag with no singing would have made sense. But then it would have been less dramatic. One can also argue that a one on one with an early tiger may not have possible as well but again it's a movie. If you want realistic that's what the world at war series is for.
Finally for the meme post above, explane how it's possible for tank killers to kill 13 tanks in a short period but it's not possible the other way around.
Finally there was very little elite in the Waffen-SS, even more so in 1945.
The movie is good but not great, and it's not great because of the charcter development, some writing and the cliches. The historical elements were ok, not great but that is not what the movie was about. It is obviously fiction.
There were historical instances as Mr Kenny mentioned that were similar, I would like to bring up Audie Murphy's action in the Alsace near the end of the war and you can bet the Fury writers used that for inspiration. The attack on a tank in the case of Fury is plausible.
However bands of elite 500+ marching and singing SS into battle in Germany in 1945 is far less plausible. To make it more believable half and far more rag tag with no singing would have made sense. But then it would have been less dramatic. One can also argue that a one on one with an early tiger may not have possible as well but again it's a movie. If you want realistic that's what the world at war series is for.
Finally for the meme post above, explane how it's possible for tank killers to kill 13 tanks in a short period but it's not possible the other way around.
Finally there was very little elite in the Waffen-SS, even more so in 1945.
Re: Fury (2014), WW2 Rambo ala Sherman Crew
This is a film from Hollywood which was paid for by Putin, so what do you expect? If you want to see more historical accuracy, just watch Inglourious Basterds.
There are times in history when staying neutral means taking sides.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1275
- Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06
Re: Fury (2014), WW2 Rambo ala Sherman Crew
SS fanboisms -you know Waffen-ss were battlefield gods and allies were cowardsMichael Kenny wrote:A single man with a 50mm AT gun loaded/sighted/fired his gun and destroyed 13 tanks. He also held off infantry attacks for 3 days killing 100 of them. That must mean he wounded c 300 and repelled say 500?
Frankly the film is more believable.
If this was a similar Movie about Villers Bocage, the fapping to tiger tanks and Wittman would be dehydrating them
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach
Re: Fury (2014), WW2 Rambo ala Sherman Crew
I was quite pleasantly surprised with this film, it actually exceeded my low expectations. There was considerable attention paid to the uniforms and the set, both of which looked and felt quite authentic. Where Hollywood always goes off the rails with these types of war films is in the ending, and this film did not disappoint. What was never impressive were the actual combat scenes, and that's likely the most challenging aspect of making any war film.
Worth $7.00 and 2.hours of my time today.
Worth $7.00 and 2.hours of my time today.
- AlifRafikKhan
- Member
- Posts: 8002
- Joined: 15 Sep 2007, 20:02
- Location: Sukabumi, Indonesia
- Contact:
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Fury (2014), WW2 Rambo ala Sherman Crew
AlifRafikKhan wrote:Found this meme on Facebook...
This will be out soon and it will show in great detail how the Wittmann poster is wrong.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/284048 ... em_1p_0_ti
Re: Fury (2014), WW2 Rambo ala Sherman Crew
It was in the Pacific war US Forces found the Japanese marching toward them and Singing....never heard of the SS Doing that in 1945
I did read that in 1940 that the Luftwaffe crews did sing to keep up morale at the Begining of the Battle of Britian {Len Deighton}
I did read that in 1940 that the Luftwaffe crews did sing to keep up morale at the Begining of the Battle of Britian {Len Deighton}
Re: New WW2 film about U.S. tank crew coming in 2014
Well it's a good action film that doesn't hold any punches, even shows Americans shooting German prisoners in its effort to say "War is Hell".
However I thought it silly that every time a tank got hit, its turret got blown off - It did happen but it takes heavy artillery to do that, possibly 150mm or more. I don't think even an 88mm would do that.
Then the final battle involved an immobilsed tank vs a battalion of infantry. For some reason, the infantry couldn't attack from the rear, they always had to attack from the front (or even just go around the tank and ignore it). Then they only had a few panzerfausts, when every man and his dog had a panzerfaust in 1945 - and they had no other anti-tank weapons (Molotov coctails, a bunch of grenades etc etc)
What really annoyed me was that they went to the trouble of using the world's only working Tiger 1 tank, but failed to use real tactics to destroy it - the only tactic to destroy a Tiger that Hollywood knows about is to run around the Tiger because the tiger can't move it's turret fast enough (even that is something of a myth). I haven't read of tanks firing smoke at a Tiger to blind it (they did fire phosphorus which made the crew abandon the tank, thinking it on fire) but that seemed a good tactic. they had five Shermans vs one Tiger 1 So they should have kept a couple of Shermans stationary, firing smoke at the Tiger while the others raced round both flanks to hit the Tiger in flanks or rear. No, they all just charge towards the Tiger tank. Now a Tiger blinded by smoke is in a predicament - go forward or back? In the film, it goes forward, which is a dumb thing to do as it reduces the range - nullifies the advantage it has in its long-range gun - and makes a flank attack by the Shermans easier. Then we hear the German commander say that they are firing at 700 metres - well according to Wikipedia, the 1945 Sherman "Easy Eight"'s 76mm gun could penetrate the frontal armour of a Tiger 1 at 700 metres - made easier by the decline in quality of the metal used for armour at that time of the war. Instead the repeated hits by the Sherman tanks just bounce off the Tiger. If they wanted to portray a 1944 style encounter between an M4A1 Sherman and a Tiger 1, why didn't they just set the story in France?
