Jump to content


So I just saw the "Fury" movie and...


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

IH8MEDS #1 Posted 24 October 2014 - 10:39 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 87 battles
  • 2,944
  • Member since:
    10-14-2013

... surprisingly, I really really liked it.

 

Before I get to the part that (I hope) interests us all, which is of course the tank action, I must say I was genuinely surprised on how they managed to build up tension in some scenes.

Like the table scene, in the German girls' house. Thought the rest of Don's crew were just gonna barge in just to show that the movie is at least trying to show that US troops also had a bit of an ugly side... but then the "horses story" came along... damn. You start to have a small idea on what those boys went through so far and what made them so hardened (on the outside, at least)

 

Also, even though it was 90% predictable what was going to happen, the Tiger (yay for 131! It LIVES!) scene really fastened my heartbeat and by the end my hands were pretty tight around the cinema seat. For me, it managed to convey at least a fraction of what an Ally tank crew would have felt if they encountered a Tiger...

 

Btw, Brad Pitt delivers. Not really a fan of his (not that I dislike him by any means) but he really did pull off an interesting role (well, it's not like he had many bad roles, but still).

 

 

Now, a few thoughts about the tank action, which may contain spoilers. Continue reading at your own risk

 

1) The Tiger scene.

Now, I'm a close to a complete newb when it comes to historical tank action (I have the general idea of how they were deployed), but... wouldn't it have made more sense for the Tiger to target the first tank of the column, followed by the last, so that it would shut the column down?

Other than that, I think they created quite a feasible scenario in which to present the whole "4/5 Shermans for 1 Tiger" mythos.

 

2) Just how the hell did Shermans managed to bounce some of the AT guns fire towards the beginning of the movie?!

 

3) Shouldn't Fury (it's an E8, right?) be able to punch through the Tiger frontal armor? Did really fudge that scene up with this detail?

 

4) How come the Panzerfaust (hope I'm not wrong, though from my limited military history knowledge those were not Panzerschrecks) didn't detonate inside the tank?! Did it just penetrate the whole thing left to right?!

 

 

 

That's it for now, warm impressions straight out of the oven, so to say. Again, I really liked the movie, it was actually grittier than I thought it would be (the 15+ rating it got here is well deserved, IMO) so I appreciate it didn't soften some scenes up for the viewer.

Heck, war IS hell - and IMO a tanker's death has got to be one of the most gruesome deaths possible

 

As for those of you who have not seen it yet, hope I didn't it spoil too much and I hope you'll enjoy it as well. I can fully recommend it, at least even if for the entertainment value alone, though I believe it delivers a bit more than that.



Deldrin #2 Posted 24 October 2014 - 11:44 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 30829 battles
  • 292
  • Member since:
    07-01-2010

Panzerfaust looks kinda like RPG-7 but smaller and can be fired from the hip or like a rifle, Panzerschreck looks like Bazooka with blast shield 1/3rd from the front end and is being fired from shoulder. Both used HEAT warheads, so it detonates on armour surface. No idea what happened in the movie as I haven't seen it.

The way you describe Tiger scene really makes little sense. Maybe they were trying to secure kills :playing: by not allowing column to retreat knowing that their tank is invulnerable.

AT guns: maybe they were low caliber? Germans had lots of 37mm - 50mm guns in use that were obsolete against tanks but useful enough against soft targets.

 



The_Foolio #3 Posted 25 October 2014 - 08:31 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 34256 battles
  • 1,642
  • Member since:
    11-20-2012
Saw the trailer and it looks like typical Hollywood garbage. Pitt, who can't act for toffee, trying be all deep and meaningful.

A single Sherman holding off 300 SS Panzer Grenadiers = [edited].

The bit when they seem to be circle strafing the Tiger at the end...sigh.

I suspect that there will only be yanks in it, and if there are any Brits/Commonwealth/Russian characters in it they will be incompetent - e.g. the SAS in Hurt Locker or the tanks in Saving Private Ryan

My only hope is that Bovington got well paid and will profit from the publicity.

