I didn't see a topic on this anywhere so here it goes.
I really disliked it. I was really disappointed. The only thing I liked about it was the Sherman tanks, and the Shermans vs Tiger 1 battle. Even that battle was a bit unrealistic IMO. This movie felt like a cross between Apocolypse Now ..The Road Warrior, and "Thugs & Tanks". This movie was like how the D&D movie was to LOTR, without the comic relief. With this movie being the D&D equivalent and Saving Private Ryan was LOTR.
It felt like it was directed by a high school director. Even though it was in fact directed by the guy that did Training day, which I loved.
It seemed like a serious south park. They took the theme and events to the very extreme and relied on shocking the audience. Except it just wasnt funny.
That ending was painful to watch too.
All the girls in the theater cried which didnt help my enjoyment.
Overall it was an average movie. But I think I will stick to documentaries for that sort of genre.
The best thing about the movie was that Tiger I they fought was a real working Tiger. Not some lets make a tank look like a Tiger but one of the last fully* functional tanks still around. Absolutely amazing in my opinion.To clairfy, the working Tiger was amazing. Rest of the movie...ehh
I enjoyed the tank combat, which is why I wish there was more than two scenes. I feel like they could have shortened the city scene and spent more time on combat.
I really liked it. My main concern was that it was going to sell the 'war is hell' line pretty hard and end up mawkish, but it just stayed short of this. The battle scenes were intense and did stretch credulity but it is an action film too. One thing I think they failed to take advantage of was the size of a real Tiger, rarely were there shots that allowed direct comparison of people or the sherman alongside it. Having seen both the real and Saving Private Ryan tiger, the difference is obvious, the real Tiger is massive. The only thing that really jarred Was the execution of the german. That certainly happened but people probably wouldn't do it in front of a crowd of 30+, it would be more of a "I'll catch you guys up in a bit" attitude.
I thought a great tank movie was 'The Beast' (also called Beast of War when I looked it up on IMDB), about a Soviet tank crew in Afghanistan. Well worth a watch if you haven't seen it.
Pacific wrote: I thought a great tank movie was 'The Beast' (also called Beast of War when I looked it up on IMDB), about a Soviet tank crew in Afghanistan. Well worth a watch if you haven't seen it.
Saw it a couple of weeks ago. Considering the film had being heavily pushing its self on its ‘realism’ largely based on the fact they managed to get a real Easy Eight Sherman and Tiger tank involved, it then they then seem to squander it by completely getting the actual battles completely wrong. Most of the battles scene where ludicrous and made Saving Private Ryan look like a detailed documentary in comparison.
The Germans never make any attempt to hit and run, as they were doing at that stage in the war. Instead they seen to throw themselves fanatically onto American bullets. The climactic battle scene in particular has the SS charging Fury’s machine guns like depressed lemmings. They don’t even breaking out the panzerfauts until after about 15 minutes into the fight.
LuciusAR wrote: Saw it a couple of weeks ago. For a film that had being heavily pushing its self on its ‘realism’ largely based on the fact they managed to get a real Easy Eight Sherman and Tiger tank involved, they then seem to squander it by completely getting the actual battles completely wrong. Most of the battles scene where ludicrous and made Saving Private Ryan look like a detailed documentary in comparison.
The Germans never make any attempt to hit and run, as they were doing at that stage in the war. Instead they seen to throw themselves fanatically onto American bullets. The climactic battle scene in particular has the SS charging Fury’s machine guns like depressed lemmings. They don’t even breaking out the panzerfauts until after about 15 minutes into the fight.
My thoughts exactly..Not to mention the blind Sherman charge on the Tiger, instead of trying to flank it? or the slow and steady creep towards the antitank guns?
And the ending..I predicted the order in which they would die, it was just so cut and paste.
While I think it was generally well acted, I got tired of the shrek styled "Puss and Boots" teary eyed closeups of Shia Labuef.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I really liked it. My main concern was that it was going to sell the 'war is hell' line pretty hard and end up mawkish, but it just stayed short of this. The battle scenes were intense and did stretch credulity but it is an action film too. One thing I think they failed to take advantage of was the size of a real Tiger, rarely were there shots that allowed direct comparison of people or the sherman alongside it. Having seen both the real and Saving Private Ryan tiger, the difference is obvious, the real Tiger is massive. The only thing that really jarred Was the execution of the german. That certainly happened but people probably wouldn't do it in front of a crowd of 30+, it would be more of a "I'll catch you guys up in a bit" attitude.
I loved it. There is a story of a Russian T34 in 1942 in a natural chokepoint by a river that held off a regiemnt sized force for a day, because they couldn't kill it. It wasn't the greatest movie in the world but it wasn't trying to be. It did show different circumstances they would face- city fighting, open terrain, even fighting a much superior tiger.
Could have done without the new guy and just went with the original crew.
You want real you watch Restrepo. You want to watch good guys killin Nazis you watch Fury.
I loved it. There is a story of a Russian T34 in 1942 in a natural chokepoint by a river that held off a regiemnt sized force for a day, because they couldn't kill it.
This was a K1, not a T34. And it wasn't a Regiment. it was the entire 7th Panzer Division*. And yes. It is one hell of a tale. In 1942, the K1 was literally unkillable by anything the Germans had. Artillery, tanks, satchel charges, nothing could pierce that armor.
*Technically, they weren't holding off the division so much as making it impossible for the division to move. The K1 actually broke down at that position, and proceeded to fire on any Germans it saw. Just so happened those Germans were fuel trucks for the 7th, who couldn't move because they didn't have enough gas.
I wonder if I can buy a fully functioning tank....
Or just give a bull-dozer a more powerfully suspension, engine and weld some four-inch steel panels to it.
The Tiger Tank fight was awesome, though the Tiger commander made some questionable decisions, I know the shermans fired smoke to get him to advance, but even once the smoke cleared he kept advancing, and once he was "dogfighting" Fury he didn't rotate his hull along with the turret like most good tiger crews did. For a Tiger I crew to survive to 1945 they must have been pretty good (most of the inexperienced crews that the germans had at this point were in newer tanks, a Tiger I crew would probably have been veterans of at least Normandy).
However, those are nitpicks. Seeing a real, working Tiger I in "action" was well worth it.
Yes the SS were stupid in the final fight but that's just what you have to expect from a hollywood movie. Besides the final fight I really liked it.
One final thing I really liked was how it handled the obligatory "shooting a POW" scene. I personally hate it when movies, particularly Saving Private Ryan, think that they can get away with having their main characters shooting POWs because they're just Nazis. Well call me old fashioned but I think shooting POWs is wrong regardless of who they are. In Fury the new guy character is forced to shoot a German prisoner, however the movie makes it fairly clear that thats not a good act, and that the other tank crew are not good people. In saving private ryan the new guy character shoots a POW at the end, as if this is supposed to be some kind of defining character moment. I don't really think a good character arc should end with war crimes.
Was a good action film based on a WW2 setting, I think thats about it.
Was good to see the Tiger in it I have seen that tank from its shell to moving under its own power at bovi.
It is in fact the only known working tiger in the world and the maybach engine had to be rebuilt by using parts from their King Tiger and Jagdtiger :( If I win the lottery I am going to learn how to machine all the parts for the engines just so they can get their other German tanks moving!
If your interested here is a vid I took a couple of years ago of the Tiger (also some other WW2 tanks at the start)
EmilCrane wrote: The Tiger Tank fight was awesome, though the Tiger commander made some questionable decisions, I know the shermans fired smoke to get him to advance, but even once the smoke cleared he kept advancing, and once he was "dogfighting" Fury he didn't rotate his hull along with the turret like most good tiger crews did. For a Tiger I crew to survive to 1945 they must have been pretty good (most of the inexperienced crews that the germans had at this point were in newer tanks, a Tiger I crew would probably have been veterans of at least Normandy).
However, those are nitpicks. Seeing a real, working Tiger I in "action" was well worth it.
Yes the SS were stupid in the final fight but that's just what you have to expect from a hollywood movie. Besides the final fight I really liked it.
One final thing I really liked was how it handled the obligatory "shooting a POW" scene. I personally hate it when movies, particularly Saving Private Ryan, think that they can get away with having their main characters shooting POWs because they're just Nazis. Well call me old fashioned but I think shooting POWs is wrong regardless of who they are. In Fury the new guy character is forced to shoot a German prisoner, however the movie makes it fairly clear that thats not a good act, and that the other tank crew are not good people. In saving private ryan the new guy character shoots a POW at the end, as if this is supposed to be some kind of defining character moment. I don't really think a good character arc should end with war crimes.
I particularly light the field scene with the infantry. Thats a perspective you don't normally get (trying to take on an infantry position from the point of view of the tanker). The fact they used proper support was almost anti Hollywood.
I liked a lot of the little bits - seeing the bombers (was it me or were there fighters attacking the bombers), the tanks moving through brush etc. I didn't give a care about the new guy, as noted. I would have been happier with just the seasoned tank crew.
If you can find it the Smithsonian did a good Documentary on the making of Fury called "Tanks of Fury"
To my they looked like they Logistic Issues with what they could do with the Tiger, that and they had it for only one day.
That might be what drove the cerography of the Fight.
But overall the movie had National Lampoon meets Saving Private Ryan feel to it. Did not mix well.
Wasn't the worst WWII movie ever, but not the best.
Something I have to wonder, why do movies and TV shows have to make soldiers have the pointless and useless complex like they did with the SS in this movie? Stormtroopers from star wars, Romans from Spartacus.
However, one comment people suggested about the end was, don't think of it as a depiction of the battle, but instead think of it as something more like the characters interpretation of the battle.
I really liked Fury. There were certainly weak elements, and the final battle let the film down, but it did a lot right well elsewhere.
