Jump to content

DasMorbo

Members
  • Content Count

    227
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    DasMorbo reacted to Heirloom_Tomato in Good image hoster?   
    Another vote for imgur, just don't get lost looking at all the memes.
  2. Like
    DasMorbo reacted to John Kettler in Panther leader outdid Wittmann's feat   
    Never heard of this before, but thanks to brother George, I can now share this astounding story of superb soldiering, guts and elan with you. Even Hollywood couldn't come up with it! Not only did this guy clobber the foe, but his captures are stunning. During OPERATION NORDWIND in January 1945 10 SS''s Panzer Battalion A Company CO  Sturmbannführer  Erwin Bachman wrote a chapter in armored warfare which may never be duplicated. It took place during the battle for Herlisheim, France.
    Regards,

    John Kettler
  3. Like
    DasMorbo reacted to George MC in Panther leader outdid Wittmann's feat   
    Worth also listening/watching this regarding the concept of 'Aces' 
     
  4. Like
    DasMorbo reacted to Lethaface in Turkish Leopard 2A4 mod preview   
    I'm glad there is no mention of those sorts in the article, for I would have stopped reading them.
    I'm not going to debate these subjects, I think it is suffice to say that both ('floodgate muslim immigration from Turkey' and the 'EU Sharia') are populist myths. Also, I miss how those are correlated? Turkey doesn't feature a Sharia law; besides there is no such thing as 'the Sharia law'.
    In The Netherlands (and I suspect the UK also) there already is the possibility for mediation, instead of formal courts, when parties want to settle a civil dispute. If they do wish the mediation to follow certain religious rules, that is fine as long as it is within the boundaries of the law (and all parties agree to it). Different religious groups do make use of this freedom and have been doing that for a while. It is nothing new, nor is there any small chance of our constitution being replaced with religious books. 
  5. Like
    DasMorbo got a reaction from The_MonkeyKing in What happen to my bombs?   
    I just started playing the Canadian campaign. There I experienced this, too.
    Spotter was a 'veteran' FO with a laser designator, Aircraft was an F/A-18 D with iron bombs, target was a single house designated as point target,
    It had nothing to do with the aforementioned theories: there was no AA, no other aircraft interferring, target was in perfect sight and painted with a laser, target was in the middle of the map. Two passes, two bombs dropped - no effect.
  6. Like
    DasMorbo reacted to Erwin in Fury Movie Discussion.   
    It takes time for Hwd to catch up with new concepts.
    When I was a teen I read all the Philip K Dick books and his writing affected how I saw the world - may have inspired the Matrix writers (Wachowski Bros.).  I spent the next 10 years trying to convince Hwd studios to work on a project based on his concepts - and for 10 years was shot down all the time.  After I gave up, "Blade Runner" was made, and since then most of the Sci-Fi TV series and movies have much basis in the concepts Dick wrote about. 
    Actually it's interesting that the Wachowski Bros don't mention getting any inspiration from Dick even though it's pretty obvious if you know Dick's work.
  7. Like
    DasMorbo reacted to Erwin in Fury Movie Discussion.   
    Yes, Hacksaw Ridge probably the most violent and gut wrenching film I ever seen - like they went all out to beat Saving Private Ryan in that regard.  I dunno about the story particularly.
    Dunkirk I thought a wonderful "Art War Film" or "War Art Film"...   Not sure I seen that genre type of movie b4, so maybe new.  They messed around with time so it's not a traditional linear timeline film.
    Darkest Hour is not a war movie I suppose.  But, nonetheless a brilliant depiction of that same time period in the halls of power at Westminster.  Gary Oldman deserved his Oscar.
  8. Upvote
    DasMorbo got a reaction from Aragorn2002 in Fury Movie Discussion.   
    Yeah, I got you on your first point. My point, why I like this movie, is that older movies often show a sanitized kitsch-version of what I read in peronal war-memoirs and certain historical works. Not so 'Fury'. A common statement of front-line soldiers was and is, that they expected war to be bad but are shocked at how gross it really is. This movie tries not to be nice to any audience group and that is good. It shows incidents which I call realistic after all I learned about war.
    About racism - I am German, so I don't care about racism in the US that much. But thank you for the movie-tip.
    The analysis found signs (is that used correctly?) for Steven Spielberg having a Anti-German agenda in general. It concentrates on the depiction of suffering on both sides or the lack there of. US soldiers, when hit, show all the emotions you would expect: horror, pain, they scream and grimace. German soldiers on the other hand just fall down like puppets and never show any emotions.  Germans are shown as cold-blooded killers or deceitful liars (the prisoner begging for his life, belying his captors that he does not wnat to harm anybody) and nothing else.
    That is classic demonization.
  9. Upvote
    DasMorbo got a reaction from sburke in Fury Movie Discussion.   
    Haven't written something in a long time...
     
