Fury is a Sherman?

[Ranger33]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

No panzerfausts or panzerschrecks?
Stereotypical Hollywood; the SS might just as well be wearing war paint.

This was what bothered me the most, we actually see the SS infantry marching five minutes prior to finding the tank, and it appears that every fourth or fifth man has a panzerfaust on his shoulder. Then they reach the tank and all of those have magically disappeared. Later they make a big show of unboxing a handful while a German officer says "This is all we have!" Then of course they proceed to miss from 5 feet away.

Yes, I know it's a Hollywood movie, but prior to this scene it had been established just how vulnerable the tanks were to Panzerfausts, but now the plot called for the German weapons to be ineffective.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Ranger33

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

No panzerfausts or panzerschrecks?
Stereotypical Hollywood; the SS might just as well be wearing war paint.

This was what bothered me the most, we actually see the SS infantry marching five minutes prior to finding the tank, and it appears that every fourth or fifth man has a panzerfaust on his shoulder. Then they reach the tank and all of those have magically disappeared. Later they make a big show of unboxing a handful while a German officer says "This is all we have!" Then of course they proceed to miss from 5 feet away.

Yes, I know it's a Hollywood movie, but prior to this scene it had been established just how vulnerable the tanks were to Panzerfausts, but now the plot called for the German weapons to be ineffective.

(More spoilers) Both your posts were right on (and well written). We see children armed with panzerfausts earlier then an SS battalion doesn't have but a couple - one misfires and the other penetrates the tank but doesn't brew it up. Meanwhile the germans sort of mill about in front of the tank's MGs.

I also had issues with the tank battle. In a general sense they had some of it right. The tactic for Shermans facing a Tiger was to try to envelope it so that some tank gets a rear shot. But then they bungled the details. The problem is that the "let's drive around to the rear of the Tiger" tactic doesn't work once you're down to only one Sherman left - because the Tiger can spin its chassis faster than any tank can drive around it. But here, the Tiger's chassis is like a stick in the mud, just waiting for the Sherman to get to its rear and kill it.

The other issue was that this was taking place at point-blank range, because the Tiger had closed the distance to the Shermans - a very dumb move by the Tiger since that's the only way it could get killed with a rear shot. The further a Tiger is from a Sherman the bigger its advantage. In fact (somebody can correct me here if I'm wrong), at point-blank range, I think even the Sherman's gun can penetrate more than just the rear armor of the Tiger, maybe even the frontal armor.

[Orm]

Thank you for the spoilers. [:)]

I'll wait to see it then.

[Chickenboy]

ETA: Spoilers below.

Meh. I look at several battles as culminations or summaries of existing RL battles. Examined by picayune detail, they are fraught with errors. Taken as an allegory or summary story, they're fine.

For example, one Tiger versus 4 shermans. Outcome? 3 Shermans knocked out by penetrating shots on their (thinner) frontal armor or side armor. The remaining Sherman outmaneuvers the Tiger and kills it with repeated shots to its rear armor. This outcome (minus some minutiae) is not only plausible, but probable when looked at in the grand scheme of things.

Panzerfausts got 'their share' in the movie. They killed a tank outright (platoon leader) and damaged another (Fury), killing one of its crew in the process.

I also noted the discrepancy between the marching SS battalion (heavily laden with Panzerfausts shouldered by individual soldiers) and the curious "these are all we have left" breakout of the few remaining stores. I can't explain the discrepancy, other than to shrug it off as minutiae. Panzerfausts were to be respected, particularly at close range and in quantity, but were not a war-winning weapon. Allied armor penetrated the very heart of the Third Reich, even with the dispersal and use of these weapons. My advice is to not get hung up in the details.

I don't think most film goers would understand a more low-key OOB of a Volksgrenadier or Volksstrum battalion (versus an SS battalion) in this movie. People still have a visceral understanding of what the "SS" was all about. Not so the former examples.

As another poster has pointed out, mowing down attacking infantry with a tank-mounted heavy MG? It's been done. Audie Murphy killed an estimated 200 attacking infantry. And these were supported with German armor too! Imagine the grumbling grognards complaining about such Hollywood nonsense were this depicted in a modern movie!

And the summary of the crossroads engagement? Immobile (yet fully functional) tank surprises an SS unit in march formation on the road? Most of the SS formation is badly damaged / destroyed. Eventually, by force of numbers, the tank succumbs to unsupported and repeated infantry attacks. Not so unrealistic at all.