Edited by The_Foolio, 25 October 2014 - 08:34 AM.


boomaster #4 Posted 25 October 2014 - 08:47 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 24517 battles
  • 497
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

View PostIH8MEDS, on 24 October 2014 - 10:39 PM, said:

... surprisingly, I really really liked it.

 

Before I get to the part that (I hope) interests us all, which is of course the tank action, I must say I was genuinely surprised on how they managed to build up tension in some scenes.

Like the table scene, in the German girls' house. Thought the rest of Don's crew were just gonna barge in just to show that the movie is at least trying to show that US troops also had a bit of an ugly side... but then the "horses story" came along... damn. You start to have a small idea on what those boys went through so far and what made them so hardened (on the outside, at least)

 

Also, even though it was 90% predictable what was going to happen, the Tiger (yay for 131! It LIVES!) scene really fastened my heartbeat and by the end my hands were pretty tight around the cinema seat. For me, it managed to convey at least a fraction of what an Ally tank crew would have felt if they encountered a Tiger...

 

Btw, Brad Pitt delivers. Not really a fan of his (not that I dislike him by any means) but he really did pull off an interesting role (well, it's not like he had many bad roles, but still).

 

 

Now, a few thoughts about the tank action, which may contain spoilers. Continue reading at your own risk

 

1) The Tiger scene.

Now, I'm a close to a complete newb when it comes to historical tank action (I have the general idea of how they were deployed), but... wouldn't it have made more sense for the Tiger to target the first tank of the column, followed by the last, so that it would shut the column down?

Other than that, I think they created quite a feasible scenario in which to present the whole "4/5 Shermans for 1 Tiger" mythos.

 

2) Just how the hell did Shermans managed to bounce some of the AT guns fire towards the beginning of the movie?!

 

3) Shouldn't Fury (it's an E8, right?) be able to punch through the Tiger frontal armor? Did really fudge that scene up with this detail?

 

4) How come the Panzerfaust (hope I'm not wrong, though from my limited military history knowledge those were not Panzerschrecks) didn't detonate inside the tank?! Did it just penetrate the whole thing left to right?!

 

 

 

That's it for now, warm impressions straight out of the oven, so to say. Again, I really liked the movie, it was actually grittier than I thought it would be (the 15+ rating it got here is well deserved, IMO) so I appreciate it didn't soften some scenes up for the viewer.

Heck, war IS hell - and IMO a tanker's death has got to be one of the most gruesome deaths possible

 

As for those of you who have not seen it yet, hope I didn't it spoil too much and I hope you'll enjoy it as well. I can fully recommend it, at least even if for the entertainment value alone, though I believe it delivers a bit more than that.

 

I'll just go for the questions..

 

1. Classically you'd go front/rear if you were hitting a column, haven't seen the film so I couldn't tell you where they were or where the Tiger starts. 

 

2. The Sherman series were renowned as "tommy cookers" (if you're german) or "ronson's" (if you were one of the allies) but their armour wasn't rubbish. It's still a 2 and half inch thick plate of angled, rolled armour steel. They are in no way bullet proof but they could bounce rounds, especially from the lighter AT guns, haven't seen the film yet but it will certainly see of the old 5cm PaK 38 gun, possibly even the 75mm PaK 40.

 

3. The 76mm gun had much better pen than the old 75mm but it still wasn't as high velocity as say the British 17 pounder (on the Firefly for instance), it didn't always pen the Tiger I even at knife fighting range.

 

4. Panzerfaust (looks like a stick with a big lump on the end, Panzerschreck was a copy of the bazooka) had a large(ish) shaped charge warhead, inverted copper cone, high explosives etc. So it should (on impact) as long as it functions correctly and hits the target pretty flat, send a jet of molten copper (and the armour underneath) through the tank. As long as it doesn't hit anything vital on the way through or burn all the oxygen in the tank up on it's way it will go all the way through with limited effect. 