Personally I really the take on morality in the film – while it showed the immorality of war it wasn’t as simple as a straight up anti-war movie. Consider that while the veteran crew of the tank were largely shown as brutal and brutalised men, the most honourable thing they did was deciding to fight when they had every excuse to flee. And consider that while the film was largely the story of one man’s journey in to becoming a violent killer in the end he is saved by an act of mercy from a German soldier – a member of SS that he had been taught to hate above all else. I think there’s enough complexity in those elements that Fury deserves to be treated as a really interesting take on war.
If none of that floats your boat and all that worries you are the various inaccuracies, well consider that war films that feature tanks are pretty rare, ones that use the right tanks even rarer than that… let alone ones that actually use real, working tanks. So maybe the Tiger should have moved through the situation differently, and the Shermans definitely shouldn’t have advanced in front of infantry when clearing out the town. But then they also got a whole lot right that’s been missing from Hollywood depictions of tanks – finally instead of tanks being rolling coffins we saw their firepower on display, performing a job no other weapon of war could do.
Barksdale wrote: I saw it a couple of weeks ago. I liked it. Not great but not bad. The last fight scene really wrecked it. Way too ridiculous.
One thought I had during that last scene is that it would have made a lot more sense if the German unit had been Volksturm, or perhaps even Volksturm led by a handful of SS troops. Then the disorganised attacks and commander’s orders that felt more like political rallying calls would have made more sense.
I can see why, for the sake of the film, they wanted to make the fight against elite troops because it wouldn’t have been very heroic to die while mowing down hordes of children and old men, but the end result showing SS troops acting like an untrained rabble just didn’t work.
The movie was alright. I'd say of all the characters the 'transformers' and 'indiana jones and the crystal skull' guy was the worst of them. The big characters were the leader of the tank and the rookie. The other two guys manning the tanks also had some decent moments with the rookie. The 'transformers' guy didn't really have a big role other than being #2 of the tank. That guy just doesn't work with a beard. I'm guessing they just rubbed dirt on his face or something.
Oh and this movie won't be 'saving private ryan' no matter how hard it tries.
---------
Not sure if it's true but way back when on the history channel they showed that part where they would hang people with the sign on poles about 'being cowards that tried to flee instead of fight'.
Saving Private Ryan
A Bridge to far
Band of Brothers
The Pacific
Full Metal Jacket
Letters from Iwo Jima/Flags of Our Fathers
The Big Red one
Midway
Das Boot
Tora Tora Tora
Patton
Platoon
Apocalypse now
Enemy At the Gates
Fury doesn't come close to any of the above movies/series.
I loved it. There is a story of a Russian T34 in 1942 in a natural chokepoint by a river that held off a regiemnt sized force for a day, because they couldn't kill it.
This was a K1, not a T34. And it wasn't a Regiment. it was the entire 7th Panzer Division*. And yes. It is one hell of a tale. In 1942, the K1 was literally unkillable by anything the Germans had. Artillery, tanks, satchel charges, nothing could pierce that armor.
*Technically, they weren't holding off the division so much as making it impossible for the division to move. The K1 actually broke down at that position, and proceeded to fire on any Germans it saw. Just so happened those Germans were fuel trucks for the 7th, who couldn't move because they didn't have enough gas.
KV-1.
The K-1 is a T-34/85M using the Vietnamese designation. (Alternately, the K1 is also a Korean MBT.)
@generalgrog: Which is funny because i really liked 'enemy at the gates'. The story of a soviet sniper in world war II during some of the most brutal battles in the war. It was pretty awesome.
Btw where do you rate that movie about the soviet nuclear submarine that gets captured by the usa after it's about to be destroyed. I think it was called 'k-19: the widow-maker'.
Vasily Zaytsev has over three hundred confirmed kills. he would have seen every single one, can you imagine that, knowing you've taken over three hundred lives?
I need to watch 'enemy at the gates, maybe they'd have it at the market.
to paraphrase fullmetal alchemist: brotherhood "A foot soldier can just aim and shoot, never being sure who they've killed. a sniper though, a sniper sees every single man he kills, and the aftermath of those actions."
flamingkillamajig wrote: @generalgrog: Which is funny because i really liked 'enemy at the gates'. The story of a soviet sniper in world war II during some of the most brutal battles in the war. It was pretty awesome.
Btw where do you rate that movie about the soviet nuclear submarine that gets captured by the usa after it's about to be destroyed. I think it was called 'k-19: the widow-maker'.
Actually one of my least favorite Harrison Ford Movies.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: During filming, they annoyed people in England with German troops marching around of remembrance day. It never really recovered from that bad PR.
I will wait for the DVD release.
I never heard that and I live in the town where the production was based. Brad Pitt and Angeline Jolie came into the shop where my wife works to buy cards and books.
Another good one out there is Sahara. It is a remake of the Humphrey Bogart 1943 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_(1943_film)] one of the same name with James Belushi in 1995 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_(1995_film)]
The Bogart one was better in my opinion, but both were from a technical point very well done.
The Real Star of both was an M3 Lee Tank.
That and the Bogart one also has the distinction of being the only war film with no Female Cast Members.
flamingkillamajig wrote: @generalgrog: Which is funny because i really liked 'enemy at the gates'. The story of a soviet sniper in world war II during some of the most brutal battles in the war. It was pretty awesome.
Btw where do you rate that movie about the soviet nuclear submarine that gets captured by the usa after it's about to be destroyed. I think it was called 'k-19: the widow-maker'.
Actually one of my least favorite Harrison Ford Movies.
It was ok...but not great.
I'd rather watch it then Fury though. LOL
GG
Really? You can't think of a worse Harrison Ford movie XD Like, that one where he's trying to save his family, or that one with the terrorists on a plane, or that one with the crystal skull? Or the one with cowboys and aliens
I liked it, it wasn't perfect, lacked much of a meaningful narrative but it was nice to see more conventional effects and actual tanks. The sound and effects were fantastic. The sagging middle and the end battle were a let down, especially the end battle considering there's a shot of all the ss marching and it seemed like every other guy had a panzerfaust (as others have mentioned). I was happy it wasn't a "ra ra murica" thing and enjoyed that they pulled no punches in terms of the brutality. I had a hard time believing they'd all willingly stay instead of fleeing, there needed to a bit more in the way of established consequence if they failed in holding the germans.
Barksdale wrote: I saw it a couple of weeks ago. I liked it. Not great but not bad. The last fight scene really wrecked it. Way too ridiculous.
One thought I had during that last scene is that it would have made a lot more sense if the German unit had been Volksturm, or perhaps even Volksturm led by a handful of SS troops. Then the disorganised attacks and commander’s orders that felt more like political rallying calls would have made more sense.
I can see why, for the sake of the film, they wanted to make the fight against elite troops because it wouldn’t have been very heroic to die while mowing down hordes of children and old men, but the end result showing SS troops acting like an untrained rabble just didn’t work.
Exactly my thoughts. I still think they could have pulled it off better. I mean, I really enjoyed the rest of the film. That last scene was just so poorly executed it really took me out of the experience.
BTW you all owe me some thanks for the Tiger Tank, because I put £50 into the Tank Museum's charity fund for keeping it operational.
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW you all owe me some thanks for the Tiger Tank, because I put £50 into the Tank Museum's charity fund for keeping it operational.
Kilkrazy wrote: BTW you all owe me some thanks for the Tiger Tank, because I put £50 into the Tank Museum's charity fund for keeping it operational.
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW you all owe me some thanks for the Tiger Tank, because I put £50 into the Tank Museum's charity fund for keeping it operational.
sebster wrote: So maybe the Tiger should have moved through the situation differently, and the Shermans definitely shouldn’t have advanced in front of infantry when clearing out the town.
Someone already mentioned the issue with the former, but what was with the latter - how is that supposed to work? I don't know much about WW2 tank combat.
LuciusAR wrote: Saw it a couple of weeks ago. Considering the film had being heavily pushing its self on its ‘realism’ largely based on the fact they managed to get a real Easy Eight Sherman and Tiger tank involved, it then they then seem to squander it by completely getting the actual battles completely wrong. Most of the battles scene where ludicrous and made Saving Private Ryan look like a detailed documentary in comparison.
The Germans never make any attempt to hit and run, as they were doing at that stage in the war. Instead they seen to throw themselves fanatically onto American bullets. The climactic battle scene in particular has the SS charging Fury’s machine guns like depressed lemmings. They don’t even breaking out the panzerfauts until after about 15 minutes into the fight.
Didn't you know that Hollywood has a strict "Dead Nazi" quota they have to fill anytime a movie has Nazis in it?
Its a function of how long the movie is. (Length-# of bad guys/# of heroes)^2= required # of onscreen nazi deaths
Anpu42 wrote: Another good one out there is Sahara. It is a remake of the Humphrey Bogart 1943 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_(1943_film)] one of the same name with James Belushi in 1995 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_(1995_film)]
The Bogart one was better in my opinion, but both were from a technical point very well done.
The Real Star of both was an M3 Lee Tank.
That and the Bogart one also has the distinction of being the only war film with no Female Cast Members.
Fury pretty much was a cross between Sahara and The Wild Bunch.
Someone already mentioned the issue with the former, but what was with the latter - how is that supposed to work? I don't know much about WW2 tank combat.
A tank advancing with no infantry support is basically a dead tank. Contrary to how films may display, a tank alone with no support is not that hard to destroy. they're loud, slow, and no matter how armored, they can be blown up (unless you're a KV-1 in 1942 ). EDIT: Not to mention their extremely limited field of vision. A group of experienced infantry, in reality, would not generally be challenged taking out a lone tank with no other support. This is especially true in closed quarters, like a town, as a single guy waiting around a corner with a good shot is going to disable that tank. In other words, mother fething corner campers.
Properly, the infantry would advance in front of the tank, spotting any dangers, as they are far more mobile than the tank is, and making it difficult for the tank to be flanked or surrounded.