Point being: dont' get hung up on the details. This movie, like EVERY SINGLE WAR MOVIE EVER MADE BY ANYONE has its picayune inaccuracies. It shouldn't detract from the movie experience any more than seeing "Midway", "The Longest Day", "Glory" or "Saving Private Ryan" in their day.

[Chickenboy]

Oh yeah-how come I didn't see any American crewmen in "Dambusters" when I watched it the other night? It was a fine movie and all, but there was no mention whatsoever of the contributions of the USAAF to the Dambusters raid and / or other RAAF strategic bombing campaigns.

[;)]

[Capt. Harlock]

Point being: dont' get hung up on the details. This movie, like EVERY SINGLE WAR MOVIE EVER MADE BY ANYONE has its picayune inaccuracies. It shouldn't detract from the movie experience any more than seeing "Midway", "The Longest Day", "Glory" or "Saving Private Ryan" in their day.

One other detail: there is a tense scene where some of the crew must go outside the tank to retrieve reserve ammunition. clearly, experienced soldiers would already have moved all the ammo into the tank by this point. But your point is well taken: the little details do not spoil the overall movie, which has excellent acting and camera-work.

And I say this as a man on the record about details spoiling a movie. "Skyfall" was flawed, and "Gravity" pretty much ruined, by characters doing things they simply would not have done -- and the entire rest of the movie depending on those actions. In the case of "Fury" it's not as big a deal.

[balto]

I saw Fury two nights ago. I have done nothing but play CIV Beyond Earth since seeing the movie, thus my delayed shock at reading this thread. I am completely shocked by the comments on here because after several years, you kind of get a feel for people on here. To me, this is the worst movie I have paid to see in many years. I cannot even list the reason why, let me just that the only part I liked was the first 3 minutes when Brad Pitt jumped on that guy and knifed him. After that, a total predictable soap opera. I am burning my Brad Pitt shrine!!

What is also shocking to me is this being a grognard forum, how come no one commented on the tactics used in the few combat scenes in this movie. How about about the Tiger charging the 3 Shermans in open field. We all know the Tiger was just sit still and knocked them off. But in the movie, they charged each other.., jeezus!!!! And how about the end sequence.., what infantry group charges an immobilised tank with rifles continuously time and time again in open ground. And they also keep coming in from the front where the coaxial gun is..., jeezus. If you are going to charge a tank with a rifle (which no one does), come at it from the other three sides!! BTW, these were alledly grizzled SS vets with panzerfausts, not 8 year old untrained children with guns.

Again, forget the combat crap, this movie was terrible on all fronts. Not trying to be a hater, but I hated this.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: balto

What is also shocking to me is this being a grognard forum, how come no one commented on the tactics used in the few combat scenes in this movie.

Are you sure you read all the posts?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: balto
To me, this is the worst movie I have paid to see in many years.

Wow. Really? How many other movies have you seen in many years? This is certainly not the worst movie I've paid to see in many years. That distinction has been cemented by so very many others. If you have kids, there are a list of 'kids movies' as long as my arm that have sucked so badly that I've wanted to claw out my eyeballs instead of sitting there for my children's amusement. I guess it's all perspective, isn't it.

But I firmly disagree with this point of view.

[Lecivius]

I have never seen it. I do know that they had a few 2 AD members as "technical advisers". These guys liked it, and gave it a Thumbs Up. So they made up a bit of Hollywood? In a movie!?! <gasp> If you went to this movie expecting a documentary, you deserved to be disappointed.

"To me, this is the worst movie I have paid to see in many years. " You need to get out more [;)]

[gradenko2k]

The Longest Day was a WW2 movie that had a lavish budget, very period accurate props because a lot of the time they weren't props, and could even tap the actual soldiers who were there as actors, but even that isn't going to pass muster when you're on a "grognard forum" and determined to apply all your knowledge of WW2 to nitpicking it.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: balto
To me, this is the worst movie I have paid to see in many years.

Wow. Really? How many other movies have you seen in many years? This is certainly not the worst movie I've paid to see in many years. That distinction has been cemented by so very many others. If you have kids, there are a list of 'kids movies' as long as my arm that have sucked so badly that I've wanted to claw out my eyeballs instead of sitting there for my children's amusement. I guess it's all perspective, isn't it.

