Posted on 11/03/2014 9:53:07 AM PST by w1n1
Fury: The Mother of all Tank Movies starring Brad Pitt, no I'm not a fan of his, but did enjoyed the movie. The authenticity of the tanks was the real thing, Sherman's and the German Tiger I.
Pitt's character is a bit reminiscent of the role he played as a soldier in Inglorious Basterds, which also took place during WWII. He takes his five-man crew behind enemy lines, where they are outnumbered and outgunned.
FURY is the first war film to feature a real life German Tiger I tank which actually came out of a museum collection. Tigers were the most feared German tanks in World War II. The 75mm and 76mm guns on American Sherman tanks could only penetrate the Tiger's frontal armor at point-blank range.
If you were an American tanker in World War II, the Tiger was terror on tracks. When our tank crews defeated them in battle, it was usually by attacking with superior numbers and outmaneuvering them to get a shot at the Tiger's thinner armor on the sides and rear of the vehicle.
In order for an American tank to get around the side or rear, other tanks had to keep the Tiger's attention. The attention of an 88mm gun is not the kind you want. In short, somebody was very likely to get killed.
It was fortunate for the Allies that the Germans never had many Tigers, because American tank crews faced enough dangers fighting their more common adversaries. Because the Sherman sacrificed armor for speed, it was more vulnerable to penetrating hits.
Though the Sherman was respected by the Germans, it got nick-named "Ronson" by its crews because of its tendency to burn when hit. This problem was largely corrected with the later models by stowing the ammunition in lockers surrounded by liquid. By 1945, most of the old Sherman's had been replaced by improved models, of which FURY, Brad Pitt's tank, is one.
Fury also features the world’s only operable German Tiger I. A thickly armored, heavy tank mounted with an 88mm cannon, Tigers were superior to Shermans, but their low numbers and high production cost made them no match in the end to Allied armor on the march.
This is an excerpt from the original article posted here and written by Frank Jardim.
> If you were an American tanker in World War II, the Tiger was terror on tracks. When our tank crews defeated them in battle, it was usually by attacking with superior numbers and outmaneuvering them to get a shot at the Tiger’s thinner armor on the sides and rear... It was fortunate for the Allies that the Germans never had many Tigers... Because the Sherman sacrificed armor for speed, it was more vulnerable to penetrating hits.
The Sherman was designed to be built in great numbers, on an automotive assembly line, and because of already knowing how to do it well, the manufacturers used gasoline engines. They are easy to spot in front of American Legion and VFW halls, because they have a narrow, seemingly vertical profile.
They ran like a top, and being narrow, could navigate through those hedgerow lanes, and the crowded narrow streets in French villages and towns. They were used in every theater of war (and even by the Russians in spots), and were built in great numbers (something like 33,000).
There’s an anecdote, a German officer whose tank had been knocked out was sitting on the ground, his hands on his head, and said, in English, “my tank is worth ten of yours”, and the US serviceman holding the gun on him said, “good thing we brought eleven.”
Well stated. Concur.
It’s a problem with too many recent cable TV series cast as period themes. If the writer’s were more virtuous, they would have studied Scripture and history to understand the perspective of their subjects. Instead, today’s actors are left to reinterpret historical events using modern degenerate thinking.
It was a feel-good movie for guilty leftists, and an esteem-booster black people.
That is all.
Just the one fact they continued to trot out - and I can’t remember if it was mentioned in the movie - that the Red Tails never lost a bomber - seemed a stretch to me. This is not in any way meant to slam the men who fought in the squadron. I just find that incredibly hard to believe.
Only Hollywood could screw up a decent story...Perhaps Bollywood would do a better job ;-)
“You probably heard we ain’t in the prisoner-takin’ business; we in the killin’ Nat-zee business. And cousin, business is a-boomin’.”
For those interesting in what actual WW2 Armor officers thought of the Sherman and much else, see the following:
Maneuver Center of Excellence (MCoE) Libraries
MCoE HQ
Donovan Research Library
Armor School Student Papers
http://www.benning.army.mil/library/content/Virtual/Armorpapers/index.htm
There are papers there from WW2 through Korea (with one for the French in Vietnam).
http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/395038-rants-and-death-traps/
Here's the issue: Death Traps is a memoir, not a researched historical work. These are the recollections and perceptions as the man saw them, recited some 50 years after the fact. This leads us to two problems:
Firstly, that of perception. The premise of the book, even the title, is that M4s were rolling coffins, and got destroyed a lot. He gets this impression by looking at all the M4s which got brought back to his maintenance shop for repair after getting knocked out. He did not get to see any of the German vehicles which were knocked out, as nobody brought them to him for repair. He did not get to see the M4s which won the battle, as nobody brought them to him for repair. As someone who saw nearly nothing but destroyed Shermans coming out of battles, it is not unreasonable to come to the perception that the tank was problematic.
Secondly, the author makes no attempt to distinguish what he saw from what he surmised, from what he heard through the grapevine. He presents as fact things which simply were not true, demonstrably so in many cases. No attempt was made to provide a source or reference to some of the claims he makes. It is up to the reader to make his or her personal determination as to the accuracy of anything in the book.
It is likely that the things he personally saw are somewhat close to fact. But statements about machinations seven pay grades higher than him and several hundred miles away are a little more suspect.
Cooper's book is probably the most egregious example of citing a memoir and making more of it than one should, so I merely use it as a learning point. Less controversial memoirs, such as Carius’ Tigers in the Mud or Loza’s Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks should be viewed just as much from the same lens, but in fairness to them, they suffer from far less overreach and can be taken far more at face value.
Thanks!
Did anyone take note of the StG 44 that Wardaddy was wielding. I thought that was an interesting detail for the movie.
This article says it was taken from true stories....I know what you mean though, it seemed a little too over the top with the characters, like they were cartoons.
i’ve heard good things about this movie but i am not that huge of a Pitt fan and Shia LaBeouf?
Don’t even get me started....
still want to see this movie though.
I have to say I really enjoyed this movie... very well done. For a war movie by hollyweird.. thats unusal.
And the “Thousand plane raid” brief scene was something to behold.
Fortunately the SS never figured out they shouldn’t attack the front with the machine guns...
I was laughing at the Shermans not going for the obvious mobility kill on the German tank when it was clear they were out-armored and outgunned. Must’ve been some video game players who decided on the tactics on that one.
LMAO.
Or that they had eight crates of Panzerfausts with them.
Yes, too funny! Man for man the average German soldier was more capable than the average American soldier, and that movie made them look like dopes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.