Fury

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Reg
Posts: 2786
Joined: Fri May 26, 2000 8:00 am
Location: NSW, Australia

RE: Fury

Post by Reg »


The US Army never operated 17lb'er Fireflies.

However there were some models of Shermans (always in short supply) that were equipped with American 76mm guns.

M4A1(76)W, some M4A3E2 "Jumbo" and M4A3E8(76)W "Easy Eight".

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!
User avatar
btd64
Posts: 12738
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:48 am
Location: Lancaster, OHIO

RE: Fury

Post by btd64 »

On my way now to go see it at the easton town cimema, columbus. Will report back....GP
Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester
DW2-Alpha/Beta Tester
New Game Development Team

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: Fury

Post by AW1Steve »

ORIGINAL: Reg


The US Army never operated 17lb'er Fireflies.

However there were some models of Shermans (always in short supply) that were equipped with American 76mm guns.

M4A1(76)W, some M4A3E2 "Jumbo" and M4A3E8(76)W "Easy Eight".


I've never been a "tank guru" , but the 1st time I saw the trailer , the former "recco-instructer" in me mumbled "easy-8". (All that means is that it triggered a subconscious comparison to all the Sherman photo's I've seen , and in a split second look I thought that it most resembled the E-8 Sherman variant)
. In other words , my quick gut feeling. So please don't sue me or issue a jihad or fatwa if I'm wrong. I'm just saying......[:D]
User avatar
btd64
Posts: 12738
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:48 am
Location: Lancaster, OHIO

RE: Fury

Post by btd64 »

If I remember right, The E8 variant added extra protection around the turrent. Anyway, just got home from seeing "Fury". Was a very good movie. I would see it again. Yes there was an issue with the Tiger shot. But, At that stage of the war, the ammo manufactured was questionable, Slave labor and all. Also, one of the previews was for a new movie named "Unforgotten". without going online to look at it, It looks like a True Story about a B-24 crew shot down in the pacific and captured by the Japanese. Looks good and my daughter said she read the story a year or two ago and wants to see it....GP
Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester
DW2-Alpha/Beta Tester
New Game Development Team

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton
User avatar
Footslogger
Posts: 1245
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:46 pm
Location: Washington USA

RE: Fury

Post by Footslogger »

ORIGINAL: General Patton

If I remember right, The E8 variant added extra protection around the turrent. Anyway, just got home from seeing "Fury". Was a very good movie. I would see it again. Yes there was an issue with the Tiger shot. But, At that stage of the war, the ammo manufactured was questionable, Slave labor and all. Also, one of the previews was for a new movie named "Unforgotten". without going online to look at it, It looks like a True Story about a B-24 crew shop down in the pacific and captured by the Japanese. Looks good and my daughter said she read the story a year or two ago and wants to see it....GP

General Sir, did you see when that movie "Unforgotten" is coming out?
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: Fury

Post by geofflambert »

I believe he means "Unbroken".

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/louis ... 201257608/

Looks like Dec. 25th

User avatar
btd64
Posts: 12738
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:48 am
Location: Lancaster, OHIO

RE: Fury

Post by btd64 »

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I believe he means "Unbroken".

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/louis ... 201257608/

Looks like Dec. 25th

I stand corrected.[;)] yes, december 25th. Looks like a good movie....GP
Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester
DW2-Alpha/Beta Tester
New Game Development Team

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton
User avatar
Footslogger
Posts: 1245
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:46 pm
Location: Washington USA

RE: Fury

Post by Footslogger »

Here is a clip of the Tiger vs Sherman tank scene in the movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FymIXRr3HF0

I also found this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV7TRLpCM48

50,000 Shermans to kill 1,500 Tigers it says in this other clip.[X(] Is that true?
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: Fury

Post by geofflambert »

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

Here is a clip of the Tiger vs Sherman tank scene in the movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FymIXRr3HF0

I also found this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV7TRLpCM48

50,000 Shermans to kill 1,500 Tigers it says in this other clip.[X(] Is that true?

I think they were killed mainly by P-47s and tank killers etc.

danlongman
Posts: 584
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: Over the hills and far away

RE: Fury

Post by danlongman »

and some T-34's and IL-2's
"Patriotism: Your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw
spence
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: Fury

Post by spence »

Tigers of any stripe were produced in relatively small numbers compared to M4's or T-34s. The trade off rate in direct combat was certainly well in favor of the Tigers against both M4s and T34s (but I am skeptical of the 50000/1500 ratio). But the neither the mechanical reliability nor the gas mileage of the Tiger was something to get giddy about. Quite a few were abandoned on the battlefield because they broke down or suffered minor damage (Axis FBs will have a hard time arguing that the Axis owned the battlefield after the action the majority of the time - the part about the Axis losing the war is kind of hard to reconcile with that). The axis was not exactly swimming in fuel supplies either. There's a Tiger II (from Peiper's KG) at the December 1944 Museum in La Gleize, Belgium. Neat gouges in the armor from the hits it suffered but one hit ruined its gun (hit the barrel) and at 4 gallons/mile it needed a lot of fuel. For lack of fuel it was abandoned on the battlefield. It has been restored to original condition except for the gouges in the armor but one can see what it looked like in 1944 (and 2014) at:

http://www.december44.com/en/history_ba ... gleize.htm

Incidentally I read somewhere that the Tiger I used in the movie was an early type abandoned on the battlefield in North Africa and would not have been in service in 1945.

