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 By 1945, most of the old Sherman's had been replaced by improved models, of which FURY, Brad Pitt's tank, is one.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.
I’ve stood next to a Tiger and a King Tiger. Unbelievably huge machines.
A bit of FURY irony from the G104 Sherman tank collector’s newsgroup on Yahoo —
“Ironically, not an M4A3 in the set, which is what would have most likely been serving at that time in the US Army.”
Adrian Barrell, whose M4A4 was used in the movie, posted the following on Missing-Lynx a few days ago:
“Fury is an M4A2(76)HVSS
Matador is an M4(105)HVSS with a 76mm turret and gun and re-engined with a Mercedes diesel. It also has part M4 engine decks and doubled as Fury when the Tank Museums Sherman died on set.
Old Phyllis is an M4A1(76)
Lucy Sue is an M4A2
Murder Inc is my M4A4 (Adrian’s)
There were also two more M4A4s, a Grizzly and an M4(105)HVSS for various scenes.”
Sherman tank note:
The M4 and M4A1 had a gasoline fueled radial aircraft engine. These were the primary US Army Sherman through the summer of 1944. The M4 had welded hull armor and the M4A1 had cast hulls.
The M4A2 had a pair of diesel engine on a common drive shaft. They were used by the USMC and the Russians via lend lease.
The M4A3 had a 450 HP Ford eight cylinder gasoline engine. It was lend lease to the British but became the primary US Army Sherman after the Summer of 1944.
The M4A4 was a Sherman that had five car engine mounted together to feed the same drive shaft. It was a Lend lease only tank and the British were its primary users.
A notation like this: “M4(76)W HVSS”
Would be for a late production M4 radial engine powered Sherman armed with a 76mm gun, having “horizontal volute suspension” with 24 inch wide tracks, and 76 mm gun ammunition stored in anti-freeze and water filled (”W” for “wet”) jackets.
Characters in these movies are almost always snide, sarcastic, cynical, full of cutting wit at inappropriate moments...Just plain obnoxious. I've never known an older vet (WW2, Korea) who was like this. I found myself thinking the same thing I was thinking during Inglorious Bastards -- would somebody shoot these jerks already!
They were slow ,, especially when they broke down ,,, Germany didn’t have the support for their tankers that we had ... the weight caused LOTS of track and transmission problems. The Russian T-37 is my favorite WW2 tank.
You forgot the best Tiger Tank movie of all....The Battle of The Bulge (1965). :)
Historical movies are only historical about the viewpoint of time they were actually made. So say Birth of a Nation is historical of D W Griffith’s view in 1915 not of reconstruction. Spartacus is historical of Kubrick’s view in 1960 not of ancient Rome. Inglourious Baterds is historical only of Tarantino’s fantasy world in 2009.
Total WW2 German tank production from PzKw I through PzKw 38(t), PzKw III through PzKw VI Ausf E (Tiger I) and Ausf B (Tiger II) and Elefant was 49,777.
German WW2 tanks (from PzKw IV):
PzKw IV — 13,522 (total)
PzKw V — 6,557 (total)
PzKw VI
Ausf E — 1,368 (total)
Ausf B — 569 (total)
Elefant — 90 (total)
American WW2 tank, tank destroyer (based on tank chassis), and gun/howitzer motor carriages (based on tank chassis) was 94,490.
Light tanks:
M2 — 375
M3 — 13,859
M5&M8 HMC — 8,851
M22 (Airborne) — 830 [used for training only]
M24 — 4,731
M18 GMC — 2,507
Medium tanks:
M2A1 — 94
M3 — 6,258
M4 (75mm) — 33,403
M4 (76mm) — 10,883
M4 (105mm) — 4,680
M10 GMC — 6,706
M36 GMC — 2,324
M7 HMC — 4,316
M12 GMC — 100
M40 GMC — 40
Heavy tanks:
M26 — 385 (delivered to combat zones in 1945); 2,000 total by end of 1945.
America was the only combatant in WW2 to produce enough armored vehicles on tank chassis to supply the needs of the US Army, USMC, and to supplement production by the British Commonwealth and Russia.
Have you read “Death Traps” by Belton Cooper?
I found it very interesting.
I got to ride in a Marine M-60 and use the sight. The impression I got was I was in the THE ultimate all terrain vehicle.
>>Have you read “Death Traps” by Belton Cooper?
I own it and have read it. Cooper is great in telling stories of his own service.
Not so much regards his writing on Patton, the poor gun power of the Sherman and the delay in getting the M26 Pershing...not so much.