Anpu42 wrote: Another good one out there is Sahara. It is a remake of the Humphrey Bogart 1943 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_(1943_film)] one of the same name with James Belushi in 1995 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_(1995_film)]
The Bogart one was better in my opinion, but both were from a technical point very well done.
The Real Star of both was an M3 Lee Tank.
That and the Bogart one also has the distinction of being the only war film with no Female Cast Members.
Fury pretty much was a cross between Sahara and The Wild Bunch.
The Wild Bunch with or without the Battle of Bloody Porch?
Anpu42 wrote: Another good one out there is Sahara. It is a remake of the Humphrey Bogart 1943 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_(1943_film)] one of the same name with James Belushi in 1995 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_(1995_film)]
The Bogart one was better in my opinion, but both were from a technical point very well done.
The Real Star of both was an M3 Lee Tank.
That and the Bogart one also has the distinction of being the only war film with no Female Cast Members.
Fury pretty much was a cross between Sahara and The Wild Bunch.
The Wild Bunch with or without the Battle of Bloody Porch?
Both are as about Bloody as the Original Halloween.
LordofHats wrote: I liked Stalingrad, but especially in the current political environment, the amount of 'rarara RUSSIA!' was a bit disturbing.
There's only one nation who makes more nationalistic movies than the USA, and that is Russia.
Its even more creepy when you consider they spend a lot of time celebrating a war where Russians killed as many Russians as the Germans did @_@. I get why we celebrate WWII. We didn't deal with a lot of the dark gak. But why Russia celebrates WWII as much as they do I will never understand. The Eastern Front was by far the most brutal event in human history. By miles.
LordofHats wrote: I liked Stalingrad, but especially in the current political environment, the amount of 'rarara RUSSIA!' was a bit disturbing.
There's only one nation who makes more nationalistic movies than the USA, and that is Russia.
Its even more creepy when you consider they spend a lot of time celebrating a war where Russians killed as many Russians as the Germans did @_@. I get why we celebrate WWII. We didn't deal with a lot of the dark gak. But why Russia celebrates WWII as much as they do I will never understand. The Eastern Front was by far the most brutal event in human history. By miles.
The same reason we celebrate the Civil War. No matter how many casualties we took, we won. No matter how horrible or vile the actual historic events may be, at the end of the day victory is what's remembered.
Except the Civil War preserved the union, freed the slaves, liberty and freedom for all (except the Indians and the black folk), so there's something to be proud of there by contemporary standards.
WWII just preserved a brutal dictatorship that went on to continue killing millions of Russians. Granted, probably an improvement over Nazi rule, but still not that grand.
I get not liking Fury. But not liking Fury while like The Big Red One kind of amazes me a little.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Desubot wrote: I thought it was ok. but definitely could of seen more tank on tank action.
One of the things I really liked is that the film didn't fall in line with the myth that tanks are all about blowing up other tanks. While it did unfortunately still repeat the old nonsense about Shermans being inadequate against the mythical German supertanks, at least it showed that the quality and effectiveness of a tank isn't all about its ability to blow up enemy tanks at range. Showing Shermans unleash on during an advance on an enemy infantry position was fantastic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Barksdale wrote: Exactly my thoughts. I still think they could have pulled it off better. I mean, I really enjoyed the rest of the film. That last scene was just so poorly executed it really took me out of the experience.
Yep. With a better ending it could have ended up an essential war movie, but as it is it's really just a war film with some good bits.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Someone already mentioned the issue with the former, but what was with the latter - how is that supposed to work? I don't know much about WW2 tank combat.
A tank has poor visibility and the flanks is really vulnerable to attacks to the flanks and rear. It has tremendous firepower that can take apart enemy positions in seconds, but those vulnerabilities mean it can be taken out by a small enemy combat team lying in wait. So doctrine in situations like that town are for the infantry to move forward, clear out hidey holes and identify enemy hard points. Then the tank moves forward and blasts the hard points to pieces.
One the battle versus the Tiger, it's funny how many people are writing to complain the Tiger was commanded poorly, as if the Tiger should have won that fight. Thing is, Fury had the 76mm gun, which was effective against the frontal armour of the Tiger at standard combat ranges. If the Tiger had identified that only Fury was upgunned and taken it out first then the fight might have worked out differently, but as it was Fury should have been able to engage and defeat the Tiger without any of that glory charge and sneaking around the back craziness.
Ouze wrote: So in real life it's a lot like Battlefield 4, is what you're saying? Disappointing.
Tankers would actually refuse orders to advance into built up areas without infantry support around them.
Also I like this:
Would be nice if there was a picture showing the Tiger I and the M3 Lee. One the shell comparison it looks a 75mm HE shell next to a 88mm AP shell. Given American mostly encountered infantry, AT guns, tank destroyers, light and medium tanks. 75mm and 76.2mm cannons been more than good enough for the job at hand . The big cats were pretty rare everywhere except on the eastern front. Tiger Is fought in Africa were largely irrelevant due to sheer rarity of them and the overabundance of AT gun armed British and Commonwealth tanks.
Well the really sad part is that the heavy tanks could have been a formidable force, but they were used incorrectly.
What they should have done was once they developed the Tiger 1 and built up the divisions which existed to full strength, ceased further heavy tank development and only expanded in medium tanks. The Tigers could then be used in large numbers together as an offensive sledge hammer while the medium StuGs and Panzer IVs were used defensively.
Instead, they deployed the Tigers way too thin and allowed them to be destroyed one on one. They were also poorly supported because they were treated like the invincible machines they definitely were not.
A force of Tigers backed up by mechanized infantry could have been used to harry enemy forces and take away resources from the main fighting and allowed the Germans to push back or at the very least hold their ground.
Of course this wouldn't have saved Germany from the fact they bit off way more than they could chew. Once they had control of Europe, Hitler should have waited at least a decade before attempting anything further, have a cease fire with England(avoiding drawing the US into conflict, let them play with the Japanese), and NOT POKE THE RUSSIAN BEAR!
10 years would allow for a new wave of soldiers drawn from the populations of conquered nations as they could have indoctrinated the youth in that time period.
Of course, the Nazis would have issues expanding beyond that because at this point Nuclear weaponry will have been developed. They'd probably get away with snapping up Africa and the ME. Then they'd likely bomb Russia into oblivion with nuclear weaponry(they'd get them long before the Russians did and wouldn't hesitate to use them), but after that it would be a stand off between the US/England and the Nazi Empire.
The war in the pacific likely would play out very similarly to how it actually did. Japan might fall faster with the US not getting involved in Europe immediately.
So we have another Cold War, but with the Nazi old world instead of Russia.
Heavy tanks were a terrible idea for Germany. They were never going to have the fuel to keep those things running in number. They'd have been better served pushing out more medium tanks and never delving into heavies at all, but they let the initial power of the Tiger go to their heads. The Panther by all rights was a superior platform in every way, and used less gas.
Sure, they were a horrible idea for a country which had no fuel and was losing the war. But if they'd taken steps to rectify that they would have done ok. And certainly not trying to rely on them exclusively hurt them a lot.
But the idea of Heavy tanks wasn't a bad one as a rule.
Someone already mentioned the issue with the former, but what was with the latter - how is that supposed to work? I don't know much about WW2 tank combat.
A tank advancing with no infantry support is basically a dead tank. Contrary to how films may display, a tank alone with no support is not that hard to destroy. they're loud, slow, and no matter how armored, they can be blown up (unless you're a KV-1 in 1942 ). EDIT: Not to mention their extremely limited field of vision. A group of experienced infantry, in reality, would not generally be challenged taking out a lone tank with no other support. This is especially true in closed quarters, like a town, as a single guy waiting around a corner with a good shot is going to disable that tank. In other words, mother fething corner campers.
Properly, the infantry would advance in front of the tank, spotting any dangers, as they are far more mobile than the tank is, and making it difficult for the tank to be flanked or surrounded.
It had support. There was infantry with them. They were doing it right.
I get not liking Fury. But not liking Fury while like The Big Red One kind of amazes me a little.
Yea that was a great big suck bag of a movie.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Heavy tanks were a terrible idea for Germany. They were never going to have the fuel to keep those things running in number. They'd have been better served pushing out more medium tanks and never delving into heavies at all, but they let the initial power of the Tiger go to their heads. The Panther by all rights was a superior platform in every way, and used less gas.
There are pages and pages of arguments about what would have happened if the Germans had focused on the PZ IV and STGs with the long barrel 75 vs. both the Panthers and Tigers. Panthers were good tank but hyperoverenfineered and always breaking down.
I loved it. There is a story of a Russian T34 in 1942 in a natural chokepoint by a river that held off a regiemnt sized force for a day, because they couldn't kill it.
This was a K1, not a T34. And it wasn't a Regiment. it was the entire 7th Panzer Division*. And yes. It is one hell of a tale. In 1942, the K1 was literally unkillable by anything the Germans had. Artillery, tanks, satchel charges, nothing could pierce that armor.
*Technically, they weren't holding off the division so much as making it impossible for the division to move. The K1 actually broke down at that position, and proceeded to fire on any Germans it saw. Just so happened those Germans were fuel trucks for the 7th, who couldn't move because they didn't have enough gas.
Actually it was a KV-2, although it did hold the entire division up as you said. In the end they hit it with 88's and thought they had knocked it out. It was only as they where examining it that they realised the few ( I think about three ) shots that had penetrated it hadnt killed it but had merely stunned the crew as the turret began turning. A quick thinking engineer managed to get a grenade in through a half opened hatch and finish it though.
LuciusAR wrote:Saw it a couple of weeks ago. Considering the film had being heavily pushing its self on its ‘realism’ largely based on the fact they managed to get a real Easy Eight Sherman and Tiger tank involved, it then they then seem to squander it by completely getting the actual battles completely wrong. Most of the battles scene where ludicrous and made Saving Private Ryan look like a detailed documentary in comparison.
