Jump to content
weapon2010

Fury Movie Discussion.

Recommended Posts

Or, as Joseph Heller once put it; it's better to live on your feet than to die on your knees.

Personally I live by the adagium that it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are some accounts of tanks shooting up troops similar to the movie-- Layfette Poole has one written about his tank in the book ''tank action''-- sometime troops do not always do as they should --- or do as they know to do - still it is a movie after all... and a decent armor movie at that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Permanently, I suspect.

:D

Michael

If you live.

Having survived 31 winters on a string,

so far still I don't know what does the future bring.

At 107 years (Perhaps Emrys is older?) you must be among the persons that know the most about living on earth. Please elaborate. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there are some accounts of tanks shooting up troops similar to the movie

I just came back from seeing it. A number one double plus good! I got the distinct impression the final scene versus the SS was at least tangentially inspired by the exploits of Audie Murphy single-handedly holding off a full company of Germans for an hour, killing or wounding 50, including firing a .50 call off the back of a burning TD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
World War II was NOT fought by middle-aged men!

In large part, it was, actually. I recall reading (ages ago) that the average US fighting man age in Vietnam was a good dozen years younger than the average fighting man age in WWII. That info was from way back when Vietnam was a topic that people used to discuss, so you know it was a long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

WWII average US age was 26. (Cheap google-fu. Use at your own risk.)

Vietnam average US age was "about 19". (I am -extremely- suspect about that internet number, but have no other.)

FWIW, when I was 26, I knew it all and was about as mature as was possible to be. AFAIWC. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In large part, it was, actually. I recall reading (ages ago) that the average US fighting man age in Vietnam was a good dozen years younger than the average fighting man age in WWII.

There is something wrong with that number. I suspect that in the case of Vietnam they weren't counting all the men in the Army who had their jobs back in the States. In the '60s the US military began increasingly officer heavy and increasingly senior officer heavy. Lots of generals for a small number of troops. That alone should push the average age up a bit. Immediately before and during WW II there was a huge expansion of the armed forces. Certainly many of those men were of mature age (over 30, say), but the vast bulk were not. And most of those older men were not carrying a rifle in a front line platoon.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the topic of the movie. I got the impression that FURY wasn't exactly made for the American market. There's a whole genre of Russian war films pretty much like this. Hard-bitten war-weary tank crews with colorful personalities going up against the Nazis and performing valiantly. The coloring and cinematography in the film even resembled those Russian films. Not that I'm complaining. Usually America does a war film and we get Nicholas Cage in 'Windtalkers'. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched this:

They get ambushed by a single Tiger from 700m away and back up but suddenly the Tiger drives towards them in some kind of suicide attack and seconds later is only 10m away from a bunch of Shermans ?!

Thats just way to dumb, i think i will skip this movie.

And i dont have anything against US war/action-movies but this is just a insult on the common sense of the audience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just watched this:

They get ambushed by a single Tiger from 700m away and back up but suddenly the Tiger drives towards them in some kind of suicide attack and seconds later is only 10m away from a bunch of Shermans ?!

Thats just way to dumb, i think i will skip this movie.

And i dont have anything against US war/action-movies but this is just a insult on the common sense of the audience.

Haha. Agree. The only thing that comes to my mind while watching this clip is World of Tanks :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just watched this:

They get ambushed by a single Tiger from 700m away and back up but suddenly the Tiger drives towards them in some kind of suicide attack and seconds later is only 10m away from a bunch of Shermans ?!

Thats just way to dumb, i think i will skip this movie.

And i dont have anything against US war/action-movies but this is just a insult on the common sense of the audience.

I'm thinking the same that the tiger has armour and ambush advantages and no needed such an frontal attack and going close as world of tank game action

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though the worst piece of the movie, that part with the Tiger was only one small episode. I think they were trying to depict hitting the tank with smoke then covering open ground quickly and getting behind him. Their plan fizzled when the Tiger didn't cooperate and instead rolled forward through the smoke to meet them. Necessitation keeping all three Shermans in the same frame (and not widely separated dots on the horizon) for movie purposes kind'a screwed up the depiction of the tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just watched the Fury-Tiger you tube clip up above and big chunks of that fight sequence are missing from the clip. The smoke rounds, the crossing of the open ground, etc etc. It makes a little more sense in the theater. A bit overdone (a 76mm Sherman wouldn't need to close to 30m for a side penetration) but still made a little more sense than the clip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just came back home from the cinema and I'm quite dissapointed. I thought it was a decent movie up to the Tiger Scene and then it just spiraled down to pure crap. Remember when Norman spotted the incoming SS? They were shown carying a lot of Panzer fausts, then they get ambushed by the Sherman and suddenly nobody is close by with a Panzer faust? After a while they bring a crate with Panzer fausts but only two are used? And those shotes where they open the hatch and look inside, cmon.. I kind of wanted to walk away during the last fight.

I would like however to see better model of WP grenades in CM.

Also when did they start mounting 50 cal on Sherman turrets? Would be nice to have them in CM games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scene where the TC pulls the German into his hatch and kills him with a knife is straight out of a Vietnam war tanker's memoir, during a battle when VC were crawling over an M48. What was that book... "Tank Sergeant" by Zumbro. Presidio press. I haven't even thought of that book in a decade or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also when did they start mounting 50 cal on Sherman turrets? Would be nice to have them in CM games.

Look harder. They've always been there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...