Fury Movie Discussion.

[Oddball_E8]

We don't know that. He might be a sadistic serial killer. :eek:

Michael

Naah, she gave me this bloody thing called a conscience. Can't even commit petty crime like shoplifting or burglary (of rich peoples houses)... that could have helped when I was broke and unemployed, but noooo... she had to go and give me a conscience :/

[Warts 'n' all]

I'm pretty sure that WP was in fact what the Sherman was armed with. The animation for it in the game isn't right. On the other hand, the smoke mortars mounted on the tanks are correct.

Michael

I'm currently playing "Bloody Dawn". I've noticed that all of my Shermans except one are carrying "Smoke" rounds. But, the M4A3(75)W is armed with "WP". I don't if this reflects history or not. I suspect someone on the forum might know.

[Oddball_E8]

I'm currently playing "Bloody Dawn". I've noticed that all of my Shermans except one are carrying "Smoke" rounds. But' date=' the M4A3(75)W is armed with "WP". I don't if this reflects history or not. I suspect someone on the forum might know.[/quote']

IIRC the reason for not making WP anything different from regular smoke in-game was that you couldn't set things on fire.

[Warts 'n' all]

I've never really noticed much difference on screen, perhaps I've never looked hard enough. One thing that has lodged in my old brain, if a weapon has both Smoke and WP rounds e.g. the 2-inch Mortar, it tends to fire off the WP first. I've never been sure why this happens. Any ideas? Anyone?

[Trooper117]

WP in real life will give you instantaneous smoke... Normal smoke rounds take a few seconds to generate the desired effect.

Not sure if that is the reason...

[MikeyD]

Recall old CMSF conversations, the game does have both kinds of smoke, WP and HC. WP is more dense and instantaneous but tends (tended) to lift off the ground. HC hugs the ground better. And at least back CMSF days, marching your men through a WP cloud would produce yellow base casualties. Firing WP into a structure was also a good way to clear it. I haven't thought about or looked at smoke types for years so there's no telling what's happening now. A good chance heavy mortar and artillery is WP.

[ChappyCanuck]

OK I just saw "Fury" and I really enjoyed it...until the dumba$$ John Wayne finale. For the film producers: this isn't the 1960's anymore - we, as an audience, don't need to be treated like idiots. Even the civilians around me were calling "bullsh#t" lol

So....FURY hits the AT mine and then Norman the clerk reports there are 300 SS infantry approaching (very slowly I might add...the crew managed to have a meeting, burn some bodies, and drink a bottle of liquor before they even arrived)

Option 1: Brad says, "OK guys, I got you this far and the war is almost over...let's high tail it out of here or this is suicide." Movie ends...the boys are victors and also very intelligent and live to be ripe old grandpas.

Option 2: Brad says, "I'm staying to fight...who is gonna join me?" The crew plead like they did, and then the gunner stares into him in disbelief (like he did) and says, "Sarge, you are a dumba$$. We made it from North Africa to here. The war will end soon. We have an immobilised Ronson and we are going to defeat 300 SS soldiers and live to tell about it? You will have failed your personal mission to protect us." Brad says, "Gee, what the hell was I thinking! Let's get outta here!" Movie ends...the boys are victors and also very intelligent and live to be ripe old grandpas.

Option 3: the beyond stupid ending..at least the German sniper got it right...almost. Movie ends...the boys are dead (exception: the clerk) and they don't live to be grandpas.

That being said, I thought the troop engagement with the Tiger was very entertaining, as was the attack against the ATG's in the woodline. If only a better ending...damn. Maybe next time!

[Vergeltungswaffe]

I like Option 4 best Chappy:

The SS Battalion is marching down the road nicely bunched up at several hundred yards range. The boys open up with main gun and mg's, kill a crapload, then haul ass while the rest wonder why they moved in a tidy formation down a road with an enemy tank's pointy end facing them.

[ChappyCanuck]

Not bad Verg! Any more movie ending options out there?

[Kanonier Reichmann]

The crew spike their tank's main gun to avoid it being used against their countrymen then realise that they still have a miniscule chace of holding off the battalion of SS by copying a tactic they heard about from a Ranger guy who fought near Carentan soon after D-Day. They then proceded to gather all the tank's HE shells in a stockpile and whack the base of one with the intent of lobbing it at the approaching enemy to blow them all sky high.

