Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Managed to do Bovington and Goodwood in the same weekend last year but just to busy this year
I know from the previews that the Fury movies looks great and the best is that they rented tanks from Bovvy.One of theese years i am going to make it their.
I saw a clip from 'Fury' on YouTube and it does look interesting. They supposedly took the only running Tiger tank in the world from there at Bovington and used it in the film.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/07 02:30:15
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
RegalPhantom wrote: If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog
Ghaz wrote: I saw a clip from 'Fury' on YouTube and it does look interesting. They supposedly took the only running Tiger tank in the world from there at Bovington and used it in the film.
Lucky enough to have been inside Tiger 131 and seen it doing its stuff at Tankfest
That movies a bit different to the usual war movie. Hopefully this shows people how much team work is required in a tank crew etc. A lot of people I know kinda think of tanks as a one man thing.
Just read the synopsis on the new "Fury" movie. It reads that a Sherman tank goes on a mission "behind enemy lines".
A Sherman tank goes on a mission behind enemy lines.....
Really.
Maybe I'm missing something, and correct me if I'm missing part of the plot.....but I hope Tiger 131 sends "war daddy" up in the ball of Flames that Pitt and his production company deserved when they BUTCHERED World War Z.
Strombones wrote: Just read the synopsis on the new "Fury" movie. It reads that a Sherman tank goes on a mission "behind enemy lines".
A Sherman tank goes on a mission behind enemy lines.....
Really.
Maybe I'm missing something, and correct me if I'm missing part of the plot.....but I hope Tiger 131 sends "war daddy" up in the ball of Flames that Pitt and his production company deserved when they BUTCHERED World War Z.
Haha sorry man I hate to be the guy that moans about it but really....all those awesome assets, uniforms, weapons, A REAL F**KING TIGER, and they have blocks of GI's advancing in the open using Sherman's as mobile cover. I'm about the furthest thing from a rivet counter or the camo police as you can get, but good god man, the potential wasted on a halfway decent WW2 flick breaks my nerd heart into a thousand pieces.
What is that pic Big P? It hasn't displayed correctly for me..
Know what you mean Strombones, although I suppose it is all fair game now that the US Navy were responsible for getting hold of the Enigma code..
Although I'm a little hopeful for this film that we might have a bit of historical credence, and not a Sherman racing around and popping Tigers left, right and centre..!
Also agree, only thing that the World War Z film held in common with the book was the name, definitely a lost opportunity.
Pacific wrote: What is that pic Big P? It hasn't displayed correctly for me..
Know what you mean Strombones, although I suppose it is all fair game now that the US Navy were responsible for getting hold of the Enigma code..
Although I'm a little hopeful for this film that we might have a bit of historical credence, and not a Sherman racing around and popping Tigers left, right and centre..!
Also agree, only thing that the World War Z film held in common with the book was the name, definitely a lost opportunity.
Oh you know the U.S. loves to rewrite history. Apparently we are now including Sherman tanks as superior tank designs! Like I said, I hate to be so cynical about it all but what a waste. Imagine if Pacific and Strombones had the budget to make a WW2 flick that didn't need all the awful melo-drama required of films today. I believe as perfect strangers we would make the most awesome, rivet countable movie ever.
I'm also glad that you empathize with me on WWZ. I'm working on my Master's in International politics and Military affairs ATM. It is my first love. Zombies are my second. So WWZ was perfect for me. I try to explain to people why the book is so cool but they never get it.
OK I think I have successfully tanked this thread. Apologies.
Can anyone post the pics for us work blocked problem children?
This is silly! Buttons are not how one escapes dungeons! I would smash the button and rain beatings liberally down on the wizard for playing such a trick!
Its a pic of a Sherman with a bunch of US infantry bunched beside it... just to show that troops, did on occasion, bunch up behind the big bit of mobile cover.
Id recommend Colonel Michael Doublers book, GI in Europe, for anyone that wants a true appraisal of US combat performance in the ETO. Its not one for the 'blinkered' patriot, but it is a superb piece of historical reference that shows the huge learning curve the US Army went through from Normandy onwards and the difficulties facing them.
Big P wrote: Its a pic of a Sherman with a bunch of US infantry bunched beside it... just to show that troops, did on occasion, bunch up behind the big bit of mobile cover.
Id recommend Colonel Michael Doublers book, GI in Europe, for anyone that wants a true appraisal of US combat performance in the ETO. Its not one for the 'blinkered' patriot, but it is a superb piece of historical reference that shows the huge learning curve the US Army went through from Normandy onwards and the difficulties facing them.
If you like your myths busted, its a great read.
