Author Topic: The movie "Fury" (Read 3610 times)

Monkeyleg · « **on:** February 08, 2015, 08:48:44 PM »

Excellent. Just excellent. One of the best war films I've seen in a long time (I haven't seen "American Sniper" yet).

Ben · « **Reply #1 on:** February 08, 2015, 09:09:37 PM »

Agreed. I just watched it Friday. Very well done.

Angel Eyes · « **Reply #2 on:** February 08, 2015, 09:35:07 PM »

Rented Fury a week ago. Good flick. Pitt was actually fairly convincing as the tank commander (which surprised me) and the battle scenes were appropriately intense. Depicting Americans as the underdogs in April of '45 was a bit of a stretch, but they made it work.

Minor nitpicks: the tank crew seemed to be a collection of stereotypes (the cynical guy, the lecherous guy, the religious guy, the "ethnic" guy and the babe-in-the-woods guy). Also I think the director had watched Cross Of Iron one too many times.

TommyGunn · « **Reply #3 on:** February 08, 2015, 11:03:37 PM »

I watched it on DVD thursday evening and enjoyed it.
POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT VV

I had a sneaking premonition that the guy who survived would be .... the one who actually did.

And Brad Pitt did a good job, surprisingly. All the actors did actually.
Portraying the Americans as the underdogs .... well, The Sherman was in fact outclassed by the bigger badder more modern German monster tanks. Recall the shells bouncing off the front of that Nazi behemoth in the tank fight? That was pretty real. So was the German AT weapons like the Panzerfaust going through the Sherman tanks. General Patton complained that the shells would go through the tank hulls and bounce around a few times and kill everyone.

Certainly one of the better war films in quit awhile.

RevDisk · « **Reply #4 on:** February 09, 2015, 08:36:02 AM »

Quote from: Angel Eyes on February 08, 2015, 09:35:07 PM

Depicting Americans as the underdogs in April of '45 was a bit of a stretch, but they made it work.

For a Sherman crew, it probably wasn't that much of a stretch. They had gasoline engines and poor ammo storage protection, which were not good. They were designed for ease of production. So, we could make a lot of them. Not only did we have to make them, we had to move them. German and Russian tanks had to only be moved over land. American tanks had to be shipped by water. We also were responsible for tank production for nearly all of our allies to some extent. The Germans had better tanks, but they were hard to make, hard to transport, hard to repair and hard to recover. The Sherman was the right choice, but they WERE the underdogs on any contact with any German tank.

The bazooka was pretty good for knocking a hole in a wall. Not so great against German tanks. Actually, we need something like a bazooka for urban combat today and don't have it. Panzerfaust was dirt cheap and had a good chance of knocking out a Sherman if you could hit it. Since it was so cheap, easy enough to hand them to infantry like candy.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/david-rae-kept-fury-authentic-59afc67ebf11

Apparently, a former British soldier named David Rae was in charge of tank tactics. Aside from practical considerations, the tank tactics were pretty sound that I saw. Overdramatized a bit but it's supposed to be a movie, not a training manual. Overall, quite good. I wasn't aware the movie snagged the world’s last functional Tiger tank.

Ben · « **Reply #5 on:** February 09, 2015, 09:46:40 AM »

This was kind of a bummer quote from Rev's link:

Quote

“You’re not going to see a tank film again,” Rae explained. “There’s not much shelf-life left on these machines.” Fury is these old war wagons’ last chance to show off. Rae was there to make sure they showed off right.

BlueStarLizzard · « **Reply #6 on:** July 02, 2016, 11:47:40 PM »

Bumping this because I just saw it. Picked it up for $8 at the Dollar General.

Really good. By the end I was sitting at the edge of my seat, not so much because the ending was any sort of surprise, plot wise, but because the action and fighting sequences were just so intense.
It takes real skill to pull off a standard plot war movie and make it that good. Fury had that. Visually, it was great, especially how it was cut.

just Warren · « **Reply #7 on:** July 03, 2016, 01:19:37 AM »

I've only seen the trailers but am I supposed to believe that Pak 38 or 40 crews are going to miss slow moving targets that are moving straight on at them at 200-300 yards?

HankB · « **Reply #8 on:** July 03, 2016, 12:27:55 PM »

I guess I'm the odd man out here - Fury wouldn't even be a contender in my Top 10 list of war movies.

tokugawa · « **Reply #9 on:** July 03, 2016, 01:42:13 PM »

Have not seen the movie.
From what I have read, the American tanks outnumbered the German tanks at an astounding ratio, can't remember the number but was huge disparity.

Phantom Warrior · « **Reply #10 on:** July 03, 2016, 01:51:59 PM »

Quote from: HankB on July 03, 2016, 12:27:55 PM

I guess I'm the odd man out here - Fury wouldn't even be a contender in my Top 10 list of war movies.

I have to agree. I thought the movie spent way to much time focusing on the crew being the crew and not enough on any thing else, like battles. It was like those indie movies where it starts, nothing happens except people talking, and the movie ends. Except in a Sherman tank. I disliked it enough that I walked out of it.

Fly320s · « **Reply #11 on:** July 03, 2016, 03:42:46 PM »

Quote from: HankB on July 03, 2016, 12:27:55 PM

I guess I'm the odd man out here - Fury wouldn't even be a contender in my Top 10 list of war movies.

Same with me.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #12 on:** July 03, 2016, 08:49:17 PM »

Entertaining
Top 10?

Blakenzy · « **Reply #13 on:** July 03, 2016, 10:59:33 PM »

The first half was good. Until they occupied the town. Then it became boring.