The Germans never make any attempt to hit and run, as they were doing at that stage in the war. Instead they seen to throw themselves fanatically onto American bullets. The climactic battle scene in particular has the SS charging Fury’s machine guns like depressed lemmings. They don’t even breaking out the panzerfauts until after about 15 minutes into the fight.
Actually it isnt a real Tiger. if I remember rightly it is a light tank with a superstructure added over the top and the treads and running gear edited in.
Seeing as the only running Tiger is 131 and she is an early variant from Tunisia and the variant shown is most definetly a late version (look at the running gear, turret, cupola and rear deck).
Panthers were good tank but hyperoverenfineered and always breaking down.
Overengineered yes, but the breakdown problem 1) was mostly solved by 1944, and 2) was also a problem the Tiger had. And overengineered might be misplaced. Their engines were under huge stress because of the weight they were pushing around (the Panther was just a few torques away from being the Pershing, which frequently tore its own suspension to cinders). Engine technology hadn't quite come along just yet for them, plus the interlocking wheels were a huge over complication that gave little real benefit.
Actually it isnt a real Tiger. if I remember rightly it is a light tank with a superstructure added over the top and the treads and running gear edited in.
Seeing as the only running Tiger is 131 and she is an early variant from Tunisia and the variant shown is most definetly a late version (look at the running gear, turret, cupola and rear deck).
The tank in the film is Tiger 131. 131 was mostly taken apart during and after the war, then rebuilt more recently with parts salvaged from other tigers and an engine from a Tiger II.
Panthers were good tank but hyperoverenfineered and always breaking down.
Overengineered yes, but the breakdown problem 1) was mostly solved by 1944, and 2) was also a problem the Tiger had. And overengineered might be misplaced. Their engines were under huge stress because of the weight they were pushing around (the Panther was just a few torques away from being the Pershing, which frequently tore its own suspension to cinders). Engine technology hadn't quite come along just yet for them, plus the interlocking wheels were a huge over complication that gave little real benefit.
And that was the problem. The MIV wasn't overengineered. Like the Sherman and T34 they could make high production numbers of it. Better for us I suppose: fewer made, and the biggest JagdTiger is still just a target to a Thunderbolt or Typhoon.
I thought the first two acts were great and the last act was like a different movie. The first 2/3rds are like a gritty war movie about a Tanker crew and then the last 1/3rd is just a ridiculous action movie. Because I like the first two acts so much it made the last bit even harder to swallow.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: I thought the first two acts were great and the last act was like a different movie. The first 2/3rds are like a gritty war movie about a Tanker crew and then the last 1/3rd is just a ridiculous action movie. Because I like the first two acts so much it made the last bit even harder to swallow.
So the opposite of The Kingdom or District 9 An hour "What the heck am I watching this for" Followed by 30 min of "HOLY THIS IS AWSOME"
KamikazeCanuck wrote: I thought the first two acts were great and the last act was like a different movie. The first 2/3rds are like a gritty war movie about a Tanker crew and then the last 1/3rd is just a ridiculous action movie. Because I like the first two acts so much it made the last bit even harder to swallow.
Well the last bit was ok because dey was killin Nazis. Who don't like that? (brownshirts shut up and sit your butts back down!)
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you were re-writing the last 1/3 what would you have done.
Me:
-Artillery barrage taking out German girlies - changed to just an artillery barrage and them being ordered to move out.
-Would have had Fury -firing some shells and retreating-making it back to the operations unit its trying to protect and making a stand with them there.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: I thought the first two acts were great and the last act was like a different movie. The first 2/3rds are like a gritty war movie about a Tanker crew and then the last 1/3rd is just a ridiculous action movie. Because I like the first two acts so much it made the last bit even harder to swallow.
Well the last bit was ok because dey was killin Nazis. Who don't like that? (brownshirts shut up and sit your butts back down!)
Tanks are quite vulnerable to Infantry. Those SS should have been able to easily take out a crippled tank. At one point they're just trowing grenades out the hatch and killing dozens of Germans. Like what the hell are those Germans even doing? Bayonet charging the tank? It's just way too over the top. Also they shouldn't have even have fought that battle, they should have just gone and hid in a bush. But no, Brad Pitt had to have his heroic Hollywood last stand. Even then when the guy gets two grenades blow up right next to him it doesn't ruin his pretty face. It's two grenades going off in a tank, he should be hamburger.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: I thought the first two acts were great and the last act was like a different movie. The first 2/3rds are like a gritty war movie about a Tanker crew and then the last 1/3rd is just a ridiculous action movie. Because I like the first two acts so much it made the last bit even harder to swallow.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you were re-writing the last 1/3 what would you have done.
Me:
-Artillery barrage taking out German girlies - changed to just an artillery barrage and them being ordered to move out.
-Would have had Fury -firing some shells and retreating-making it back to the operations unit its trying to protect and making a stand with them there.
The best part of the Movie was the Tiger fight. One other problem was there was only one tank fight. Maybe if the last stand was against some tanks and just not as crazy that would have been good. Like maybe they're fighting both infantry and tanks then they get crippled then they go all Rambo but the Germans don't act as stupid through the whole thing even that would have been better.
I would have changed the last fight so that they open fire just as the Nazis reach within 30 ft of the tank, then they hose down the entire road and block the column from advancing.
I loved it. There is a story of a Russian T34 in 1942 in a natural chokepoint by a river that held off a regiemnt sized force for a day, because they couldn't kill it.
This was a K1, not a T34. And it wasn't a Regiment. it was the entire 7th Panzer Division*. And yes. It is one hell of a tale. In 1942, the K1 was literally unkillable by anything the Germans had. Artillery, tanks, satchel charges, nothing could pierce that armor.
*Technically, they weren't holding off the division so much as making it impossible for the division to move. The K1 actually broke down at that position, and proceeded to fire on any Germans it saw. Just so happened those Germans were fuel trucks for the 7th, who couldn't move because they didn't have enough gas.
Actually it was a KV-2, although it did hold the entire division up as you said. In the end they hit it with 88's and thought they had knocked it out. It was only as they where examining it that they realised the few ( I think about three ) shots that had penetrated it hadnt killed it but had merely stunned the crew as the turret began turning. A quick thinking engineer managed to get a grenade in through a half opened hatch and finish it though.
LuciusAR wrote:Saw it a couple of weeks ago. Considering the film had being heavily pushing its self on its ‘realism’ largely based on the fact they managed to get a real Easy Eight Sherman and Tiger tank involved, it then they then seem to squander it by completely getting the actual battles completely wrong. Most of the battles scene where ludicrous and made Saving Private Ryan look like a detailed documentary in comparison.
The Germans never make any attempt to hit and run, as they were doing at that stage in the war. Instead they seen to throw themselves fanatically onto American bullets. The climactic battle scene in particular has the SS charging Fury’s machine guns like depressed lemmings. They don’t even breaking out the panzerfauts until after about 15 minutes into the fight.
Actually it isnt a real Tiger. if I remember rightly it is a light tank with a superstructure added over the top and the treads and running gear edited in.
Seeing as the only running Tiger is 131 and she is an early variant from Tunisia and the variant shown is most definetly a late version (look at the running gear, turret, cupola and rear deck).
It clearly has the early running gear in the film because it is 131.
Rubberanvil wrote: weren't a bad idea in and by themselves, but were when the infrastructure isn't there to power, maintain, fuel, and transport them.
They're a bad idea because tactically, the entire way tanks were classified at the time was pointless. One of the lessons of the war was that a tank that can't kill another tank isn't a very good tank. Light tanks were mostly useless through out the war, easily picked off and not really fast enough to make up for it. Heavy tanks eventually became obsolete because engine technology advanced enough that having a divide between heavy and medium tanks was fruitless.* The MBT combines the best aspects of both classifications.
*To illustrate, the Panther weighed 20 tons more than the Sherman, but was just as fast, more heavily armored, and more heavily armed. Technology and tactics ultimately showed heavy tanks were unnecessary complications.
Grey Templar wrote: Well the really sad part is that the heavy tanks could have been a formidable force, but they were used incorrectly.
What they should have done was once they developed the Tiger 1 and built up the divisions which existed to full strength, ceased further heavy tank development and only expanded in medium tanks. The Tigers could then be used in large numbers together as an offensive sledge hammer while the medium StuGs and Panzer IVs were used defensively.
Nah, the Tiger was a pre-war design, and while it worked great as a good enough platform to get the excellent 88mm gun onto a tank, as an overall weapon of war the Tiger is probably one of the most overrated weapons of war in history. Ultimately, there are very, very good reasons they stopped building them in 1944.
Focusing more on Tigers would only have exacerbated the weaknesses of the design, while adding little more tank killing potency, and making its eventual obsolescence even more of a disaster. I gather you're hinting that the German program of even heavier tanks was a waste of resources, but the answer wasn't more Tigers, but to rationalise resources into a single heavy tank design to replace the Tiger.
Of course this wouldn't have saved Germany from the fact they bit off way more than they could chew. Once they had control of Europe, Hitler should have waited at least a decade before attempting anything further, have a cease fire with England(avoiding drawing the US into conflict, let them play with the Japanese), and NOT POKE THE RUSSIAN BEAR!
Nah, not even a little. Barbarossa really was now or never for Hitler. To quote Liddell Hart's description of Germany's strategic position - "Germany had no home production of cotton, rubber, tin, platinum, bauxite, mercury, and mica, while her supplies of iron-ore, copper, antimony, manganese, nickel, sulphur, wool and petroleum were quite inadequate'.