See these for the “Sherman versus Panther/Big Cat scandal”
The Chieftain’s Hatch: US Guns, German Armour, Pt 1
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-browser/21/chieftains-hatch-us-guns-vs-german-armour-part-1/
The Chieftain’s Hatch: US Guns, German Armour, Pt 2
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-browser/21/us-guns-german-armor-part-2/
See these regards the Pershing:
Pershing Production Pt1
http://forum.worldoftanks.asia/index.php?/topic/36449-pershing-production-pt1/
The Chieftain’s Hatch: Pershing, Pt2
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-browser/21/The_Chieftains_Hatch_Pershing_2/
Actually, there were six different models of US-built Sherman tank with gas and diesel engines (and one Canadian-built model):
M4 — Continental R-975 radial gas engine
M4A1 — Continental R-975 radial gas engine
M4A2 — GM 6046 diesel engine (joined 6-72 engines)
M4A3 — Ford GAA V8 gas engine
M4A4 — Chrysler A57 Multibank gas engine (3 straight six engines joined)
M4A5 — No US production; 188 built in Canada as Grizzly I with Continental R-975 radial gas engine
M4A6 — Caterpillar RD1820A radial diesel
>>The Tiger was a great defensive tank, but that didn’t
>>make it a good weapon choice. It was too large and too
>>heavy for the infrastructure of the day, making it hard
>>to move across a simple creek.
Umm..no.
The Tiger 1 or Panzer Mark VI was BREAKTHROUGH TANK.
It was designed to assault a densely packed anti-tank gun line, take hits from high velocity 50 mm and below AT guns or 76 mm medium velocity field guns on its front and side armor, and destroy the guns who took the shots with an 88mm dual purpose high velocity gun.
It was meant as a specialist weapon to get Mark III and Mark IV panzers.
It has a run of early 1942 through early 1944 in it intended role.
Then the Russians deployed the 85mm high velocity gun as high velocity 100mm, medium velocity 122mmm, low velocity 152mm guns on various tanks and other AFV’s as big cat killers and it was game over for the Tiger 1.
>>Many consider the Panther to be the finest medium tank
>>produced by any country in the entire war.
The French opinion of the Panther versus Sherman debate can be seen in their decision to send the American military aide delivered M36 Tank Destroyers to Vietnam — to counter Soviet IS-2’s in Chinese hands on the border — rather than sending the Panther’s they had in service at the time.
The Panther was a great mobile tank destroyer, but it had crappy operational mobility without a huge amount of support. Something that the Sherman derived, 90mm high velocity gun armed, M36 had in great measure with minimal support...just the ticket for operations in Vietnam.
Typo: “M4A2 — GM 6046 diesel engine (joined 6-71 engines)” vice “...(joined 6-72 engines)”.
The Panther was a good tank but it was not without its flaws. Though not as bad as the Tiger I, it still had reliability issues. Despite its very protective frontal armor, it was very vulnerable on its side armor to practically any anti-tank gunnery(even 37mm) since the sides were only 40 to 50mm thick. Also the later production Panthers had frontal armor metal quality problems(cracking from anti-tank rounds) due to a shortage of molybdenum and manganese, both vital ingredients for steel used in the tank.
They ran over a mine in the movie and it busted the track.
...And heavy assault tank. Yes, granted, but that still didn’t make it a great choice of weapon for the money.
A lot of ifs obviously, but I would point out that after the war the U.S., UK, and USSR all fielded a similar concept of super heavy tanks supporting smaller tanks. Each country found the same problem. They were super expensive, although fielding considerable armor they were impossible to conceal and massive targets, they were tremendous logistical problems being too large and heavy for the normal infrastructure to support. I didn’t make them bad, just questionably useful. After experimenting with their own “Tiger” concepts, all of the major powers realized that the extra armor just wasn’t worth it. A lighter, yet still heavy, tank with the same gun made for a better all around weapon system.
Although monsters when in position, the Tigers posed a huge problem with movement. Often not taking part in fights because they couldn’t be transported in time, or they were withdrawn early, for fear of not being able to make a hasty enough withdrawal if the line moved too fast and they were caught on the wrong side of a creek, marsh, etc.
Armor-gun-weight-power is always a balance, which isn’t to say that having the right balance is always best. The best all around athlete isn’t the best football lineman, but when you are playing football being a 300 lb monster is great.
That’ll happen. Everybody likes to kill tanks. It must go back to the idea of killing the beast. I bet that at the submarine school, they spend a day discussing how to kill tanks.
“You attach the M-37 Wheel Kit to the torpedo and then you wait until the tank is close to the water.”
And Tankers are the nicest people in the world. A tank is driving along and you see a lady whose car has a flat tire. Now, the Infantry will walk right on by. What does a Tanker do? He runs over the car so she won’t have to worry about the flat tire. That’s the kind of guys that Tankers are.....always willing to help. And if she’s pretty we’ll give her a ride. We might let her on the tank, too.
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.