    Even though I will propably get a lot of Flak for it, here's my 2 cents about Fury:
    Basically I think they got the look and feel, as well as the psychology quite well depicted. The tactical situations are outright crap.
    On the upside is of course the production design, which is detailed to the max - it depicts a US Army which is fed up with war and worn out from unexpected losses. Thus the rag-tag appearance.
    Then there is the psychology, which from my stand point is pretty well depicted. What some here call clichés is really just what happens with people in war. Every human being has a good and a bad side. And in every war the bad side is brought out and has to be lived to the maximum, because that is the demand war places on the individual. This is something very disturbing for most people, because generally people think of themselves as good. They are shocked by the amount of violence they are actually capable of, because we all learn to harness these violent urges in society until we forget about them. And it is hard to stay human to some level while you have to act out your bad side all the time just to stay alive.
    Now look at 'War Daddy' (Brad Pitt) and his crew.  His character is based on Sgt. 'War Daddy' Poole, one of the most sucsessful Tank Commanders in WWII. He and his crew served from 6/1944 until 9/1944 when they got shot up by an Panther. In this time they officially destroyed 12 tanks, 258 AFVs and killed over 1000 German soldiers. Now what do you think it does with your soul, your psyche to kill a thousand men in 81 days? You become torn. It doesn't really matter if it is justified killing or not, you have slaughtered massive amounts of your kind. I think this is what this film depicts brilliantly.
    'War Daddy' knows his job, he is able to kill without hesitation. That is what he and his crew need to do to survive. And he knows the new guy will lower theyr chances, if he f***s up. So he teaches him how to kill, it's a must. A live doesn't matter much in mechanized war. Especially one of a German Soldier, why should it after killing a thousand of them?!? So he uses one as training object. By the way it happened in real-life, too. When the Jagdtiger-Companies arrived at the front in 1945, they had their sucsesses. Destroyed about 50 Shermans in a couple of days. Afterwards the GIs were very angry that the Germans still made such a needless stand, when they had clearly lost already, and about 200-300 POWs got shot im a couple of incidents.
    Its the nature of war, I don't blame any GI for that (I am German FYI).
    For me, 'Fury' shows the nature of war* and what it does to the soul perfectly.
     
    *(full spectrum, mechanized warfare, insurgencies are a different thing)
  10. Like
    DasMorbo got a reaction from George MC in Fury Movie Discussion.   
    Haven't written something in a long time...
     
    Even though I will propably get a lot of Flak for it, here's my 2 cents about Fury:
    Basically I think they got the look and feel, as well as the psychology quite well depicted. The tactical situations are outright crap.
    On the upside is of course the production design, which is detailed to the max - it depicts a US Army which is fed up with war and worn out from unexpected losses. Thus the rag-tag appearance.
    Then there is the psychology, which from my stand point is pretty well depicted. What some here call clichés is really just what happens with people in war. Every human being has a good and a bad side. And in every war the bad side is brought out and has to be lived to the maximum, because that is the demand war places on the individual. This is something very disturbing for most people, because generally people think of themselves as good. They are shocked by the amount of violence they are actually capable of, because we all learn to harness these violent urges in society until we forget about them. And it is hard to stay human to some level while you have to act out your bad side all the time just to stay alive.
    Now look at 'War Daddy' (Brad Pitt) and his crew.  His character is based on Sgt. 'War Daddy' Poole, one of the most sucsessful Tank Commanders in WWII. He and his crew served from 6/1944 until 9/1944 when they got shot up by an Panther. In this time they officially destroyed 12 tanks, 258 AFVs and killed over 1000 German soldiers. Now what do you think it does with your soul, your psyche to kill a thousand men in 81 days? You become torn. It doesn't really matter if it is justified killing or not, you have slaughtered massive amounts of your kind. I think this is what this film depicts brilliantly.
    'War Daddy' knows his job, he is able to kill without hesitation. That is what he and his crew need to do to survive. And he knows the new guy will lower theyr chances, if he f***s up. So he teaches him how to kill, it's a must. A live doesn't matter much in mechanized war. Especially one of a German Soldier, why should it after killing a thousand of them?!? So he uses one as training object. By the way it happened in real-life, too. When the Jagdtiger-Companies arrived at the front in 1945, they had their sucsesses. Destroyed about 50 Shermans in a couple of days. Afterwards the GIs were very angry that the Germans still made such a needless stand, when they had clearly lost already, and about 200-300 POWs got shot im a couple of incidents.
    Its the nature of war, I don't blame any GI for that (I am German FYI).
    For me, 'Fury' shows the nature of war* and what it does to the soul perfectly.
     
