Revamped Opel Blitz trucks!

[fsn]

I know what Sunray is saying. Tigers and Panthers are the "glamorous" vehicles. If you think Soviet, you'll probably go for T34s; if you think late war British/American then the Sherman is first on the shopping list.

Would "Fury" have been the same if a Pz IV had come charging out against those Shermans instead of a Tigger?

[Orcs]

Would "Fury" have been the same if a Pz IV had come charging out against those Shermans instead of a Tigger?

No Idea, I have yet to get round to watching it. I still have the shrink wrapped DVD on the shelf

[fsn]

Here you go.   

[Smoking gun]

No Idea, I have yet to get round to watching it. I still have the shrink wrapped DVD on the shelf

I shouldn't bother to watch it, poor plot, improbable combat scenes. The only good thing is seeing a tank run but there's plenty of tank film on YouTube.

Regards,
Martin

[Ithoriel]

I'd say watch it and form your own opinion.

It's a big budget, blockbuster movie. It's not a historical documentary and doesn't pretend to be. It's not aimed at history nerds but still manages to get rivet-counting details mainly right.

Why would a Tiger commander drive out of cover to engage three Shermans? I don't know. But then I don't know why a real world Jagdpanther commander decided to turn his vehicle around when repositioning, offering his weakest armour to enemy fire and leading to the very destruction he sought to avoid ... but he did.

Why didn't the final battle in the film end abruptly with a panzerfaust shot being pumped into "Fury" at close range? Narrative imperative. There again why didn't one of the many attacking Germans not use an MG42 to sweep Audie Murphy off the engine deck of the burning M10 he was standing on hosing them with MG fire and calling in artillery fire on them?

If what I've seen and read about war tells me anything it is that people do the most incredibly stupid things in war. Some of which get them medals and some just get them or their comrades dead.

"Do you know what the definition of a hero is? Someone who gets other people killed. You can look it up later." Joss Whedon, Serenity.

"Fury" isn't a film about small unit tactics it's a film about how horrible, morally corrosive and wasteful war is. It doesn't do badly at that, for a popcorn movie.

[hammurabi70]

It's a big budget, blockbuster movie. It's not a historical documentary and doesn't pretend to be. It's not aimed at history nerds but still manages to get rivet-counting details mainly right.

Why would a Tiger commander drive out of cover to engage three Shermans? I don't know. But then I don't know why a real world Jagdpanther commander decided to turn his vehicle around when repositioning, offering his weakest armour to enemy fire and leading to the very destruction he sought to avoid ... but he did.

Perhaps because an inexperienced crew lacked training in driving backwards.  We do tend to think of war films as documentaries but they have to be watched as drama, with all the limitations that imposes; I think nowadays they get much correct when in the past film makers took scant regard to reality when making films.

I'd say watch it and form your own opinion.

"Fury" isn't a film about small unit tactics it's a film about how horrible, morally corrosive and wasteful war is. It doesn't do badly at that, for a popcorn movie.

Agreed.  It took a lot of flak from the hobby when it came out but when I finally watched it I thought it okay but not terribly inspiring.  Where they did have a winner was in setting it in Germany in the last days; an overlooked period in which a lot of dying was still going on. 

[fsn]

It's sad that Hollywood doesn't listen to its historical advisers.

I doubt any Tiger commander would forsake cover and sacrifice his advantage in thick frontal  armour, long range gunnery, and firing at the halt - to charge a platoon of Shermans.





It's a bit like any shield wall that immediately dissolves into one on one sword fights with horsemen clumping in.  

Or in Saving Private Ryan when Tom Hanks sticks a Tommy Gun through a vision slit of a Tiger.

[Sunray]

I'd say watch it and form your own opinion.

It's a big budget, blockbuster movie. It's not a historical documentary and doesn't pretend to be. It's not aimed at history nerds but still manages to get rivet-counting details mainly right.

Why would a Tiger commander drive out of cover to engage three Shermans? I don't know. But then I don't know why a real world Jagdpanther commander decided to turn his vehicle around when repositioning, offering his weakest armour to enemy fire and leading to the very destruction he sought to avoid ... but he did.

Why didn't the final battle in the film end abruptly with a panzerfaust shot being pumped into "Fury" at close range? Narrative imperative. There again why didn't one of the many attacking Germans not use an MG42 to sweep Audie Murphy off the engine deck of the burning M10 he was standing on hosing them with MG fire and calling in artillery fire on them?

If what I've seen and read about war tells me anything it is that people do the most incredibly stupid things in war. Some of which get them medals and some just get them or their comrades dead.

"Do you know what the definition of a hero is? Someone who gets other people killed. You can look it up later." Joss Whedon, Serenity.

"Fury" isn't a film about small unit tactics it's a film about how horrible, morally corrosive and wasteful war is. It doesn't do badly at that, for a popcorn movie.

I agree with most of this.   Soldiers do unexplained things in combat.  The Tiger crew could be convinced of their own invincibility especially against puny Shermans.

A similar mindset was observed in Korean, when 8 Royal Irish  Centurion crews realised how impervious they were - I have shared the combat reports with Nobby (fsn).  They added a new word to the tanker's vocabulary - "they swanned around the killing ground". 

The key factor is that for the popcorn movie to work, Pit's Sherman has to survive the tank battle. Hence the script for the Tiger crew to break cover.
 

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Ahem...

SPOILER WARNING WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE!

[fsn]

C'mon. Fury was 2014.

If you haven't seen it by now, I have no sympathy.

Besides the Tiger charge scene has been on everything.

[Orcs]

Ahem...

SPOILER WARNING WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE!

Yes It would. I stopped at the first bit, but still read more than I wanted too.

[Leon]

Just a quick note, I've split the 'Goodies vs Baddies' posts into a new topic in General Discussion: http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,19838.0.html