That is normal,mech infantry tactic,vehicles tale out the hard target and the infantry for soft.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
Big P wrote: Its a pic of a Sherman with a bunch of US infantry bunched beside it... just to show that troops, did on occasion, bunch up behind the big bit of mobile cover.
Id recommend Colonel Michael Doublers book, GI in Europe, for anyone that wants a true appraisal of US combat performance in the ETO. Its not one for the 'blinkered' patriot, but it is a superb piece of historical reference that shows the huge learning curve the US Army went through from Normandy onwards and the difficulties facing them.
If you like your myths busted, its a great read.
Thanks for the recommendation, will definitely take a look at that one. I read some comments on it saying that the book was 'revisionist' in comparison to a lot of the other stuff out there, although I'm not sure in what sense!
I've just started on 'War on the Eastern Front' which is meant to be quite a famous one..
Revisionist is generally a label that reviewers like to apply to those who re-evaluate primary source material and view it freshly without rehashing the accepted 'history'.
In Doublers case, as a retired US Army Colonel, he didnt win anyfriends... his work is a 'warts and all' look at how poorly the US Army equipped for war in the ETO, how they suffered but also how they strove to overcome and then excel at combined arms warfare.
Sadly some reviewers have an issue with his appraisal as it highlights alot of negatives that US centric historians dont seem to like dwelling on.
For me the book is worth it for the casualty rate analysis alone, but the way Doubler shows how individual soldiers and officers used their hard gained knowledge to retrain the army makes thestory so much more impressive than a simple 'we da best' view. His is a story of adversity, and the hard work put in to overcome and perform in a period of warfare. For me, it should be on the reading list of every US Army officer candidate.
But his work annoys some, both professional and arm chair historians. Frankly, I think, because it tells a story thats based on factual evidence and has it told with an air of authority and realism from a man who has served in that same institution.
Buy it... whether you end up agreeing or disagreeing with his views, its hard to dispute his evidence and will be a worthwhile addition to your bookcase.
My old boss when I lectured on War Studies was branded a Revisionist for his work on British Armour in Normandy. He now gives annual lectures at Bovington on British armoured performance in WW2.
Big P wrote: [..]his work is a 'warts and all' look at how poorly the US Army equipped for war in the ETO, how they suffered but also how they strove to overcome and then excel at combined arms warfare. Sadly some reviewers have an issue with his appraisal as it highlights a lot of negatives that US centric historians don't seem to like dwelling on.
[..]but the way Doubler shows how individual soldiers and officers used their hard gained knowledge to retrain the army makes the story so much more impressive than a simple 'we da best' view. His is a story of adversity, and the hard work put in to overcome and perform in a period of warfare. For me, it should be on the reading list of every US Army officer candidate. But his work annoys some, both professional and arm chair historians. Frankly, I think, because it tells a story that's based on factual evidence and has it told with an air of authority and realism from a man who has served in that same institution.
And in that same vein, those very same reviewers more often than not like to highly rate books about the interwar period in the 20's and 30's when most nations, especially the USA, essentially had no army and were only able to conduct small experiments or theorize on waging mechanized war.
I guess they can't all make the connective leap between the two subjects and see that while absolute material superiority due to a vast and responsive manufacturing base can overcome fielding an army from nothing, the lack of institutional experience across the ranks doesn't get compensated for in the same amount of time.
Or fully realize how much worse things could have been without the experience of North Africa and Sicily when it came time to land at Normandy to open operations in the West against a number of veteran formations and/or leadership pulled from savagely hard-fought combat in the East.
Most reviewers also seem to miss or ignore how anti-egalitarian the US Army actually is compared to how the US society at large (mostly) functions, which has more than a little effect on the forces needing to be lead given the US Army's approach to replacements, promotions, and reserve components.
_ _
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/07/15 04:16:58
"These reports were remarkably free of self-serving rhetoric. Most commanders admitted mistakes, scrutinized plans and doctrine, and suggested practical improvements." - Col. Joseph H. Alexander, USMC (Ret), from 'Utmost Savagery, The Three Days of Tarawa''
"I tell you there is something splendid in a man who will not always obey. Why, if we had done as the kings had told us five hundred years ago, we should have all been slaves. If we had done as the priests told us, we should have all been idiots. If we had done as the doctors told us, we should have all been dead.
We have been saved by disobedience." - Robert G. Ingersoll
"At this point, I'll be the first to admit it, I so do not give them the benefit of the doubt that, if they saved all the children and puppies from a burning orphanage, I would probably suspect them of having started the fire. " - mrondeau, on DP9
"No factual statement should be relied upon without further investigation on your part sufficient to satisfy you in your independent judgment that it is true." - Small Wars Journal