Unfortunately they forgot that the original story applied to small mortar ammo. rather than proper HE shells and blew themselves all to smithereens with their first attempt.

Regards

KR

[Hister]

Or the crew rigs the tank with shell amunition and remotely detonates it when poor German chaps close in to check it. Dunno if remote detonation would be possible to pull off with the available onboard equipment.

[mjkerner]

Or the crew rigs the tank with shell amunition and remotely detonates it when all 300 poor German chaps close in to check it. Dunno if remote detonation would be possible to pull off with the available onboard equipment.

There, fixed it!

[Hister]

That would be 1.200 flying limbs right there. Quite a scene.

[BLSTK]

@ Kanonier Reichmann:

Unfortunately they forgot that the original story applied to small mortar ammo. rather than proper HE shells and blew themselves all to smithereens with their first attempt.

Working title: "Brad Pitt Meets the Three Stooges".

[Quintus Sertorius]

OK I just saw "Fury" and I really enjoyed it...until the dumba$$ John Wayne finale. For the film producers: this isn't the 1960's anymore - we, as an audience, don't need to be treated like idiots. Even the civilians around me were calling "bullsh#t" lol

I think you've been watching the wrong John Wayne movies.

Otherwise, we're in agreement - about bad endings in general, not Fury in particular, because I've decided not to bother until it's on TV or something.

[John Kettler]

weapon2010,

I just got back from seeing it, and it was vastly better than I dared hope. Where, oh where did they get all that lovely nasty looking armor, including all the ruined tanks as the film begins? Tremendous atmosphere throughout. Could practically smell it, too. On balance, the best armor movie I've seen to date to date, and that's despite the a) stupid stuff and the martial insanity aka ridiculous intervehicle spacings necessary to get all the tanks in the platoon in frame while line abreast or even road column.

Whoever did the vehicle and set decoration did, pardon the expression, a bang up job. Man, were those tanks grubby and banged up! Loved how the log protection got chewed up by MG fire and then blown away to a large degree on the right side of the tank, also the shot up paint work from MG fire. Think someone missed an opportunity to frang tank exteriors and men alike when the artillery fire crashed into the square proper. German ATG gunnery (more war toys) needed major work, but JasonC will be along to tell us this is typical, not just for the Germans, but for all ATGs during the war. Unfortunately for JasonC, American performance was at pretty much modern levels. This may suffice to upset the entire universe!

I think the comparison to "Das Boot" is apt, for it's got that same walls closing in feel; that same disgusting interior. Okay. Much worse. Having been inside an M4A4 only a year ago or so, I have a fairly good sense of the interior space of a Sherman, and whereas the one I was in was pristine and white, Fury more nearly resembled a dark particularly vile low ceilinged, misshapen cubicle interlaced with obstructing and sharp metal. Did look pretty roomy in there, but then the shop in "Pawn Stars" is tiny and doesn't look it, either, on that show.

Nearly ralphed when the FNG had to remove pieces of his predecessor, especially the shocking half a face. Belton Cooper's men should've done that, but they're in 3AD, not 2AD. Looked in vain for a hole in the armor plate to accompany the bow MG operator's corpse. Loved the worn, dirty, greasy tank uniforms. If you can call them that. Only two pair of these in the entire crew.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/M4_crew,_Fort_Knox,_WWII.jpg

Some might think ordering a clerk typist to a tank made no sense, but by then, complete trained tank crews were very uncommon, and many tanks had long operated short crewed. The phenomenal Another Bridge, Another Town is the account of a 19 y.o. guy who had a whole two weeks of gunnery training and no breaking in period before winding up as gunner in practically the lead tank of a 3 AD major attack in Germany, so broadly comparable to Belton Cooper's talking about vanilla infantry drafted into tank crews right off the battlefield and flung into battle following only a few hours of training--with disastrous results. At least the FNG got a veteran crew, the "old" guys who spent two years working up before deploying to war, starting in North Africa. By WW II standards, and harder to assess because several of the men looked like 40 miles of bad road, these guys shown were old. Loved the scene with the small ineffectual 90 day (not so wonder) trying to command hard-bitten combat vets, especially in his spiffy unbesmirched unform and no whiskered cheeks. And if the /Hispanic-American/Mexican ("Don't speak Mexican in my tank." Priceless) in his top hat seemed rather "Kelly's Heroes," you might wish to look at this wartime pic. There are some great pics in the overall series, but please ignore the several shots of TDs and even an LVT some dolts called tanks!