However I thought it silly that every time a tank got hit, its turret got blown off - It did happen but it takes heavy artillery to do that, possibly 150mm or more. I don't think even an 88mm would do that.
Then the final battle involved an immobilsed tank vs a battalion of infantry. For some reason, the infantry couldn't attack from the rear, they always had to attack from the front (or even just go around the tank and ignore it). Then they only had a few panzerfausts, when every man and his dog had a panzerfaust in 1945 - and they had no other anti-tank weapons (Molotov coctails, a bunch of grenades etc etc)
What really annoyed me was that they went to the trouble of using the world's only working Tiger 1 tank, but failed to use real tactics to destroy it - the only tactic to destroy a Tiger that Hollywood knows about is to run around the Tiger because the tiger can't move it's turret fast enough (even that is something of a myth). I haven't read of tanks firing smoke at a Tiger to blind it (they did fire phosphorus which made the crew abandon the tank, thinking it on fire) but that seemed a good tactic. they had five Shermans vs one Tiger 1 So they should have kept a couple of Shermans stationary, firing smoke at the Tiger while the others raced round both flanks to hit the Tiger in flanks or rear. No, they all just charge towards the Tiger tank. Now a Tiger blinded by smoke is in a predicament - go forward or back? In the film, it goes forward, which is a dumb thing to do as it reduces the range - nullifies the advantage it has in its long-range gun - and makes a flank attack by the Shermans easier. Then we hear the German commander say that they are firing at 700 metres - well according to Wikipedia, the 1945 Sherman "Easy Eight"'s 76mm gun could penetrate the frontal armour of a Tiger 1 at 700 metres - made easier by the decline in quality of the metal used for armour at that time of the war. Instead the repeated hits by the Sherman tanks just bounce off the Tiger. If they wanted to portray a 1944 style encounter between an M4A1 Sherman and a Tiger 1, why didn't they just set the story in France?
-
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 5644
- Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
- Location: United States of America
Re: New WW2 film about U.S. tank crew coming in 2014
A friend of mine is waiting for the disk so he can time the fight and determine if they could have moved like that in the time shown.
Don't get him started on Panthers. Just sayin'.
Don't get him started on Panthers. Just sayin'.
Re: New WW2 film about U.S. tank crew coming in 2014
It did happen at least in Karelian Isthmus in summer 1944, by a StuG III against T34.sitalkes wrote:...
However I thought it silly that every time a tank got hit, its turret got blown off - It did happen but it takes heavy artillery to do that, possibly 150mm or more. I don't think even an 88mm would do that.
- Gamle Lode
- Member
- Posts: 52
- Joined: 27 Mar 2014, 13:35
- Location: Finland
Re: New WW2 film about U.S. tank crew coming in 2014
Burn your Rambo VHS's and watch this instead. (irony) This movie was even worse than Memphis Belle. Good acting and nice set, but totally unrealistic, nay even ridiculous. Only cliché that was still missing was that somebody had been shooting the tank with a pistol on both hands.
In reality, a hand grenade dropped inside a tank would toss it off. That too happened in Karelia 1944, and earlier. You might give that for the Mythbusters some day, I'll watch. And what would a Panzerfaust do? It would melt Brad's tank metal and bury everything inside into some mixed patch of dirt and metal. (and yet some still believe "Panzerfaust" was little more than hand grenade), yikes.
In reality, a hand grenade dropped inside a tank would toss it off. That too happened in Karelia 1944, and earlier. You might give that for the Mythbusters some day, I'll watch. And what would a Panzerfaust do? It would melt Brad's tank metal and bury everything inside into some mixed patch of dirt and metal. (and yet some still believe "Panzerfaust" was little more than hand grenade), yikes.
- Gamle Lode
- Member
- Posts: 52
- Joined: 27 Mar 2014, 13:35
- Location: Finland
Re: Fury (2014), WW2 Rambo ala Sherman Crew
Maybe this is a good film for people with a severe tank-feticism? The film represents tanks as the ultimate fighting machines, against whom nobody will have any chance. Brad Pitt played Achilles in Troy, now it was only his tank that continued the role.
-
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 5644
- Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
- Location: United States of America
Re: Fury (2014), WW2 Rambo ala Sherman Crew
It's okay. If you watch during the movie nobody's lips are moving. Must have been on the radio?PF wrote:It was in the Pacific war US Forces found the Japanese marching toward them and Singing....never heard of the SS Doing that in 1945
I did read that in 1940 that the Luftwaffe crews did sing to keep up morale at the Begining of the Battle of Britian {Len Deighton}
Re: Fury (2014), WW2 Rambo ala Sherman Crew
Its more a Pitt power fantasy; the movie was full of him playing the tough guy with a heart of gold (for his guys and women), plus had his unnecessary shirtless scene to show off how buff he got in his 50s. He's covered in makeup to make him look thirty and it shows him kicking the crap out of everyone and being the alpha of the pack. Even though I know the director wrote the movie himself before Pitt got attached, I got the distinct feeling there were rewrites to make Pitt feel important. Its full of cliches and annoying power fantasy tropes that just were too much for me.Gamle Lode wrote:Maybe this is a good film for people with a severe tank-feticism? The film represents tanks as the ultimate fighting machines, against whom nobody will have any chance. Brad Pitt played Achilles in Troy, now it was only his tank that continued the role.
Re: Fury: New WW2 film about U.S. tank crew coming in 2014
(Merged two threads on the same topic)