What Germany had was a temporary advantage in organisation, control and effective doctrine, while Russia's army was at its weakest point as it was still recovering from the purges and only beginning its modernization. To argue that a country facing acute resource shortages but with temporary military superiority should switch to a waiting game is completely wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: And that was the problem. The MIV wasn't overengineered. Like the Sherman and T34 they could make high production numbers of it. Better for us I suppose: fewer made, and the biggest JagdTiger is still just a target to a Thunderbolt or Typhoon.
I was reading a bit recently that said that the effectiveness of rockets from Typhoons against tanks was probably overestimated - their low accuracy meant firing a full load of 8 gave you maybe a 5% chance of hitting. The early estimates of their tank killing came mostly from pilot reports and were very optimistic.
This isn't to doubt the effectiveness of fighter bombers - but their real value lay in the devastation they put on lighter vehicles, where a direct hit wasn't needed. To rejig your comment - 'the biggest Jadgtiger is just a liability when the Thunderbolts and Typhoons have shredded the supporting convoys bringing up munitions & fuel"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rubberanvil wrote: One of the big things the war taught everyone was that heavy tanks were a bad idea. It's why the MBT was invented.
Heavy tanks weren't a bad idea in and by themselves, but were when the infrastructure isn't there to power, maintain, fuel, and transport them.
Pretty much. Heavy tanks were a situational weapon - great against concentrations of enemy tanks or against enemy fortifications, but elsewhere you're much better with medium tanks. A specialist weapon like that first and foremost needs to fit in with existing infrastructure - because once you start needing to modify rail carriages and stuff like that then you're looking at a lot of hassle that can't be justified by the relatively minor role that heavy tanks play in your fighting force.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: They're a bad idea because tactically, the entire way tanks were classified at the time was pointless. One of the lessons of the war was that a tank that can't kill another tank isn't a very good tank. Light tanks were mostly useless through out the war, easily picked off and not really fast enough to make up for it. Heavy tanks eventually became obsolete because engine technology advanced enough that having a divide between heavy and medium tanks was fruitless.* The MBT combines the best aspects of both classifications.
*To illustrate, the Panther weighed 20 tons more than the Sherman, but was just as fast, more heavily armored, and more heavily armed. Technology and tactics ultimately showed heavy tanks were unnecessary complications.
Yeah, just to expand on that - really heavy tanks weren't that bad of an idea in 1942 - especially not when facing Soviet doctrine that was so dependant on tanks for achieving breakthrough. But by the end of the war there was no sensible amount of armour that could stop the latest AT guns, and no amount of armour could reduce the vulnerability of the tracks to infantry AT weapons. At the same time advances in tank design and engine power meant you could put a potent AT gun on medium frame, while engine improvements meant that tank could still maintain effective mobility.
There were also a lot of lessons learned about the need for weapon platforms that could do any job at any time - modern warfare is chaotic and rapidly changing, and it is much better to be able to respond now with a good enough weapon, than respond later with exactly the right specialist weapon. This meant that generalist designs that were good enough against enemy tanks, good enough against enemy infantry, and mobile enough to exploit breakthrough became the optimum design.
Rubberanvil wrote: weren't a bad idea in and by themselves, but were when the infrastructure isn't there to power, maintain, fuel, and transport them.
They're a bad idea because tactically, the entire way tanks were classified at the time was pointless. One of the lessons of the war was that a tank that can't kill another tank isn't a very good tank. Light tanks were mostly useless through out the war, easily picked off and not really fast enough to make up for it. Heavy tanks eventually became obsolete because engine technology advanced enough that having a divide between heavy and medium tanks was fruitless.* The MBT combines the best aspects of both classifications.
*To illustrate, the Panther weighed 20 tons more than the Sherman, but was just as fast, more heavily armored, and more heavily armed. Technology and tactics ultimately showed heavy tanks were unnecessary complications.
The MBT is amalgamization of medium, heavy, turreted tank destroyer, turreted assault gun and when the situation calls for it self propelled artillery. It can argue MBT is the decendent of heavy tank as every problem with the class except weight have fixed.
Tanks are also useless if they can't kill infantry or anything else if tank is only armed with an icepick. Hence the whole upgunning debacle everyone was involve as tanks need to be able kill whatever they come across. Everyone kept making light tanks or tank destroyers based on them, as it was better to build something useful instead of leaving factories idling. No nobody really the time to reconfigure the factories to build something bigger or time to train the workers.
For the rocket comment, I heard from a WW2 pilot that usually they looked at a building or specific spot and just fired all their rockets at it in one go. Im fairly sure they used cannon against tanks.
The bigger is better idea was hotly contested in both tanks and ships. Before the war here was a huge focus on making things "big" so you have huge land battle ships and plans for other huge tanks. As usual the better option turned out to have a multi purpose general design instead of splitting tanks by category and class.
It can argue MBT is the decendent of heavy tank as every problem with the class except weight have fixed.
I'd actually argue the MBT is a descendent of the Medium Tank, as the tactics behind them more closely resemble those of the Panzer IV and Sherman than the Tiger or IS-2.
Everyone kept making light tanks or tank destroyers based on them
I think that simplifies it a bit. The Tank Destroyers for example were trapped in a big battle between paper pushers in the Army, arguing back and forth over the most effective means of destroying the 'Blitzkreig' they were all so afraid of. Irony turned out that the US never actually had to fight the Blitz until the Battle of the Buldge, and surprise, the Tank Destroyers ended up not being that useful and the Blitzkreig kind of defeated itself XD
I'm not arguing that people were stupid for building heavy tanks. We know things now they didn't know then. One of the things we know is that ultimately, more Tigers weren't going to save Germany, and the Tiger itself in retrospect isn't the great killing machine we like to pretend it is. The way armored warfare was thought about at the time was on the cutting edge, and highly theoretical. Everyone was playing the 'Best Guessing Game.' WWII was a learning experience, but most of that got worked out after the war, not before or during.
Rubberanvil wrote: One thing to remember is if Germany doesn't surrender when they did they will have gotten an atomic roflstomp via USAAF.
The Luftwaffe had planes specifically designed to intercept the B-29, the Ta-152 and the FW-190D-9 and D-12. Japan had no answer to the B-29, which is why the Americans could bombard their cities with contemptuous ease. With only two atomic bombs even the chance one bomber might get intercepted is a strategic disaster.
Hm, I'm greatly interested in the declarations that the Tiger wasn't a potent war machine. It seemed like the perfect weapon for fighting on the Eastern Front. Unlike any other tank in the Wehrmacht at the time, it had wide tracks to help it get around. The 88mm cannon was a fearsome weapon and, to my knowledge, was capable of taking on anything the Allies ever put on the field throughout the entire war. Sure it had a slow turret traverse, but that's not really a big problem when you're fighting on the Russian steppe. That thing could knock out T-34s or Shermans from over a kilometer away. It certainly wasn't lacking for protection, and unlike the Panther most of the technical deficiencies were ironed out in its first year of service.
It stems from all the mechanical and resource failures it was plagued by.
The Germans simply didn't have the resources to use their nice designs to full effect.
Even then, they did misuse the Tiger.
The ideal army would have been mostly Panthers and Panzer IVs, with small numbers of Tigers providing backup where they would be most effective. Either as a heavy breakthough force or defending large areas of open ground as a mobile 88 platform.
Grey Templar wrote: By the time we had operational nukes the Germans had nothing worth using them on.
Fatman and Littleboy were earmarked for Berlin and iirc Bonn but Germany surrendered before preparations for the bombing mission were complete in England.
IIRC they were earmarked way ahead of when they were actually built. By that time, the front was so close using them there would have been purely symbolic.
It might have also been to intimidate the Russians a little as well. They had always been allies of convenience.
It sounds very odd to me to cite mechanical issues with the Tiger being a big problem but then advocate for more Panthers. The Panther had far more fundamental design problems than the Tiger did, and as I mentioned earlier the Tiger at least was refined to an acceptable level of mechanical breakdowns unlike the Panther. As for misuse, I can't comment on that one way or another as that's getting too far into how the war was fought at the tactical level. That's for actual military men to decide IMO.
They did fix most of the problems with the Panther eventually. It was a very very good design which caught the Allies off guard by its use as a Medium tank.
Grey Templar wrote: They did fix most oPanther roblems with the Panther eventually. It was a very very good design which caught the Allies off guard by its use as a Medium tank.
This is actually incorrect. The final drive, which was the single biggest problem with the Panther design, was never rectified even after the war. The suspension they used just wasn't up to the task for a 45 ton tank, and the transmission had a 90% failure rate after just 1,500km. The Panther also used a different gear box than the Tiger, which became a huge problem as the tank was a nightmare to drive in combat conditions. This was made worse by the fact that the Germans would put new tank crews into their Panthers and never had time to adequately train them, so you had rookies who lacked basic training learning on the fly.
The Tiger, on the other hand, eventually overcame most of its technical deficiencies and had a pretty good serviceability rate post-1942. Unlike the Panther, it was a pleasure to drive as it had the excellent Maybach gear box. The Panther certainly had things going for it. It had good speed, great protection, and an excellent gun, but it had crippling mechanical issues that the Germans never resolved. The Tiger was a much more reliable tank and just as deadly.
I think the biggest problem with the Tiger was that they just didn't have enough. It was pretty invincible especially early war, but the Russians had swarms of T34s and its not like they were made of paper either. We know the exact number of Tigers built, I don't think we do for T34 as factories were bashing them out as fast as possible.
I would like to rescind my previous statement about it not being a real Tiger, I went back and watched the trailer again..... This time with more than one hours worth of sleep behind these eyes (So I wasnt expecting to see an old Tger and so i didnt)
Still, it should not be 131, as 131's design was no longer in production (Although there was a small number of "Hybrid" Tigers that used and old turret and new hull)..... But thats just the history buff in me
I liked it. there was a moment at the end when i thought the sarge (or commander) was going to shoot himself which ticked me off, but shooting a Nazi is good. i found the morality in the film interesting, and the death of the two civilian women to be actually quite hillariious. I'm a terrible person like that.
was reading a bit recently that said that the effectiveness of rockets from Typhoons against tanks was probably overestimated - their low accuracy meant firing a full load of 8 gave you maybe a 5% chance of hitting. The early estimates of their tank killing came mostly from pilot reports and were very optimistic.