http://life.time.com/history/fury-reality-of-tank-warfare-wwii-photos/#11

I thought the shooting the POW after the battle was clearly ended well before was gratuitous, not at all typical and highly illegal. Shooting enemy immediately after surrender in a battle where they fought until it was hopeless and had killed men from the attacking force? Certainly happened. On both sides. I grok the blooding of the FNG, from a plot aspect, but sheesh! Contrariwise, I thought the depiction of suppression effects and of the Landser prairie dogging from foxholes and trenches was cool, albeit messy. The MG-42 sound was pretty disturbing and was in vivid contrast to the other MGs. Liked the depiction of how little could be seen from the buttoned up tank and of the marginally head up American TCs in the tank battle. non Wardaddy TC casualties seemed credible, but methinks he should've died quickly, if not instantly, from multiple chest hits. Again, not as good a story. Full points for the escape hatch, use of crew personal weapons, StG-44, grenades and such. Thought the MG setup on the turret of Fury was notable. Film certainly depicted the shredding effects of Ma Deuce impacts well. Impressive weapon handling by that sniper. Nothing moved during reloading but the bolt.

While it made for great visuals not to shoot until they were past insanely close, I would've opened fire with everything I had while the German column was still well down the road four abreast and practically atop each other. Got dark so dramatically, so suddenly it was as though we entered a time warp, skipping dusk altogether.

I came out of the theater wired on adrenaline and feeling a bit like I did after being depth charged in "Das Boot." The effects were pronounced enough that deciding where to go for dinner with my brother afterward was tough, and the menu seemed daunting. Repeatedly had to consciously remember to breathe during the film. Intense.

Shall doubtless have more later when I've had to time to settle down and integrate the experience, but now, am off to keep reading what everyone else felt and thought. It may be a good thing so much time has elapsed since SPR came out, as far as WW II vets go, for this film would certainly have resurrected the nightmares and reactivated long dormant PTSD.

Regards,

John Kettler

[schwerpunktgrenadier]

This film was bollocks! Not even close to the class of Das Boot.

[Aragorn2002]

I've only watched this movie for the first couple of minutes. After seeing Pitt jump off from a tank on a German officier on horseback and stabbing his eyes out, I decided it's a waste of time. Disgusting. Same rubbish as Inglorious Bastards and an insult to those who fought and suffered. I really don't understand why Hollywood continues to make such movies full of hate and nonsense. With such a budget they could have made a much better movie, but it is all about sensation and making money nowadays, isn't it? Who is interested in historical accuracy or justice?

 

Talking of which. The confirmation of the shooting of German prisoners is interesting, though not at all surprising. For those of you who speak German, watch the documentary "Uber Galgen wächst kein Gras"on You Tube on the Malmedy-proces. You only have to look at the faces of the American guards, when interrogated, to know enough.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Aragorn2002

[General Jack Ripper]

 

 

Before there's more discussion about how old the movie cast is, look at this man one more time and tell me what you see.

I mean really look at him.

Do you see a 20 year old man?

Do you see a man who would jump on someone and stab their eyeballs out in order to go home?

 

Quote

By WW II standards, and harder to assess because several of the men looked like 40 miles of bad road, these guys shown were old.

 

It's been commonly stated that prolonged exposure to combat has the tendency to turn young boys into old men. In the movie, the crew of Fury landed in North Africa in 1942. It is now 1945, and they have seen the worst of the war. I was especially affected when they sat down at the dinner table in the German girls apartment. After acting like a couple of dicks straight out of high school, there was then a story told about how they had driven through the Falaise Gap after the fighting, and had witnessed a scene of death "so enormous the mind cannot comprehend it".

 

So yes, I think the movie chose the correct cast, a few guys who looked like 900 miles of bad road.