HankB · « **Reply #14 on:** July 04, 2016, 10:39:22 AM »

Actually, the reason I didn't like Fury is because like other recent war movies, American GI's were portrayed as a bunch of murderous, foul-mouthed cretins who were one step removed from either a prison cell or a strait jacket.

Phantom Warrior · « **Reply #15 on:** July 04, 2016, 11:18:00 AM »

Quote from: HankB on July 04, 2016, 10:39:22 AM

Actually, the reason I didn't like Fury is because like other recent war movies, American GI's were portrayed as a bunch of murderous, foul-mouthed cretins who were one step removed from either a prison cell or a strait jacket.

Well, one part of that isn't wrong...

-former Infantryman

French G. · « **Reply #16 on:** July 04, 2016, 11:27:09 AM »

Quote from: HankB on July 04, 2016, 10:39:22 AM

Actually, the reason I didn't like Fury is because like other recent war movies, American GI's were portrayed as a bunch of murderous, foul-mouthed cretins who were one step removed from either a prison cell or a strait jacket.

Quite right, it wasn't a Navy movie after all. But that is a common war movie trope going back many years.

The inferiority of American tanks was likely not as big a deal as modern armchairs make it. Early on sure, but by late in the war the modern American way of war was fully fledged. If a Tiger or three was in a known position a bunch of Sherman's would not just saunter out to get shot up. Call in a flight of Typhoons or P-51s. Lay in artillery, lots of artillery. Anything but a wild west mano y mano tank fight. Reading a history of the Rhineland campaign right now, besides water everywhere one of the biggest obstacles to advance was the total wreckage inflicted by artillery and strategic bombers. Towns and Key points were vast cratered rubble piles that hid the enemy and impeded vehicular progress.

just Warren · « **Reply #17 on:** July 04, 2016, 11:30:28 AM »

So like modern Detroit then?

French G. · « **Reply #18 on:** July 04, 2016, 12:28:16 PM »

Quote from: Warren on July 04, 2016, 11:30:28 AM

So like modern Detroit then?

No one wants to capture Detroit.

just Warren · « **Reply #19 on:** July 04, 2016, 12:35:36 PM »

Mo Town, mo problems.

BlueStarLizzard · « **Reply #20 on:** July 04, 2016, 12:56:09 PM »

Quote from: HankB on July 04, 2016, 10:39:22 AM

Actually, the reason I didn't like Fury is because like other recent war movies, American GI's were portrayed as a bunch of murderous, foul-mouthed cretins who were one step removed from either a prison cell or a strait jacket.

I'm not sure I could have experienced even half of what they did without becoming a bit of a murderous, foul-mouthed cretins who were one step removed from either a prison cell or a strait jacket. :/

WWI and WWII battle fields were pretty gnarly.

K Frame · « **Reply #21 on:** July 04, 2016, 03:30:58 PM »

Later Sherman had ammo storage completely redesigned. Ammo racks in the turret were eliminated, ammo was moved to armored compartments, and late versions incorporated wet storage.

This all combined to dramatically reduce the catastrophic ammo fires in early models that often resulted from a turret hit and which could blow the turret free of the hull.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Phantom Warrior · « **Reply #22 on:** July 04, 2016, 04:58:05 PM »

Quote from: bluestarlizzard on July 04, 2016, 12:56:09 PM

I'm not sure I could have experienced even half of what they did without becoming a bit of a murderous, foul-mouthed cretins who were one step removed from either a prison cell or a strait jacket. :/

WWI and WWII battle fields were pretty gnarly.

As an OIF Vet I have nothing but the deepest respect for WWI and WWII vets who endured artillery barrages like those described in the blog post below. Along with amphibious landings under heavy fire, kamikazes, banzai charges, and brutal close quarters combat.

https://angrystaffofficer.com/2016/07/01/anatomy-of-a-world-war-i-artillery-barrage/

MechAg94 · « **Reply #23 on:** July 04, 2016, 09:08:37 PM »

Quote from: Mike Irwin on July 04, 2016, 03:30:58 PM

Later Sherman had ammo storage completely redesigned. Ammo racks in the turret were eliminated, ammo was moved to armored compartments, and late versions incorporated wet storage.

This all combined to dramatically reduce the catastrophic ammo fires in early models that often resulted from a turret hit and which could blow the turret free of the hull.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

That and people forget that the Germans were run out of North Africa with a lot of American tanks which were as good or better than a lot of the tanks Rommel had. The problem was we were on an all out production frenzy and we were a year or so behind the latest German/Russian designs which had lept ahead. I think we also fielded some larger tanks and bigger guns later in the war.

You mention artillery. That was one thing I was wondering about from that one scene in Fury. They just charged forward knowing there were anti-tank guns in that position. I would have thought they would call in artillery, flank the position, or at least put out smoke to hide their advance. In Patton's book he mentioned sending in tanks under a barrage of proximity fused anti-personnel artillery. When they faced the Tiger later, I was wondering why they kept moving straight forward and didn't split off at angles to flank the Tiger from different directions.

Scout26 · « **Reply #24 on:** July 04, 2016, 11:50:38 PM »

Yes, the tactics and the action portrayed were NOT standard US Army tactics of WWII.

Sherman's were designed to be Assault Guns to support infantry advances and the guns were for knocking out things like bunkers and machine gun nests, not to go toe-to-toe with German tanks. That's what M10, M18, and M36 (along with the Towed Guns) Tank Destroyer Battalions were for.

P.S. If you are ever near Central Indiana, the [urlhttp://ropkeyarmormuseum.com/]Ropke Armor Museum is Crawfordsville is simply Outstanding. [/url]

News:

Author Topic: The movie "Fury" (Read 3610 times)