A couple of colleagues at work have seen the movie. They liked it.
Endy
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:17 am

RE: Fury

Post by Endy »

Many people make the mistake of directly comparing Tiger and Sherman and saying "Tiger was definately the better tank", completely ignoring the fact that these tanks were of different types, built for a different purpose. Tiger was a heavy breakthrough tank while the Sherman a general use medium tank. It's like saying that a battleship is a better warship than a cruiser, despite the fact that both had their uses and had their strenghts and weaknesses in different areas.
User avatar
Reg
Posts: 2786
Joined: Fri May 26, 2000 8:00 am
Location: NSW, Australia

RE: Fury

Post by Reg »

from Wikipedia

The Ordnance Department would later suffer almost equal difficulty convincing the Army Ground Forces command (AGF) to accept the upgunned versions of the Sherman with the net result that not a single 76 mm armed Sherman was in service in time for D-Day, even though they could have been available months earlier. The AGF's reason for rejecting the 76 mm gun was that it would encourage tank crews to stalk enemy tanks, an idea in conflict with then current US armor doctrine, and had a much less effective high explosive shell than the 75 mm M3 gun. The 76 mm and 90 mm guns were both accepted much more readily into the tank destroyer service, however US tanks were not always able to avoid direct confrontations with German tanks and the shortcomings of the 75 mm M3 gun against armor handicapped American tanks for much of the war.

The bottom line was that the Sherman as a general purpose tank was not intended to take on Tigers and were operationally discouraged from doing so but the tragic reality was that they could not always avoid contact with the Tigers.

The M-10 was for all intents and purposes a Sherman in a tank destroyer configuration with a 76mm M7 gun (and even they found it heavy going against the newer Tigers and Panthers).

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7314
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: Fury

Post by Q-Ball »

The Quantity vs. Quality element to Sherman v. German Tanks is well-documented, but there are a couple global logistical items that I didn't know on Sherman design:

1. Shermans used gasoline which did cause them to burn easier...but they used gas, for the reason that Allied logistical planners did not want to manage 2 different fuel stocks, only one. From that standpoint, using gasoline instead of diesel makes sense. As if Germans didn't have enough fuel problems, they had to move 2 separate fuel stocks (diesel and gas)

2. Shermans were not wide enough to add needed armor and gun, but their width was restricted by the width of various transport craft, landing craft, and other shipping which had standardized compartments. It would have been a major effort to alter or rebuild all that shipping space, so planners lived with the Sherman, and all other AFVs had to fit in those dimensions (until the Pershing).

Those two things help explain to me why we went into battle with the tank we did. Now, the whole TD/Tank doctrine, that was a whole nother story.....
User avatar
SuluSea
Posts: 2378
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:13 pm

RE: Fury

Post by SuluSea »

I saw the movie today and felt it was well worth the admission price. I was hoping to see Unbroken in the previews. I read the book and watched the previews on youtube and if it's even close to the book it will be fantastic.

They did show a preview for Clint Eastwood directed American Sniper... Looks like I'll be seeing that in December
"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer
User avatar
msieving1
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:24 am
Location: Missouri

RE: Fury

Post by msieving1 »

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

1. Shermans used gasoline which did cause them to burn easier...

German tanks also used gasoline.
-- Mark Sieving
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: Fury

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

There were only 145 Tigers in Normandy, and they mostly fought on the British and Canadian sectors (Caen)... so, I wonder how many "Tigers" encountered by American Shermans were in reality PzIVs and Panthers
User avatar
msieving1
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:24 am
Location: Missouri

RE: Fury

Post by msieving1 »

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

There were only 145 Tigers in Normandy, and they mostly fought on the British and Canadian sectors (Caen)... so, I wonder how many "Tigers" encountered by American Shermans were in reality PzIVs and Panthers

I've seen the claim that to American soldiers, all German tanks were Tigers and all German artillery were 88s. And of course, all Japanese fighter planes were Zeros.
-- Mark Sieving
Endy
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:17 am

RE: Fury

Post by Endy »

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

1. Shermans used gasoline which did cause them to burn easier...

Actually that's a myth. Shermans had a lot of bad names connected to them catching fire easily after getting hit but that was because of insecure ammunition stowage not because of type of fuel they used. Ammo did tend to catch fire a lot of times and that's why in later versions wet ammo racks were developed to get rid of this problem.
User avatar
Reg
Posts: 2786
Joined: Fri May 26, 2000 8:00 am
Location: NSW, Australia

RE: Fury

Post by Reg »

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I've never been a "tank guru" , but the 1st time I saw the trailer , the former "recco-instructer" in me mumbled "easy-8". (All that means is that it triggered a subconscious comparison to all the Sherman photo's I've seen , and in a split second look I thought that it most resembled the E-8 Sherman variant)
. In other words , my quick gut feeling. So please don't sue me or issue a jihad or fatwa if I'm wrong. I'm just saying......[:D]
from IMDB

The Main Shermans used in Fury were : Fury M4A2 76mm HVSS from Bovington Tank Museum, M4A2 75mm VVSS from Tay Restorations, M4A2 76mm HVSS from Jeep Sud Est, M4A4 75MM VVSS from Adrian Barrell, M4A1 76mm VVSS.


Despite your misgivings Steve, you were spot on..... [:)]

(HVSS - Horizontal Volute Spring System suspension, VVSS - Vertical volute spring suspension
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_volute_spring_suspension)

Lets see if you train spotters can pick them all out.........

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”