 

In regards to the shooting of the prisoner, the scene is not unique in any way. Prisoners were shot in WW2, on all sides. I recall a section from the book The GI's War in which a man was wounded on D-Day, and his friend was killed. While he was waiting on the beach to be evacuated, another GI came down to the beach with some German prisoners. The GI offered up his Thompson and asked if the wounded guy wanted to take revenge by shooting the prisoners. He refused, but the point is the offer was made in the first place.

While we can sit here in front of our computers with our modern sensibilities and think "shooting prisoners? barbarians!". Us people that live today and go watch these movies have absolutely no idea how a war of extermination should be fought. WW2 was a war of extermination, we could only win by killing everyone who fought against us.

 

The movie does a good job hammering that point through the audience's thick skull, in an extremely intense and effective way.

 

Now that's all I have to say about that. I thought the movie was great. Not perfect by any means, but a great movie. 8/10

Edited January 25, 2015 by SLIM

[General Jack Ripper]

I do apologize if my posting here is considered a thread necro, but I hadn't posted in this topic before.

After taking a nice long time to think about the movie, I just wanted to post some thoughts.

[Stele]

Something I found really interesting in the movie was when the column of Germans was singing while marching down the road. I thought it was a bit of a stretch in the movie, and thought there would be more sound discipline than that during the war. However, I'm reading about KG Peiper, and there is mention from American units spotting a column of Germans marching into a town while singing for everyone to hear and see.

[Oddball_E8]

One thing that struck me about the movie was that they stated that they had been in the same tank as the same crew since '42 (IIRC).
So it was probably supposed to be a 75mm armed sherman, which would explain alot about the fight with the tiger.

[Oddball_E8]

I've only watched this movie for the first couple of minutes. After seeing Pitt jump off from a tank on a German officier on horseback and stabbing his eyes out, I decided it's a waste of time. Disgusting. Same rubbish as Inglorious Bastards and an insult to those who fought and suffered. I really don't understand why Hollywood continues to make such movies full of hate and nonsense. With such a budget they could have made a much better movie, but it is all about sensation and making money nowadays, isn't it? Who is interested in historical accuracy or justice?

 

Talking of which. The confirmation of the shooting of German prisoners is interesting, though not at all surprising. For those of you who speak German, watch the documentary "Uber Galgen wächst kein Gras"on You Tube on the Malmedy-proces. You only have to look at the faces of the American guards, when interrogated, to know enough.

 

I'm sure nobody ever stabbed anyone else in the eye during the entire war, and they all acted like perfect gentlemen....

The point of the movie is not to glorify war, but to show how brutal and dehumanising it was, and how it turns seemingly good men into monsters at times.

[Hister]

Gotta see this movie finally to see whose opinion is aligned to what i will think/feel about the movie. Missed it in the theaters. 

[John1966]

One thing that struck me about the movie was that they stated that they had been in the same tank as the same crew since '42 (IIRC).

So it was probably supposed to be a 75mm armed sherman, which would explain alot about the fight with the tiger.

 

Well that was one of the things that bugged me about the movie. In a sense it was central to the "plot" (and I use the term loosely) as it's part of Pitt's justification for staying with the tank before the (ridiculous) climax: "This is my home!" Of course, it's supposed to be a parallel with the effect war had had on them: The war had become their home as the tank had. (Probably)

 

Thing is though, did tankers really feel that way about their tanks? Bomber crews were quite attached to their aircraft (although they didn't live in them) but generally speaking, if they lost the plane, the war was over for them anyway (either because they were killed or had become POWS). The same is not necessarily true of tank crews who may have bailed out, lost their tank due to mechanical failure or simply had their tank upgraded as the war progesssed.

 

I have no idea of the statitics on this but how many American tank crews who'd managed to survive from '42 to '45 would still be driving around the same tank they landed in North Africa with? I'll take a punt that it was very few. I saw an interview with a British veteran in a documentary about the dersert war last year and he said that he'd lost 35(!) tanks over the war. It's hard to imagine that he became particularly attached to any of them.

 

Actually, according to IMDB, Fury was an M4A2E8 (76)W HVSS (although, of course, that may not have been the part it was playing). I'm sure someone will be able to say with absolute authority when that was introduced...