    *(full spectrum, mechanized warfare, insurgencies are a different thing)
  11. Upvote
    DasMorbo reacted to General Jack Ripper in Fury Movie Discussion.   
    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?
     
     
    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
  12. Upvote
    DasMorbo reacted to slysniper in Fury Movie Discussion.   
    All the negativity. You guys really suck.

    You almost wrecked the movie for me before I even watched it.

    Yes, does the scenes play out like they would in real life. Heavens No. But really, do they in any movie. Really, Maybe Band of Brothers, since they were trying to mimic the real stories.

    But, let me think, what other movie has focused on Tank warfare and gave you so much camera time on Armour and tried to delve into the mindset of the crew and so forth. (actually there has been a few). None even close to as good as this.

    Just two comments about the final scene which is easy to insult, since you all want to. There is comments about how impossible it would be for the germans to be so stupid about coming up on the crossroads like they did. All I will say here is do some more reading. I have read actual accounts at the Battle of the Bulge of just as stupid stuff. There was plenty of incompetent small unit leaders by this point in the war. Now if you want to complain, by April 45, I would say it would be almost impossible to even find a German unit like that, that was anything of a coordinated fighting unit.

    The second comment about the fact they would never have stayed and fought. Again I will disagree, it is in the realm of possible happening. There is many studies that show how soldiers at some point somewhat give up on the fact that they will make it alive through a conflict and will do things that endanger themselves because of their present mental state. And normally it is for the saving of someone elses life. Which if you recall they were to stop the germans from getting into their rear area troops, which would be a blood bath.
    Very likely, no. But have men sacrificed their life's for others before . We all know the answer.
  13. Upvote
    DasMorbo reacted to mjkerner in Fury Movie Discussion.   
    My initial thoughts...this movie will bite the big one.
     
    I didn't bother to go see it in the theater.  I read about a dozen "professional" reviews, and literally hundreds of wargamers' and military history buffs' reviews on this and several other forums.  I knew it would suck--from all the hype it received.  I knew it would suck when I saw the trailers--from the grim seriousness of the actors' portrayals (and the actors' commenting on the making of the film. I knew it would suck because it is a Hollywood production with no doubt an anti-war message as big as the Goodyear blimp. I knew it probably would suck when my youngest son and his girlfriend said it was great and that I really should go see it. (He's never been interested in military history or wargaming, and is quite the pacifist, bless his heart.) And I knew it would suck when I read about the crossroads battle scene. I knew it would suck because in one way or another, every Oscar-bait Hollywood movie usually does.
     
    Last week, when it became available on Pay-per-view, I figured I would give it a shot just so I could take the moral high ground when dissing it later (can't do that if you don't actually watch the movie).
     
    I wish I had gotten over myself and seen it in the theater! I really, thoroughly enjoyed it.
     
    LemuelG and slysniper hit the nail on the head, as far as I'm concerned.  The crew was surprising believable...2nd Armored, been in the war since North Africa, would tend to have an older crew, and with the ravages of war, they look close-enough to late 20's for me. (My Dad was 23-24 years old in the Pacific, and the pictures of him after hostilities ended on Saipan show a man somewhere between 30 and 40.) There in-fighting at the dinner table rings true to me, just like my extended family when we get together on the Holidays... someone is always bitching about /fighting with someone else--usually over politics--but woe to the outsider who tries to diss one of us.  I wonder about the forced execution scene, and how likely that type of thing would occur, but who knows. More importantly, the war-is-hell and we are gonna have to take it to the enemy with balls to the wall sentiment rang true to me.  Again, only going by my Dad's experience, his outfit had that attitude in spades in the Pacific.  can't imagine it would have been much different in Europe at the end..."let's kill as many of these bastards as possible, as quickly as possible, and get this damn thing over with. I want to just get home already." 
     
    The overall dialogue was way above what I thought it would be.  Face it, SPR's dialogues was mostly hokey, corny and cliched as hell. And Matt Damon just plain sucked.  Band of Brothers and even The Pacific did a much better job in that department. And frankly, so did many of the great movies listed above (and I like or love them all).  To me SPR is only good in the first 20 minutes and the last battle scene.  And come on, both have WTF? moments--in the landing scene, a German in sandbag emplacement on the ridge gets shot, falls forward, and the whole emplacement just falls apart by the weight of his body. How the hell did it stand up to the pre-invasion bombardment, fer chrissakes??? And the last battle scene, unhistorical and relatively improbable to boot.  But regardless, both those battle scenes were excellent eye candy, and were so far ahead of any depiction of WWII combat than anything before it, who can not enjoy them?
     