Helfarch #5 Posted 25 October 2014 - 09:00 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 38867 battles
  • 40
  • Member since:
    06-27-2011

On the Tiger, chatting to a British veteran at Bovington this year (who served in a platoon of shermans) he described a tactic of taking out covering buildings with HE and then hitting it in the side / rear. Mind you he also noted that they had a firefly.

must have been terrifying to be in such relatively weak equipment and it meant that teamwork within the platoon must have been essential



Lol_N00b #6 Posted 25 October 2014 - 09:09 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 8561 battles
  • 3,077
  • [BL33T] BL33T
  • Member since:
    09-03-2014

View PostIH8MEDS, on 24 October 2014 - 11:39 PM, said:

... surprisingly, I really really liked it.

 

But... I though you h8ed meds???

anonym_kL7qtn3e52MB #7 Posted 25 October 2014 - 09:09 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 6,815
  • Member since:
    07-10-2018

Molten jets of copper are a myth.

It is the shape of the explosive power that does the damage.

The first shaped charge was a cooking pot with sticks of dynamite tied to it...

 

Burning all the oxygen will result in what? A constant vacuum?

If it even did burn all the oxygen (which I'm sure it doesn't...), the lack of oxygen would last a fraction of a second.....

Using a fosfor grenade and filling the enemy tank with smoke is more effective in that purpose (not allowing a crew to work inside the crewcompartment)

In fact, that is how some Tiger tanks got taken out of action. By weapons that couldn't penetrate the armour.

 


Edited by Spek_en_Bonen, 25 October 2014 - 09:09 AM.


We_Just_Dinged_Em #8 Posted 25 October 2014 - 09:14 AM

    Captain

  • Clan Commander
  • 17559 battles
  • 2,011
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-12-2010
...the Tiger at Bovington was disabled by a 6 pounder shell from a Churchill that jammed it's turret ring causing the crew to bail out....you can still see the marks on the tank :)

krazypenguin #9 Posted 25 October 2014 - 09:39 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 27097 battles
  • 2,790
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-15-2011

View PostThe_Foolio, on 25 October 2014 - 08:31 AM, said:

My only hope is that Bovington got well paid and will profit from the publicity.

 

I suspect that Bovington were well paid for the use of Tiger 131 and their E8 (not to mention their staff).  I was at the museum yesterday and they have created a nice exhibit around the Fury tank itself, with lots of information and videos all about their participation in the film.  They are actively promoting the film too - the museum is full of posters about it.  The entrance to the exhibit itself is made up to look like the entrance to a cinema that is showing the film.  It's really well done.

 

The full album is here but here are a few pics by way of example:

Spoiler

 

View PostWe_Just_Dinged_Em, on 25 October 2014 - 09:14 AM, said:

...the Tiger at Bovington was disabled by a 6 pounder shell from a Churchill that jammed it's turret ring causing the crew to bail out....you can still see the marks on the tank :)

 

And here it is:


Edited by krazypenguin, 25 October 2014 - 10:06 AM.


IH8MEDS #10 Posted 25 October 2014 - 10:44 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 87 battles
  • 2,944
  • Member since:
    10-14-2013

Quote

1. Classically you'd go front/rear if you were hitting a column, haven't seen the film so I couldn't tell you where they were or where the Tiger starts.

 

They were indeed in a column, crossing open field too (I for one just smelled an ambush, though I believe they were aware of that possibility too, but orders are orders...)

 

Quote

Saw the trailer and it looks like typical Hollywood garbage. Pitt, who can't act for toffee, trying be all deep and meaningful.

 

Just... lol. If not even Brad Pitt "can't act for toffee"... not gonna say anything more.

 

Quote

A single Sherman holding off 300 SS Panzer Grenadiers = [edited].

 

They had to. Those were their orders, since they had to stop the German advance otherwise lots of civils/medical personnel would have been killed. And mind you, there were supposed to be 4 Shermans doing that (out of the 10 that were requested)

And to be fair, they fought tooth & nail, even though the track was off and AFAIK the turret was somewhat busted as well (though still functional)

 

Quote

...the Tiger at Bovington was disabled by a 6 pounder shell from a Churchill that jammed it's turret ring causing the crew to bail out....you can still see the marks on the tank :)

 

I'm perfectly aware of that... yet they made its turret functional for the movie (it DID spin after its targets). Really surprised, since I saw on QB's videos on the Bovington trip that the turret was pretty immobile/indeed jammed when they took the 131 for a spin.