This isn't to doubt the effectiveness of fighter bombers - but their real value lay in the devastation they put on lighter vehicles, where a direct hit wasn't needed. To rejig your comment - 'the biggest Jadgtiger is just a liability when the Thunderbolts and Typhoons have shredded the supporting convoys bringing up munitions & fuel"
***I’ll agree on most of that. Killing the logistics was their best use. However, don’t forget Thunderbolts and Yaks had 500+ lb bombs which they would use if the occasion warranted. I assume the Typhoons did as well.
Yeah, just to expand on that - really heavy tanks weren't that bad of an idea in 1942 - especially not when facing Soviet doctrine that was so dependant on tanks for achieving breakthrough. But by the end of the war there was no sensible amount of armour that could stop the latest AT guns, and no amount of armour could reduce the vulnerability of the tracks to infantry AT weapons. At the same time advances in tank design and engine power meant you could put a potent AT gun on medium frame, while engine improvements meant that tank could still maintain effective mobility.
Indeed, I’d argue that later tank design “went heavy” in a medium way for everyone by the end of WWII, for the reasons you noted. New engine and tank design permitted a new generation of MOBILE heavy tanks, which often were reasonably reliable vs. the Model T heavy tank designs of the Germans.
JS II: 51 short tons
Chieftain: 52 tons
M48: 49.6 short tons
Jagdtiger as a comparison: 75 tons
As a reference-Sherman: 33 short tons, also a nice historical note-the M103 heavy tank built at the same time as the M-60 to counter Soviet armor: 65 tons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M103_heavy_tank
Rubberanvil wrote: One thing to remember is if Germany doesn't surrender when they did they will have gotten an atomic roflstomp via USAAF.
The Luftwaffe had planes specifically designed to intercept the B-29, the Ta-152 and the FW-190D-9 and D-12. Japan had no answer to the B-29, which is why the Americans could bombard their cities with contemptuous ease. With only two atomic bombs even the chance one bomber might get intercepted is a strategic disaster.
They may have had plans, but that had no planes...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: It stems from all the mechanical and resource failures it was plagued by.
The Germans simply didn't have the resources to use their nice designs to full effect.
Even then, they did misuse the Tiger.
The ideal army would have been mostly Panthers and Panzer IVs, with small numbers of Tigers providing backup where they would be most effective. Either as a heavy breakthough force or defending large areas of open ground as a mobile 88 platform.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I think the biggest problem with the Tiger was that they just didn't have enough. It was pretty invincible especially early war, but the Russians had swarms of T34s and its not like they were made of paper either. We know the exact number of Tigers built, I don't think we do for T34 as factories were bashing them out as fast as possible.
Lots of T34s. Plus they countered with T35/85s, and the SU "tiger hunters" 85 and later the 100.
Of course they also developed the JS line of tanks which evolved after Kursk from the old KV line. The Rooskies were definitely in the game.
the shrouded lord wrote: I liked it. there was a moment at the end when i thought the sarge (or commander) was going to shoot himself which ticked me off, but shooting a Nazi is good. i found the morality in the film interesting, and the death of the two civilian women to be actually quite hillariious. I'm a terrible person like that.
That's a really distasteful thing to say.
I can't honestly believe you think it is hilarious - that would be wrong on many, many levels.
creeping-deth87 wrote: Hm, I'm greatly interested in the declarations that the Tiger wasn't a potent war machine.
Strategically; The Tiger was a drain on resources. At any given time, there were never more than a few hundred Tigers operating, but they consumed huge amounts of resources to build. For the cost of a Tiger, you could have had 3 or 4 STUGs or 2 Panzer IVs. And the STUG had the best KtD of any German armored vehicle (it's the unsung hero of their war effort really). This is really a big deal, when you consider how few Tigers there were at any given time, and that the sheer volume of fire directed against them by the allies was more than enough to kill them.
Operationally, it was a logistical nightmare for a military force with a long tradition of sucking at logistics. The Tiger was a gas guzzler, in a military desperately short of gas. It's engine was very high maintenance as well. If you've seen Kelly's Heroes (the movie) you might remember a bit about how the Tiger's engines needed to be turned over every now and then just to keep them going. This is partially true. In the winter, a tanks needed their engines turned on every now and then to keep them from freezing solid, and the Tiger will guzzle whether it's idle or rolling.
Further, getting Tigers from Point A to Point B was a pain in the ass. The Tiger had interlocking wheels* and the common way of moving a tank, was to remove its treads, put it on a railroad, and let it drive itself down the tracks (no seriously, this is how the Germans moved their super heavy Tanks). This meant removing all the interlocked wheels, replacing them with special railroad wheels, and then driving the Tiger down the tracks. This was compounded when Germany found out Russian train tracks were a different size than their own.
*From Wikipedia for speed; "Removing an inner wheel that had lost its solid rubber tire (a common occurrence) required the removal of up to nine other wheels first." The Interlocking wheels wasted huge amounts of man hours for a surprisingly small number of vehicles.
Tactically; The Tiger's power is horribly overstated. The image we often have of waves of Shermans being blown up and only winning in the end through sheer numbers is a myth. The Tiger was easily disabled by a Sherman. As stated above, their suspension was under a lot of stress at all times and regularly burned out. A shell to their interlocked wheels could bend the wheels, making movement impossible. The turret was also a huge liability, and the Tank Destroyer Force, developed a pretty snap up habit of hitting the turret right where the gun connected to it. This spot was very weak and when hit, often killed the gunner or the commander (sometimes both). The Tiger's gun was indeed exceptional (the 88 in general was a wonder of ballistics), but its straight unslanted armor is overstated. Once Shermans 76mm guns started rolling out, what few Tigers there were just started dropping like flies.*
*The ones not getting blown up by air superiority that is anyway. While a single Typhoon's chances of knocking out a Tiger were kind of 'meh' remember that the Allies could sit back and pound German positions with bombs, rockets, and whatever else they could fit on their vast assortment of aircraft for days. And the Tiger was a awfully big target. Drop enough bombs at the poor thing, one of them is going to blow turret open, its suspension off, something. This is also a huge deal, because the Tiger was heavy. You either repaired it where it dropped, or gave it up, because that thing wasn't gonna get moved if it couldn't move itself.
EDIT: Compared to the Sherman or the T34, the Tiger just wasn't that grand. Shermans and T34s were comparatively cheap, easy to maintain, and generally reliable (barring the Sherman's unfortunate habit of setting itself ablaze). The Tiger might have had quality of fire over them, but was not mobile or armored enough to make up for the amount of fire all the Shermans and T34s (and airplanes) could send its way. And there were so few Tigers, their impact on any given battle was kind of irrelevant. They just had no way to make up for constantly being blown to bits compared to how much it cost to make one.
So... why was it bad again?
In a vacuum, the Tiger might be considered an amazing machine, but in the overall context of the war, it wasn't.
They may have had plans, but that had no planes...
This. By 1944, there was no Luftwaffe worth talking about.
the shrouded lord wrote: I liked it. there was a moment at the end when i thought the sarge (or commander) was going to shoot himself which ticked me off, but shooting a Nazi is good. i found the morality in the film interesting, and the death of the two civilian women to be actually quite hillariious. I'm a terrible person like that.
That's a really distasteful thing to say.
I can't honestly believe you think it is hilarious - that would be wrong on many, many levels.
yes you are correct, less hilarious, more... trollish.
Everyone should visit the Patton museum at least once. Sooo cool.
It don't exist no more, at least not as you are remembering it. When the Armor school moved to Benning (now the Maneuver Center of Excellence) the armor museum pretty much shut down, and is in the process of being set up with the new Infantry Museum (which is phenomenal). I don't think the Armor portions are open yet (I didn't have a chance to check when there a few weeks ago for Son2's graduation from IBOLC).
EDIT: Yep, the collection has moved, new building not up yet.
In 2011, the Armor Center and School completed it's move from Fort Knox, KY, to Fort Benning, GA, to form the Maneuver Center of Excellence. Included in that move was the Armor Collection, which was displayed at the Patton Museum.
Future
The museum will be a core component of the Maneuver Center of Excellence as both an educational resource and center for study of the history of the Mounted Force. It will also take a central role in supporting unit, organization, and Soldier history and heritage, and provide the public with a window to the Army--in particular, it's mounted warriors, their history, and their role in national development.
While the museum will provide modern storage, maintenance, and exhibit capabilities for the more than 9000 micro artifacts and 380 macro artifacts in the Armor Collection, it will also provide resources in support of ongoing research and development of doctrine, policy and equipment.
I would like to see a movie centered around the Battle of Arracourt or the Rhine crossing at Remagen.
I would like to see the movie focus not on a single crew, but on a company commander, with BN CDR and platoons having roles, so we get a bit of the bigger picture but are still in the middle of the action. I think at the BN and CO CDR level we start to see more interesting decisions than at the single crew level.
Someone should make a throwback to the old War Epics like Battle of the Bulge, A Bridge Too Far, and The Longest Day. Those old 3 hour bits that had characters from every level of command.
I've always wanted a good movie about the Battle of Kursk myself.
I would love to see one about the M18 Hellcats that held off the Panzers at the "Battle of the Bulge"
I think it would work if the "Battle of the Bulge" was just a backdrop.
On the subject of Fury- trailer didn't sell it for me. Not really a Brad Pitt fan either. It feels like they were hoping he'd hold it all together. Glad I gave it a miss though from some of the comments here.