But I firmly disagree with this point of view.

warspite1

I must say, I've been very lucky. I have very seldom, if ever, sat through a kid's film I couldn't stand - I'm struggling to think of one to be honest. Maybe lucky the little warspite's love Disney mostly.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: balto
To me, this is the worst movie I have paid to see in many years.

Wow. Really? How many other movies have you seen in many years? This is certainly not the worst movie I've paid to see in many years. That distinction has been cemented by so very many others. If you have kids, there are a list of 'kids movies' as long as my arm that have sucked so badly that I've wanted to claw out my eyeballs instead of sitting there for my children's amusement. I guess it's all perspective, isn't it.

But I firmly disagree with this point of view.

warspite1

I must say, I've been very lucky. I have very seldom, if ever, sat through a kid's film I couldn't stand - I'm struggling to think of one to be honest. Maybe lucky the little warspite's love Disney mostly.

You lucky bastard. You lucky, lucky bastard.

You missed "Alvin and the Chipmunks" movies (1 through 3)? "Mr. Plopper's Penguins"? "Cloudy with a chance of Meatballs" 1 and 2? "Sherman and Mr. Peabody"? "Ice Age" 2 and 3 (the first one was OK)? I could go on. Ugh [shivers].

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




Wow. Really? How many other movies have you seen in many years? This is certainly not the worst movie I've paid to see in many years. That distinction has been cemented by so very many others. If you have kids, there are a list of 'kids movies' as long as my arm that have sucked so badly that I've wanted to claw out my eyeballs instead of sitting there for my children's amusement. I guess it's all perspective, isn't it.

But I firmly disagree with this point of view.

warspite1

I must say, I've been very lucky. I have very seldom, if ever, sat through a kid's film I couldn't stand - I'm struggling to think of one to be honest. Maybe lucky the little warspite's love Disney mostly.

You lucky bastard. You lucky, lucky bastard.

You missed "Alvin and the Chipmunks" movies (1 through 3)? "Mr. Plopper's Penguins"? "Cloudy with a chance of Meatballs" 1 and 2? "Sherman and Mr. Peabody"? "Ice Age" 2 and 3 (the first one was OK)? I could go on. Ugh [shivers].

warspite1

Yeah I loved all those. Actually on second thoughts, maybe this is just reflective of our respective IQ's. I'm not a lucky B*****, just a dumb****.

[Curtis Lemay]

I really don't think it's too much to ask that when you go to a highly hyped war movie in 2014 you don't have to make yourself ignore the Hollywood Sign in the background. Clearly, they have the means to pull it off. As I've posted elsewhere, I've been enjoying "The Pacific". No quibbles with that whatsoever.

[VPaulus]

bump

[CGGrognard]

My wife just treated me to this movie, and surprise she enjoyed it almost as much as I did. There are a number of discrepancies in the movie, but then again, it is a movie, not a documentary. But I will say, the relationship and behavior of the crew was more important than the battle sequences. Just my two cents.

[Cataphract88]

Just seen Fury tonight; it's a very good movie.

[brian brian]

I quite liked it. I approved of the "these are all we've got left" quote about the Panzerfausts, aside from the discrepancy of putting them in the shot of the marching column. Perhaps all the PFs carried individually were laying out in the road in front of the bow machine guns. Though, yes, experienced combat infantry would stay well away from the front of the tank. Leading into the scene I thought for sure they would have the crew fire up the engine and at least use the one track to rotate the tank at a key moment for use of the bow machine guns. Anyhow the "all we got" quote was finally a bit of perspective on that it was April, 1945, and the German war machine was running on fumes.

When they opened that crate I thought it might contain Panzerschrecks, as that was just a quick shot. Overall though, I'm not sure I've ever seen so many Panzerfausts in a movie before.

I think my favorite small detail was the CGI armada of Allied heavy bombers flying east … and a small set of plumes advancing to meet them from the other direction. A short shot and a silent one, but a good one.

[Dorb]

Just rented Fury last night. Ok movie until the end, what was up with that? - I actually started to root for the Germans, it appears the SS forgot how to take out an immobilized tank other than do WW1 style mass waves to the front machine guns. - Heck they even let them go outside of the tank to get more ammo so they could shoot them up some more. Oh well it was fun trying to explain it to the wife.(also like the two grenades dumped into the tank and go off, and the bodies were not splattered all over the inside of the tank. Gotta keep Brad looking good for the camera.[:D]
Glad I waited to rent this stinker and real bummer.