Then again, who knows, they possibly went for a mock-up for most of the frames and only shown the 131 at the beginning of the scene.

 

Quote

4. Panzerfaust (looks like a stick with a big lump on the end, Panzerschreck was a copy of the bazooka) had a large(ish) shaped charge warhead, inverted copper cone, high explosives etc. So it should (on impact) as long as it functions correctly and hits the target pretty flat, send a jet of molten copper (and the armour underneath) through the tank. As long as it doesn't hit anything vital on the way through or burn all the oxygen in the tank up on it's way it will go all the way through with limited effect.

 

Well, that's just it - I kinda figured they didn't fire a HE round, because if that penetrated the entire inside of the tank would have been kaput then & there.

So that leaves the HEAT (or a similar warhead) variant. The fact of the matter is that it punched through one of the sides and killed one of the crewmembers, putting quite a big, gaping hole through his abdomen



Baldrickk #11 Posted 25 October 2014 - 12:38 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30307 battles
  • 14,466
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostIH8MEDS, on 25 October 2014 - 11:44 AM, said:

Quote

...the Tiger at Bovington was disabled by a 6 pounder shell from a Churchill that jammed it's turret ring causing the crew to bail out....you can still see the marks on the tank :)

 

I'm perfectly aware of that... yet they made its turret functional for the movie (it DID spin after its targets). Really surprised, since I saw on QB's videos on the Bovington trip that the turret was pretty immobile/indeed jammed when they took the 131 for a spin.

Then again, who knows, they possibly went for a mock-up for most of the frames and only shown the 131 at the beginning of the scene.

 

No the 131 was fully restored, and is fully operational. Though iirc it has a newer engine and gearbox that were built to withstand the stress of the weight of the tank more than the originals.



Baldrickk #12 Posted 25 October 2014 - 12:50 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30307 battles
  • 14,466
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View Postkrazypenguin, on 25 October 2014 - 10:39 AM, said:

And here it is:

Here's one I took:

 

http://i.imgur.com/xFIAXVbh.jpg

 

It shows more of the damage on the gun - there are a couple more 'marks' where it actually hit the gun a couple of times (as it gets wider towards the mantlet) before the mark on the mantlet where it deflected down into the roof of the hull.

 

gallery:

http://imgur.com/a/r5LWR


Edited by Baldrickk, 25 October 2014 - 12:51 PM.


We_Just_Dinged_Em #13 Posted 25 October 2014 - 02:37 PM

    Captain

  • Clan Commander
  • 17559 battles
  • 2,011
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-12-2010

Yes Fedaykin, there's nothing wrong with the turret now, it's fully restored.

 

Looked great at Tankfest, even if my air was polluted by QB standing approx 10m from me.



RACKandRUIN #14 Posted 25 October 2014 - 05:03 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1527 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

I know some of the guys that were on Fury (just extras mind you, but I also know a couple of the guys that provided some of the other Shermans) 

regarding the Fury vs Tiger fight: I read an account of a Sherman tank commander equipped with an M4A3 Sherman in Germany near the end of the war. He said they were in action one day and pulled up to a hedge when a tank barrel (as it turns out a Tiger I barrel) appeared through the hedge infront of them but the rest of the Tiger was hidden from view and as such he couldn't see the Sherman. The Brit gave the order to fire so they could get the hell out of their and they put 5 rounds rapid through the hedge at pretty much zero range and still didn't kill the thing, ever round bounced off the turret front (admittedly the strongest armour). however they bought enough time to be able to move (probably shook up and rattled the Germans nicely! But when the brute eventually fired he cut a groove in the turret roof of the Sherman. They got away but it was a very close thing!