One thing I like about Pitt and the movie (which I admittedly have not had a chance to see yet) is that Pitt went to the Benning School for Wayward Boys and met with a slew of troops and then hosted a viewing of the movie in the big theater room in BLDG 4 (the building where a lot of the classes are given). Son2 sent a picture with Pitt meeting the troopers. That didn't seem to get much press, but I know it was an appreciated gesture.
They may have had plans, but that had no planes...
This. By 1944, there was no Luftwaffe worth talking about.
I'm sorry but this just isn't accurate. While certainly not the force it was in 1940 the Luftwaffe was very active right up to the end of the war. Most allied soldiers didn't see much of the Luftwaffe because most of its combat operations were focused on stopping the bombing raids, however they contributed tactically to Operation Market Garden, the Ardennes and to the fighting around Remagen. You should ask the crews of Bomber Command and the 8th Airforce if the luftwaffe was still worth talking about, I'm sure you'll get a much different answer than what you are used to.
As for "didn't have the planes" that's not accurate either. The FW190D saw plenty of service, and was fairly common by the end of the war. The Ta-152, while only coming in late in the war, still equipped one squadron and managed to bounce some British Tempests (the best allied fighter plane that saw wartime service) and defeat them. They did have planes, just not as many as the RAF and USAAF did.
angelofvengeance wrote: On the subject of Fury- trailer didn't sell it for me. Not really a Brad Pitt fan either. It feels like they were hoping he'd hold it all together. Glad I gave it a miss though from some of the comments here.
Tankwise- I'm a fan of anything packing 88s
I still think people should see it. It's still the best tank movie that'll come out for years probably. The just don't make Tank movies for whatever reason. This still tells a solid tale of what it's like to be a WWII tanker - except the ending which just becomes cartoonish.
They may have had plans, but that had no planes...
This. By 1944, there was no Luftwaffe worth talking about.
I'm sorry but this just isn't accurate. While certainly not the force it was in 1940 the Luftwaffe was very active right up to the end of the war. Most allied soldiers didn't see much of the Luftwaffe because most of its combat operations were focused on stopping the bombing raids, however they contributed tactically to Operation Market Garden, the Ardennes and to the fighting around Remagen. You should ask the crews of Bomber Command and the 8th Airforce if the luftwaffe was still worth talking about, I'm sure you'll get a much different answer than what you are used to.
As for "didn't have the planes" that's not accurate either. The FW190D saw plenty of service, and was fairly common by the end of the war. The Ta-152, while only coming in late in the war, still equipped one squadron and managed to bounce some British Tempests (the best allied fighter plane that saw wartime service) and defeat them. They did have planes, just not as many as the RAF and USAAF did.
The Bomber scene in Fury sums it up nicely.
Hundreds of bombers thundering on ahead, dogged by a half dozen fighters in defense. The Luftwaffe was tossing pebbles at the ocean at that point, didn't matter how big the pebbles were. You can't stop the tide.
They may have had plans, but that had no planes...
This. By 1944, there was no Luftwaffe worth talking about.
I'm sorry but this just isn't accurate. While certainly not the force it was in 1940 the Luftwaffe was very active right up to the end of the war. Most allied soldiers didn't see much of the Luftwaffe because most of its combat operations were focused on stopping the bombing raids, however they contributed tactically to Operation Market Garden, the Ardennes and to the fighting around Remagen. You should ask the crews of Bomber Command and the 8th Airforce if the luftwaffe was still worth talking about, I'm sure you'll get a much different answer than what you are used to.
As for "didn't have the planes" that's not accurate either. The FW190D saw plenty of service, and was fairly common by the end of the war. The Ta-152, while only coming in late in the war, still equipped one squadron and managed to bounce some British Tempests (the best allied fighter plane that saw wartime service) and defeat them. They did have planes, just not as many as the RAF and USAAF did.
The Bomber scene in Fury sums it up nicely.
Hundreds of bombers thundering on ahead, dogged by a half dozen fighters in defense. The Luftwaffe was tossing pebbles at the ocean at that point, didn't matter how big the pebbles were. You can't stop the tide.
I agree, but the point I was trying to make is that they were far from completely inactive and that the Ta-152 and the FW-190D were existed in real life and not just on paper.
EmilCrane wrote: much of the Luftwaffe because most of its combat operations were focused on stopping the bombing raids,
And a fine job they did (this is sarcasm).
In the last 2 years of the war (really, since the Red Airforce devastated them in the Kursk counter offensives) the Luftwaffe was so drained of capable manpower and planes, they became for all intents and purposes, utterly meaningless, to anything that happened in the war. However active they were, however many bombers they shot down, none of it mattered, because they had zero capability to even slightly alter the outcome of any offensive or defensive operations.
Congrats Fw190D pilot guy. You shot down a B17 or 2. Too bad there were 30 others that all managed to reach their targets and dropped their loads, and half your buddies got shot down and now need to be replaced *pats guys back* you were important. *fw190d guy died in his second mission when ten Mustangs ganged up on him*
They may have had plans, but that had no planes...
This. By 1944, there was no Luftwaffe worth talking about.
I'm sorry but this just isn't accurate. While certainly not the force it was in 1940 the Luftwaffe was very active right up to the end of the war. Most allied soldiers didn't see much of the Luftwaffe because most of its combat operations were focused on stopping the bombing raids, however they contributed tactically to Operation Market Garden, the Ardennes and to the fighting around Remagen. You should ask the crews of Bomber Command and the 8th Airforce if the luftwaffe was still worth talking about, I'm sure you'll get a much different answer than what you are used to.
As for "didn't have the planes" that's not accurate either. The FW190D saw plenty of service, and was fairly common by the end of the war. The Ta-152, while only coming in late in the war, still equipped one squadron and managed to bounce some British Tempests (the best allied fighter plane that saw wartime service) and defeat them. They did have planes, just not as many as the RAF and USAAF did.
After June their air force was effectively gone. They were shipping their Luftwaffe personnel into the Army at that point.
They may have had plans, but that had no planes...
This. By 1944, there was no Luftwaffe worth talking about.
I'm sorry but this just isn't accurate. While certainly not the force it was in 1940 the Luftwaffe was very active right up to the end of the war. Most allied soldiers didn't see much of the Luftwaffe because most of its combat operations were focused on stopping the bombing raids, however they contributed tactically to Operation Market Garden, the Ardennes and to the fighting around Remagen. You should ask the crews of Bomber Command and the 8th Airforce if the luftwaffe was still worth talking about, I'm sure you'll get a much different answer than what you are used to.
As for "didn't have the planes" that's not accurate either. The FW190D saw plenty of service, and was fairly common by the end of the war. The Ta-152, while only coming in late in the war, still equipped one squadron and managed to bounce some British Tempests (the best allied fighter plane that saw wartime service) and defeat them. They did have planes, just not as many as the RAF and USAAF did.
The Bomber scene in Fury sums it up nicely.
Hundreds of bombers thundering on ahead, dogged by a half dozen fighters in defense. The Luftwaffe was tossing pebbles at the ocean at that point, didn't matter how big the pebbles were. You can't stop the tide.
Ok so I wasn't the only one who saw the fighter contrails. Excellent.
They may have had plans, but that had no planes...
This. By 1944, there was no Luftwaffe worth talking about.
I'm sorry but this just isn't accurate. While certainly not the force it was in 1940 the Luftwaffe was very active right up to the end of the war. Most allied soldiers didn't see much of the Luftwaffe because most of its combat operations were focused on stopping the bombing raids, however they contributed tactically to Operation Market Garden, the Ardennes and to the fighting around Remagen. You should ask the crews of Bomber Command and the 8th Airforce if the luftwaffe was still worth talking about, I'm sure you'll get a much different answer than what you are used to.
As for "didn't have the planes" that's not accurate either. The FW190D saw plenty of service, and was fairly common by the end of the war. The Ta-152, while only coming in late in the war, still equipped one squadron and managed to bounce some British Tempests (the best allied fighter plane that saw wartime service) and defeat them. They did have planes, just not as many as the RAF and USAAF did.
After June their air force was effectively gone. They were shipping their Luftwaffe personnel into the Army at that point.
They may have had plans, but that had no planes...
This. By 1944, there was no Luftwaffe worth talking about.
I'm sorry but this just isn't accurate. While certainly not the force it was in 1940 the Luftwaffe was very active right up to the end of the war. Most allied soldiers didn't see much of the Luftwaffe because most of its combat operations were focused on stopping the bombing raids, however they contributed tactically to Operation Market Garden, the Ardennes and to the fighting around Remagen. You should ask the crews of Bomber Command and the 8th Airforce if the luftwaffe was still worth talking about, I'm sure you'll get a much different answer than what you are used to.
As for "didn't have the planes" that's not accurate either. The FW190D saw plenty of service, and was fairly common by the end of the war. The Ta-152, while only coming in late in the war, still equipped one squadron and managed to bounce some British Tempests (the best allied fighter plane that saw wartime service) and defeat them. They did have planes, just not as many as the RAF and USAAF did.
The Bomber scene in Fury sums it up nicely.
Hundreds of bombers thundering on ahead, dogged by a half dozen fighters in defense. The Luftwaffe was tossing pebbles at the ocean at that point, didn't matter how big the pebbles were. You can't stop the tide.
Ok so I wasn't the only one who saw the fighter contrails. Excellent.
Dont worry Fraz.... Your not going mad(der)...... Yet.....
creeping-deth87 wrote: The Tiger, on the other hand, eventually overcame most of its technical deficiencies and had a pretty good serviceability rate post-1942. Unlike the Panther, it was a pleasure to drive as it had the excellent Maybach gear box. The Panther certainly had things going for it. It had good speed, great protection, and an excellent gun, but it had crippling mechanical issues that the Germans never resolved. The Tiger was a much more reliable tank and just as deadly.