    Fury does that for armored combat, in spades!  (Battle of the Bulge, anyone?) Those freaking awesome AP ricochets were freaking awesome, the crews' teamwork was well done, and to be expected in a crew that survived that long together, and the tension and intensity of combat was well depicted and believable.
     
    Note to sound modders...Oddball, Waclaw and AKD and anyone I missed...I hope you are thinking of lifting sounds from this movie.  There's a particularly good, close-up rrrrriiiiippppp-ing MG 42 in the crossroads battle, hint, hint. And did I mention those awesome AP ricochets?
     
    And seriously, even if you didn't care for the movie, you gotta hand it to the set directors and costuming departments--everything just looked right, tanks, equipment, uniformsoy the sets, uniforms, etc., etc.  Those 41st Armored Infantry fellows looked like I would expect them to after just coming through a gruelling winter campaign in NE Europe.  (As an aside, I loved the armored company CO.  Well done.).  
     
    So for me, grog factor, production and drama, as LemuelG categorized the movie elements, all worked for me in this movie.
     
    That said, a lot of the tactics sucked, as they do in most war movies.  But even there, there is some saving grace.  The attack straight at the AT guns, as has been pointed out, was done to cover and pull out a trapped infantry platoon.  I really liked the tactic they used--uncovering the platoon, and having them get behind the tanks, but of course could be argued that they should have tried flanking the German line.  Who knows, maybe more enemy covering their flanks? And, apparently, Wardaddy did came at them from a flank, or at least not directly at them down the road which the ATG's had covered  (his comment to the infantry company CO).  
     
    The Tiger scene was believable in that they were ambushed and then were backed up against a tree line, with only one recourse left...to charge forward and hope to get a flank shot.  Those trees looked pretty skinny, and should have been easy to retreat through  (but I assume there were heavy forest tiles underneath ).  The worst part was the Tiger's tactics.  It was in a covered position. If they wanted to get out from the smoke, then they should have reversed and gone left or right and sat there, blasting the 3 Shermies as they advanced. And was it supposed  to have come direct from the factory...no camo, unit markings, or anything?  In fact, the paint scheme looked like it came direct from Sicily. 
     
    The crossroads battle was preposterous as executed, but their orders were to stop the SS battalion from getting to a supply column.  What ya gonna do?  A wiser course would have been to blast them with all guns blazing while they were in march column, set charges to blow the tank, and run like hell before the Germans regained their composure.  But it's a movie, and many others (SPR for example) suffer from the same type of unbelievability in parts as well. And for what it's worth, the actual number of German casualties depicted in that fight appears to be around 50-60, which if they had blasted them in column could probably be about right...just saying.  When I saw Pork Chop Hill as a wee lad in the theater, I remember thinking that practically the whole company was wiped out in the initial attack up the hill--how could they have gone on and captured and held it? (It was after all, basically a true story.) When watching it again years later, I counted the actual number of men depicted as being hit, which was only about 25--manageable under the circumstances, it would appear.   If you assume that the SS troops were likely green and yet fanatical, I can see their initial tactics actual being as depicted, and casualty numbers reasonable. I remember one story from A Bridge Too Far, and many from books about the Bulge, that relate green German infantry committed to similar disastrous frontal attacks.  Still, I have to agree with the detractors of the movie that it was just too much of a stretch. 
     
    So, overall, I wanted to hate the movie before i saw it, and ended up truly, thoroughly enjoying it.  In fact, I purchased the full HD package off Netflix, and it is well worth it if you liked the movie.  I have watched the first two battle scenes (but not the last battle  ) about 8-9 times over the last week.  There are about 50 minutes of deleted footage, too. None are added battle scenes--well, there's an extended scene showing the plastering of the plaza area when the girl and her apartment block get blown up, that shows the armored infantry CO getting killed.  But there is an important 7 or so minutes of exposition when Wardaddy and Norman are shooting the **** sitting on top of the tank as they are headed to what will be their confrontation with the Tiger, in which Wardaddy reveals why he has taken a bit to Norman, wants to toughen him up, etc....has to do with Wardaddy's girlfriend and his younger brother...and it goes a long way toward explaining Wardaddy's motivations.  It is one scene that I think should have been included in the final cut.  
     
    Anyway, I rambled more than I planned, but put me in the column that enjoyed the movie--really enjoyed it.  I have seen almost every known WWII movie in existence that I could get my hands on over the last 55 or so years, including many foreign language ones.  I own about 45 on DVD, last count (Belle and Blade video is an excellent source for all war movies of any era).  Many of them are overall better in either screenplay, or acting, or whatever, but this one will remain solidly near the top, despite my initial desire to hate it.
     
    YMM (and it apparently does!) V
×
×
  • Create New...