 

The real faults with the film are I think faults caused not by the actors (who I think all did a good job really) but with their characters. So when they fight the Tiger they advanced pretty slowly in line abreast. If it was me it would've been foot to the floor spreading out and trying to get round the back. 

 

The AT guns were big ol' things but if I remember right they are badly aimed, they do score a couple of hits but only glancing blows. And the one that fires in the town square is only a little one.

 

There are only Yanks in it but it is a film about an American tank crew. when your potential audience is something like 100 million American people who might want to see it (and you're trying to make money remember) or 20-30 million British people I think we all know where the money lies.

 

Most importantly with this film it showed very well the life (albiet over only a couple of days) of a tank crew who are pretty sick of war. I also particularly liked how they made a very clear distinction between the ordinary German soldiers and the SS.



DingIsHere #15 Posted 25 October 2014 - 05:06 PM

    Colonel

  • Clan Commander
  • 15970 battles
  • 3,784
  • [4Q2] 4Q2
  • Member since:
    12-22-2011

whoa!!

 

Put spoilers IN SPOILERS!!!!

 

Spoiler

 



Klypa_ #16 Posted 25 October 2014 - 07:20 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 14700 battles
  • 338
  • Member since:
    01-19-2011

View PostIH8MEDS, on 24 October 2014 - 10:39 PM, said:

... surprisingly, I really really liked it.

 

Before I get to the part that (I hope) interests us all, which is of course the tank action, I must say I was genuinely surprised on how they managed to build up tension in some scenes.

Like the table scene, in the German girls' house. Thought the rest of Don's crew were just gonna barge in just to show that the movie is at least trying to show that US troops also had a bit of an ugly side... but then the "horses story" came along... damn. You start to have a small idea on what those boys went through so far and what made them so hardened (on the outside, at least)

 

Also, even though it was 90% predictable what was going to happen, the Tiger (yay for 131! It LIVES!) scene really fastened my heartbeat and by the end my hands were pretty tight around the cinema seat. For me, it managed to convey at least a fraction of what an Ally tank crew would have felt if they encountered a Tiger...

 

Btw, Brad Pitt delivers. Not really a fan of his (not that I dislike him by any means) but he really did pull off an interesting role (well, it's not like he had many bad roles, but still).

 

 

Now, a few thoughts about the tank action, which may contain spoilers. Continue reading at your own risk

 

1) The Tiger scene.

Now, I'm a close to a complete newb when it comes to historical tank action (I have the general idea of how they were deployed), but... wouldn't it have made more sense for the Tiger to target the first tank of the column, followed by the last, so that it would shut the column down?

Other than that, I think they created quite a feasible scenario in which to present the whole "4/5 Shermans for 1 Tiger" mythos.

 

2) Just how the hell did Shermans managed to bounce some of the AT guns fire towards the beginning of the movie?!

 

3) Shouldn't Fury (it's an E8, right?) be able to punch through the Tiger frontal armor? Did really fudge that scene up with this detail?

 

4) How come the Panzerfaust (hope I'm not wrong, though from my limited military history knowledge those were not Panzerschrecks) didn't detonate inside the tank?! Did it just penetrate the whole thing left to right?!

 

 

 

That's it for now, warm impressions straight out of the oven, so to say. Again, I really liked the movie, it was actually grittier than I thought it would be (the 15+ rating it got here is well deserved, IMO) so I appreciate it didn't soften some scenes up for the viewer.

Heck, war IS hell - and IMO a tanker's death has got to be one of the most gruesome deaths possible

 

As for those of you who have not seen it yet, hope I didn't it spoil too much and I hope you'll enjoy it as well. I can fully recommend it, at least even if for the entertainment value alone, though I believe it delivers a bit more than that.