The Tiger was reliable by the time the Germans cancelled production in late 1944. That's a big thing lots of people are missing in this conversation - the Germans stopped building the Tiger because it was now outdated. The armour of the Tiger that had proved so impenetrable to 75mm and 6pdr guns in Africa was now penetrated at normal combat ranges by the upgunned Shermans with 76mm or 17pdr.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: ***I’ll agree on most of that. Killing the logistics was their best use. However, don’t forget Thunderbolts and Yaks had 500+ lb bombs which they would use if the occasion warranted. I assume the Typhoons did as well.
Very true.
Indeed, I’d argue that later tank design “went heavy” in a medium way for everyone by the end of WWII, for the reasons you noted. New engine and tank design permitted a new generation of MOBILE heavy tanks, which often were reasonably reliable vs. the Model T heavy tank designs of the Germans.
And very true again
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: This. By 1944, there was no Luftwaffe worth talking about.
A common joke in the Wehrmacht;
"If you see planes dropping bombs on no-one, that is the RAF. If you see planes dropping bombs on everyone, that is the USAF. If you see no planes at all, that is the Luftwaffe."
"If you see planes dropping bombs on no-one, that is the RAF. If you see planes dropping bombs on everyone, that is the USAF. If you see no planes at all, that is the Luftwaffe."
Who shelled the town in the film? It wasn't apparent if it was the Germans on the retreat or the Americans through friendly fire, but that might explain why it was stopped quite soon.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Who shelled the town in the film? It wasn't apparent if it was the Germans on the retreat or the Americans through friendly fire, but that might explain why it was stopped quite soon.
I think they left it deliberately ambiguous. It could have been either, but it's probably more likely that it was the Germans.
I just have to chime in and say that I saw it with my wife the other night. I have all sorts of gripes about it, mostly the same as what people have mentioned.
I do have this to say, though: I previously only considered two firefights in movies (yes, only two) to capture the realism and panic under machine gun fire. The first scene is the ambush from the treeline in Forest Gump. The second is at the end of the Band of Brothers series where they come under fire from an MG42 position in the woods while out on patrol.
[Spoiler?]
The scene where the Shermans escort the infantry to pick up their pinned down riflemen in Fury and then come under fire from the MG42 in the foxhole is incredibly realistic. The tracers are believable, the sound is nuts in the theater, and the snapping sounds as the bullets crack by are accurate.
These three scenes from those three movies are the only ones that actually brought back uncomfortable feelings for me. So, odd to say, but I give credit to the filmmakers for that. I think my wife could tell I was a little uncomfortable. Not crazy or anything, just that weird little shudder that goes over your skin. I'm fortunate to not have any serious issues like so many other grunt marines that I have known over the years who never had good support groups.
The history major in me threw up a little with the last scene.. It was too long, but to be fair- I went in expecting it. I mean, come on. Brad Pitt... Don't be surprised, yano
Have not seen Fury yet, but this more of a comment on War Movies in general. [Now this from a US perspective I have not gotten to really talk to those from other counties]
Why are we having problems with movies like Fury, we know and understand warfare than most of the Movie going public.
These movies are either made for someone who does not know what real warfare is like or if they know are making it for people who have no clue themselves. Look at the list of Movies we concider the best like The Beast, I did not make money for two reasons.
1] Zero Advertising
2] It was a realistic War Movie.
They also have to have a Plot to bring the audience in and hold them in. Content is another thing. If the crew of Fury was gunning down 14 year old boys and 60 year old men most of those who sees movies would have called for protest against it. If they had used real tactics with the Final battle we would have enjoyed it, but to the "Average Movie Viewer" without someone to explain what those tactics are would be bored and confused.
Fury was also a Late War Movie, there are vey few of those. Most people who I talk to who are not History/Military Chanel Junkies see the wnd of the war like this.
>The US kicks Rommel out of Africa
>We Finish off Italy
>Normandy
>The Bridge To Far
>Battle of the Bulge
>The Russians and US Take Berlin
Most don't know about things like that fact the Italy was still in the fight when Normandy happened and we let the Russians take berlin for Political reasons. They have no concept the Russians invaded Manchuria.
These are the people who are also making the Movies and/or Making the Movies for.
Then there is the fact the Movie has Brad Pitt in the lead role, that right there told me it was not going to be a real "War Movie", but a Plot First Realism Second Movie.
At the risk of threadomancy (only been a few days I guess), I just saw this movie and had some thoughts.
Overall, it was a fairly realistic depiction of the horrors of war on all groups involved, with the good guys, the bad guys, and those in between all being horribly killed and maimed in all sorts of ways, often with little difference in behavior between the good guys and bad guys.
There were lots of cool historical details, like Pitt holding down the antenna as he rolls into base, the uniforms all looked great, the movement of the infantry and vehicles was excellent, that sort of stuff was all pretty awesome.
The sound was unreal, that whoever was in charge of that deserves an Oscar.
That said, this movie had a fair bit of "derp" as well, as I'll get into below.
Spoiler:
The part at the beginning with Pitt jumping off his tank and stabbing the German officer on horseback reeked of comic-book fantasy, it's hard to believe a hardened combat officer (as evidenced by the Knights Cross) would just ride through a battlefield like that, alone, on a white horse, with no weapon drawn, and be such easy prey for a ploy like that. That really felt like something out of Inglorious Basterds. In fact, much of Pitt's performance felt like a modified version of his character in that film, including the obligatory "tough guy" execution of a prisoner of war.
The part with the Shermans engaging the anti-tank guns also was rather odd, the line abreast formation across an open field being exactly what such anti-tank gunners would have excelled at engaging, and watching a Pak40 bounce off a Sherman at those ranges is...well, almost nothing short of divine intervention.
The Tiger scene was pretty cool, but again, the Divine Intervention thing comes in and somehow saves Fury from two hits, the first of which certainly should not have had any issues penetrating through the log-side it apparently deflected off of and should have killed Fury then and there. That felt really forced.
The final scene was absolutely absurd however, with a single disabled tank blocking an entire battalion of infantry. The SS guys were acting like an untrained panicky rabbble, simply running through the forward arc in full view of the machine gunners like they simply wanted to die, doing stupid things like climbing the tank without a weapon drawn, etc. Additionally, despite being handed out like candy at this point in the war (almost more than actual guns), only one German seemingly had a Panzerfaust out of the entire battalion, and even that didn't kill the tank, just one guy. Then you have Pitt standing on top of the tank behind the turret with the M2 HMG, apparently completely immune to multiple MG-42's firing on him,, while he mows muppets like it ain't no thang. On and on.
The whole final scene just really felt like Rambo set in Germany, and again, extremely forced, and basically killed my suspension of disbelief. Not to mention being extremely paint-by-numbers in how each crewman was taken out in turn.
Overall, an interesting flick, but too much Rambo and Inglorious Basterds left in from keeping it being a truly spectacular war movie.
I was surprised as LeBouf's performance, for once I only hate him for the preachyness of his character, rather than simply both him and everything about his character.
If you ignore the final fight scene of Fury vs Waffen-SS battalion, the rest of the movie is entirely believable (with the exception of Mr Whitehorse at the beginning perhaps).. personally I'd love to see the director and writers tackle a spinoff based around the bombing raid that they witness halfway through the movie.
To be fair, at that stage of the war, even the SS were running a little low in terms of soldiers with actual combat experience. Still fanatical, just not combat experienced.
Oh I understand that by that point most SS troops were highly inexperienced and unreliable... buuut even they wouldn't do something like charge a single tank head on like that, particularly not when there are quite a few excellent options for flanking it readily available. To Fury's right was a ravine with bushes (and further out was a wooded ridgeline). To Fury's left was a burning building throwing up tons of smoke and in general obscuring anything that would have moved around behind it. Fury could not have been in a more vulnerable position, particularly given the fact that the situation basically meant that all of Fury's weapons could only really fire in a relatively limited fire arc, making attack from the flanks a seemingly simple logical choice.
Like literally 2 guys flanked Fury, one of whom had he panzerfaust which missed, and after firing it, both seemingly disappeared even though they should have had what amounted to a perfectly clear shot on brad pitt who wasnt even looking in their direction...
Grey Templar wrote: To be fair, at that stage of the war, even the SS were running a little low in terms of soldiers with actual combat experience. Still fanatical, just not combat experienced.
Actually them even being more fanatical than any other unit isn't necessarily true at that stage of the war. While there are definitely some problems with the scene involving the Waffen-SS at the end, the bit about them acting like they were poorly trained isn't one of them. By that stage of the war, lots of Waffen-SS were actually conscripted and their training was suffering just like that of the Wehrmacht. The biggest problem I had with it was the lack of Panzerfausts and the bit where they are marching through a combat zone singing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: They did flank Fury. Its just movie Panzerfausts are only as deadly as mandated by the script.
Early on, little kid blows up lead tank and everyone inside no problem.
Ending battle, grown SS guys either totally miss from 12 ft away OR the shot is a through and through and only manages to kill one guy.
Yup. They did flank and use suppressing fire and things like that. Like G. Templar said though, the movie kind of overruled the potential effectiveness of their tactics.
There were two movies called Stalingrad. The most recent one was made by Russia, but the 1993 version was made by Germany, told from the German side. It was a great film, but it made me depressed after.
Anyways, on topic. The final battle had too much "zerg-rush" of a feel. I kept asking why the SS soldiers didn't bother to flank the Sherman, they had a great opportunity.
Other than that, I loved it.
I have seen that tank from its shell to moving under its own power at bovi.
). EDIT: Not to mention their extremely limited field of vision. A group of experienced infantry, in reality, would not generally be challenged taking out a lone tank with no other support. This is especially true in closed quarters, like a town, as a single guy waiting around a corner with a good shot is going to disable that tank. In other words, mother fething corner campers.
THIS IS AWSOME"
(So I wasnt expecting to see an old Tger and so i didnt)