I agree with most of what you say, i would give the film 9.5/10 up until the last 20 minute where it just fell apart and reduced into the usual Holywood [edited]with the sterotypical movie Germans who run around getting mowed down by mg fire like headless chickens. Yes you are right they are panzerfausts, however one hit would have completely ruined the Sherman, they detonate inside the tank after the copper rod penetrator pierces the armour the explosive charge will burst inside. The film clearly showed boxes of panzerfausts being deployed but they only ever fired 3, moreover why brad pit did not get hit when he was exposed on the engine deck firing the 50 while Germans ran all around him i do not know. Moreover when grenades get dropped through the hatches they explode within the tank but the crew seem blissfully unaware despite just having a grenade go off 3-4 feet away inside the tank, in reality they would likely be severely concussed and lose their hearing for life, Other niggling issues i had were the German AT guns ability to consistently miss at near point blank range across the field and the Tiger crews inability to simply traverse on the spot while traversing the turret at the same time so as to bring the gun to bear on the Easy 8 (a common tactic due to the slow turret traverse). Moreover those logs on the side of the easy 8 would not have stopped the 88 shell, a more believable scenario would have been to have the 88 penetrate the side armour but fly though the tank and out the other side without doing any severe damage which did often happen. Just my 2 cents. Oterwise it was very well acted and with some epic battle scenes. I must admit i did think it ws the coolest bit of cinema since SPR.



IH8MEDS #17 Posted 25 October 2014 - 08:41 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 87 battles
  • 2,944
  • Member since:
    10-14-2013

^I thought the shell that hit the logs actually glanced off, barely hitting the Fury.

 

So I was right about a penetrating Panzerfaust thing mangling up the insides of a tank badly...

 

Also, hey, they couldn't obliterate Brad Pitt's face from those 2 German stick grenades, could they? They had to share a final, intimate moment between the rookie and the commander, right?...

 

Yeah, there were a few tropes & cliches, but... all in all the character delivery outshines those flaws, IMO

 

P.S.: Kudos for the VERY eerie & ominous soundtrack they made when the German SS division was marching. I know, I know, Nazi soldiers have been shown in that very ominous, devilish evil light since... forever and it's yet another cliche, but it really did help give them that "Army of Darkness" / "Totenkopf" feel



anonym_3SQ4svLS8GpC #18 Posted 25 October 2014 - 11:34 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 81
  • Member since:
    10-05-2018

***spoils**

 

I saw it and there are probably a few things to annoy the detail buffs but it was a lot better than the trailers made it look, sometimes the German AT could not hit a barn door, but I suppose the crews might have not been the best trained by that point, the ending was pure hollywood, but good for it I think, not much tank on tank action at all so probably won't piss of the historical people much, I think the scene with the Bovvy tiger could have been cut out and the movie would have still worked, but all in all a good watch.



Covinus #19 Posted 27 October 2014 - 07:18 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 22989 battles
  • 445
  • [BAD-1] BAD-1
  • Member since:
    07-16-2010

This is where I really get annoyed with Hollywood.

 

They make good films, but as always the good old USA wins the day.

 

Remember enigma, the coding machine which was captured by the Americans in the film.....Failed to realise what an insult to the British crew who did capture it.

 

I will no doubt watch the film, but I disagree with the hype and total fantasy role a sole tank behind enemy lines had, come on ffs really!



The_Foolio #20 Posted 27 October 2014 - 10:27 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 34256 battles
  • 1,642
  • Member since:
    11-20-2012

View PostCovinus, on 27 October 2014 - 08:18 AM, said:

This is where I really get annoyed with Hollywood.

 

They make good films, but as always the good old USA wins the day.

 

Remember enigma, the coding machine which was captured by the Americans in the film.....Failed to realise what an insult to the British crew who did capture it.

 

I will no doubt watch the film, but I disagree with the hype and total fantasy role a sole tank behind enemy lines had, come on ffs really!

 

 

Exactly!

 

I have no problem with film only featuring Americans, if that is what the story is about. My beef is that whenever Brits, or other Europeans are featured, they are either a token toff, or incompetent and needing to be rescued.

 

 

 

I'd love to see a real representation of being a tankie, similar to Das Boot. Not this one tank/platoon against the world - i.e. Fury it Saving Private Ryan. It would never get made though. Fury is the film equivalent of CoD. Enjoyable for the kiddies, no doubt.


Edited by The_Foolio, 27 October 2014 - 10:28 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users